Manufacturing Silence in Antiquity-related displines

Manufacturing silence in antiquity-related disciplines

I have long wondered, along with other colleagues, why there is silence in most disciplines related to antiquity. I think there is an atmosphere of fear among those who are silent. The title of this post says what I think the reason is. I believe that this silence and fear is manufactured. I am referring, of course, to the famous book Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky (1988). Wikipedia, linked above, says of the book that it "argues that the mass communication media of the United States are effective and powerful ideological institutions that perform a system-supporting propaganda function by relying on market forces, internalised assumptions, and self-censorship, and without overt coercion" through the propaganda model of communication. The title refers to the consent of the governed and derives from the phrase "the manufacture of consent" used by Walter Lippmann in Public Opinion (1922). Manufacturing Consent won the Orwell Prize in 1989 for "outstanding contributions to the critical analysis of public discourse". 

While public discourse is an important factor in the production of silence in antiquity-related disciplines, what I am referring to here is the production of silence in the academic discourses of these disciplines: take, for example, papyrology, in which I have not only studied at the ASU in Cairo, where I am currently a tenured lecturer, but in which I have a Ph.D. from the University of Heidelberg. There are many techniques used to produce silence in this discipline. I will not offer a comprehensive analyssis of this now, but I will start reflecting on it by refering to the most important factor in this process. Fear in my opnion is the most important factor. 

Silence in academia can often stem from fear - fear of backlash from peers, institutions or funding bodies. This can discourage researchers from challenging established narratives or exploring controversial issues, perpetuating a cycle of silencing certain ideas. It is important to distinguish between imposed and internalised silence. Academic institutions can create environments where silence is cultivated through hierarchical structures. Scholars may feel pressured to conform their work to dominant paradigms or to avoid deviating from accepted methodologies, leading to the suppression of alternative perspectives. On the other hand, scholars in antiquity-related disciplines may internalise expectations of acceptable discourse. This can lead to tacit agreements about what topics are 'safe' to explore, limiting intellectual diversity and innovation.

I do not belong to either of these traditionalist groups, but to those who are thinking about alternatives. You could call this group the marginalised or the minority among academics, but they exist and they support each other. There are different types of minorities. The first are those who are really a minority, and those who offer new, unconventional perspectives even though they are part of the majority. Both types of scholars from underrepresented backgrounds or those proposing unconventional ideas may find themselves isolated. The lack of mentorship, funding or institutional validation can further entrench silence and complicate the issue in academic settings.

Another important factor, which also relates to the book mentioned above, is public discourse. While public discourse is essential in shaping societal values, its influence can also limit academic freedom. Scholars may feel compelled to engage publicly in ways that are in line with popular sentiment, even if these perspectives differ from their research findings. This kind of control over research findings is exercised through the peer review process in the publishing industry. It is another key factor in the whole process. The pressure to publish can lead scholars to produce work that conforms to existing trends rather than challenging them, resulting in a lack of critical engagement with the silence in ancient studies. This is not to say that there are no scholars who critically engage with the issue of silence. No, on the contrary. There are always courageous scholars who try to do serious scholarship, either parallel to the traditional or completely revolutionary. I believe that addressing this complex issue requires more than ranting about it in a blogpost. It requires creating such safe spaces for dialogue, as we have done with Everyday Orientalism, promoting inclusivity beyond slogans, and advocating for academic freedom. In this initiative we have been encouraging interdisciplinary collaboration beyond the traditional boundries of ancient studies, which can also provide opportunities for silenced voices to emerge and be heard.

In summary, my reflections, or my rantings if you wish, highlight the complexities surrounding silencing in academia, particularly in disciplines related to antiquity. Addressing these issues requires thoughtful action that prioritises transparency, open dialogue, and support for diverse scholarly voices. Encouraging conversations about fear and silence can foster an environment conducive to critical analysis and constructive discourse in the field. Oh, and do you wonder why I started this rant. Look at this piece in the New York Times about smuggling artefacts from Eygpt, a topci and research area which is silenced in papyrology from the very begining. That is the topic of current research project about colonized fragments.