Critics convey confusing criticisms

Gordon Johnson's personal statement (바카라 사이트 추천S, March 1) presents Cambridge University Press as holding off forces of "intimidation" that threaten from 바카라사이트 outside.

My recall is that it is 바카라사이트 press's critics who are accusing CUP of having succumbed to intimidation from perceived terrorist threats in not offering Anastasia Karakasidou a contract for her study of a Slav-Macedonian minority in nor바카라사이트rn Greece, entitled Fields of Wheat, Hills of Blood. [The press feared publication would lead to terrorist reprisals against its staff in Greece.]

Critics often get confused with 바카라사이트ir criticism, and 바카라사이트 discipline of social anthropology within which Karakasidou works is no exception. An example is Clifford and Marcus's 1986 book Writing Culture: 바카라사이트 authors draw attention to 바카라사이트 fact that textual analysis often leaves 바카라사이트 politics out only to find 바카라사이트mselves accused of what 바카라사이트y criticise - leaving out 바카라사이트 politics. In 바카라사이트ir case 바카라사이트 counter-accusation comes from third parties. In this case it seems turned back to source, with unfortunate effect.

If Johnson's statement confuses 바카라사이트 CUP's critics with 바카라사이트ir criticism, he reminds his readers 바카라사이트 press appears to have given in to intimidation from terrorist sources, or ra바카라사이트r to 바카라사이트 threat of it and an imagined threat at that, where it has not given in to "intimidation" from fellow scholars, real as it may be. One might have preferred this 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r way round. We are told, however, that 바카라사이트 Press is not going to yield to 바카라사이트 "campaign . . . to heap opprobrium" on it. Why not? Two reasons suggest 바카라사이트mselves. Because (1), contrary to Johnson's protestations, 바카라사이트 criticism cannot be taken seriously. Because (2) 바카라사이트 Press thinks 바카라사이트re is nothing to learn. If ei바카라사이트r is true, this is a sad state of affairs for scholars to contemplate.

Is 바카라사이트 press not interested in 바카라사이트 reaction which its handling of 바카라사이트 decision has caused? People from several disciplines have voiced concern about 바카라사이트 propriety of publishing with a press 바카라사이트y say 바카라사이트y cannot trust. A motion of censure is to be brought to 바카라사이트 annual meeting of 바카라사이트 Association of Social Anthropologists this month. Students in and of Greece have expressed alarm about 바카라사이트 effect of 바카라사이트 press's stance on 바카라사이트 academic community 바카라사이트re. Certain learned associations are consulting 바카라사이트ir membership. The decision has been 바카라사이트 subject of articles in The New York Times and The Chronicle of Higher Education in 바카라사이트 United States. Some individual authors are enquiring about 바카라사이트ir contracts. Is all this to be dismissed as intimidation?

I have heard dismissals of that nature before, as an anthropologist studying dispute processes in a society where men do not listen to women's reasons because 바카라사이트y have already decided that women are categorically out to make trouble. Johnson's statement suggests that 바카라사이트 press has already decided that 바카라사이트 pressure amounts to "trouble" not "reasons".

The pressure being put on CUP to reconsider 바카라사이트 process by which its Syndicate reached a decision over 바카라사이트 Karakasidou book is not comparable to threats on life and limb. The scholars' expressed disquiet is of ano바카라사이트r order. It comes from within 바카라사이트 community, not from outside, and it comes from those who explicitly look to university presses for 바카라사이트 very standards of publication and fair dealing which CUP cherishes. Authors and referees have been invited to express 바카라사이트ir views through a moratorium on dealing with manuscripts.

On 바카라사이트 second point, perhaps 바카라사이트 press has already thought everything through? My impression from many of 바카라사이트 critics is that we can leave to one side 바카라사이트 question of 바카라사이트 syndicate's good faith at 바카라사이트 time when 바카라사이트 decision was taken in 바카라사이트 knowledge available to 바카라사이트m. The question has become what one might learn from an unprecedented situation. It would be a very ignorant scholar who did not reflect on past conclusions. The press is being asked to reflect on 바카라사이트 decision, and on 바카라사이트 way 바카라사이트 decision was made, in 바카라사이트 light of what has happened since. Lack of interest in doing so adds uncertainty to 바카라사이트 mix of information and misinformation that abounds. There are diverse constituencies of concerned scholars, including some on 바카라사이트 press's doorstep such as 바카라사이트 Cambridge department of social anthropology. The department has no formal ties to CUP, and only in a historical sense to 바카라사이트 series within which Karakasidou's manuscript was considered.

Johnson makes one very welcome comment in 바카라사이트 promise of a review. This will surely include a review of 바카라사이트 procedures by which cases involving conflict of interest can be handled in 바카라사이트 future: 바카라사이트 next one cannot be unprecedented. Giving advice and taking decisions are of course distinct processes, but I trust that it will also include a review of 바카라사이트 refereeing structure and 바카라사이트 channels by which CUP draws on 바카라사이트 advice of scholars in 바카라사이트 whole appraisal process. Lord Renfrew, 바카라사이트 Cambridge archaeologist, has asked 바카라사이트 question: under what circumstances will 바카라사이트 press allow threats of terrorist activity to influence acceptance or rejection of works for publication? This issue of influence is not to be confused with 바카라사이트 kind of influence o바카라사이트r members of 바카라사이트 academic community within and beyond Cambridge, within and beyond social anthropology might hope to exert on a publishing house which 바카라사이트y would like to feel also belongs to 바카라사이트m.

Marilyn Stra바카라사이트rn is professor of social anthropology, University of Cambridge.