The term “black” in this context implies disreputable, shamed, illicit, or outcast. It is also interesting to observe that although the term “blacklist” is pervasive throughout the predatory publishing literature, equally racist terms such as “black sheep” and “black market” are also frequently used in relation to predatory publishers. It is notable that the first recorded use of the term occurs at the time of mass enslavement and forced deportation of Africans to work in European-held colonies in the Americas.
Specifically of employers’ list of workers considered troublesome (usually for union activity) is from 1888. In this context, it is worth examining the origins of the term “blacklist” from the Douglas Harper Etymology Dictionary, which states that its origin and history is:Īlso black-list, black list, “list of persons who have incurred suspicion,” 1610s, from black (adj.), here indicative of disgrace, censure, punishment (attested from 1590s, in black book) + list (n.). Such dualism extends into our conceptions of good-evil, sacred/divine-profane, and civilized-heathen/barbarian. Thus, a foundational ontological dualism accepted by many people in Western cultures includes the supposedly “natural” divides between subject-object, body-spirit, human-nature, and self-other. Although the epistemological dualism of Descartes may be seen in earlier works by Plato and Aristotle, this way of thinking is often associated with the Enlightenment and the subsequent scientific revolution and industrial development. The black-white dualism explicit in these binary terms is often associated with Western thinking that is usually traced back to the work of Rene Descartes. The racism in such “black is bad, white is good” metaphors is inappropriate and needs to cease. To compound the issue, it is also striking how often the term “whitelist” is used for a supposedly good, respectable, or safe list of publishers. The use of this term is also apparent in respected academic magazines such as University Affairs, the Times Higher Education Supplement, and the Chronicle of Higher Education. However, its use continues, and the new fee-for-access list recently developed by a private company (Cabell’s International) to replace Beall’s list is also routinely framed in this manner. It is also notable that the term “blacklist” is often featured in quotation marks (as demonstrated here), which appears to indicate that some authors are at least aware of the inappropriateness of such language.
Although Monica Berger discusses the terminology used in relation to predatory publishing, her examination fails to explore its racist aspect. However, in examining the emerging literature surrounding predatory publishing, it is striking how often the term “blacklist” is used to describe Beall’s list of potential, possible, or probable predatory journals and publishers. The Western-biased, Eurocentric, and racist overtones of some aspects of the predatory publishing debate have already been noted. Further attention focused on the issue of predatory publishers through a number of highly publicized sting operations targeting such publishers. Although Kirsten Bell has taken a more positive view of predatory publishing, considerable negative attention and concern has focused on the exponential growth of publishing ventures that prioritize profit over quality and engage in a litany of suspect and deceitful practices. In 2008, Jeffrey Beall, a librarian at the University of Colorado in Denver, produced a list of potential, possible, or probable predatory journals and publishers.
0 kommentar(er)
