At a liberal arts college like Dartmouth, it seems inevitable that undergrads will study social movements at some point in their education. Who hasn't read something about the civil rights movement, feminism or gay liberation? And while not all of us will dedicate our four years to understanding what makes such a movement succeed or fail, we're all aware that there is a body of literature on the topic, and even some of our own professors are major contributors.
Sadly, as sociology professor Misagh Parsa explained, activists -- the ones who could use this information most -- rarely consult the academic journals in their struggle to change society. But the problem isn't one-sided. "Most sociologists today are so involved in their own research that they communicate among themselves rather than among activists," said Parsa, an expert in social movements.
Indeed, contemporary sociologists -- and many other social scientists -- are often so immersed in their own narrow fields that they allow their vast knowledge to stagnate in the ivory towers of academia.
This likely comes as no surprise. After all, everyone jokes about the lives of professors. They go through a billion years of school, write a couple of theses and a dissertation, and then if they're lucky they get hired at a place like Dartmouth and teach a bunch of bright and privileged soon-to-be i-bankers while striving to research and publish more than their peers. Essentially, they live in an academic tree house -- no lay people allowed.
But contrary to popular belief, their research actually has grand social relevance. From professor Ronald Shaiko's "Same-Sex Marriage, GLBT Organizations and the Lack of Spirited Political Engagement," to Professor John Campbell's "Ideas, Politics and Public Policy," a careful study of the literature could revolutionize activism as we know it (no pun intended).
There is already movement among academics towards this synthesis. In my Sociology of Globalization class (SOCY 69), we read a book called "Global Unions." The book came out of a conference of academics, trade unionists and other activists, putting together the best scholarly essays on global trade union tactics disseminated during that conference. The research was designed to revitalize union activism; by analyzing case studies where workers overcame extreme exploitation, the academics were able to help unions further their understanding of global corporate power and how to exert control.
More of this collaboration must take place. I'm not calling for a "watered down" academia; I'm fully in support of hard research and objective analysis. I'm simply calling for greater interaction with the public at large.
What if, in addition to writing for the American Political Science Review, a professor published a summary of his findings in an activist zine? What if academics were a mainstay at every conference for social justice? What if professors ran pro-bono consulting firms for organizations they believed in? How much faster would we be making progress?
I have tremendous respect for all of my (six) professors at Dartmouth, and I know that many of them actively engage their research with non-academic circles. But we need to move past the mentality that such engagement is an act of benevolent volunteerism. Using research -- especially social science research -- as a tool for change should be expected.
Academia has far more use in the hands of working people than it does in the stacks of Baker Tower. Why build a tree house when there's so much more to be done on the ground?
