Cut philosophy, get theology (or, two arguments for philosophy in universities)

The bulging shelves of bookstores' philosophy shelves: only possible due to institutional support

There have been numerous pieces on the Guardian’s Comment is Free (CiF) about the Middlesex philosophy closure, usually protesting it on the basis of the department’s research excellence. Below the line, though, some commenters have questioned the very purpose of philosophy: particularly of the continental variety. Surely as resources are squeezed by recession, their argument goes, such a decadent subject, contributing so little to the economy and practical skills has a hard time justifying its existence? Some even suggested that philosophy is something that should just be done in one’s spare time, and does not warrant either a teaching post, or years of full-time commitment to study.

There seem to be a number of naïve assumptions underwriting these suggestions. The first reminds me of a conversation I had with one of my undergraduate students after our last seminar of the term. A few pints in, he asked, like many of them tend to, ‘why do you only want to teach?’ I explained that teaching a related subject in a university is one of the few ways you can have both the mental space and a sliver of free time available to attempt to make philosophical breakthroughs. He had different plans though: he was going to be CEO of a company, and write landmark philosophy books—like a Cicero figure, of sorts. I wished him good luck; but in the full knowledge that nowadays with tens of thousands of philosophers working full time in their fields, the idea is fanciful that anyone can engage at that level of thought in their spare time. It is simply incredulous that we can return to the days when Enlightenment gentlemen wrote treatises in their spare time; and headed to the salons at nighttime to discuss them. All those that engage with contemporary philosophy will know that like most else in the modern world philosophy is not immune to the increasing specialization, division of labour, and depth of knowledge required to produce new knowledge in the field—precluding any retreat to an amateur approach. Like most other professionalized fields, that is, it requires institutional support for its intellectual labour.

There are what are in classical economics are called ‘externalities’. These are effects produced by the operation of the market that are not internalized within the market itself—like the costs of pollution, for instance. However, things sometimes work the other way. Production unsupported by the market that the market gains from quite unilaterally, without bearing the cost of it. Recently I was invited into a major publisher’s office to discuss their new philosophy line. They had done the research; in the marketplace philosophy is thriving. So there is obviously a large demand for these works. But for anyone who knows much about publishing it will not come as a shock to learn that for the authors there is little more than pocket money in royalties produced for all but a handful of authors like J.K.Rowling. It is thus the case the institutional support of universities permits the supply of such rich philosophical works available to the general public at a cheap price. If philosophers were, god forbid, forced to try and make a living from the royalties of their books, the whole system would be unsustainable at anything less than something like £500 a pop! The point being that even to for people to study philosophy in their spare time—at least to the standard available from any inner city bookstore at a reasonable price—it is precisely only institutional support which enables that in the first place.

This leads into the second accusation: the idea that there is no need for philosophy in the first place. Science allows us to build computers, bridges and put rovers on Mars, what can philosophy claim to contribute? Isn’t it all just a bit of a waste of time? But really this is a gross abstraction from the real world.  Few would deny that there is a persistent human tendency towards asking the ultimate questions. Questioning the cosmic, existential and greatest social-political questions has hardly withering away with capitalist modernity. In this sense I see philosophy, particularly of the continental variety, as serving principally the continuation of the Enlightenment project. This can be seen, most instrumentally, in drawing out the meaning of the multiple scientific and mathematical discoveries of the last three or four centuries. Alone science permits great technical advance, and yet this is not enough to render these insights meaningful for people’s everyday lives. In the other sense, I also see philosophy as filling in the hole left by the vacation of religion. Philosophy as a secular project seeks to understand what previously was attributed to divine causes. In my opinion it is the case that if philosophy withers, religion can return with vengeance. Cut philosophy, get theology.

Are attacks on philosophy correlated with the return of theology?

Indeed, under New Labour we have seen the introduction of faith based schools, and whilst I don’t (as yet) have the figures to back it up my gut instinct is that whilst philsophy departments have been consistently under threat, theology departments have done rather well. The Arts and Humanities Council, for instance, has a huge Religion and Society program underway. They also recently finished a large project on recovering all of Isaac Newton’s theological writings. In the last ten years theology has, through a combination of intellectual fashion and, I suspect, a well financed revenue stream made great inroads into philosophy itself. It is increasingly  expected that philosophers be familiar with the arcane metaphysics of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotas. So, the predictable Marxist that I am, I would argue that we need to defend philosophy precisely because it serves to keep religion and theology at bay.

This argument and others can be debated at the ICA event: ‘Who’s Afraid of Philosophy’.

Read Full Post »

Storming Mansion House: Report on the escalation of the Middlesex Occupation

Protesters making their way back to the Trent Park occupation

Yesterday marked the second day of the Middlesex occupation at Trent Park. Some stayed at the occupation of the Dean’s boardroom, whilst others fanned out across the other campuses at Hendon and Cathill to canvass support. At Hendon there was a surprising amount of security. It was not clear whether this had anything to do specifically with our campaign, or not, but there was certainly a degree of paranoia there. Reception refused to point us in the direction of the Dean’s office, and security guards (about 8 of them in one building!) were checking every ID. When we finally found what appeared the directorate’s corridor, it was not, then, shocking to discover that it not only had a keypad entry security system in place, but also a privately contracted security guard permanently positioned on the door. If nothing else it goes to show the estrangement of management in universities from their own students and staff when they feel the need to lock themselves away behind multiple levels of security provision.

At Cathill we found more sympathy than at Hendon for the campaign amongst the generally arty student body. Through talking to students we learned that many programs had been axed with students being accepted to programs only for management to cut those specific programs once they entered; and, of course, paid their tuition fees for. Much the same logic, it could be noted, of the Middlesex university management’s decision to close down the philosophy program whilst keeping the research money the department had won for itself.

The whole of mansion house occupied

In the evening at Trent Park a philosophy society party had been planned. This was to be the launch pad for escalation. However, on a health and safety technicality—some form not being correctly filled out—management unilaterally rescinded permission for the party at the last minute. Around 80 people gathered outside Mansion House. When the English party, taking place in a ground floor room at the front of the building, was winding down, the gathered protesters stormed into the building through the windows. Very quickly the building was barricaded and the occupation secured. There were some problems removing all the security personnel. Senior security guards could not find all their people. One security guard, clearly in a state of shock and frightened by the events, alleged that he had been assaulted and limped out of the building. Judging by the people involved, and the fact that a similar bogus charge was levelled the day before, it seems highly unlikely that this was the case. When I arrived on the top floor, occupiers had given him a chair and a drink and were patiently waiting for his seniors to extricate him from the building.

A democratic meeting to decide the way forward at nighttime

Perhaps an hour after the building had been secured, a police car arrived. They talked with the security guards, and the shocked young guard was taken away in an ambulance, but no action was taken. Around 10PM a meeting was called downstairs. Occupiers resolved to turn the occupation of Mansion House into a beacon for other anti-cuts struggles across the country and to plan an autonomous program of philosophy and arts events in the building.

Read Full Post »

Middlesex philosophy closure. Part of a wider struggle.

The struggle against the closure of this fine department needs to be part of a wider struggle

Many have already rightly spoken in outrage that Middlesex’s renowned philosophy department is to be closed. The department is the home of our finest hub of continental philosophy and political theory in the UK. During the recent Haiti quake, Professor Peter Hallward was the number one commentator from a critical perspective in the news, reminding the viewers of both the history of U.S. intervention and disempowerment of the people by multinational agencies such as the UN. Hallward also almost single-handedly introduced the philosophy of Alain Badiou to the English speaking world. He is not alone; the department is full of interesting and enaged academics working on the cutting edge of critical thinking. The journal, Radical Philosophy, is edited mainly by academics in the department. The graduate students there are often highly influential in the political activites of the left in London. The closure is thus a clear blow—if it is allowed to happen—to the leftwing cause in Britain.

At the same time, it is important for those upset by this news to place it in perspective. Whatever party wins at the coming election, there are going to be massive, and I mean massive, job losses and departmental closures across the country. We haven’t even began to feel the pinch yet. And those who will likely face the axe before any others are the experimental thinkers, critical theorists and Marxists. Alongside creating a greater army of reserve labour and probably rehiring staff a few years on with sessional contracts that, obviously, pay much lower wages, it is inevitable that universities will also use this process to purge the troublesome amongst their midst.

There are already plans for a campaign to prevent the closure. A Facebook group has swollen almost overnight to thousands of members, and the first rally is planned for tomorrow. There are two things I would like to add immediately though as a contribution to these efforts.

Firstly,  the prevention of the closure should not be framed in the limited language of managerialism and educational bureacracy. This can be helpful for pointing out hypocricy, but does not help align the cause with a wider struggle in which RAE scores and such like will be used as criteria for the shutting down of the vast majority of other departments. Preventing this closure needs to be done in such a way that it can found solidarity across the educational sector; and bring with it the possibility of a more transformative agenda too. Dean of the School of Arts and Education is on record as advising that companies have input into university curriculums, and that student projects should deal with issues currently facing real businesses. Of course, none of this implies that said companies will actually pay students’ fees, reimburse them for their research during their studies, or guarantee a job. As such, the encroachment of this kind of thinking into academia should be a prominent part of the struggle to prevent the closures.

Secondly, the struggle needs to be linked to more general working class struggle. As some have rightly said, there is probably not much sympathy out there for philosophy departments who appear to just be pursuing their own elitist agenda. Forging links with real working class struggles against exploitation, cuts, and closures is entirely necessary

Read Full Post »