Struggling with Recognition:
Current status and future of social science research publications
Item Biao
This article was originally published in The Macao Polytechnic Journal, No. 4, 2021
"The struggle for recognition" is an important philosophical proposition of Hegel, emphasizing that mutual recognition between individuals is the basis of social stability. Modern scholarship should be the ideal field for achieving Hegelian recognition: scholars work together to improve their understanding of the world and of themselves through equal, open communication, through recognition of each other's work. But in reality, research activities increasingly become the pursuit of "Althusserian recognition", that is, the recognition of institutions and authorities. What role does the individual scholar play in replacing the former in replacing the latter, and what can the scholar do? Current academic practice reinforces the individualization, isolation, and hierarchical relationship between scholars and scholars. Any practice is a concrete practice, and changing the status quo requires scholars to promote it extensively, including starting from themselves and changing the way academic practice is done.
Academic publications with three kinds of recognition
The title of the article is an appropriation of Hegel's "struggle for recognition" proposition. This proposition of Hegel comes from Fichte. Fichte emphasized that the premise of people building self-awareness is the recognition of others. "Acknowledgment" means accepting the existence of the Other in the Other's own way. Only by recognizing the other as equal beings can the existence of the self be "aroused." In Phenomenology of Spirit, Hegel discusses, on a more empirical level, the process by which people recognize others and establish self-awareness. He envisions a process fraught with conflict, but mutual recognition is the only guarantee for ending the struggle between men and men.
Mutual recognition is the basis for the establishment of the family, civil society and the national order. This idea had a fundamental impact on later political philosophy, especially the global discussion of identity politics and multiculturalism since the 1990s. After the Cold War, the "politics of recognition" became an important theme in political life. The "politics of recognition" emphasizes that for minorities (women, immigrants, ethnic minorities, and people of different sexual orientations), mainstream society should not only tolerate, recognize and help them according to mainstream standards, but respect their existence in the way minorities exist in their own way. Politics is a constant struggle to promote mutual recognition.
Modern academic research should be the ideal field for achieving Hegelian recognition. In the academic community, scholars communicate equally, openly, and cyclically. We discover our own unique and deepening paths by understanding the unique ideas of other scholars. In other words, we finally recognize the world better by recognizing others, and then recognizing ourselves, and by recognizing a variety of ways of thinking. In the process of establishing this mutual recognition, writing and publishing are necessary means. Writing makes our ideas clearer, and publishing allows scholars to recognize each other on a larger scale.
However, most young and middle-aged scholars today, whether in China or other countries, may not have such an experience with academic publication. Academic publications are now made for another kind of recognition, that is, recognition from the authority of the system. Publication is not to state one's own limited but unique opinions, but to prove to the system that it can meet the requirements of the mainstream and has the ability to imitate others. Publication is not to participate in debate and analyze practical problems, but to ensure its survival within the academic system, in order to maintain this system. Such an acknowledgment may be called "Althusserian acknowledgment."
Althusser reminds us that recognition is the system's means of disciplining the individual. Thinkers such as Sartre and Foucault further revealed the subtle mechanisms behind Althusserian recognition. Sartre argues that when we are recognized, we are also limited. When we are admitted as a "qualified scholar," the predetermined role of a "qualified scholar" limits our actions and perceptions. Foucault pointed out that power in modern society does not limit the freedom of the individual, but rather shapes the individual subject who feels free and recognized. The recognition of the individual is a prerequisite for the implementation of modern "governmentality." Only when a person is recognized by the system can he become the object of the modern power system and enter the modern power relationship.
The consequences of "Althusserian recognition" are serious and even affect the physical and mental health of scholars. Struggling for recognition betrayed the academic consensus of the world's social science community after World War II. After World War II, social scientists believed that the purpose of social research was to liberate people and let people get rid of the constraints of the current structure and exert their initiative. Academic labor is first and foremost the embodiment of the initiative and creativity of scholars. And now research work has become the dominant force for scholars. Writing and publishing become task pressures that scholars wear out and even hate. But grit your teeth in order to make a living, to maintain a decent social status. Scholars do not feel that they are exerting their creativity, but on the contrary, deliberately curb freedom and exertion in order to produce as many "results" as possible as soon as possible. Publishing is not a natural result of thinking about exploration, but a goal that is locked in before thinking about exploration; the process of thinking is not from the material of ordinary new ideas, but of combining the material into a form that can be published. Scholars cannot explain to others or even to themselves what the work really means. Academic work became typical of "alienated" labor.
The issue of alienation in academic work has received widespread attention. The reflection of the domestic academic community has focused on the criticism of the current evaluation system, especially the practices of "administrative dominance", "excessive quantification", "publication of reviews", and the pursuit of rankings. The management departments, represented by the Ministry of Education and the Academy of Social Sciences, have also repeatedly stressed the need for reform.
For example, in 2011, the "Blue Book on the Rule of Law" edited by Li Lin of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, "Report on the Development of China's Rule of Law No. 9 (2011)", pointed out: "All kinds of academic misconduct occurs precisely in the publication of papers. But the current discussion seems to be able to be further developed in the following three aspects:
(I) The existing criticism and reform proposals are still based on the mature academic system in the West and the integration with developed countries as the way out. But the problem is that a series of problems we face arise to a large extent after transplanting Western academic management experience. More importantly, the alienation of academic work is also worsening in the West, to some extent worse than in the Chinese-speaking world.
(2) The current discussion regards the evaluation system as the crux of all problems, and a number of opinions of the Ministry of Education of china in December 2020 on breaking the "only papers" in the evaluation of philosophical and social science research in universities also pointed out various problems in the evaluation system. However, it seems unrealistic to hope that all problems will be solved through institutional shock therapy. Assuming that we abolish the current evaluation system overnight, will there be a big improvement in academic research? Few scholars will have an optimistic answer to this.
(III) The consensus of the academic community is that an appropriate alternative evaluation system cannot be established in the short term. So, can individual scholars just wait in complaining? Is it possible for us to find a small breakthrough? To change the orientation and "break" the problems in the system, it is necessary to have a "standing" in concrete actions.
This article wishes to emphasize that individual scholars play an important role in the current situation, which also means that we have a role to play in changing the status quo. The system cannot be sustained without the active participation of individual scholars. Therefore, in analyzing the current state of academic publication, we need to introduce a third view of recognition in addition to the Hegelian and Althusserians, namely "Judith Butler-style recognition."
Butler emphasized the importance of performitivity in the pursuit of recognition. Butler argues that there is no objective and stable distinction between "female" and "male" in the world, but what kind of imagery people should have in their consciousness of "female" and "male", and everyone continues to perform according to this imaginary standard. Through performance, individuals are recognized by verifying to others and themselves that they are in line with gender roles. Performance is fleeting, so it is necessary to perform continuously; there is always a gap between performance and standards, so performers need to constantly reflect and improve; performance is not mechanical repetition, and there is a risk of innovation and derailment in every performance. Why do illusory gender imagery have so much power? Because each of us is performing all the time, these countless performances are reinforcing gender awareness.
Butler deconstructs the category of "gender," but points out how people construct specific orders. Since the social order is inseparable from the participation of individuals, this also means that through conscious self-examination, we can change reality bit by bit. As James Scott said in "The Weapon of the Weak," to change the system, we don't necessarily attack it head-on, as long as we don't actively pursue its recognition, and we don't look at it when it plays, such a simple "disregard" can pose a huge and sustained challenge to the system.
The focus of this paper is not on the academic evaluation system, but on the collective behavioral logic of academic publication, and the individual mentalities and strategies that contribute to this logic. The purpose of the article is not to once again describe and criticize the academic system, but to clarify the anxiety and contradictions in the hearts of scholars, so as to stimulate the motivation to improve reality and explore specific paths starting from ourselves.
In the following, I will first argue that when publication is alienated as a means of pursuing recognition, it brings with it a new view of the academic division of labor and the self-perception of scholars. Then, I make four suggestions that we can start with ourselves.
These reflections of mine first came from the experience of struggling as a researcher and writer. At the same time, as a graduate supervisor, publication reviewer, career promotion reviewer, and a member of the editorial boards of 12 academic journals (in 2020, including 10 international and 2 Chinese), I also observed the current situation of social science research at home and abroad from different perspectives.
From the "wide-thin" grade to the "high-low" grade
The current social sciences face at least three sets of contradictions.
1) Communication and exchange in the twenty-first century has become more convenient than ever, but academic publications as part of communication have become increasingly difficult. Publications become a major work pressure for young teachers in colleges and universities.
2) The electronicization of journals and the launch of the paper database, researchers can conduct accurate literature retrieval according to specific topics, which greatly weakens the function of journals as a physical platform. Few scholars systematically follow up on an article in a journal. However, the status of academic journals is getting higher and higher. Publishing in specific journals is becoming increasingly important.
3) The division of labor in social science research is becoming more and more refined, and the topic is becoming more and more specialized, and the experts of a group can fully evaluate the significance of a study, but they must be published in a highly visible and comprehensive academic journal to be formally recognized. In China, 72.3% of publications in CSSCI source journals span more than 10 disciplines. Obviously, these journals cannot become an effective communication platform for professional research, but a "window" for displaying results.
The reason for these contradictions is obvious: academic journals are no longer clubs for sharing research and learning from each other among colleagues, but a knockout tournament for scholars to be divided into three, six, and nine. The relationship between the reader, the editor and the author is not their own. The more comprehensive, the more visible, and the more incapable of communicating in detail, the more important the journals become, because they are a theater of display, not a workshop for exchanging skills.
Publication for the sake of communication is to promote equal debate, and publication for recognition is to carry out hierarchical differentiation. This does not mean that all vertical differentiation is unreasonable. In the ideal working state, we will also consciously or unconsciously divide the research results: some work condenses more labor and makes greater contributions, and some research makes partial supplements, and the value is relatively limited. But we need to distinguish between two grades, the "wide-fine" grade and the "high-low" grade. The problem now is that the latter level replaces the former.
The so-called "wide-thin" grade refers to the fact that the high is high because the high is wider than the low. The high covers the low, and the low provides the basis for the high. We consider Marx's discourse on the capitalist economic system, Foucault's analysis of power, and Habermas's vision of publicness "high" because they cover a series of important issues, present the relationship between these issues, and provide a broad framework for our thinking. Specific research is "under" the grand theory because its coverage is limited and focuses on one aspect of the larger framework. But the "low" coverage and abstraction of specific research does not mean that its value is low. Without these concrete studies, grand theories are reduced to grandiose rhetoric. Specific research, precisely because it is covered by the broad theory, can challenge the larger framework from within. In this way, the relationship between high and low is inseparable, and the high does not exist as an opposition to the lower level. This "wide-thin" hierarchical relationship is also quite similar to Skinner's depiction of china's regional market system. In Skinner's writing, markets are layered: townships have areas above them, and regions have whole countries above them. A large regional market is "higher" than a township market, but the regional market and the township market are interdependent, and no one denies the value of the rural market in the "low" position.
My description of this "wide-fine" hierarchy is clearly influenced by Dumont's interpretation of the so-called "hierarchical man." An important contribution of Dumont was to bring a holistic view into the discussion of hierarchy. He believes that in Hinduism, the high castes and the lower castes distinguish and relate to each other to form a whole. High and low exist as different parts of the whole. Dumont argues that the difference between the caste system and modern Western is not equality and inequality, but rather the individual or society as a whole. The starting point of the West is the individual, so equality between individuals has become a basic value, and inequality between individuals has become a key issue. India's starting point is the society as a whole, not to reduce the whole to an independent and equal individual; the differences between individuals are considered natural, and the inequality between individuals is not the key, the key is whether the society as a whole is harmonious. Dumont's explanation clearly has Orientalist overtones. However, his view of differentiation from the perspective of holism is of reference significance for us to conceive a reasonable academic ecology.
In modern times, the height under the framework of the overall view has become a discrete up and down. The relationship between these two kinds of high and low can also be illustrated by the example of Indian society. Mysore Srinivas proposed the trend of "Westernization" and "Sanskritization" of Indian society after the 1950s. On the one hand, India embraces modernization in terms of economic construction, material equipment, political system and consciousness, including the emphasis on equality of all people, but on the other hand, everyone is "Sanskrit", and the Brahmin way of life has become the object of imitation and pursuit. The lower castes embraced the idea of egalitarianism, but they did not want to abolish the caste system, but to become like the higher castes. Each other is no longer a covered and covered relationship. Caste relations became based on individualized, antagonistic inequality. This trend was even more pronounced in my own survey of southern India in the late 1990s. In the context of globalization, the economic gap between different castes has further widened, which has stimulated the desire of lower castes to imitate the lifestyles of higher castes. The dowry system is a key. Dowries were originally customs of high castes, but were also strictly enforced by lower castes after the 1990s. The bottom layer does not have the strength to pay a high dowry, and imitation and comparison have caused them great psychological pressure.
Today's academia seems to be a globalized contemporary caste system. It is not only high and low, but also high and low. High exists to distinguish it from low, not as another presentation of low. Low is the disabled version of high, without its own value. Everyone pursues the same model, the same standard. Mimics the "high-end" style with or without conditions.
Master's students who have just done two months of research also have to "talk" with Habermas, Benjamin, Weber, and Foucault. In turn, the unity of the ideological ecology further strengthens the single-line characteristics of the hierarchy. Young scholars are not preoccupied with the details they have, but are eager to find out how to quickly put on the popular hat for limited materials.
What are we going to do?
Many commentators at home and abroad are pinning their hopes on strengthening "professionalism"—that is, through academic self-discipline—to get out of the current predicament. But in Asia, academic specialization is the context of the struggle for recognition. In the Chinese mainland, practices such as "publication first" and "unless ascending or leaving" are all initiated and actively promoted by authoritative scholars, especially scholars with foreign backgrounds, all of which are aimed at promoting specialization. Moreover, in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia, and Canada, which are highly professional and autonomous in academics, the academic system is full of crises. There, the management of the university is expanding rapidly, and the teaching of the school is failing. Specialization makes academic research "autonomous" in form (such as the matters of this profession are only decided by those in this major), and at the same time makes it isolated and fragile, that is, too narrow professional research is separated from extensive social practice, scholars cannot form their own positions, cannot unite with larger social forces, and daily work becomes utilitarian, there is no ability to resist the influence of other forces, and under the pressure of administrativeization, it can only obey in complaints. The so-called "academic community" is now more like a narrow and closed group of professional interests.
The space provided by professionalism is limited. We need to re-treat academic research as a social practice. Academic research is directly related to the relationship between scholars and society, the relationship between scholars and scholars, and the long-term and daily strategies of scholars. Any practice is concrete practice. We may be able to start from the following aspects.
Create small groups that "unfold together"
The pursuit of Althusserian recognition inhibits, to some extent, substantial exchange of ideas between colleagues. A young scholar told me that colleagues in the department published an article, and other colleagues in the WeChat circle one by one flowers and applause, "neatly arranged, complete a ceremony." How much of this ritual is interested in this research? How many are sincere blessings? How much is the anxiety that magazines are too low to rank too little and too slowly? A few times we can hear colleagues chatting in the hallway: "There is a problem that has been pestering me for two months, and I have not been able to find a clue..."; "In the doubt you said last week, there is actually a hypothesis worth refining..."; "The question you had the night before suddenly opened my mind!" ”
To quote Habermas, in today's academic practice, the "system" (the system) dominates the "everyday" (i.e., the field of meaning, decision-making, and action that can be communicated and debated in natural language). How to reconstruct the "everyday" of thought? We may try to build our own small circles. People in small circles are not necessarily scholars, and they are not necessarily in the same direction as the same profession. The only criterion for building small circles is a willingness to think and "talk." The so-called "can talk" is to be able to enter each other's thinking process. A view that sounds incredible to others is alive to the listener who enters this thought process: it has its origin, its evolutionary path, its potential direction. The person who enters your thought process can work with you to nurture and guide the idea.
Social science research is an organically unfolding process. It is difficult to plan in advance how much time a project will take and what results it will achieve. But such unfolding is not entirely a spontaneous process, and it requires sustained and highly committed effort. Sometimes it needs to be repeatedly unfolded, that is, constantly returning to the original point, so that the embryo of one idea develops in another way. This requires the support of the community. Small groups should be circles that we unfold together. In our common unfolding, we recognize each other.
Speak with your heart, not with words
、
A common criticism of the current academic evaluation system is "only looking at works and not people". This may mean that the evaluation system does not pay attention to individual differences and does not give scholars autonomy. But in the struggle for recognition, we also see a clear opposite trend, namely the personification of academic work: publishing is to prove that it is a qualified researcher. The evaluation of research work becomes the evaluation of people. The results of the review are directly related to the researchers' work status, income, relationships and self-perception. The impact of this personification of academic evaluation is far-reaching. Even when we are reading, we don't just think about how to understand the latest research results and thought dynamics, but consciously or unconsciously judge the author and compare it with ourselves - just like an Internet celebrity who is anxious about traffic is watching another live Streamer.
In his critique of the "auditing culture" of British universities since the 1980s, anthropologist Strathern emphasized that auditing culture links financial logic with moral logic. While auditing culture represents the logic of finance, it brings at the same time a new sense of ethics and personal responsibility. Under this value, scholars who do not pursue publication and do not meet the requirements of audit evaluation are not only considered incompetent, but also considered irresponsible, dereliction of duty and even "unqualified". The struggle to acknowledge also leads to a more subtle and deeply narrowed personalization. Researchers are constantly eyeing each other in their work: this is "my" material, this is "my" point of view; colleagues and colleagues have become wary of each other. For researchers to prove that "I" am qualified, it is a secondary consideration as to why the world needs my research.
We need to reposition ourselves. Individual researchers are constantly changing and have no fixed attributes ("qualified" or "unqualified", "good" or "bad"). Each study is a fragment of our thinking unfolding. This achievement is the embodiment of the true self, but it is not equal to the self. It's like an artist's creation. A work of art is an integral part of the artist, but we cannot evaluate the artist in terms of this work— because there are many more inseparable parts of her life.
At the same time, when a work of art is born, the work of art in turn affects the artist's understanding of the world and art. Creativity is a key attribute of the creator, but creativity is not entirely intrinsic to the creator. Creativity is decentralized and interactive, that is, the inspiration for creation always comes from multiple channels, and the presentation of creative results, especially the social perception of creative results, is diverse and realized in the interaction with other subjects. So between different creators, between creators and audiences, are overlapping, and the distinction between you and me is relative. The result of the so-called "I" is nothing more than my capture of a certain overlapping moment of the process unfolded by many thinkers together.
Small steps and slow steps, innovation is style rather than goal
"The value of scholarship lies in innovation", this widely spread saying is paradoxical. The so-called "science is only the first and not the second" is a narrow misunderstanding of human scientific exploration. If someone can use ancient theories to clarify the reality of the situation and give new meaning to old theories, such work has breakthrough value. On the contrary, the lack of targeted so-called new statements and concepts often creates obstacles to effective thinking. Pretend to be innovative, tired of self-harm. Taking small steps slowly, letting go of the pressure of innovation, and trying to use everyday language to make clear the problems that you can say clearly, you can make an important contribution. Innovation is a style, an impulse: the desire to transcend stable knowledge, cognitive ways and expressions. In small steps, every move—for example, in the collation of materials, in the way of writing, in the way of cooperation—can be innovative. Innovation can bring vitality to research practice and bring a variety of research methods, but innovation itself is not the goal, solid contribution is the goal.
Try new ways to publish and communicate
Social science research faces challenges, but it also faces unprecedented opportunities. In China, the large-scale expansion of college enrollment since the end of the 20th century has cultivated a large number of new audiences for social science research. Although most of them are not professional researchers, their concern for real social problems and their ability to identify social problems are not lower than those of professional researchers. The development of social media has brought us new channels to publish our research results. The press, the arts and the public interest community are eager for social science research to provide enlightening analysis. The rapid changes in social life itself also mean that researchers need to maintain close contact with research subjects and readers to follow up on the latest developments and problems in the minds of the public.
In this case, the new way of publishing has become a new way to find problems, collect information, and deepen analysis. This can make our research and social practice more closely linked and organic, while also promoting professionalism in a substantive sense. The public demands that scholars make systematic analyses based on their expertise, and they will not tolerate scholars hiding behind professional terms and repeating common sense with complex expressions.
- END -
Related hot read articles