I think we have, through Harvey, and Pal & Dutta, established that neoliberalism is inexorably connected to transnational corporations, international agencies and think tanks. However, I think more needs to be written about sites within which neoliberal ideologies are implanted into young minds. As an economic school of thought, Neoliberalism has it's origin in Milton Friedman's economic philosophy at the University of Chicago. I think a politics of skepticism about neoliberal configurations must begin in the class, given that much of our blind faith in neoliberalism germinates from the class as well.
I teach an advertising writing class, and I think my attempts to politicize the class reflect how difficult such politics can be. In a class where my students expect me to teach them skills that will help them achieve 'magic bullet' kind of effects, it is tough for me to inculcate an atmosphere of cynicism about advertising; and the politics that underlie such campaigns. I'm sure all of us have had students who are enthralled with the 'awesome' advertising of large TNCs. How does one introduce to such an audience the fact that TNCs are inexorably connected with the disenfranchisement of large sections of the world? I ask this question sincerely; I seem to be grappling for answers.
Pal and Dutta make a good point when they bring out how 'certainty' of results is used a leverage by the laboratory whores of Exxon to caste aspersions about the effects of companies like Exxon on global warming . Our class itself has used this rhetoric of certainty to question fundamental Marxist principles. If we go back to Popper, we see that this argument (How can we be sure global warming is a man-made thing? How can believe in Marxism when we don't can't see a good example of it in practice? ) can be completely trashed. A quest for certainty defies the temperament of science itself. However, this question is not an academic one; and citing Popper in situations like these (or in class) sometimes goes over like a lead balloon.
There is something to be said about how difficult our students find it to deal with ambiguity; either theoretical or practical. I think that neoliberal agenda has something very instrinsically to do with a bipolarization, a right-vs-wrong, a schematizing view of the world. We train our students to constantly reduce ambiguity in their work and their lives. We have a way to organize their data, we have a way to present speeches, a way to hold your notecards, a way to look at your audience. It's either right or wrong. You're either bang on or off the mark. With us, or against us. It is this constant battle in my pedagogy to make them stay in the discomfort; the uncomfortable zone.
I think a wide-eyed belief in God-words like 'freedom' (Harvey's so awesome in his deconstruction of this term), 'democracy', 'development' are a result of having such polarized education. There is no room for alternatives; for alternate possibilities. Neoliberal ideology seeps in through a refusal to wallow in the murkiness; it thrives on students eager to get to either bank. What school leaves unfulfilled, God and family finish. A serious commitment to neoliberalism needs to get to the school, the organized religion and the family as sites of change.
I teach an advertising writing class, and I think my attempts to politicize the class reflect how difficult such politics can be. In a class where my students expect me to teach them skills that will help them achieve 'magic bullet' kind of effects, it is tough for me to inculcate an atmosphere of cynicism about advertising; and the politics that underlie such campaigns. I'm sure all of us have had students who are enthralled with the 'awesome' advertising of large TNCs. How does one introduce to such an audience the fact that TNCs are inexorably connected with the disenfranchisement of large sections of the world? I ask this question sincerely; I seem to be grappling for answers.
Pal and Dutta make a good point when they bring out how 'certainty' of results is used a leverage by the laboratory whores of Exxon to caste aspersions about the effects of companies like Exxon on global warming . Our class itself has used this rhetoric of certainty to question fundamental Marxist principles. If we go back to Popper, we see that this argument (How can we be sure global warming is a man-made thing? How can believe in Marxism when we don't can't see a good example of it in practice? ) can be completely trashed. A quest for certainty defies the temperament of science itself. However, this question is not an academic one; and citing Popper in situations like these (or in class) sometimes goes over like a lead balloon.
There is something to be said about how difficult our students find it to deal with ambiguity; either theoretical or practical. I think that neoliberal agenda has something very instrinsically to do with a bipolarization, a right-vs-wrong, a schematizing view of the world. We train our students to constantly reduce ambiguity in their work and their lives. We have a way to organize their data, we have a way to present speeches, a way to hold your notecards, a way to look at your audience. It's either right or wrong. You're either bang on or off the mark. With us, or against us. It is this constant battle in my pedagogy to make them stay in the discomfort; the uncomfortable zone.
I think a wide-eyed belief in God-words like 'freedom' (Harvey's so awesome in his deconstruction of this term), 'democracy', 'development' are a result of having such polarized education. There is no room for alternatives; for alternate possibilities. Neoliberal ideology seeps in through a refusal to wallow in the murkiness; it thrives on students eager to get to either bank. What school leaves unfulfilled, God and family finish. A serious commitment to neoliberalism needs to get to the school, the organized religion and the family as sites of change.
Comments