Abstract
The ascendancy of neoliberalism and corporate culture in every aspect of American life not only consolidates economic power in the hands of the few; it also aggressively attempts to break the power of unions, decouple income from productivity, subordinate the needs of society to the market, reduce civic education to job training, and render public services and amenities an unconscionable luxury. But it does more. It thrives on a culture of cynicism, insecurity, and despair. Conscripts in a relentless campaign for personal responsibility, Americans are now convinced that they have little to hope for—or gain from—the government, nonprofit public organizations, democratic associations, public and higher education, or other nongovernmental social agencies. With few exceptions, the project of democratizing public institutions and goods has fallen into disrepute in the popular imagination as the logic of the market and increasing militarization of public life undermine the most basic social solidarities and blunt intellectual curiosity and conviction. The consequences include not only a state representative of a few elite, corporate interests, but also the transformation of a democratic republic into a national security state. Philosopher Susan Buck-Morss comments on this loss of democratic control:
But there is another United States over which I have no control, because it is by definition not a democracy, not a republic. I am referring to the national security state that is called into existence with the sovereign pronouncement of a “state emergency” and that generates a wild zone of power, barbaric and violent, operating without democratic oversight, in order to combat an “enemy” that threatens the existence not merely and not mainly of its citizens, but of its sovereignty. The paradox is that this undemocratic state claims absolute power over the citizens of a free and democratic nation.3
The single most important question for the future of America is how we treat our entrepreneurs.
—George Gilder1
A new form of domination is emerging in our times that breaks with the orthodox method of rule-by-engagement and uses deregulation as its major vehicle: “a mode of domination that is founded on the institution of insecurity—domination by the precariousness of existence.”
—Zygmunt Bauman2
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Zygmunt Bauman, Society Under Siege (Malden, Mass.: Blackwell, 2002), 68.
Susan Buck-Morss, Thinking Past Terror: Islamism and Critical Theory on the Left (New York/London: Verso, 2003), 29.
Noreena Hertz, The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy (New York: Free Press, 2001), 66.
Zygmunt Bauman, In Search of Politics (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1999), 127.
Alan Bryman, Disney and His Worlds (New York: Routledge, 1995), 154.
Robin D. G. Kelley, Yo’ Mama’s Disfunktional: Fighting the Culture Wars in Urban America (Boston: Beacon Press, 1997).
Paul Krugman, “AARP Gone Astray,” New York Times (November 21, 2003), A31.
Sheila Slaughter, “Professional Values and the Allure of the Market,” Academe (September–October, 2001), 1.
John Palattella, “Ivory Towers in the Marketplace,” Dissent (Summer 2001), 73.
Robert Zemsky, “Have We Lost the ‘Public’ in Higher Education?” The Chronicle of Higher Education (May 30, 2003), B9.
Robert Zemsky, “Have We Lost the ‘Public’ in Higher Education?” The Chronicle of Higher Education (May 30, 2003), B7–B9;
Derek Bok, Universities in the Marketplace: The Commercialization of Higher Education (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2003).
David L. Kirp, “Education for Profit,” The Public Interest 152 (Summer 2003), 105.
George Soros, On Globalization (New York: Public Affairs, 2002), 164, 6.
Stanley Aronowitz and William DiFazio, “The New Knowledge Work,” in A. H. Halsey, Hugh Lauder, Phillip Brown, Amy Stuart Wells, eds., Education: Culture, Economy, Society (New York: Oxford, 1997), 193.
Cornel West, “The New Cultural Politics of Difference,” October 53 (Summer 1990), 35.
Sheila Slaughter, “Professional Values and the Allure of the Market,” Academe (September–October, 2001), 3–4.
Jeffrey Selingo, “Reform Plan or ‘Corporate Takeover’?” The Chronicle of Higher Education (April 18, 2003), A28.
Herbert Marcuse, “Some Social Implications of Modern Technology,” in Technology, War, and Fascism, ed. Douglas Kellner (New York: Routledge, 1998), 45.
Zygmunt Bauman, Modernity and the Holocaust (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1989).
Stanley Aronowitz, “The New Corporate University,” Dollars and Sense (March/April 1998), 34–35.
Jeff Williams, “Brave New University,” College English 61: 6 (July 1999), 740.
Cary Nelson, Manifesto of a Tenured Radical (New York: NYU Press, 1997), 169.
Pierre Bourdieu, Acts of Resistance (New York: New Press, 1999), 8.
Pierre Bourdieu, “For a Scholarship of Commitment,” Profession (2000), 45, 42–43.
Copyright information
© 2004 Henry A. Giroux and Susan Searls Giroux
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Giroux, H.A., Giroux, S.S. (2004). Neoliberalism Goes to College: Higher Education in the New Economy. In: Take Back Higher Education. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403982667_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781403982667_8
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-52798-4
Online ISBN: 978-1-4039-8266-7
eBook Packages: Palgrave Social & Cultural Studies CollectionSocial Sciences (R0)