I'm not telling---I'm asking: Is now the moment when [we] ought to hammer out a framework, an etiquette, made for *now* but presumed to change in many *later*s? I know this is the wrong question. There is *no* Central Committee of Academia that professors and lecturers will entrust with negotiating and enforcing common causes. No ministry who would entertain imposing a double-plus good code of manners to 'civilize' some treaty's mission goals.
I'm afraid that an honest practical appeal for interdisciplinary peers to 'get right' and acknowledge each other as ostensible equals will, shortly, encounter a de facto consensus that every post-secondary teacher assumes that fundamental heterogeneous dissent is the natural element of discourse in the Social Sciences and Humanities (especially in the latter). Not-too-deeply-down, potential 'alliants' will express their conviction that there must be an operational meritocracy propelled by dispute in the Republic Ideas (if not the marketplace of ideas). Would authentic collaboration and compliance with consensus be brief truce, or would finding common cause require that professional lecturers and researchers accept equality at an un-traducible professional/ritual level of engagement?
I'm not telling---I'm asking: Is now the moment when [we] ought to hammer out a framework, an etiquette, made for *now* but presumed to change in many *later*s? I know this is the wrong question. There is *no* Central Committee of Academia that professors and lecturers will entrust with negotiating and enforcing common causes. No ministry who would entertain imposing a double-plus good code of manners to 'civilize' some treaty's mission goals.
I'm afraid that an honest practical appeal for interdisciplinary peers to 'get right' and acknowledge each other as ostensible equals will, shortly, encounter a de facto consensus that every post-secondary teacher assumes that fundamental heterogeneous dissent is the natural element of discourse in the Social Sciences and Humanities (especially in the latter). Not-too-deeply-down, potential 'alliants' will express their conviction that there must be an operational meritocracy propelled by dispute in the Republic Ideas (if not the marketplace of ideas). Would authentic collaboration and compliance with consensus be brief truce, or would finding common cause require that professional lecturers and researchers accept equality at an un-traducible professional/ritual level of engagement?