Talk:Journal of Agrarian Change

Untitled
Dear Prof. Crusio, I would like to restore and make some useful additions to the line that you deleted (see below) about the difference between this journal and Peasant studies. What are your thoughts? (Msrasnw (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2011 (UTC))


 * Henry Bernstein and Byres, two of the founding editors review, in the first article in edition 1, the history of the Journal of Peasant Studies (JPS) and suggest and justify the approach of their new journal. They express the desire that their new journal should have more coverage of historical debates, feminist scholarship, agrarian technological change and culture and that regions not so well covered in JPS'' such as Japan, North Africa, West Asia should also be covered.

PS: Thanks for the official thing - I couldn't figure it out.


 * OK, I'll put it back. I must say, though, that I found that article a bit strange. Something strange must have been going on for (almost) the whole board leaving one journal to establish another, but I haven't found anything about that in this editorial. --Crusio (talk) 08:41, 21 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks - and yes it is strange/curious and perhaps does leave one wanting to know more. Best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 09:19, 21 May 2011 (UTC))


 * I think this as got a view from the other side: (2000) 'Editorial statement', Journal of Peasant Studies, 28: 1, 1 — 2 where the editor (Tom Brass (?)) argues:
 * One intellectual process the initial formulation of a JPS project could not have been expected to anticipate was the impact on the study of the peasantry of the rise and rise of postmodernism. For far too long the a-historical, cultural essentialism of postmodern theory has been permitted to colonize non-economic discourse, more or less unchallenged. The effect on the study of development and the role in this of peasants and rural workers has been deleterious, leading in some instances to a denial of the desirability/possibility of economic development itself. One result has been that radical journals which in the past adhered to a socialist world-view, or were sympathetic to a socialist politics, have now lapsed into an ostensibly depoliticized cultural antiquarianism, redolent of late nineteenth-century anthropology. This form of voyeurism involves nothing more than retailing stories about the quaintness/ 'otherness' of plebeian tradition and custom - short, working-class life (at home and abroad) - for the delectation of a middle-class academic readership. In contrast to such an approach, whereby those below are perceived to be empowered by virtue of having a culture, this journal will examine the latter through the lens of political economy. To reiterate the 1973 editorial statement, the JPS 'will encourage a broadly-based but rigorous political economy, in which peasantries will be studied within the wider systems and historical situations in which they exist.


 * I take this to mean that the Journal of Peasant Studies had in some's view become too "post-modern" and that an academic journal had become too oriented to the "delectation of a middle-class academic readership". I don't how - if at all to put this here or in the JPS article. (Msrasnw (talk) 11:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC))
 * Interesting find, good job! When I have a moment, I'll try to read it. For the moment, I agree that it might be better not to put this in the article yet. It's too bad that these people are so verbose, that makes it difficult to catch what they are saying in a not-too-long phrase, without that becoming original research... As Sokal showed, many postmodernists have become so adept at obfuscating, that they don't even recognize nonsense any more... :-) --Crusio (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

My information is that the 2000 JPS/JOAC split occurred for different reasons, and the 2008 editorial coup at the JPS (see Talk: Journal of Peasant Studies) was unconnected with a desire to oust a pro-postmodern orientation. Brass, who edited the JPS in the period 1990-2008, has long been a critic of postmodernism and the cultural turn, so a pro-pomo orientation under his 2000-2008 editorship would anyway be unlikely. Many articles published in the JPS over the latter period (not just by him) are critiques of pomo-influenced approaches to the study of agrarian change, in particular those coming from the subaltern studies tradition. That, I think, is what the 2000 editorial quoted above was trying to announce: not a pro- but an anti-pomo orientation. Since there are both editorial articles (JPS volume 30, issue 2, 2003, pages 124-128; JPS volume 32, issue 1, 2005, pages 153-241) and exchanges with John Beverley (JPS volume 29, issues 3&4, 2002, pages 1-40 and 336-399; JPS volume 31, issue 2, 2004, pages 261-275; and JPS volume 33, issue 2, 2006, pages 304-44) reasserting the value of a Marxist and materialist historiography (denied by many pomo writers), the wish on the part of JOAC to rescue unjustly overlooked approaches (historical debates, etc.) cannot be the case. My understanding is that the 2008 coup at the JPS, and a de facto return from JOAC of the previous editors (or their proxies) had in all probability more to do with JPS critiques (many by Brass) in the 2000-2008 period aimed at agrarian populism and semi-feudalism. These were, entirely coincidentally, analytical approaches favored by the previous editors. To paraphrase The Godfather, it may well have been personal, not business; but we shall never know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.156.177.221 (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear 109.156.177.221, thanks. I think we are not in disagreement. The view I was trying - perhaps clumsily - to express was that there seemed to have been "a coup" (I am not sure at if this an appropriate phrase) in 2000 when some (eg Brass) thought JPS needed returning to its roots and ridding of the pomo-stuff. The pomo and broader approach people left to found this JOAC. In 2008 a new team took over at JPS with a return to the broader approach. What now is the difference between the two journals???  Which is the coup 2000 or 2008 both or either? I have no idea! Anyway best wishes (Msrasnw (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2011 (UTC))

All credit to you, Msrasnw, for having raised what is a largely overlooked area of conflict: academic journals, who controls them editorially, why, and how this influences what appears between their covers (and, these days, on their websites). From time to time one hears of dramatic editorial fallings-out, resignations or expulsions from editorial boards, but (as far as I know) there has been little attempt thus far to examine the wider impact of such comings and goings on prevailing ideas. This kind of thing happened twice at The New Left Review, and twice also at the JPS (in 2000 and 2008), so it is important to ask (as you have done) why this occurs and what is the result. The recent climate-gate scandal, where holders of an alternative view about global warming were blocked from publication in key journals, underlines the need for transparency in this regard. Conflict behind the 2000 JPS/JOAC split is hinted at in a difficult-to-find endnote (JPS volume 32, number 1, 2005, page 169, endnote 4): “the fact that the first and second editors (of the JPS) were either involved in academic administration or took sabbaticals during this period reduced the amount of time they were able to devote to editorial tasks. Much of the JPS workload, especially that connected with the production of special issues, consequently fell on the third editor (Brass?). The resulting combination of workload imbalances, intellectual/political disagreements, plus the attention received by the published work of one of the editors in particular (also Brass??), all made personal relationships more stressful.” Page 154 of that same piece elaborates: “Following the departure of the third and most productive editor in late 1998, the remaining two not unnaturally found it hard to cope with the large editorial workload, and they themselves departed a short while after, in the year 2000.” As far as I am able to tell, it was this which led to the foundation of JOAC, and the return to the JPS of the third editor who, then and since, has it seems been declared an unperson by those at JOAC and (after the 2008 coup) the present JPS. His work is rarely mentioned by them, despite its importance, a situation which occasionally gives rise to ludicrous explanations. I’m told that when a founder-editor of JOAC (who previously edited JPS) touring Canada to publicize his new book on agrarian change was asked in a seminar why his book made no mention of Brass’s work, replied that Brass wrote very long articles!!! Apparently this ever-so-intellectually-rigorous reason for not referring to a significant contributor to a debate was met with giggles from the seminar audience, and it is not difficult to understand why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.173.101.116 (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2011 (UTC)