Drinking Coffee with My “Victims”: The Risks Incurred When a Historian Makes a Public Intervention in the Present

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

A few more references on Truth Commissions and their activities; and some final academic references on the links between journalism and professional historians would make the arguments be better grounded.

I recommend including reference to the classic by Norbert Elias, Involvement and detachment (1987) and also on the debates on the observer-participant.

The victimization of citizenship also has quite large literature already, and could be referred to through the ongoing debate.

Author Response

Drinking Coffee with my "Victims": Reply to the Reviews

First, I would like to express may gratitude and thank to the reviewers for the attention dedicated to this article. I do also appreciate their explicit positive judgements: strong potential interest of the article (review 2), very promising title / issue (review 3). My particular thank goes to reviewer 2 for the exceptionally detailed and helpful comments. It is a think-piece and a wonderful example of close reading. I have learned much from it.

Having said so, I nevertheless have to comment on two or three general aspects of the reviews. It is uncertain that they come from the scholarly field that can be expected when submitting an article to a journal called "Histories". Review 2 mentions that he/she is an ethnographer and doubts whether his/her remarks really apply to historical scholarship. Indeed, ethnography/anthropology leans more towards social science than towards humanities and has usually different ideas about the definition of a "true" scholarly format of an article. One of the differences lies in the interest of the particular case which is not immediately translated into a generalized pattern/knowledge. This applies to my exploratory endeavor, and part of the criticism seems to rely on this divergence between the mentioned fields and audiences. My article is dedicated to a historical approach.

The article is a reflection about an attempt to come to terms with a conflict between a historical scholar and the persons treated in his text. It is embedded in a victimization framework: the persons treated in the text have been injured by earlier state practice which new state policies want to rectify as far as possible. The three reviewers wish that the article should be amplified with further references to that official victimization framework. Some literature in that direction has already been quoted in the first version (see fns. 9, 14 etc.). But here it is important to relativize their wish: (first) the victimization fields are extremely variable so that such references have only a restricted value and (second) it is the postproduction of the text which lies at the heart of the article. What happens after the text has been produced? People quite frequently disagree about texts, but they rarely come together in a coffee setting to speak their heart. And if they do so, it is very rarely described in a scholarly article. Since the principal heading of the special issue is called "History from Scratch" I thought it possible and appropriate to risk an exploratory step in that direction. It helps us to reflect about text dynamics and our options to deal with them in equitable ways.

Review 3 adds another aspect to the wish for more references; they should have an international character ("outside the Swiss context"). Here I would like to point to the fact that the article mentions quite a few countries where historical commissions have been at work: South America, particularly Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay; South Africa, Mauritius, and Canada (see p. 4). However, as already stated, it is a huge difference if such commissions have to deal with a racist apartheid system or with coercive family measures.

On the other hand, I agree with many remarks of the reviews: my aims were not clearly set out in the introduction; I should have been more explicit in explaining my intentions, more prudent in describing my "coffee partners" and I should have dropped some sideline remarks which distract the readers from the main plot. The corrected version of the article has new paragraphs in the introduction and in the conclusion and quite a few shorter changes in the main text. I think they meet most of the critical points in the reviews. I have changed especially lines 33–48, fn. 20, lines 387–392 and 266–312.

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper is a reflective one, describing and contextualising the author's experiences of a meeting with two people who took issue with a newspaper op-ed piece that he published. The op-ed, drawing from the author's experience of working on a research team that investigated this issue in two Swiss cantons, offended his interlocutors, and this appears to have been the reason for the meeting having taken place.

Evaluating it is difficult because there is no clear methodological protocols against which it can be measured, and the situation described is relatively unusual. I therefore think it's important to be clear about the evaluative criteria I've applied in evaluating this piece. These are based on the understanding that the piece has been submitted for publication to a scholarly journal, rather than some other publication, and that therefore its readers are best served by articles which engage them critically and invite them to think about how the matters described in the article might affect their own practice as scholars. These two foundations mean:

1. that as far as possible, the experiences described in the piece should be discussed in sufficient depth and detail and with sufficient contextual material that readers can form their own opinion of the author's account of his/her own actions;
2. that as far as possible, the piece should reflect on a specific question(s), debate(s) or concern(s) in a wider methodological literature, so that a readers can use the article to reflect on their own practice;
3. that where the subject matter is controversial, strenuous efforts are made to fairly represent different sides in that controversy.

These criteria draw on what is generally seen as good practices when publishing reflective papers in the social sciences and specifically in ethnography (my disciplinary background). The author and other reviewers may legitimately disagree with the criteria I have applied, and disciplinary/professional conventions may differ in history or in journalism; but I believe that if the piece is revised to be more closely in line with them it will be much improved, and of far greater interest to other scholars.

Overall, however, in its current form it is not of publishable quality. However, there is material here of strong potential interest to a wider community of scholars, which in my opinion requires substantial revisions before it is of a publishable standard.

Moving on to specific comments on the article itself:

1. The piece suffers from not having its aims clearly set out in the introduction; indeed, the intro is simply a narrative, saying nothing about what the author is trying to achieve, nor why readers might find the reflections therein interesting. The impression created is that the author may be writing the piece as a form of something like therapy following a difficult experience. That is a legitimate aim, but not one that necessarily belongs in an academic journal, because there is no necessary claim therein on the attention of scholarly readers. To reach a publishable standard, the author might wish to rewrite the introduction so as to more clearly frame and introduce what follows: spelling out what debates or questions in a methodological or disciplinary he hopes to comment on using his experience; and stating why readers should find these matters interesting. Without doing so, readers may simply perceive that the article is being used as a form of therapy, or as a means of having the last word. He has some potentially very interesting points to make, but for ethical reasons needs to be very clear in writing the piece that his aims are not self-serving in this way, and that instead he is using this experience to engage with specific ethical, methodological or other disciplinary questions which are of interest to other scholars.
2. Not unconnectedly, in some places the article lacks a tight focus, or digresses with small but distracting asides. On line 65, for example, there is a brief aside about the changing market Swiss national histories; or on lines 101-103, there is a brief speculation about how the NRP 76 programme will affect the careers of individual researchers; or in lines 118-128 the point that historians face different methodological challenges (and incur different ethical responsibilities) when their research concerns the lives of living people. This last issue is potentially of deep interest to other scholars, and it is one that the author potentially has much to say about by writing reflexively from experience, as he seeks to do. But the point is rather lost in an extended reflection on Marc Bloch which is rather too focused on enjoying its 'fresh meat' metaphor. The impression this creates is one of unclear focus, and a concern with style over structure and focused argumentation. I don't think this is the author's intention, but the article would be significantly improved if this kind of digression was removed except where it serves or drives forward the argument of the article. Currently I think these these asides and digressions are there precisely because the article's aims and its argument are somewhat unclear - as described above.
3. Where the article refers to a controversial matter where opinion may legitimately differ, care should be taken to represent those portrayed in it fairly, and while academic freedom is important, especial care is needed to avoid descriptions that further aggravate sensitivities. I would question whether the description on lines 130-132 of how victims' experience had been taken to be 'of no interest to anyone' is a good one to use here, and the use of loaded terms such as 'pomposity' or 'downright lies' may aggravate rather than soothing passions. Would it be fairer to the author's interlocutors to use a description such as 'things that for decades were ignored by everyone, including scholars...'? Similarly, in lines 206 and 207, the use of the phrase 'supposedly claiming' and 'the woman told me the story of her sufferings, which I already knew' seems to convey an irritation and impatience which may be real, heartfelt and even justified, but which thoroughly undermines the attitude of fairness and reflective distance that the article absolutely must hold if it's to be taken seriously. The author's interlocutors may have held (and are entitled to hold) different opinions about his op-ed; but his portrayal of them gives the impression that they are simply differing with him on matters of fact, and that they were inexcusably incorrect about what he meant. There is not sufficient information about the op-ed content for readers to make that judgement for themselves, and it will in any case remain a matter of interpretation and opinion, since questions of 'intention' are not easily settled through evidence. I recognise that this point is largely about the language of the piece, and may follow from the author writing in what is not his first language, but would recommend that he review and revise the piece with particular attention to descriptions where he may be perceived to belittle his interlocutors' point of view, such as the following:
   1. instead of 'supposedly...', consider the different impact of 'they said they had seen my statement in the article "xxx" as a suggestion that...'
   2. or instead of 'the woman told me the story of her sufferings, which I already knew', consider the different impact of 'the woman reiterated the history of victimisation described in her book'.
4. It seems to me that the most interesting - and potentially, for other scholars, most engaging - part of this piece is where the author reflects on the nature and meaning of the term and social role of 'victimhood'. The section from line 141 to 152 most closely engaged my attention and seemed as though it could form the basis of a really interesting line of argument and discussion, threaded through the whole piece. It seems as if this may well have been the author's intention - in this article as well as in his newspaper op-ed. But it's not clear enough from the structure or the framing of the article that this is the central matter under discussion, and nor is this interesting question of the status of victimhood 'baked in' to the piece as a whole. In my opinion, the author would have a much-improved article to offer other scholars if he made clearer that discussing the nature of this role was his main aim; and if he then introduced some framing material near the top of the article, such as a discussion of the question of victimhood as seen in other papers. There is a whole sub-field of criminology, for example, called victimology; and there is a very wide range of very interesting literature there about who, in dominant cultural framings, 'counts' as a 'good' victim and (by contrast) whose experiences of victimisation are written off or ignored. Within that literature there are some interesting reflective pieces about the ethical and methodological difficulties researchers encounter when considering these matters; and some of the works cited in the paper (such as those by Sköld and Swain) cover related matters. It's clear that the author is aware of this literature, but he does not engage with it in great depth, and that is the paper's greatest weakness. It's not clear that the as-submitted draft defines questions arising from that literature, nor that, having defined them, it attempts answers.
5. When the article describes the author's interactions with his interlocutors, there is not sufficient detail for readers to evaluate for themselves his account of his own actions. For example, on lines 191-192 he describes the content of and the intentions behind his op-ed piece, but doesn't quote that piece in translation; this leaves readers unable to form their own opinion. Similarly, in lines 212-215 he states that his definition of 'professional victim' in the op-ed was not clear enough, and that he was thinking of something else, but the lack of contextualising information from the original piece makes it difficult for readers to make up their own minds. Similarly again, there is very little detail about how the meeting came about, and the account given of it shows that the author saw this meeting as almost being fated to turn out the way it did: it was 'bound to' lead to accusations (line 201). This may be so, but fate is not a matter of social scientific interest, and further unpacking of the underlying dynamics that led to this sense of impasse would make the piece more interesting. Similarly, on lines 250-255, there is a discussion centring on the role of researchers, how they necessarily have 'different interests and perspectives' from those they write about, and how scholars 'have to refuse' the idea that they must take the victims' side. These are sweeping statements, and they don't adequately represent the range of scholarly opinion and practice, at least not in the UK where I work, where there are a range of different stances including some of scholarship-activism, in which those who take up such a stance would, I think, think differently. It is legitimate to disagree with such perspectives, but to dismiss them as unscholarly doesn't advance the debate. In short, I think that the piece would benefit from further reflection: what does the author take for granted as axiomatic, about the role of a scholar and their moral duties and obligations, to the people they research, to the truth, to the evidence? Where do those axioms come from? Are they above debate tout court, or are they simply above debate for this author? What does the fact that he holds these axioms reveal about the conflict that his encounter with his interlocutors resulted in?

I agree with the author that questions of the meaning of a social role of victimhood are interesting and worthwhile in their own right; and I agree that they are worth discussing in print. Reflections such as that on lines 179-180 indicate that this is what the author is genuinely interested in, and the citation of texts such as that by Fassin and Rechtman goes some way to showing that there is a wider literature that this paper might speak to, and thus a scholarly audience that it might engage.

However, what sings out most strongly from the paper as submitted was the author's sense of hurt and difficulty arising from the social media reaction to his publications. Those feelings are understandable, and other scholars may well feel sympathy as fellow humans; but there is no necessary reason why they should find these a matter of academic interest, and this makes me think that without substantial revision the piece is not suitable for publication in an academic journal.

To get it towards that point, I would like to see the author reflecting further on the social and cultural backdrop to this difficult and in some respects painful interaction. For example, he states on lines 216-217 that he had fulfilled a moral duty but that a sense of discomfort remained; I think it would have been interesting to hear more about what that moral duty was and why he felt it; and more about that discomfort: why did it persist, what was left undone by the meeting? What responsibilities did the victims want him to discharge, and where did these come from? What responsibility was he meeting, and where did this come from? I think these questions get to the heart of where the piece may be interesting to others.

I encourage the author to make these revisions, because I think the piece is potentially of broad and substantial interest. However, without them it risks being perceived as an attempt to have the last word. Such perceptions of his motives may be unavoidable, and a consequence of unresolvable conflicts and interest clashes; indeed, as he suggests, this may be something that's 'bound to' happen. But if it is, it would be better for the article to have extracted some reflections of deeper methodological interest to other scholars, from what was clearly a difficult (and therefore an interesting) research experience.

Author Response

Drinking Coffee with my "Victims": Reply to the Reviews

First, I would like to express may gratitude and thank to the reviewers for the attention dedicated to this article. I do also appreciate their explicit positive judgements: strong potential interest of the article (review 2), very promising title / issue (review 3). My particular thank goes to reviewer 2 for the exceptionally detailed and helpful comments. It is a think-piece and a wonderful example of close reading. I have learned much from it.

Having said so, I nevertheless have to comment on two or three general aspects of the reviews. It is uncertain that they come from the scholarly field that can be expected when submitting an article to a journal called "Histories". Review 2 mentions that he/she is an ethnographer and doubts whether his/her remarks really apply to historical scholarship. Indeed, ethnography/anthropology leans more towards social science than towards humanities and has usually different ideas about the definition of a "true" scholarly format of an article. One of the differences lies in the interest of the particular case which is not immediately translated into a generalized pattern/knowledge. This applies to my exploratory endeavor, and part of the criticism seems to rely on this divergence between the mentioned fields and audiences. My article is dedicated to a historical approach.

The article is a reflection about an attempt to come to terms with a conflict between a historical scholar and the persons treated in his text. It is embedded in a victimization framework: the persons treated in the text have been injured by earlier state practice which new state policies want to rectify as far as possible. The three reviewers wish that the article should be amplified with further references to that official victimization framework. Some literature in that direction has already been quoted in the first version (see fns. 9, 14 etc.). But here it is important to relativize their wish: (first) the victimization fields are extremely variable so that such references have only a restricted value and (second) it is the postproduction of the text which lies at the heart of the article. What happens after the text has been produced? People quite frequently disagree about texts, but they rarely come together in a coffee setting to speak their heart. And if they do so, it is very rarely described in a scholarly article. Since the principal heading of the special issue is called "History from Scratch" I thought it possible and appropriate to risk an exploratory step in that direction. It helps us to reflect about text dynamics and our options to deal with them in equitable ways.

Review 3 adds another aspect to the wish for more references; they should have an international character ("outside the Swiss context"). Here I would like to point to the fact that the article mentions quite a few countries where historical commissions have been at work: South America, particularly Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay; South Africa, Mauritius, and Canada (see p. 4). However, as already stated, it is a huge difference if such commissions have to deal with a racist apartheid system or with coercive family measures.

On the other hand, I agree with many remarks of the reviews: my aims were not clearly set out in the introduction; I should have been more explicit in explaining my intentions, more prudent in describing my "coffee partners" and I should have dropped some sideline remarks which distract the readers from the main plot. The corrected version of the article has new paragraphs in the introduction and in the conclusion and quite a few shorter changes in the main text. I think they meet most of the critical points in the reviews. I have changed especially lines 33–48, fn. 20, lines 387–392 and 266–312.

Reviewer 3 Report

This article presents some flaws both in terms of addressing the research question and presenting a study case not related to previous research.

All the narrative tens to explain one particular case but is not relevant enough to drawn conclusions, which are at the same time poor and could let to superficial findings.

Although the title is very promising, the content is not at the same level. Work still need to be done.

In its present form, without more links to other cases, more references, more thorough and extensive work, the article is not adequate for publication.

Perhaps also links outside the Swiss context would be appreciated.

Author Response

Drinking Coffee with my "Victims": Reply to the Reviews

First, I would like to express may gratitude and thank to the reviewers for the attention dedicated to this article. I do also appreciate their explicit positive judgements: strong potential interest of the article (review 2), very promising title / issue (review 3). My particular thank goes to reviewer 2 for the exceptionally detailed and helpful comments. It is a think-piece and a wonderful example of close reading. I have learned much from it.

Having said so, I nevertheless have to comment on two or three general aspects of the reviews. It is uncertain that they come from the scholarly field that can be expected when submitting an article to a journal called "Histories". Review 2 mentions that he/she is an ethnographer and doubts whether his/her remarks really apply to historical scholarship. Indeed, ethnography/anthropology leans more towards social science than towards humanities and has usually different ideas about the definition of a "true" scholarly format of an article. One of the differences lies in the interest of the particular case which is not immediately translated into a generalized pattern/knowledge. This applies to my exploratory endeavor, and part of the criticism seems to rely on this divergence between the mentioned fields and audiences. My article is dedicated to a historical approach.

The article is a reflection about an attempt to come to terms with a conflict between a historical scholar and the persons treated in his text. It is embedded in a victimization framework: the persons treated in the text have been injured by earlier state practice which new state policies want to rectify as far as possible. The three reviewers wish that the article should be amplified with further references to that official victimization framework. Some literature in that direction has already been quoted in the first version (see fns. 9, 14 etc.). But here it is important to relativize their wish: (first) the victimization fields are extremely variable so that such references have only a restricted value and (second) it is the postproduction of the text which lies at the heart of the article. What happens after the text has been produced? People quite frequently disagree about texts, but they rarely come together in a coffee setting to speak their heart. And if they do so, it is very rarely described in a scholarly article. Since the principal heading of the special issue is called "History from Scratch" I thought it possible and appropriate to risk an exploratory step in that direction. It helps us to reflect about text dynamics and our options to deal with them in equitable ways.

Review 3 adds another aspect to the wish for more references; they should have an international character ("outside the Swiss context"). Here I would like to point to the fact that the article mentions quite a few countries where historical commissions have been at work: South America, particularly Bolivia, Argentina, Uruguay; South Africa, Mauritius, and Canada (see p. 4). However, as already stated, it is a huge difference if such commissions have to deal with a racist apartheid system or with coercive family measures.

On the other hand, I agree with many remarks of the reviews: my aims were not clearly set out in the introduction; I should have been more explicit in explaining my intentions, more prudent in describing my "coffee partners" and I should have dropped some sideline remarks which distract the readers from the main plot. The corrected version of the article has new paragraphs in the introduction and in the conclusion and quite a few shorter changes in the main text. I think they meet most of the critical points in the reviews. I have changed especially lines 33–48, fn. 20, lines 387–392 and 266–312.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The piece is improved by the author's revisions following the first stage of the review process. Not all of the concerns I had have been addressed in full, and the article would have interested me to a greater degree had a different tack been taken with regard to suggestions about situating it in a particular literature. However, with the author's aims stated more clearly, my suggestions in that direction become questions of personal preference rather than a barrier to publication on quality grounds.

Author Response

-

Reviewer 3 Report

This paper is problematic since its conception since it relies on a single case and does not bring enough evidence of theoretical framework and references that could really enhance and make the article reliable and academically solid.

Author Response

--