"Yet this very sovereignty, the claim to a more profound knowledge of the object, the separation of the idea from its object through the independence of the critical judgment threatens to succumb to the thinglike form of the object when cultural criticism appeals to a collection of ideas on display, as it were, and fetishizes isolated categories such as mind, life and the individual".
Adorno, Cultural Criticism and Society, in Prisms, pp. 23
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Monday, 18 January 2010
Intellectuals and cultural criticism: Adorno
"Professional critics were first of all 'reporters': they oriented people in the market of intellectual products...
While they adroitly slipped into gaps and won influence with the expansion of the press, they attained that very authority which their profession already presupposed. Their arrogance derives from the fact that, in the forms of competitive society in which all being is merely there for something else, the critic himself is also measured only in terms of his marketable success...
Knowledge and understanding were not primary, but at most by-products ... when the critics ... permit themselves to be degraded to propagandists or censors it is the old dishonesty of trade fulfilling itself in their fate. The prerogatives of information and position permit them to express their opinion as if it were objectivity. But it is solely the objectivity of the ruling mind. They help to weave the veil.
The notion of the free expression of opinion, indeed, that of intellectual freedom itself in bourgeois society, upon which cultural criticism is founded, has its own dialectic. For while the mind extricated itself from a theological-feudal tutelage, it has fallen increasingly under the anonymous sway of the status quo. ... Not only does the mind mould itself for the sake of its marketability, and thus reproduce the socially prevalent categories. Rather, it grows to resemble ever more closely the status quo even where it subjectively refrains from making a commodity of itself"
Adorno, Cultural Criticism and Society, in Prisms, pp. 20-21
While they adroitly slipped into gaps and won influence with the expansion of the press, they attained that very authority which their profession already presupposed. Their arrogance derives from the fact that, in the forms of competitive society in which all being is merely there for something else, the critic himself is also measured only in terms of his marketable success...
Knowledge and understanding were not primary, but at most by-products ... when the critics ... permit themselves to be degraded to propagandists or censors it is the old dishonesty of trade fulfilling itself in their fate. The prerogatives of information and position permit them to express their opinion as if it were objectivity. But it is solely the objectivity of the ruling mind. They help to weave the veil.
The notion of the free expression of opinion, indeed, that of intellectual freedom itself in bourgeois society, upon which cultural criticism is founded, has its own dialectic. For while the mind extricated itself from a theological-feudal tutelage, it has fallen increasingly under the anonymous sway of the status quo. ... Not only does the mind mould itself for the sake of its marketability, and thus reproduce the socially prevalent categories. Rather, it grows to resemble ever more closely the status quo even where it subjectively refrains from making a commodity of itself"
Adorno, Cultural Criticism and Society, in Prisms, pp. 20-21
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Models of thesis structure
Just before Christmas I started playing with a variety of thesis structures. This started out as a really fun task - what story do I want to tell? I asked myself. Is this a glimmer-of-hope-in-the-darkness type story? Or a rise and fall of the empire one? Or is it a morality tale, the consequences of corruption? I played with them all. I could not really see a tale of triumph in adversity in the commodification of university knowledge and decided it would be perverse to try such a structure.
It turned out to be trickier than I thought. All that pinning down arguments, remembering what on earth my thesis was supposed to be about, realising I know absolutely nothing and never will and that I have nothing to say worth saying was exhausting.
However, I think that I have something that resembles an argument now and I definitely have four models of potential thesis structures to be whittled down, discarded, amended and, before too long I hope, written!
Model A is a three part story that focuses on the purposes of university knowledge: Knowledge for the Nation, Knowledge for the Economy and Knowledge "for its own sake". It shows that "for its own sake" is shorthand for a multiplicity of important things, none of which can be achieved without academic freedom. The argument continues but is pretty much the same for each model so I'll elaborate as I go.
Model B focuses on types of knowers and knowledge owners across the period, looking at The Romantic Hero, The Innovator, The Revolutionary, The Consumer, The Reformer and The Landowner. It shows that between 1939 and 1996, the focus on the nation and economy meant that authority over knowledge - those deemed competent say say what knowledge is - shifted from academic to the market, removing academic freedom and replacing it with a free market (so do the other models, just in different structures of course).
Model C is based on what I believe to be my argument. It shows that the tradition of mastery had imagined knowledge to be a separate substance, created through expert dialectic and needing protection by acknowledged masters. The student protest movements and the pedagogies that emerged from them unified knowledge with its knower, who could deploy knowledge produced from a variety of locations in moral and political ways, all of which would be from their own unique learning path. This made mastery - and academic freedom - unnecessary, accidentally transferring freedom through student choice to the authority of the market.
Model D is chronological, and (like the others) sees the Dawkins reforms and the other changes contemporary to it as a type of protestant reformation, undermining the authority of the corrupt priesthood in favour of client-based authority through student consumers, industry and a key consumer of university knowledge: the government. Government policies that compelled universities to produce particular types of intellectual property policy and universities' own commercialisation goals led, in intellectual property, to a de-coupling of knowledge and knowers in order to commodify knowledge.
All is not lost, however. For universities could commodify and refigure their business as a vast trade in knowledge, but their Acts - and indeed their oft-overlooked purposes - still ask for knowledge that supports civil, ethical, safe, healthy, prosperous democratic societies (public good) - and still require academic freedom. There is good reason to argue that academic, not market, freedom offers the best chances for quality knowledge and is much better positioned to meet the purpose of the university than the market is likely to. At this point the hope is still a glimmer - but it is there nonetheless.
Feel free to email me with your preferred model - or if you think I've made a mistake here somewhere....
It turned out to be trickier than I thought. All that pinning down arguments, remembering what on earth my thesis was supposed to be about, realising I know absolutely nothing and never will and that I have nothing to say worth saying was exhausting.
However, I think that I have something that resembles an argument now and I definitely have four models of potential thesis structures to be whittled down, discarded, amended and, before too long I hope, written!
Model A is a three part story that focuses on the purposes of university knowledge: Knowledge for the Nation, Knowledge for the Economy and Knowledge "for its own sake". It shows that "for its own sake" is shorthand for a multiplicity of important things, none of which can be achieved without academic freedom. The argument continues but is pretty much the same for each model so I'll elaborate as I go.
Model B focuses on types of knowers and knowledge owners across the period, looking at The Romantic Hero, The Innovator, The Revolutionary, The Consumer, The Reformer and The Landowner. It shows that between 1939 and 1996, the focus on the nation and economy meant that authority over knowledge - those deemed competent say say what knowledge is - shifted from academic to the market, removing academic freedom and replacing it with a free market (so do the other models, just in different structures of course).
Model C is based on what I believe to be my argument. It shows that the tradition of mastery had imagined knowledge to be a separate substance, created through expert dialectic and needing protection by acknowledged masters. The student protest movements and the pedagogies that emerged from them unified knowledge with its knower, who could deploy knowledge produced from a variety of locations in moral and political ways, all of which would be from their own unique learning path. This made mastery - and academic freedom - unnecessary, accidentally transferring freedom through student choice to the authority of the market.
Model D is chronological, and (like the others) sees the Dawkins reforms and the other changes contemporary to it as a type of protestant reformation, undermining the authority of the corrupt priesthood in favour of client-based authority through student consumers, industry and a key consumer of university knowledge: the government. Government policies that compelled universities to produce particular types of intellectual property policy and universities' own commercialisation goals led, in intellectual property, to a de-coupling of knowledge and knowers in order to commodify knowledge.
All is not lost, however. For universities could commodify and refigure their business as a vast trade in knowledge, but their Acts - and indeed their oft-overlooked purposes - still ask for knowledge that supports civil, ethical, safe, healthy, prosperous democratic societies (public good) - and still require academic freedom. There is good reason to argue that academic, not market, freedom offers the best chances for quality knowledge and is much better positioned to meet the purpose of the university than the market is likely to. At this point the hope is still a glimmer - but it is there nonetheless.
Feel free to email me with your preferred model - or if you think I've made a mistake here somewhere....
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
Distance education in an era of eLearning
It is very exciting to finally see this paper published! Distance Education in an era of eLearning by me, Jenny Pizzica, Ruth Laxton and Mary-Jane Mahony, published HERD 29(1), 2010.
Also, it is kind of fabulous, on 6 January, to have a 2010 publication! Happy new year to all.
Also, it is kind of fabulous, on 6 January, to have a 2010 publication! Happy new year to all.
Wednesday, 16 December 2009
University of Adelaide: Study, Research and a fabulous library
Last week I visited the University of Adelaide archives, while I was in the area at the recent the ANZHES conference.
Adelaide wins the competition so far for the university that does not appear to be run by its marketing department. This was actually the only overt advertisement I saw. You can kind of see it through the greenery. It says something about excellent education, and it is also nice to see that they remember what the university is for.
I also liked that the library clearly remembered what it was for (note that I am not a photographer):
I liked that this library is supporting plain old study and research, nothing fancy about information services and knowledge management and client liaison. Study. Research. It is solid.
Actually, altogether the Barr Smith library is stunning. The old reading room is a monument to philanthropy - and academia:
The entrance and borrowing areas were spacious, reference librarians visible and plentiful, computers abound and, most remarkable of all, an area in the library to eat:
I like cloisters. And there were cloisters at Adelaide too...
Adelaide wins the competition so far for the university that does not appear to be run by its marketing department. This was actually the only overt advertisement I saw. You can kind of see it through the greenery. It says something about excellent education, and it is also nice to see that they remember what the university is for.
I also liked that the library clearly remembered what it was for (note that I am not a photographer):
I liked that this library is supporting plain old study and research, nothing fancy about information services and knowledge management and client liaison. Study. Research. It is solid.
Actually, altogether the Barr Smith library is stunning. The old reading room is a monument to philanthropy - and academia:
The entrance and borrowing areas were spacious, reference librarians visible and plentiful, computers abound and, most remarkable of all, an area in the library to eat:
and lie around reading in beanbags:
I like cloisters. And there were cloisters at Adelaide too...
...only these ones belonged to the students...
...though it seems they need a sign to know what they are:
Monday, 14 December 2009
Technology and the university: two British scientists in Australia
When botanist Eric Ashby arrived in Australia in 1939, his ideas about higher education were already compelling. Ashby’s subsequent experiences in science policy during the Second World War then combined with ideas formed by scholarly networks in the pre-war Empire. These led him to consider how technology, needed for national development after the war, could be integrated into academic traditions.
The war changed everything for the universities. Old networks of scholars were complicated by new relationships with the state and industry and new public concerns. This paper discusses the contrasting networks that influenced the ideas of two British academic leaders after the Second World War. Eric Ashby, influential in higher education throughout the Commonwealth, held ideas informed by a pre-war scholarly environment. Another British scientist who travelled to Australia, John Philip Baxter, though only one year younger than Ashby, was influenced by an altogether different network.
Baxter had spent significant time in nuclear facilities in the United States and contributed to the construction of British nuclear weapons during the war. When the war was over, he was disappointed that public sentiment led his employer, Imperial Chemical Industries, to shut down its work in atomic power. Feeling that he might have more influence in Australia, in 1949 Baxter accepted an academic post in Sydney. By 1952 he was Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. Baxter’s goal, like Ashby’s, was the promotion of technology in the university system. However, his notion of scholarship and his ideas about the university were very different. Where Ashby promoted technology while preserving scholarly values, Baxter sought to transform scholarship to align to the values of industry.
Comparing networks of pre-war Empire with post-Empire Australia, this paper examines the emergence of a longstanding uncertainty about the focus of higher education: specific professional competencies or unique, creative intellectualism.
Wednesday, 2 December 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)