¿Qué llevó a un historiador a publicar críticas demoledoras sobre los libros de sus colegas en Amazon? Katie Engelhart analiza las cuestiones que plantea este caso tragicómico.
El caso
En abril de 2010, un misterioso personaje que firmaba con el seudónimo “Historiador”, comenzó a escribir críticas desfavorables en la web británica de Amazon sobre libros de historia soviética recientemente publicados. El “Historiador” expresaba, por ejemplo, que el trabajo de la profesora Rachel Polonsky era “denso” y “pretencioso” y que el último libro del profesor Robert Service era una “basura”, “un libro horrible”, al tiempo que elogiaba el “magnífico y necesario” trabajo del profesor de Birbeck College, Orlando Figes. En el intercambio de correos electrónicos privados que circularon entre reconocidos especialistas del campo (incluido Figes), se levantó la sospecha de que quien firmaba con el seudónimo “Historiador” no era otro que el mismo Figes. En uno de esos correos, Service expresó que las críticas sobre los libros no eran más que “desagradables ataques personales al viejo estilo soviético”.
Así comenzó la escandalosa saga académica. Figes negó categóricamente las sospechas en su contra y acusó a sus rivales de difamación. Al poco tiempo, también amenazó con acciones legales a los profesores Polonsky y Service, y a varios medios que avalaban las conjeturas de los historiadores en su contra. Pero tan pronto se dieron a conocer las amenazas judiciales, la esposa de Figes y abogada, Stephanie Palmer, admitió que era ella quien había publicado las críticas. Aparentemente horrorizado por la declaración de su esposa, Figes emitió un comunicado indicando que “no sabía nada al respecto”.
Pero esta explicación no duró mucho tiempo. El 23 de abril de 2010, en una nueva declaración Figes asumió “toda la responsabilidad” por las críticas publicadas y pidió disculpas a los historiadores a quienes había perjudicado. Más tarde accedió a pagar por los daños y perjuicios causados, y a cubrir los gastos legales incurridos por Polonsky y Service.
reply report Report comment
ANONYMITY IN SCHOLARSHIP SHOULD BE AN EXCEPTION
Katie Engelhart’s interesting discussion of the negative anonymous reviews of Rachel Polonsky’s and Robert Service’s works by their colleague Orlando Figes takes a curious turn at the end. Service, she writes, noted that Figes’s attitude reminded him of the Soviet practice of personal attacks. Engelhart, though, shrewdly remarks that Figes had the right to publish anonymous reviews, and she rejects Service’s view with the following argument: “Service surely understands that anonymous criticism has, in history, had its rightful place.” This argument is historically and morally untenable.
Anonymous criticism certainly had a rightful place in history—as a weapon of the weak. When in times past, graffiti and anonymous pamphlets defied the aberrations of power, they were given credit. This is hardly the case here. Figes was not the weaker party: his works are praised as much as those of Polonsky and Service. Anonymity did not serve to shield him from the vengeance of academic power; rather, it was an instrument to improperly hit his professional rivals. From a historical angle, the argument is misplaced.
Figes had the right to publish anonymous reviews, but as a citizen, not as a professional or as a scholar. As a professional, that is as a publicist, he had no good reason to remain anonymous. Journalism and anonymity go together only in the one widely recognized case of secrecy regarding a source that gives information in confidence. Figes did not protect such a source, he protected himself. As a scholar, that is as a historian, his position is even weaker. Scholarship and secrecy are each other’s enemies. Scholars have to strive for maximal transparency and accountability. Disclosure is the rule, confidentiality the exception. Peer review, if it wants to be anonymous, needs strong justification. In the Figes affair, no such justification was available, and the anonymity was in violation of scholarly deontology. Engelhart’s argument is correct at the level of citizenship only, but if the duties of professionalism and scholarship are taken into account—and they should, as the affair centers on publication and scholarly rivalry—it founders.
Ironically, in apologizing and redressing the wrongs caused by his action, Figes seemed to accept the above reasoning more than Engelhart does.
Antoon De Baets
reply report Report comment
Did RJ Ellory learn nothing from Figes? Another author caught out for trashing colleagues and glorifying his own work on Amazon – http://goo.gl/gP0we