Conclusion: For a Temporal Autonomy of Academia
Considering analytical threads developed throughout the book, calls for the ‘blanket’ slowing down of academia and the need to establish an ‘ethic of slowness’ might seem somewhat attractive and even desirable — especially if they are associated with the critique of neoliberal assumptions that fuel the speeding-up and dynamization of academia. Moreover, they hold relevance as a counter-position to the ‘frenetic and toxic standstill’ of academia — that is an academia that needs to speed-up just to reproduce its current pathologies. Yet I conclude by arguing that calls for general slowness are problematic. Like the Slow Movement, many of them are based on an assumption that acceleration is overwhelmingly negative (a not-so-straightforward fact as documented in here) and they are also often automatically presented as emancipatory carriers of potential institutional change (which they hardly account for nor aspire towards). As it stands now, slowdown is either a consequence of speed-up, a functional necessity of speed-up or a reactionary drive that remain rather problematic as an emancipatory, transgressive or progressivist platform (Rosa 2010: 33–41). Ironically, reactive drives that aim to retard and debilitate the accelerated pace of systems and events seldom, if ever, succeed in achieving these results (in a significant and profound way that would go beyond lifestyle choice).
KeywordsLifestyle Choice Accelerate Pace Reactionary Drive Functional Necessity Free Time Slot
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.