In the complex world of fields and interactions that control the society, the university was (with the school and the rest of the education system), until recently, an institution which was managed and played Bourdieu called "cultural capital." This gave the university a character to some extent autonomous but remain closely linked to other institutions such as the state (institutions institution) that thrived economically in Spain. Thus, the university intellectual could be some sort of server down the state, in the words of French sociologist, a sort of official who guarded and administered the cultural capital, varnishing with their aura of social prestige to the elements of a class society and devoting to It groups and individuals for social domination. This consecration was something magical. Could distribute such capital culture as valuable in itself, but necessarily follow the structure and distribution class of society. Students come to college always marked by class origins. But thus becomes the prestige that the university gives a prince today to do a university to demonstrate and filter the prestige that would come before otherwise, other magic, to disguise in any case the old and stale character royalty and its aura (although we should consider and ask why they almost always do the race of economic, business or law and if this is not a case of reciprocity and mutual recognition between the mercantilist society, the bourgeois state and the old aristocracy of blue blood.)
The university was born perhaps because, as the school with an ambiguous function in principle in favor of political power but as an intellectual field rather than economic, which may at any time compete with the political or economic power. Was therefore a certain independence within society and the other powers should agree to it (any government knows). Was in it, besides the reified bureaucratic rationality of modern bourgeois world, also on the magical elements built in a sort of shamanic institution into gold cultural everything he touched. Thus, in the great social game of power and struggles could understand some competition with other fields of social struggle as was that of bourgeois economy and businesses. Human relations (social) that underlay the university products were those of a power game, certainly, but with different rules and capital to the company (basically, was played on cultural capital rather than economic, but certainly the was also a business college and always had a certain character of purchase and sale of knowledge). So perhaps, for that connection to the business world (private universities), social function of the university was, as the school, enshrining social inequalities, by identifying and sanctioning those students who already have access to it only expressed a certain social background. This student is sold prestige, power and cultural capital in the form of college degrees.
Similarly, such funds continue to chair presiding and the struggles between teachers and departments in an attempt to dominate within the institution and build everything in it can hope to accumulate. In this struggle, the teachers are located relatively each other in various positions, alliances and enmities. The conflict in this cultural battlefield in society can be in many ways: individuals rebels mimetics they take what is given to be holders of privileges, are well positioned to extend its tentacles, etc. All in search of capital at stake, seeking to have the funds (prestige, knowledge, money). But far from an absolutely fatalistic vision would lead us to believe that the outcome of all this was a conservative institution and political power necessary accomplice (State), Bourdieu recognized, applying his theory of habitus which to play the game campus must assume (just by being in it as a kind of taxation that we all accept unconsciously) what he called a sciendi libido. That is, to wield the symbolic capital of reputation at stake have to be a good scientist and who is not should be so. This is internalized by all, so anyone who discussed the value was investigated and positive results in their research. What governed the social process of researching and producing a kind of knowledge was also self-subfield within the commercial part of the university, a form of behavior whose sole aim was the science itself. Although the university was the game to the state, as we said, and was complicit in a social structure outside of class (nothing in society remains completely isolated), society (fueled by the state) attributed the teacher and academic researcher this worthwhile pursuit of knowledge or intellectual itch ( sciendi libido) that the teacher should be believed. For indeed, on their suitability for this libido sciendi figure is his personal prestige. Thus, as a result of the struggles and the desire for prestige and power within the institution being investigated impartially and diligently however. Doing this in college was a source of prestige and recognition inside and outside of it, though not always guarantee good positions in the power networks or endorsement by the market society outside it. Anyway, everybody agreed we had to raise awareness both philology America as in chemistry, biology or history. No matter. There was something magical, social envy in those engaged in this task "spiritual" and "noble" of scientific knowledge.
Thus, the university had a kind of aristocratic perhaps inherited, I think, of the old society of medieval estates. But no matter how retrograde this inertia of the old school it may seem, it served to display a certain degree of autonomy from the bourgeois society of the growing universal commodification of totalitarian invasion by the market and quantifying the logic required by him, to all spheres of life. Therefore, university autonomy was a certain halo reduced to commodities. Without doubt, this magical aura hiding basic inequalities and injustices and was therefore complicit in them, but also allowed the elevation of thought and its products on the mercantile society. Let's say that, as Lukacs recalls occurring in the premodern world feudal or slave, economic and commercial bourgeoisie had not invaded the body or the consciousness of the university (the habitus, Bourdieu completed). In society was not all mercantilist economy. There was no doubt the market, but not presiding over the world and social relations.
Thus, from a possible autonomous university was critical, even in the bottom one facet of the struggle for power (not necessarily insist that economic powers) internal and external to the university. As noted in previous post, he makes up perhaps the academic freedom to ensure mutually agreed that all parties can play their tricks and compete with the desire to dominate over the others. A sort of gentlemen's typical of a modern liberal consciousness and blind politics still immune to the umbilical cord that linked with economics. The university imposed, then, from a relative autonomy, its own rules and the value of offering and converted into symbolic capital (knowledge, science, culture). So, could boast of pursuing knowledge for knowledge, science for science, pure knowledge as befits a noble task. The rest of society and the state, which made use of it, so I could accept and respect, for whatever reason.
But the most immediate relevance in the context of changes in English universities for the implementation of the so called Bologna Process, the thing is changing radically. So much so that one could speak, I believe, of death of college life as we have briefly described in the preceding lines. The key this change is the invasion by the world of business and the overall economy (again, totalitarian) of all such nooks of autonomy with which and through which the old school who was born and died in Bologna could aspire to stand up to other institutions and social forces in the great social struggle. Since the autonomy of thought allowed by the bourgeois division between consciousness and social structure, could give counter-discourses. It was something socially acceptable from the standpoint of liberal bourgeois and counter-discourses such as science, could, and here I differ from some orthodox interpretations of Marxism more deterministic, influence and advocate for structural changes. The mere self-knowledge of the structure, self-conscious, you can transform it believed Bourdieu against structuralism, Marxism, Foucault or more deterministic. Science and rational analysis can work this miracle through their ability to lift the unconscious conscious or ignored, in the margin of therapist makes science analyst with the patient or the sociologist bourdieusian. There is the mediation of a subject that is not only social. Therefore, the university could produce knowledge contrary to the interests of the capitalist economic system in capitalist countries. It was part of a bourgeois ideology could still be bourgeois in the realm of ideas, become against the bourgeoisie itself. Rationality does not always assumed an instrumental domain, as critics implicitly accept for reasons of rationality (Habermas is the opinion of the complaint or Apelian of performative contradiction of postmodernism). Was critical (liberating truths sensor, polygraph and prejudices) of knowledge and science, servers and occasional enemies, paradoxically, the bourgeois world and ambiguous instrument both for the domain to the release. Here you can challenge the political and economic self from an epistemological procedure can to some extent away from its origin.
process we are now living in the post Bologna University is the novelty of the adoption of a logic and conscience quite consistent with the world market economy. There is an invasion of the area once mercantilist independent university. In this world, mainly producing goods, said Marx, the social relationships domain magically invisible and worship the fetish of the commodity. There is an overestimation of quantifying rationality reflects the abstraction of money that produces more money to the commodity, in this case, as a medium. Reified abstraction that makes the world and people in numbers (a man is his labor force or marketable capital).
capitalist is this magic that now pervades the university as opposed to the other magic of the donor culture of prestige as such. It is the worship of the great fetish of the market economy, the worship of merchandise goods, the cult of the maximum abstraction cosificadoral: money. This is the money before the university's autonomous intellectual aristocratic contempt was to be based on the contempt even their social advancement and prestige. But now we witness the opposite. It is now assumed, and the law establishes that you have to do in college is to produce money. Knowledge and not pure science, but what society values \u200b\u200bonly market: money. A money whose origin is based on unequal split between those who must sell their labor no longer belongs to them and who have a starting capital product spoilers ancestors violence (robbery) and should be increased (logic endless production as a measure of wealth). The idyllic world of the market are the same as selling the products they produce is, as Marx demonstrated, a huge lie that is becoming even ideology of bourgeois society.
bourgeois economy and its associated consciousness, could be challenged by an institution to some extent the market is free, as was the old university of science fair as sources social prestige and power internally and externally. For example, to make money, a doctor or lawyer had only to put the little sign that he was a professor in his office and quickly display of cultural capital would do the rest. Here, the university was a value that the market should accept. The economy should value the cultural capital but on the other hand, had to endure the criticism of those eccentric university professors and students. But now, in the intellectual struggle between university and business, the quality rises as a new object by sacrificing the intellectual and concealing the unjust system of relationships among men has increased. Because it is a quality and production is measured in money. So much so that according to the Government of Andalusia, in the SICA, I'm not a teacher nor a researcher, but a "productive agent" (and I quote the "buzzword that we are called now by the Board Andalucía). So, I must as the Andalusian make money, money to justify the investment they make in me making more money. But beware, money that although stems partly from public sources should reverse in the field who has won a college (and the political and legal field): the world of business and economics.
Now measure the flow of wealth money (workers who provide greater benefits to employers) must flow towards entrepreneurs. Knowledge must be justified in terms of who manufactures adequate technical jobs needed by the employer or banker for private benefits, to contribute to the capitalist cycle of money-commodity-more money. From this reading is now a college professor should not question or investigate what it hides the phantasmagoria "money" in the new language university modeled on the company is called "quality" or "production."
If knowledge is fully commercialized (totalitarian), becoming one thing that is bought and sold, which is invested to make more money, there is now way out from the sphere of knowledge and ideas of the iron structure supported by a no less fierce bureaucratic assessment and quality. It is the creation of what Lukacs called a "false consciousness" among university faculty that confuses science with a commodity. Thus, economic power has achieved something that no doubt has always interested him: blackmail and conquer the picky and from its ancient and aristocratic autonomy, university dangerous. Has conquered the product and the instrument (critical by definition) era university science now turning into an instrument to increase capital investment in order (goods). Thus, knowledge that gives money (in the official language says "that meets the demands of the labor market") is rated by rating agencies about the quality required primarily to study "relevant knowledge" for society, working with a competitive logic modeled for the company, that universities know how to sell your product (marketing) and transfer companies (converted into a paradigm of society and which is sometimes called "society"). Thus, the university whose purpose it is only to serve the business world is becoming more myopic epistemologically speaking, so that science is becoming increasingly domesticated in the empirical science of isolated and pure facts, descriptive studies of the quantitative, which is a priority compared to more quality, compared to the study of events from the social totality (which led to the aristocratic old professor to question many things mercantilist logic, etc.). Mercantilist logic is catching, as mentioned in the previous post, even the bones of the teachers, a logic that we have believed and taken en masse to the point that the old model of teacher self is identified and convicted by the sacred finger of rating agencies. This is the commercialization of university enshrined in the Bologna Process, its domestication business, totalitarian conquest of his old corner of autonomy (academic freedom) that had breath to counter the official discourse of bankers and politicians. It extinguishes the university and with it the ambiguous figure was called "intellectual."
0 comments:
Post a Comment