If we maintain the assumption that we have outlined in an earlier post in relation to Recent changes in English public universities, could explain these changes occurred from Bologna as a university teacher proletarianization linked to any ideological transformation in teacher beliefs about themselves as social class or group. As a point starting, this can be interpreted using the sociological theory of Pierre Bourdieu. According to its general vision of society, could be occurring a social field (economic business) with their particular rules of the game is winning so far constituted a distinct social field in which there were other rules and other types of capital at stake (the intellectual college). These intrusive phenomena occur in a society structured in social fields (of competition and internal struggle for dominance) that may interact with each other at times. Thus, a country can invade or be invaded by another country and change their rules. This often occurs with the complicity of the establishment of institutions (the state) to arbitrate and decide the symbolic capital (which is what would eventually be considered more valuable among the various types of capital).
As noted also Bourdieu, the universe establishes formal legal field in its formality, dehistoricize and thus away from the reality of origin in the consciousness of men, which is a result of decisions of political power and interests of economic groups, which are normally collusion. The formalism of the legal field is the tremendous resource that serves the state to be shaping the society without the look and avoiding the conflicts that might ensue if the historical remain clearly visible in the consciousness of people, with all its rawness. Parallel to the legal, ideological rationalization process dehistoricized is also embodied by a bureaucracy capable of concealing the actual source (political, historical, social, economic) and transmute the particular reasons why a group is ordered for a formal universal logos. That is, the bureaucracy is an instrument of power in which the rule would reverse the actual order of history is the standard excuse for the arbitrary nature of any decision by the most powerful groups in society. The modern bureaucracy is a consequence of the formalization process of reason itself of bourgeois philosophy authors have also pointed out that Marxists like Lukacs or Marxists like Max Weber to which we should take into account before the bureaucratic onslaught is taking over the university.
Lukacs explains in detail how complex and social situations of bourgeois and proletarian generate, in the case of the bourgeois, the dichotomy between positivist science and a core of subjectivity immune to that science and interior, and Moreover, in the case of the proletariat, the propensity to capture the dialectic of reality. The latter occurs to the extent that the proletariat suffers directly from the social origin of the goods commodifying violence, and that he, their labor is commodified. Thus, the living in the dirty mud of reality can open his eyes in a dialectical sense. Apart from that we extrapolated the dialectical method to the analysis of all real, as claimed and defended Lukacs (I do not just believe it), we may use dynamic explanatory. Recall that the dialectical method is one who believes that party is the social whole, a social whole is not understood nor without the parties. Also, within the object and the concrete living tearing (capitalist world) or its negation. That is, could be understood dialectically things point to a different location from that place to where they seem to target. The fact that the bourgeois will appear fragmented and have a global sense, from a dialectical view, a sense and a certain order that is not cumulative quantitativist order of bourgeois thought. From all this, and I say that without dogma, and with some reservation (convinces me more ellacuriano materialist perspective), we can interpret that dialectically involves looking not only look contemplative or reflective, it dives and buzzes in the fact that suffers reality (Lukacs suggests that those who suffer the worst tear: the proletariat, although the capitalist is also a divided soul and suffers some reification in the way of being forced to quantify it and the world). But this contact with the real (socio-historical) both practical and theoretical, reality is shown to the analyst as somewhat ambiguous, hiding folds and is usually always suggesting the opposite of what appears. It is a way of understanding the philosophy of suspicion from one of the great masters of suspicion (Marx). I think that as a starting approach to open paths, we could try to deal dialectically, in this respect part (certainly not the total effect gives Lukacs) the whole of the social field of human relations that is the university and intellectuals.
We said in previous posts, again from the sociology of Pierre Bourdieu, who went off to college certain point of the game rules and control from those who play, win and dominate the world of business and economics. The university was erected as a kind of social bubble that allowed a critical discourse provided it was not too far. To this end, the whole network of interests and relations between both worlds so far ensured that the often eccentric professors and intellectuals not to leave too much of the language. And the fact that society will allow an area (controlled and monitored), which could be critical to reinforce the image of freedom that requires a company selling emerged as free (the English Transition.) Democracy Transition kidding after Spain had to devote a legal and institutional academic freedom as a moral and political ideal which had supported the struggle against Franco. The illusion of being free now after the end of the previous regime had to look real and be guaranteed at least a theoretical plate , for which a college was needed in which different groups linked to powerful groups in the economy and the policy could be set free their movements and alliances. Surely this university model in vogue a long time in many parts of the world connects with the liberal capitalist world was born as a result probably thereof. Thus, the university was the tip of an iceberg in which science and speeches were launched by different groups whose real activity, as members of a social struggle bourdieusian field, was the desire by all groups to send in and outside the university. With the liberal-bourgeois democracy the power (political) is dealt. Thus, there was nothing to look after a corps of which came from the new political class destined to rule after the transition. Nobody could object to the rules of the campus, a game or social field that Franco had been the speech as a tumor within the university Franco.
The university intellectual world game is based on all parties to the intellectual prestige of the special class in society, as a group that holds, manages and builds on Bourdieu called cultural capital, against those who base their power play to accumulate economic capital (money makes more money). Of course there has always been a marriage between both worlds (economic and academic), but to date each played their game. Was perhaps structurally necessary so be it or maybe brakes were also preventing full absorption of the university by the company (the Cold War, mobilization of workers, political opposition etc.).
Bourdieu gives us a hint by suggesting that a social field can impose their rules of the game breaking into another field. So the world studied in detail by Marx in Capital the capitalist economy in recent years has completely broken and blatantly in the game in higher education. Before there was a clear relationship between politicians, capitalists and university, but each remained in place. What is new now is that the world of business and banking who conquered and invaded the academic world, producing a series of changes in habitus , awareness and power plays within the institution university. We can not treat everyone in this post and now, having the double reference to Bourdieu and Marxist dialectic Lukacs, try to explain what happens at the ideological level of the current university professor in Spain, in his consciousness. Again, the dialectical trick of not believing that things are as they seem, belongs to every sound philosophy of suspicion, we will certainly come good.
is clear that the university stop playing their game, despite the strong network of internal control has always been thought into it because of common interests and alliances with the world of economics or politics, was very dangerous. Both political power as the company knew it. Although the margin was small, the danger of a Socratic school inquiring was obvious (the teacher habitus expresses itself as itching to investigate something in high esteem, libido sciendi as a particular kind of morality). In the background is reflecting any researcher in the weekly day of rest decide to "go and see how they are going in the laboratory experiments." Or is that increasingly takes work home, the obsessive with his work, which collects books. But this momentum is dangerous. The university can believe both its mission to end opposition to political power. In addition, because random component of all historical, in the sense indicated by Ellacuría could be some combination or accident in which an important group exercised an effective social challenge official power. The inertia required by both the philosophy as science (the intellectual habitus) may undermine certain vested interests. Put the man to think and never stop. Especially we believe, against the determinism of some Marxisms crude, in some power and control in an ideologically effective. A university that comes to join in the defense of their interests (perhaps scientists) can seriously disrupt a government. You can do much damage to the official dogmas. Much of the opposition to the traditionally emerged from it. If the university is able to operate and fly its cultural capital as an asset, its social influence on the world of profit and endless local production of goods, the university can be a powerful social force.
But could not last long this privilege of university autonomy in a world that since the eighties and after the fall of the wall is gradually being conquered in its entirety by those who dominate the field of economics . Thus, the university had its days numbered, the University of elitist intellectual class and the aristocracy of thought. You have to understand the most highly topical to the global context occurring after the end of communism and a strong neo-liberal outpost. Everything is a product of the same dynamism. In the next post, which will be a second part of what we've only raised in it, will develop the specific ways in which the invasion has come from the world of business and the market economy so far enjoyed autonomy from the world: the university.
0 comments:
Post a Comment