Scholarly Cooperation in Repressive Times -- Eight Lessons from Georgia

Some thoughts on how good people can get on the right bus.

In recent months and years, it has come to a number of sharp exchanges regarding scholarly collaboration in Georgia, and with Georgian institutions. I myself have challenged especially German scholars in ways that they have perceived as a vehement attack.

In a curious instance, when I wrote on social media, in reaction to what I thought was scandalous misbehaviour that “I don’t like thinking like this, but some people in Germany have to be thrown under the bus”, people at the University of Jena, not familiar with this English turn of phrase seem to have believed that I was threatening to, well – throw them under a bus. I now imagine myself lurking in alleyways and scoping bus routes that might be taken by visiting German academics.

Man scouting bus routes in Tbilisi, Studio Ghibli style. I tried telling Gemini that this is not me, and the churches are not proper Georgian, but this still was an entertaining result.

Now you could conclude that me going on about senior academics is just Hans getting a kick out of trying to run insurgencies, somewhat akin to how ten years ago we cajoled dozens of think tanks around the world to improve their transparency. Then, with a few great collaborators and a tiny enjoyment of mischief, we managed to make more than $300m (yes, million, and we can document this) in think tank funding more transparent, within a few months — so there is that.

But there is a bigger structural issue, not just an attempt to scope for prey in pursuing a good cause. In scholarly terms, one of the reasons for these conflicts is that an established paradigm of scholarly cooperation is falling apart, as democracy and the rule of law are in Georgia are under assault. Part of the problem seems to be that too many scholars work within paradigms without being aware of their contingency.

If that earlier paradigm of cooperation, in which we could assume good faith, is falling apart, what could be some recommendations?

Here are eight preliminary criteria, addressed to potential visitors, drawn from real experience in Georgia:

Insist on Scholarly Standards, Relentlessly – collaborating institutions should insist on scholarly standards; when performances by Georgian scholars are sub-par, this likely is a result of nepotism putting people in the wrong place. Across many fields, there are outstanding Georgian scholars, especially in the young generation. By insisting on standards, these competent people get a chance. Giving up on such standards sends a confusing message and suggests that one does not take one’s own disciplinary standards seriously.

Enforce Openness – academic opportunities should be open to competent & committed people, and sideline the established gatekeepers, especially in some of the TSU faculties; conferences should be announced and advertised, and held at locations that are genuinely welcoming to scholars, not in places that repress dissent. The resulting compromises in convenience are a useful reminder that doing the right thing is — inconvenient. We have seen some of the exact opposite, when foreign events were captured by a small clique.

Push your Academic Freedom – academic freedom can be invoked in the abstract, but it withers if you do not use it to challenge repressive authoritaranism. When you talk in a passive voice about bad things that happened, talk in false & submissive equivalence, or bring framings in which you undermine local colleagues that defend their own academic freedom (“activists”, “opposition”), you shrink the space rather than expand it. If people close to repressive authority do not squirm when you speak, you have probably not used the freedom that many others do not enjoy.

One great book to read, to understand the world and the present moment of assault on the legal order across countries.

Do Not Allow Enactments of Power – be attentive to senior local scholars asserting authority over merit. When a senior member of an authoritarian faculty holds forth for 30 instead of the allotted 20 minutes, rambles incoherently, makes sweeping historical & nationalistically assertive claims, visiting scholars may see dysfunctionality. People in the audience, especially young local scholars, accurately recognize an assertion of authority (“Inszenierungen der Macht”). They get that they have been told to subjugate themselves and that merit does not matter. Proper scholarship demands that such assertions be interrupted and challenged, to the point of causing an éclat. This also means that panel chairs need to be primed. Scholarship that is not defended hands itself over to authoritarians. If you are not willing to break collegiality, you risk being coopted.

Do Not Legitimize Perpetrators – what you think might be a private scholarly exchange may well be abused for public legitimization. Imagery can continue to be used and widely seen, when your words (however good) were not heard by more than a handful of people. At a time when students of a university are in jail, images matter.

There can be warning signs. Real scholarship does not need to be visually splashed out on Facebook without conveying content. Academic events do not need two photographers. If that seems rudimentary, some of the instrumentalization will be invisible to you. You will not realize when corrupt people are inserting themselves, and giving themselves legitimacy by standing next to you.

Renaissance version of a photo that should never have been taken, German professor accepting an honorary doctorate at a time of a repressive assault, and posing with perpetrators. The original is posted on the TSU Facebook page.

Phronetic Judgement and Precision – navigating these contexts requires an extraordinary level of situational judgement (what Aristotle referred to as phronesis), far beyond what is necessary within a settled discipline. Unless you are well-versed in ethics and literature also, as fields that are outside paradigm boundaries, you may struggle to get it right.

Concepts & wording that otherwise may not matter much can be absolutely out of place. Be careful about the passive voice in which perpetrators vanish. In reality, doing this well may be beyond what most regularly successful scholars can handle, even if they are versed in other contexts. Coming from well established contexts can be a handicap. (Alfred N. Whitehead: “Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them.”)

Get local advice and follow it, rather than assuming you know better – as repeatedly happened with incoming professors, who talked over local (Georgian) colleagues and dismissed their warnings. This disregard explains some of the anger in Georgia with Western scholars now.

Resist Magical Thinking – some otherwise sensible scholars are tempted to engage in magical thinking. They can believe that where many others failed, their personal witchcraft diplomacy with perpetrators might have a transformative effect. In some cases, belief in superior powers appears to be the result of a narrow disciplinary focus. If you recognize that some of your counterparts as less sophisticated in scholarly terms, don’t conclude that they are less capable across the board.

Instead, authoritarian counterparts are often vastly more savvy operators, and their advancement reflects their skill in operating in authoritarian nepotistic systems. (One can be skeptical about the colonialist critique of scholarly efforts, but aspects of it are absolutely playing out in Georgia.) This is not to reject one-on-one contacts, and efforts to understand people’s thinking, but having impact is another question altogether.

Engage Good People – authoritarians try to sideline the many genuinely good local scholars, marginalize and silence them. Find ways of engaging with and for them, in giving them real opportunities and real resources. Honest local scholars may well be ashamed to convey how hard their personal situation is. Find out proactively how you can help. Insist on integrity, in awarding scholarships. (This is often embedded in guidelines, but inconsistently applied.) Eliminate any potential Conflicts of Interest, and watch out for ghoulish gatekeepers, in allocating.

Engaging good people might as well be the first and most prominent criterion.

---

Oxford style dons about to get on a bus, Microsoft CoPilot, and we had to insist that they be cheerful and women be added, too. (And yes, dogs of course.)

So much for the eight criteria. Some of them could be consolidated but it still makes sense to spell the issues out more expansively. If all of this sounds like common-enough sense, it is because most reasonable people would act that way. Yet too many don’t. As a result, it is not too much to say that in Georgia the credibility of Western scholarship is at stake.

It also matters that as part of precision and phronetic judgment (always worth reading Alisdair MacIntyre), we need to get some distinctions right. We are not talking about a blanket boycott but about calibrating collaboration. We should also distinguish contexts of stable authoritarianism (Soviet Union under Brezhnev) and those of escalating repression, where the eventual outcome is still in play. In my mind, it can make sense to engage with scholars in stable authoritarian systems, with a view to understanding them and perhaps also engage and open up. Georgia right now is different: things are actively made worse, good people are being jailed and the perpetrators try to project normality, and instrumentalize Western scholars for this.

There are examples of people who in my view got it exactly right, such as a recent German legal conference by the IRZ, held at a hotel, open to all who wanted to come, drawing excellent speakers from across the spectrum, working with great young scholars, and held to a high standard. This is as it should be. (I may go into more detail after clearing it with the good people working there.)

On the other side, there are too many examples of people who got it spectacularly wrong. In my view these people should make publicly clear that they are correcting course. I have in mind here several German professors who recently accepted honorary doctorates — and where the ceremonies were used to legitimize perpetrators of authoritarian assault, internally and on Facebook. These honorary doctorates must to be returned or at least suspended.

I am tempted to write more, but will put this out as a first (rough) summary, and post more in the coming days. Surely we agree that we should be getting on the right bus — rather than throwing anyone under it. A constructive public debate is the way to do that.

I should highlight how much I learned from excellent Georgian colleagues. If any of this made sense to you, it’s in good part thanks to them sharing their insights. Please use the comments to let me know what you think.