Open Peer Review of article Vol.21 N.2

Revisar detalles: Gender wars and cancel culture in academia: Umut Özkırımlı in conversation with Laura Favaro

Laura Favaro & Umut Özkırımlı

Section: Convers/acciones

Reviewer A:

The review was introduced throughout specific comments in the file. 

Recommendation: Revisions Required

 

Reviewer B:

Is the article well written and organised. Is it easy to read?

The article contains interesting thinking and important points relating to stifling of debate and discussion in academia. The writing style is clear and easy to read. However, some parts of it, in particular the opening paragraphs and some of the sections written by Author 2, are not written in an academic style, and in parts read more like a journalistic opinion piece or column, including unsubstantiated assertions. The piece would be strengthened by rewriting these sections, ensuring that claims are substantiated with evidence or are clearly marked as the opinion of the author.

Structurally, it works well to set the scene in an introductory section about cancel culture, and then move into the conversation. The structure could be strengthened by developing clarity about what is being argued from the outset. The abstract suggests that the argument will relate to the definition of cancel culture. In contrast, at the end of the introductory section, there is a claim that the discussion will be an argument about what constitutes the mechanisms of cancel culture in academia. However, throughout the piece, while both issues are touched upon, neither are developed as core threads of argument. Although this is an interview, and therefore can be expected to be a bit less structured than other academic writing, there is nonetheless space for increased clarity of argument. A starting point for this would be to make a clear summary of argument in the introduction, and draw together the threads in the conclusion to show how the points outlined in the introduction have been made through the discussion.

Is the title, as well as the abstract and keywords, adequate and related to the content?

The keywords mostly relate to debates around sex and gender in academia, but the title and abstract refer to a more general 'cancel culture'. Both of these are relevant to the content of the article. They could be strengthened by being more related to one another (I.e. the title does not mention the gender debate, and the summary mentions it only in reference to an example of cancel culture, while the key words are focused primarily on the gender debate.) This difference perhaps relates to the fact that the article addresses both topics, but sometimes there is a lack of clarity about which is being discussed at a given moment. The article, and by extension the title, abstract and keywords, would be strengthened by clarifying this throughout.

Does the article include correct links and references supporting the argument?

The references used are relevant and support some of the points made. However, there are a number of unsubstantiated claims, particularly in the opening paragraphs. These require references to support them.

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

This article offers important and timely commentary on a major current issue in academia--that of a culture of stifling discussion on matters around gender and sex and profound hostility directed by some academics toward others in relation to their work on these matters. The article makes use of empirical evidence collected by the first author, as well as her own personal experience, to support claims about a culture of cancellation of academics who pursue work relating to the salience of sex as a social and political category. I believe this piece has potential to be a strong contribution to understanding of these issues.

I suggest that some redevelopment of the core argument and clarification of critical concepts is needed in three related ways:

1) Most of the content from Author 1 relates to gender and sex disputes in academia. However, much of the commentary from Author 2 relates to a less specific 'cancel culture'. There is a lack of clarity about what this exactly is, and how it applies within academia beyond sex and gender debates. There is a tendency to use observations about the gender debate (taken from Author 1's research and personal experience) and extrapolate from these into claims about a more undefined cancel culture. These extrapolations are unsubstantiated, and no evidence is provided to support claims that there are equivalent dynamics on other topics with the academy. With its current content, I therefore suggest that the piece would be more rigorous if the claims were limited to those that relate to the silencing of feminists within academia, rather than broader claims about a less specific 'cancel culture'.

2) Relatedly, the tendency for slippage between a) the silencing of feminists in academia, and b) a more nebulous 'cancel culture', risks superimposing analysis from one context onto others, where it may not be appropriate. Specifically, a strong argument is made that 'cancelling' of feminist academics is an assertion of power by a dominant group. (This could be further developed by reference to literature on historical silencing of women as a patriarchal tool and feminist analysis of cancel culture). However, the implication of the discussion seems to be that all cases of 'boycotting, ostracizing, or withdrawing support from a person' etc are replications of this same power dynamic. If this indeed is the claim being made, it would benefit from being unpacked and defended more clearly. It would be appropriate to engage in literature on the inherent contradictions of democracy (i.e. that democracy must be suspended at some point in order to prevent the spread and dominance of non-democratic ideas and values). Are the authors arguing for a free-speech absolutist position, and if so, are they applying this within and outside of the academy? Such a position requires a defence, and engagement with debates beyond the assertion of patriarchal power onto feminist thinkers. A key example of this need for clarity and development is in the question of whether it is ever legitimate to curtail speech or academic freedom on the basis of prevention of harm. The authors point out that feminist scholars are accused of harming others with their work, and on this basis attempts are made to curtail their work. However, is it possible that there are (different) contexts in which speech or academic work *is* harmful (e.g. incitement to violence or genocide?). Is the operation of mechanisms of cancel culture always the same in terms of structural power? Can these mechanisms be used in a way that are pro-democratic? These are questions that need unpacking before any equivalence can be made between, for example, cancelling of Author 1 and no-platforming of far right agitators.

3) It is claimed that Author 1's experience is "true to the script of any run-of-the-mill cancel campaign." To support this claim, it is necessary to demonstrate what this 'script' is, (or perhaps what the mechanisms of a cancel campaign are). It is possible that, if this were explored in relation to a range of empirical examples, it might be the case that different cancel campaigns in different contexts operate differently from one another. Without examining a range of cases, it is unsubstantiated to claim that there is a homogenic phenomenon of 'cancel culture' which is simply being applied to an academic context in this case. Such a claim is also potentially contradictory with the argument that the specific cancellation of feminists in academia is done as an assertion of (male) power, because many 'cancel campaigns' happen in very different circumstances and within different power dynamics (e.g. the cancellation of Russell Brand's comedy shows following multiple allegations of rape against him).

In addition to the argument about cancel culture/silencing of feminists, there is also some content about the gender debate itself. This is generally well referenced and interesting. However, it does not always appear to be clearly relevant to the overall project of the article, and feels at times tangential. It may be appropriate to develop some of this thinking in a different article--there is a lot here that could be used in other contexts.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

Thank you for the opportunity to read this and the invitation to give feedback. I think there is a lot of very interesting and timely content here, which has potential to offer an important contribution to scholarly debate.

My view is that the clearest way to strengthen this piece would be by narrowing its focus onto the silencing of feminist academics, and offering a more in-depth exploration of the mechanisms and structural processes at play in that process, rather than focussing on the broader phenomenon of 'cancel-culture'.

Nevertheless, if the wider phenomenon of 'cancel culture' is to be invoked, it would be appropriate to demonstrate through evidence ways in which different iterations of 'cancel culture' should be understood to be the same as or different from the silencing of feminist academics. This would ensure that the authors avoid generalising from one context to others, potentially erroneously. If there is disagreement between the authors on the extent to which silencing of feminists is equivalent to other specific iterations of 'cancelling', these disagreements would be a useful tool through which to explore the nuances of the matter. If the authors agree, there should still be engagement with other perspectives.

Whichever option is pursued, I suggest that the piece would benefit from avoiding (albeit interesting!) tangential moves into discussion of the detail of the sex and gender debates (e.g. debates around the salience of sex, critiques of queer theory etc). These do not feel relevant to an overall argument relating to mechanisms of cancel culture.

Finally, I suggest that, if primary data is to be used as evidence in the argument, it would be appropriate to provide a brief outline of the methodology of data collection.

Suggestions of relevant literature:

On silencing of women and feminists:
- Hags by Victoria Smith, particularly chapter 6
- Beyond God the Father, Mary Daly

On the inherent contradiction of democracy:
-Etzioni-Halevy, E. (1988). Inherent Contradictions of Democracy: Illustrations from National Broadcasting Corporations. Comparative Politics, 20(3), 325–340. https://doi.org/10.2307/421807
To explore further, look at work on Derrida's aporia.

For feminist analysis of cancel culture: Jane Clare Jones, Cancel Culture and the Puritan Imagination: https://www.academia.edu/107354114/Cancel_Culture_and_the_Puritan_Imagination

Recommendation: Resubmit for Review

 

Reviewer C:

Is the article well written and organised. Is it easy to read?

Well organised and presented throughout. However, there are some areas for improvement. Some sentences are quite long and could be cut into two, to improve comprehension.

Please, comment on the most relevant aspects (positive points and areas to improve) of the reviewed article.

Positive: A timely and important article; setting out the significance of ‘cancel culture’ in relation to academic freedom. The format, a discussion (and disagreement) between both authors, is a welcomed novel and creative approach to addressing the issue.

Improvable: A not-insubstantial portion of the piece discusses the attempted destigmatisation of paedophilia in relation to queer theory. However, other academic fields with a (some might argue longer and more) significant role in this trajectory are omitted. Most notably, the role of psychology (and ‘sexology’). Further, it should be clarified why this is relevant to the stated purpose of the article: “to explore the negative impact of cancel culture on freedom of expression and critical thinking”. While the discussion about queer theory’s role is an interesting one, some work is needed to make this more cohesive with the overall piece and to address the stated aims.

Would you suggest any changes or make any recommendations to improve the quality of the article?

Some of the arguments made, whilst legitimate, require further development. The authors should ensure they extend their arguments to their full conclusion, before moving to the next point. For example, further elaborating on the key features of the ‘genderists’ approach to transgender issues, and how these contradict their criticisms of the ‘gender critical’ feminist position. Other suggestions have been provided where improvements can be made to enhance the article in the revised document attached.

Recommendation: Revisions Required

 

                               The text was modified according to the reviews its before publication