Pedagogy of Hate

Please see abstract below for a paper, Pedagogy of Hate, to be published in a forthcoming edition of Policy Futures in Education, and this link to a pre-print version of the paper.

 

Abstract

Written as  an extended review of Peter McLaren’s ‘Pedagogy of Insurrection: from Resurrection to Revolution’ published in 2015, this paper contradicts McLaren’s affirmation of political religion and the version of critical pedagogy on which it is based, claiming hate rather than Christian love as a core concept of Critical Theory. Not a personal, psychological or pathological hate, but a radical hate for what the world has become, or absolute negativity. Hate must be invoked as love-hate for the magic of dialectics to work against the holy love of McLaren’s Christian socialism. Radical hate reveals the main transcendental tenets of capitalist civilisation: God and Money, as impersonal forms of social domination that must be brought down to earth so real existence can learn, learn, learn itself. That is the educative power of the Pedagogy of Hate. Now and forever.

 

Screen Shot 2017-03-23 at 15.26.51

Teaching Marx in Anglophone Universities: interdisciplinary enquiry or unity of the sciences?

The purpose of this research is to reveal the ways in which the social theory of Karl Marx has been and is being taught in Anglophone Universities. The research will explore this issue starting from the emergence of Marx’s social theory as an academic subject in the twentieth century to the present day. This is not research into Marx’s teachings but the way in which Marx’s  teachings have been taught.

A distinctive feature of the research will be the way in which it draws out how Marx has been taught across academic disciplines: social science, arts and humanities, business and law and the natural sciences, through the work, for example, of Albert Einstein, John Haldane and Stephen Jay Gould. At the heart of this research lies the fundamental question, set out by Marx in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts (1992/1844), of the possibility for creating a unified science between the social and the natural sciences as ‘One Science’ (p. 355). While the research carried out on this project will be interdisciplinary it will challenge the concept of interdisciplinarity itself, arguing that discrete subject disciplines, no matter how well connected, are not amenable to the holistic responses  required to deal with the many global emergencies facing humanity and the natural world. The research will be based on the hypothesis that the wide ranging application of Marxist science across academic subjects has the potential to provide a unifying principle through which to reappraise the fundamental nature of teaching and learning in higher education as well as the production of critical practical knowledge.

The ambitious scope of this project is emboldened by the research project:  Ordered Universe: interdisciplinary readings of Medieval Science, based at the University of Durham and funded by the Arts and Humanities Research Council, which seeks to support fresh and original readings of medieval science. The Ordered Universe research project has a particular focus  on the work of Robert Grosseteste, 1170 – 1253, who sought to provide a cosmological theory for the medieval world based on empirical research methodologies, establishing a foundation for experimental science (Neary 2012).  Robert Grosseteste was a Bishop of Lincoln as well as being the first Vice-Chancellor of Oxford University. It is entirely appropriate that a research project which is, in part, inspired by his approach to experimental science should be established at the University of Lincoln where I teach.

The theoretical and conceptual framework for Teaching Marx is grounded in a version of critical theory that sought to connect the social and the natural sciences as a radical understanding of the world, a school of thought that has become known as ‘The Frankfurt School’, exemplified by the writings of Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer and Alfred Schmidt (Neary, Critical Theory and the Critique of Labour 2017); as well as more recent scholarship that seeks to recover the unity of Marx’s social theory and its relationship to nature as a ‘world ecology Marxism’ (Moore 2015). While the teaching of Marx and Marxism has been in decline due to the dominance of neoliberal orthodoxy, there has been a resurgence of interest in Marx’s work following the Great Recession of 2008. For example, students at the University of Manchester have developed their own approach to this issue, known as Post-Crash economics, arguing that the economic syllabus and teaching methods needs to be rethought from a more critical perspective. Teaching Marx is drawing on the ongoing reappraisal of Marx’s social theory which is producing fresh and original insights into Marx’s theory, based on the work of  Diane Elson, Simon Clarke,  Ellen Meiksins Wood, John Holloway, Werner Bonefeld Robert Kurz, Moishe Postone and Ana Dinerstein. This research will trace the way in which this reappraisal of Marx’s work is being taught in English speaking universities. The research methods will include archival research into how curricula for teaching Marx have been developed, as well as interviews with leading teachers of Marx during the twentieth century  who have now retired, those who have been  teaching Marx over a sustained period  and academics and postgraduates who are new to teaching Marx.

Outputs will include reports of regular seminars, a conference at the end of the project along with an edited book. Teaching Marx will have an online presence that will include resources for teachers teaching Marx in higher education.

This research brings together the main strands of my work: research into Marxist social theory and teaching and learning in higher education. During the period I was Dean of Teaching and Learning at Lincoln, 2007 – 2014,  I developed, in collaboration with other staff and students, a model of teaching in higher education based on the support for undergraduate research as a fundamental part of the teaching and learning programme. This approach, with the title Student as Producer, became in 2010 the basis for the University’s teaching and learning strategy across all subject areas at Lincoln. Student as Producer is based on the work of Marxist intellectuals, including Walter Benjamin, Guy Debord and Lev Vygotsky. This work has been developed in other HE institutions in the English speaking world in their own particular ways, in the US, UK, Australia and Canada, and has been identified as a major trend for the future of teaching and learning in higher education (NMC Report 2014 p. 15). The University of Lincoln is recognised by academics as well as external review agencies for its support for student learning through research-engaged teaching and so is an entirely appropriate site to base this research (Quality Assurance Agency 2011, Higher Education Academy 2015).

Teaching Marx is an ambitious project in scope and scale with deep theoretical and conceptual roots; not least in the way in sets out to challenge traditional disciplinary boundaries, through an appeal, following Karl Marx and Robert Grosseteste, for the unity of the sciences.

I am just beginning this work so would welcome any suggestions you might have as to how the research could be developed.

Making moves: the educative power of transnational co-operatives for higher education in an era of global civil war

This is the abstract for a paper I am giving at Crossing Borders conference at the University of the Aegean,  Lesbos, Greece, 7-10th, July

 

Screen Shot 2016-07-05 at 16.31.07

UK Border Force vessel, Mytilini, Lesbos, Greece

The mass movement of dispossessed people towards the European continent is not just a desperate reaction to the brutal realism  and realpolitik of neocolonial and authoritarian governments, but is a crisis of the nation-state itself as the conflictual site(s) of the global capital-labour relation (Holloway and Picciotto 1979). An outcome of this conflictual relation is that nation states have declared war on their own civilian populations (Kurz 2014). This act of violence takes many forms: total and  low intensity warfare,  war against drugs and war on  terror as well as an economic assault through the imposition of poverty and hunger, leading to the migration of populations  to avoid these killing regimes. It is important to do everything to save the lives of those drowning in the seas around Europe, while recognising the nature of this global civil war requires  more than defensive humanitarian responses. This paper acknowledges the way in which Higher Education is responding to ‘the refugee crisis’. Universities are opening their doors to migrant students, e.g. in Germany with (DAAD, and through the EU MADAD fund, as well as the establishment of  new universities for refugees, e.g., Kiron University (Berlin) and the Silent University (England); and there are programmes to support displaced academics  at risk from oppression (CARA) as well as examples of student activism.This paper sets out an emerging resistance to global civil war in the form of transnational moves towards co-operative higher education, conceptualised here as ‘educative power’, which Walter Benjamin described  as a form of radical doubt (Critique of Violence, 1921).  The emergence of transnational co-operative universities offer the possibility to construct new forms of human sociability when connected to other working class struggles (Egan 1990). The University of Mondragon  is the most established co-operative university situated in the Basque region of Spain and a source of inspiration. These  new co-operatives include UnivSSE: the People’s University for a Social  Solidarity Economy  and the Co-operative Institute for Transnational Studies (Greece), Unicoop (Mexico), and the Social Science Centre, Lincoln and Manchester (England). They are  connected with other networks of resistance to capitalist higher education, e.g., Undercommoning (USA) and the Ecoversity. This is a fragile set of moves but contains within it the possibility of undermining  the capital-labour relation and the violence of the capitalist state.

Screen Shot 2016-07-09 at 06.12.13

 

This work is ongoing and is being developed by further research: Beyond Private and Public: a framework for co-operative higher education (Neary and Winn, 2016)  and Co-operative leadership for higher education (Neary and Winn 2016)

 

 

TEF and REF: what are the effects?

I have been invited to speak as part of roundtable discussion about the effects of the Teaching Excellence Framework and the Research Excellence Framework on teachers, researchers, students and higher education. This discussion is part of a research conference hosted by the Cass School of Education and Communities, at the University of East London on the 26th of May.

You can see a full programme for this event below:

Cass School of Education and Communities

Research Conference, 26th May 2016 (1.15- 5pm)

Introduction

1.15pm ED2.01

Welcome Address: Helen Masterton (Dean) & John Preston (Research Leader)

Individual panel sessions 1.30-3pm

Panel I: Teaching, learning & careers

ED.2.01

Carrie Weston

Getting there by degrees: the HE motivations and aspirations of young east Londoners

Alison Baker

White working class trainee teachers’ early experiences of reading as children. To what extent has it informed their decision to train to teach?

Anthony Hudson

Just who is educating Rita? Exploring the learning careers and academic identity of Access HE tutors using the life-grid and qual interviews

Panel II: Participatory radio & at-risk youth

ED.2.02

Andrew Ravenscroft:

Participatory Radio as an educational and psychosocial intervention with ‘at-risk youth’

Tom Gerken

Radio Active101 and Addiction: A pilot study investigating participatory radio as a tool to improve psychosocial dimensions of at-risk youth

Amanda Cooper

The Development of a Participatory Radio Drama Intervention to enhance Metacognitive themes in dialogue with At-Risk Youth

Panel III: Innovative methodologies

ED.2.04

John Clark

“I don’t ‘believe’ it!”: Using elementary statistical methods, rather than ‘belief’, in understanding the results of quantitative research.

Anna Chapman

What role does distributed leadership play in supporting extended learning activities? A qualitative, interpretative investigation through the lens of activity theory.

Andrew Read

Making time to focus: how changing my relationship with email impacts on my capacity to concentrate on “deep work”

Panel IV: Life stories, biography & identity

ED.4.02

Ximena Bonilla Medina

Education, globalisation and identities: teachers’ educational practices and their role in the configuration of racial identities in Colombia.

Chris Dalladay

Teacher biography and its impact on teaching practice. A study into music teacher biography; how its findings might apply to other subjects

David Bara

A teenagers story of living with cancer: The personal, social, emotional and educational challenges they faced

~~~~~

Coffee

ED2.01  3-3.30pm

~~~~~

Roundtable Discussion

ED2.01 3.30-5pm

TEF and REF:

What are the Effects on Teachers, Researchers, Students and Higher Education?

The Teaching Excellence Framework, which follows in the footsteps of the Research Excellence Framework, may be the largest shift in the national framework for Higher Education in England for a generation. The Green Paper is about transforming a largely publicly funded system to one focused on students and teaching, and promoting competition. The Green Paper argues that the TEF will drive up teaching standards, increase productivity and transparency and raise standards, as well as boosting social mobility, creating a fairer field for suppliers, and reducing complexity in funding. Critics argue that all metrics, and these in particular, are open to manipulation, and furthermore that the TEF does not actually measure what it is supposed to. It is also argued that it is expensive, bureaucratised and top-down, and alienates teachers and learners from one another. It will lead to a concentration of funding at rich universities, and may be used as a premise to remove fee caps entirely. What is really important – teaching quality – may be displaced with metrics. This panel will explore arguments for and against the TEF, in the context of experience with the REF, and the effects of these metrics on those working in Higher Education, as well as the quality of the system itself.

Speakers

Professor Miriam David (UCL Institute of Education)

Dr Heather Mendick (Freelance social researcher & Alternative Academia Network convenor)

Professor Mike Neary (University of Lincoln & The Social Science Centre co-operative)

Professor Sir Peter Scott (UCL Institute of Education)

Roundtable panel speakers’ bio notes:

Miriam E David is a professor emerita of sociology of education at the University College London Institute of Education. She has a world-class reputation for her scholarship on feminism, gender and education. Her classic study – The State, The Family and Education – originally published in 1980, was republished by Routledge/Taylor & Francis in 2015.  Her most recent book – Feminism, Gender & Universities: Politics, Passion and Pedagogies – was published by Ashgate in 2014, based upon a study of more than 100 international women academics. A Feminist Manifesto for Education will be published by Polity Press in the summer of 2016, based upon her EU-funded study about challenging sexual violence for children and young people. She is co-editor, with Dr Marilyn Amey, with associate editors Drs Terri Kim, Rebecca Ropers-Huilman and Pamela Eddy, of the Sage International Encyclopaedia of Higher Education scheduled for publication in 2017/8.

Heather Mendick works as a freelance academic, having previously been employed in Education at Brunel, Goldsmiths, London Metropolitan and Lancaster Universities, and as a mathematics teacher in secondary schools and post-16 colleges. She has published widely on mathematics education, science education, gender, social class, ethnicity, youth aspirations, celebrity and popular culture. Those publications include two books: Masculinities in Mathematics and Urban Youth and Schooling (with Louise Archer and Sumi Hollingworth). Her most recent major research project was an ESRC-funded study of the role of celebrity in young people’s classed and gendered aspirations (www.celebyouth.org) and she continues to blog irregularly for that website. She also coordinates meetings of the ‘Alternative Academia Network’ and is co-organiser for Momentum Hackney. She tweets from @helensclegel about education, politics, academia, darts, popular culture, sociology, and veganism. Most of her publications are available at: https://independent.academia.edu/HeatherMendick.

Mike Neary is Professor of Sociology in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Lincoln. Before coming to Lincoln in 2007 he was a Reader in Sociology at the University of Warwick, 1994 – 2007. His main areas of research are academic labour and student life with a particular focus on the relationship between teaching and research. Mike was the Dean of Teaching and Learning at Lincoln from 2007 – 2014, during which time he was the director of the Centre for Education Research and Development (CERD) and Director of the Graduate School. Mike was awarded a National Teaching Fellowship by the Higher Education Academy in 2007. In 2014 he was made an honorary life member of Lincoln Students’ Union for his work with students. Mike is currently completing a book ‘Student as Producer, How Do Revolutionary Teachers Teach?’ He is a founder member in 2011 of the Social Science Centre, Lincoln, a worker-student cooperative providing no-fee higher education.

Sir Peter Scott is Professor of Higher Education Studies at the UCL Institute of Education. Previously he was Vice-Chancellor of Kingston University. Before going to Kingston he was Pro-Vice-Chancellor and Professor of Education at the University of Leeds and between 1976 and 1992 Editor of ‘The Times Higher Education Supplement’. He is a trustee of the Higher Education Policy Institute (HEPI) and the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Arts (LAMDA), and Treasurer of the Academia Europaea. From 2011 until 2015 he was Chair of the Council of the University of Gloucestershire. His major research interests are the social, cultural and intellectual impacts of mass higher education; governance, leadership and management; and the internationalisation of higher education (and the development of European higher education). He is a member of the management committee of the newly established UCL IOE’s Centre for Global Higher Education co-founded by the ESRC and HEFCE.

Co-operative Leadership for Higher Education

 

 

AIM OF RESEARCH

The aim of this research is to explore the possibility of establishing co-operative leadership as a viable organisational form of governance and management for Higher Education. Co-operative leadership is already well established in business enterprises in the UK and around the world (Ridley-Duff and Bull 2016), and has recently been adopted as the organising principle by over 800 schools in the United Kingdom (Wilson 2014). The co-operative movement is a global phenomenon with one billion members, supported by national and international organisations working to establish co-operative enterprises and the promotion of cooperative education. The research is financed by the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education’s small development projects fund.

Higher education in the UK is characterised by a mode of governance based on Vice-Chancellors operating as Chief Executives supported by Senior Management teams.  Recent research from the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education on Neo-collegiality in the managerial university (Bacon 2014) shows that hierarchical models of governance alienate and de-motivate staff, failing to take advantage of research-based problem solving skills of staff operating at all levels,  not accounting for the advantages to organisations when self-managed professionals interact with peers on matters of common purpose, particularly in knowledge-based industries.

The co-operative leadership model for higher education supports the ambition for more active engagement in decision-making to facilitate the best use of academics’ professional capacities, but framed around a more radical model for leadership, governance and management. Members of the co-operative university would not only be involved directly in decision-making and peer-based processes that make best use of their collective skills, but have equal voting rights as well as collective ownership of the assets and liabilities of the co-operative (Cook 2013). This more radical model builds on work done recently as part of a project funded by the Independent Social Research Foundation to establish some general parameters around which a framework for co-operative higher education could be established (Neary and Winn 2015). One of the key issues emerging from this research is the significance of co-operative leadership – the focus of this research project.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

 The research will done by Mike Neary and  Joss Winn  both of whom have experience of running research projects funded by the Higher Education Funding Council for England, the Leadership Foundation for Higher Education, the Higher Education Academy and the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC). Mike Neary was the Dean of Teaching and Learning at the University of Lincoln, 2007-2014, giving him relevant experience of senior leadership in the sector. Mike and Joss are founder members of the Social Science Centre, Lincoln, a co-operative for higher education.

The research will be carried out using a case study method.

The case-study sites proposed are: a co-operative school in England; a large co-operative commercial enterprise in the UK; a retail partnership trust and a co-operative university in Spain. The researcher(s) will spend one week on site doing participant observation, semi-structured interviews and group conversations, taking field notes and photographs, recording interviews, as well as documentary analysis.

A significant outcome of the research will be to develop a co-operative leadership tool (CLT) for  Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to audit the extent of co-operative provision in HEIs and to assess if a co-operative leadership model is viable within an institution. The tool will be based on a set of catalytic principles that distinguish co-operative enterprises: ownership, democracy, autonomy, independence and social value, in the context of practical, pragmatic and political possibilities.

IMPACT AND DISSEMINATION

Online – establish a strong online presence across a range of different platforms, including website, Twitter and Facebook.

Speaking – disseminate findings as speakers at national and international events on co-operative higher education.

Print media – write journalistic articles in national and higher education press.

Labour Movement – further develop links between the University and College Union, the  Trade Union movement and the Co-operative College to explore the possibility of setting up a worker-cooperative for further and higher education.

OUTPUTS AND OUTCOMES

Contribute published material to an under-researched area of leadership in HE  to inform policy and strategy to develop co-operative forms of higher education.

Create a Co-operative Leadership Tool (CLT) to classify the organisational form of HEIs in terms of their co-operative values and politics, based on catalytic principles that distinguish co-operative enterprises.

Establish a new area for consultancy and capacity building through leadership development programmes supported by the CLT with practical guides and other materials. Given the global nature of the co-operative movement these areas for development work have strong international potential.

TIME FRAME  March 2016 –  February 2017

March – April

Milestones – Establish a steering group with individuals from case-study sites, the Co-operative College, academics who work on co-operative provision, a member of a student co-operative and a senior leader at Lincoln. Employ a research assistant, arrange access to case study institutions, gain ethics approval.

April – July

Milestones – Carry out case study visits. Develop prototype of Co-operative Leadership Tool (CLT)

August – December

 Milestones- Pilot-test CLT in three HEIs, as well as focus groups x 2 and interviews x 3 with key individuals in pilot institutions at the end of the test period.

January – February

Write up report and academic publication. Consolidate CLT as usable developmental device.

 

REFERENCES

Bacon, E. (2014) Neo-Collegiality: restoring academic engagement in the managerial university. London, Leadership Foundation.

Neary, M. and Winn, J. (2015) ‘Beyond private and public: a model for co-operative higher education’. Krisis: Journal for Contemporary Philosophy.  Perspectives for the new university. Volume 2: 114 – 119.

Wilson, M. (2014) ‘Learning Together: perspectives in cooperative higher education’ (keynote address), Co-operative College, Manchester.

Ridley-Duff R. and Bull, M. (2016) Understanding Social Enterprise, London: Sage.

Cook, D. (2013) ‘Realising the Cooperative University’,   A consultancy report for the Co-operative College.

Yeo.S. (ed) New Views of Co-operation. London: Routledge.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Student as Producer – challenging the principle of student as consumer

 

This is the updated and revised abstract for my keynote talk at the conference of Association of Law Teachers at Northumbria University, 21st March.

In this talk I will explore the nature of the academic-student relationship with reference to the UK Consumer Rights Act 2015, where students are confirmed as consumers of higher education. Given that legal arrangements are by their nature adversarial (Pashukanis 1983 81) the legal status of consumer has devastating consequences for academic-student collaboration, the subject of this year’s conference. Following Evgeny Pashukanis (1891 – 1937), a Marxist legal theorist,  I will suggest a remedy to this situation based not on the law but on a form of ‘technical regulation’, or ‘unity of purpose’ (81)  in which social arrangements are organised in terms of the goal to be achieved rather than the protection of private interest ( Fine 1984, Mieville 2005, Winn 2015). I will illustrate this remedy with examples of my own work with others: Student as Producer, a model of curriculum development where students are part of the academic project of the university, and the Social Science Centre, Lincoln a membership based, jointly owned and democratically ran co-operative for higher learning.

References

Fine, Bob (1984) Democracy and the Rule of Law: Liberal Ideals and Marxist Critiques. London: Pluto Press.

Mieville, China ( 2005) Between Equal Right: A Marxist Theory of International Law. Leiden: Brill.

Pashukanis, Evgeny (1989) Law and Marxism: A General Theory. London: Pluto Press.

Winn, Joss (2015) Open Education and the emancipation of academic labour. Learning, Media and Technology, 40 (3).

 

Student as Producer and the politics of abolition: making a dissident institution?

 

studentasproducer poster

 

This paper, jointly authored with Gary Saunders, tells the story of how a group of academic staff and students set out to establish a subversive teaching and learning project: Student as Producer, across an English university.  Confronted by the intensification of neoliberal education policies and faced with the recuperation of its radical practice, the paper recounts how staff and students involved with Student as Producer moved outside of the university in 2011 to set up a cooperative form of higher education: the Social Science Centre, Lincoln, where students can attain higher education awards without the burden of debt, along with the experience of running a workers’ cooperative. This subversive practice is grounded in a Marxist ‘critique of value’, underpinned by a politics of abolition based on the work of Thomas Mathiesen. The paper concludes that it is possible and necessary to create new dissident institutions ‘in and against’ the organisational forms of capitalist society as the embodiment of revolutionary theory.

Accepted for publication by Critical Education, November 2015