A knot or disturbance in the lives of others

For the 2008 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, I'm serving as division chair for Foundations of Political Theory. This means that I am responsible for accepting--and rejecting--the proposals for panels and papers that will be given at the meeting. Roughly 5000 people attend APSA every year. Foundations is one of the largest sections with approximately 50 panels as well as a plenary speaker (there will not be a prize given to readers of I Cite who guess the name of the speaker I've invited to give this address). I've received over 300 paper proposals and over 100 panel proposals. It will likely end up that less than half the panels are accepted and about a fifth of the papers (fortunately, applicants have a shot at another division; so, even if can't accept them, there is still a chance that someone else will).

I'm finding the whole thing heart-wrenching. This isn't just a matter of "excellence" or of the quality of the papers and proposals. The majority are interesting and well-constructed; "excellence" alone isn't enough. Of course, various factors come in as I think about "excellence"--is the paper on Nietzsche something I haven't heard before? Is another panel on Arendt really necessary? What do I do with 30 different papers on Aristotle? Also, with "excellence" as a criterion, do I consider it from the perspective of my interests and concerns or of those of "political theory as a field"? What if one of my goals is changing the shape of political theory as a field? I may not be compelled to offer 3 panels on Locke when I can draw from the paper proposals and put together panels on urban space, the human as a category, affect in political judgment, the notion of the outside, inequality and the production and dissolution of boundaries.

When I first started looking at the panel proposals, I was worried about how many people would end up mad at me. This worry didn't last long. More important was the sense that there are people who are trying to make tenure. Giving a paper at a national meeting matters more for them than it does for senior people (who nonetheless draw larger audiences, a number which matters for the number of panels allocated to the division in future meetings). And graduate students? Overall, I find myself thinking that they can get experience at regional meetings rather than a national one (but what about those doing the sort of work that the mainstream frowns on? shouldn't they be given a boost? isn't part of my responsibility here not simply to reproduce the field but push it in one direction rather than another?).

I find that this moment of decision and responsibility ties me ethically to the lives of others.

Comments

[neographite]

and how!

It is a reminder of our relative commitments to stability, creativity, institutionalism, youth, and age.

All I can say is: 30 papers on Aristotle? That's 10% of your rejections taken care of right there!

[Barret]

ooooh, Aristotle will rise to unleash his wrath, neo! Be warned!

I don't envy you Jodi; sounds like you have a tough if not impossible job. Why not just accept everything in your area, and exclude the rest? Just kidding, of course..

[spot]

Thinking about your responsibility also means thinking about your particular "value-added."

You are the "decider," and not, for example, ("name your liberal theorist here"). The panels should reflect your broad interests, just as next year's panels will reflect someone else's.

In other words, your's is a one-shot game, but APSA's theory panels will get chosen anew next year, and the year after, etc.

You can take some solace in the fact that your stamp will not hold for long.

On the other hand, you can use this fact of the iterative game, too, as a serious diminution of any real political effect riding on your selection process: you can see quite starkly how cooptation into the mainstream means accepting these meager bones as compensation for your complicity.

Perhaps an article in PS is warranted.