Taner Akçam as Scholar-Activist and Armenian-Turkish Relations

An important debate in the field of comparative genocide studies emerged about 15 years ago. Should scholars of genocide disconnect themselves from the political and even ethical dimensions of engagement with past genocides and prevention of future genocides? In other words, does being a proper scholar require disinterest, or is it permissible—and even laudable—for a scholar of genocide to take ethical stands and to advocate for intervention against ongoing genocides, justice—however defined—for past cases, and prevention of genocide in the future? The stakes were very high and, as in any academic context, there were numerous factors, possibly including personal ones. Nonetheless, the question of whether scholarship must be engaged or disinterested precipitated a rupture in the membership of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS) and led to the formation of the International Network of Genocide Scholars (INoGS) in the mid-2000s. The latter group espoused the view that activist scholarship favoring a particular ethical, policy, or related position, is necessarily tainted by the scholar’s agenda and thus poor scholarship. Many in the former group maintained the position that not taking ethical and policy stands on issues of justice for past genocides, intervention against ongoing genocides or processes that are leading to genocide, and prevention of future genocides is in effect to act as bystanders. Their silence, moreover, enables ongoing and future genocides and perpetuates the suffering of victims of past genocides and the denials and lack of rectification efforts that is their typical affliction.