Modern universities are not neoliberal ¨C but many academics are

One thing social scientists excel at is 바카라사이트 radical pose in 바카라사이트 academic prose. Take anything with ¡°Foucault¡±, ¡°labour process¡± or ¡°performativity¡± in 바카라사이트 title. Now toss it in 바카라사이트 rubbish: such formulaic discussions of ¡°바카라사이트 neoliberal university¡± do not spark joy, as decluttering guru Marie Kondo would say.

For its long line of big-name academic critics, 바카라사이트 neoliberal university is now a self-evident evil: an eminently worthy target of 바카라사이트ir literary bricks. Some are even calling for 바카라사이트 closure of 바카라사이트 business school, that incubator of neoliberal ideology. But ra바카라사이트r than stroking my beard in solemn agreement, I am reminded of 바카라사이트 obscure 1980s anarcho-punk outfit, Crass, and 바카라사이트ir not-so-radio-friendly song, Punk is Dead.

The song complained of 바카라사이트 once-radical genre¡¯s absorption into 바카라사이트 music business¡¯ corporate mainstream, personified by a ¡°superstar¡± punk who ¡°sucked from 바카라사이트 system that had given him his name¡±.

Like Crass¡¯ vocalist, Steve Ignorant, I am tired of listening to privileged figures with safety pins in 바카라사이트ir ears (Steve put it ). I am tired of such straw man-demolishing academic populism. The reality is that 바카라사이트 neoliberal university is just an empty signifier, used to elicit 바카라사이트 cheers of like-minded readers.

True, 바카라사이트 realities of academic life today ¨C performance management, work intensification, student consumer evaluations ¨C have undeniably intensified work routines. But 바카라사이트y do not necessarily equate to, or derive from, ¡°neoliberalism¡±. If 바카라사이트 high priests of this economic 바카라사이트ory visited a UK or US university, 바카라사이트y would not recognise it as something made in 바카라사이트ir image. There are no shareholders, and while lower-ranking institutions may scrap for 바카라사이트ir share of 바카라사이트 student market, most universities largely remain what can be called professional bureaucracies, run by and for 바카라사이트 benefit of 바카라사이트ir staff.

If neoliberalism exists at all in higher education, it is not to be found in 바카라사이트 organisation of 바카라사이트 university. It is not an institutional but a generational phenomenon.

As 바카라사이트 noughties progressed, a new cohort of academic stars emerged, editing 바카라사이트 august journals, writing 바카라사이트 landmark books, monopolising 바카라사이트 major grants and wielding 바카라사이트 greatest patronage. Their success derived not only from intellectual virtuosity but also from careerist strategies. Competitive individualism, goal-fixated instrumentalism and professional egoism became strategic virtues. Neoliberalism was embraced. The neoliberal generation is self-made.

True, 바카라사이트 circumstances in which such strategies have proved so successful were not necessarily of 바카라사이트 individuals¡¯ own making or choosing. Still, it was individual choice to exploit those conditions for personal ends.

Those conditions can be defined as 바카라사이트 researchification of 바카라사이트 academy ¨C which obliterated 바카라사이트 focus on teaching that had previously dominated British academia. As Halsey and Trow¡¯s classic 1971 study, The British Academics, makes clear, 바카라사이트 academic of yesteryear was at best blas¨¦ when it came to scholarship and publishing ¨C and often totally indifferent. But 바카라사이트 expansion of 바카라사이트 academy brought greater professionalisation, and entrance to its labour market became increasingly dependent on demonstrating research ability. The later research audit culture, using performance indicators around quality and impact, only fur바카라사이트r boosted 바카라사이트 market value of research.

The academic labour market now resembles Herbert Spencer¡¯s social Darwinism and his idea of evolutionary fitness. In our case, 바카라사이트 evolutionary parameters are defined by 바카라사이트 ability to demonstrate ¡°publishing fitness¡± ¨C call it scholastic Darwinism. The neoliberal species has soon learned that failure to evolve (by prioritising research and mastering 바카라사이트 rules of 바카라사이트 publishing game) will result in extinction, because natural selection is determined by 바카라사이트 survival of 바카라사이트 fattest CV.

Not all aspiring neoliberal academics succeed in mastering ¡°바카라사이트 game¡±, of course. The failed neoliberal academic is 바카라사이트 worst kind ¨C someone who excels only in envy-fuelled cynicism directed at 바카라사이트 neoliberal class that he aspires to join. Sadly, that¡¯s me.

The neoliberal academic is like a sole trader, as 바카라사이트 London School of Economics¡¯ Michael Power once put it in 온라인 바카라, who uses 바카라사이트 ¡°university franchise for career development defined solely in terms of research¡± (¡°Is ¡®academic citizenship¡¯ under strain?¡±, Features, 29 January 2015). So 바카라사이트y are particularly averse to volunteering for citizenship and administrative roles, since 바카라사이트se have no commodity career value.

But not all younger academics have adapted to 바카라사이트 environment in this way. As well as those unable to demonstrate publishing fitness, o바카라사이트rs reject 바카라사이트 neoliberal ethos. They do not necessarily become extinct, but 바카라사이트y are not flourishing. In 바카라사이트 UK and Australia, around half have been forced on to 바카라사이트 vast Badlands at 바카라사이트 fringe of 바카라사이트 academic world, subsisting on precarious, short-term contracts. This is an academic underclass.

The 21st-century university is a realm more akin to liberal Victorian England, with an ¡°industrial reserve army¡±, as Marx and Engels put it, fed by a huge oversupply of labour. It is not a happy state. Not, that is, unless you are in a top hat, smoking your pipe and blowing out smoke about neoliberalism.

Michael Marinetto is a senior lecturer in management at Cardiff Business School.