However much Australia may fall short in key departments of almost everything, surely no one can doubt our vigour and willingness to destroy our university system. This is an Australian success story!
Applying the same ingenuity by which earlier generations silted our rivers, dispersed our topsoil and annihilated our fauna, a generation of right-wing politicians and activists — working as a team with vice-chancellors, managers, consultants and compliant underlings — are hacking away at the trunk and roots of a system we built up only in the past half-century or so.
Were it a passage of play in a Sims world, it would be intriguing to watch. In real life, it’s a tragedy — but instructive in showing that while the right is the main author of Australian universities’ demise, the left has assisted it in myriad ways.
The most pertinent example at the moment is Sydney University, whose century-and-three-quarters arts faculty is being more or less demolished as a centre of scholarship, learning, and the transmission of the humanities.
According to a brilliant, burning piece by Nick Riemer in Overland online (following some great reporting in Honi Soit), 252 of 451 courses at the arts faculty are to go as separate faculties are abolished, disciplines are herded together, mass process teaching takes over, and academics are deprived of the right to research as part of their employment. This is occurring under new VC Mark Scott after years of corporatisation by former VC Michael Spence.
This is nihilism, pure and simple. The university is sitting on sufficient funds to cushion the blow from COVID and the collapse of the overseas student market. This is an obvious shock doctrine application of power: use the cover of a pseudo-emergency to do the destructive work you wanted to do anyway.
It’s already been happening at second- and third-tier universities — Federation Uni in Victoria, for example, has been pretty much busted back to a teachers’ college, with six schools down to three, headed by “CEOs” — but that was essentially a first stage winding back of the nation-building, 1960s-era idea of extending the possibility of a liberal arts education to everyone.
The attack on the oldest humanities faculty in the nation, however, is a new level of destruction. We really mean to be a big, dumb quarry where there is no substantial space for the pursuit of knowledge and free inquiry.
The right has no problem with this. For all its protestation that “wokeness” is destroying Western civilisation, it is happy to see schools of classical studies, ancient languages and historical philosophy stripped and shellacked of students and resources, and their faculty deprived of actual time to think — which is what “research” is, in many such cases.
From the centre of the Morrison government it’s pure, gleeful philistinism, but those conservatives who ostensibly care about Western civ are happy to go along for the ride. They really don’t care about the transmission of disinterested knowledge that makes Western civilisation possible — so long as they can target courses which teach forms of critical and liberatory thinking.
But this is where the twist comes in. For driving the changes at Sydney Uni has been the new provost, former dean of arts Annamarie Jagose, a pioneer of queer studies in Australia, whose work is exactly the sort of thing the right has been trying to target as the new barbarity. It needn’t have bothered.
When Jagose was targeted by students for protest — the students correctly assessing that if someone like Jagose had put up a fight from the dean’s office the destruction of the faculty might have been stopped in its tracks — Jagose criticised them for using the first name “Annamarie” in a chant as a form of feminisation and silencing of a non-European cultural heritage:
‘Annamarie, get out. We know what you’re all about.’ But while taking up the clear-eyed, all-knowing, hermeneutically suspicious position of the protester who sees through the spin to the real core of managerial corruption, this chant also made an insinuatingly gendered recourse to my first name only.
Annamarie Jagose
Study queer theory and learn to be this much of a jerk.
Various articles in Honi Soit suggested that this and more in Jagose’s extraordinary article was a betrayal of queer theory’s radical heritage. They would have done better to consider that this is queer theory revealing itself — as the left wing of neoliberalism, a theory of radical equivalence and fluidity, shaped by the radical equivalence and fluidity of an unbounded market, and then naturalised as an ideology of an elite within the knowledge class, on the road to class power.
Nor is the sort of left that Riemer represents without blame. In the Overland article he notes:
Instrumentalisation of knowledge by politics runs deep in Australian history: Cook’s very act of appropriation of the continent for the British crown in 1770 was accomplished under the cover of a scientific mission to Tahiti to observe the transit of Venus (observations themselves valued for their utility to marine navigation).
See, that’s part of the problem. Can’t help himself, can he? The British may have been interested in empire, but they were also interested in the expansion of knowledge and the understanding of the world, as were the Romans and the Greeks, brutal as they were. “Under the cover of” is a right-on cynicism that does the work of the humanities-wreckers for them.
For about two decades, this sort of left’s inability to hold two ideas at once — that there is a reflexive, inquiring process of free thought, that it is the pre-condition of the university, and of human liberation and flourishing in modern conditions, and that it has also been a tool of domination — has helped to wear away at the legitimacy of the institutions they are belatedly trying to defend.
If the study of global astronomy is nothing more than “a cover”; if Arab studies are only Orientalism; if, as another Overland piece suggests, Emily Dickinson’s poetry is nothing other than “white elitism”, why should taxpayers stump up for any of it? It has no more social claim than the funding of badminton or stamp-collecting — just a hobby a few people like to follow.
The rot runs deep — as evidenced by a recent attempt by a group within the National Tertiary Education Union to have it denounce “gender-critical feminism”, a cover-all term for ideas that question the authorised idea of radical gender self-determination (the gender-critical feminists are known by their enemies as TERFS).
It was defeated — but not by a significant margin — and the fact there was a sizeable number of votes for an academics’ union to denounce a particular school of thought — and thus reinforce the idea that university teaching should be controlled from without — shows the degree to which the humanities was undermined from within.
The right and the technocrats would have come for the humanities no matter what happened. But there would have been a real fight to be had if they had not been undermined from within. It will take decades to reconstruct an autonomous humanities within Australia, and perhaps we will never be able to.
But any chance that we can will involve a real rethinking on “the left” of a one-dimensional knowledge-power formula. And it is time for people who have been disquieted by this cynicism masquerading as critical thinking to stop running from the debate for fear of tense moments in the common room.
There are no common rooms left, and soon there will be nothing at all. Still, academia-wise, we are world standard in something — the destruction of it. Oi oi oi.
As someone who has spent the equivalent of 9 years studying at two universities (8 years completing two BSc (Hons) Degrees and a one year Dip Ed.) I feel that I have a keen interest in our university system. I loved studying at university, even though at times I thought that I could go mad because of the workload. Although I am well aware that things are bad in the tertiary sector, nevertheless, to read this piece by Guy, together with Nick Riemer’s article, was an immensely depressing experience.
My idea of the best form of tertiary education would be based on something like the model that obtained in say, the 1960’s where universities were funded by the taxpayer with the aim of providing a liberal education. The only change to that 1960’s model that I would like to see would involve making a university education free for those with the necessary scholastic qualifications to gain entry, as happened under the Federal Labor Government of Gough Whitlam in the early 1970’s.
It would be easy to provide detailed comments on the excellent points Guy makes in his essay. But to summarize, I basically agree with everything he says.
So, where do we go to from here? I think that we can attribute the disastrous state of tertiary education to essentially one principal cause and that is the adoption of the free-market, ‘economic rationalist’ model some 40 or more years ago. This is something that the Hawke and Keating ‘Labor’ (and I use that term very advisedly) governments were instrumental in implementing.
This economic model has not only poisoned education, its venomous and toxic effects have significantly damaged virtually every other aspect of our economy, society and culture. As I have noted previously, the adoption of this economic model has resulted in our universities becoming, at least in part, educational brothels that sell degrees instead of sex, to the highest bidder (even if the recipients are functionally illiterate in written and spoken English).
The problems that beset the tertiary sector and elsewhere, will not be solved while we are saddled with the cancer of economic rationalism. What is needed is the emergence of a sensible democratic socialist party that it dedicated to inter alia, the elimination of this hideous economic ideology. It is time for the left to reinvent itself and to concentrate on important issues instead of arcane and esoteric fads such as ‘white elitism’, ‘gender-critical feminism’ and other frivolous time-wasting nonsense, which will never gain the attention of a critical mass of voters.
Likewise – 9 yrs at Auckland Uni, over 40 yrs in the workforce as Chemistry PhD, contributing solidly to society, and now retired. My university education was free, as were arts degrees. Our Aust society has been hollowed out intellectually by the neocons……
Drandy, I would presume that the appalling situation described here by Guy would also prevail in New Zealand (as well as in much, if not most, of the western world).
I seem to recall that Roger Douglas was a Minister in the ‘Labor’ Government of David Lange in the 1980’s. Douglas was the architect of ‘Rogernomics’, the New Zealand strain of the ‘economic rationalist’ virus. Accordingly, I would be surprised if the situation in the tertiary sector was much different in New Zealand.
Yes I think that’s the case. We left NZ in the mid-80s and I think the neocon damage was only just then being inflicted on the Kiwis. i think Jacinda is trying to level the playing field a bit, but of course once public funding turns private you can forget the common good being taken care of . . .
You have identified the basic problem, which is now surfacing with the destruction of free, disinterested research in the humanities and social sciences. This is to be replaced by advanced schooling for jobs-with business letting us know what skills they require- together with science to largely funded by grants and business donations, so that science will more closely serve business. Mark Scott is fittingly described as a businessman, whose education has not included a noticeable amount of disinterested research. That Universities in Australia are now required to ape businesses can be put down to an economic ideology, which takes an unrealisable abstract model of a market economy, in which every service apart from social order is to be provided by private businesses, because these are supposed to minimise costs. “Economic rationalism” was the first term used to describe its relentless march into the public and other areas of non-commercial service but the present term for it is “neoliberalism”, which eliminates any suggestion that there is any rationality whatever involved in pursuing it. Another appropriate term for it is “capitalist totalitarianism”, which captures the way that it forces all forms of social activity into the same mould, apart from family life, which it relentlessly squeezes into as small a part of our lives as it can, with demands for increased productivity, which can only be met be working longer hours for the same pay. We do need another world.
Of course, Ian, I totally agree with every word that you write.
The thing that I have never been able to understand since this ‘neo-liberal’ confidence trick was perpetrated on much of western society is how people could be conned into accepting this madness. Schools, universities (not to mention hospitals, gas and electricity providers, aged-care providers, the finance industry and myriad other institutions) are not better able to meet the needs of the public by having some business CEO running the show. Such individuals are only concerned with making a profit, not in providing a service to the public. Corners are cut, safety is compromised, staff and consumers are exploited. It is laughable.
I guess that the ‘joke’ (on us all) will continue as long as the capitalist gangsters that run this racket can keep most of the community distracted with trivia such as sport, gambling, alcohol, reality TV, Hollywood and Royal Family gossip and social media, etc. I feel that one day these greed merchants will overplay their hand and people will wake up. If the experience of Paris in 1789 and of Russia in 1917 is any guide, the outcome will not be pretty.
I am not all that surprised that we agree, since I thought you had identified the basic reason for the destruction of Universities. Just how much the first leaders of neo-liberalism believed in it is not clear, although those shrewd but not great thinkers, Reagan and Thatcher seemed to believe. After experiencing Morrison’s great ability to lie, while putting on all the appearances of sincerity, they might have just been pretending to believe.
I think the ideology took a grip on intelligent peoples’ minds, because many people educated in law and social “sciences” aspire to be scientific but don’t understand what science is. Debates in the Philosophy of Science at the time did not help, since they revolved around simple views of science or reflected Cold War conflicts. Further, the model of an economy purely driven by Adam Smith’s invisible hand looked scientific, because its conclusions were derived with mathematical rigour. Science makes great use of maths but is not maths.
As to how this capitalist totalitarianism will end, I wish we could tell if and when it might happen. Nor can we know whether it will end with the violence of 1789 or 1917, however angry people might be. I am always impressed with how many human currents intertwine in great historical changes.
Thanks for the reply Ian.
I am no great thinker – the only philosophy that I have ever studied was during my Dip. Ed. and I only studied economics to Form 6 level. I certainly had not intentions of wasting my time going further with that. I was motivated to take economics to that level so that I could gain a basic understanding of the ‘discipline’.
Yet, notwithstanding all that, it was patently obvious to me right from the very outset that this ‘neo-liberal adventure’ was going to end in tears. Neo-liberalism is a kind of modern-day ‘laissez-faire’ undertaking reminiscent of the kind of economy and society that prevailed in the time of Charles Dickens. It is predicated on the existence of some kind of disadvantaged ‘under class’ which can be readily exploited and it is guaranteed to increase levels of income and wealth disparities.
I may be wrong but I have always held the view that there were essentially two types of people who supported the neo-liberal model.
Firstly, there were the business opportunists and greed merchants who went into paroxysms of ecstasy at the thought of how they could exploit the system for their own gain once they took control of essential services such as public transport, electricity and gas supply and jails. They could not lose. Then there were the likes of bankers who, once freed from regulations, could indulge in the sort of nefarious practices that were revealed by the recent Royal Commission into the Finance Sector. Whether these people believed the absurd hype and propaganda that was, and still is, associated with this confidence trick, is a moot point. I believe that many of them realize that it is a scam but they are making millions from it, so it does not matter (to them at any rate).
The second type of person who supported this system was the type who tends to think that most people are lazy and need to be pushed to work. They believe that anyone who has a longer lunch than normal is a freeloader, while, of course, there is always a perfectly good reason for their long lunches. They believe that the private sector is inherently more efficient and that private companies will compete fairly with each other and behave honestly and ethically in order to retain a loyal customer base. They argue that any dishonest or unfair behavior would result in a loss of business and therefore business operators would not indulge in such behavior. The naiveté of this group defies the imagination. But I am sure that media outlets such as News Limited have played their role in persuading people like this; after all, it is in their own interests to do this.
I agree. Royal Commission after Royal Commission is a symptom of the corruption that stems from neo-liberalism. We will shortly need another into the NDIS, with its private providers taking advantage of peoples’ needs and the government trying to make sure that they “do more with less”. Hang on, surely there is one going already?
I don’t want to suggest that we have no way of knowing anything about the future. Capitalist totalitarianism is clearly unstable and produces great discontent among people who struggle for a home, to afford children or pay crippling rents. It could collapse, so that we have a better world but I still think it’s not certain.
Boiling frog syndrome accounts for a lot of public tolerance of the build-up IMO.
If you boil water with a frog in it, the frog in reality jumps out when it gets too hot. Humans not so much.
A far as “economic rationalism” goes, you need to remember that “rationalism” is cognate not just with “rational” but with “rationalise”. As the term was used in Australia, I’ve always recognised it as meaning the use of economic theory to rationalise an ideology – perhaps best referred to as Market Authoritarianism – which would have existed and been enforced in some form even if neoclassical economics had never existed. I call it that because the ideology worked on the expectation that market forces, suitably manipulated, could produce the same effects as state authoritarianism (which Australian electors in the 80s would never have voted for) while apparently exempting the state from responsibility.
“Neoliberalism”, on the other hand, is an inappropriate term because it makes the thing sound softer and cuddlier than it is/was. Just about everywhere else but in Australia, where it has acquired different connotations since the 1940, the word “liberal” conveys ideas of kindness, fairness and moderate progressivism which stand in stark contrast to the reality of Market Authoritarianism.
Of the two commonly used terms, I’d go for “economic rationalism” any day, since it refers to what we actually experienced, as opposed to the American model; and also because I’m opposed in principle to automatically adopting American terminology – in much the same way I get upset at the mindless adoption of the American term “first nations” in place of “Aboriginal”, which is not only universally understood but means exactly the same thing.
In any case, it’s largely of historical interest because economic rationalism (or neoliberalism) has ceased to be a living movement that drives politics, and survives only as an increasingly thin veneer of rationality applied to a more naked style of authoritarianism which electorates in many parts of the world have already shown a scary willingness to back, without any disguise or rationalisation. And it is that, I would argue, rather than the old neoliberal model, which has inspired the mirror behaviour in one segment of the Left – a new and just as scary post-truthist authoritarianism – of which Guy also speaks.
well put ,thank you
Excellent comment RR, but without agitation from anyone, not from lecturers, not from the public, not even from students, why should politicians take notice.
Dawkins began the rot, the argument that Australia could not afford student lifers, they had to pay their way even if they lived on very low student incomes, the taxpayer could not afford to pay for student welfare.
Economic rationalism /Neoliberalism began with Labor in the 80’s.
Reagan, Thatcher where life is about making an income and anyone who doesn’t make much only has themselves to blame and they will very deliberately not be supported.
There has been no voice with any influence in our media/ mainstream information outlets to help stop the rot, Keating thought that not allowing monopolies in media would stop the rot, he was wrong.
Our media is wall to wall Neoliberal with various owners and a few minor exceptions.
Great article. The attack on the humanities in particular as not ‘useful’ is rather strange unless the attacker’s real agenda is to stop people thinking outside the box. The ability to write clearly still has some value in the world. Reading others, analysing and writing about difficult things is great training as well as being great education.
On a personal note I am always amused by attacks on areas like philosophy as useless. I did a Science degree but with a sub-major in philosophy as a bit of an antidote. Over time the the science knowledge has aged badly, although the methodology maintains much of its value. Philosophy turned out to be the most consistently useful thing I studied and it did not date in the same way other information/knowledge did. I put it down to having to read and understand difficult concepts, then analyse and write about them. And logic – although you see precious little of that in real life.
At one stage while manager of policy and research for an organisation I discovered that my counterparts in Britain and in New Zealand had also studied philosophy. We agreed the value from philosophy was about thinking big and broad about what we were trying to achieve with reform, and then bringing the ideas down to deliverable scale for practical application – among other things.
Philosophy and Maths are the only majors in US college degrees that are positively correlated with success in the US post-graduate admissions exam. The value of Philosophy is, as you suggest, that Philosophy develops your ability to consider and evaluate alternative ideas, rather than simply go by what is set down as the information that you need to follow in your job or profession.
This is consistant with the right wing desire to control everything. You have to stop people doing stuff off their own bat. That means stopping them thinking their own thoughts. Universities are places that teach people to think, ideally. Therefore they have to be neutered and reprogrammed to only teach stuff that ensures compliance to the agenda of the status quo. It was ever thus. Autocrats throughout history have targetted students and intellectuals often with fatal results. I wonder how far we from that.
And the LNp are now running with the mantra “We dont want to tell people what to do….Government needs to get out of peoples’ lives”. More Liberal dribble.
Well said Rundle. La Trahison des Clercs, indeed.