NEOLIBERALISM
More often than not, neoliberalism is a buzzword and its not quite clear what people mean with it. So before going any further, let’s stay on this term a little. We can distinguish, I think, between (at least) two ways of understanding the term neoliberalism.
One is more of a classic Marxist/materialist approach which argues that neoliberalism is a concerted reassertion of class power and domination: It is a set of economic practices and policies that ensures the rise of inequality, reckless environmental destruction, increasing privatisation of common goods, and new forms of creating precarity and exploitation (for example, the dwindling of permanent contracts as flex-time or 0-hour contracts become more popular. I think minimum wage labour in the Netherlands is so highly liberalised, it is a fantastic example. I seem to only be able to find flexible work offers – which come with much less social protection even if flexibility is advertised as a good thing). The term neoliberalism is a bit redundant in this case, though, because it is basically synonymous with capitalism. Contrary to what we might think is useful, I think, this use of neoliberalism suggests that there are forms of capitalism that do not increase inequality and (non)human exploitation. Usually, the story of neoliberalism as most people tell it does suggest this actually. This is the story:
In the post-war era, capitalism was a well-regulated system run under Keynesian ideas that ensured the relative equality of all members of society and steady economic growth. Then in the 1970s and 1980s, figures such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan brought about a new era of reforms which greatly deregulated markets and the economy no longer served its people.
Intensely strawmanning here, of course. But the issue here is that post-war capitalism was also trash, and it is good to remember that: while providing social mobility for largely white men, it was still a highly racist, sexist, ableist system – just so strongly entangled in Cold War propaganda, still today, that people tend to think of it as some kind of golden era. One of us talked about this in the session, too, in terms of the differences between Critical University Studies and Abolitionist University Studies. CUS tends to paint a picture of the university being a great equaliser and public institution in the post-war era which got tainted through increasing privatisation in the neoliberal era. AUS people do not follow this idea but rather assert, rightfully I think, that the university has ALWAYS been a part of this system which stratifies and disempowers certain populations over others. So, using the term neoliberalism can sometimes be a trap: Remember, there is no good kind of capitalism. Just like there is no good kind of colonialism, which the British Empire often argued it was doing.
However, where the story IS correct though, but I don’t see it emphasised nearly enough, I think, is in the changing role of the state. The 1970s are so important to mention
The other way of using the word neoliberalism – and I suppose these two uses are not actually in opposition to one another but can be complementary – is as a certain form of discourse. As a discourse, neoliberalism denotes a set of actions, beliefs, values, etc. These might be intense individualism, hyper responsibility, entrepreneurship, and employability. Sometimes scholars add hierarchy to the mix (an addition I like personally!). Perhaps even, this is not often said in literature but a wild guess of mine: an increasing belief in money. In general, when we are thinking of the terms and logics of business coming into our lives, we can think of it as a neoliberal discourse. I’m thinking of phrases like “investing in one’s education” or “I’m not sure I should be investing into this relationship”.
Sidenote: Once, a man told me he thinks of everyone in terms of their costs and benefits to his life. I thought this was immensely sad, but this man also told us that he was once shot. So that’s even more upsetting, but also, I do have this hypothesis: The more we are in precarious situations, the more we are pressed to make such cost/benefit analyses. A small business owner must make such decisions all the time, to keep their business running in tough times. So do we in our personal lives – when things get tough, relationships damning, we make a cost/benefit analysis. Can I keep this person in my life? Is it valuable? What is it giving me? Now, as capitalism makes our relationships increasingly precarious, puts us constantly into tough positions, we are ‘forced’ to be thinking of more and more relationships in terms of their costs and benefit. More intensely so when you are poor. A lack of funds and financial security as well as a weak social safety net has made many of my relationships very, very precarious. It’s tough not to have money, it increases your tension, your emotionality, your vulnerability (physically and metaphysically), etc. Without money, everything becomes a strain. And as precarity creeps up more and more into middle class lives today, more and more people feel themselves forced to make cost/benefit analyses of anything in their lives. Because less and less do things, relationships, jobs, etc stable, secure, and grounding. Increasingly, people feel like they must make active choices about what or who ought to be part of their lives or not. Lest we overwhelm ourselves even more. If anyone is interested, I hope my ramble was clear, I recommend reading Lauren Berlant’s book ‘Cruel Optimism’.
BOLOGNA REFORMS
In the exciting and fresh and totally not boring world of education, the new millennium in Europe started with a set of EU reforms. SO EXCITING. See, sociology is really not my thing. Alas, the EU, the most boring of institutions (beware, I think boredom is their main method of averting critique! The EU is largely headed by conservative forces and hides behind an apolitical, bureaucratic veil. Also, I went to university with a lot of children of EU diplomats. I have a lot to say about them and their habitus – but I will try to keep a neutral tone in this email 😊 All I want to say is that they do not act so differently from high schoolers in the most elitist school in Bogota where you know the kids are going to become the country’s leaders – whatever that means!).
First, the EU story of itself. The only way to secure peace on the continent is through increasing integration and homogenisation into a supranational, bureaucratic entity! We need to become more aligned with one another, and integration requires also the streamlining of our educational systems! At least, higher education. So, instead of having different kinds of degree structures, let’s copy this American Bachelor and Master system. That way, we will also reduce the total time students spend in university. Instead of spending time creating original research and diving deeply into topics of interest, students will leave the university quicker and get to work faster. As tuition fees also rise in many places, debt becomes important in this system, too. Debt is, after all, the technology that makes sure that you need to work, so you can pay it off.
We have previously discussed the ‘massification’ of the university – more and more people have access to higher education. And that is a good thing in itself – but it came with a change of what the university ought to be. The discourse surrounding the Bologna Accords puts a large emphasis on the facilitation of a new type of economy: the knowledge economy. In training students to become part knowledge economy, universities must place emphasis on employability. That is also why the funding for Humanities programmes continues to be cut and deprived: the Humanities are fundamentally uneconomical. And, if you’re in debt, you might think twice about the economic impact a Humanities degree might have on your own life. I am thinking about this now, needing to pay back around 15,000 euros. It is not merely an American problem, though it is a much worse problem there with their astronomically high tuition fees. International students, who pay much more than EU students, though, also suffer great economic discrimination, paying between 6,000 and 20,000 euros per year in tuition. This is also one of the reasons Dutch universities are so internationalised: International students simply bring in a lot of money. Besides, internationalisation is great for university rankings and marketing, and also surely for some cosmopolitan vibes, but it can also be detrimental for local social cohesion.
Knowledge is now a commodity, something to be sold and marketed. Knowledge is an integral part of the economic production process in this framework. This is important to distinguish from other conceptions of knowledge: as something to be lived by, as something to strive for, as something to ponder, as something to transform lives, etc. So, it is great that more people have access to higher education, surely: But more precise would be maybe to say that more people have gained access to a training in knowledge production. Operational knowledge. That research questions best start with a ‘how’ was drilled into me during my Bachelors Degree like little else. I think in part this is an economic effect, though we could go deeply into the questions of the operationalisation of the world, its connection to modernity, capitalism, or technology (writers for this to check out may be Martin Heidegger, Hartmut Rosa, Herbert Marcuse, any ecological critique of modernity, really).
University rankings such as from the Times Higher Education reflect this knowledge economy. You might have come across these rankings that tell you which universities are the best universities. What does best university mean? Times Higher Education magazine tells you here: https://www.timeshighereducation.com/student/advice/world-university-rankings-explained. Thirty percent of their ranking is made up of the quality of education. Sixty percent has to do with the research output and impact (impact being the number of citations). A small percentage goes to industry income (the commercial use of this research).