As a student of rhetoric and argument studies (among other things), I am inclined to believe that controversy is a good thing. It reveals important fault-lines in public discourse, and may prove to be a productive resource for shaping and intervening in the public understanding of subjects under contention.
Not all public argument can be enlightening or productive. Case in point, the bemusing little dust up over on John Brown’s Notes and Essay’s Blog, where angry students at USC took issue with Brown’s insinuation about what constitutes a “serious” university, and the pretense of USC students of public diplomacy to organize themselves as the Association of Public Diplomacy Scholars.
Here is my response to the episode:
Ladies & Gentlemen,
For the record, I was initially skeptical when the group was named, because I was told politely that as a post-doc studying PD (!), I was not welcome to be a member of this community – it was for the masters students. Go figure.
But let’s try for a bit of perspective here. While John Brown’s “serious university” may be a bit of institutional ad hominem, my read on Mr. Brown’s short note strikes me as more ‘amused’ than a critical attack on the supposed pretentiousness of the APDS.
And there is a note of self-criticism directed at the more “established” PD community towards the end of his note.
This scholar/student definitional debate is about as useful here as the “what is/isn’t PD” debate. Let’s get over this, shall we? PD scholar Jan Melissen, at ISA last year in NYC, welcomed an ecumenical attitude towards PD from his students because as we all know, the stakeholders and practices of diplomacy itself are changing. This stance assumes the ability of students to be *scholars* – to creatively and attentively grapple with enduring questions about PD in new contexts. This is the right attitude towards PD education, and encourages those considering this field as a professional or scholarly endeavor to take ownership and invest in the subject.
John Brown serves a vital purpose in sustaining the dialogue, issues, and yes, controversies surrounding PD, at a time when public attention IS necessary. At the same time, the U.S. is in serious need of creative thinking on PD, requiring a fresh perspective from groups like the APDS and yes, a *serious* university like USC.
This community is small enough as it is. Let’s not subdivide any further with pointless arguments that diminish the real issues.
I’m not casting blame here. But seriously, can we please not have this kind of argument? I realize I’m guilty by evening calling attention to this, but this kind of exchange is a waste of bandwidth. Moving on…
