Skip to main content

Ruthless calculus in academia

Image
By
The final readings for this semester brought our discussion full circle as we return to our initial question of what is critical theory and what does a critical theorist do? Though not explicitly stated in the readings, questions of our place a critical scholars, as academicians, and as activist working with the structures that constantly oppress groups, were revisited in a large part. Churchill (2007) discussed the myths of academic freedom as he was targeted for “elimination” within an academically “free” department. Prashad (2007) reviews the ways in which the academy restrains students free thinking as well as their access to education simply by limiting the amount of available spaces to its incoming undergraduates. If these scenarios do not sound like that which takes place in corporate America, than I do not know what does.

Reading such work has become a major eye opening experience as I once strongly believed in lofty ideas of free thinking and academic freedom. A majority of us in this class are going to be on the academic market (commodifying our knowledge and begging to join the proletariat rat race) relatively soon and need to learn to engage with these tensions. It truly saddens me to have to think this way, but that is our material reality. So where do we go from here? Its simple really as I stated much earlier in the semester, we must began to and continue to question our values and view the problem as an erosion of morals. What do we hold near and dear? What is of the utmost importance when it comes to our choices? I believe that Dawson (2007) and others have clearly pointed us in the right direction stating “the only way to reassert the university’s public role is to challenge what French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu called the doxa or commonsense of neoliberalism: that every sphere of social life should be subjected to the ruthless calculus of market-based efficiency” (p. 81)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more