I have really appreciated the discussion about public higher education here, particularly the contributions of David and Brian. I am in complete sympathy with the need to defend and protect and indeed strengthen "the embodied engagement of citizens" through our educational institutions, particularly in the face of the blind willingness of many of our colleagues to aid and abet the assault on public higher education through their eager and enthusiastic participation in the ongoing MOOCification and precaritization of higher ed.
I have a couple of (seemingly unrelated) questions. 1. Both David and Brian seem to insist that the neoliberal elites are targeting the capacity of left critique in their remaking (or disassembling) of publicly-supported higher education. This presumes that they see our critique as particularly threatening. I'm prepared to believe this but would be interested in seeing some explicit evidence for this claim. The dismantling of higher education as we know it seems mainly motivated by the ideology and practice of neoliberal economics not by the ideology of what used to be called the culture wars. What makes the current situation so much more dangerous than the attacks on the academic left in the 1980s is its focus on economic and structural change more than on the ideology or content of what is being taught in the classroom. Of course these are closely related, but this 21st century moment feels very different to me than the last decades of the 20th century. 2. What is the role of the nonhuman sciences in this attack on public higher ed? Leaving aside for the moment the more recent development of professional schools, we still need to account for the role of the natural and physical sciences in higher education. They have always been a part of the American university and are also suffering (in similar but not identical ways) from the same assault on the tenured professoriate, embodied pedagogy, and so forth. I would add to David's fine list of authors who should be read in a democracy figures like Darwin, Einstein, Margulis, Lyell, Newton, Carson, Galileo, and others. When we think about what is being threatened by the neoliberal demolition of public higher education we need to include the kinds of scientific and technical knowledge that is also essential to a democracy, particularly to how we "care" for the planet and the nonhuman plants and animals with which we share it. With care, Richard On Nov 28, 2012, at 8:42 AM, David Golumbia wrote: > I don't have a great deal to add to Brian's excellent analysis, with which I > am in pretty much complete agreement. I will say that I particularly like the > introduction of the word "care" into the discussion, because there is no > doubt to me that much of what is supposed to go on in higher education is > about care: to some extent, a kind of interpersonal care, but that largely in > service of a care about the whole of society, about the demos and about > democracy, and about--at least in the US context--the tension between > majority rule and the rights and interests of minorities (of every sort) > within democratic systems. I focus on this general perspective because it is > possible to marshal so many figures from across the political spectra--that > is, until very recently--to my side: not just Dewey, Marx, Derrida, Kant, > Spivak, and Mumford, but Jefferson, Burke, Locke, Heidegger, Habermas, > Keynes, Schumpeter, Madison, and many others. All these thinkers (and many > others) saw and insisted on the necessity for society to have a central > institution in which the embodied engagement of citizens (in many but not all > cases, citizens from across the classes, races, and other social groupings) > read through and discuss the multifarious discourses that produced the > systems we have today. > > As such, I believe that the public maintenance of the university is critical, > without any particular additional politics needing to be found within it, > although in a more local way I mean to make available my particular political > perspective very strongly. Every day, when I teach, I find students who want > to explore, analyze, and understand the systems in all the ways that > capitalism is telling us now to eliminate--even those who more or less "buy > into it," as even they want to understand it better. As long as the efforts > of the likes of Thrun and even Clayton Christenson--both of whose remarks one > may search thoroughly and find no reflection whatsoever on the issues I've > mentioned here--are allowed to reframe higher education as primarily an > economic concern without a concentrated and direct response from those of us > responsible for our educational heritage--the threat will be very serious. A > "democratic" US in which nobody has read Jefferson, Locke, Madison, Plato, et > al, is frightening indeed, and it happens to be exactly what the Tea Party > offers and instances, and I hope that the nightmarish vision it offers will > serve as a limit case that the rest of us can guard against. > > David > > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 5:09 AM, Brian Holmes <bhcontinentaldr...@gmail.com> > wrote: > the question of what knowledge is good for in society. Do we go to the > university just to be more-or-less enslaved into the roles of middle-managers > who will carry out the next restructuring of capitalism? Or do we insist on a > public mission that cannot be carried out under the conditions of > super-exploited intellectual labor (for the teachers) and debt peonage (for > the students)? David Golumbia is totally right to say that the capacity of > critique is being targeted right now by the neoliberal elites, as part of > their struggle to conserve and defend the existing rotten structure. He's > also right to say that this capacity of critique is something essential -- > IF, I would add, it can be turned into a real power, the power to propose and > demand a different development model, one that is precisely NOT based on the > surplus value of Fordist manufacturing, which is actually the last thing we > need. We need an economy of care, for each other, for the social peace and > for the environment, and that cannot be a predatory capitalist economy, even > though it will still involve a complex fit between what people produce and > how that production circulates. > > The question is how to develop a strategy for moving through this crisis and > exerting transformative effects. I'm wondering what David might have to say > about this. From my viewpoint (which is not that of a career academic, by the > way) I think the university has to be part of the strategy. It's a key site, > both for perceiving the conjuncture, and for organizing an opposition within > it. > > all the best, Brian > > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre > > > > -- > David Golumbia > dgolum...@gmail.com > _______________________________________________ > empyre forum > empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au > http://www.subtle.net/empyre Richard Grusin rgru...@gmail.com
_______________________________________________ empyre forum empyre@lists.cofa.unsw.edu.au http://www.subtle.net/empyre
