My colleague Terry Flew takes a look on his blog at the latest controversy over teh evils of postmodernism (and neo-Marxism!) in academia. In regard to The Australian, he writes:
In two articles (Sat and Mon) referring to the Culture Wars and ‘Terror Academics’ , it discussed claims made in the most recent edition of Quadrant by James Cook University academic Mervyn Bendle that Tony Burke was ‘pro-terrorist’, and should not hold a position at the Australian Defence Force Academy.
Flew goes on to say:
Whether a new McCarthyism is too strong a word for this is a moot point. What is apparent is that The Australian has taken on a extraordinarily partisan position in relation to scholarly disagreements, and is looking like a sounding-board for Quadrant and the Young Liberals. Bendle, Donnelly and Windschuttle have received a lot of space in its opinion pages, in what looks like an orchestrated campaign to use the paper to politically shape university teaching in directions that would be at odds with assumption about academic freedom.
I think that’s right, but there’s the added dimension here of links between the security state and academia, and also of the willingness of academics to prosecute basically private (and often employment related) disputes through the pages of the public press. The latter was a significant component of the attacks former QUT academics John Hookham and Gary Maclennan launched on Michael Noonan’s PhD project on disability and humour. It doesn’t appear to have occurred to Bendle, with all his complaints about so-called breaches of “scholarly etiquette”, that he might have committed one himself by attacking Burke publicly in such risibly inquisitorial terms.
It’s also a little precious of Bendle to be complaining about the canons of scholarly convention when his Quadrant article (amplified in The Australian, which is probably the only way Quadrant‘s reactionary nonsense has much of an impact these days) includes casual comments such as this:
an updated, post-9/11 version of the old neo-Marxist, postmodernist orthodoxy on terrorism dominates among academics.
Bendle should know better than to make such an elision between Marxism and postmodernism as a former scholar of Foucault and Lacan, in the days before he became a culture warrior (perhaps his world changed on September 11 2001), a history noted here at LP when Bendle first surfaced with a bomb thrown into the history wars in 2006.
Burke puts it well:
“It’s a funny situation when you have people utilising academic freedom in a sense to attack it,” Dr Burke said.
“But you have got to stand up for your own position … I just don’t like people saying that I support terrorism, when I don’t.”
The other dimension here, as I alluded to above, is the links between the security state and academic research, which have snowballed in the last few years, as enormous amounts of federal research dosh have become available for “combatting terrorism”. ADFA, where Burke is employed, seems to be a flashpoint in this controversy, particularly because it teaches officer cadets. To his credit, ADFA humanities and social science head David Lovell doesn’t believe that education should be equivalent to indoctrination:
He said the academy, which operates academically as an offshoot of the University of NSW, produced graduates for the military “with no particular ideological views … who approach issues with an open mind, in a critical spirit”.
Bendle appears to believe otherwise.
Some necessary context for all this comes from an examination of the apparently disinterested comments of Carl Ungerer, who is employed by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Ungerer, while he was still an academic, also found it appropriate to prosecute inter-disciplinary and indeed inter-departmental disputes in the pages of The Australian. Ungerer’s credentials can’t be impugned, but there are some “terror academics” who have been employed on the gravy train of federal national security research who don’t have the minimum qualifications normally required for appointment in Australian universities – a PhD and a record of research. It may be that some sensitivity to this is being refracted through some of these reactions.
It’s certainly the case that there is a substantial group of scholars who believe that security and terrorism research should trim its sails to a definite line, and the smearing of any academics who dare to adopt critical perspectives as “pro-terrorist” demonstrates that McCarthyism is very far from being a hyperbolic way of characterising this phenomenon.
Update: [Via danny in comments] Tony Burke replies and the letter has been turned into a “blog” by The Australian.
wtf do the Young Liberals have to do with it?
If Bendle really described Burke as “pro terrorist” then Burke should sue him and Quadrant for defamation.
Stephen @ #1, read the post, and follow the links, and there’s your answer!
The Young Liberals have mounted a campaign, publicised by The Australian, to sniff out evil lefty lecturers.
Spiros, that’s what I’d do if I were Burke.
Oh I see, yeah I remember that now.
Whilst I don’t agree with the hyperbolic way Bendle discussed it, I think the underlying question of whether an academic who believes we ourselves may be responsible for the current situation should be teaching future officers of the military, is a reasonable question.
I suspect Bendle’s real aim was not to ask that question but to snuff out academics who hold that point of view.
I don’t mind academics holding that point of view, but I don’t think they should be teaching our future officers, when those officers will one day be asked to lead men into battle. It puts the lives of the men being led at risk if their leader doesn’t believe in the mission.
Why is it only these culture warriors who resort to this form of grubby, intellectually dishonest idiocy? They’re McCarthyites.
I’d sue him too. Watch the 2nd rater shit his pants. Learn some respect for others, Bendle, and try to udnerstand how debate works in a democacy. Denuciations are for authoritarian regikes, like Iran – where Bendle’s modus operandi is standard.
I guess that makes Bendle pro-Iran on his criteria.
Oh, and btw, you idiots lost the “any criticism of the US = teh pro-terror!” public debate last November. Deal with it. Let your work speak for itself.
Stephen, how do you know that’s what Burke thinks? I wouldn’t accept Bendle’s characterisation of his thought without reading his work myself.
You seem to agree that critical reflection and the sifting of a variety of views against the evidence – the basis of an education in the humanities and social sciences – is inappropriate for defence force students.
It puts the entire military and our national security at risk when young officers-in-training are insulated from politically inconvenient thinking.
Have they no shame?
Terror was used in WW2 to deprive Hitler of Heavy water from Norway. Imagine V2 rockets tipped with atomic bombs!
Have they no decency?
Of course terror has a role in war – take the AU SAS in Iraq in 2003. Striking before an ultimatum falls due is terrorism. Current and serving members of the SAS are terrorists. The Australian is rapidly becoming a full time house organ of the ugliest uglies in the Liberal party so a boycott seems in order. I’ll miss my favorite stand-up comedian Mirko Bagaric. That’s academic terrorism as performance art. Finally Glen McLennan is an undisguised left-fascist. He got 200 K for barge-arsing his way into a students Phd where he had no business doing so. Good riddance to bad rubbish.
Sheesh, how fast do you dudes write?
Faster than I can proofread, generally!
Stephen, you’re drinking deep from the Bendle the kool-aid, methinks.
You seem inclined to uncriticially accept Bendle’s tendentious assertions:
1) That Burke believes we are “responsible” for attacks against us.
2) That Burke teaches this line to ADFA personnel.
3) That ADFA personnel are empty vessels unable to form their own beliefs about the value of the mission and in any case lack the professionalism and discipline to carry out orders.
Before we leap to any such conclusions, wouldn’t it be wiser to find out whether the precious widdle baby officers at ADFA are in fact suffering any grave existential angst because of what that nasty post-modern neo-Marxist pro-terrorist Mr Burke whispered in their ears?
Classic security thinking led to the idiotic conflation of Secular Baathists and Al Qaeda.
I sure hope we go back to 100% classic security thinking. Let’s flatten out those globes while we’re at it.
And you’re right, there seems to be a quite focused push from the Oz on hatred of all things the academic world has come up with since about 1962.
So whats the point in (apparently, according to the quadrant article, which is available online) teaching ADF candidates that their worldview is just an unjust construct designed to marginalise the other?
Why teach that there is some moral confusion between the imperfect system we live under (which is a work in progress), and Fudementalist Islam which considers itself a finished product?
Some of the theory, particularly regaurding the “others” is nice as an academic excercise, but otherwise useless. Yes its important to “get in the skin” of your opponents, but that doesnt include buying into his arguements. I saw nothing in the article (it may be in the course though), which asserts in any way the superiority of western political and social systems over those of religous fanatics. Thats a worry.
Mole – your argument only has traction to the extent that one thinks ADF recruits should only be taught about matters with direct application in combat.
Oh indeed, and watch how quickly Bendle will cry that his academic freedom is under attack when others condemn his boorish soundings-off.
Bendle is one of several who seem willing to destroy academic freedom in order to save it. Hmm..also Hookham, Maclennan and Chris Mitchell…What are they putting in the water up north, Mark?
He and the Oz team have also picked up the mantra “Ignorance is Strength”. Off they run with it…
“I saw nothing in the article (it may be in the course though), which asserts in any way the superiority of western political and social systems over those of religous fanatics.”
Indeed, I agree, but we need to go further. What we need is a values statement included in every course taught at university, high school and primary school to the affect that the content of this course endorses and asserts the inherent superiority of our way of life over all others, particularly if the others include religions that are in any shape or form fanatic.
Any teacher who is not willing to endorse such a values statement doesn’t deserve to benefit from our superior social political and moral system that he or she denies the superiority of.
It’s the only way to maintain our superiority. You know it makes sense.
FDB
Im not quite getting your point I think. The intellectual excercise is fine, and if thats all it is then good. However if the main thrust of the course (as alleged in quadrant) is to “white ant” the ADF terror studies course then the criticism of the academics involved is warrented.
However if the artcle is cherry picking to falsify the case then they should be denounced instead.
I’d point out again that given Bendle’s Quadrant article is obviously a polemic rather than some sort of disinterested reportage, I’d be very wary of assuming that what he says about what Burke writes and teaches is accurate.
“It’s a funny situation when you have people utilising academic freedom in a sense to attack it,” Dr Burke said.
Is this what Burke did when he initially complained to the Board of JCU that they should have an inquiry into Bendle? How do complain about lack of academic freedom while at the same time try to stop someone else’s freedom? There seem to be a lot of pots and kettles here.
Here’s the para with the “pro-terrorist” claim from Bendle’s Quadrant article btw:
As I see it, Bendle contends that academic freedom should not question the current regimes position on security strategies, lest we present a “disunited front” to our enemy, in a time of “war”.
This is the sort of ideological hidebound security thinking that saw Russia security advisors lose every battle against Franco in the Spanish civil war. Anyone who stuck their head up and said “this shit aint working” got shot.
Its a very common security weakness of authoritarian regimes.
I therefore conclude that Bendle is not only a potential to threat to national security, but a probable agent of influence for authoritarian regimes.
Yes, a gobsmacking front-pager all right. It’s taking the Oz a ridiculously long time to work out that the punters who know the meaning of ‘postmodernism’ understand that the phrase ‘neo-Marxist postmodernism’ is a nonsense, and the punters who don’t know what it means don’t care. The idea that it made it to the front page above the fold on a Saturday beggars belief.
Unconsciously so, of course. See my upcoming piece in teh Courier-Mail, which will no doubt run my line of assertions here
And here’s another par from the Quadrant article which doesn’t leave much to the imagination:
[emphasis mine - PN]
Bendle:
He forgot cheese-eating, chardonnay-swilling, arugula-chomping, Prius-driving and self-hating.
Oh, the list is just so long these days, I lose track!
Well, if I were a professional of the ‘academic terrorism studies’ variety, and I’d been smeared with the term ‘pro-terrorist’, I’d be calling my lawyer, just to, you know, say hi, ask if the family is well, just a friendly chat…
Keith W. needs one of those signs hanging about his editor’s desk: “You don’t have to be mad to publish in Quadrant, but it sure helps!”
I mean, the current issue has a
postarticle by Patrick McCauley about the feminist conspiracy to destroy the AFL.Riiiggghhhhttttt!!!!! I was wondering who to blame for the decision to schedule all the finals for the evening when it’s too late for the kids to watch them. Now we know.
Related reading: the Australian Military Reading List.
If anyone wants to jump in at the deep end, instead of at this safer remove, the Oz is allowing comment threads on its original report page, “Culture wars bomb hits the military,Jamie Walker,September 20 and also on today’s reply by Professor Burke.
I go along with Prof. William Maley there
Then again, he would say that wouldn’t he, he must be a Pinko, he was on the Executive Committee of the Refugee Council of Australia.
Absolutely danny, indeed my uni (well, soon to be former uni, as Im moving sideways to another of Victoria’s premier lesser unis) got the gig a while back to teach International relations to the army colonels.
Word is they were some of the better students the staff ever had: always did the reading, werent afraid to stoush the lecturers, though always in a respectful way, and perfectly capable (unlike Bendle) of engaging in civil discourse by way of reasoned argument.
Disband ADFA – problem solved!
I’m currently reviewing Anthony Burke’s latest book “Fear of Security” for RAJ, and it will be published on-line presumably in early October. It is inappropriate for me to comment on that book here, I’d reckon. Its the only one of Burke’s works I’ve read,(am still reading) but I will say this: He’s definitely NOT pro-terrorist.
Thanks, Paul. Please let us know the link when the review is published.
danny, thanks for the heads up. I’ve added a link to Burke’s reply.
I wonder if he was told his letter would be morphed into a “blog”.
Lefty: My anecdote supports your anecdote as to likeliehood of soundness, and then some, of our troops and troopettes: Years ago, when enterprise Java was youngish, I had to do a course and certification for this high-end, somewhat arcane, back then cutting-edge digital asset management software, and there was a team of cordies from lego-land there. Talk about team work, they blitzed it. Apparently one of ‘em had a windows box, one an OSX, and one linux. Reassuringly thorough approach.
A-ha! I have some actual relevant experience, having done my BA there.
Cadets don’t do their university courses because it will help them lead men into battle; if that’s as far as you ever want to take your army career you can do the short officer’s course at Duntroon. The uni education is for those other, later times when they’re in Canberra, possibly helping write policy, having to argue their case with university medallists at DFAT or Treasury, etc etc.
Given the track record, indoctrinating potential senior officers (or anyone at all really) into a monolithic neocon world view would appear to be the worst outcome possible.
These try-hards always make me laugh though, discovering their martial nature just after the knees go and they couldn’t hump a pack for love nor money. Damn it! What rotten luck fellows, wish to God I could go with you boys etc etc. I bet Dr Burke knows that no one calls it “the ADFA”.
“I wonder if he was told his letter would be morphed into a “blog”.”… interesting topic for another time and thread?
Sean: “I bet Dr Burke knows that no one calls it “the ADFA” …. You gonna give us a heads up on lego lingo?
Thirty-nine posts later, I’ve found this on LP after it was on my blog this morning.
The point I wanted to make was that three issues have been bundled together by Mervyn Bendle:
1. The legitimacy of poststructuralist (note: not postmodernist or neo-Marxist) readings of international politics, as compared to other approaches 9e.g. realist, liberal, Marxist). There is a legitimate academic debate to be had about this, whether in Quadrant, The Australian, or wherever;
2. Whether such a reading can lead to the accusation that someone is ‘pro-terrorist’, which is in my view laughable. It basically says that any critical reading of one’s own system gives aid and comfort to its enemies. Also, being ‘pro-terrorist’ is a very, very serious charge to level at an academic;
3. Whether Tony can therefore hold a post at the ADFA, which is where things get sinister and McCarthyist to me. I haven’t read William Maley’s comment, but the idea that military officers cannot be introduced to critical perspectives in international politics without it somehow weakening their morale can lead to people being dismissed from positions for their ideas, and that is a real threat to academic freedom.
On the Young Liberal point, I am aware that associating all Young Liberals with Quadrant is probably unfair. That said, the group behind the Make Education Fair campaign are clearly working closely with Keith Windschuttle and Kevin Donnelly, as can be see from their Web site.
Danny: ADFA or the Academy.
PS: I’m mates with the bloke who wrote the original “Lego Lingo”. Interestingly for this discussion he got himself in the non-serious poo for that effort, though that was from the mil admin (swear words etc) rather than from the accas over in “the DMZ”, who had of course encouraged him.
I doubt anyone calls the academic buildings “the DMZ” anymore BTW. Our RSM was a Vietnam veteran.
“There is a legitimate academic debate to be had about this, whether in Quadrant, The Australian, or wherever” – Terry, on that showing, it’s going to have to be wherever.
I quite see that Bendle’s claim that Tny Burke is ‘pro-terrorist’ is a strong accusation, probably actionable and so forth – but McCarthyist? That implies Bendle has not just influence, which would be surprising enough, but actual power to conduct nad follow through on politically motivated obsessive witchhunts. I think that’s according him & his ilk more dignity than they deserve.
PS – I’ve always thought it would save a lot of time and confusion if ADFA could be merged with the Australian Dried Fruits Association.
“ADFA could be merged with the Australian Dried Fruits Association”….If we’re being allowed to be silly, that would mean one of their new weapons would be a Sultana Br
aen Gun? There would be way less casualties of war than real bullets,if you could convince Teh Other Side to go along with the new rules.I think it’s a very sensible suggestion. For google search purposes, the Australian Political Studies Association also needs to merge with the Australian Pro Street Assocation, the Australian Pharmaceutical Science Association and Adelaide Plastic Surgery Associates.
http://www.google.com.au/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=en&q=apsa&meta=&btnG=Google+Search
There’s bound to be a one off situation comedy in there somewhere: a somewhat incompetent convention centre and hotel booking agency organises the APSA ( or acronym with most hilarious possibilities) conference, resulting in good natured mayhem. Group script writing anyones?
I likewise support the amalgamation of the Association for the Study of Australian Literature with Automotive Stampings and Assemblies Ltd and the American Society of Aesthetic Lipodissolve. I think there’s a lot of overlap there, and not a few creative partnerships.
There’s a whole bunch of APRAs too.
Perhaps they should merge under Association for Poorly Researched Acronyms?
So long as the Commonwealth Public Sector Union flies the red flag above the Canberra-Queanbeyan Soviet, I’m all for all of the above.
Danny – South Park dunnit already, with the North American Man-Boy Love Association and the National Association of Marlon Brando Look Alikes.
You know, young US Army officers get to make a recruitment video for a fictional Islamic terrorist group as part of their ‘media warfare 101′ training. I wonder what Bendle would make of that.
My two cents: http://leonbertrand.blogspot.com/2008/09/leftard-adf-academic-pro-terrorist.html
FDB: It was definitely a good idea then. They had a ball with F.A.G in Team America too.
Leon @ 52, normally we ask people to provide a quick summary as well as a link, though in this instance the name of your post says it all.
Jonathan Lyons is an interesting case in point.
He was the Reuters US foreign correspondent and bureau chief expelled in 2001 from Iran (previously based in Russia, then Turkey) along with his journalist/academic wife, both accused by the Khatami government of being US government spies. The couple had been living and working as researchers and foreign correspondents in Iran for 3 years. Their primary interest/journalistic/academic focus was unambiguously the clerical classes.
He surfaced a year or so ago in Australia and now teaches and consults at the Global Terrorism Research Center at Monash. At Monash he’s also a doctoral student in sociology of religion and conducts courses for the Global Terrorism Centre heavily based on his speciality, Islam, particularly in today’s Iran.
Leon Bertrand: warblogging like the last seven years never happened.
Leon is of course modestly valuing his commentary in Zimbabwean cents.
Mark; you said
That’s not fair. You put up a worthwhile topic for discussion …. and, in a single sentence in your opening remarks, leave us very little else to say on the subject.