Why and How Should Sociologists Speak out on Palestine

• In Event: 40406 - Debating the Place for Value-Commitments in Sociology

Abstract

The essay begins with the question of neutrality: why might sociologists keep silent on the question of Palestine? On the other hand, if they are to speak out, then why specifically support the Palestinian cause and what could be the distinctive sociological stance? The essay claims an historical approach is necessary to understand competing narratives and the linkage between twists in the past and possibilities in the future. Any historical analysis requires a standpoint and, for sociologists, standpoints are embedded in sociological theory. In examining Israel/Palestine the essay turns from the analogy of apartheid to a theory of settler colonialism based on a comparison of the histories of South Africa and Israel/Palestine, asking why the former ends up with a negotiated transition and the latter in a violent territorial expansionism. To answer this question the essay distinguishes two ideal types of settler colonialism, one based on labor exploitation and the other on land expropriation. Each type has its own political consequences and conditions of possibility, illuminating the past, present and future divergences between South Africa and Israel/Palestine, with implications for speaking out on Palestine.
 

Authors

• Michael Burawoy, University of California-Berkeley

• Laura R. Ford, Faulkner University