Oromaner, M. (2016, August 24). Review of Globalizing knowledge: Intellectuals, universities, and publics in transformation, by M. D. Kennedy. Education Review, 23. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/er.v23.2056 August 24, 2016 ISSN 1094-5296 Kennedy, M. D. (2015). Globalizing knowledge: Intellectuals, universities, and publics in transformation. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. Pp. xviii + 406 ISBN: 978-0-8047-9343-8 Reviewed by Mark Oromaner New York City United States In a panel discussion of Globalizing Knowledge (Institute for Public Knowledge, New York University, April 24, 2015), Michael D. Kennedy began his remarks with the statement, “I defy anyone to write a simple book review.” As will be evident, this rewarding, wide reaching, scholarly, and challenging work does not lend itself easily to a “simple book review.” In addition, it does not provide simple answers. Although the term globalization itself is not a simple one and is used in different ways by different commentators and is “a terrible notion,” Kennedy takes the pragmatic approach, stating “its reference is inescapable in these times” (p. 9). Globalizing knowledge, “refers to the process by which distant regions’ knowledgeabilities are implicated in the particular cultures fusing those understandings” (p. 9). Knowledge may flow but it is always (re)articulated in particular and different historical and institutional contexts. http://dx.doi.org/10.14507/er.v23.2056 Education Review /Reseñas Educativas 2 One of his ultimate intentions is to lay the basis for “a cultural political sociology of knowledge and change” (p. xiv). In contrast to many current uses of the term “globalization” and its connotation of similarity, uniformity and inevitability, he uses the term “globalizing knowledge” to remind us that the flow of insights from one point to another is shaped by interests, tastes, prejudices, and power. I assume that Kennedy agrees with the editors of Knowledge matters: The public mission of the research university that: How well research universities will fare in coming years and in different contexts is up to debate. But it seems that clashing conceptions of their missions, both public and private, will be important. (Rhoten & Calhoun, 2011, p. xvi) Kennedy has contributed a paper to that collection on the globalization of the University of Michigan (Kennedy, 2011). In the work under review, he argues that countries such as India, China, and Brazil present global orders that differ from the ethnocentric one that Americans often assume has universal applicability. For him, “the last century’s globalization looks positively anachronistic” (p. 8). The popular work of the journalist Thomas L. Friedman is, of course, an example of such anachronistic thinking. We must recognize that knowledge does flow across nations and that there are critical differences in the ways in which that knowledge is understood. For instance, the issues concerning global survival, e.g., energy production and utilization, look different from the perspective of the richer nations of the north than from the perspective of poorer nations of the south. The Kennedy quote about knowledge and change will remind the reader of Marx’s famous and final (XI) thesis on Feuerbach: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it.” In this spirit, Kennedy’s final chapter is titled “Eleven Theses on Globalizing Knowledge.” His theses are introduced with the observation: “The knowledgeable have transformed the world with their process and products; the point, however, is to understand how that has happened so that change might itself be more knowledgeable” (p. 316). In his first chapter, Kennedy briefly situates his work among other theoretical works. However, he suggests that not all readers need to be concerned with these underpinnings. His position on the role of theory is that “while I enjoy theory, I am dedicated to implications for practice, but even in that, theory matters” (p. 10). A dedication to implications for practice leads naturally to the difficult issue of intellectual responsibility and the relationship between ideas and power. How do intellectuals and intellectual institutions, act in responsible ways toward their near and far publics when they are increasingly embedded in the world of power and funding? This is my formulation of challenges Kennedy raises in his second chapter titled “Responsibility: Intellectuals in worldly theory and practice.” The numerous and diverse cases that Kennedy analyzes to look for implications for practice reflect his diverse experience, learning, and scholarship. For instance, he cites 42 of his own single-authored publications, spanning the period 1987 – 2014. These range from the role of public sociology and intellectuals to examples from societies such as Kosova, Ukraine, Russia, Afghanistan, Poland, and the United States. He is professor of sociology and international studies at Brown University. Prior to that he was associated with the University of Michigan at which he taught sociology, served as vice provost for international affairs, and was professor of European and Eurasian studies. In addition to contacts within these universities and with colleagues in sociology and area studies, Kennedy benefited from networks supported by the Social Science Research Council and the Open Society Foundations. Review of Globalizing Knowledge by M. Oromaner 3 Kennedy’s home base, the university, is the lead institution in the globalization of knowledge; it employs many intellectuals, researchers, and scholars, and educates the employees of other increasingly significant knowledge institutions, e.g., think tanks, foundations, research organizations, corporations, and local, national and international agencies. One of the strengths of this book is that it reminds all of us that while universities are indispensible, at present, in terms of research and teaching functions, “Universities are not the only kind of knowledge institution, and, one might argue, are increasingly limited in their role” (p. 34). In addition, professors and universities increasingly form links with these other institutions. Kennedy’s association with the Social Science Research Council and with the Open Society Foundations, among others is an example of the former. An example of the latter, links between institutions, is provided by Breznitz (2014) in her comparative study of biotechnology transfers and economic development at Yale University and at Cambridge University. Universities worldwide have labeled themselves The Global University and have established global centers, global courses, global institutes, and branches or complete colleges in various countries. Given their interests, readers of this review will probably pay more attention to chapters 3 and 4 than to any other chapters. The first is devoted to an exploration of the nature of the global university, and the second uses the university as one example of Kennedy’s notions about publics. The process of globalizing American universities has, in Kennedy’s words, “a long pedigree” (p. 88). In last century the need to make students more cosmopolitan and the need for national security supported the development of “area studies.” Since the end of the last century the need for global understanding has become integral into the all components e. g., liberal arts, performing arts, of the university. A global emphasis has also been integrated into education and research in professional schools such as law, business, public health, urban planning, environmental studies, information science, and public policy. In line with his general thesis, Kennedy recognizes that these global transformations of universities are not inevitable, and will not occur without differences across, local, disciplinary, and professional cultures. A central concept for Kennedy is “public.” Traditionally this has referred to relatively local reference groups. In order to make this concept relevant to the globalized world he defines it “as a form of social interaction that depends above all on communication among participants of different proximities alongside their increasing self-awareness of that condition and its consequences” (p. 118). These are not structurally organized groups, e.g., classes, castes, but are “communicatively constituted.” The worldwide Occupy movement, e.g., Occupy Wall Street, had its own media and influenced individuals from various publics. It was especially successful in its communication with students and sympathetic faculty. These publics brought the Occupy movement critiques of the neoliberal university into the university in terms of courses, faculty scholarship, and the interests and projects of students. Kennedy identifies six publics for the ambitious global university (Table 4-3; p. 151). These range from the most proximate and taken-for-granted relationships (students, faculty, alumni, staff; university as investor, culture provider, contractor; university that is involved in civic affairs) to those relationships that are most distant and require some justification (global rankings, global problems and policies, partnerships with publics of choice). A recognition of the various more distant publics may force the global university “to develop a meaningful solidarity” (p. 153) with involved publics. Once again, Kennedy makes the point that we are always talking about active pluralized “publics” and not about a passive singular “public.” Education Review /Reseñas Educativas 4 Just as one must speak of “publics,” one must also speak of “contexts.” Kennedy uses the appearance of three national contexts, Poland, Kosova (Yugoslavia), and Afghanistan, and three disciplinary contexts, anthropology, international relations, and sociology to explore the inequality in the recognition of different nations in leading social science journals. For this review, the details of this research are not as significant as is Kennedy’s identification of language, the existence of an academic diaspora, and the role of intellectuals who transcend particular contexts in accounting for this inequality. Also, in terms of the importance of knowledge and change, he suggests that through an understanding of those factors, “One might even work to change those inequalities, at least in terms of recognition” (p. 157). A point worthy of attention by academics is that “there is no scholarly field set up to address scholarly attention-deficit disorders” (p. 326). What changes must occur in the reward system of universities and journals if researchers are to devote time and resources to unpopular topics and subjects? At the same time, this task may be addressed by institutions such as think tanks and foundations and by emerging formations such as Kennedy’s networks and publics. Although the global flow of knowledge, goods, individuals, etc. has a long history, “The global culture industry has probably done more to refashion the sense of flow than any of the other domains in which things travel” p. 196). When I read this I thought of rap music, however, Kennedy uses the Russian performance art group Pussy Riot to demonstrate the importance of networks of global media in the flow of information about the group, its message, and its persecution. In contrast, he demonstrates the complexity of the challenge to a knowledge based approach to the worldwide flow of energy. In this case the globalization of information may be necessary but not sufficient; security issues, corporate and business interests, and state powers must be dealt with. The process of globalizing knowledge implies the existence of “networks.” These Kennedy defines as the ways in which “intellectuals and their institutions are related to one another in various ways” (p. 228). If knowledge is to be global and a cosmopolitan intellectuality is to emerge appropriate networks must emerge and be designed. The Internet and social media will enhance our ability to design and redesign appropriate networks. At some level of communication, we have all participated in “networking” (chap. 7). In the penultimate chapter, Kennedy uses the term “framing” to understand schemas of scholarship and public engagement. An essential concept here is that of “consequential solidarity.” That is, “the foundation for globalizing knowledge rests on the ability to recognize those and their knowledges beyond the worlds we comfortably inhabit” (p. 299). It requires that one “embed part of one’s identity in the fate of others” (p. 302). Although he points to the Polish Solidarity movement and the civil rights movement in the United States, I would point to the current political discussions about immigration in the U. S. and the conflict over refugees in Europe as examples of the limitations to the creation of forms of consequential solidarity. Perhaps, as he says, we may not find common traits with the other, however, the identification of family resemblances (a term taken from Ludwig Wittgenstein) may be a good first step. Globalizing Knowledge is written by a sociologist who is knowlegeable about current issues within that discipline, e.g., public sociology, and with the work of colleagues, e.g., Michael Burawoy, Craig Calhoun, Jurgen Habermas. Also, as I have demonstrated in this review, he is equally knowledgeable about social phenomena throughout the world. I know of no other work in which knowledge of such scope and depth is present. Kennedy has done a masterful job of integrating scholarship and empirical cases. However, at times, I lost the larger point among the details Review of Globalizing Knowledge by M. Oromaner 5 of the case. The above reference to sociology and sociologists should not deter any scholar, regardless of disciple, from reading this book. Kennedy’s work provides a framework and set of concepts (intellectuals, institutions, publics, flows, networks, framing) that will help one to understand the complexities of globalizing knowledge. In addition, he raises ethical responsibilities that actors and their associations, both near and far, both local and global, must confront. References Breznitz, S. M. (2014). The foundation of knowledge: The role of universities in economic development. Stanford, CA: Stanford Business Books. Kennedy, M. D. (2011). Cultural formations of the public university: Globalization, diversity, and the state at the University of Michigan. In D. Rhoten & C. Calhoun (Eds.), Knowledge matters: The public mission of the research university (pp. 457– 499). New York: Columbia University Press. Rhoten, D., & C. Calhoun, eds. (2011). Knowledge matters: The public mission of the research university. New York: Columbia University Press. About the Reviewer Mark Oromaner is an independent scholar (sociology). He spent more than 35 years in higher education as a faculty member, administrator, and researcher. His major research interests and publications focus on the sociology and politics of higher education and on the creation, diffusion, and influence of social science knowledge. His publications have appeared in journals such as The American Sociologist, British Journal of Sociology, Research in Higher Education, and Scientometrics. Education Review /Reseñas Educativas 6 Education Review/Reseñas Educativas/Resenhas Educativas is supported by the edXchange initiative’s Scholarly Communications Group at the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. Copyright is retained by the first or sole author, who grants right of first publication to the Education Review. Readers are free to copy, display, and distribute this article, as long as the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Review, it is distributed for non-commercial purposes only, and no alteration or transformation is made in the work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/. All other uses must be approved by the author(s) or Education Review. Education Review is published by the Scholarly Communications Group of the Mary Lou Fulton Teachers College, Arizona State University. Please contribute reviews at http://www.edrev.info/contribute.html. Connect with Education Review on Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education- Review/178358222192644) and on Twitter @EducReview http://www.edrev.info/contribute.html https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Review/178358222192644 https://www.facebook.com/pages/Education-Review/178358222192644