Page 79 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 79
acking the Usage and Implications of Neoliberal
Language in the Russell Group’s Education
Strategies
Rodolfo Leyva
Introduction
Since at least classical antiquity, higher education has been equat-
ed with the goal and process of cultivating reasoning skills, critical
thinking, moral character, conscientious citizenship, and a disposi-
tion to seek truth and justice (Pavur, 2009). Following the period of the
18th-century Enlightenment, these classic humanist ideals have gener-
ally been paired with the Humboldtian principles of academic freedom
and primacy of pure science over specialised professional training and in-
strumentalist research, to form the traditional paradigmatic model of a
university (Ash, 2006; Michelsen, 2010). Historical accounts disagree on
the degree to which the academies of yore actually practiced this mod-
el, but most seem to broadly agree that elements of it considerably influ-
enced many of the policies and practices of Western universities till about
the 1970s (Ash, 2006; Michelsen, 2010; Nybom, 2003). Indeed, this mod-
el continues to be an influential, if perhaps overly idealistic and roman-
ticised, normative conception for what higher education should entail
(Mountz et al., 2015; Newfield, 2018).
However, the past thirty years have seen the birth, uptake, and dis-
cursive dominance of the neoliberal university model, which gives prima-
cy to the makertization and commodification of education and research.
To date, the scholarly literature on this institutional transformation
mostly describes the policy processes or individual academics’ accounts of
the neoliberalization of universities (see e.g., Ball, 2012; Morrissey, 2015;
Mountz et al., 2015; Shore & Davidson, 2014). As such, there is a relative
77
Language in the Russell Group’s Education
Strategies
Rodolfo Leyva
Introduction
Since at least classical antiquity, higher education has been equat-
ed with the goal and process of cultivating reasoning skills, critical
thinking, moral character, conscientious citizenship, and a disposi-
tion to seek truth and justice (Pavur, 2009). Following the period of the
18th-century Enlightenment, these classic humanist ideals have gener-
ally been paired with the Humboldtian principles of academic freedom
and primacy of pure science over specialised professional training and in-
strumentalist research, to form the traditional paradigmatic model of a
university (Ash, 2006; Michelsen, 2010). Historical accounts disagree on
the degree to which the academies of yore actually practiced this mod-
el, but most seem to broadly agree that elements of it considerably influ-
enced many of the policies and practices of Western universities till about
the 1970s (Ash, 2006; Michelsen, 2010; Nybom, 2003). Indeed, this mod-
el continues to be an influential, if perhaps overly idealistic and roman-
ticised, normative conception for what higher education should entail
(Mountz et al., 2015; Newfield, 2018).
However, the past thirty years have seen the birth, uptake, and dis-
cursive dominance of the neoliberal university model, which gives prima-
cy to the makertization and commodification of education and research.
To date, the scholarly literature on this institutional transformation
mostly describes the policy processes or individual academics’ accounts of
the neoliberalization of universities (see e.g., Ball, 2012; Morrissey, 2015;
Mountz et al., 2015; Shore & Davidson, 2014). As such, there is a relative
77
