Life for the Academic in the Neoliberal University

Alpesh Maisuria, Svenja Helmes

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• eBook ISBN: 9781000732849
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Life for the Academic in the Neoliberal University investigates the impact of neoliberalism on academics in today's universities. Considering the experiences of early career researchers as well as more experienced academics, it outlines the changing nature of working life in the university precipitated by the reality of de-professionalisation, worsening conditions of employment, and general precarious existence.

The book traces the dramatic shift in the role and function of universities and academics over the last forty years. It considers how capitalist neoliberalism drives universities to operate like businesses in a cut-throat financialised education market place. Uniquely the book then provides a possible alternative in the form of the National Education Service (NES) and what this alternative system could look like.

Thought-provoking and relevant, this book will be of use to postgraduate students as well as new, emerging, and established academics interested in the current state of higher education, academic life, and possibilities for the future.

1 The neoliberal capitalist system and education

Origins of capitalism

Since its emergence in the 1600s, capitalism has been subjected to much discussion about its role in human life within a range of contexts, especially about social justice, equality, and equity. More recently and especially in relation to Thatcherism and Reaganism, it has also been discussed in relation to education (Maisuria, 2015), and there has been a proliferation of scholarship and commentary over recent decades. A very brief sketching of relevant history for pinning the analysis in this book is a useful point of departure.

Capitalism can be traced back to at least the early days of colonisation where expanding ownership of private property (land, resources, and human slaves) was of primary concern for the ruling class who had their sights on empire-building for the purposes of wealth, power, and capital accumulation (Bowles and Gintis, 1976). This was all part of a historic struggle, and in Europe it took ‘half a millennium of conflict and piecemeal change’ (ibid., p. 58). Regardless of where and at what pace, the expansion of the capitalist system required increasingly exploitable labour power to be increasingly productive in generating and accumulating capital. Karl Marx was the first to claim capitalism as being about a mode of production (Marx, 2013; Astarita, 2018), where wage labour manufactured commodities, which would be sold on the market. The cost of labour and production would be less than the revenue from the sale, hence a profit would be generated (Marx, 2013). In Marxist terms, this is about the creation of ‘surplus value’ (Hill, 2013, p. 145). Although Marx and Engels (2015) claimed that it was the rise in trades and rapidly growing markets that resulted in the transition from feudalism to capitalism, as the previous manufacturing system was unable to meet the ever-increasing demands of the markets, it is important to note that ideas around the transition from feudalism to capitalism are highly contested. Some believe that capitalism first developed alongside feudalism, as feudal lords profited from capitalism while still holding power (Astarita, 2018). Others believe that capitalism developed in areas with little influence of feudal lords (Kriedte, Medick, and Schlumbohm, 1981), while yet others suggest that a ‘partial’ ‘expropriation of some peasants’ led to a number of individuals becoming landowners and working for feudal lords while others turned into ‘marginalized vagabonds’ that ‘combined occasional work with crime’ (Astarita, 2018, p. 253). Irrespective of the veracity of these theories of the history of the development of capitalism, a key point to highlight is that history is changeable, and this is an important lesson for creating optimism about transformation away from neoliberal capitalism.

Returning to the ideas of Marx, he notes that ‘the dissolution of’ feudalism ‘set free the elements of’ capitalism in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries (Marx, 2013, p. 502). In Capital, Marx describes how English peasants became the proletariat by losing their land as well as their means of production when ‘suddenly and forcibly torn from their means of subsidence, and hurled as free and “unattached” proletarians on the labour market’ (Marx, 2013, p. 503). All these proletarians were left with was their labour power and so the individual became ‘a free seller of labour power, who carries his commodity wherever he finds a market’ (Marx, 2013, p. 503). Additionally, Astarita (2018, p. 254) illustrates the conditions that enabled a development towards capitalism and lists ‘a relatively high circulation of money and merchandise as well as cash rents’ and the ‘sharp social differentiations’ within villagers who owned significant acreage of land and those who did not that were forced to become wage labourers. With regard to the transition to the era of industrial capitalism, it is important to consider the increasing demand, not only for goods but also the need for further demand itself to expand and establish the system. Accordingly, capitalists have always sought ways to create further demands and concomitant markets in order to accumulate additional capital continuously; this has led to imperialism and empire-building, now reconfigured as globalisation. Marx and Engels (2015, p. 7) highlighted this point: ‘the need of a constantly expanding market for products chases the bourgeoisie over the whole surface of the globe’, driven ‘by the conquest of new markets’ and ‘a more thorough exploitation of old ones’. As capitalism developed and established, so too did its capacity to eradicate barriers to its expansion through creating the political-economic and sociocultural as well as technological infrastructure to create greater potential for capital accumulation and surplus value.

In addition to the capitalists’ insatiable appetite for surplus value as the driving force of capitalist development, class struggle is also implicated in developing capitalism. During the 1960s, after an unpublished chapter of Marx’s Capital emerged, a number of scholars from the Italian New Left began to reinterpret Marx’s work on the accumulation of capital (Bowring, 2004). As a result, several scholars concluded, ‘instead of the forces of production expanding according to their own autonomous logic, … the accumulation of capital was … driven by class struggle’ (Bowring, 2004, p. 104). The fact that capitalists rely on wage labourers to create capital for surplus value means that they are at the behest of workers selling their capacity to labour; put another way, the capitalist system relies on workers and without them, the system breaks down. Therefore, it can be argued that it is the resistance, or at least the potential of resistance, of labourers that drives capitalists to be in ever search of development and expansion. Quite simply, capitalists are forced to create new ways (innovations) that sustain the subordination of the workers to keep them in line, and this is illustrated by creating the fear of being replaced by cheaper labour or automation. This is reflected in the argument by Cleaver (1992, p. 6) who notes ‘technological change was often introduced in response to workers struggles’ which ‘could … be seen as the introduction of new division of labour aimed at restoring control’. We return to this theme later in the books with regard to university work.

Returning to the accumulation of capital and the production of commodities, it has to be highlighted that Marx saw commodities as a crucial element of capitalist society (2013, p. 17). He describes commodities as an ‘object outside us’ – at a different level of reality, that is desired by someone (ibid.; Maisuria, 2017b) and therefore has exchange value. Marx also describes labour power as a commodity, which is different from material goods, which are a general class of commodities. As Rikowski (2017, p. 32) crucially highlights, according to Marx labour power ‘exists within the body of the labourer’ and is the only commodity ‘that can create new value’, making the labourer a necessary component of the production of commodities itself. So, uniquely the labour is a commodity itself and also labour power has the capacity to produce other commodities; no other commodity is like this.

The general class of commodities needs demand, and the capitalists create demand where it does not exist; thus, in order to accumulate further capital, a workforce is needed to meet these demands. This is where the education system becomes an important utility. Educational institutions in capitalism are necessitated to produce human capital, the labour power needed to be involved in the production of commodities. As Bowles and Gintis (1976) highlight, schooling creates and enhances the productivity of individuals by teaching skills that make them more employable as well as more motivated to be involved in capitalism, albeit without consciousness of doing so. While producing workers, the education system simultaneously facilitates young people’s transition from education into the labour force, by mirroring and thus perpetuating the hierarchical structures they will encounter within their workplace, hence education serves a socialising function (ibid.). In the words of Hill (2004, p. 39; Hatcher, 2001), the aim of education is to ‘produce compliant, ideologically indoctrinated, pro-capitalist, effective workers’.

As capitalism developed, so did its education system. From the nineteenth century, there has been an increasing stratification in types of educational establishments that reflect and (re)produce the class structure of society. This is evident in schooling with the emergence of fee-paying private schools out of public schools (the latter originated as open access schools for religious advancement [Maisuria, 2017a]). In contemporary capitalism, children who have been privately educated will most likely find themselves with opportunities for leading or managing occupational positions. This point was recognised by Gramsci (1971, p. 10) who stated that ‘school is the instrument through which intellectuals of various levels are elaborated’ (emphasis added). Furthermore, in capitalism, by being part of the state apparatus, schools are designed to ‘work in the interest of the capital’, which results in the education system being ‘inherently hierarchical and elitist’ (Hill, 2013, p. 148). Thus, education is a tool that produces large groups of people that will take up their subordinate workforce place within the production hierarchy (ibid.). Therein, “production” in schools is ‘dominated by the imperatives of profit and domination rather than human need’ (Bowles and Gintis, 1976, p. 54), which conditions the nature of education in capitalism.

Jaeger (2017) suggests that it makes economic sense for the capitalist system to designate successful as well as unsuccessful children and adults, the design is that the latter will be future ‘workers who will accept low-level, part-time jobs without benefits’ (pp. 975–977). She also highlights the economy’s need for “middle class failures”, who facilitate the façade of meritocracy (Maisuria, 2018) without “rocking the boat” (Jaeger, 2017, p. 976). Additionally, those from middle- and upper-class backgrounds, regardless of their abilities, particularly benefit from their own and their parents’ social networks. These networks – their social capital – are described as ‘connections which can be mobilized for particular purposes’ and can be considered a ‘distinctive resource’ (Nash, 1990, p. 432). Therefore, these networks and social ties are a resource that the middle and upper class can exploit in the labour market and increasingly so in education (Maisuria, 2017a). In this context, it becomes easy to blame wealthier parents and those parents who game the system, for choosing certain schools or for utilising their social connections in order to improve their children’s chances in life. However, Wrigley (2012) highlights how this overlooks capitalism’s role in creating inequity, and it does not lead anywhere – what Green and Kynaston (2019) term ‘the dead-end politics of hypocrisy’. The bigger picture, Wrigley contends, is that the strategies of wealthier parents in school selection should be seen as a self-preservation response to the fact that the stakes are so high. Individualism and self-interest are a foundational component of capitalism; ethical solidarity, collegiality, and comradeship is purposefully difficult. The finger of blame should be pointed at the system rather than the individual because the system has been designed as a zero-sum game, where one’s successes are the result of others’ failures (Giroux, 2016). This is the cut-throat nature of capitalism and the way that it plays out in education.

While capitalism has been the dominant hegemony, its dominance is not hermetically sealed as an inevitability. The potential to overcome capitalism is highlighted by many ‘resistance theorists’ and critical revolutionary pedagogues who emphasise ‘possibilities for teachers and students challenging’ the current system and engage ‘in liberatory and transformative education’ (Hill, 2013, p. 146). Paraphrasing Hill (2013), McLaren et al. (2004, p. 138) state that a teacher should be a ‘transformative intellectual who does not instruct students what to think but who learns to think dialectically and who develops a critical consciousness aimed at social transformation’. Therefore, teachers are in a unique position where they equip students with skills, competences, abilities, knowledge, and the attitudes and personal qualities that can be expressed and expended in the capitalist labour process (Hill and Kumar, 2009, p. 20), and they can concurrently influence their students to think critically about the social structure and possibilities of change. In this way, raising criticality and class consciousness is a fundamental role for the effective teacher (Maisuria, 2017b). Thus, teachers are potentially ‘dangerous’ to capitalism, as they can undo the efforts of an education system and social structure that aim to train individuals to be ‘compliant, ideologically indoctrinated, pro-capitalist, effective workers’ (Hill, 2004, p. 39; Giroux, 2016). In this context, it is logical that capitalism circumscribes the autonomy and freedom of educators by, inter alia, an audit culture and surveillance. These are issues that we return to.

On the issues of ideology and culture, it is important to highlight that while a substantial increase of wealth and subsequently the improvement of living standards in general have been attributed to the economic system of capitalism, the capitalist system has an inability to distribute wealth fairly, creating mass economic inequality and social problems (see for example More, 2002; Lippit, 2005; Fisher, 2009). Earlier, we subjected the individualism and self-interest fundamental in capitalism to negative critique in the context of school choice; according to adherents of Margaret Thatcher’s politics, these are claimed as beneficial for the economy and therefore also for the whole population as it allegedly would ‘lift all boats’ (Lippit, 2005, p. 2). However, it is clear that this proposition has not materialised given historic level of inequality within nations, regions, and globally. Markets, private ownership, and individuals’ and businesses’ pursuit of capital and profit have been prioritised and increasingly so, while egalitarian values and the welfare of the majority in society exist in political rhetoric only, for the most part (Giroux, 2014).

In The Communist Manifesto and the volumes of Capital, Marx and Engels highlight the detrimental impacts of capitalism for the majority of people, nevertheless they acknowledge its economic necessity for socialism. They were clear that capitalism was a necessary stage for the eventual development of socialism. This necessity was due to the capacity of capitalism to create rapid and exponential economic and technological development, which would be needed by socialism for people to flourish through redistribution. Also, they suggested a sociocultural development through capitalism too, specifically that the globalising of the capitalist system would enable nations to share properties, material as well as intellectual, leveraging nations away from ‘national one-sidedness and narrow-mindedness’ and allowing access to world literature (Marx, 2013, p. 7).

The essence of Marx and Engels’s work was on capital, and in the development of this scholarship was also the importance of social class, which would define capitalist society. It is necessary to identify the antagonistic relationship between the two classes in society, the ‘vast majority (workers)’ and the ‘small minority (owners and managers)’ who control them (Bowles and Gintis, 1976, p. 54). Described by Marx as the proletariat and the bourgeoisie respectively, their relationship is distinguished by the bourgeoisie’s need (or rather quest) for capital accumulation and surplus value. Therefore, the proletariat, employed by the bourgeoisie, ‘are the primary producers of wealth due to the expenditure of their labor in the production of commodities’ in a capitalist society (Hill, 2013, p. 145). This wealth largely, however, continues to stay in the hands of the bourgeoisie as they own the means of production and therefore consequently own the accumulated wealth. In the continuous quest for more wealth, the bourgeoisie’s focus on ‘extracting from labor as much work as possible in return for the lowest possible wages’ (Bowles and Gintis, 1976, p. 54) forces the labourer to work harder for less. Not only are these labourers paid less than their work is worth, Bowles and Gintis (1976, p. 57) stress the ‘absence of alternative sources of livelihood’, which subsequently leaves individuals no choice but to comply with increasing demands (Rikowski, 2017). Today, as a result, ‘millions of workers are being exploited by a relatively small yet strategically powerful global ruling class driven by an unshakable desire for accumulation of profit’ (McLaren and Farahmandpur, 2001, p. 137). In this situation, the proletariat’s situation has become even more precarious due to the development of ‘techniques of production’ that ‘reduce the amount of living labour’ in order to keep remuneration costs low (Livingstone and Scholtz, 2016, p. 472), a point that will be discussed in more detail shortly, and specified to education.

We have stressed the capitalists’ need to keep costs low while at the same time accumulating more and more wealth through the creation of demands and expansion of markets, and with this understanding the process of globalisation is important. As highlighted by Olssen and Peters (2005), globalisation was largely enabled by technological advancement that allowed nations to communicate and share ideas, allowing them to transcend previous borders and boundaries. Importantly globalisation also facilitated the rise of a new phase in capitalism – neoliberalism.

Neoliberal turn

Although not given the name of neoliberalism yet, it was aggressively advanced after the election of Margaret Thatcher in UK and Ronald Reagan in the US, who claimed that Keynesianism was to blame for weak economic growth and a reliance on welfare (see Harvey, 2007; Fitzner, 2017). Neoliberalism was a long time in development. In 1947, at its first official meeting, the Mont Pèlerin Society, consisting of a number of intellectuals and economists, identified a ‘lack of alternatives to the existing (Keynesian) order’ (Srnicek and Williams, 2015, p. 55). As a result, the neoliberal doctrine, a reformed version of liberalism, was created to establish unfettered and expanded markets to harness individual choice. However, at this point in history, Keynesianism as the dominant political hegemony was deeply rooted and garnered commitment, and the neoliberal project would need to be strategically implemented as a long-term political project (Srnicek and Williams, 2015). Eventually, the economic recession of the 1970s was an opportunity for the neoliberals to attribute political failure to Keynesianism. A report disseminated amongst the neoliberal reformers in the 1970s highlighted the need to bring ‘value-oriented intellectuals’ of left-wing persuasion and ‘journalists who favour “the cause of humanity”’ under control (Sklar, 1980, p. 40). Especially, progressive educators and those working within the media were seen as a threat to certain individuals working within the ‘world of high finance’, and thus needed to be made more ‘governable and more able to service capital’ (Davies and Bansel, 2007, p. 250). Neoliberal policies introduced in education from the 1980s began the attempted wholesale destruction of educators with left-wing, progressive, and liberal commitments, and education systems based on these values (Giroux, 2014; Maisuria, 2015).

The UK economic recession of the 1970s had challenged the commitment to an expensive welfare society, and with the rate of unemployment increasing (Allen and Ainley, 2007), neoliberalism became a politically feasible and supposedly necessary solution. While the rise in unemployment could plausibly be attributed to the economic recession, teachers were widely being blamed for not adequately preparing young people for the labour workforce. Consequently, an increased focus on ‘the schools’ role in preparing the future generation to contribute to the country’s economic success was articulated’ at the time (Wyse and Torrance, 2009, p. 214) and paved the way for the neoliberal principles that would have a tremendous impact on education. Looking for solutions to improve economic problems faced by the nation, the ruling capitalist class seemed to have found those in the work of the Mont Pèlerin Society (Srnicek and Williams, 2015). According to Peck and Tickell (2002), the process of neoliberalisation consists of three phases, described as “proto” neoliberalism, “roll-back” neoliberalism, and “roll-out” neoliberalism. The first stage, “proto”, is described as an ‘intellectual project’, established by ‘economic and libertarian theorists’ in order to offer an alternative to the ‘political and economic crisis around the Keynesian welfare state’ (Ball, 2012, p. 3). At this point, the Mont Pèlerin Society provided the ‘invisible framework of political common sense that was formed by the ideas circulating in elite networks’ they had established (Srnicek and Williams, 2015, p. 55). The second stage, the “roll-back”, is then characterised by an ‘active destruction and discreditation of Keynesian-welfarist and social-collectivist institutions’ (Peck and Tickell, 2002, p. 384). Marked as inefficient, social services and public goods such as education are then taken apart and (quasi-) privatised in the last stage, the “roll-out”.

The Mont Pèlerin Society had found support of their philosophical and political-economic project in Thatcher and Reagan, and neoliberalism became central to every governing decision of the ruling capitalist class, including globally through international structures such as the World Bank and World Trade Organisation and distinct trading blocs, such as the European Union. This was a defining moment in history. Subsequently, higher education was also gradually being restructured too, which would eventually lead to a ‘subordination of academic governance, professional identities, and intellectual cultures to market rationalities’ (Amsler, 2011, p. 63) with marketisation, privatisation, and commodification as the three ‘dimensions of education becoming capitalised’ (Rikowski, 2017, p. 43).

Higher education for creating labour and productivity

Similar to the 1970s in the UK, circa 2008 the core...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Page
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Foreword
• Preface
• Organisation of the book
• 1 The neoliberal capitalist system and education
• 2 Neoliberalisation of the university and academic work
• 3 Reality for new and prospective academics, and postgraduate students
• 4 Struggle for a new reality
• References
• Index