Page 133 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 133
s. hayes and p. jandrić ■ resisting the iron cage of ‘the student experience’
unions are co-creating ‘the student experience’ with institutions. Either
way, given the growing number of human senses discussed in this endeav-
our, it is important to raise the question of exactly: who the student experi-
ence is for? Finally, as we draw some initial conclusions on what it means to
package ‘the student experience’ for students to consume, we invite others
to join us in considering whether as a society, we are prepared to actually
allow time for students themselves, to produce diverse and creative contri-
butions to their own academic experience.
The ‘Experience Economy’
Argenton (2015: p. 918) argues that experience is ‘one of the major paths
to growth and autonomy and as such, is of outstanding educational value’.
However, experience also has a much wider sociocultural context, root-
ed in life itself:
It is about learning that which cannot be taught, learning to think, which
precedes all other defined forms of education. It is an encounter with the
unknown, where we learn to cope with uncertainty. Though, in the same
way that growth does, experience takes time. (Argenton, 2015: p. 918)
These reflections on the nature of ‘experience’ itself suggest that it can-
not be reduced to a predictable, scheduled and assessable programme of
events. Indeed, attempts to control experience risk ‘flushing the unknown
away, along with the formative potential of experience’ Argenton, 2015:
p. 918).
These are observations that create a problematic for university strat-
egies that are based on the notion of ‘the student experience’, particular-
ly when such a concept seems to be closely interwoven with ‘experiential
consumption’ (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). This is where commodi-
ties called ‘experiences’ or ‘adventures’ are provided through an extended
service economy in a process that is closely related to the leisure and enter-
tainment markets (Argenton, 2015). This experiential side of consump-
tion has been said to be the hidden paradigm underpinning many aspects
of modern life where even human feelings are commercialised (Bryman,
2004; Hochschild, 1983; Ritzer, 2010; Argenton, 2015).
This move from experiential consumption as concrete functions that
goods can provide, towards experience-laden commodities that draw hu-
man senses into the market raises many issues, but Argenton points in
particular to the issue of ‘time’ (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Argenton,
2015). If the contemporary consumer cares less about the quality of goods
they can purchase than the quantity, then when this relates to applianc-
es there may be implications for the environment. However, when an
131
unions are co-creating ‘the student experience’ with institutions. Either
way, given the growing number of human senses discussed in this endeav-
our, it is important to raise the question of exactly: who the student experi-
ence is for? Finally, as we draw some initial conclusions on what it means to
package ‘the student experience’ for students to consume, we invite others
to join us in considering whether as a society, we are prepared to actually
allow time for students themselves, to produce diverse and creative contri-
butions to their own academic experience.
The ‘Experience Economy’
Argenton (2015: p. 918) argues that experience is ‘one of the major paths
to growth and autonomy and as such, is of outstanding educational value’.
However, experience also has a much wider sociocultural context, root-
ed in life itself:
It is about learning that which cannot be taught, learning to think, which
precedes all other defined forms of education. It is an encounter with the
unknown, where we learn to cope with uncertainty. Though, in the same
way that growth does, experience takes time. (Argenton, 2015: p. 918)
These reflections on the nature of ‘experience’ itself suggest that it can-
not be reduced to a predictable, scheduled and assessable programme of
events. Indeed, attempts to control experience risk ‘flushing the unknown
away, along with the formative potential of experience’ Argenton, 2015:
p. 918).
These are observations that create a problematic for university strat-
egies that are based on the notion of ‘the student experience’, particular-
ly when such a concept seems to be closely interwoven with ‘experiential
consumption’ (Holbrook and Hirschman, 1982). This is where commodi-
ties called ‘experiences’ or ‘adventures’ are provided through an extended
service economy in a process that is closely related to the leisure and enter-
tainment markets (Argenton, 2015). This experiential side of consump-
tion has been said to be the hidden paradigm underpinning many aspects
of modern life where even human feelings are commercialised (Bryman,
2004; Hochschild, 1983; Ritzer, 2010; Argenton, 2015).
This move from experiential consumption as concrete functions that
goods can provide, towards experience-laden commodities that draw hu-
man senses into the market raises many issues, but Argenton points in
particular to the issue of ‘time’ (Holbrook & Hirschman, 1982; Argenton,
2015). If the contemporary consumer cares less about the quality of goods
they can purchase than the quantity, then when this relates to applianc-
es there may be implications for the environment. However, when an
131
