image

He began with reference to those who founded the modern idea of a historian as someone with a calling for the truth. Such an historian resists political pressures to produce hard facts on which the truth about the past can be established. Chakrabarty spoke about the Indian historian Jadunath Sarkar who attempted to pursue this kind of vocation in the early 20th century, to a negative response locally and indifference in the home of Empire, England.

Chakrabarty argued that historical relativism is bad for democracy: it provides nothing around which different interests might negotiate their common ground. He defended Sarkar, though he found his idea of history too romantic. In the end, Chakrabarty said that we need to have faith in the ‘craft of history’ as a practice that is open to reasoned skepticism.

For Chakrabarty, the concept of ‘craft’ seems similar to ‘calling’ in that it provides a way of pursuing your vocation for its own sake, rather than political expediency. However, unlike the individualistic notion of priestly vocation, ‘craft’ is collectively managed, whether through guilds or, indeed, history departments.

As scholars of the humanities begin to look for tentative forms of universalism, in response to growing tribal conflicts, might ‘craft’ become a a useful framework for constructing truths. A ‘crafted’ truth has a reliability, but its origin can be traced back to specific practices organised within a collective entity. Can we take this further – a craft of sociology?

The French sociologist Bruno Latour would certainly agree. His books like Laboratory Life all try to uncover the craft work that lies at the root of the manufacture of scientific knowledge. Latour invokes Martin Heidegger, Gedanke ist Handwerk – thinking is craftwork.

image

Image of Sue Rosenthal tapestry from the Symmetry: Crafts Meet Kindred Trades and Professions exhibition.

Last week the management of Fairfax limited announced the sacking of 550 staff from its Australian newspapers. There was only one reason given for this: ‘to bolster profitability’. 5% of their total workforce will make a sizeable dent in their capacity to develop stories, particularly without the backup of an in-house legal team.

But it as much the way it was done that is of concern. There was no rallying of support for the newspapers, given the economic challenges ahead. It was done coldly and ruthlessly. The The Age editor was shown the door on the same day.

The Age of late has resorted to more ‘churn’ stories and celebrity titbits. While there is an increasing variety of online opinion available, the newspapers are still the main home for deep investigative journalism.

As a sign of times ahead, the The Age also withdrew its support from Melbourne Press Club’s Graham Perkin Award for the Australian journalist of the year, in honour of a previous editor. For the daughter, Corrie Perkin, it is a disturbing lack of support for the ‘craft’ of journalism. As reported in Crikey:

”If The Age pulls out for the right reasons we accept that. If it is pulling out for reasons of cost or through some disconnect with the past and paper’s history, then I think that’s a terrible state of affairs and a sad day for journalism.”
The Award, she said, had encouraged a ”sense of pride in our craft”.

This raises an interesting question about the politics of craft. To what political force does a craft issue appeal? To the left, as a question of common good? To the greens, as an issue of cultural sustainability? Or the right, to protect moral standards? If only we had a craft lobby group.

See also:

• Journalism: Craft or profession? by Phil Hill