Conference Proposal: Academic Objectivity in Israeli-Palestinian Context
In September I noted here a planned academic conference in Connecticut next March on Israeli/Palestinian “Pathways to Peace.” I also described my hesitations about its focus, which seems much in line with the book Planting Hatred, Sowing Pain: The Psychology of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict by Moises F. Salinas, which I reviewed here.
Despite my cautions, I tried to arouse interest in collaborating on a panel discussion on any of several relevant issues. No luck. But in the end I decided to submit a presentation proposal on my own. Here’s the proposal. Reflecting several themes I’ve touched on previously, it’s titled “Academic Objectivity, Political Neutrality, and Other Barriers to Israeli-Palestinian Reconciliation”.
It is not self-evident that academic research can help resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. A traditional academic stance often promises more than it delivers. Conventional norms highlight approaches adaptable to status quo requirements while relegating to the sidelines scholarship that challenges underlying assumptions. Efforts to extend boundaries are routinely dismissed as impractical or irrelevant.
Norms demanding the appearance of objectivity mask the passion that drives researchers into contentous fields to begin with while over-emphasizing rock-no-boats approaches. They also reinforce the ideological belief that significant social problems derive from poor data rather than conflicting values and access to power. The combination of academic objectivity, political neutrality, and the language and styles of even-handed mediation and dialogue should be treated cautiously precisely because it is so powerful. When it gets things wrong, the damage can be significant.
In this paper I will apply these considerations to various approaches to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. For example, although this conference’s Call for Proposals “encourage[s] researchers from all sides of the conflict to send their proposals,” the primary sponsors all seek a two-state solution representing what many consider to be an international consensus. it is not clear if this underlying goal will be open to reassessment.
Similarly, assuming an equivalence of perception and victimization, depoliticized models based on neutrality-based negotiation, mediation, and dialogue often discount appropriate external standards. Approaching issues initially as a neutral can help identify complex issues for further exploration, but a primary research goal should be to sort through complexity as a means of assessing responsibility. That does not mean taking sides. It does mean using reasonable principles and standards regardless of which side benefits more. Scholarship that reinforces inaccurate perceptions is unlikely to lead to stable outcomes.
I’ll let you know if they accept the proposal.
Technorati Tags: academic objectivity, dialogue, Israel, Moises Salinas, Palestine, Planting Hatred, Sowing Pain, Reconciliation, social psychology, Zionism