Chris Knight (anthropologist)

Professional

Following an MPhil in Russian Literature from the University of Sussex in 1975,^[1] Knight gained his PhD in 1987 at the University of London for a thesis on Claude Lévi-Strauss's four-volume Mythologiques. He became a lecturer in anthropology at the University of East London in 1989 and a professor at the same institution in 2000.^[2] Knight is a founding member of the "Radical Anthropology Group" (RAG).^[3] He is currently a senior research fellow in the Department of Anthropology, University College London.^[4]

Since graduating from the University of Sussex in 1966, Knight has been exploring the idea that language and symbolic culture emerged in the human species through a process of Darwinian evolution culminating at a certain point in revolutionary change. Becoming human was, according to this theory, a classic instance of a dialectical process, i.e. one in which quantitative change culminates eventually in a qualitative leap. In pursuing this line of thought, Knight takes inspiration not only from modern Darwinian theorists such as Eörs Szathmáry and John Maynard Smith but also from Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, who in their later years were fascinated by what was then the new science of anthropology.^[5]

In 1996, Knight co-founded the EVOLANG series of international conferences on the origins of language, since when he has become a prominent figure in debates on the origins of human symbolic culture and especially the origin of language. In recognition of his contribution to evolutionary linguistics, Knight was awarded the Evolutionary Linguistics Association’s Lifetime Achievement Award at an event held in Vienna in April 2014.^[6]

Activism

Initially a supporter of the Militant tendency, Chris Knight was later a founder editor of the journal Labour Briefing^[7] (he remains on the board^[8]) and has a long record of political activism. Knight defines himself intellectually as a Marxist.^[9]

During the build-up to the 2009 G-20 Summit in London, he was involved in a street theatre group known as The Government of the Dead. Statements he made at this time in an interview^[7] for the London Evening Standard^[10] (and the PM programme^[11]) led the Corporate Management Team at the University of East London to charge him with 'advocating violence' and 'bringing the university into disrepute'. He was suspended on 26 March 2009^[2] and, despite a petition signed by over 700 academics and others, was 'summarily dismissed' on 22 July 2009.

The idea of suspending a professor for saying they'd like to see a revolution is absolutely chilling: by that standard, half the people whose work we teach would not themselves qualify to teach in our schools. It's all the more ridiculous considering everyone is perfectly will aware Chris is not an advocate of violence. Shutting down the Alternative Summit was absolutely disgraceful. This is precisely the kind of resistance to government policies - the thoughtful discussion of alternatives - that one would have thought universities were there to encourage. Does UEL really want to go down in history as opening a new page in the suppression of intellectual freedom and freedom of speech? Because if they continue this way, that's certainly what they will be most known for throughout the world.

— David Graeber, Petition to UEL management demanding the reinstatement of Chris Knight. April 2009

On 28 April 2011, Knight was one of three people arrested "on suspicion of conspiracy to cause public nuisance and breach of the peace". The three were planning a mock execution of the Duke of York in Central London the following day, to coincide with the wedding of Prince William and Catherine Middleton. All three were later released without charge.^{[12][13][14][15]} On 30 November 2011, Knight was one of 21 'Occupy London' activists arrested and later charged with public order offences for occupying the Haymarket (Central London) offices of the mining company Xstrata in a protest against the company's diversion of the McArthur River in the Northern Territory of Australia while violating sites held sacred by the Yanyuwa, Mara, Garrawa and Gurdanji Traditional Owners of the region. On 8 August 2012, following a hearing at Westminster Magistrates' Court, Knight and his co-defendants were all found not guilty.^[16]

In 2017, Knight supported Ken Livingstone in a controversy over allegedly anti-Semitic remarks made by the former London Mayor in 2016.^[17]

Blood Relations: Menstruation and the Origins of Culture

Published in 1991, Knight's first full-length book, Blood Relations: Menstruation and the origins of culture was favourably reviewed in The Times Higher Educational Supplement, The Times Literary Supplement and The London Review of Books; it also received publicity through an interview on the BBC World Service Science Now programme, a debate with Dr. Henrietta Moore on BBC Radio 4 Woman’s Hour, a front-page news report in The Independent on Sunday and Daily Telegraph and coverage in many other periodicals.^[18] The Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute described Blood Relations as ‘a very readable, witty, lively treasure-trove of anthropological wisdom and insight.’^[19] In April 1998, the Independent on Sunday featured a two-page article on Knight's work by science correspondent Marek Kohn, who described his approach as ‘drawing together some of the most dynamic lines of argument in current British evolutionary thought’.^[20] Although Knight's theory remains controversial, in the years since Blood Relations was published, it has become central to an increasing body of archaeological research and debate on how symbolic culture emerged in the human species.^{[21][22][23][24]}

Decoding Chomsky: Science and revolutionary politics

Knight's most recent book, Decoding Chomsky is a sustained critique of Noam Chomsky's approach to science and its relationship to politics. Its publication in October 2016 sparked instant public controversy. A reviewer for the US The Chronicle of Higher Education hailed it as perhaps 'the most in-depth meditation on “the Chomsky problem” ever published', recommending it as 'a compelling read'.^[25] In Britain, The New Scientist described Knight's controversial account as 'trenchant and compelling.'^[26] Chomsky responded dismissively to Knight's book in both The New York Times^[27] and The London Review of Books.^[28]