Creating activist scholars: extended interview with Andrej Grubacic

|
(16)
GUARDIAN PHOTO BY YAEL CHANOFF

For this week's paper, we talked with with Andrej Grubacic, the new head of the anthropology department at the California Institute for Integral Studies. Here's the extended interview with Grubacic, where he talks more about the new Anthropology and Social Change program, as well as the history of anarchist schools, how his grandmother influenced his politics growing up in Yugoslavia, and the state of the occupy movement.

San Francisco Bay Guardian: What’s the structure of the new program going to look like?

Andrej Grubacic: It’s going to be called Anthropology and Social Change, and we have two levels. One is MA, the other is PhD. Philosophically speaking and politically speaking, in the age of occupy and all of these movements, the great question for me was how to organize a department that’s actually going to be useful for all of these social struggles and that activism that’s happening outside of education. I’ve been in academia as a scholar-activist for a long time. And what I’ve discovered is the most painful thing in my experience is the separation. The fact of actual separation between the grassroots knowledges, produced outside of the academia, and academic knowledge produced within the universities. So the best things, the way that I was thinking about this was that what we should do on both levels, MA and PhD, is to construct a space of translation of different knowledge. So to put these two knowledges, one produced outside of academia and the other produced in the university, in dialogue.

So we have Boots Riley for example, he’s going to be teaching community organizing, or organizing for social justice. Then we’re going to have Sasha Lilley teaching an eminently practical course on how to create and produce radical radio. So you’re going to get activist media skills. Then we’re going to have a few other people teaching also different skills, and knowledge that’s inspired by art, bringing artists in, and knowledge that’s inspired by people who are thinking about social theory and social emancipation. We’re going to create something really exciting. 

SFBG: Do you think the students who attend are going to be the same kind of mix of academics, artists, activists, and people who want to organize within their own communities here in San Francisco?

AG: I think so. That’s the idea. The idea is to make this department work for the students, but also for the people in San Francisco Bay Area. And we can do that by bringing students who are interested in local work, and I think that’s going to be a pretty amazing. If we are of course able to do things right, but I think that we will be. So Chris Carlsson for example, he’s going to be teaching labor and ecological history of San Francisco, so a very local topic. We’re going to be teaching courses on activist ethnography, and activist ethnography is the center for the whole program, which is how can we relate to community-- and this is where we’re also using the term integral-- in an integral way? Meaning how do we integrate community into every step of the research process? And the traditional anthropology, as you probably know, is all about participant observation. We would like to have instead observant participants. People who are involved with the communities. People who are trying to dissolve the distinction between the researcher, between who's on the outside, and who's on the inside. And they’re creating something together. 

SFBG: I saw when you spoke at the University of the Commons launch. You were talking about how there’s a wave of radical activity going on at schools throughout the world.

AG: Oh yeah.

SFBG: This is obviously very different, because this is an institution putting out something radical, but do you think it fits into that trend right now?

AG: I think it does. Because if you know my biography, I’ve been travelling through all of these experiences in schools for many many years now. I had to leave Yugoslavia where I’m from because of my oppositional political activity and, you know, I finally arrived here to work at New College of California which was also a private institution, and I was very inspired by the department of Activism and Social Change, and I completely fell in love with the history of radical schools in San Francisco. Now I don’t know how much you know about them, but they’re, like, great stuff. There was a liberation school, there were Black Panther schools, of course. There is a great history of alternative schools and experiments. So New College was a private institution, but still, many of my activist friends, who became friends later, have actually been through New College and they got their MA s in activism and social change or media studies. So CIIS actually took many of these people, many of the professors from these programs, and invited them here. So in a certain sense, I think what was done in terms of Activism and Social Change, and orientation to social justice and emancipation, was that at New College we are still keeping that spirit alive. But, in communication- and I think this is the crucial thing for our department- we are doing this in communication with radical educational experiments, movement-based experiments from all over the world. Manolo Callahan, who is going to be teaching here next semester, he is one of the people involved in University of the Earth- Universidad de la Tierra in Oaxaca and in Chiapas, so we are creating relationships with them. Which you know are completely radical experiences outside of institutions, they call themselves deprofessionalized intellectuals. We have already relationships with the Activism and Social Change department in Leeds, in England, they have a great school there. With people in Brazil, the landless workers movements. We’re in touch with people from Ecuador and people form Bolivia. So it’s a whole network of educational, tendency of educational experiences that this department is now creating.

SFBG: Do you have economics courses here?

AG: Yeah.

SFBG: So are there classes that are non-capitalist economics?

AG: Yes, it’s called radical political economy. We are trying to understand political economy from a feminist perspective, from an anarchist perspective, from a post-colonialist- so in that sense we are engaging multiple emancipatory frameworks of understanding social reality. So I myself, I come from the anarchist experience in social science, in politics. We have people who are feminists- Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz for example. She’s sort of a legend in San Francisco Bay Area and she’s teaching three courses. Roxane Dunbar-Ortiz is going to be teaching about Native American struggles. As it pains me to say, that kind of a focus is mostly missing not only in private but also in public universities now. 

SFBG: So could you tell me a little more about the anarchist background you come from?

AG: I became an anarchist fairly early on, I was 13 or something. Because I was living in Yugoslavia. At that time, Yugoslavia was a socialist state. And because it was a socialist state for me it was a very interesting place to grow up, because you see socialism, real existing socialism, and you see many things that are beautiful about socialism. But you also see many things that are not so beautiful. And I was thinking about the alternatives to it. And for me it was really, sounds cheesy, but a conversation with my grandmother that decided it. She was a communist; she was a Yugoslav revolutionary communist. And Yugoslavia was falling apart, Yugoslavia was in a series of really brutal ethnic wars back in the 90s, and my grandmother, this lifelong communist, told me-- my question was, are you still a communist? Do you still believe in communism in the context of this country falling apart? And she said yes, I do, I think that we have chosen a path to communism that was wrong. But I think the responsibility of your generation is to find a different path. The ideal is OK, the ideal is good. It’s a different path that you’re generation needs to find, and you have a great responsibility to do so. And the alternative that I discovered that seemed to me, back when I was 13 years old, and it still does, rational-- as an alternative to the Marxist-Leninst way of getting from here to there, right-- is anarchism. So for me anarchism, or libertarian socialism is another name that people are using, is a way of organizing for social justice and creating an egalitarian system that takes democracy very seriously. It’s like democracy without a state. 

SFBG: What happened that made you leave Yugoslavia?

AG: I was raised a Yugoslav. So I was raised to be a citizen of a country that doesn’t exist anymore. And on one hand, you had people who were Serbian nationalists, and I couldn’t really get along with those. On the other hand you had people who were neoliberal capitalists, who thought that everything coming from Europe and the United States was great and I couldn’t really agree with those either. And being a young academic, I was a historian at the time and working within the university, there was a great deal of pressure to get me out of the university. So it became very unpleasant. So I already had a relationship with Noam Chomsky, and Chomsky was following everything that was happening to me in Yugoslavia. And he told me at some point OK, it’s time for you to go. So he got me out of Yugoslavia, moved me to the United States or helped me move to the United States, introduced me to a man whose name is Immanuel Wallerstein, a great, amazing sociologist, who helped me get to his program at the Center for the Study of Economics, Historical Systems, and Civilization at SUNY-Binghamton to finish my graduate studies. So that was a-- it was a long journey. 

Let’s just say that it was an active disagreement with the political class active at that time in Yugoslav-Serbia. It was actually funnily enough still called Yugoslavia. We only had two countries of the former Yugoslavia, Serbia and Montenegro. But the political cultures and political groups in power were either Serbian nationalists or these hyper-capitalists, right. And going after them, because I was publishing and I was doing a lot of things, was-- let's say, not smart career choice. But it made it possible for me to meet people like Chomsky and some other people. And they liked what I was doing and they were concerned that, for health reasons, United States might be a better environment.

SFBG: Even within these more welcoming academic environments, do you feel your activism or anarchism is stifled in some way?

AG: I had a bad experience here at one university, a local university here in San Francisco, and it wasn’t a good experience. That felt unpleasant and it felt very stifling. CIIS is very different. Actually this is the first place where I think that I was hired because I was an anarchist, or I am an anarchist. It’s kind of funny. But in other places, in Yugoslavia and there was another institution here, I had problems because of my politics. Here, that was exactly the reason I was hired. So it gives you an idea that the school is very different than most other universities. 

SFBG: Could there be such a thing as an anarchist school?

AG: I hope University of the Commons can become something like an anarchist school. Anarchist schools actually used to exist. And they still exist. But the really big one was Francisco Ferrer in Spain. It was called Modern School. It was created in 1904. It became so huge-- especially after Francisco Ferrer was killed by the Spanish state in 1909- that there were 60 schools only in Spain and there were I don’t know how many schools in the United States but the last one closed only in 1958 in New Jersey. Modern Schools were amazing places. One could also argue that Yasnaya Polyana of Leo Tolstoy was also an anarchist school. It was in many ways. 

But anarchist schools were schools where you had a few elements. Integral education was number one. Education of the whole person. You don’t only educate somebody as an intellectual but you aim at education of the whole person. The other thing was something that anarchists called reality of the encounter. Which means that all the questions in pedagogical practice needs to come from real questions posed by life itself. So you need to do something that’s practical. Another thing was the complementary role of the teacher, which means the teacher needs to be a facilitator who listens and who offers something in return. But the first thing, the first kind of show of interest, comes from the student. So the role of the teacher is complementary. Another huge thing was something Proudhon called démoédie, or self-government of the school. So school becomes a place where you teach students arts of self-government and self-management. Schools are organized in the spirit of direct democracy. Another thing which was Paul Goodman, famous anarchist educator, his idea was to organize decentralized “teeny schools,” as he called them. So to have a small teaching environment. To have students go to the bank to be taught about mathematics, to go to a museum and then to teach them about geography, to do these things. And then the most important thing for anarchist schools on all levels is the idea of natural motivation and natural learning which was first formulated by Tolstoy. The idea is the students have this natural motivation to learn. And what you do is basically you create an environment where that kind of learning becomes possible. And another thing for anarchist schools was the idea of spontaneous order. So there is no imposed order by the teacher, but there is a spontaneous order that the students themselves discover. In other words, discipline is-- I think this is Tolstoy’s, the word that he used-- discipline is being discovered, not imposed. What would that mean for a university is a different question. I think the one obvious thing would be that everybody, students and professors, there needs to be a horizontal relationship between them. There needs to be an atmosphere of collective production of knowledge in the classroom. There cannot be a curriculum that’s linear. It needs to be dialogical, it needs to be participatory, you need to talk about this and co-create a syllabus. You need to be as horizontal and participatory as possible. You need to be as imaginative as possible in diminishing your own role as a teacher, which is a very tricky thing, without becoming a populist in the classroom, you know. Empowering students, and finding appropriate structure together with students. Again we are coming back to the idea of listening. We need to listen to the students and together with them, create an atmosphere in the classroom that’s going to be genuinely transformative. 

SFBG: I'd love to ask you more about how this will relate to anarchism and occupy.

AG: In terms of anarchism, we are gonna have- this is going to be one of the few places where anarchism is going to be studied. So anarchist social theory, anarchist education, anarchist ideas in general. We are going to study them, seriously, because they need to be recognized seriously. They’re part of- it’s a beautiful history, it’s a beautiful tradition. How important it is, I think, is revealed, by the recent rediscovery or reinvention of anarchism at occupy. So I think that it’s more relevant than ever to create a space where anarchism will be studied. 

In terms of occupy, occupy is going through the process of fragmentation right now, and they are looking for a new political space of conversation I think. So the way that we can relate to occupy, I think, is to have our students participate in whatever different movements occupy helped. Because you know that occupy now how occupy patriarchy, there is decolonize, there are many different groups. So I expect our students to be involved in occupy, and I expect us to be able to offer a space where many of the debates related to occupy can happen. So, and you know there is an actual affinity. When Silvio Federici comes, or John Holloway, or Michael Hardt, or any of these people, these are the people that occupy people read, and these are some of the bibles of the occupy movement. So what are we going to do is, we are going to make them available and accessible to these people who come here, and we are going to bring here,  and we are going to take them to the occupy movements and we are going to invite people from the occupy movements to come here. But we are also going to do more I think. What we can do, and this is now only a plan an idea, is to invite the movement itself, not only occupy but different movements, and say, OK, please come here and tell us what would you like us to do. And one person from our department had this idea and I think it is brilliant. So to have the movement, different movements-- is it food, is it the environment, is it one of the occupy-related movements- come here. We provide the space. And they tell us- social theorist, social scientists, people in the academia, they tell us what do they need us to do. It comes back to this idea of listening. So give a movement or movements a real possibility and opportunity to speak. Because usually academics, we are people who speak. Well we would like to see academics become people who actually listen. 

SFBG: I agree that occupy is basically an anarchist movement and a lot of the tenants of anarchism are being used in it. And I think this is a time when, in the mainstream, people are talking about anarchism more. But for a lot of people it has the image of people who wear black and smash stuff. So I’m curious, how does black bloc, or property damage, relate to the anarchism that's going to be studied in the department?

AG: It doesn’t relate at all. The anarchism that we are going to study is-- in Katrina, the Common Ground collective. That for me is a great example. Common Ground collective is a relief group of activists who went there from all over the place, they went to New Orleans, they were all anarchists and they said OK, we don’t believe in charity, we believe in solidarity. And they built a common ground center and they did relief work with the community for a couple of years. And there is a new book about it by a person who actually came here and spoke, one of the New Orleans activists, Scott Crow. And this is the kind of anarchism I am myself inspired by, the constructive side, not the destructive side. So how to build alternatives in the present for people, what sometimes referred to as prefigurative politics. How to think about positive stuff, constructive stuff. Building alternatives that are going to be persuasive enough-- not about breaking windows. I don’t see any particular point in breaking windows. And I think it’s an unfortunate thing that people would reduce anarchism to that. If you think about it, the most important public intellectuals in the United States, one of them recently died, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky thankfully is still alive, they’re both anarchists. So this is the kind of anarchism that I subscribe to, and both of them were my mentors. And I studied with Howard. I studied with Noam, he was the chair of my PhD committee. So these are the people whose anarchism I take very seriously, and this is the kind of anarchism that I like. 

SFBG: But it's hard to ignore organizing tactics.

AG: But even orgnanizing tactics-- black bloc as a tactic comes from the autonomen movement in Germany, which was not an anarchist movement. It comes from the 80s. People dressed in black in Germany, you know, doing property destruction thinking that property destruction is going to contribute to the tactical efficiency of a particular action. Then it went through the environmental movement in particular places, in the environmental movement here in the United States. And it’s being used not only by anarchists, it’s being used by people who would call themselves communists, left, anti-state communists, by different varieties, autonomous Marxists. So it’s not only a tactic that anarchists use. And, you know, it’s a tactic. Anarchism is far broader. 

SFBG: Than just tactics.

AG: Yes. If you would ask me what is the most distinguishing, for me, character of anarchism I would say prefigurative politics-- creating the new within the shell of the old—the idea of direct democracy, and the idea of direct action. Direct action being producing alternatives within the present, and direct democracy, behaving in the way that general assemblies are being set up. So that is I think the greatest lesson that anarchism can teach, direct democracy and direct action. 

SFBG: Occupy Oakland, they only had their camp for less than two months, but so much happned.

AG: They did great things. I really feel bad when I read mainstream media completely dismissing that experience. I was there, and the amount of work that went into keeping the medical facilities there, to helping homeless, feeding homeless, helping people with medicine, with immediate healthcare, taking care of children, creating children-friendly spaces, I mean it was amazing. Sure there were problems, of course there are going to be problems. But the stuff that people did there was just incredible. And the general strike, and shutting the port, and all of that, these were great things.

SFBG: And part of the reason the city started cracking down on it was when police tried to enter the space, people wouldn't let them in.

AG: And they shouldn’t let them in, because the way police behave in Oakland was just outrageous.

This interview has been edited for length.

Comments

""You were talking about how there’s a wave of radical activity going on at schools throughout the world.""

There sure is. It is called Radical Islam.

Posted by Trolll the XIV on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 4:27 am

Incredible! This blog looks exactly like my old one!
It's on a completely different topic but it has pretty much the same layout and design. Superb choice of colors!

Posted by Dorian Mclachlan on Feb. 16, 2013 @ 11:05 pm

It's hard to tell total tuition from CIIS' web page, but US News and World Report states:

"California Institute of Integral Studies is a private institution. It has an urban setting. Its tuition and fees are $22,425 (2010-11)."

It's more expensive now than a couple of years ago, of course, and grad courses are more expensive than undergrad courses.

Hope you have a big trust fund, you little street-fighting anarchist!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 6:38 am

The tuition question aside, there is a place in society for people with skills in research and analysis related to activism and social change. Receiving an education in this field allows them to comprehend how change happens, and perhaps contribute to our understanding. Applying knowledge gained in higher education isn't always lucrative in terms of employment, but sometimes it can be used to good effect.

The 2007 implosion of the Bay Area flagship of radical education, New College of California, ironically serves as a textbook case in the application of research as organizing tool, in a netwar environment. While the school had deteriorated administratively to such a degree it could not be saved, the fight for the historical narrative about the school's demise was won by the alumni, not the trustees who ran the school into the ditch.

This lesson, while important for Occupy and other activists today, is also instructive for future citizens who are faced with choosing between activism as a career (in moral theatrics), and activism as a civic duty. While acquiring a degree in such a course as noted in the above article may seem tailored for elites, it is in how the knowledge is applied that counts. Heaven knows we don't need any more capitalist activists.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 2:20 pm

Professionally educated activists have no better track record than folks who take it up as a hobby. I'd posit that professionally educated activists are easier to coopt than indie volunteers.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 2:31 pm

I don't see where we're in disagreement. When I attended New College graduate school in humanities, it was to reflect on my volunteer activism within a structured learning environment in order to articulate and make sense of the lessons I'd learned. Having done that, I was in a better position to mentor others who were becoming involved -- also as volunteers -- in fighting such things as bigotry and political violence more effectively.

When I contributed to the development of the activism and social change program at New College, I conceived of it as a place where activists from around the country could come to rethink and regroup by sharing lessons and challenges with others.

You are right that there is a world of difference between those who do what needs to be done and those who do what they can get funded. The inherent conflict between them, in fact, is one of the lessons I explored in helping create the program. The fact the program was hijacked by a washed up professor oriented toward moral theatrics served to reinforce my point.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 11, 2012 @ 3:46 pm

The other disconnect is that power is fully adapted to activist strategies while activists have yet to adapt in turn. OWS was an effort, but the state cracked down in a campaign of violence unprecedented since 1968.

Can political evolution, meta thinking even be taught? No, a well rounded liberal arts education heavy on the history of political thought and action is all you need.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 7:17 am

Because we already don't have enough left-wing academics!

We need to train more!

Posted by Guest on Aug. 12, 2012 @ 8:45 am

How can you study history or anything if your thinking is dominated by an ideology? Back in the middle-ages, all the scholars were Christians and that led to the dark ages.

So now all academics have to be socialists? Why? So they can reinterpret history in a skewed manner?

No, academics should study the truth, not try and ram their "truth" down our throats.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 8:19 am

There is no such thing as objective, non-ideological "neutrality."

Everyone's got biases, the best we can do is to be sure that biases are known and out there so that we can have a chance to account for that in interpreting biased reality.

Posted by marcos on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

would be of more use to society than a hundred "activist scholars."

Posted by Orwell's Uterus on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 1:08 pm

would be of more use to society than a hundred CEOs, or consultants, or sales and marketing experts, or MBAs, or Wall Street analysts, or real estate flippers, or a whole range of assorted bullshit artists found in the private sector who basically produce nothing and live off the labor of others.

At least welders can make cool art like this:
http://www.flaminglotus.com/

The guys wearing fancy suits and buying and selling worthless paper... they're just parasites.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

sense of danger, nasty fumes, and such.

Greg, seeing that flaming lotus girls site reminded me of a local artist who was creating pyrotechnic heavy-machinery performance art in the 80s.

Know whom I'm referring to?

______________________________________________________
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...
lillipublicans©, often impostered, less frequently equaled.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 6:15 pm

I'm stumped.

Posted by Greg on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 7:03 pm

... but then it suddenly came to me like a blazing flame thrower atop a giant saw-wielding earth moving machine -- well actually it sort of just jumped off of the Wikipedia page for The Farm which I was reading because I remembered they were in the vicinity.

Survival Research Laboratories. Mark Pauline.

http://srl.org/about.html

______________________________________________________
http://www.sfbg.com/politics/2012/08/03/supervisors-prepare-receive-mirk...
lillipublicans©, often impostered, less frequently equaled.

Posted by lillipublicans© on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 7:57 pm

Activist scholars have contributed substantially to social movements in America: abolition of slavery, Civil Rights, curtailing militia violence to name a few. Those who functioned as research directors, in particular, had an impact far beyond their notoriety, let alone their meager remuneration.

Some of those activist scholars turned their hand to education, conducting workshops in the Mississippi delta in the 1960s, others risking their lives in anti-militia field work in the 1990s Pacific Northwest. While not all scholars become activists, those that do are able to provide historical context to dangerously provincial perspectives and habitual opinions that make communities under attack especially vulnerable.

Like anyone, professional activists are susceptible to the undue influence of market forces, resulting in few resources available for those unwilling to compromise their principles. Yet, without adequately funded organizations, useful information and archives easily disappears, leaving the next generation adrift.

Until civil society supports the work of authentic activists in the same manner as they might tithe their church, the only ones able to provide continuity to movements are those dependent on foundations that invariably have their own agenda. As someone who saw firsthand authentic activist efforts betrayed by philanthropies and their sycophants, my challenge to those who criticize them is to make a regular donation to those you think are doing something worthwhile.

Otherwise, you are letting the rich set the agenda for our future.

Posted by Guest on Aug. 13, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

Related articles

  • Preaching denim

    At Holy Stitch, young people get sew motivated

  • Let it learn

    What's fresh in Bay education, from pot activism 101 to design degrees

  • Creating activist scholars

    New anarchist-led program at CIIS aims to help Bay Area social justice groups

  • Also from this author

  • Privatization of public housing

    Many residents feel they're moving from the frying pan of Housing Authority control into the fire of developer and nonprofit management

  • Homeless for the holidays

    Changing demographics in the Bayview complicate city efforts to open a shelter there

  • Betting on Graton

    Newest casino targeting Bay Area residents promises to share the wealth with workers and people of color