In public universities, we often believe we are immune from social divisions, especially if we accept the credo that our institutions are committed to “the public good.” However, if we look at disciplinary cultures for example, there are distinctions that, albeit unintentional, create hierarchies within institutions of higher education about what counts as legitimate scholarship, who is to be recognized, and where resource investments are to be made.  

It seems to me that we need to engage one another now more than ever, whether it be the societal issues of our day or imagining a more equitable future for scholarship in higher education. However, engagement does not always equate with agreement or consensus, nor should it be about compromise or appeasement. Just as community is often born out of crisis, democratic engagement can be preceded by conflict—agonistic, not antagonistic.

Agonism is the idea that conflict is accepted as a given and where it might be channeled in positive ways. As a valuable practice of democratic engagement, agonism destabilizes any appeals to authoritative identities or fixed universal principles. With agonism there is no natural hierarchy, there is no fixed truth about social relations. Unlike antagonism, agonism shows respect by admitting the ultimate contestability of even one's own deepest held commitments.  

Related, knowledge is not singular nor does it reside with an individual “expert”. It is to be debated, deliberatively produced and negotiated in ways that may or may not result in mutual acceptance. However, when done with respect and humility, democratic-based community engagement holds the promise that shared understandings can be attained even when agreements are not fully realized. Just as a diamond is formed when carbon is subjected to high temperatures and pressure, intentional and respectful engagement can help shape and lead to beautiful and unexpected outcomes.

I reflect on the relationship between community engagement and knowledge as Tessa Hill and I wrap up the spring quarter facilitating a seminar with our inaugural cohort of Public Scholars for the Future. Through the  seminar we have created a space for these graduate students, across a myriad of disciplines, to come together to work through the many tensions and preconceptions that undergird disciplinary knowledge, and develop a common understanding of public scholarship that allows differences to coexist within. It is acts of engagement like these that are critical if we are to realize a plural vision of higher education based on mutuality and respect.

In community,

Michael Rios
Vice Provost, Public Scholarship and Engagement