[Marxism] A Radical Anthropologist Finds Himself in Academic 'Exile' - Faculty - The Chronicle of Higher Education
lnp3 at panix.com
Mon Apr 15 15:22:33 MDT 2013
Sorry, that was behind a paywall. Here you go:
A Radical Anthropologist Finds Himself in Academic 'Exile'
Pete Marovich for The Chronicle
David Graeber, an anthropologist who studies and participates in the
radical left, finds fans of his work inside academe and out. Here he
speaks with audience members during a talk at a public library in
By Christopher Shea
Who's afraid of David Graeber? Not the dozens of D.C.-area residents who
showed up on a recent night at the Martin Luther King Jr. Memorial
Library to hear the anthropologist and radical activist talk about his
new book, The Democracy Project: A History, a Crisis, a Movement
(Spiegel & Grau). Aimed at the mainstream, the book discusses Mr.
Graeber's involvement in the Occupy Wall Street movement and the idea
that principles drawn from anarchist theory—a wholesale rejection of
current electoral politics, for starters, in favor of groups operating
on the basis of consensus—offer an alternative to our present polity,
which he calls "organized bribery" (or "mafia capitalism").
On this warm spring evening the rumpled scholar was interviewed by a
friendly and more conventionally telegenic writer, Thomas Frank. Graying
lefties and young liberals and radicals in the crowd alike seemed
impressed. Even the token skeptical economist in the audience framed her
question respectfully, and C-Span broadcast live.
Mr. Graeber is a star in the left-academic world. Indeed, it's possible
that, given his activism and his writings, he is the most influential
anthropologist in the world. He played a part in establishing the
nonhierarchical "organization" of the Occupy movement, in its early days
in Manhattan, and his 500-plus-page Debt: The First 5,000 Years
(Melville House, 2011) struck scholars for its verve and sweep. It made
the case that lending and borrowing evolved out of humane, communitarian
impulses in premodern societies—out of a free-floating interest in the
common weal—and only later became institutionalized actions spawning
moral guilt and legal punishment.
The book ranged from discussions of ancient Sumerian economics to
analyses of how Nambikwara tribesmen in Brazil settle their affairs to
the international monetary system. "An argument of Debt's scope hasn't
been made by a professional anthropologist for the best part of a
century, certainly not one with as much contemporary relevance," wrote
the British anthropologist Keith Hart, of Goldsmiths College, University
of London, in a review on his Web site last year. The book won a prize
for best book in anthropology from the Society for Cultural Anthropology
in 2012 and according to his agent has sold nearly 100,000 copies in
But strikingly, Mr. Graeber, 52, has been unable to get an academic job
in the United States. In an incident that drew national attention, Yale
University, in 2005, told him it would not renew his contract (which
would have promoted him from assistant professor to "term associate"
professor). After a fight, he won a reprieve—but only for two years. He
never came up for tenure.
Foreign universities immediately sent out feelers, he says. From 2008
through this spring, Mr. Graeber was a lecturer and then a reader at
Goldsmiths College and, just last month, he accepted a professorship at
the London School of Economics and Political Science.
But no American universities approached him, he says, and nearly 20 job
applications in this country (or Canada) have borne no fruit. The
applications came in two waves: directly after the Yale brouhaha and a
couple of years later, when he concluded he wanted to return to the
States for reasons that were partly personal (a long-distance romantic
relationship, the death of his mother and older brother).
His academic "exile," as he calls it, has not gone unnoticed. "It is
possible to view the fact that Graeber has not secured a permanent
academic position in the United States after his controversial departure
from Yale University as evidence of U.S. anthropology's intolerance of
political outspokenness," writes Jeff Maskovsky, an associate professor
of anthropology at the Graduate Center of the City University of New
York, in the March issue of American Anthropologist.
That charge might seem paradoxical, given anthropology's reputation as a
leftist redoubt, but some of Mr. Graeber's champions see that leftism as
shallower than it might first appear. Anthropology "is radical in the
abstract," says Laura Nader, a professor in the field at the University
of California at Berkeley. "You can quote Foucault and Gramsci, but if
you tell it like it is," it's a different story, she says.
Mr. Graeber "talks about possibilities, and God, if there's anything we
need now it's possibilities," she says. "We are in tunnels. We are
turned in. We are more ethnocentric than ever. We've turned the United
States into a military zone. And into this move-to-the-right country
comes David Graeber."
When he applied to Berkeley in the early 2000s and the department failed
to hire him, "we really missed the boat," she says.
Jonathan Marks, a professor of anthropology at the University of North
Carolina at Charlotte, who had no direct experience with any Graeber job
search, agrees: "Whoever had a chance to hire him and didn't missed out
on having the author of one of the most important books in recent memory
on their faculty," he wrote in an e-mail.
Mr. Graeber was at first reluctant to talk about his failed job
searches, for fear of coming across as bitter and souring future
chances, but he decided to open up after the LSE job became official. As
he recalled, the places to which he applied twice were the City
University of New York Graduate Center, the New School, Cornell
University, and the University of Chicago. The others were Hunter
College, Emory, Duke, Columbia, Stanford, and Johns Hopkins—as well as
the University of Toronto. He heard indirectly of colleagues at other
universities trying to secure him a position, to no avail.
Responding to anthropologists' frequent claim that they embrace activist
scholarship, he echoes Ms. Nader: "They don't mean it"—at least when it
comes truly radical activism.
"If I were to generalize," Mr. Graeber says, "I would say that what we
see is a university system which mitigates against creativity and any
form of daring. It's incredibly conformist and it represents itself as
the opposite, and I think this kind of conformism is a result of the
bureaucratization of the university."
He and his allies also suspect that false information emanating from his
public fight with Yale, garnered secondhand, has hurt him.
When Yale announced it was not renewing his contract, students and some
professors rallied behind him, and he gave interviews suggesting that
the decision was politically motivated. (The story made The New York
Times.) He had spent part of a sabbatical working with the Global
Justice Movement, which has mounted protests against such groups as the
International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Perhaps surprisingly, he
did not take much part in the heated Yale debate over graduate-student
unionization. He was, he likes to say, "a scholar in New Haven and an
activist in New York."
During the dispute over his Yale position, he said, he'd been accused of
not doing service work (though he did all he was asked, he said), of
being late for classes, and of being ill prepared to teach. Yancey Orr,
a graduate student in religion at the time who took courses from Mr.
Graeber and is now an assistant professor of anthropology at the
University of Alberta, says that charge is absurd: "He was easily the
most helpful seminar leader you could ask for."
Being denied tenure at Yale is hardly unusual, but not getting rehired
at Mr. Graeber's stage is. Some professors Mr. Orr has talked to at
institutions that failed to hire Mr. Graeber were under the impression
that he went nuclear over a tenure denial, but the situation was more
complex, more unorthodox, says Mr. Orr.
The chairs of the departments to which Mr. Graeber applied who could be
reached all cited confidentiality in declining to talk about the
decisions—or, typically, even to confirm he'd applied. But several
denied that politics would affect such decisions. "I can say without
hesitation," wrote James Ferguson, the chair of anthropology at
Stanford, in an e-mail, "that I personally would not regard Graeber's
political orientation as in any way disqualifying, nor would I expect
such views to be held by my colleagues."
"As is known throughout the world," wrote Janet Roitman, chair of
anthropology at the New School, "the New School prides itself for its
longstanding tradition of radical politics; David would not have been
the first hire or tenured faculty member to pursue 'radical' political
positions or to engage in activism."
Some anthropologists, including Alex Golub, a contributor to the popular
blog Savage Minds and an assistant professor at the University of
Hawaii-Manoa, suggested that a general dearth of jobs in the field would
be enough to explain Mr. Graeber's run of bad luck—especially because
the book that brought him fame, Debt, had not been published at the time
of the searches. (Though he'd published four others by 2009, as well as
a much-read pamphlet, "Fragments of an Anarchist Anthropology," with
Prickly Paradigm.) But Mr. Graeber scoffs at that: "Gee, I applied for
17. Somebody got those jobs." Moreover, Britain is not brimming with
anthropology jobs, either, yet he's had little problem there.
"I believe it's possible that his politics have helped him in some cases
and hurt him in others," says Mr. Maskovksy, of CUNY, who in his
American Anthropologist essay raised the issue of what Mr. Graeber's
academic exile to England meant for the profession . "He has a huge
following among graduate students because of his protest work and
because he links his protest work to the kind of anthropology he wants
to do. But there's a huge gap between generating that kind of interest
and respect, on the one hand, and job-hiring decisions. I don't know
what makes people hire and what makes them not."
One charge that has dogged Mr. Graeber is that he is "difficult," an
attribute that's obviously hard to gauge. Ms. Nader says she urged him
to soften his rough edges—to send thank-you cards, even, when protocol
suggested it. (Mr. Graeber does not recall that counseling session on
manners and says he always sends thank-you notes.) But she finds it
deplorable that scholars would value superficial clubbability over
originality of thought; she decries the "'harmony ideology' that has hit
the academy." She also thinks the fact that he "writes in English,"
eschewing jargon, hasn't helped him.
There is some evidence of Mr. Graeber's contentiousness. During an
online seminar about Debt on the blog Crooked Timber, Henry Farrell, an
associate professor of political science at George Washington
University, said Mr. Graeber had—for example—provided insufficient
evidence that in the first Gulf War the United States had attacked Iraq
partly because Iraq had stopped using dollars as its reserve currency
and turned to the euro. In Mr. Graeber's response, he accused Mr.
Farrell of "consummate dishonesty" and said he had failed to engage with
the argument and instead sought to show its maker was a "lunatic." Mr.
Farrell responded that he was "very unhappy" with Mr. Graeber's charges
From February to April 1, J. Bradford DeLong, an economist at the
University of California at Berkeley, baited Mr. Graeber by setting up
an automated Twitter stream that sarcastically recounted dozens of
alleged (or actual) errors of fact in Debt. For example: "Learned that
12 Regional Fed Banks not private banks like Citi or Goldman Sachs? Stay
away until you do! #Graebererrors." Mr. Graeber responded aggressively.
At one point he wrote, on Twitter, referring to Mr. DeLong's work in the
Clinton Treasury Department on the North American Free Trade Agreement:
"I bet the poor guy had a rough time at 14. Tried to compensate by
gaining power, then look—destroyed Mexico's economy."
Mr. Graeber calls some of Mr. DeLong's postings "libelous"—a virtual
campaign of harassment. "He has been on a crusade to hurt me in every
way," he says, growing angry.
"Yet these guys are considered mainstream and I'm the crazy guy who
can't get a job." He adds, "I don't even write negative book reviews."
Mr. Graeber, who says he gets along just fine with his colleagues in
London—and, indeed, with most of his former colleagues at Yale—has his
own take on what scholars mean by "collegiality": "What collegiality
means in practice is: 'He knows how to operate appropriately within an
extremely hierarchical environment.' You never see anyone accused of
lack of collegiality for abusing their inferiors. It means 'not playing
the game in what we say is the proper way.'"
In his American Anthropologist essay, CUNY's Mr. Maskovsky said that the
many graduate students who took part in Occupy Wall Street might view
Mr. Graeber's difficulty finding a job as a cautionary tale. Would their
advisers see their activism as, at the least, a distraction from their
Manissa Maharawal is one such student, at CUNY, a participant in Occupy
now studying the activist projects that emerged from it. She says she
has received nothing but support from her advisers and doesn't
understand the politics of academic hiring, but finds the Graeber
situation perplexing—in a bad way. "His work is really good, he's well
reviewed, he's become pretty famous in the last year," she says. "I'm
not sure what's going on. You can have all the boxes you're supposed to
check checked and still not get a job. It's scary, for sure."
More information about the Marxism