In trying to understand how American high-tech education forecloses political criticality, I’ve been reading a 1982 article by Michael Ryan in Yale French Studies called “Deconstruction and Radical Teaching.” Ryan writes of emerging justifications for the growing capitalist influence on “the social and cultural life of the U.S. and much of the world,” including as that influence was becoming an integral element of higher education. In so many ways this piece shows that the rhetorical work being done by claims of industrial “innovation” in the Western university today—mapping an unassailable pursuit of collective social and economic uplift, bringing all good things to all good people—was performed by evocations of “integrity” a few years ago.
Proponents of corporate involvement in academia in the early eighties celebrated the university’s “disinterested” character, bathing their own economic interests in the warming light of academic freedom. Here’s one of Ryan’s great summations:
By assigning ‘integrity’ to the university, conservatives define their own project as an effort to maintain or restore a spuriously natural condition of purity of wholeness. The postulation of a normative attribute like integrity permits any radical attempt at modification to be characterized as a disintegrative degradation, a falling off from nature. Restoration of ‘integrity’ will consist of curtailing that new development. (p. 48)
So much to think about here, including the American university’s now entrenched deployment of rationality, “reasonableness,” and all that Ryan says constitutes the “benign face of power, coercion, and the everyday brutality of patriarchal capitalism in America.”
But for the moment, here’s a question: How can we keep our eyes open for the next rhetorical restyling of this conservative, anti-constructivist agenda? “Diversity” in many settings certainly continues the constrained, “What’s not to like?” institutional form it took on in the 1980s. What new higher-ed headliners, disguising established privilege as social good, should we watch for in 2013? Are they with us already? “Entrepreneurship,” maybe? Sure, but more of a parade float for capitalism than a Trojan Horse. “Lifelong Learning?” Definitely, as Foucauldian observers have amply demonstrated.
Perhaps, though, if the most ostentatiously reasonable and democratic priorities of the university are those we must approach most cautiously…what about “MOOCs”? As Carolyn Foster Segal’s thoughtful InsideHigherEd piece of the other day (contra Thomas Friedman’s celebration) makes clear, MOOCs propagate the morally unifying, disciplining effects of education, not the potentially critical and unpredictable experiences of pedagogy. As Ryan might say, here’s collectivity of a very particular kind….