The text is presented in this page was published in 1970 by the French magazine Temps Modernes . E 'a comment in the heat of the French philosopher Andre Gorz a draft reform of the university presented dall'Eliseo after the French May. This 'publication' is not should be read as an apologia, as the praise of a certain ideological trend. Simply, we want to point out that in this text is not aged, worn, still useful to interpret this: it is alleged the false rhetoric of bourgeois rule regarding the right to study and promotion of merit.
The University can not function: impediamole therefore work because it is impossible to become manifest. No reform of any kind, can make this institution a new life, then fight the reforms, results and inspiration, not because they are dangerous, but because they are illusory.
The crisis goes beyond academic institution, as we shall see, the horizon university, investing technical and social division of labor. It is good that this crisis explodes. Opportunities and ways - more or less good - can be discussed. But they can legitimately be criticized only by those who refuse to agree on the need to reform, and that this requirement implies a stake
.(...) The global nature of bourgeois ideology of the school is that of equality of chances of promotion society through the study. It is always treated, in fact, of equality is only apparent. However, in the past, mechanisms and criteria for selection were sufficiently "objective" because of the arbitrary selection of class is masked: it was deleted or selected on the basis of a system of skills and competencies defined once and for all. Traditionally, the left was fighting not against the selection criteria for the class - which it was obliged to fight against the selection itself and then against the whole education system - but because everyone had the right to enter into the sorting machine. The contradictory nature of this claim remained hidden as long as theoretically the right was recognized at all, but in practice the possibility to use it was denied to the vast majority. By the time, extending the dissemination of culture, the majority tends to get in practice the possibility of access to higher education, they lose their selective nature. Right to education and right to social advancement can not go together: if, at the limit, anyone can actually study, not all can be effectively promoted to positions of privilege. The mechanism for selecting school then being beaten, the company will seek to substitute or complementary mechanisms, or to restrict the right to study using administrative restrictions. These administrative restrictions
- numerus clausus, competition for access to faculty - are so hard to implement that all governments that have followed (...) have abandoned the application. In fact, ex ante to limit the number of students is to deny openly, bluntly, a legal principle and a social fiction through studies are equal for all and the chance to study that is not affected by personal attitudes. Destroy this legal fiction means to expose the illusory nature of bourgeois freedom and, above all, colliding head-on, in the name of a technocratic rationality - the studies are expensive and are not profitable if you do not imply an effective promotion for graduates - with layers these intermediate or alleged, of which the scheme does not consensus can be kept if not by flashing them the possibility of a "high social" conditioning solely on merit. (...). Politically
the bourgeoisie therefore must maintain the fiction that all is open access, through the study, for social advancement. Except that the reality demystifies this fiction: the access to education is free, but the studies are not calling any more. The number of undergraduate or graduate degrees and diplomas slavorizza. Many are called but few are chosen: places are limited. Culling the school selection has not been able to operate will be made by selecting just before use. (...) These contradictions
University pointing to the contradictions of bourgeois background:
- the market value so far recognized the degree was based on their scarcity and the scarcity of the attitude in the study. When it becomes general, the diploma privilege logically disappears, and with this the hierarchical division of labor;
- if the attitude of the studies - as attested by a degree or not - are becoming more widespread, it ceases to function as a selection criterion, the social stratification can no longer pretend to be based on competence and merit. Entitled to the studio and the right to promotion are not going together;
- if the studies did not provide more promotion, one of two things: either will be considered a waste of time and a social care superfluous, since they are not profitable either for those who make them, or for capitalistic society, or take the nature of a general education, non-functional, which the company can afford such a luxury. (...).
But it is unlikely to stop there: for once agreed that the studies do not sbocchino more about a career, it redefined the nature of the studies, their content and meaning: as a culture do not give more "useful", they need to confer a culture ' rebel 'because it does not match a company's application, must match the demand for those who want to destroy this society, abolishing the division of work.
Now the university is by its nature incapable of answering this question is neither practicable nor to the needs of the capitalist economy, nor to the needs of those who want to abolish capitalism, not a culture bestows nor "useful" or a culture 'rebel "(which, by definition, can not be awarded), bestows a university culture, a knowledge that is separate from both the productive practice that the militant practice. In short, it is a place where you can not take the time or in a useful way or in an interesting way. And there is no reform that can change this situation. There is no question of reforming the university, but to destroy it to destroy together the separate culture from the people it represents (the mandarins of culture) and social stratification which it remains, despite everything, the instrument.
This is the reality that the guerrilla University highlights, shortening the agony of a dying institution and revealing the hypocrisy of corporations that defend it. Some extremists say that students do not know to replace it with anything else, nor be able to change society because this 'other' becomes vital. But students can not own or produce another culture or revolution. What we can do is to prevent the acute crisis of bourgeois institutions of the division of work and selection of 'elites' remains masked. That's what they do, and that is what all defenders of - this or any other authoritarian and hierarchical order - do not forgive. Alone
students can not go beyond, destruction and even the actual context (and not only ideological) of the division of labor can not be done in the universities, which can not be made in factories and businesses: it presupposes the ' critical analysis of a manufacturing organization whose apparent technical rationality is both an objective and a form of political rationality: in a technical domain. It assumes a working knowledge of the production process and an active practice to change it, to subdue him the 'producers' associates in order to replace the hierarchical division with the voluntary division of labor.
only, starting from a critique of the actual division of labor may, in turn, become effective critique of a lesson directly (in technical and vocational schools) or indirectly form the pictures, the performers and the waste of capitalist production. The destruction of the university and teaching the class that does not concern only those who suffer the teaching about the working class, if the capitalist division of labor - of which the school is the matrix - has to be overcome. (...) If
the necessary violence of the struggle of the students then tend to worn out in symbolic terms higher education is not addressed for the sake of perverse violence for its own sake, and because violence is the only one able to break, even temporarily, the encirclement of the ghetto and ask a question of the university which reformers of all types prefer to ignore their existence. This problem - the crisis of institutions and bourgeois ideology and the division of labor - is a political problem par excellence. It is not enough that the political parties refuse to give meaning to student violence and translate it into politics because this is similar to vandalism: This is one of political violence and politically necessary, not sufficient.
0 comments:
Post a Comment