[MGSA-L] Fwd: "descriptive, not prescriptive"

[George Baloglou]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Ifestos <info at ifestosedu.gr>
Date: Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 10:36 PM
Subject: RE: [MGSA-L] "descriptive, not prescriptive"
To: George Baloglou <gbaloglou at gmail.com>


My colleague Baloglou put to my attention the points of Daniel P.
Tompkins. They are all valid and logical. However, I feel that I am
somewhat unfairly treated. I am indirectly "accused" of not providing
discussion on agency, whilst my colleague before so commenting about
me should had made some research about my books, articles, public
interventions, and so on. Moreover, who said that in short
interventions we are committed to write long academic thesis or that
we are obliged to apologize for not doing so. Certainly, I shall not
do this hereafter.
       Most of the (logical) comments of Daniel Tompkins could be
answer by simply living in Greece, some other by reading some good
pieces on soft power and the role of university institutions in
contemporary international politics. Certainly, I could not say a word
as to what I mean "scholarly work" here in Greece, because I could
refer to Kondylis, Giannaras, Kontogiorgis, Ziakas et al. I IR theory
Carr, Aron, Morgenthau, Waltz, Gilpin, Bull, Wight, Watson, Grieco,
Mersheimer, et al, also late Rawls in "Law of the Peoples" are
exemplary. In fact, here in Greece all know that during the last two
decades I am a protagonist in having most of them translated in Greek.
       Answering the points made by DT would necessitate to write a
thesis. In fact I do have many books and articles published in Greek
that answer to the comments. All are free to read them and conclude.
Some other books are being prepared or in the way for publication. The
forum I published my comment which it was then forwarded to MGSA list
was addressed to members who are rather familiar with the points I
made. No extensive information could be provided. Nor is it possible
here, I repeat. We do not even have that possibility, given space
restrictions. Moreover, I feel uncomfortable as to how to answer:
Please do your research. Or: Take my word for granted because everyone
living in Greece know who is who. Or: Is no use to reproduce thousands
of pages of published work in order to answer logical comments in a
forum I do not participate.
       Now, let us make some brief comments. At the same time, I make
it clear that I am not willing to prepare to engage in discussion if
the army of specialists of "soft" policy papers. Such policy papers,
for example, are those that supported the fascist Anan plan [See
http://www.ifestosedu.gr/32RuleofLaw.htm]. Nor I am willing to answer
to those calling balance or deterrence synonymous to aggression and a
war cry. Equally, no serious academic should engage with polemical
policy papers providing dubious policy suggestions indirectly asking
to violate the rule of law in the Aegean sea (or in any other state,
likewise).
       Let us then make some points hoping that I do not have time to
revert, especially the well known soft power impose an arithmetic
imbalance which since long I am not willing to even consider.
I do know Professor Platias and his scholarly book. In fact, similar
comments to the ones that were, as you said, are made by major western
figures in strategy studies, were by me when I participated in his
commitee that elected him as full professor. In the past, we published
a book which included chapters written by each one separately. We both
have a background in strategic studies and a presence in bibliography
before returning in Greece in 1989-90. By no means we are always in
full agreement. Upon returning here, we were prolific in advancing IR
concepts that everywhere else are considered a common ground if not
common sense in strategic relationships and in a state's national
strategy. A Greek book o Platias written in 1992-3 is a masterpiece of
scholarly analysis about post-world order.
Upon arriving in Greece we started publishing along the same lines to
our books or articles written abroad. What happened? What was the
result? May I inform you that even the ontology of the word "strategy"
was disputed in contemporary IR theory: By university people and
institute men or women circulating here in Athens wearing academic
cloths. Deterrence strategy aiming to defend rule of law and provide
the premises for a peaceful resolution of conflict was labeled
"nationalistic" and "polemophile" and so on. Hundreds of savage
attacks. I have at least five full boxes of hundreds of cuttings in
the 1990s when we lost precious time to defend common sense!!.
Certainly I couldn't abuse the space here to provide scanned evidence.
As I said I am not willing to “defend” myself given the fact one could
do research and find as many publish articles and books as he wishes.
Most importantly, since 2003, as a matter of principle and self
respect, I deny even referring by name to “hitmen”.
In countries targeted by soft power strategies, dear colleague,
arithmetically numerous armies are not always polite. So we have to be
polite by not debating with them. In the United States things are
different, I do know it. And I do envy you: You can say "balance of
power and deterrence strategy is necessary to secure rule of law" and
not be insulted. Here not. And it is daily. Some researchers may write
a thesis on this pitiful state of affairs of a soft power target
state, such as Greece. Moreover, in two separate books I prepare [a)
The instrumental diachronic role of political thinking and b) "homines
academici exter politice", I plan to provide some case studies.
Likewise one should do search for analysis on the triple strategy (see
essays, e.g. http://www.ifestosedu.gr/42CYEUKranidiotisMemory.htm,
http://www.ifestosedu.gr/6CyCausesWar.htm ,
http://www.ifestosedu.gr/63GreekStrategy.htm) and, in that respect,
for hundreds of articles in the 1990s and the early 2000s. An
"institute" even circulated a book arguing that Cyprus cannot!!! apply
for full membership of the EU. There is a lot of discussion on
“agency” there. Also, in my book I had to write after spending six
months to explain the obvious and then tenths of articles to defend
against savage attacks. ... Books, booklets, articles etc are all
published and available to everyone interested ... “Published
discussion of agency”. Regrettably, I am indirectly accused that I do
not provide such an agency in a short message. The "agency" discussion
you urge is abundant bit am neither willing nor timewise dispose to
provide it to your forum. Nor I am willing to spend my life defending
myself when I am targeted "softly". [Please, in Greek, enter "Vassilis
Markezinis", who intervened with texts documented in an excellent way,
to find out the "character assassinations" inflicted on him during the
last six months.]
       So, to come back to Platias/Koliopoulos book, you are correct
to say that not American hitman attacked it. It was however written in
English and it is now a scholarly book in the English speaking world.
And no one said that American scholars are not welcoming good books.
We all know that the many thousands of American university people
serving their country in various ways are basing their works on the
writings of scholars such as Carr, Morgenthau, Waltz, Gilpin et al.
However, writing on Thucydides and strategy in the Greek language
(including the authors of the said book and myself, plus some other
such Kontogiorgis) is not the easiest thing to do. We do it of course.
But it is not easy and please take my word for this. Certainly, books
are not yet ... censored. Neither are Greeks unable to read it.
Nonetheless, on the balance, what propaganda establishes here in Greek
public debate is that Thucydides have no relevance to "the globalize
(pangosmiopoiimeno) kindergarten called planet earth". Again: It would
be equivalent to torture to ask me to provide evidence of what one
hears daily here in Greece or what “hitmen” daily do.

Bibliography on soft power and its various versions is prolific in the
United States and I do expect scholars there to be informed. A
postgraduate student could maybe write a dissertation and inform you
accordingly. A study that would summarize bibliography as regards soft
power strategy (and its various versions and levels) and the close
relationship of the 2500-3000 (could be more) institutes with the
government of the United States.
       Please note: The "consciously" or "unconsciously", are two
words often used in my short note. They were inserted intentionally!!!
For God sake. What one expects? That I could suggest that respected
and honest American colleagues are on the payroll of the Pentagon?
Some do this off course (the same as in any other country) and it is
fully legal (legitimate, in scholarly terms is another issue). Most
scholars in IR in our days, however, are swimming in an ocean of
deconstructionist analysis, in institutes and common research projects
that are perfectly "clear". Many other never get a dollar outside
their university salary. So what? This is not the point.
       The point is that the wave of deconstructionist analysis that
hit weak states in the benefit of strongly founded and unshakable
American strategies. Strategies which are engaged in aggressive
struggles among hegemonic states [I am descriptive: this is the state
of affairs in the world and anyone in strategic analysis know it]. We
all know it since long and analyzed this fact in many respects.
Besides, our colleague John Mearsheimer, "The tragedy of Great Power
politics" provides abundant evidence for this fact and scholarly
substantiation.
However, USA is not (?) in “danger” to be "deconstructed" neither is
any other hegemonic power. Here in Greece however, strangely enough
hundreds of university peopled intervened in order to support the
disbanding of the Cyprus Republic in the name of a forthcoming ...
postmodern interstate system. [A must reading regarding this
monster-plan is http://www.ifestosedu.gr/32RuleofLaw.htm]  We all know
that behind UNOPS money that promoted this idea was USA (some may even
saw the Nathan Associates report explaining the purpose). All these
are not "innocent" nor IR analysis is always "innocent". IR analysis
if not always strictly scholarly and value free. And the borderline
between propaganda and scholarly work is often invisible.
       Because of the well known transparency in the political system
of the United States, the phenomenon of soft power is well known and
documented in hundreds of books variously. May I friendly suggest that
a “discussion of agency” on this major academic and political issue
would be useful to your forum. The state of affairs in soft power
politics business is no secret and allow me to make it clear that
though myself epistemologically speaking I am decisively in line with
value free approaches, I find it logical that one should expect that a
country uses its intellectuals to promote its national interests. That
said (descriptively) about common practice in the big powers' national
strategies, I reserve to myself the right to question the academic
premises of what myself and others often call "academically cloaked
but under beneath, in reality, ideological and political
rationalizations". By all standards it is rather propaganda than
science.
       Professors who move down the river are certainly not puppets.
However that is a fact. This is the state of affairs, this is the
normative structure, this is the organic role of humans in organized
societies in our modern imperfect world and that is why organized
states such as the USA readily and openly!!! draw many resources out
of their academic institutions. This is daily practice for everyone
who wants to see it and research could provide more information. I
find it strange to defend my position that “soft power politics today
matter”. Besides, to be more "theoretical" and remember late
Panayiotis Kondylis (Isxis kai apofasi) militant writings of "organic
intellectuals" are indeed very useful if not indispensible to the
actors in intestate antagonism. Let us not close the eyes as regard
truth and reality. Scholarly books and articles are one thing
politically driven analysis is another. And we should know it,
especially in countries which become targets in various ways. This is
the distinction we make, in political science, between scholarly work
and politically relevant writings. Many scholars explain the
difference, inter alia Kenneth Waltz in his masterpieces "Man state
War" and "Theory of international relations". In the latter, besides,
provides a lasting definition of what is theory proper. Now, I
couldn't even dare start a dialogue with militants going around the
universities of the world and now transnationally acting causing
colossal distributive effects. Think of how many millions were aligned
in the purpose of classless society, fascist purposes, maoist purposes
and certainly underpinning American strategy since independence. Here
is a good question: What is the role of political thinking? Where are
they now? Answer: Around us academically dressed and performing
analogous roles. So: To describe and interpret or to prescribe and
participate in politics? I am not going to answer this here. Those
reading Greek or German, however, to put this in the perspective of
Modern Times, should read Kondylis unique book, "Evrwpaikos
Diafotismos", tome II.
       3. Lets know correct something. When generalizing and when I
wrote that in "secondary establishments destined mostly for foreigners
some teach tasteless introductory stories not good even for children
and or submit deconstructionist ideas to them (ethnomidenistes)", it
was indeed an exaggeration to make  a point. I know many American
scholars of all strands and currents who are value free scholars and
teaching high science. Those for example that teach mainstream theory
in line with the Traditional Paradigm. Some constructivists, moreover,
are indeed first class scholars. The point of my short note was not to
undercut their brilliant presence but to outline a well known
political, academic and ethical issue. And certainly, rightly so, I am
not the only one who do this. I do not expect a constructivist to love
me by exposing an unintentional role. Nonetheless, everyone is worth
taking into account that classical academic standards and classical
academic ethics are undermined nowdays. We could agree to disagree if
any objection. I should add the following: This debate is immature and
I am aware of it. Modernism and postmodernism are in transition and
momentum makes dialogue difficult. A return in anthropology is on the
way but very few see it in classical terms in western bibliography. So
far I know. Recently, I wrote, that if two books of Kondylis [The
“parakmi tou Astikou politismou” and his last book “to Politico kai o
Anthropos”] are translated into English we are going to have a
“revolution” in western bibliography, including critical analysis
which insist to debate on the grounds of 17th and 18th century
political philosophy in a world that anthropologically is completed
different and certainly not the one predicted by modernist and now
actively if not militantly supported by the postmodernist movement.
For one more thing, for billions of citizens of Anatolian Nations is
100% irrelevant. Even in the west (and certainly in former USSR) since
we witness a “comeback of the spirit” in the public sphere that
functionalistic western political science seems to be unable to treat.
(the crisis of EMU is a soul-stirring evidence that could provide
innumerous discussion on agency …

Some, only some offhand references
       «“More powerful states may be in position to alter the
conceptions that the weaker actors have of their own self interests,
especially when economic and military power has delegitimated
ideological convictions in weaker or defeated societies. The United
States, for instance, pressed for a particular vision of the
international society should be ordered after World War II and renewed
and reinvigorated this project after the en of the Cold War. The goal
was not simply to promote a particular set of objectives, but to alter
how other societies conceived of their own goals. The emphasis on what
Nye has called soft power engages both realist concerns about relative
capabilities and constructivism’s focus on beliefs and identity”.
[Katzenstein/Keohane/Krasner , International Organization, vol. 52. 4
1998 p. 673]

Follow the links to the bibliography in this article:
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_308.shtml, see also
institutes and transnational connections.

Terrible Greek nationalists ....:
http://news.kathimerini.gr/4dcgi/_w_articles_columns_6_23/01/2011_429837

Davutoglou is a pigeon?
http://www.kathimerini.com.cy/index.php?pageaction=kat&modid=1&artid=24927

Davutoglou is rather not a pigeon. For those reading Greek see his
book "strategic depth" in Greek and actual policy in
http://www.ifestosedu.gr/109ΣτρατηγικόβάθοςΠολιτική.htm . Davutoglou
himself made it clear that his diplomacy relates with his analysis in
"strategic depth". Actual policy provide daily evidence.

Kastellorizo
http://infognomonpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/01/blog-post_2101.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InfognomonPolitics+%28InfognomonPolitics%29.
For substantiated  views search in Google (in greek) Giannis Mazis,
Th. Karyotis, V. Markezinis.


Π. Ήφαιστος - P. Ifestos
www.ifestosedu.gr - info at ifestosedu.gr

-----Original Message-----
From: George Baloglou [mailto:gbaloglou at gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:27 PM
To: Ifestos
Subject: Fwd: [MGSA-L] "descriptive, not prescriptive"

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: DANIEL P. TOMPKINS <pericles at temple.edu>
Date: 2011/1/30
Subject: Re: [MGSA-L] "descriptive, not prescriptive"
To: MGSA MGSA List <mgsa-l at uci.edu>


To Dr. Baloglou and the MGSA list, and various friends who may find
this interesting:



Thanks for this post and for the URL below.  The post expresses a
number of points but in a very compressed manner, which makes
discussion a bit difficult.  But it may be worthwhile to try to select
a few items for emphasis.

1.     The author says that "so called" academics living in hegemonic
states serve "soft power" strategies of the their state, teach in
secondary establishments "destined" mostly for foreigners, and
produce bad scholarship.   (An example or two would clarify this
claim.)

2.     Academics in weak states targeted by hegemonic strategies
invariably serve the strategies of the hegemonic states

3.     The author has written on international relations (IR below)
"realism" (Morgenthau, Thucydides et al) but  believes Greeks are
"ineligible" to read his work, which is subjected to attack.  No
references or examples are provided, making it hard to analyze this
assertion.

4.     An American (it is only here in the analysis that the American
interlocutor gets a word in)  told him that IR  scholars in the USA
either serve the Pentagon or work in a university.  The academics
primarily  "serve [American] strategic interests," ignoring IR theory
.

5.     The American adds:  Scholars in non-hegemonic states "must"
serve "states like mine" (eliding the question, what other states are
"like mine")  or serve Soros and his ilk who "occasionally cooperate
with our services."  ("Services" presumably has the customary sinister
implication.)

6.     Following on 5.:  in non-hegemonic states (henceforth I'll just
say "Greek"), national interest  is not a permitted category.   We
(the USA) expect Greeks to propagate this or shut up.  Only major
powers should have preemptive aggressive strategies. Non-independent
states must be adaptable to American interests.

7.     So (the American continued) to be a scholar in Greece is an
illusion!!.   To "insist to behave scholarly in Greece" is to invite
"murder ...  our academic or media hitmen."

8.     This is all part of American soft power at work. Thucydides
(somehow) explains this all:  Athenians should read him.



I pondered responding to these eight points step by step, but I'm busy
working on other things, including Thucydides on Strategy (Harvard
2010), an interesting "realist" analysis along Morgenthau lines by
Professors Platias and Koliopoulos, who teach at Piraeus and the
Panteion .  This book has been praised by major western figures in
strategy studies, without a single "Academic hitman" showing his face.
 Then I've got to continue my correspondence about Thucydides with
major constructivist figures in American IR studies, most of whom
oppose the Pentagon and American preemption and aggression.



The question, why do Greek academics come under attack, is an
intriguing one and I'd be interested in following a discussion.  I
have several academic friends in Greece who sometimes come under
attack:  but never, to my knowledge, for failure to "adapt to American
interests."   Most often, quite the opposite.



In short, we need more discussion and more particulars.  We also need
a discussion of agency - a word entirely missing from this post, which
conveys the impression that the Greek state and Greek scholars are
pathetic passive figures, not agents who can think for themselves or
(in the case of the state) run up a massive military budget.

Dan Tompkins

2011/1/30 George Baloglou <gbaloglou at gmail.com>
>
> For a change ... I am forwarding, with permission and without
> comments, part of a recent post (at another forum) by Professor
> Panayiotis Ifestos (University of Piraeus, International and European
> Studies):
>
>
> ***************** begin Ifestos forwarding ******************
>
>
> Few years ago I had an interesting conversation with an American
> colleague. We had a dinner together at Athens Hilton following a
> conference organized there. He is a most prominent and most brilliant
> scholar in international relations. They are about 15 scholars
> altogether worldwide
> (http://www.ifestosedu.gr/61bibliografia%20students.htm). I just note,
> here, what is commonly known about the wonderful jungle of political
> science and political science of international relations: The
> remaining so called academics living in hegemonic states: a) most of
> them serve "soft power" strategies of the their state, including
> Turkey today (publicly declared by FM Axmet Davutoglou) and b) in
> secondary establishments destined mostly for foreigners some teach
> tasteless introductory stories not good even for children and or
> submit deconstructionist ideas to them (ethnomidenistes). Those living
> in weak-dependencies that is, weak states targeted by hegemonic
> strategies, have only one choice: To serve the strategies of the
> hegemonic states, e.g. the orgy on interventions of the post-cold war
> era, the violation of rule of law in the Aegean, the imposition of a
> fascist protectorate in Cyprus that would serve imperialism etc. Lets
> return to my American colleague (note he is descriptive not
> prescriptive!!, himself, in fact, opposes his country's hegemonic
> overextension in Irak and elsewhere). My colleague informed me that he
> has my books on strategy in the bibliographical list he suggests to
> his students. I looked at him and put him a simple question: <<In these
> books I analyze standard concepts on strategy, geopolitics,
> theoretical relevance of Thucydides and Clausewitz, etc. Why I went
> on, almost innocently, Americans are eligible to read this analysis
> (so far know, Chinese, Russians, British et al) but not the Greeks.
> Why here, in my own country, the same analysis, or even a softened
> one, is attacked vehemently by an army of "academic hitmen" murdering
> my academic positions by characterizing me with various epithets or
> even insulting me!>>.
> He looked at me really surprised and indeed "squashed me":
> <<Reading your books I thought you are clever. Obviously you are not or
> you are pitifully uninformed. Uninformed as to what happens outside
> the circle of our wonderful theoretical concepts. If you are living in
> the United States you would had been a scholar like me or,
> alternatively, as most do, a "soldier" of the Pendagon. This is not
> what they do 99% of the so called academics in USA? There is a
> triangle, dear friend: 1. Approximately 3000 "institutes related to
> the American government", 2. The Pentagon establishment of as we call
> it there "The Company", and 3. The Universities. The so called
> academics work and live luxuriously by consciously or unconsciously
> "serving" our strategic interests within this triangle. IR theory is
> done my Carr, Morgenthau, Gilpin, Waltz et al, not by them. Sometime
> we expedite them abroad. Now: Living in a weak state like Greece you
> must either be a critical constructivist* consciously or unconsciously
> serving the hegemonic claims of states like mine or be recruited in an
> "institute" financed by us or a transnational actor such as Soros who
> is also occasionally cooperating with our services. The one or the
> other way, living and working in Greece, Servia or Albania you are
> bound consciously or unconsciously to be so commissioned as to analyze
> and "instruct" your people the following: It is nationalistic to
> develop a deterrence strategy or even to claim that you have national
> interests. National interest do have only the hegemonic states:  Weak
> states should not have national interests and that is how your people
> should learn to think. Either you propagate this or you shut up.
> Didn't you read Edward H. Carr or Kenneth Waltz? Understand it dear
> colleague: I am descriptive not prescriptive: Independent states,
> especially the hegemonic and their allies, should have a preemptive
> aggressive strategy. Non-independent states or states which are
> targeted with the purpose to diminish their national independence
> ,should be so driven as not to have a deterrence or any other
> defensive strategy. They must be flexible and adaptable to our
> hegemonic interests. To be a scholar in Greece or in any other
> dependency is an illusion!!. This state of affairs changes only if
> Greece politically speaking becomes an independent state. Nor
> nominally. In reality independent. If you insist to behave scholarly
> in Greece you are condemned to me "murdered" by our academic or media
> hitmen consciously or unconsciously commissioned by our government
> worldwide in the context of our soft power strategy. Wake up!! I
> repeat I am descriptive not prescriptive: Didn't you read about soft
> power strategy**. It is 90% of the strategic planning of hegemonic
> states. I regret when I see people like you not being conscious that
> the problem is political, not academic. After all you have Thucydides
> that provides a global and formidably true explanation and
> interpretation!! Why not everybody reads it here in Athens!!. Wake up
> dear friend>>
>
>
> ****************** end Ifestos forwarding ********************
>
>
> --
> Γιώργος Μπαλόγλου -- Θεσσαλονίκη
>
> http://www.oswego.edu/~baloglou (1988 - 2008)
>
> http://crystallomath.wordpress.com (2009 - )
> _______________________________________________
> List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l


_______________________________________________
List-Info: https://maillists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/mgsa-l




--
Γιώργος Μπαλόγλου -- Θεσσαλονίκη

http://www.oswego.edu/~baloglou (1988 - 2008)

http://crystallomath.wordpress.com (2009 - )





-- 
Γιώργος Μπαλόγλου -- Θεσσαλονίκη

http://www.oswego.edu/~baloglou (1988 - 2008)

http://crystallomath.wordpress.com (2009 - )