When the canon becomes subversive: Whose research is really “Activist”?

Abstract Peace and Conflict Studies was shaped by a canon that revolved around the prevention of mass atrocities through uncovering the drivers and mechanisms of destruction, aggression, and discrimination, and by tracing the potential of civil society actors to scandalize and resist such actions around the globe. The quest for relevance and impact in the discipline was addressed through targeted research communication and political engagement in or vis-à-vis political institutions, generating evidence in close cooperation with NGOs and fact-finding efforts by multilateral institutions, particularly under the umbrella of the UN. But in a break with the substantial canon and the standard procedures of the discipline, Peace and Conflict researchers have recently been asked to be “neutral” when confronted with the intentional killing of tens of thousands of civilians, and criticized as “activist” or too political when they worked according to canonized principles. As I argue in this forum contribution, the label “activist” has an exceptionalizing, policing, and ultimately paralyzing function. It operates as a derogatory gesture used to police the boundaries of relevance and impact in Peace and Conflict Studies. Rather than marking a substantive deviation from established academic standards, accusations of “politicization” function to disqualify research that follows ordinary disciplinary procedures yet produces analytically and politically uncomfortable conclusions or addresses decision-makers outside the mainstream.