Activists vs Academics
Oh, so good to be home again. I just got back home after a week trip in the Brit land of Cambridge and London. Despite some usual odds — if you're interested, you can check out my series of postings on 'luggage, glasses and the gate' here (English version) or here (Indonesian version, yes it's a totally different side of me!!!!) — it was a great trip.
What a coincidence, a conference I attended in Cambridge shared the same topic with a London workshop, though they were organized by different people and different institutions, from two different worlds. The world of scholars/academics and the world of activists (NGOs). Both were about the public interests of information and communication technologies.
I was the only intersection of these two events. How odd (and how lucky) to be in both places! The two events, though adopting the same theme, generally went to two totally different paths, not opposing just different. They emphasized on different problems, different processes, and different future paths/actions.
Activists and academics essentially think differently in almost all aspects. They write differently, they talk and act differently, too!
Critics say academics academics build castles in the air and activists do so on the ground, academics beat about the bush and the activists get rid of it.
It's common for the world to draw a thick line between men (or women :p) of thought and (wo)men of action. Such dichotomy seems to be accepted as truth. Many academics are very much into Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" and Shakespeare's dictum "Thinking makes it so!" While activists would go for Eleanor Roosevelt's call that "it isn't enough to talk about peace. One must believe it. And it isn't enough to believe in it. One must work at it."
Indeed, many academics are preoccupied with thinking process. In researching phenomenon, academics strive to find the truth(s) to explain the phenomenon itself, but rarely do research to find ways to act upon the underlying truths underpinned the phenomenon. On the other hand, activists rarely give enough time to the thinking processes. When they do 'research', it's mostly based on short-span observations.
Essentially, there are several concepts viewed differently by academics and activists (Wildman, 2003):
Reflection: Academics see reflection as the starting point (and yet, most may not move past it) while for activists reflection is the end point before launching the next action.
Reality: Academics view reality as a relatively static entity; reality is tamed by definition as it comes into the laboratory/research studio. For activists, reality presents a fundamentally wilder and less predictable canvass.
Action: Action and reality have a certain irreversibility about them; philosophical debate and thought experiments do not. Action is like concrete: it freezes intellectual potential into political, physical reality; the academic processes of deliberation tend to do the reverse.
Change: Activists believe in getting to real change by depositing change, and academics by positing change.
Thus it's clear that the worlds of thinkers and the doers are polarized. However, that doesn't mean that these two worlds cannot meet. If we are to subscribe to a neat quote from the hilosopher Henri Bergman to act like a man of thought and think like a man of action then we could! Or on the very least, I say that I would try.
If we try to simplify the cycle of doings for both worlds then we would find that academics' cycle is about dreaming and thinking, while activists' is about dreaming and acting. The task in hand is to merge these two cycles into one: dreaming - thinking - acting.
Dream, dream, dream….. and convert your dreams (ideas) into thoughts…. think about them…. deeply…. and then transform them into actions.
To change the world, we need more than braveness for thought but also braveness for action….. which all start from the braveness to dream.
related posting on 'dreaming':
Who are you not to be brilliant
on Cambridge and London experiences, see:
Luggage, Glasses and the Gate (part 1) or Koper, Kacamata dan si Gate (bag 1)
Luggage, Glasses and the Gate (part 2) or Koper, Kacamata dan si Gate (bag 2)
Luggage, Glasses and the Gate (part 3) or Koper, Kacamata dan si Gate (bag 3)
11 Comments so far
Leave a comment
I love this.
and I used to think it's not two different thing at all. i believe that a good activist know what to do by first know the base, and the other way around, an academic must love to see how the works (theory blablabla) implemented, no?
mer: ideally, yes. but in realities, the so-called 'good' activist and/or a 'good' scholar are always differently defined. for example, in mainstream academics, "great" usually refers to those who work on the more/highly epistemological/philosophical/theoretical level. though, more contemporary ones might have shifted from this 'mainstream' construct.
By melly on 05.02.08 1:42 am
welcome home mel.. i hope i can be ketularan of your spirit!
mer: thanks! i always love to be 'ketularan' from you.
By Rani on 05.02.08 2:27 am
So where are you Mer? by definition you in academics side dont you? If I should locate myself (which in reality Im not belong to those ends) I maybe more in academics and -in my reality..(working, social)- its painful since you only see things passing without enough courage and energy to change a lot. In working, I strive to leave academic hat behind and put activist hat instead. And its really2 tough one. Seems easy as Bergman quotes.. but he himself might have hard time putting those 2 hats together:)) I think some people born as academics and the other as activists.. change coming from dialectic of both ends. Im a Hegel fans…:)) great post. thx for sharing.
mer: yes, in many respects, i am more of a scholar than an activist. but i don't like to define myself as a mainstream academic. i try my best to connect my world/work with those non-academics (scholars or policymakers or other stakeholders or just people). and i agree with you, change would come from a dialectic of both ends, however the dialectic isn't always a natural process — we cannot take it for granted that both ends would meet. it's not that all of us should wear two hats, but there's a need for a conscious effort to link the two worlds which now are somehow still disjointed, though of course there're some exceptions.
By Andre on 05.02.08 5:16 am
Faith without works is dead
Study without reflection is a waste of time; reflection without study is dangerous….. 
Think globally act locally.. ( go green ….don't travel too much 
Virtual reality is luxury Reality hurts — deal with it
mer: all lines you mentioned here are valid in themselves. but they are also kinda disjointed from the main issue. study and reflection for example, they are always going along the line of academic work, but i still think study + reflection are not enough. faith without works — all academics move beyond faith, they also into working the faith, activists too. my point is that they are established in different construct — they should complement each other.
By nemo on 05.02.08 1:37 pm
makasih… bagus banget post-nya yg ini
mer: terimakasih
By peregrin on 05.02.08 3:19 pm
Nice but ticklish topic. It provokes some uncombed thoughts.
Like: Is this a coincidence once more or apt timing? I mean this topic in Cambridge and London and the fortieth anniversary of the almost worldwide cultural revolution of May '68. That was when action reigned supreme and reflection was on a catchphrase format. Academics and intellectuals (like Sarte) joined the activists. It was great - but a failure generally.
To get back to topic: I'm all for a division of labor between academics and (wo)men of action. Even the growing practice of appointing weathered activists in prominent University posts is, I think, as undesirable as appointing scientists employed by multinationals. As for the ideal of a reiterative process of reflection and action, I guess it's a must and it's feasible for long term processes. For instance Al Gore may be our climate change prophet now and measures can be taken, but it's not a bad idea at all to have meteorologists who keep questioning his inconvenient truths. In the short run however immediate action often is required in case of wars, famine, earthquakes, tsunami's and other disasters which don't allow for academic delays. Activists should of course keep looking over their shoulders every now and then for sound scientific data about their field of action, analysis and evaluation are necessary ultimately, but here and now they are lower on the priority list where immediate help if required.
Well, like I said: uncombed. Sorry.
mer: wow, uncombed but critical comment!
many thanks! in my answer to Andre (above) i said that it's not that academics/activists should wear two hats, but i don't think we should assume that the connection between the two would always come naturally. i personally think from the academics side, there's a need for a more readily-used type of research. when you said 'delay' — yes, there one of some spots where the problem lies. academics — though is getting better — are preoccupied with higher ground research and are satisfied with making theories that have nothing to do with problem solving. yes, of course it's fine to do research and publish for academics sake, but i think scholars with activism oriented (again, doesn't have to be activists), e.g. research that's outcomes oriented, are needed.
p.s. yes, weird, but it was a coincidence, i was for Cambridge then Global Partners in London found out that i'd be in London so they invited me. as with the 40th cultural revolution of May 68….. apt timing?
By colson on 05.04.08 2:28 am
I think we need to 'convert'
the academics, scholars, politicians & contemporary 'prophets' to become activists in the real world. The world in crisis, food, war, disaster, financial etc ahead of us. In the mean time too many -joblessness- among people with very high academic degree & education. A lot of rich people will -donate- their money for real action in the real world, on the contrary less money for education institutions.
mer: some activists act with strong knowledge on what's wrong. some (or many) don't. those who don't — they contribute too little compared to the resources/donation that's used. that's why most activism in the trouble places — food in some African countries — don't have long-term impact. we need both short-term and long-term. for the latter, good quality research is needed. not that academics/scholars and others need to act in the same way mainstream activists do. they should be their own kind activists.
By nemo on 05.05.08 10:35 am
Reminds me of…
Diplomacy, Henry Kissinger, 1994 Page 27-28 "Yet the rise and fall of previous world orders based on many states -from the Peace of Westphalia to our time- is the only experience on on which we can draw in trying to understand the challenges facing contemporary statesmen. The study of history offers no manual of instructions that can be applied automatically; history teaches by analogy, shedding light on the likely consequences of comparable situations. But each generation must determine for it self which circumstances are in fact comparable. Intellectuals analyze the operation of international systems; statesmen build them. And there is a vast difference between the perspective of an analyst and that of statesman. The analyst can choose which problem he wishes to study, whereas the statesman's problems are imposed on him. The analyst can allot whatever time is necessary to come to a clear conclusion; the overwhelming challenge to the statesman is the pressure of time. The analyst runs no risk. If his conclusions prove wrong, he can write another treatise. The statesman is permitted only one guess; his mistakes are irretrievable. The analyst has available to him all the facts; he will be judged on his intellectual power. The statesman must act on assessment that cannot be proved at the time that he is making them; he will be judged by history on the basis of how wisely he manage the inevitable change."
———————-
tapi jadi bedanya ilmuan sama policy makers siy, bukan ilmuan sama activist.. menarik yah perbedaan itu. that's why sometimes i feel reluctant to over debate on one topic when i already know which stand point that my opponent has. from there i will just try to understand that differences can work in harmony. uniformity, in action, vision or mission is dangerous-said a friend. masih aku pikir2 siy, bener gak ya..
mer: agree, differences, plurality, heterogeneity — they are all beautiful and needed. but differences for the sake of differences isn't right. differences exist so they could complement each other — they should interact with each other. otherwise, it's just a waste of resources.
By M on 05.05.08 6:53 pm
I wonder how many academics really did research on Mother Theresa or similar organization ?
Faith, Hope & Love beyond reason.
is there any reason to have Faith or to love somebody?
interesting books:
Mark H. Masse. Inspired to Serve: Today’s Faith Activists.
Robert Wuthnow and John H. Evans, eds., The Quiet Hand of God: Faith-Based Activism and the Public Role…………
By nemo on 05.06.08 4:56 pm
Another interesting post, I also adore this one :).
Even though I cannot consider myself as academics, but most of my works are highly related with those dreaming and thinking activities. Last year I joined a team that required me to conduct field work with the community. It was a rare opportunity for me since I have to apply the theories I’ve learned for years. Honestly, it’s not easy for me to transform my role to what you can called as activist. Even though, once I got the rhythm I did enjoy it, but the transformation needs a lot of effort on both side, the academics and the activist. I know I have not transformed to an activist, but at least I’ve ever in that position.
Btw, I just knew that these thing -academics vs activist- is also discussed by philosophers. Thank you for the enlightenment mbak
By qq on 05.07.08 2:41 am
Activists born from academics. Activists firstly grow from the university, school, collegge, etc. They born from the same basic but then grow differently. Activists think about something very enthutiastic. If they think it is not logic or not true, they are ready to change it rapidly, if someone who has power do not interested, they will change by themselves. It’s different from academics. Academics will change something slowly, based on their logic to attract someone else who has power to change it, not by themselves. Leres teu??? Teh, punten lah koreksi basa Inggrisna.
By aris wanrisna on 05.26.08 4:52 am
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>