10 ms·
It's baffling to me that academia, which is predominantly progressive, would treat its workers so poorly.
by programmarchy 9y ago
It's baffling to me that academia, which is predominantly progressive, would treat its workers so poorly.
- Nomentatus 9y agoCamouflage. I well remember a real Chinese Marxist dropped into a supposedly Marxist-dominated academic department here a few decades ago who was astounded. How they could reconcile all being wine collectors and snobs with their trumpeted socialist views he asked me? The answer is that their progressive views masked very regressive and antisocial behavior in general, and that was quite purposeful.
- UncleMeat 9y agoMarxism as an analysis technique and as a political philosophy are totally different. This is not surprising.
- gt_ 9y agoPlease cite something or elaborate. This is a fair statement, but it's hardly an excuse in this context. I think you are stretching the meaning here. Marxism is not an ambiguous term.
- TillE 9y agoMarx was first and foremost an analyst of class in history, and capitalism. That's Marxist analysis, which can be largely divorced from specific communist implications.
- gt_ 9y agoThat makes sense. I question assuming that self-identified "marxists" are merely analysts of class and capitalism. These things are necessarily correlated and I'm not sure the necessity of drawing the line. Why not just use another term? It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why?
- spaceseaman 9y ago> It seems to me we are making a rhetorical space for bourjois marxists. Why? ??? Academically they're interesting questions to ask? Have you ever taken a class on Marxist critical theory or Marxist feminism or ... A "marxist" is someone who uses Marx's method of analyzing class and capitalism to talk about whatever they want. One specific example is a Marxist critical theorist I know who likes to discuss the way class and capitalism as Marx discussed them arise in philosophical interpretations of modern literature. Marxism is a political philosophy - one that has a lot of negative connotation in the United States due to its ties to communism, but Marxism is just philosophy so of course we'd want a space where academics can talk philosophy. See this comment for a better explanation https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15512846 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15512846
- gt_ 9y agoI think you're explaining yourself clearly, and of I know this is a common way of treating marxism in academia. I know you were taught it this way, as was I. But, I think it is suspicious nonetheless. Reading Marx makes me wonder why we arrived at objectifying and extermalizing his work like this. If we are thinking of Marx's work and his 'philosophy', we are critiquing class and capitalism. If we are critiquing class and capitalism, we are foolish to think our critiques are only worthy when applied to others. Of course, this point could hardly be more apparent than in the faculty's current predicaments. Marxist theory would have illuminated the trajectory many years ago had they the wits to apply the thought to their own situation. I don't feel very sorry for them myself. I've got my student loans to pay off and my university faculty members could never seem to care much less. When I was in school, talking about my student loan problems was looked down on as 'showing my class.'
- spaceseaman 9y ago> Marxist theory would have illuminated the trajectory many years ago had they the wits to apply the thought to their own situation. Faculty members are not in control of their own situation. I'm sorry to sound a bit rude here, but you're being a bit oblivious. Faculty are under the rule of law of the administration. That is who their boss is and that is whose rules they follow. They don't get to choose the class hierarchy and power dynamics of their job same as you or I. If it were that easy to disrupt a power imbalance, then Marxism would be a lot more than just a theoretical framework. More importantly, academics are the very definition of the type of people who "get their head stuck in the clouds". They care about their work at the expense of every other aspect of their lives, expecting them to apply the same critical lens to their lives (which they are likely somewhat comfortable in) is very naive. Even Marx goes out of his way to emphasize that the means of production must be "seized" - there has to be great motivation to change the power dynamic. For professors, it can be hard to get them to care about anything that doesn't directly affect their research. > When I was in school, talking about my student loan problems was looked down on as 'showing my class.' The faculty have no control over your student loans. They are not the ones who charge you. And in my own experience, my professors were very enthusiastic about me talking about my issues with student loan debt. Are you sure it wasn't just in the wrong class / awkward timing? I brought this stuff up in a course on class dynamics and got plenty of positive feedback - where you say something is just as important as what you say after all. You should redirect some of your frustration at the University's administration. Professors and faculty are getting screwed in a lot of the same ways as you, so why do you choose to get upset at them and their talk about "Marxism". They're academics whose heads are up in the clouds, what do you expect?
- Obi_Juan_Kenobi 9y agoAcademic Marxism - or "Marxist Critique" - is really better referred to as dialectical materialism, historical materialism, or even more generally as Hegelian dialectics. The political philosophies, namely socialism and communism, are a product of such thinking, but are not the same. For instance, many feminists make heavy use of dialectics and are considered Marxist critique, but may not identify with e.g. communism.
- Nomentatus 9y agoThey didn't make such a distinction - it would have lessened the camouflage.
- programmarchy 9y agoThe elitism is something I've noticed, but espousing socialist views is purposeful to what end? My best guess is that the behavior is an unconscious projection due to underlying narcissistic tendencies of people who are put on an intellectual pedastal... I suppose it could be camouflage for being an asshole but that just seems too exhausting to be sustainable. And if they don't genuinely hold those beliefs, then what do they actually believe?
- gt_ 9y agoIt treats it's students no better. The student loan crisis is by far the biggest foot in Academia's mouth. Academia's politics don't apply to academia.
- r00fus 9y agoIs Academia one entity? Do you consider Adjunct Professors to be part of Academia? Perhaps ... the system is the result of organizational dynamics and some basic rules that some exploit and others get exploited by.
- gt_ 9y agoAcademia is essentially a class of institutions and/or an industry concerned with higher education. Of course adjunct professors would be associated here. Apparently you are missing the irony in such critical theory, post-structuralism, marxism, etc. having been so vigorously theorized that it's application was overlooked! The "system" here is quite late to blame itself and the brazen approach to doing so is a bit humurous. Are you seeking to divide academia into smaller parts; innocent ones and guilty others? Where have we seen that before?
- r00fus 9y agoAdjunct professors are notoriously overworked by the rest of "Academia"... they're like the H1B workers in tech. Face it, the entire system probably needs an overhaul but isn't governed by some sort of "evil overmind". Small regulatory or incentive-based changes or movements like unionization will probably cause the system to re-adjust.
- gt_ 9y agoYou are misunderstood about my point. I do not assume any authoritarian presence. I guess it's just textbook components of neo-liberalism: priorities which lead to bloated administration and marketing initiatives. I agree unionizing is a good solution. One would think the experts would have acted sooner; that's all. The trajectory has been obvious for a very long time.
- maxxxxx 9y agoIt's probably the same phenomenon like unions who fight for worker rights are often very abusive employers themselves. I have seen this in Germany and in the US.
- lr4444lr 9y agoIs it really any different than the most obstreperously puritanical religious zealots harboring plenty of scandalous sin in their personal life? Whether our ideals have a God at the top or not, we aren't any more or less prone to psychologically projecting our failings.
- nerfhammer 9y agoEver also wonder how it's ethical to put a 19 year old $100,000 into debt for an economically worthless bachelor's degree?
- programmarchy 9y agoAbsolutely. It's predatory lending in many cases. There is a choice on behalf of the students, but they are often completely ignorant about finance and the job market. The K-12 education system is failing to equip young people to understand and deal with the real world, so I see that as a root cause of these problems.
- nerfhammer 9y agoAnd what's the deal with universities pursuing stupendous multi-billion dollar endowments and never lowering tuition? It's like a competition between universities to see who can get the biggest war chest. Lacking any market concerns they're just looking for some variable to maximize just to keep themselves occupied. It seems largely orthogonal to any social purpose a university is supposed to have.
- closeparen 9y agoEndowments are there to provide "passive income" for the university and not to be spent. One of the main things interest on an endowment funds is financial aid. Endowment size is a pretty decent proxy for how generous a financial aid program is. Spending down an endowment could provide lots of free tuition... for a few years. Universities (like the Church) think in centuries.
- Fomite 9y agoPretty much this. Whether or not my alma mater could go to a "need blind" admissions policy was entirely a function of whether or not the endowment was in the right shape. IIRC they managed it in 2007 and then...in 2008...well, that went away.
- trumpownsyou420 9y agoit's almost like progressives are actually pieces of shit, who woulda thunk?
- spaceseaman 9y agoI would say that these abuses of power are intrinsic to having power. Also it's usually not the faculty vs the students. If you asked any single faculty member if they would rather 1.) Overwork their students, stretch them thin doing everything. 2.) Have more graduate students. They would always pick #2. Professors are notoriously short-handed. They are typically not the ones who are outright abusing the power. It's usually the administration tying the professor's hands in these matters. As a graduate student, your boss is usually the administration more than the professor - especially w.r.t. things a union would care about (workplace safety, wages, benefits, overwork...). Professors do not like to overwork their students - it's just they don't care if you are overworked.
- Fomite 9y ago"As a graduate student, your boss is usually the administration more than the professor" This is important to note. I have very little control over how much my students are paid, their benefits, their course load, etc. And, for the record, I do care if my students are overworked. Burnt out students produce shitty science.
- spaceseaman 9y ago> I do care if my students are overworked. Burnt out students produce shitty science. Good point and apologies for the slight. I suppose a better way of putting it is that faculty are often ignorant of their students' issues / difficulties due to their busy schedules.
- Fomite 9y agoIt should be noted that this is not universal, and varies heavily, down even to what lab you're in within a university.