Next week I am giving a paper entitled "Knowledge and intelligence: why ASIO thought university knowledge would kill democracy,1968-1973"
Here is a link to the draft written paper.
This is a link to my powerpoint presentation.
Monday, 22 June 2009
Sunday, 14 June 2009
Gramsci on the (popular) university
"The directors of the Popular University know that the institution they run has to cater for a specific category of people who have not been able to follow regular studies at school. And that it all. They are not bothered about how these people might be drawn most effectively to the world of knowledge ... They do not consider that the state universities are a natural point of arrival of a whole activity of previous work; they do not consider that when a student arrives at university he [sic...and sic for all the ones hereafter] has passed through the experience of high school and this has disciplined his spirit of research...he has been through a process of becoming, he has been made alert gradually and gently, falling into error and pulling himself up, taking wrong turns and getting back on course. These directors do not understand that bits of knowledge, plucked out from all this previous activity of individual research, are nothing other than dogmas, absolute truths. Thy do not understand that the Popular University, as they run it, is reduced to a form of theological teaching ... where knowledge is presented as something definitive, self-evident and unquestionable.
Not even the universities are are like this. There is now a common conviction that a truth os fecund only when one has made an effort to master it, that it does not exist in and for itself but has been a conquest of the spirit, and that each individual must reproduce in himself that state of anxiety which the scholar passed through before arriving at it.
...
It [the history of their subject] forms the scholar, it gives his mind that elasticity or methodological doubt which makes an amateur into a serious person, which purifies curiosity (in the popular sense of the word) and turns it into healthy and fecund stimulus towards ever increasing and more perfect knowledge"
Antonio Gramsci, Avanti 29 Dec 1916, in Gramsci Reader pp. 65-66
Not even the universities are are like this. There is now a common conviction that a truth os fecund only when one has made an effort to master it, that it does not exist in and for itself but has been a conquest of the spirit, and that each individual must reproduce in himself that state of anxiety which the scholar passed through before arriving at it.
...
It [the history of their subject] forms the scholar, it gives his mind that elasticity or methodological doubt which makes an amateur into a serious person, which purifies curiosity (in the popular sense of the word) and turns it into healthy and fecund stimulus towards ever increasing and more perfect knowledge"
Antonio Gramsci, Avanti 29 Dec 1916, in Gramsci Reader pp. 65-66
Noam Chomsky on universities
"The basic ideological institutions are the university-based academic professions and the mass media" p. 29
"Under capitalist democracy the situation is considerably more complex. The press and the intellectuals are held to be fiercely independent, hypercritical, antagonistic to the "establishment" in an adversary relation to the state ... Reality is a little different. True there is criticism, but a careful look will show that it remains within narrow bounds. Basic principles of the state propaganda system, the propaganda apparatus does not merely stake out a position to which all must conform - or which they may privately oppose. Rather, it seeks to determine and limit the entire spectrum of thought". p.31
"Those who may be concerned about unemployment for intellectuals need to worry too much, I believe. Under circumstances such as these, there should be considerable need and ample opportunity for the secular priesthood."p.37
Noam Chomsky, Intellectuals and the State, 1978
"Under capitalist democracy the situation is considerably more complex. The press and the intellectuals are held to be fiercely independent, hypercritical, antagonistic to the "establishment" in an adversary relation to the state ... Reality is a little different. True there is criticism, but a careful look will show that it remains within narrow bounds. Basic principles of the state propaganda system, the propaganda apparatus does not merely stake out a position to which all must conform - or which they may privately oppose. Rather, it seeks to determine and limit the entire spectrum of thought". p.31
"Those who may be concerned about unemployment for intellectuals need to worry too much, I believe. Under circumstances such as these, there should be considerable need and ample opportunity for the secular priesthood."p.37
Noam Chomsky, Intellectuals and the State, 1978
Tuesday, 2 June 2009
Weber on universities
"The result of such a castration of the freedom and disinterestedness of university education, which prevents the development of persons of genuine character, cannot be compensated by the finest institutes, the largest lecture halls, or by ever so many dissertations, prize-winning works and examination successes"
Max Weber, Academic Freedom of the Universities, 1909
It somehow reminds me of this:
"There's plenty of money out there. They print more and more every day. ... Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy?" (Grandpa George, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory)
Max Weber, Academic Freedom of the Universities, 1909
It somehow reminds me of this:
"There's plenty of money out there. They print more and more every day. ... Only a dummy would give this up for something as common as money. Are you a dummy?" (Grandpa George, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory)
Monday, 25 May 2009
Knowledge and intelligence: first draft
I have just completed a first draft of a paper I plan to present at the AHA conference late June/early July called "Knowledge and Intelligence: why ASIO thought university knowledge would kill democracy"
This is the draft conclusion. (DRAFT I say...please be kind. But do send me feedback if you have any).
Jean Curthoys, approximately 25 years after the Philosophy Strike, made the following intriguing comment:
It is possible that ASIO analysts deliberately exaggerated the imminence of their assessment of the risk of revolution in order to ensure adequate resources to fund their vastly expanded surveillance responsibilities. It may be that they did not actually believe Australia was a couple of short steps away from guerrilla war. Or it could be that they thought worst-case scenarios were warranted, given events in Paris and elsewhere, where perhaps other governments had underestimated the power of the student population. Regardless, the ASIO reports were able to give such an elevated status to the level of risk presented by student protest movements because of the way they saw the relationship between knowledge and democracy.
ASIO constructed knowledge as foundational to a civil, democratic society, which was consistent with traditions of liberal universities. The task of the traditional university to promote progress, uphold intellectual integrity and, where needed, point out falsehood and wrongdoing implied that it would always function in support of the establishment, keeping society on its chosen path. To students this was unacceptable. Knowledge, they thought, should show ways that the establishment was repressive, undermine it, promote revolution and change. If ASIO genuinely thought that knowledge underpinned democracy, it is less surprising that they were so alarmed. If professors thought it, perhaps it is less ridiculous than it might appear, that they too sought to protect their position as a part of their perceived responsibility to maintain intellectual standards. But the professoriate, in abusing the power they had, sometimes behaved badly and, like ASIO, earned their downfall.
And yet, a former student revolutionary like Jean Curthoys can regret the loss of the “liberal conception of the university”, an idea so readily discarded as outdated and irrelevant by student movements in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This suggests some disquieting questions. Did the student movements restructure a collective understanding about the relationship of knowledge to democracy? If knowledge underpinned civil democracy, it was power – the ASIO files make this clear. Does that imply that it would lose its power if it were no longer perceived in this structure? Knowledge was seen to be foundational to civil society because it drew the nation’s attention to a singular sense of truth. It was this that resulted in the need for academic freedom and trust in an elite group of researching academics. If the singularity of truth were no longer required to keep society on track, would that suggest that there would no longer be a structural imperative to academic freedom? Did the hierarchical structure and the elitism of the professoriate add cultural capital to knowledge, devaluing the core substance of the university once professors were de-throned?
These probably inherently unanswerable questions are certainly unanswerable from an analysis of ASIO files. What the files do highlight is the tension in the idea of the university presented by student movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The traditional role for the university saw knowledge as truth that would underpin the establishment. Nostalgia for the liberal university, justified though it may seem, should not forget that this necessitated an elite group of scholarly masters to control and protect a canon of knowledge – and that sometimes this was a power abused. Similarly, tempting though it is to continually mythologise student revolutionaries in heroic stances, their role in undermining a widely accepted value of knowledge and its pursuit for its own sake should probably also be acknowledged. Initially it appears that ASIO, professors and student revolutionaries saw knowledge as worth fighting for. It may be that in the process of fighting over it, university-based knowledge lost its value.
This is the draft conclusion. (DRAFT I say...please be kind. But do send me feedback if you have any).
Jean Curthoys, approximately 25 years after the Philosophy Strike, made the following intriguing comment:
This liberal conception of the university no longer has currency…I have no time here to defend this liberal conception and so I shall simply say that my deep regrets about the strike concern the extent to which it opened the floodgates for its rejection.The extent to which it opened the floodgates is difficult to determine, but what is certain is that the way student protest movements conceived of knowledge was incompatible with the way knowledge was structured in a traditional sense. The student movement sought a redistribution of the control of knowledge from the professoriate to a more participatory model. It is tempting, looking at our consumer-focused universities and student-centred pedagogies to say they succeeded, and possibly they did. But in confining ourselves to the late 1960s and early 1970s we can conclude that the tension between liberal traditions of the university and emerging models of knowledge were possibly at their most taut.
It is possible that ASIO analysts deliberately exaggerated the imminence of their assessment of the risk of revolution in order to ensure adequate resources to fund their vastly expanded surveillance responsibilities. It may be that they did not actually believe Australia was a couple of short steps away from guerrilla war. Or it could be that they thought worst-case scenarios were warranted, given events in Paris and elsewhere, where perhaps other governments had underestimated the power of the student population. Regardless, the ASIO reports were able to give such an elevated status to the level of risk presented by student protest movements because of the way they saw the relationship between knowledge and democracy.
ASIO constructed knowledge as foundational to a civil, democratic society, which was consistent with traditions of liberal universities. The task of the traditional university to promote progress, uphold intellectual integrity and, where needed, point out falsehood and wrongdoing implied that it would always function in support of the establishment, keeping society on its chosen path. To students this was unacceptable. Knowledge, they thought, should show ways that the establishment was repressive, undermine it, promote revolution and change. If ASIO genuinely thought that knowledge underpinned democracy, it is less surprising that they were so alarmed. If professors thought it, perhaps it is less ridiculous than it might appear, that they too sought to protect their position as a part of their perceived responsibility to maintain intellectual standards. But the professoriate, in abusing the power they had, sometimes behaved badly and, like ASIO, earned their downfall.
And yet, a former student revolutionary like Jean Curthoys can regret the loss of the “liberal conception of the university”, an idea so readily discarded as outdated and irrelevant by student movements in the late 1960s and early 1970s. This suggests some disquieting questions. Did the student movements restructure a collective understanding about the relationship of knowledge to democracy? If knowledge underpinned civil democracy, it was power – the ASIO files make this clear. Does that imply that it would lose its power if it were no longer perceived in this structure? Knowledge was seen to be foundational to civil society because it drew the nation’s attention to a singular sense of truth. It was this that resulted in the need for academic freedom and trust in an elite group of researching academics. If the singularity of truth were no longer required to keep society on track, would that suggest that there would no longer be a structural imperative to academic freedom? Did the hierarchical structure and the elitism of the professoriate add cultural capital to knowledge, devaluing the core substance of the university once professors were de-throned?
These probably inherently unanswerable questions are certainly unanswerable from an analysis of ASIO files. What the files do highlight is the tension in the idea of the university presented by student movements of the 1960s and 1970s. The traditional role for the university saw knowledge as truth that would underpin the establishment. Nostalgia for the liberal university, justified though it may seem, should not forget that this necessitated an elite group of scholarly masters to control and protect a canon of knowledge – and that sometimes this was a power abused. Similarly, tempting though it is to continually mythologise student revolutionaries in heroic stances, their role in undermining a widely accepted value of knowledge and its pursuit for its own sake should probably also be acknowledged. Initially it appears that ASIO, professors and student revolutionaries saw knowledge as worth fighting for. It may be that in the process of fighting over it, university-based knowledge lost its value.
Sunday, 24 May 2009
Why democracy needs education: an economist's view
It may just be that I am not an economist, but this construction of every type of motivation in terms of incentives is hilarious.
This is why democracy needs education, according to Glaeser et al
"In the battle between democracy and dictatorship, democracy has a wide potential base of support but offers weak incentives to its defenders. Dictatorship provides stronger incentives to a narrower base. As education raises the benefits of civic engagement, it raises participation in support of a broad-based regime (democracy) relative to that in support of a narrow-based regime (dictatorship). This increases the likelihood of successful democratic revolutions against dictatorships, and reduces that of successful anti-democratic coups."
Glad we settled that.
This is why democracy needs education, according to Glaeser et al
"In the battle between democracy and dictatorship, democracy has a wide potential base of support but offers weak incentives to its defenders. Dictatorship provides stronger incentives to a narrower base. As education raises the benefits of civic engagement, it raises participation in support of a broad-based regime (democracy) relative to that in support of a narrow-based regime (dictatorship). This increases the likelihood of successful democratic revolutions against dictatorships, and reduces that of successful anti-democratic coups."
Glad we settled that.
Tuesday, 19 May 2009
The university's duties to society: Newman
"But a University training is the great ordinary means to a great but ordinary end; it aims at raising the intellectual tone of society, at cultivating the public mind, at purifying the national taste, at supplying true principles to popular enthusiasm and fixed aims to popular aspiration, at giving enlargement and sobriety to the ideas of the age, at facilitating the exercise of political power, and refining the intercourse of private life."
John Henry Cardinal Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated in Nine Discourses Delivered to the Catholics of Dublin in Occassional :Lectures and Essays Addressed to the Members of the Catholic University, ed. Martin J Svaglic (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1852 (1966 Edition)), 134. (I, vii, 10)
John Henry Cardinal Newman, The Idea of a University Defined and Illustrated in Nine Discourses Delivered to the Catholics of Dublin in Occassional :Lectures and Essays Addressed to the Members of the Catholic University, ed. Martin J Svaglic (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1852 (1966 Edition)), 134. (I, vii, 10)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)