The Many Academies Podcast

There are about 4,500 or so institutions of higher learning, two-year and four-year colleges and universities, in the United States alone. And meanwhile there are about 80 or 90 or so university presses.

That was Tim Roberts introducing his nonprofit, np:, dedicated to establishing new university presses. Talking to Tim about np:, which is now five years old, I am struck by his commitment to the possibility of invention. We need new presses, Tim suggests, because the university is no longer the space for invention. Invention stretches what we do in the university to include both our humanity and our magic.

As Michael Hardt says, “there is something magical about our own abilities, that human ability, especially the collective human capacity for creating the new, for invention.” I am Lette Bragg. Please join me in learning more about np: and the insights that emerge from its efforts to reinvent the university at the level of the university press. We learn not only about np:’s path and origin, but also about what it reveals about the lives and work of those who produce knowledge and who care that it remains possible to study and to write.

We should get right back to the beginning. In your own words, what is np:?

Well, yeah. What is it? And so first of all, just to say, yeah, thank you so much for opening up this space and having this conversation, and for the invitation, of course. Because I think it’s, you know, it is, it is, you know, really crucial. And just kind of looking at your previous episodes too, and just kind of seeing a kind of bringing-in of different voices and an evolving conversation there.

So that’s really, really great. But what is, what is, you know, what is this? So it’s, it’s, you know, it really is basically a project to start new university presses. It’s a 501(c)(3) nonprofit. And every day is really another discovery of what truly is transpiring here and, you know, trying to, trying to maintain an openness to, to, to who knows what’s going to happen.

For instance, we started out, or it started out, as a, as an attempt to—and this is a whole other area to unpack—to, to, to critique the university press and, instead of not necessarily the university itself, but this kind of supplemental arrangement of the university publication apparatus, which is, which is there to, you know, give the imprimatur to, or, you know, legitimation to certain kinds of research.

So we’re kind of looking at knowledge production from, you know, in a really basic way from that perspective. So, like, what are these presses doing? You know, they’re, you know, they’re, they’re doing the peer review, they’re doing some sort of selection process. Many of them have advisors that are really kind of bringing in the content from different areas.

They’re, you know, many folks will say, it’s a purely administrative endeavor and you’re, you’re, you’re really just kind of pushing around the, you know, the paperwork. But so, so np: really started out as a critique of that, the existence of that industry, as, as really in the end, you know, quite deeply conservative, so that it’s, you know, this kind of gatekeeping and exclusionary activity that’s there.

And really wanted to get going with that conversation, and has very much so. So, but we started out saying, okay, if we’re going to start new university presses, we’re going to need to get this kind of buy-in from the kind of upper administration at these institutions. Okay, so, so we’re—and that was happening, and, and, so, you know, it was fun.

It was really good. And, you know, there were a couple close calls. But, but I think in the end it was illustrative of this sort of working, working my way, or working our way, through the institution to, to get this kind of resistant move to, to take place. So that was good for a little while.

But then, you know, it was just, it was kind of awful. But—and this really is about the openness that I wanted to get to and the transformative thing that happens on a daily basis—so then, and then we sort of, you know, publish books within this conversation. So everything I’ve been, you can imagine the questions that just kind of start coming up, you know, all over the place with, with that effort, with those, with that thinking: this is how we’re going to change this conversation.

So, you know, book projects started to become, you know, available to, you know, think about, and different people seemed like they would be really productive people to work with. And so the book publication thing came in, and that, that really kind of reignited and rejuvenated the whole project, to work with authors in that way and to bring these conversations forward. So it became a really focused, kind of critical conversation. And we can talk about that too.

There’s a, you know, I guess, a strong argument to be made for “we have too many university presses.” Is it, is it that that’s actually too many, this area? But, but np: really is in a place where that’s not really that interesting to think, that it’s, it’s—and I, and I, and I really, I think that the case can be, there’s a really compelling case to be made for that not being true.

So we’re, the, the vision here is of a, a much broader landscape of educational institutions that are really taking on that role of, of publication and taking the role of getting the research out there to people and, and supporting scholars in that way, and in the way in which you’re, you know, you’re going to say to them, hey, we’re going to get this out, out to market for you, as well as give you space to research and things like that.

Yeah. I have a few questions. The first thing that came up was this, you know, where people say, oh, there’s already enough, do we need more? But a lot of np: seems to be grounded in this idea of the multitude, and how that is a way of pushing back against the kind of homogenization of, you know, if there’s only one way to do things.

And so it’s the multitude which then extends beyond, extends beyond only the question of publishing, because—and again now I’m, I’m, I’m quoting Hardt—“new forms of social collaboration, new social and economic combinations, new kinds of self-management and mutualist experiments.” So it’s also, it’s operating at the level of making things that we imagine possible.

Right, in terms of how we can interact with one another and how we can think and how we can write.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. And the, the, the multitude, you know, with Hardt and, and that’s really central, a central construct for Hardt and Negri, I, I would assume, and I think one of the books is actually titled The Multitude, really comes into play when you start to—I think the very second you start to—think about forming a new scholarly publication entity, or any, you know, organizational entity, is the, how are you bringing together people, different people.

So you have, you know, somebody doing this kind of work over here, somebody’s doing this kind of work over there, and that would just even just be authors. And then when you start to think about people who are, who would actually work on, or do actually work on, these, these presses, you have to, you have some sort of justification for people being in the same room together,

Or different projects being part of a series or whatever it is. So you’re kind of immediately rethinking your, your, your kind of guidelines or manifesto or whatever it is, or you’re, you’re creating this stuff on the fly. So we’re, a kind of social gathering almost, it is, or a new relationality that’s, that’s going to transpire, that would then be related to the, the research that’s going on, the scholarship that’s happening, or which, which itself could be sort of innovating on a level of, you know, performativity or relationality.

So those conversations happen pretty much almost immediately. And of course those are conversations that, that you’re not having at that level whatsoever when you’re going to a traditional university press or traditional publication situation. So, and that’s one of the things I really do like about np:, is that it is, it is constantly committed to that kind of institutional formation at that level that’s at the ground floor.

There’s sort of this removal of the, of the ground floor. It’s like we’re, we happen to be reinventing that, that, that part of this at all times. So you—and again, that’s always this, how are you, how are you bringing different people together to work on whatever project it is? So there’s a kind of more business.

And, yeah. And then I think it’s, I think it’s really generative. It’s a really generative place to be. And, and it’s, and it’s a, and it’s a, you know, I don’t want to be too presumptuous, but I think it is—I really end up believing that as a kind of place of resistance that we’re in, as much as you’re generating something, it is, it is also a way of, of critique and to dismantle what’s happening that you, you’re, you’re not really that much in favor of, and there’s a way that we’re circling around that situation in a, in a way that I, I think, for me anyway, I can’t think of a better way to do that. I can’t think of a better way than, than, than this kind of institutional reinvention to critique an institutional daily life that we are all confronted with.

Yeah. So I, like, I’m, I’m holding in my mind the way you talk about invention. And so, because you have the reinvention, invention of university presses and also of thinking, but just in general and creating spaces, so one thing I noticed, so usually, you know, when you think about starting something new, like something like np: or publishing with np: rather than a university press, or going off the, the, you know, the, the tenure track, there’s these questions of risk.

Like you can only do it if you have something there to hold you up if you fail. And so precarity is real, for sure, yes. But invention is also rooted in this idea that these spaces open up when we kind of work to become part of a community, or communities happen when we work to create the communities.

And so I see something like invention there. It’s like, we can’t rely on what is given and expect that that is everything that is available to us, on the one hand, because it’s so limiting and it kind of deadens us and bothers us, you know, but it’s the inventing of the new spaces through the very stepping out into the new space, kind of.

No, yeah. And I mean, there is, yeah, there’s a way, you know, np: stands for the, really it’s meant to refer to the bibliographic notation of “no publisher,” or “no place”—I think people use it to indicate that as well—and, and it, yeah, it does relate also to the idea of, of a, of a new press.

That’s kind of lurking back there also as the, as a meaning. And, and, yeah. And what is it, what is this commitment to something new, and can we really, can we really generate something that’s truly new from the, from our own position? So there’s a, there’s a kind of push toward, toward doing that at the same time that there’s a, there’s an awareness of the performativity of, of that, of that commitment, which means that, okay, we, we are aware that this could fail.

You know, we, we are going to, you know, keep, keep our eye on resources so that, you know, we don’t, we don’t end up, you know, not being able to survive. But at some point there’s a way that survivability really relies on this, this extension into, into what might not even be there, into a no-place, or a placelessness.

And so, and all the way, all the way into, you know, publishing within urban studies in a lot of ways, and we just came out with this book called The Manhattanville Project by Stefan Chavez-Norgaard, which really talks about, you know, taps into really a whole other area of the critique of the university, which is the, which is the urban studies piece around universities taking over inner cities, like the University of Chicago and, and, and Columbia University, where they’re, you know, in Manhattanville displacing a lot of people there,

You know, according to traditional understandings of that dynamic. So critique, you know, thinking, continuing to think about displacement and placelessness or having a place with that argument and that conversation at the same time that it, it really, you know, you would think it might not be directly related to universities, but in fact there’s a whole range of scholarship, particularly with Davarian Baldwin in the book In the Shadow of the Ivory Tower, that talks all about this.

So there’s a way that critical university studies really needs to have that argument, those arguments, as part of its constitution and what it’s doing.

You know, you were talking about critique, and there is so much to critique, right, necessary critique. And then it just also strikes me how difficult it becomes to create, and then more and more it seems like the, the, the, the one of, the only ways forward in terms of creation is this move, as you said earlier, to relational, to hospitality, like this, these spaces of, just, to think and write and talk and let other things in and have new infrastructures to make this possible.

And I’m thinking now too about the, you mentioned earlier how it can be overwhelming when you think of everything that’s happening, and just like what we, what you’re up against. Yeah. And so sometimes, like, creation is, like, just moments of relief, like these, these conversations. They’re like little spaces of, again, like thinking or just, like, pushing back to create a new way.

I don’t know, just like a non, like a non-constraining possibility, you know. I think sometimes that is so much in and of itself.

Yeah. Yeah. No, I, I, I agree. And I think, yeah, there’s a lot of urgency as we, you know, as—or as we just go through day by day here with the headline news and, and how it, how everything is really playing out with, with, you know, at a place like Columbia and other sort of flagship institutions that are being used as examples for how academic freedom, what, what there is of it, can be embraced in a, in a, in a heartbeat.

So, yeah, it’s, it’s, it’s, it’s really great to have these conversations.

And, you know, I know we’re, I think we’re just about out of time, but I really wanted to talk to you—I had two questions. Like, one is, like, super practical. So if you were to work with, like, Swarthmore College, for example, to create a press, what would that look like? Is that even a possibility? And then you’re interested in writing, like redefining writing.

So books, yes, but also, like, what is writing, what do we mean by writing? And I’d love to hear more about that concept, writing, and how you struggle over it.

Yeah, that’s a, that’s a great question. And it’s a great question about Swarthmore. And, you know, there isn’t a Swarthmore University Press out there, though I think that there was, there was a University Press of New England connection there, that was, there was a kind of umbrella organization for the different folks in that area geographically.

But it can be as simple as, as, as really just having a handful of projects and saying, okay, here we have, we have ten projects or so we want to work on, and we’re going to budget these out over—or plan these out over—the next five years or so, and, and we can really just take it from there, as far as reaching out to people to help those projects, you know, materialize, and then figuring out a budget that we can, that we can work with. I mean, we can, you know, typically with budgeting, it’ll, it’ll be, you know, looking at different grant possibilities, looking at all the really many options for helping to make a project happen.

And then, you know, coming up with just a plan over time so that it could, it could, you know, go that way on a really micro level, project by project. But also in terms of how to bring other folks in from the very beginning, it can happen at any level. And, like, the np: website tries to dissect each and every component of building a press.

So you can see on there, okay, here’s how we’re going to think about an editorial board if we want to go ahead and create one, which is often a necessity, and how to bring people in to do something like that. Here’s how we think about production and the different components. Here is how we think about library relationships and, and conferences, appearance at conferences, and just everything we really run into.

But I wouldn’t want any of that to, to dissuade anyone when it really fundamentally is about what we’ve been talking about, about maybe you have a really good friend and, you know, you would like to work with that person on five different things, and it’s just you and your friend and it, and it happens, you know, maybe, you know, at your house over lunch or something.

So we want to keep that really micro level as the, as the, as the source here. So yeah. Yeah. It’s really, it’s fantastic. And then, you know, it’s interpersonal to that degree. And then you can, you can talk about how writing transpires even from that same perspective as how projects are really generated. And what is it behind, you know, whatever scholarship you’re working on, or, or writing process, that you really believe in, whether it’s more, you know, more or less recognizable, more or less experimental, to, to, to, to bring forward. I mean, I think that we’re, we’re talking a lot about—and I think one of the things you asked originally was about, about study and how that filters into the, to this whole conversation—and probably, you know, there’s not too much of a way, for me anyway or my experience, to talk about writing without talking about reading. And, and of course reading is really, is what we mean when we say “study” so often. And, and that can be reading a book to reading a room to, you know, reading a piece of music that you’re playing or, you know, whatever it might be.

So, you know, what we’re talking about in a very basic way is reinventing, on an ongoing way, what, what study looks like, because we’re talking about reinventing the press—obviously we’re talking about making new ones—and we’re talking about reinventing the university in a very basic way too. And so can you even do that without reinventing study?

Without reinventing what writing looks like? So writing is—so it’s, you know, so we’re, we’re here, we’re here to say writing is the reinvention of writing. And if you feel like you’re reinventing writing, you probably are writing at that point. And you know what I mean?

Yeah. I love the idea of presses beginning with these conversations you have with your friends and the things you want to say, right, and then getting these projects together and going from there to build presses around them. There’s something like a beautiful puzzle about that, you know, because then you have to figure out the moving pieces, bring it into being.

It’s like it’s active and very, very exciting. And thinking about writing as reinventing writing, that would be such a pleasure for me to begin my writing classes with that, because it seems so often teaching writing is about, like, the, the showing of how it’s done, you know. You work backwards from example and then you replicate it, and then you learn the rules and you learn, like, the habits people have used to make it work.

But the beauty of it always comes from a moment of reinvention, which always comes anyway, because reinvention has this way of just—it keeps coming, you know.

And I, you know, and I think if you look at people who are being held up as “how it’s done,” if you look at how they figured out how to do it, they reinvented something along the way. Or else people wouldn’t be that interested in it.

Yeah. This is why I had to struggle with the concepts, I think, because when you’re reinventing and you’re in that spot, you don’t know yet what you’ve done, and so you have to name it, right. And then…

And naming is the writing. Yeah. Writing is naming in that sense. Exactly. Yeah. Yeah. So I think we’re on to something.

Thank you so much, Tim Roberts. Tim Roberts is also the director and co-founder, with Julie Carr, of Counterpath, the publisher, gallery, food bank, community garden, and free bookstore based in Denver, and hosts a fellowship for those interested in the dynamics of forming new scholarly publishers. And the list of recent publications is available at np-press.org. Thank you, Tim Roberts, for the thoughtful conversation. Thank you, Jodie Riddex, for the art, and Sebastian Bauer for the music. And thank you to the Aydelotte Foundation and Swarthmore College for supporting this podcast. Thank you for listening.