Page 54 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 54
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
seeks now to control and monitor the ‘content’ of what universities pro-
duce, to render knowledge production as ‘useful’ for the society. In this
sense, it constitutes a very worrying ‘sign’ especially given the epistemic
difficulties with the way impact is capable of being assessed. The implica-
tions for democracy here are in a number of senses: in relation to the end
of self-governance through collegial models of academic participation, as
well as externally through the erosion of the independent critical author-
ity of universities, relatively free of dependence on finance, in relation to
business and the state.
In higher education, state conditioning or engineering has substan-
tially undercut the university as a traditional liberal institution. For the
difference between liberal and neo-liberal is important here. The liber-
al university was premised upon the freedom of the subject and the dis-
persal of power across different domains. The parallel at the institution-
al level was what I have called elsewhere the ‘collegial-democratic’ model
administered and managed by academics themselves institutionally pro-
vided for by democratic forum of senates.17 The neoliberal university is
top-down, run from the center. While neoliberals typically heralded their
policies with catch-cries of freedom and liberty, neo-liberalism is in fact a
highly centrist, authoritarian, form of liberalism. Distrusting lasissez-faire
naturalism, they came to share the same perspective on the economy as
writers like Karl Mannheim18 and Karl Polanyi19 who saw the market or-
der as a historical rather than a natural construct. Whereas Mannheim
and Polanyi argued that the government should control and condition the
market in order to redistribute wealth in the interests of greater equality,
and protect freedom, the neoliberals argued that it should work in the in-
terests of capital by creating the conditions for the market to operate as
efficiently as possible. The state conditions the market in order that sub-
jects conform.
Perhaps we could conclude this paper by asking a number of ques-
tions designed to highlight the possible problems with neoliberal govern-
ance: Why did the neoliberals feel uneasy with naturalistic explanations
of the market and start seeing it as an historical phenomenon that must
be conditioned? Is there a problem with naturalistic explanations? Does
intervention by the state to establish and maintain the conditions for the
market run the risk of frustrating the democratic aspirations and rights
of citizens? Could such action by the state be seen to contradict the core
17 See Raaper and Olssen (2016).
18 See Mannheim (1940, 1977).
19 See Polanyi (2001).
52
seeks now to control and monitor the ‘content’ of what universities pro-
duce, to render knowledge production as ‘useful’ for the society. In this
sense, it constitutes a very worrying ‘sign’ especially given the epistemic
difficulties with the way impact is capable of being assessed. The implica-
tions for democracy here are in a number of senses: in relation to the end
of self-governance through collegial models of academic participation, as
well as externally through the erosion of the independent critical author-
ity of universities, relatively free of dependence on finance, in relation to
business and the state.
In higher education, state conditioning or engineering has substan-
tially undercut the university as a traditional liberal institution. For the
difference between liberal and neo-liberal is important here. The liber-
al university was premised upon the freedom of the subject and the dis-
persal of power across different domains. The parallel at the institution-
al level was what I have called elsewhere the ‘collegial-democratic’ model
administered and managed by academics themselves institutionally pro-
vided for by democratic forum of senates.17 The neoliberal university is
top-down, run from the center. While neoliberals typically heralded their
policies with catch-cries of freedom and liberty, neo-liberalism is in fact a
highly centrist, authoritarian, form of liberalism. Distrusting lasissez-faire
naturalism, they came to share the same perspective on the economy as
writers like Karl Mannheim18 and Karl Polanyi19 who saw the market or-
der as a historical rather than a natural construct. Whereas Mannheim
and Polanyi argued that the government should control and condition the
market in order to redistribute wealth in the interests of greater equality,
and protect freedom, the neoliberals argued that it should work in the in-
terests of capital by creating the conditions for the market to operate as
efficiently as possible. The state conditions the market in order that sub-
jects conform.
Perhaps we could conclude this paper by asking a number of ques-
tions designed to highlight the possible problems with neoliberal govern-
ance: Why did the neoliberals feel uneasy with naturalistic explanations
of the market and start seeing it as an historical phenomenon that must
be conditioned? Is there a problem with naturalistic explanations? Does
intervention by the state to establish and maintain the conditions for the
market run the risk of frustrating the democratic aspirations and rights
of citizens? Could such action by the state be seen to contradict the core
17 See Raaper and Olssen (2016).
18 See Mannheim (1940, 1977).
19 See Polanyi (2001).
52
