Please circulate widely! Blog about it! etc.
In addition to the Political Theology mailing list (listserv) I've been running since September 2007, I have now set up a Political Theology blog:
www.political-theology-agenda.blogspot.com
Ever more people are drawn to the field of political theology/-ies and politico-theological concepts of one kind or another spread into more and more academic disciplines. Lately, I was in one week informed of two new networks of researchers submitting proposals to national and European funding bodies.
The new blog will help to further increase the visibility of political theology in a comparative perspective. Postings to the Political Theology mailing list that are of general interest will be posted on the blog too. As on the mailing list, submissions from all varieties of confessional/faith-based and non-confessional political theology to the blog are welcome (including, but not limited to, calls for papers, events, books, etc.). Just send me an e-mail.
Please also leave your comments on those items that are posted on the blog.
Check out the blog now. (There's also a link to sign up for the mailing list.)
25 February 2009
22 February 2009
Cross-dimensional mobility in European doctoral careers
In September 2007, I was invited to participate in the Research Conference “Higher Education and Social Change at the Beginning of the Twenty-First Century” of the European Science Foundation (ESF), taking place at Vadstena Klosterhotell in Sweden.
Here's a summary of the presentation I gave, on “Cross-Dimensional Mobility in European Doctoral Careers”:
The mobility of researchers between academia, private and public sectors, between European and non-European countries, and between disciplines is often termed the “three dimensions of mobility”: geographic, sectoral, and disciplinary. This is however a weak concept. “Cross-dimensional mobility” may be a more adequate way to describe messy real-life careers.
“Cross-dimensional mobility” is complex mobility across geographic, sectoral, disciplinary, social, and temporal dimensions. For example, a postdoc in Mathematics may well increase his salary tenfold if he makes a move into the financial sector [this may not be as true anymore in 2009] – thus being mobile in the sectoral dimension, but also being upwardly mobile in the social dimension, and possibly moving geographically too. That’s complex mobility. A German postdoc at the end of his maximum contracts who has not secured a professorship may become unemployed and nearly unemployable in any sector – thus becoming downwardly mobile socially and having, in career terms, possibly “lost” years of his life in the temporal dimension, etc. A Russian Economics graduate may move to the United Kingdom to do a PhD in Sociology because she can get funding for it there that is not available in Russia – complex mobility across the geographic, disciplinary, and social dimensions. Mobility in the temporal dimension happens for example when people are able to fast-track their careers by going to another country (where career progress is quicker) rather than staying in their own country – that’s complex mobility across the temporal, geographic, and social dimensions. In former Soviet republics, people may be doing a doctorate to get out of their countries afterwards – again, complex mobility across the geographic, social, and temporal dimensions (doing a doctorate with a view to future social advancement). On the other hand, many doctoral graduates from Poland are known to have ended up washing dishes in London – complex mobility across the geographic, social, and sectoral dimensions.
I myself did a commercial apprenticeship in Switzerland, studied Theology in Switzerland and South Africa, Public and Development Management in South Africa, Social and Political Thought in the UK and France, and also worked in Senegal, making use of different higher education systems and university entrance requirements to progress my educational qualifications, over the course of more than ten years, while also working in between (and sometimes parallel) in the private, public, and non-governmental sectors. That’s complex mobility across the geographic, temporal, sectoral, disciplinary, and social dimensions.
European doctoral careers are not one-directional, but multi-directional. They are not one-dimensional, but cross-dimensional. They are not linear, but messy. They entail complex mobility across various dimensions – that is, “cross-dimensional mobility”. It is important for policy makers and higher education researchers and practitioners alike to take note of this. Higher education will not be able to meet the changing needs of doctoral candidates and graduates in the twenty-first century unless it becomes aware of social transformations and cross-dimensional mobility.
At a personal level, each and every one of us should see the possibilities complex, cross-dimensional mobility offers as a chance to progress our own careers in Europe and worldwide. It is a chance, not a threat.
Here's a summary of the presentation I gave, on “Cross-Dimensional Mobility in European Doctoral Careers”:
The mobility of researchers between academia, private and public sectors, between European and non-European countries, and between disciplines is often termed the “three dimensions of mobility”: geographic, sectoral, and disciplinary. This is however a weak concept. “Cross-dimensional mobility” may be a more adequate way to describe messy real-life careers.
“Cross-dimensional mobility” is complex mobility across geographic, sectoral, disciplinary, social, and temporal dimensions. For example, a postdoc in Mathematics may well increase his salary tenfold if he makes a move into the financial sector [this may not be as true anymore in 2009] – thus being mobile in the sectoral dimension, but also being upwardly mobile in the social dimension, and possibly moving geographically too. That’s complex mobility. A German postdoc at the end of his maximum contracts who has not secured a professorship may become unemployed and nearly unemployable in any sector – thus becoming downwardly mobile socially and having, in career terms, possibly “lost” years of his life in the temporal dimension, etc. A Russian Economics graduate may move to the United Kingdom to do a PhD in Sociology because she can get funding for it there that is not available in Russia – complex mobility across the geographic, disciplinary, and social dimensions. Mobility in the temporal dimension happens for example when people are able to fast-track their careers by going to another country (where career progress is quicker) rather than staying in their own country – that’s complex mobility across the temporal, geographic, and social dimensions. In former Soviet republics, people may be doing a doctorate to get out of their countries afterwards – again, complex mobility across the geographic, social, and temporal dimensions (doing a doctorate with a view to future social advancement). On the other hand, many doctoral graduates from Poland are known to have ended up washing dishes in London – complex mobility across the geographic, social, and sectoral dimensions.
I myself did a commercial apprenticeship in Switzerland, studied Theology in Switzerland and South Africa, Public and Development Management in South Africa, Social and Political Thought in the UK and France, and also worked in Senegal, making use of different higher education systems and university entrance requirements to progress my educational qualifications, over the course of more than ten years, while also working in between (and sometimes parallel) in the private, public, and non-governmental sectors. That’s complex mobility across the geographic, temporal, sectoral, disciplinary, and social dimensions.
European doctoral careers are not one-directional, but multi-directional. They are not one-dimensional, but cross-dimensional. They are not linear, but messy. They entail complex mobility across various dimensions – that is, “cross-dimensional mobility”. It is important for policy makers and higher education researchers and practitioners alike to take note of this. Higher education will not be able to meet the changing needs of doctoral candidates and graduates in the twenty-first century unless it becomes aware of social transformations and cross-dimensional mobility.
At a personal level, each and every one of us should see the possibilities complex, cross-dimensional mobility offers as a chance to progress our own careers in Europe and worldwide. It is a chance, not a threat.
21 February 2009
Statement by Imprint Academic
Imprint Academic has reacted to the ongoing cyberstalking campaign against me. To save having to make the same points repeatedly, they put the following statement on their website:
Publisher's announcement
Imprint Academic and Erich Kofmel
I have been coming under pressure since autumn 2008 on the matter of Imprint Academic’s publication of two books edited by Erich Kofmel. Initially this was from an anonymous group calling themselves “For and On Behalf of the Victims of Erich Kofmel”. They wished me to cancel publication of both Imprint Academic’s Kofmel volumes, on the grounds that money obtained by (alleged) fraud has been used in their development. My response was (a) I do not deal with anonymous bodies; (b) Erich Kofmel has not yet been found guilty of fraud; (c) I have a contractual obligation not just to the editor of these volumes but to his contributors.
That remains essentially my position, although the problem of anonymity seems now to have gone [and been replaced by the problem of identity theft and use of changing assumed identities instead - E.K.]. I have no wish for the reputation of Imprint Academic to be damaged by its association with Erich Kofmel, but neither do I intend to put myself in the wrong by breaking a legal publishing agreement on the basis of unproved allegations.
I should perhaps add that Imprint Academic’s two contracts with Erich Kofmel have not involved any money changing hands in either direction. The full cost of production is being borne by the publisher, and any editorial royalties due to Erich Kofmel in respect of sales of the books are due to be paid annually in arrears (our normal practice).
Anthony Freeman
Managing Editor, Imprint Academic
Publisher's announcement
Imprint Academic and Erich Kofmel
I have been coming under pressure since autumn 2008 on the matter of Imprint Academic’s publication of two books edited by Erich Kofmel. Initially this was from an anonymous group calling themselves “For and On Behalf of the Victims of Erich Kofmel”. They wished me to cancel publication of both Imprint Academic’s Kofmel volumes, on the grounds that money obtained by (alleged) fraud has been used in their development. My response was (a) I do not deal with anonymous bodies; (b) Erich Kofmel has not yet been found guilty of fraud; (c) I have a contractual obligation not just to the editor of these volumes but to his contributors.
That remains essentially my position, although the problem of anonymity seems now to have gone [and been replaced by the problem of identity theft and use of changing assumed identities instead - E.K.]. I have no wish for the reputation of Imprint Academic to be damaged by its association with Erich Kofmel, but neither do I intend to put myself in the wrong by breaking a legal publishing agreement on the basis of unproved allegations.
I should perhaps add that Imprint Academic’s two contracts with Erich Kofmel have not involved any money changing hands in either direction. The full cost of production is being borne by the publisher, and any editorial royalties due to Erich Kofmel in respect of sales of the books are due to be paid annually in arrears (our normal practice).
Anthony Freeman
Managing Editor, Imprint Academic
16 February 2009
SCIS an international association under Swiss law
The Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society (SCIS) was founded in March 2006 by doctoral candidates and young researchers of the University of Sussex on its campus at Brighton. At that time, we registered it, in England and Wales, as a Company Limited by Guarantee and Not Having a Share Capital (that is, not for profit). No shares were given out and no dividends paid to members.
Of the founding members, Alexander W. Higgins left SCIS at the end of 2006 for personal reasons (a serious case of illness in his family) and I left England in 2007 (having lived there for two years) to continue my doctoral research at Sciences Po/The Institute for Political Studies in Paris, France.
From its inception, SCIS was independent of the University of Sussex and included research associates from other universities in the UK and worldwide as well as non-affiliated scholars. Over the past three years, SCIS has become ever more international and academics from all five continents have now participated in SCIS-organized events that took place on three continents. To support the further internationalization of our research and activities, the Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society decided in 2009 to change its legal personality to that of an international association under Swiss law.
The association has been incorporated under the same name and takes over all rights and duties of the former company, which will be dissolved. SCIS is now based in Geneva, Switzerland. All SCIS activities will be continued by the association (events, publications, mailing lists, etc.). SCIS remains a non-profit organization. Any profits, or other income, are to be spent in promoting the association's objects. The liability of members is limited. The association's President and Managing Director is Erich Kofmel.
Of the founding members, Alexander W. Higgins left SCIS at the end of 2006 for personal reasons (a serious case of illness in his family) and I left England in 2007 (having lived there for two years) to continue my doctoral research at Sciences Po/The Institute for Political Studies in Paris, France.
From its inception, SCIS was independent of the University of Sussex and included research associates from other universities in the UK and worldwide as well as non-affiliated scholars. Over the past three years, SCIS has become ever more international and academics from all five continents have now participated in SCIS-organized events that took place on three continents. To support the further internationalization of our research and activities, the Sussex Centre for the Individual and Society decided in 2009 to change its legal personality to that of an international association under Swiss law.
The association has been incorporated under the same name and takes over all rights and duties of the former company, which will be dissolved. SCIS is now based in Geneva, Switzerland. All SCIS activities will be continued by the association (events, publications, mailing lists, etc.). SCIS remains a non-profit organization. Any profits, or other income, are to be spent in promoting the association's objects. The liability of members is limited. The association's President and Managing Director is Erich Kofmel.
06 February 2009
On the cyberstalking
Almost since the announcement of a book on “Anti-Democratic Thought”, a year ago, a cyberstalking campaign against me has been pursued.
Cyberstalking is a recognized criminal activity. A Wikipedia article on the subject has to be permanently protected from cyberstalkers who would try to damage and falsify the information provided there:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking
Cyberstalking, according to Wikipedia, “is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone”. In my case, the originator of this cyberstalking campaign appears to be one anonymous person who operates under various alias names. Most recently, he or she called themselves Brian Gee – such a person does however not exist, as independent inquiries confirmed.
Typical behaviour of cyberstalkers, writes Wikipedia, includes harassment and “false accusations”: “Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions”.
I have been wrongfully accused of fraudulent activities. The person stalking me opened e-mail accounts in my name and those of other people, posted to mailing lists, newsgroups and fora on the Internet under my name and other assumed identities, created defamatory Wikipedia entries, hijacked my profile pages in social networks, obsessed by creating a made-up online file about me, etc.
“Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet [and] often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims”. For a year now, this anonymous person has persisted in contacting everyone I know, everyone who participated in any events I organized, and so on, in order to spread more untruths and obtain information about me.
Many cyberstalkers enlist and encourage “others to harass the victim. [They] try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way”. The person stalking me got others to assist in the cyberstalking. First, he or she pestered people associated with me and SCIS by repeatedly sending them defamatory and slanderous e-mails – until such persons would resign from SCIS. Once this had happened, the cyberstalker used such induced resignations to convince gullible journalists from third-rate newspapers to write articles on SCIS in which the false and entirely unproven accusations against me would be repeated. From that point on, he or she continued the cyberstalking campaign against me by referring to the apparently objective news in the media – which in truth had been created artificially by the stalking itself.
While e-mails from that anonymous source have been circulated repeatedly on mailing lists on which I also sent out calls for papers for events I organized, I have been barred by some list owners (for example of Philos-L) from defending myself on their lists. Only the anonymous smear is given space. This despite the fact that anyone who participated in an event or other activity organized by me and SCIS can confirm that everything happened with the usual academic propriety. A fact that has proven to many people that the claims of the anonymous cyberstalker as far as they could judge by themselves were wholly wrong and unfounded.
Most importantly, it was alleged that I was organizing events in order to defraud participants. Everyone who ever participated in an SCIS event knows that I neither offered any financial assistance to participants nor charged any fees. (Charges may have been applied by conference organizers in the case of workshops or panels taking place in the frame of larger conferences.) No one at any point lost any money due to events organized by me and no one, apart from an anonymous cyberstalker, claims anything of that kind.
The anonymous cyberstalker, who appears to have little knowledge of academia, apparently also labours under the impression that people got paid by me to contribute their papers to my edited volumes. Again, contributors themselves know that this is not the case. Since the publication of my book on “Anti-Democratic Thought”, in December 2008, the cyberstalking campaign has targeted with particular zeal this (and my forthcoming) book as well as the publisher of both titles. As the campaign only started after the first book had been announced and focuses on that book now, it seems obvious to conclude that my academic work on anti-democratic thought is the reason for the ongoing cyberstalking.
While I was duly questioned by UK police regarding the allegations made by the cyberstalker, I have not, to my knowledge, been charged with anything related to fraudulently obtaining money – and certainly I have not been found guilty of it. Already in May 2008, I asked the police as part of a written statement on the issue to also investigate the cyberstalking. While they were willing to investigate false and entirely unproven allegations against me, they seem not to this day to have been able to do anything to stop the stalking.
My advice to anyone contacted by the cyberstalker is to block the e-mail address of the sender – in which case you should not receive any further unwanted communication from him or her. The best way to deal with anonymous cyberstalkers is to ignore them.
I will continue to use my own name. Erich Kofmel.
Cyberstalking is a recognized criminal activity. A Wikipedia article on the subject has to be permanently protected from cyberstalkers who would try to damage and falsify the information provided there:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyberstalking
Cyberstalking, according to Wikipedia, “is the use of the Internet or other electronic means to stalk someone”. In my case, the originator of this cyberstalking campaign appears to be one anonymous person who operates under various alias names. Most recently, he or she called themselves Brian Gee – such a person does however not exist, as independent inquiries confirmed.
Typical behaviour of cyberstalkers, writes Wikipedia, includes harassment and “false accusations”: “Many cyberstalkers try to damage the reputation of their victim and turn other people against them. They post false information about them on websites. They may set up their own websites, blogs or user pages for this purpose. They post allegations about the victim to newsgroups, chat rooms or other sites that allow public contributions”.
I have been wrongfully accused of fraudulent activities. The person stalking me opened e-mail accounts in my name and those of other people, posted to mailing lists, newsgroups and fora on the Internet under my name and other assumed identities, created defamatory Wikipedia entries, hijacked my profile pages in social networks, obsessed by creating a made-up online file about me, etc.
“Cyberstalkers may approach their victim's friends, family and work colleagues to obtain personal information. They may advertise for information on the Internet [and] often will monitor the victim's online activities and attempt to trace their IP address in an effort to gather more information about their victims”. For a year now, this anonymous person has persisted in contacting everyone I know, everyone who participated in any events I organized, and so on, in order to spread more untruths and obtain information about me.
Many cyberstalkers enlist and encourage “others to harass the victim. [They] try to involve third parties in the harassment. They may claim the victim has harmed the stalker or his/her family in some way”. The person stalking me got others to assist in the cyberstalking. First, he or she pestered people associated with me and SCIS by repeatedly sending them defamatory and slanderous e-mails – until such persons would resign from SCIS. Once this had happened, the cyberstalker used such induced resignations to convince gullible journalists from third-rate newspapers to write articles on SCIS in which the false and entirely unproven accusations against me would be repeated. From that point on, he or she continued the cyberstalking campaign against me by referring to the apparently objective news in the media – which in truth had been created artificially by the stalking itself.
While e-mails from that anonymous source have been circulated repeatedly on mailing lists on which I also sent out calls for papers for events I organized, I have been barred by some list owners (for example of Philos-L) from defending myself on their lists. Only the anonymous smear is given space. This despite the fact that anyone who participated in an event or other activity organized by me and SCIS can confirm that everything happened with the usual academic propriety. A fact that has proven to many people that the claims of the anonymous cyberstalker as far as they could judge by themselves were wholly wrong and unfounded.
Most importantly, it was alleged that I was organizing events in order to defraud participants. Everyone who ever participated in an SCIS event knows that I neither offered any financial assistance to participants nor charged any fees. (Charges may have been applied by conference organizers in the case of workshops or panels taking place in the frame of larger conferences.) No one at any point lost any money due to events organized by me and no one, apart from an anonymous cyberstalker, claims anything of that kind.
The anonymous cyberstalker, who appears to have little knowledge of academia, apparently also labours under the impression that people got paid by me to contribute their papers to my edited volumes. Again, contributors themselves know that this is not the case. Since the publication of my book on “Anti-Democratic Thought”, in December 2008, the cyberstalking campaign has targeted with particular zeal this (and my forthcoming) book as well as the publisher of both titles. As the campaign only started after the first book had been announced and focuses on that book now, it seems obvious to conclude that my academic work on anti-democratic thought is the reason for the ongoing cyberstalking.
While I was duly questioned by UK police regarding the allegations made by the cyberstalker, I have not, to my knowledge, been charged with anything related to fraudulently obtaining money – and certainly I have not been found guilty of it. Already in May 2008, I asked the police as part of a written statement on the issue to also investigate the cyberstalking. While they were willing to investigate false and entirely unproven allegations against me, they seem not to this day to have been able to do anything to stop the stalking.
My advice to anyone contacted by the cyberstalker is to block the e-mail address of the sender – in which case you should not receive any further unwanted communication from him or her. The best way to deal with anonymous cyberstalkers is to ignore them.
I will continue to use my own name. Erich Kofmel.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
