Like many around the US and world, I watched what took place at the University of Missouri campus and felt a strong sense of nostalgia as well as hope.  I mean, look at the picture above.  They sit and stand, unified in purpose and politicized in the greatest tradition of young-athletic Muhammad Ali like justice seeking. It's beautiful.

This is not new or even isolated to this one campus.   Like those in the 1960/70s against the War in Vietnam, Imperialism, sexism and racism as well as in the 1980s against Nicaragua, racism (again/still) and Apartheid, which was an embodiment of war (a civil one), imperialism and racism, young people are seemingly poised to step into the realm of "contentious politics" (i.e., political engagement outside of the parameters of mainstream/sanctioned processes as well as with an element of confrontation being involved).  The similarities in topics makes sense.  Many of the issues identified earlier have persisted over time and thus it has been necessary to fire up the mechanisms of change every now and again (i.e., the Youth).  The differences in framing have also been noted previously. As stated in one article about student activism in the 1980s vs. the 1960s:

Many compare the new student activism to the radical politics of the 1960s, but most say the political techniques have changed. Although students listen to the music and wear the clothes of the baby-boom generation, the focus has shifted to effecting positive change rather than simply protesting. 

"There are as many students involved in working for change on campus today as there were in the 1960s," says Yale senior Jon H. Ritter, who has been involved in student activism during his four years at Yale. "The difference is that in the 1960s students were calling for everything at once, while students in the 1980s have more specific goals, and work on one issue at a time." 

Students today say that the activism of the 1980s, although it attracts less attention than did the protest movements of 20 years ago, is a more effective method of achieving lasting change. 


Seeing what we are observing in the world today as well as in the US in particular, it is not so clear that the 1980s were effective and we could probably all agree on the ineffectiveness of the 1960s outside of the creation of some admittedly important programs.  This is hard for me to say for I used to mention with pride that activism at my school in the 1980s (Clark University in Wooster [Woo-stah], Mass) had prompted change through divestment but we discovered later that the University had not divested but simply moved the money from a direct to a more indirect route.  While seemingly effective, therefore, we kind of blew it.  This and a failure to get a controversial tenure decision overturned revealed to many of us that student activism was a very difficult thing.  

Should we be optimistic about the current situation?  Well, forgive me on this one but no and yes.  

On the no - We should not be optimistic because prior student activists have not learned what is effective and this message has not been transferred to subsequent student bodies.  What types of issues were being protested about in the 1960s, 1970s, 1930s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s and 2010s?  What tactics were used and which tactics generally worked in the short term as well as the long term across contexts (e.g., public vs. private schools, the Northeast/Midwest/South/West, in bust/boom financial times, in Republican/Democratic environs, in situations with greater/lesser mixed populations on campus or in the surrounding community)?  These are the questions we need answered as we try to forge a more effective way forward. Additionally, where is that student activist book or e-book that is distributed to freshmen/freshwomen/newbies that come on campus for the first time, like the "activist student handbook" to inform them of what the local history has been regarding how students got rights, protected them and extended them across distinct domains?  Where is the listing of tactics, places, dates and outcomes so that students can assess what has and has not worked?  Where is that generational replacement of activists on campus which need to be built yearly as the conveyor belt of students moves through the relevant institutions? 

On the yes - We should acknowledge that now/today is a new day and that we can build a better way forward.  We can address the questions above on each campus in the US as well as abroad and then we can compile our "activist student handbooks" in one spot so that students as well as faculty can begin the task of trying to figure out what has/has not worked across campuses.  This is not completely subversive as the current President of the United States of America has asked for an "Activist Citizenry".  He just didn't tell us how to get there but he doesn't need to.  We can work this out for ourselves.  

Additionally, we can acknowledge that historically there has been some discussion about the fact that prior student activists have generally not been engaged in activities with those from the communities around them. Although this has been the case generally this does not need not be the case.  Now, that said, there are some contentious histories between Universities and the towns that they have existed within stretching back to the founding of most Universities in the US.  Remember Breaking Away?  Remember School Daze?  Needless to say, the locals and the students did not see everything eye to eye nor will we in the current situation.  There are a wide variety of differences that we need to be attuned to but it is nevertheless possible.  

In the current context, we could be especially well primed for such an intersection as we appear to have some momentum addressing anti-black violence and discrimination emerging from different quarters.  At the same time, the attention to these issues varies a bit.  According to polling data, many whites do not believe that racial problems are that bad whereas many African Americans believe that they are extremely bad.  This does not bode well for alliance formation or actual effectiveness but this does not preclude it.  To change America - not just the campuses but the broader country - this rift will need to be overcome but this is also where scholarship comes in.  People have been working on how differences like those noted above can be overcome.  I will follow this piece up with some of that work but feel free to shoot some to me in the meantime.  

Now, I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that we are not working on this in a vacuum.  I am sure after the Missouri activism that athletic programs around the US are systematically working to figure out how they can isolate/protect their scholar-athletes from such influences.  Those interested in activism, however, need to figure out how such connections can be sustained as well as strengthened.  Athletes play an important role in the life of Universities as do non-athletic oriented students, alum, faculty, staff and the communities that surround them.  All should be brought together in a manner that facilitates social justice and human rights.  This should be the objective.  Also, I would be remiss in identifying that social movement activism is great for changing some things but not for others.  What is needed is a high degree of monitoring, discussion, analysis and vigilance across the distinct parts of the social change process. (see here and here).

Toward this latter end, I want to suggest a concrete beginning: if you are on a campus in the US, find some willing students as well as faculty and begin a "[insert university name here] activist student handbook".  I am currently running a class called "Saving the World or Wasting Time: Understanding the Impact of Social Movements and Activism" (click title for useful reading) and we will begin to to do this for our university starting tuesday (they don't know this yet but I'm sure they will be thrilled).  Feel free to join us.  Make note of the fact though that Thanksgiving, finals and Christmas break are coming as well as winter for much of the country.  Historically, these have not been great times to get students or faculty to focus on social justice issues.  We need not be tied to the past however.  We can change, no?  For example, regarding the upcoming weather, I am reminded of a scene from the Spike Lee film "DROP Squad" (please replace sun and heat with cold and winter as well as forgive the language: click here for relevant scene.  Get your hats y'all!

Peace

Roughly five years ago, Christian Davenport and Will H. Moore hit something of an impasse and began discussions about what might be done.  We were dissatisfied with how political scientists continue to use 20th Century practices and organizations to provide feedback to one another on work in progress.  Conferences have primarily become rent-seeking forums: people attend for subsidized travel and reunion with friends (actual and potential), some professional networking, and a pinch of research interaction.  As expectations of useful feedback have dropped, the effort people invest in presenting well conceived, well executed work declines with it.  “It's just a conference paper.  But did I tell you about the restaurant/art exhibit/ball game/etc. I visited?” Eye.  Roll.
 
Our professional associations diluted the research value further by putting more and more people in each session with 5-6 presentations and 1-2 discussants, the better to drive up association membership.  While great for association coffers, this leaves less and less time for presentation and discussion. Indeed, panels increasingly feel like “academic speed dating” as each presenter zooms through the presentation hitting the highest points of the chorus, but leaving the gems of the lyrics in the paper, which probably wasn't uploaded to the conference webpage, and is likely to go unnoticed if it is.  

With this as backdrop we began to search for things we might do to step into the breach.  The current process was created back in the days when academics traveled by train, produced copies of their working papers by having a human being type two copies (an original and a carbon copy) at a time, and then paid the postal service to carry it in a stamped envelope to potential readers.  Telephone calls were prohibitively expensive, so it made economic sense for researchers to coordinate annually over a several day period when they could travel to a common location and respond to one another's ongoing work.  That we would continue this as our best practice today is an exemplar of path dependent collective stupidity. It doesn’t need to be our grandparents’ 1950’s politico-social.  Surely we can do better.  


The Past as Prologue

Given our intellectual background, it made sense that our discussions invariably led to a conversation of Charles (Chuck) Tilly (who had recently passed at the time of the conversation referenced above).   Chuck had run a workshop at Michigan, the New School and then Colombia that followed some basic rules.   Upon being asked about exactly what was involved, these were outlined below by Roy Licklider – a constant participant when the workshop was in New York:

I think we all agree that the seminar/workshop that Chuck created and ran was a remarkable phenomenon. It might be useful to compile its rules in the hope that they might be helpful to others trying to do similar things. Of course, the rules were never written down, and one of the issues with unwritten constitutions is that people often disagree about their content (unlike, say, written constitutions, but that's another story). 
Anyway, I thought I would put down my version, and everybody else can explain where I got it wrong. I've put brackets around my comments and specific illustrations from my own experience. 

The overriding purpose is to improve a piece of research. Critics are not supposed to show how smart they are by humiliating the author [there was no point to it anyway since Tilly was smarter than anyone else in the room]. A good comment doesn't just point out a weakness in the project; it also suggests what should be done to make it better (constructive criticism). 

There is no overriding topic or theme. Basically it is all about how to do good social science research. [The final title was Workshop in Contentious Politics, and there isn't much that couldn't be included under that heading. The lack of a topic made it different from most other seminars and, especially at Columbia, made it difficult to attract members who would keep coming back; Tilly's reputation helped a lot, and some of us became infatuated with the whole approach, but as noted below this became a problem.] 

Within the seminar everyone is treated as an equal. First names are used by everyone for everyone. Everyone is an author and a critic; every regular member of the seminar is expected to present (ideally once a year, although that may not be possible) and to comment on everyone else's work every week. Specialized knowledge on the topic is useful but not necessary, and often the best comments and questions come from people who know nothing at all about the topic. 

Papers are never presented; they are written and distributed a week ahead of the session. There is a reciprocal arrangement; authors limit themselves to fifty pages or less, and all members read the papers in advance. [Chuck once said it was okay if you didn't read the paper, but you couldn't say so and then make a comment.] The paper should include an introductory page putting the research in context and explaining its audience (is this a dissertation, a potential article or book, a conference paper, etc.). 

At the beginning of the session the author is allowed but not encouraged to say a few sentences, usually about the context of the research (which should be covered in the introductory page but sometimes isn't). But the session really starts with extensive comments by two preselected critics, at least one of whom does not have a Ph.D. [In recent years these comments were often written in advance and read aloud, with a copy going to the author either before (my preference) or after the oral presentation. This allows the author to not have to worry about taking notes and facilitates discussion. Chuck and I disagreed about reading the comments; I felt that, at least for native speakers of English, people should talk about the comments rather than reading them, which would be good practice for conferences and teaching classes.] 

After the two critics have made their remarks, the author is given a substantial amount of time to respond.

The floor is then open to comments and questions. Members attract the attention of the leader by raising their hand (one-finger question); the leader keeps a queue of names and calls on them in the order in which they have been seen, except that the first three comments after the critics must be made by people without Ph.D.s. It's okay for an individual to raise several separate questions at once. A second kind of intervention is the two-finger question--it must be directly on the point under discussion and thirty seconds or less. Asking a two-finger question does not change your position in the regular queue.

In addition to oral comments, members are encouraged to submit written comments. These fulfill at least two different functions: (1) they communicate specialized knowledge, bibliography, etc. which would not be of general interest to the group and (2) by repeating the oral questions or points, they again free the author from trying to take notes while answering a barrage of very different questions and issues and give them a record of the discussion which will be useful later when trying to recall what went on. [I have actually tape recorded several sessions where I was the author for the same reason. I learned from Chuck to try to keep my own comments until late in the session; with any luck others would make the points on their own and learn more from the experience than if we led the discussion.] Repeating a point made earlier, it is a firm rule that, no matter how wrong-headed the paper is [and there were some dillies], discussion is courteous, friendly, respectful, and directed at improving the project at hand rather than showing that the commentator is brilliant or that the author is insane or dangerous (although all of these may be true). Ideally the author is presented with several different ways in which the paper can be further developed, often contradictory ones which gave some choice.
​
After the seminar (which is scheduled for two hours), everyone is invited to go out to dinner somewhere nearby (it obviously helps if the seminar is scheduled late in the afternoon). The check is shared, but the author doesn't pay. [I used to explain that they had provided the entertainment. This may not be haute cuisine; Chuck would alternate between two inexpensive restaurants (usually ethnic). He justified this by saying he wanted to encourage graduate students to come by keeping it cheap. When he didn't attend during the last semester, the seminar went somewhere else to eat, although not to a much more expensive place, so maybe he was on to something. Once, when only faculty showed up, we went to a better restaurant. Occasionally, if he had gotten a nice check (as he would put it), he would pay the whole bill himself. 

I think he regarded the dinner as the high point of the experience, and certainly many of us did. I made a point not to sit next to him to give graduate students a shot at him; at Columbia they were sometimes a little shy, but they soon got over it.] 
​
With Chuck's Workshop in mind, three years ago we decided to create something in line with the spirit outlined above but do it virtually, online – taking the older model into the 21st Century.  The Conflict Consortium Virtual Workshop was born.


Challenges & Successes: Our Experience to Date

Given where we were coming from, we anticipated that there might be some issues to overcome.   

For example, who the heck would want to put themselves through what some view as a grueling performance of academic “Survivor,” which is one thing in a room of 5-50 people who after leaving the room basically forget the whole experience. This is quite a different matter when half a dozen people have 90 minutes to discuss your working paper, live on the Internet, and the whole thing is recorded to CC's YouTube Channel for posterity. Have you been to a panel where a discussant rips into the presenter and the audience (seeing the “blood in the water”) moves in for a kill like some version of “Academics Gone Wilding”? 

In contrast, we wanted to “nurture the youth,” and limited CCVW applications to working papers by non-tenured faculty and PhD students.  We were interested in getting people comments on their work and doing this in the supportive way that Chuck had managed to pull off.  We began by adopting Chuck's “Rules of Engagement” (as articulated by Licklider), bounced back and forth drafts of carefully worded emails and a blog post, shared our vision face to face with senior folks we know play well with non-senior folks, and selected kind, engaging and communicative participants to serve as Discussants.  We also continued to remind one another to keep a watchful eye on interactions while sessions are underway, task the Chair (one of us) with mediating (should the need arise), and hold a dyadic debrief after each session to discuss how we might improve.  Without exception all of these interactions have, indeed, been marvelous.

That said, we have not been deluged with applications in response to our Calls for Papers, and as such, are still working on getting the word out.  The CCVW provides a unique opportunity: where else can one get half a dozen conflict researchers to spend 90 minutes giving you feedback on your working paper?  We have discussed collecting testimonials, and we ask our past participants to spread the word virtually and face-to-face.  As with any new endeavor, however, progress can be a bit plodding and we can always get more assistance in moving things forward (did we mention that we were being backed by the NSF?).

Another potential challenge concerned soliciting free labor: who would be willing to sit and participate 1½ hours to discuss someone else’s work (we very consciously try to build networks by selecting participants who do not know one another well, but given the small size of the community our success varies).  

Here, too, Chuck inspired us.  He enjoyed speaking and was an incredibly good as well as entertaining speaker.  But, one thing that stood out to us about Chuck (and many other, given the tributes written after he had passed) was his desire to help people do better social science.  Davenport, who was able to participate in several Workshop sessions over the years, gained tremendously from his interactions with Chuck.  Davenport came to realize that Chuck would never really tell you what he thought was the most promising approach.  Rather, he would provide 2-3 alternative ways that seemed equally promising.  Now, his opinion might have existed somewhere in the three (like some intellectual shell game) but Davenport never found the shell that contained the item he preferred.  Always teaching, Chuck knew better than to just hand one a solution.  With that approach he engaged researcher's work and joined them in their search to find the right argument, the right data, the right test or the right conclusion.  He truly enjoyed the journey and as we would find, many of us similarly enjoyed it as well.

To our delight we have found the people in the conflict and peace community remarkably gracious with their time and supportive of the endeavor.  Plenty of people are unable to accept a specific invitation due to a travel or other commitment, but with the exception of a few “non-responses” we have people not only willing, but enthusiastic to contribute time reading the paper and then an hour and a half online in discussion.  

Equally important, if you watch some of the sessions we are sure you will agree that the quality of comments, suggestions, and discussion are very high quality: much stronger than the type of exchange we tend to generate at out megameetings.  This has been, perhaps, the most gratifying part of the experience for us.

Third, might 90 minutes be too long?  Given the short amount of time that most academics get to discuss their work, we wondered if we could provide an environment where actual conversations could emerge – online, among strangers.  

Scheduling the sessions for 1½ hours proved a good decision.  The conversations are engaging, content-rich, insightful, occasionally funny and quite useful – not just for the presenter but for all that observe the interaction.  Individuals come away with a sense of how the presenter as well as other participants think but also how one responds, how research designs are structured, how data is collected and how results are written - all of the components of a decent research paper.  

The conversations also seem to have an interesting rhythm to them.  The beginning typically leads to partial immersion, followed by a bit of a lull, then a deeper dive to full immersion, some reflection, some probing, and then at about the hour mark there is often something of a 7th inning stretch, after which the full energy returns for the final twenty five minutes, and we almost always ending up cutting off the conversation due to time rather than having it “run out of steam.”  

We have also encountered the standard sorts of diversity that confront science.  In an October 2013 blog post, Moore lamented a particularly lopsided gender session, and reviewed the numbers to date.  Our process has become one where Moore takes the lead generating a list of six people to invite as Discussants and a list of four to six “alternates” to pursue as we get declines.  Davenport then reviews, and revises the list.  Given that the two of us, who are male, participate, we have found that four women and two men in our initial six works best for striking a gender balance.  We also try to get at least one full Professor and two other tenured faculty, filling out the roster with Assistant profs and PhD students.  We also like to find at least one person who is from a different field (generally Economics, Sociology or Psychology).  And we want our panel of discussants to represent different subfields, research networks, and so on.  Did we mention race?  Language? The global south?  The fact that the time of day systematically excludes Asia is an issue as well (which is asleep at the time of our e-event)?

That sounds like a fun set of dimensions to maximize, right?  Needless to say, we do not maximize that multi-dimensional space.  Instead, we start with a list of names, eyeball our criteria, and start cutting and adding, cutting, and adding people (sometimes searching our CC Member List, Google Scholar, References of papers, and so on).  It is a very seat-of-the-pants (or skirt) process, and hopefully we haven't sucked at it.


To CCVW and Beyond!

With two year's experience under our belt we are pleased with where the CCVW is.  And we have begun to seek out other uses for the virtual format.  One extension concerns what we call “Data Features.”  Deviating from the standard workshop, these will involve a short data presentation, but immediately afterwards we will open the “floor” for an invited panel to ask questions about how the data were collected, what could be done with it, what has been done with it and what would they have done differently or next.  

Another extension acknowledges that megaconference panels that actually “work” are frequently just too brief, and that there is really no reason why we could not continue these conversations off-site and online.  We are calling these “Conflict Consortium Continua” as the presentations and conversations should be thought of as moving along a continuum of interaction.  We will be adding these to the mix over the next year.  We also discuss additional extensions, and welcome your ideas and feedback.  


Please Steal this Idea

In closing, we hope that others will follow our lead, launch virtual workshops for their communities, and produce even better innovative public goods for nurturing research.  Indeed, the Legislative Studies Virtual Workshop and Virtual IPES are already up and running.  The International Methods Colloquium offers another model.  Some will want to invest their energy in changing the existing megaconferences, and there is nothing wrong with that (basically).  This said, we hope to see more entrepreneurs thinking of novel ways to leverage communications technologies in the service of the production of scientific knowledge.  As the voice-over for old tv show The Six Million Dollar Man so presciently reminded us, “We have the technology.”  Now it is time to use it.


This post is cross-posted at Analog (the anti-blog) and Will Opines.

As I prepare for the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan political violence of 1994 (i.e., the genocide, the interstate war, the civil war and the other forms of activity that are not easily named), I am reminded of earlier correspondence and how the modern period conceives of communication as well as what researchers must/need not respond to. EJ: Cue Rocky theme. You don't need the link.  It's in your head already.

For example, out of the blue on June 2012, I received the following email:

Dear Professor Davenport,

In 2009 you co-authored an article with Professor Allan Stam, published in the Miller-McCune magazine. The article, “What Really Happened in Rwanda,” addressed the controversy that has surrounded your research on Rwanda since you presented your findings at a genocide conference in Kigali in 2003. In the Miller-McCune article you explain that, although your research was well intentioned and you never denied that a genocide took place, you and Mr. Stam have been labelled as genocide deniers.  

On your GenoDynamics website, you present some ‘highlights’ of the debate over your research. These include a 2004 press release containing some of your conclusions, as well as a Reuters article that you claim was inaccurate and responsible for the resulting controversy. In addition, you have posted what you say are more careful and accurate media reports on your research. You also offer some ‘reflections of others about the hornet’s nest that [you] stepped into.’

I was, however, quite shocked to find that you present Keith Harmon Snow’s article “Hotel Rwanda: Hollywood and the Holocaust in Central Africa” and Edward Herman’s article “Genocide Inflation is the Real Human Rights Threat” as ‘reflections.’ The work of Keith Harmon Snow and Edward Herman on Rwanda involves a brazen denial of the 1994 genocide against the Tutsi, and the articles that you refer to are emblematic of the denialist discourse these authors have propounded in various publications.

Harmon Snow, for example, has presented his virulent reading of what ‘really happened’ in Rwanda in numerous articles, such as “The US Sponsored ‘Rwandan Genocide’ and its Aftermath,” and “The Rwanda Hitlist: Revisionism, Denial and the Genocide Conspiracy.” According to Harmon Snow, the pre-planned genocide against the Tutsi is a myth; he further argues that “if anyone planned genocide in Rwanda, it was the RPF, and only the RPF.” Edward Herman’s book The Politics of Genocide, which was co-authored with David Peterson, presents a similar account of what happened. It essentially turns the victims of the genocide into perpetrators, making them responsible for their own annihilation. Herman and Peterson openly argue that there was no organized genocide of Tutsi. Instead they state that “the RPF was the only well-organized killing force within Rwanda in 1994.”

These accounts reject the overwhelming weight of scholarship on Rwanda, which concludes that Hutu extremists organized and perpetrated a genocide against the Tutsi population, including Hutu that were opposed to the “Hutu Power” regime. Not surprisingly, Keith Harmon Snow and Edward Herman have denounced such scholarship as mere propaganda that misrepresents what really happened in Rwanda, claiming it is one of the most widely misunderstood events in contemporary history.

In the wake of the genocide against Tutsi in Rwanda, those involved in organizing and implementing the genocide developed a sophisticated ideological discourse aimed at denying their genocidal actions. While not able to deny the occurrence of an episode of mass violence, their discourse aimed at effectively denying the genocide by reinterpreting the event and its essential reality. The narrative account of Keith Harmon Snow and Edward Herman on Rwanda is deeply dangerous, because it recycles much of this denialist discourse.

The fact that you present the accounts of Keith Harmon Snow and Edward Herman as ‘reflections’ raises significant questions about how to interpret your own research and findings. Although you point out that your research does not seek to deny the genocide against the Tutsi, the articles you cite as ‘reflections’ do involve a blatant denial of that genocide.

Given that Harmon Snow and Herman have cited your work in their own publications, I must ask: do you agree with the accounts they present? Or, do you consider that their analyses misrepresents your research and its findings? If so, why do you lend these figures credibility by posting their ‘reflections’, and why do you not decisively distance yourself from their denialist conclusions?

I would be grateful for any comments you could supply to me – on the record, as I am researching these issues for future publications.

Yours sincerely,
 
Some random law student I never met (not his real name)


Interesting read, huh?  Remind you of your recent emails?  Well, three things I immediately found interesting. 

First, Mr. random law student did not quite catch my use of the word "reflections".  On the webpage, we had 7 categories (the 5th is what he is referencing):

  1) What we said/what we wrote (“Rwandan Genocide, 10th Anniversary: Correcting 
        the Record ”)
    2) The poorly researched and inaccurate Reuters Article that started all the controversy 
         (“Rwanda Killings weren’t Genocide”)
    3) The more careful efforts that came closer to what we actually said (“Correcting the 
         Record”)
    4) The most careful examination of the topic offered in the print media (Genocide +  
         Politicide)
    5) Reflections of others about the Hornet’s nest that we stepped into:
    6) Emails received by GenoDynamics (Samples)
    7) A Continuation of the Controversy undertaken by others

By the use of the word "reflection", I was not suggesting anything about the work itself.  Indeed, I was simply collecting everything that referenced our research, putting it into categories regarding how the work was used.  Some simply quoted what we said, some discussed the controversies raised by our work, some "reflected" on the findings and thought about what they might have meant, none attempted to actually provide any systematic evaluations of their own of the data compiled and offered on our webpage.  

Second, this piece was like many others.  They acknowledge that we did not deny the genocide, the author nevertheless wishes to push us to distance ourselves from those that do - although of course we never actually support or acknowledge the work.  We just reference who mentioned it.

Third, I found the email a bit…. well…. rude.  I was kind of used to that after the controversy sparked by disclosures of research at the 10th anniversary as well as growing up in New York city. Nevertheless, I thought that I did not want to respond to the individual for they seemed a lot less interested in discussing facts than attacking.  Why try to engage in a civil conversation with such a person?

Nevertheless, I responded on June 11th of that same year:

Mr. Random Student (not my actual greeting),

I am in the process (with Prof. Stam) of clarifying our position relative to the others you have mentioned in your email.  In brief, the webpage that you reference (which is currently being revised) listed articles largely in simplistic categories: those that outright attacked us without considering anything that was compiled/analyzed and those that appeared to "reflect" on what we said at least to some extent.  As much of this discussion has not been scholarly (i.e., based on the rigorous compilation and evaluation of evidence) we have tended to avoid most of it and proceeded to finish the book which should be done next year.  As we complete the manuscript, then we will turn to addressing the issues you raise.

Sincerely

Christian Davenport


To this, Mr. random student responded on June 22nd:

Dear Professor Davenport,
 
My reply comes somewhat belatedly, but the nature of your response has set me thinking. Although I am grateful for your quick reaction to my letter, I have to admit that I am deeply disappointed by the cursory nature of your reply, which does not in any way answer the questions that I have posed.

In your reaction to my letter, you explain that you are in the process (with Prof. Stam) of writing a book that clarifies your position relative to the others I have mentioned in my letter. You furthermore make clear that you will address my questions sometime next year once the manuscript has been finished. I however cannot understand why you do not directly answer the questions that I have posed. The questions address a serious issue, which is related to your research and therefore call for an immediate answer.

It may well be the case that your website is ‘under revision’, but in one of your ‘simplistic categories’ you do mention the work of Keith Harmon Snow and Edward S. Herman as ‘reflections.’ Their work on Rwanda entails some of the most brazen denial of the genocide against the Tutsi I have ever seen. As a scholar, in what way could you possibly ‘clarify your position’ relative to them other than by denouncing their genocide denial and by distancing yourself from their denialist endeavour?

In your reaction, you state that “as much of this discussion has not been scholarly (i.e., based on the rigorous compilation and evaluation of evidence) we have tended to avoid most of it.” I think that instead of ignoring such ‘discussion’ on what happened in Rwanda, you should have acted, because these authors do draw on your work to present a very questionable alternative version of history. Genocide denial is an intrinsic part of the genocidal process and genocide scholars have the responsibility to critically address such denial, especially if it makes use of one’s scholarly work. 

I therefore ask you again: do you agree with the accounts that Keith Harmon Snow and Edward S. Herman present? Or do you consider that their analyses misrepresent your research and its findings? If so, why do you lend them credibility by posting their ‘reflections’, and why do you not decisively distance yourself from their denialist conclusions?

I kindly urge you to answer the abovementioned questions – on the record, as I am researching these issues for future publications. Note that I too have a pressing deadline for publication and I cannot wait another year for an answer to these questions. I do, however, hope that it is not my deadline but the seriousness of the issue at hand which calls for a clear response that motivates you to answer the questions posed.

Yours sincerely,

random law student


As I was traveling at the time and without access to an internet connection, I did not see this original email until some time later. Indeed, I did not see it until returning after the summer (in late August) when I received the following:

Dear Professor Davenport,
 
A few weeks ago, on the 22nd of June to be precise, I replied to your email (see letter posted below). However, to date, I have not received an answer from you and I therefore want to confirm with you whether you received my email/letter in good order.
 
Yours sincerely,
 
random law student


Now, this series of emails raised a few issues for me:  

1) I was busily trying to work through a book manuscript, some articles, teaching and advising and did not really have the time to stop, carefully read the email as well as the work that it was referencing and respond.  

2) The initial email was sent during the summer (when I was not "working") and thus I was not as diligent as I normally would be going through my email. At that time, I was receiving somewhere between 50-100 emails a day and frankly I was not able to get through them all.  This is when I started to include the following under my email signature:

Email Rules of Engagement

- I receive between 75-100 emails per day and thus I might miss an individual email; if you have not heard from me in 3-5 days, resend (no offense taken or intended);
- I prefer direct human engagement and thus my emails are probably shorter than you expect or perhaps desire; and,
- Please use the Subject line to assist me in understanding how I can assist you (recall the 75-100 msgs)

3) I had not read Herman and Peterson or Snow's research and did not want to respond to something I had not read.  At that time, I only saw the short references that they made to the work in news articles and on the internet.  I still have not finished this book but plan on doing so by the end of March. The idea that I would stop what I was doing and read a non-university press book that I had not previously heard of before I finished my academic case load to help this person emailing me to do their research for them was a bit odd, I thought. In fact, if I were to assist them, I would be doing them a favor and why would I do someone a favor who approached me in this manner? I usually go by my mother's conception of etiquette (discussed another time) and this person was way off the mark.  But, what would Budha do?  Charles Tilly?  KRS-One?  You?  

4) I found the person emailing me a bit aggressive and reflected (yeah I am using the word again) on how the exchange would have gone if they were in my face.  Needless to say, I don't believe that they would be quite as forthright.  E-exchanges are very different from real ones. This was also just a bad email.  According to the article "Writing Effective Emails", one should use the subject line informatively, ask clearly for one thing and be clear on what response you would like. The subject line was "Questions Concerning Research on Rwanda", which is informative but does not conform to the more reasonable one topic at a time principle as I would have to read material that I had not previously read as well as write something that I had not intended to write.  Now, I acknowledge that the authors of the effective email piece also note that one should "go through your inbox regularly and respond as appropriate" but this is just not realistic.  We just receive far too much email now and with the constant stream something is always likely to be missed.  But I need not go on.  I have already addressed my opinions about email elsewhere.

5) I thought about if I had a responsibility to respond and I thought that no, I did not - either to the person emailing me or Herman and Peterson's work for that matter.  In the first case, the individual was somewhat rude and I thought that if someone emailing you had violated some general sense of respect and decency, then they were no longer someone that you needed to communicate with.  It was like, just because I send you an email, you need to respond to me.  And I was like: actually, no I don't.  In the second case, I felt that as a researcher, I had a responsibility to produce the best possible scholarship that I could and then release it to the world so that they can check my work, use it or not check it or use it.  I put it into the marketplace of ideas and the market decides what to do with it.  I am no longer responsible for how it is used any more than the makers of hammers are responsible for what people build with their tools.  Indeed, after it is sold in the store, the hammer no longer belongs to the manufacturer. The individual who "owns it" is responsible.  Now, I am not punting here. If the hammer is defective, then the manufacturer is responsible. But, if my hammer/dataset is sound, then that is where my role is done.  

I may still respond to Herman and Peterson as well as the scholars that have attacked their work referencing mine in passing (e.g., Adam Jones). From what I have read thus far, Herman and Peterson are not empirically-oriented and thus did not complete understand what we did in creating the data that was discussed. In their defense, however, they were not interested in understanding data collection, conflict/casualty estimation, causal inference or social science. They seemed interested in trying to validate particular, politically-charged causal relationships - something that we did not do because the data did not allow it. What we did was use all information available to create a reasonable estimation of casualties as well as battle fronts and draw a reasonable conclusion regarding the relationship between the two: i.e., that increases in the violence corresponded to movements forward of the Rwandan Patriotic Front's troops.  We did not speculate on why this correlation existed or the broader point of what it meant.  Herman and Peterson did speculate on the meaning - as they are free to do in a democracy and generally free society. Others (like Adam Jones) speculate on the meaning as well - as they are also free to do.  Unfortunately, these others are also non-empirically oriented scholars that do not properly understand the intricacies of data collection, conflict/casualty estimation, causal inference or diverse aspects of social science. Again, in their/his defense, they were not interested in doing this.  

Accordingly, as neither party seemed to be interested in the business of collecting evidence, rigorously assessing theoretically derived hypotheses in as transparent a fashion as possible and drawing reasonable conclusions, which was my objective, I felt no responsibility to respond to them (until now I suppose). Similar to the random student, I felt no necessity to communicate for we were not engaged in the same enterprise or sometimes on the same planet.  Sticks and stones (Jones) should have the same impact as flowers and candy (Herman and Peterson).

Now, this said, I do feel a responsibility to communicate with and have a genuine interest in communicating with those that wish to collect evidence in a rigorous, valid and reliable manner, test this evidence with an appropriate technique, discuss the findings of said evaluations and then think about the implications of these results. Individuals that are interested in these topics, will always find a timely, thorough and civil response when they contact me.  EJ: Cue some Sade...

With about a month to go, it will be interesting to see what the future brings in terms of discussion regarding Rwanda, research and responsiveness in communication.   But, as I am not actually sending this email myself but through some proxy who is doing this through my account as I attend to some related research matters in preparation for April, I think that I have learned a little something from the past and look forward to what is about to happen as the 20th anniversary of Rwanda 1994 approaches.  EJ: Cue up the appropriate Jay-Z…  

It is coming: the 20th anniversary of the Rwandan violence of 1994 (i.e., the interstate war, the civil war, the genocide, the sexual violence and some random wilding or, the genocide and civil war - depending upon who you are listening to).  Yes, it has been 20 years
and yes it is going to be quite something.  Much has happened over the last 20 years and much has happened over the last 10 as it relates to what we have come to understand about what happened. Some of it is consistent but much of it is not. We will get to more of that as the event approaches.  Look for the relaunch of www.genodynamics.com - your one-stop research site for the rigorous study of Rwandan political violence of 1994.

For now, I wanted to set forth some things that you should consider whenever anyone (including me) starts to talk about the topic. View them as the 12 things to help you understand Rwandan Political Violence as you read/see anything over the next few weeks on the internet, in newspapers, on tv, in magazines, on blogs as well as tweets:

1) What type of violence is being discussed: e.g., interstate war, civil war, genocide, sexual violence, random violence?  These have different definitions (e.g., see Meredith Sarkees and Frank Wayman and the late David Singer, Doug Lemke and David Cunningham, the late Charles Tilly or this cool special issue relevant to the topic), different causes and different implications.

2) When did the violence of interest start and how far back should one look for an origin - what date specifically?  One could start looking in April 1994, 1990, 1959, the early 1900s or during the formation of Rwanda-Burundi (they were lumped together in the beginning).

3) Who was involved in the conflict and who participated in the different forms of violence?  People tend to just combine actors together glossing over important differences: All Hutus, all Tutsis, Northern Hutus, Central Hutus, Tutsi that were in Rwanda prior to 1994, Tutsi that were outside of Rwanda after 1960.

4) Where were these people in the beginning of april and why?  In Kigali, in Washington DC, in Paris, in Detroit, in Uganda, in Butare, in Kibuye, etc.

5) Who benefitted the most from conflict and violence?  Strange to think about it but people do not engage in violence unless they get something out of it.  What did people get though: e.g., money, safety, territory/property, friendship, psychological satisfaction, banana beer or a combination of factors?  Did motives/benefits shift over time?

6) Who acted from positions of "strength" (i.e., they had choices, were conscious of what they were deciding, had resources and tactical advantage via weaponry/training) and positions of "weakness"?  Some actors might have been coaxed/conned/intimidated into acting.  Some might have known precisely what they were up to.

7) What evidence is one using to answer the questions above and where does it come from?  Researchers could use surveys, a census, newspapers, human rights records, government reports, satellite, forensic records, interviews and focus groups. Remember, stating is not the same as proving, all methods have advantages/ disadvantages. A good piece will tell you what they did, how they did it, what is good about what was done and what is deficient.  This is important because almost all people know as well as any avid viewer of the tv show Law and Order: Special Victims will attest: eyewitness testimony is highly problematic. This is the principle source of information regarding most events in Rwanda.  There must be discussion about what efforts were taken to assure that this human testimony was validated in some way.

8) Is there an alternative account of relevant events and was this considered in any way shape or form?  We must all be careful about being led down a particular pathway as a function of what source we choose to believe.  Ian Lustick warns us about this problem in his: "History, Historiography, and Political Science: Multiple Historical Records and the Problem of Selection Bias".  

9) What is the perspective, position and potential bias of the author/speaker (connection to perpetrators, victims, rebels, governments).  I talk about this in my book "Media Bias, Perspective and State Repression" but Akira Kurosowa does a much better illustration in his brilliant film Rashomon.

10) What was done (specifically) and against whom?  Now, you figure that this would be the first thing I would mention but part of the difficulty in prior research and discussion is that we did not seriously address the issues mentioned above. One cannot address this question until they have addressed the ones above and you should not trust anyone who does not address them.

11) How did violence progress and move throughout the country?  This helps us better understand who did what to whom and why but it also helps us understand where help is/was needed as well as who got services.
 
12) Does the relevant piece mention what has transpired in and around rwanda since 1994 in terms of prosecutions for crimes, other violent behavior (e.g., invasions, purges, assassinations, questionable deaths), political development, democratization/ autocratization, asylum and migration? If they do, please remember to ask the first 9 questions of this work as well.

More on Rwanda coming coon.  

As my mom will attest, I have not been a fan of President Obama.  On his watch, people have been killed and tortured, a beheaded behavioral challenger's body was virtually paraded around the minds of millions, civil liberties restrictions have continued, the poor have been kind of skirted and the difficulties with the criminal justice system have been short-changed.  I have also noticed that he has kept his distance from black folk.  Now, I did not expect him to embrace Jesse Jackson, Kanye West or Chokwe Lumumba (the last is a recently deceased black nationalist by the way), bring Kwanza to the Senate (blackening it up for a day) or put up a 24-hour basketball court on the front lawn (not desired) but I did not expect him to roll the way he did.  

Different discussion though (I can feel my mom scowling).  Today is a good day because of a photo - perhaps THE photo of his presidency as far as I am concerned.  Actually, the article is ok as well. By the way, the picture is on page one, right in the middle of the page. This is one reason for getting actual hard copies and not the online version.

Look at the picture.  He is surrounded by young black men (almost completely).  He is partially embracing one as if to say, I got you brother.  He is leaning in and having heard the man speak hundreds of times, you know he is saying something inspirational. The others look on and in this photo I am calmed and made a little hopeful (a bit, for a second). There just have not been (m)any photos like this over the course of the presidency.

Now, I'm not calmed or made hopeful by what the Prez actually said per se, which is something that should be discussed widely.  Indeed, the caption for the article is kind of intriguing, noting that Obama speaks uncharacteristically about his missteps as a youth as if to suggest that all black men have missteps being the problems that they are.  Reading between the lines you could think that if you follow what the Prez has to say (ummmmm growing up in Hawaii and going to Harvard), then things will all work out fine and you could become president.  Ok.  

Regardless, I am alright with this because there is now a photo that can be decontextualized and used to uplift individuals so that they can feel incorporated in some way. Yes, the context does not matter.  The photo is now part of the public record.  It will be used, downloaded, tweeted, reimaged, cropped and photo chopped thousands of times  And, that is perfectly fine.  People can do whatever they want to their images.  I'm going to leave mine just like this.  

Note: Between 1999-2004 I traveled around Rwanda during research. Many things happened on my trips and it is only now that I start to share them.


Karinne (as usual not her real name) appeared to be into everything.  She was in three educational programs in five different countries.  She was co-Director of two centers.  She was writing several articles for journals and generals alike on women, democracy, civil society, new media, public spheres, genocide, women and genocide, democracy and women, civil society and genocide, truth and reconciliation, reconciliation and genocide – you get the point.  Unfortunately for Karinne, she did all this poorly.  Stretched too thin, all efforts seemed to be half-hearted. 

Now, this is not to say that Karinne was incapable of learning or alternatively teaching.  Rather, she had no interest in learning how to do anything correctly because that would just slow her down and cut into her profit margin.  All Karinne had to do was a little of everything regardless of quality because in Rwanda at the time there was a lot of nothing - not nothing nothing for there were a great number of initiatives underway; just nothing completed or completely working.  In addition to this, there was a lot of people, sympathy as well as money coming to the country in order to help get something, anything started.  And it came from all corners of the globe, it came – almost daily via envelopes, packages, Western Union, UPS, Fedex, Horses and Buggies. 

The desire to send was clear.  Individuals felt guilty about not doing anything. Collectively we had failed to do anything about the violence. We could not sit back and not do anything about the aftermath. Individuals also wanted to be part of the redevelopment.  But where should their support go - I mean where exactly do you send the check?  Rwanda was still a mystery to most of the world.  They knew killing fields but nothing about survivors and their institutions.  As a result, two areas became focal points of attention: governments and universities.  The reason was simple: both had webpages and could easily be found.  In a vacuum of misunderstanding, guilt and ignorance, those with these resources COULD clean up.  Karinne was one of them.  

Hers was a no limited enterprise.  Indeed, her reach was global.  She pimped all masterfully and in the most fabulously adorned outfits imaginable – day in and day out.  “Need an interpreter for your survey?”  “No problem,” in Yellow.  “Need some researchers to do some archival work?”  “No problem,” in Green.  “Need a little essay on women?”  “No Problem,” in Purple and Red.  “Need a little lecture to be given in Norway or Belgium or Toronto?”  “No Problem,” in Pink.  It just kept coming. I have seen some deep closets in my day.  My childhood friend Kadeem Hardison's mom ran a modeling agency so you got to see all types of clothes - on models, in designer's studios, in draft form, on the floor - everywhere.

Now, this all stood out prominently for slowly emerging from the ravages of civil war, genocide, regime change and chronic underdevelopment, Rwandans were generally broke.  Actually "dead broke" would be the more appropriate but less sensitive phrase.  The average Rwandan was partially clothed, shoeless and struggling to survive.  If they did not have clothes, they were either obtained from the local market which carried a limited assortment of designs, materials and colors or from a group swap-meet which offered a slightly greater variety.  In context, the clothing and general attitude made sense and it was also quite reasonable that folks kinda did what they had to do in order to do what they had to do.  Much respect.

Karinne was one of the better-off returnees however – representing a completely different Rwandan entirely.  She had some education, some life experience outside the country, some travel, some languages (more than the two or three that indigenous Rwandans had).  She also came with a West African sensibility: loud, colorful, boisterous, energetic and busy.  In contrast, indigenous Rwandans were generally mellow, subdued, noble, quiet – traumatized a little or just shy (not many have come this far into the continent).  It was almost my sixth trip to Rwanda before I heard a loud noise (that is the source of another story).  

Now the disjuncture between Rwandans did not go unnoticed. Because of the obvious gaming (playing all against all) and general inefficiency of Karinne, she developed quite an international reputation.  In airports in Amsterdam, cafes in Belgium and conferences in Maryland, stories abound about the colorful woman running the center and a private fiefdom at the University.  To the new and the men, she was inept but charming.  To the women, she was aggressive, dismissive but with flawless skin.  I heard of grant projects that were simultaneously being submitted to and funded by different organizations.  The same work with different funds.  We all just shook it off, acknowledging our naiveté, the price of doing business and figuring that sooner or later she would get hers.  She did this, consistently however – that is get hers.  There were no come-uppins though just go-downins to the endless pit that was her perfectly matching purse.  

In post-genocide Rwanda, there was always another NGO, another aid agency, another academic ready to pay for some information, another journalist wanting to do an expose on the striving Rwandan, another student, another intrepid soul seeking forgiveness for having stood by when the horror struck this little country. Karinne was able to suck all of them up like some empathetic vortex.  Out of the other end, we came out simultaneously warmed that we had attempted something, pissed that we did not achieve what we wanted, confused at where all the money went, relaxed that more time, resources as well as energy was not spent and frustrated that we were not able to complain to any one – accept those at the bar in Kenya who recently escaped Karinne’s grasp. 

All this for me was very familiar.  Karinne reminded me of every kid back on the block in New York city in the 1980s.  Afrika Bambatta said it best: 

• Looking for the perfect beat (Searching for the perfect beat)
  
• Looking for the perfect beat (Seeking for the perfect beat)
  
• I must get mine (I'm out to get it)
  
• I must get mine (I'm out to get it)
  

Or, you could go the New Jack City route.  Same vibe.  Different medium.

It was all home to me though.  As one looked out into the city - a fierce creature that waited either to reveal some wondrous vision and/or to rob you blind, one got very adept at looking for the vulnerable, the confused, the lost.  This made "transactions" a little easier.  I recalled one of my cousins rolling up on me at one point in the Bowery where I was not used to hanging out (I went for a pair of jeans around Canal Street but ventured to far in).  He stepped in front of me while two of his "associates" pulled up on the side and back of me. Given my height, I was completely hidden.  He looked me up and down and asked me for my watch.  I thought that I would get my ass handed to me by my father if I gave it up, as it had just been given to me and although scared to death, I would rather take the ass whipping from them. While they searched for their next move, I looked up and thought that the person looked familiar.  I then said his name and the two associates immediately walked away.  I was like, it's me, your cousin - your mom's sister's son.  

After that, it was as if the weather changed.  His face turned into a bright smile of acknowledgment and then he told me to watch out because there were folks who would take advantage.  He then pulled me over to the side of the street just in time to observe his associates helping a lost soul return their wallet to the "rightful owner".  For the next few hours, he schooled me on why he chose me and how I was walking through the street.

Karinne must have had the same sensibility of my cousin.  She smelled us coming off the plane, walking into the cafe and popping up at the University.  Fresh meat.  Mark.  You had to admire her though.  Game respects game as it were and she had plenty.  Of course after a long day of coding something or having an interview with someone that massacred their family, I wondered who would have come out victorious if Karinne were to meet my cousin, kind of like some non-celebrity death match show.  An international Hustlers ball.  I think she would take him.  H-U-S-T-L-E-R…..

I have been around gay men my whole life.  Specifically, gay black men.  The reason: my family was and is in the arts: e.g., dance, TV and film (my mother was respectively in things like Alvin Ailey, the Ed Sullivan Show as well as The Wiz) and music (my stepmother ran a record company or two). And, yes, in line with the stereotype, there is an abundance of gay males in general and gay black males in particular within the arts (luckily, in my opinion).  We all benefit from their light, talent and energy. 

Now, because of my upbringing, very early I developed what is referred to popularly as “Gaydar” -- the ability to detect a gay man.  I am not as gifted with detecting gay or bi-women, which would have been helpful while clubbing in New York City in my younger days but with a guy: give me about a minute and I'll tell you what the deal is (or not).

Now, I go into this because there are many brothers within Rwanda that are ummmmmm…. "closeted" (in the shade/shaded), in my opinion. These brothers are not "in the jungle" or "in the bush", to be clear - suggesting some crass primitivism. The logic of this position is straightforward: the continent is not the best place for homosexuals and, in my opinion, in Rwanda there is a whole country that's trying to keep the reality of gay Rwanda hidden.  Indeed, I have heard and seen denial before but the degree of resistance to even the possibility of homosexuality in Rwanda during my travels there was astounding.

When asked about the idea of a gay black man in Rwanda, I was told “no, we don't have THEM here” and “no, they’re are NONE in Rwanda.”  Yes, like it was the plague or something.  Direct quote.  Hand to the universe. On my travels, I constantly heard this.  Pushed to the edge of reason and thinking about what every gay, black, male friend of mine would have said to such an assertion, I pushed and finally had one person admit that there might be at least one or two homosexuals in the whole country but that was a major admission after some alcohol. Right after my colleague said this though he added: they had better not to get caught.  Seriously.  Truth be told, the conversation caused my colleague to get mad at me, like I was calling him a "barbarian" or "underdeveloped" or something because of how they (he and his country) were handling their homosexuality issue.  It was like he was Archie Bunker on crack with a side arm, walkie-talkie, explosive, machete (of course), a german shepherd and access to more of the same.

The evidence for the possibility of a few homosexuals in Rwanda was clear - at least to me.

First, men and women do not generally show affection to one another -- especially in the rural context. No hugging, holding of hands or kissing.  Men and women however can show affection within their respective groups.  Men, in particular, can and do walk hand-in-hand as well as arm in arm with each other down the road in the center of town without anyone caring. This practice was particularly problematic when Rwandans traveled abroad. For example, in America (where the last Tutsi king lives), I am told that he is often seen walking arm in arm with one of his “friends.”  Of course to those in the US, it was simply assumed that they were a couple.  Not that there's anything wrong with that but this is how it looked to neighbors. This was also problematic when someone I considered a friend, naturally swooped their hand to mine and started walking down the street.  Now, while I agree that we were friends and appreciated the Rwandan acknowledgment of such, I still was a bit uncomfortable about what it meant in my context and what it meant to the other mizungus.  This was not an issue of being homophobic (which because of my upbringing I am not).  Rather, it was an issue of being seen as having “gone native” – something especially frowned upon by non-anthropologists.  To have an air of legitimacy in the academia and as a researcher in the field, one had to have an air of empathy, sympathy but also a little distance.  But, I digress. 

My second piece of evidence for the gay Rwandan is that there was an observation of the occasional male prostitute hanging out with the female ones, eyeing the male mizungus. How did I know he was gay?  Well, I mentioned my Gaydar was pretty good but, aside from this, the mascara, swishing of the hips, slicked back hair, crotch-hugging jeans and glossy lips were a big hint.  Leaving with the gay white mizungu was another one.  The gay mizungu was even easier to identify.  Also, on this one particular occasion, there was a straight male prostitute standing right next to the gay one and the comparison was pretty simple to make.  Presumably, if there's at least one gay prostitute for mizungus, there must be at least one gay man in Rwanda.  Just saying.

Third, men hang out with one another all the time and are quite comfortable with one another, everywhere and at occasionally high levels of intimacy.  It does make sense as far as I'm concerned that relationships would emerge.  For example, men chill in saunas buck naked and real close.  Men constantly rubbed oil on each other at the pool and dancing with each other at nightclubs where women would never go unless they were prostitutes. Now, I do not believe that every woman is a prostitute but mizungus are a constant draw for this type of woman and they always appeared to be wherever they congregated.  In addition to that, single women never seemed to go to such places, leaving the environment all male, all the time.  Now, I am also not saying that every man dancing together in a Rwandan nightclub is gay.  Heck, by that category everyone dancing at Danceteria, Area and the Paladium back in New York when I grew up would be gay - which actually might be possible (except for me as well as my club buddy at the time - Parnell) and thus that is a bad example but hopefully you get my point. 

The epitome of the comfort/familiarity/intimacy phenomenon of which I speak is observable by watching men occasionally sit on each others laps in a bar.  Again, this in and of itself does not suggest homosexuality but the response to such familiarity and comfort did suggest homophobia, which I took as an indication that homosexuality was possible. How can you be homophobic is there is no homosexuality? See what hoops one has to go through in order to address the topic.  For example, one evening I pointed out to my Rwandan host two men at some bar and asked him if sitting like that was common.  To this question, it was first denied that the man was sitting on his associate’s lap - at all.  This, however, was clear to everybody. There was no other place that would be as proximate to the individual's chest and groin that did not involve the lap. Now, you say: "of course, non-gay men could be sitting on each other's laps and hanging out".  Well, as I mentioned, my gaydar works pretty well and I could just tell: those brothers were GAY and fabulously so!  Upon acknowledging that my observation was legitimate, and this one guy was indeed sitting on his friend’s lap in a slightly gay-like manner, my Rwandan associate stood up, walked over to the host and complained. Several minutes later, there was no more lap sitting.  Shortly after the initial complaint, the two gentlemen were approached by the host (who whispered something to them) and they left the bar entirely.  After they left and my associate seemed to beam with a little tyrannical, homophobic pride, I wondered about whether or not and how badly I'd put the two guys at risk with my little observation. I had merely attempted to learn a bit more about Rwandan society, but quickly realized that there were just certain things that Rwandans did not want to know themselves or have visitors probe. At that point, I realized that "outing" in Africa was both possible as well as potentially dangerous. 

To be honest, I found all of this completely fascinating except for the two guys being asked to leave, which I found a bit horrifying.  (Note: I actually looked for them over the course of the next month to make sure that they were ok but never saw them again). The identification of Rwandan gayness as well as the denial was in large part interesting because it revealed important differences to the United States. The image of old-school, hyper-masculine aggressive youth with weapons, military fatigues, attempting to mount every female in sight still existed in the US but it is also countered by an equally open, flamboyant, bold, triumphant gayness which no one (at least not openly) would label as anything but male. One sees this in the amazing celebrations during gay pride celebrations in New York and San Francisco - perhaps some of the best parades and parties offered in America.  In Rwanda, however, gay men were not even allowed as an idea, let alone reality. There are no parades there but only charades. On this dimension (and perhaps a few others), the country wears the mask that grins and lies. Indeed, the strength with which they were denied their existence was perhaps as indicative of the tenuousness of control over the society as the openly, hyper masculine aggressive young men with weapons and military fatigues attempting to mount every female in sight which was not only clearly observable in Rwanda but largely celebrated.  Just as I could not imagine an America without its fabulous gayness, I could not imagine a Rwanda with one. 

Note: Between 1999-2004 I traveled around Rwanda during research. Many things happened on my trips and it is only now that I start to share them.

The hotel in Butare (the college town of Rwanda and second largest city) was sparkling white and it seemed the staff was bent on keeping it that way – literally.  They seemed to constantly be on their knees.  Every day they washed the floors, the walls and windows. As I walked down the hallway, porters and cleaners busily went about their business.  One needed sunglasses to walk by so as not to be blinded.

Breakfast was always the same.  Upon reaching the dining room, I made eye contact with the host, found a seat and within seconds was brought a pot of tea, milk as well as a bowl of white and brown sugar on a tray.  Now, interestingly, in this hotel you could never just get a cup with no milk and no sugar.  This was how they served it and there was no deviation.  If there were two of you, then you would each receive the same tray: a pot of tea, milk as well as a bowl of white and brown sugar.  There was no sharing: one pot, two cups.  I tried several times to modify the practice: identifying that the two different people could share the milk, the sugar and even the pot; noting that they could save their resources.  All this was to no avail, however; the exact same trays kept on coming.

The breakfast itself was pretty simple.  Pretty bland as well: white bread, jam, sweet bananas and some kind of peach-like fruit were available on a table in the center.  One could also order some pancake-like substance or some eggs – as long as they were boiled, you were ok.

The other guests seemed to arrive in shifts.  If you were an early bird you caught the older crowd: businessmen, military personnel and seasoned travelers getting a jump on the day.  The Rwandan work day is pretty short.  Also, if one wanted to get anywhere in Rwanda (avoiding the perilous high-speed journeys by moonlight), then they had to get started as soon as possible.  Later birds caught the younger crowd: tourists, idealistic anglo do-gooders from the far corners of the Western world.  After a relatively late night with some bizarre drink from Uganda, this morning I was sitting with the latter.  Alas, I have identified a third group: those who are recovering.

This day, I immediately noticed a new group of young people – they sat at a table in the middle of the room.  I sat at my usual corner table, started to pour my tea before getting some bananas.  Several glared in my direction – trying to ascertain my background but they were thrown off by my Kinyarwandan greeting to the host.

At that moment, Prof. Robert Bates (from Harvard) entered the room.  Now, in many respects Bob defines the stereotypical Africanist scholar to a tee: white hat, white suit, white person, upright, astonishingly aware of history – specific parts of it, people – certain classes and policies – most of them.  In other respects, he was about as different as it comes: he was kind, engaging, personable and interested in understanding the world around him.  Despite sticking out like a single grain of rice on a sea of black beans, it was clear that he was comfortable here.  It was also clear he was totally different from everything I had seen in Rwanda up to that time. 

Indeed, after leaving Kigali one rarely saw the color white at all – in any of its forms: skin or clothing.  At the Milles Collines (the hotel in the Hotel Rwanda and main spot in the capital), it was almost as if a white suit was the official costume (as if communicating that regardless of location, I will still be unsullied/untouched by the dirtiness of the place).  Bob seemed very untouched, floating into the room and toward his group of students.  We caught a glimpse of each other quickly and immediately he gave me the warmest of greetings.  He then turned, introduced me to the students and we all sat down.

The group was nothing short of amazing.  Evidently, Bob had been talking to his class about the Rwandan truth and reconciliation effort – Gacaca.  The students had decided that they wanted to help, they had contacted Rwandan authorities, generated some cash, got Bob’s assistance (who admitted to doing very little) and they traveled to Rwanda to assist in the process.  The group was diverse – I mean, they were all white and seemingly with means but there was some diversity among them (kinda).  One had lived in numerous African countries, another had never been to Africa before.  Most spoke English, French and a few other languages.  All had engaged in some kind of activism/advocacy before.  Compared to most of the kids I taught at the University of Maryland - where I has a Professor at the time (many of whom had never been out of the country and who engaged in little to no activism), I could hardly believe my ears.  The upper-crust arranged field trips to Africa.  The working-class slept in my political film class and haggled about when assignments were due. 

Now, clearly this is a simplification: I think all students haggle and I know for a fact that many of my students at Maryland upon hearing about Rwanda wanted to do something, anything.  They just did not take it to the level that these students did to find out what could be done and then make it happen.  They also did not/could not tap the resources of the school, parents, friends, multinational corporations in their family/circle or the Harvard alums to bank roll it.

I just sat there hating and admiring Bob's students while at the same time hating as well as loving my students.  As they rattled on about what they were doing and what they saw, I could only see and hear my kids – wondering how they would respond if they had the same opportunity, what they would see, what they would tell the others at home.

Now, exactly what the Harvard group would do to be helpful was unclear.  Hell, at that point, the Rwandans themselves were still trying to figure out what they were doing with Gacaca.  But all the students believed in it (some intensely), and their attitude was at once refreshing and alarming; Refreshing because the exuberance they showed made me happy to be alive and an American, which was rare; Alarming because, despite seeing many flaws, no guarantees of honesty or protection of witnesses, no investigation into anyone’s testimony, no coordination between sessions, the lack of evidence necessary to bring someone to court, their optimism seemed unqualified. 

I then thought that my students would not have been duped like this.  Their conception of the world was somehow more realistic about such matters.  Perhaps the water is clearer from the bottom of the pool. 

So, Dan Drezner put forward a cogent overview of the recent networking debate about whether or not as well as how political scientists should net work (in his Foreign Policy blog) and he made a few references to some things that merited some comment.  Here are the others in this series:
Posts: Dan Drezner, Dan Nexon, Erik Voeten
Counter-Posts: Laura Sjoberg, Me, Will Moore
Counter-Counter-Posts: Bear Braumoeller

I would argue that there is clearly a "good" approach to networking. I grew up around artists and entertainers. While this has not assisted me in many aspects of my academic career, I believe that it has assisted me with being comfortable talking with people and additionally being able to figure out what I should wear for the day. Dan (Drezner), who I was colleagues with and consider a friend, clearly has this ability as well (both meeting people and sartorialism).  Not everyone feels comfortable talking to strangers or even talking for that matter. Many in our profession also have some problems dressing themselves but that is the subject of another blog - the Academic Sartorialist?  

Despair not however. Individuals like Rom Harre have maintained that we each learn and communicate in slightly different ways. Some are best able to communicate/learn through words, some images, some equations, some sound. We now are beginning to live in an age where you can find your thing and use that as you exchange with others. In short, "everybody's got a little light under the sun".  You just need to find your spot. I do not envision an APSA or a political science where we just have small conversations going on in a large, poorly lit and frequently poorly designed room. This pushes and privileges a certain type of communication/interaction. Rather, I envision an APSA and political science where we have some conversation going on over there, some DJ over here, some 3D projection over here, some film over there, some performance art over here and some large lecture over there. 

Riffing off of Mos Def, people often speak of political science as if it some giant in the hillside or something, where we are just subject to what it does when it decides to come down from it's cave. But, we are political science! We can create what we want for/with this thing. Actually, Dan is a perfect example of this with blogging and Zombified-IR. I'm now working on/pushing for interactive data, film, archiving and animation work. What you wanna do? I think that many of us face a crisis of imagination regarding things like APSA and then get blocked on things like networking.  We don't send ourselves to professional meetings.  We send our representatives (props to [Erving] Goffman and [Chris] Rock). I think we need to start attending - if you get my meaning. Things need to be done to "feed the beast" as it were but we need to start making it our own and taking it where we want to go.

The idea I was trying to communicate in my initial blog is that our discipline is too internalized. We live largely in our heads and publishing venues but if we are to survive, thrive and indeed have any impact at all on our world (which I think we should), then we will need to change this. We begin by meeting and interacting with one another at places like APSA. Awkward it might be but we are much better off from the sense of community and contact that arises from this. For example, has anyone been to a Peace Science meeting? Anyone who has gone will attest to the fact that this is a much smaller meeting than APSA as well as one where you feel immediately accepted, appreciated and very much part of a family. APSA might be too big for this but we never interact with the whole meeting anyway. We stick to our primary interests, panels and people. Well, imagine the meeting in this way: APSA is simply an opportunity for communication, community and fellowship. We can shape it as we see fit.  We need to stop looking for this to emerge from the panels, workshops, business meetings and receptions put forward. There are an awful lot of hours in the day and many places in the cities that we are going to year after year. 

So, you might not be able to chat up the leading political scientists on the fly in some elevator for 30 seconds, but perhaps you have a short film in you that you place as your poster, in the hallway to catch people walking by, on your webpage or in a local bar - ever heard of Pechakucha presentations?  Perhaps you have a cool graphic that you can sport on your t-shirt or a musical composition that you play during your presentation or somewhere in the city where the conference is taking place - folks would come if you told them. Who wants to hang out in the lobby not knowing anyone when they could have some place to do.  Perhaps we should create a multi-media room: something like the old "paper rooms" where everyone deposited their papers for conferences but more allowing for creative diversity as well as more permanence than posters. 

Now, I am not just some extrovert who strangely became a political science or even an optimist - anyone who knows, meets and/or talks with me will readily communicate this to you. Rather, I believe that we have something to gain from interacting with one another at moments when "our people" congregate. Some of these things we have to gain are professional. Many, however, are not and this tends to get lost sometimes in our conversations.