Page 152 - Šolsko polje, XXXI, 2020, 3-4: Convention on the Rights of the Child: Educational Opportunities and Social Justice, eds. Zdenko Kodelja and Urška Štremfel
P. 152
šolsko polje, letnik xxxi, številka 3–4
place: it is an incredibly technocratic, administrative and naked burea-
ucracy, which has become even worse at the level of the university sphere
than at the level of state public administration. First, because the con-
sequence of this is actually even worse in practice, because what can still
be agreed behind an official desk when you meet a reasonable person is
no longer possible in the university sphere. Because these reasonable pe-
ople hardly exist. And, second, because we should not be able to afford
this at all at the university level, without this happening to an even gre-
ater extent than at the state level. Do you share this concern?
As far as I am concerned, definitely. What I think is particularly,
and noteworthily, the death of the university. In short, we assume that the
university simply ‘is’. We assume that the professors simply ‘are’. And we
assume that the students ‘are’ too. These are just empty forms and shells,
just like the appearance of a student. The origin of a student is this: it’s
about being formally enrolled and having a formal status and that what
you said happens formally – on paper. We know that this paper is no
longer worth anything. We all know that today, and tomorrow, it will be
even less valuable. The matter has gone so far in terms of content that to-
day we have idyllic data from people who say that a pupil, a high school
graduate, is writing a doctoral thesis at the university. There are no seri-
ous problems at professorial level. So far, we have only talked about this
Galimberty setup, but I will go one step further. It is important to stress
this: at the professorial level, we overlook the fact that we no longer have
a professor – because he was forced to become a researcher. We no longer
have a professor. Professors are rare. And just as our colleague Dr Primož
Šterbenc does not even have a mobile phone, I do not have research and
neither do you. Today, we have strategies of choice, these are questions of
freedom and political decisions.21 Today, if someone wants to have money,
wants to be at university, it is not enough to have only references, he must
also have ‘projects’. But if he has projects, he cannot be A Professor at the
same time! If he is a professor, he teaches and because of this, not because
of what he does on projects. What can you teach with regard to ultra-spe-
cialised things about your project to someone coming as a student into
your first year? What would you expect in your first year? If he’s a sociol-
ogist – the general categorical apparatus and basic discourse of the social
sciences, a critique of it. If he’s a philosopher – Greece. He, on the other
hand, will come – I am talking on the level of philosophy – and talk about
a degree course, not something that the Lacanians desired, but something
21 For »voter-deciding process« from the standpoint of morality and psychology, see Haidt
(2013, pp. 97–119); Gilbert (2013).
150
place: it is an incredibly technocratic, administrative and naked burea-
ucracy, which has become even worse at the level of the university sphere
than at the level of state public administration. First, because the con-
sequence of this is actually even worse in practice, because what can still
be agreed behind an official desk when you meet a reasonable person is
no longer possible in the university sphere. Because these reasonable pe-
ople hardly exist. And, second, because we should not be able to afford
this at all at the university level, without this happening to an even gre-
ater extent than at the state level. Do you share this concern?
As far as I am concerned, definitely. What I think is particularly,
and noteworthily, the death of the university. In short, we assume that the
university simply ‘is’. We assume that the professors simply ‘are’. And we
assume that the students ‘are’ too. These are just empty forms and shells,
just like the appearance of a student. The origin of a student is this: it’s
about being formally enrolled and having a formal status and that what
you said happens formally – on paper. We know that this paper is no
longer worth anything. We all know that today, and tomorrow, it will be
even less valuable. The matter has gone so far in terms of content that to-
day we have idyllic data from people who say that a pupil, a high school
graduate, is writing a doctoral thesis at the university. There are no seri-
ous problems at professorial level. So far, we have only talked about this
Galimberty setup, but I will go one step further. It is important to stress
this: at the professorial level, we overlook the fact that we no longer have
a professor – because he was forced to become a researcher. We no longer
have a professor. Professors are rare. And just as our colleague Dr Primož
Šterbenc does not even have a mobile phone, I do not have research and
neither do you. Today, we have strategies of choice, these are questions of
freedom and political decisions.21 Today, if someone wants to have money,
wants to be at university, it is not enough to have only references, he must
also have ‘projects’. But if he has projects, he cannot be A Professor at the
same time! If he is a professor, he teaches and because of this, not because
of what he does on projects. What can you teach with regard to ultra-spe-
cialised things about your project to someone coming as a student into
your first year? What would you expect in your first year? If he’s a sociol-
ogist – the general categorical apparatus and basic discourse of the social
sciences, a critique of it. If he’s a philosopher – Greece. He, on the other
hand, will come – I am talking on the level of philosophy – and talk about
a degree course, not something that the Lacanians desired, but something
21 For »voter-deciding process« from the standpoint of morality and psychology, see Haidt
(2013, pp. 97–119); Gilbert (2013).
150
