GEORGE PETELIN Can we trust our ground control?

Ground control to Major Tom: Your circuit's dead, there's something wrong. Can you hear me Major Tom? Can you hear me Major Tom? David owie !"#" $%&ace 'ddity,(

)t must have *een terri+ying +or scholars o+ the ,ran-+urt %chool during the rise o+ the .rd /eich to witness also the ra&id im&rovement in technologies o+ mass mani&ulation. Yet their recognition even then, in the early days o+ *roadcast radio, o+ the dangers o+ a rise o+ a 'totally administered society' seems to have taught academics nothing. Today, 0niversities are undergoing trans+ormations that have certain dis1uieting &arallels to those o+ the !".2s. 'nce again there is the emergence o+ &rocesses that are totalising and an alliance o+ these &rocesses with systems o+ technological control. These systems and &rocesses evolve so ra&idly that neither +ull awareness nor 1uestioning o+ their im&lications has time to ta-e &lace. My res&onse to this situation incor&orates three -inds o+ analysis: !. 3n e4amination and survey o+ res&onses to new managerialism or what has come to *e termed the rise o+ an audit culture in 0niversities 5. 3n e4amination o+ the role and im&lementation o+ com&uter networ-s and allied technology in the 0niversity .. 3 67henomenological8 re+lection on the e++ects o+ these &henomena on lived e4&erience in the university drawing on the wor- o+ 9eidegger and that o+ the Critical Theorists. The new +orm o+ management, that re&laced the term 67ersonnel :iaison8 with 69uman /esource Management8 &ur&orts to *e a neutral technology;sim&ly a way o+ ma-ing wor- more e++icient. %imilarly, com&uter networ-s, so+tware and digital technology are in themselves just tools. 9ow then can any argument in criticism o+ them evade the &it+all o+ technological determinism? 3nd what lessons concerning this can *e learnt +rom the &ast? <=> M3<3G=/)3:)%M The earliest descri&tion o+ humans as 6resources8 &ro*a*ly dates +rom 3ristotle. $The servant is a -ind o+ instrument( writes 3ristotle in Politics oo! Ch ?. %laves, to the Gree-s, were those una*le to ma-e res&onsi*le decisions, thus they were considered to *e $&ro&erty with souls( and $living tools(. ,rom the outset, the status o+ the 9uman /esource is de&rived o+ individual li*erty. This is in total contrast to the tradition o+ academic &ro+essionalism that has traditionally *een de+ined in terms o+ li*erty to ma-e res&onsi*le decisions.

3lthough :arsen argues that 7ro+essions as we -now them are a relatively new @ a &henomenon o+ the industrial age @ it is also true, as 9amilton ! e4&resses it, that Atraditions o+ academic +reedom and shared governance are rooted in the intellectual system that grew out o+ >estern tradition, &articularly the =nlightenment8s conviction that reason, i+ le+t +ree, could discover use+ul -nowledge. This intellectual system is li*eral in the sense that it +avours individual +reedom, o&enBmindedness, and the use o+ reason to +oster human &rogress. 5 )n short, the de+ining 1ualities o+ collegiality and critical in1uiry are what distinguishes 0niversities +rom other institutions. 3lthough, as ) will argue, there &ersist certain a++inities with the traditions o+ slave su&ervision and +rom its su*se1uent industrial variant, Taylorism, 9uman /esource Management attem&ts to dissociate itsel+ +rom these. . 3nd, indeed, there was a *rie+ window o+ li*eral rhetoric in management just *e+ore 9/M8s develo&ment. Many o+ us can remem*er, a*out the midB!"C2s, the &eriod o+ em&loyee consultation, the humanistic &sychology o+ Carl /ogers and 3*raham Maslow, committee decision ma-ing, and con+idential &eer consultation that served to introduce the regimes that have now evolved out o+ them. Management historians e4&lain it in terms o+ a shi+t in role +or administrators +rom 6em&loyee advocacy8 to mem*ershi& on the 6management team8. eginning somewhat *enignly in !"D! within the new M 3 course at 9arvard usiness %chool, 9/M &reached consultation o+ sta-eholders and a s&ecial &lace +or the human com&onent o+ cor&orate resources. 'ther variants however soon came into vogue. The Michigan usiness %chool, +or e4am&le, advocated that em&loyees, li-e any other resource, should *e o*tained as chea&ly as &ossi*le, used s&aringly and develo&ed and e4&loited as much as &ossi*le.? Des&ite this, 9/M continues to argue that it is somehow di++erent +rom the 6scienti+ic management8 o+ ,.>. Taylor. Taylor8s 6scienti+ic management8 was similarly initially su&&orted *y li*erationist rhetoricE *ut *ecame *itterly o&&osed *y organised la*our *ecause o+ the 6autocratic8 ways in which it was actually *eing a&&lied #. 3lthough Taylor denied the advocacy o+ s&ying on em&loyees, methods he invented such as the sto&watch concealed on a *oo-, suggest +orms o+ in+ormation gathering that antici&ate the covert and o*ligatory surveillance methods o+ todayC. Taylor, just as new managerialism does now, argued that management &ractices must &rivilege 6the consumers, who *uy the &roduct A and who ultimately &ay *oth the wages o+ the wor-men and the &ro+its o+ the em&loyers8 D. ecause the consumer8s satis+action is judged on immediate rather than longBterm +eed*ac- &rocesses, this argument o*viously rests on the assum&tion that the consumers -now *est what is good +or them. )n 0niversities where the customers are considered to *e undergraduate students, this assum&tion is highly de*ata*le".

The +irst wave o+ the 6new8 +orms o+ managerialism to hit 3ustralian 0niversities, in the !""2s during the Daw-ins re+orms, saw the emergence o+ Total Fuality Management. TFM viewed education in terms o+ 6com&etency measures8 and a &edagogy *ased on +ragmented se1uences o+ s-illB o&erations and *ehavioural o*jectives. The TFM system sat uncom+orta*ly with the ideals o+ creativity and research *ecause it insisted on the &ossi*ility, indeed necessity, o+ s&eci+ying outcomes in advance and reducing the learning &rocess to a sim&listic 1uanti+ia*le loc-ste& &rocess !2. The im&osition o+ 1uantitative descri&tion u&on something that is o+ten a 1ualitative, intuitive, &rocess threatened to devalue creative disci&lines and was una*le to reconcile their uni1ue historical traditions and methods. )n management circles, however, TFM has in recent years come under attac- +rom another +ad called usiness 7rocess /eBengineering, G 7/H, +or 1uite di++erent reasons: 6that TFM is insu++icient and ina&&ro&riate to co&e with the current com&etitive glo*al *usiness environment *ecause it &reserves esta*lished structures instead o+ *eing $&rocessBoriented(8.!! 7/ is, o+ course, at the *ottom o+ the current rhetoric against 6%ilo mentalities8 in universities. These 6%ilos8 in the case o+ universities are none other than the traditional disci&lines through which &eerBmaintenance o+ standards o+ rigour has traditionally *een e4ercised. Their removal results not in the desira*le goal o+ interBdisci&linarity, *ut in managerial transBdisci&linarity *ased on universal criteria o+ &roductivity rather than on rigour. 7rocessB orientation in this conte4t means su*ordinating the social mission o+ a disci&line to the service o+ a managementBdecreed commercial outcome. The emergence o+ &rocessBoriented Gi.e., commerceBorientedH edi+ices within universities such as the 6Creative )ndustries8 movement is the outcome. !5 '*jections to managerialism within academia a*ound. )n my own survey o+ the literature, although ) +ound the un1uestioned assum&tion o+ managerialism8s e++icacy in management &olicy documents and in howBto manuals, this was outweighed *y an avalanche o+ highly critical analysis in academic &u*lications!.. 3t *est, some o+ these &a&ers concede that some sort o+ accounta*ility to a &u*lic outside the &ro+ession is desira*le !?, *ut that a *alance o+ this against the draw*ac-s o+ accounting &rocesses is di++icult to determine. These &a&ers range +rom &restigious &hiloso&hical overviews such as the /eith lectures!E to em&irical case studies dealing with s&eci+ic industries!#. The incursion o+ managerialism is argua*ly in o&&osition to the older tradition o+ &ro+essionalism. /ichard Thom&son, writing a*out managerialism8s erosion o+ &ro+essionalism in medicine, and contrasting &ro+essional &riorities with those o+ &ro+itBdriven cor&orations, &oints out ...some ethical themes are common to all &ro+essions. Chie+ among these is trustworthiness. >hat i+ un&ro+essional *ehavior *ecame the norm? Thin- a*out it. )+ we could not con+idently entrust our money, our health, our education and

our view o+ religious and ethical values to &ro+essionals, what would society *e li-e?8!C )n education, 3le4iadou o*serves, trust in &ro+essionalism is 6totally dis&laced *y &er+ormativity.8 !D %everal sym&toms o+ this culture o+ mistrust have emerged. The shi+t +rom con+idential use o+ student evaluation o+ courses and teaching +or &ersonal im&rovement to gathering data +or e4ternal accounta*ility has resulted in a de*asement o+ +undamental human relations, *etween academics and their students and among academics themselves. Fuestions through which students are surveyed *ecome either generic without s&eci+ic relevance to the circumstance *eing evaluated and slanted towards managerial values *ecause they are &rescri*ed *y management, or to-en additions chosen *y the academic em&loyee to elicit the *est &er+ormance &ro+ile. %ensing how general mood a++ects the statistical res&onse o+ a class, the academic chooses the most +avoura*le time within the semester;never just a+ter a tough e4am;&re+era*ly just a+ter a minor assessment that can *e mar-ed very generously. Throughout the semester the *uoyant mood must *e sustained *y never challenging a student8s o&inion and ta-ing &ersonal interest in adolescent social activities with all the sincerity o+ a McDonalds 69aveBaBniceBday8 greeting. %ocial relations come to mimic the &remises o+ commercial e4change that under&in managerialism: solicited testimonials and orchestrated nominations +or awards *ecome a social currency. %uch &er+ormance measures are &resented as *eyond dis&ute *ut are +ar +rom universally acce&ted. ,or instance, :ouise Morley re&orts that 6...3 ,rench &ro+essor laughed out loud when she heard that student com&letion rates were &er+ormance indicators in ritain. %he reminded me that the o&&osite is the case in ,rance;the +ewer students le+t on the course, the higher its status8 !". The relations o+ collegiality traditional among academics, the res&ect +or each other8s e4&ertise and commitment to the common &ur&ose, e1ually deteriorate into mistrust and disingenuousness at *est, and, as Margaret Thornton, 7ro+essor in :aw and :egal %tudies at :a Tro*e 0niversity argues, downright *ullying at worst52. 3s Morley +inds, the accounta*ility &rocess 6can also *e seen as a +orm o+ ca&illary &ower in which &ro+essions are seduced into &olicing themselves5!. The &rocess o+ *ullying is assisted *y the remoteness and im&ersonality o+ technological ways o+ accounting. The sta++ committee evaluates an online re&ort and &asses its judgements online 55. This 3udit Culture has argua*ly created a new class: the cult o+ the 6e4&ert8 technocrat. 5. 3t the same time, the &owers o+ middle management have dwindled. ,ormer &ro+essionals +ind themselves as e4ecutors o+ to&Bdown decrees and +unction increasingly as disci&linary a&&aratchi-s over their +ormer colleagues. The use o+ clichIBs&outing motivational s&ea-ers and *onding rituals at trustB *uilding retreats is o+ course management8s 6solution8 to the &ro*lem, *ut does nothing to alleviate this. The entire relation *etween em&loyer and &ro+essional has shi+ted to one o+ mutual distrust and dece&tion. The audit culture is &ermeated *y a doctrine o+ original sin that tends to *ecome a sel+B +ul+illing &ro&hecy. 3s Michel de Certeau o*served, in highly regulated environments em&loyees develo& the tactics o+ resistance that he terms la peruque24.

The most &uJJling 1uestion is how the &rocesses and claims o+ accounta*ility are tolerated *y a university hierarchy who in the main are themselves trained in rigorous sciences. Two inade1uately su*stantiated assum&tions under&in the audit culture. ,irst is the assum&tion that the means o+ measuring academic accounta*ility are valid and relia*le, and second is the assum&tion that these accounting &rocesses actually im&rove the o&eration o+ universities or, i+ they do, do so costBe++ectively. <umerous cries +rom academia attest that *oth these assum&tions are dee&ly +lawed.5E Morley, +or e4am&le, &oints out /eceiving research +unding is another indicator o+ worth. Yet, in !""# %ir 9arry Kroto won a <o*el &riJe +or e4actly the same research in chemistry that was re+used +unding *y the engineering and &hysical science research council. The indicators o+ audit are unrelia*le and unsta*le and yet are invested with considera*le sym*olic and material &ower. 5# >hat is distur*ing is that the constructs o+ the audit culture *ecome their own measure o+ success. 3s Morley &oints out, 6The 6good researcher8 is discursively produced 5C via &er+ormance indicators lin-ed to audit8.5D )n su&&ort o+ this she cites am&le research that in ritain academics would tailor su*missions to the &erceived &re+erences o+ the &anel that would *e judging their wor- and concentrate their research attention in areas li-ely to carry weight in the /3=. 'ne recent re&ort shows a 0K university classi+ying undergraduate courses as research in order to achieve certain cost advantages and no dou*t to elevate /3= statistics 5". The measurement o+ managerial &er+ormance indicators ignores the e++ect o+ this measurement on the very thing that it &ur&orts to im&rove, and, as 0niversities *ecome more o*sessed with ma-ing sure nothing sli&s &ast their audit, the &er+ormance statistics a&&ear to im&rove. >hat has, however, im&roved is merely the gathering and manu+acture o+ 1uanti+ia*le in+ormation rather than the 1uality o+ the actual outcome. 3s %ir Michael 3teah, &resident o+ the /oyal %ociety, e4&resses it: ), and ) sus&ect many university colleagues, are dee&ly uneasy a*out the &resent situation, not *ecause we are irres&onsi*le, *ut *ecause we have little con+idence in the +oundations on which the great accountancy edi+ice has *een *uilt. 3s a mathematician ) -now that the validity o+ a conclusion rests not only on the accuracy o+ the argument *ut also on the truth o+ the initial &remise . . . 3ll o+ us have had to +ill in +orms as-ing us to identi+y how much o+ our time . . . has *een s&ent on teaching and how much on research. ,or many o+ us this is a meaningless and im&ossi*le tas- . . . 9ow does one divide, count, or weigh a thought? )n des&eration we end u& *y +illing in some notional +igures. .2

The concern that, +or all its &ain and e4&ense, managerialism does not deliver what it &romises is not uni1ue to academia. 'ther sectors, &articularly those descri*ea*le in managerial terms as 6service industries8, re&ort similar misgivings. )n many o+ these it remains an o&en 1uestion whether the new managerialism has resulted in more e++icient and costBe++ective services. /on >alton, writing a*out social wor-, re&orts that =4tra costs arise +rom the enlarged managerial wor-+orce and the cost o+ contractedBout services is rising ine4ora*ly in res&onse to the raised standards. %ocial services de&artments are +acing the same -inds o+ &ro*lem as health services where the cost o+ agency nursing sta++ +orms a su*stantial &art o+ their de+icits. Management in &ersonal social services in the &ast em&hasiJed human relationshi& issues such as su&ervision, care o+ sta++, and more coBo&erative styles o+ leadershi&. 0nder the new managerialism, a set o+ new tas-s and s-ills has develo&ed which has little to do with these +ormer concerns: dra+ting s&eci+ications and contracts +or commissioned servicesL overseeing and monitoring contractsL &roviding a wide range o+ additional in+ormation +or audit, ins&ection and central governmentL dra+ting &ro&osals +or targeted allocations +rom central government +or diverse &rojects and services and managing *udgets. )n the !"C2s and !"D2s, the &icture &resented would have *een descri*ed as *ureaucracy. ,ar +rom scything away the traditional *ureaucracy o+ local authorities, the new managerialism has introduced its own style o+ *ureaucratic administration, ever more inventive in com&licating social service systems and &utting them at ris- o+ sclerotic seiJure. )t is ironic that the new managerialism, riding on the mantra o+ e++iciency and low cost, may yet &rove more e4&ensive under the weight o+ e4tended ins&ection, audit and rising costs o+ inde&endent &rovision. .! %imilar accounts &ertain to health and &olice services: Mic-ers and KouJmin, +or e4am&le, re&ort that 6while the costs o+ &olicing, courts and &risons continued to soar, there NisO no evidence o+ im&roved e++ectiveness in reducing crime8..5 >hile 3ustralian and ritish academic administration em*races the managerialism juggernaut, serious dou*ts are *eginning to a&&ear at managerialism8s very origins. /oger Thom&son, writing in The Harvard Business School Alumni Bulletin, +or e4am&le, draws attention to the s&ate o+ cor&orate scandals such as the down+all o+ =nron to as- whether there is something systemically wrong with managerialism... Fuoting /a-esh Khurana he writes 6The universityB*ased *usiness school o+ today is a trou*led institution, one that has *ecome unmoored +rom its original &ur&ose and whose contem&orary state is in many ways antithetical to the goals o+ &ro+essional education itsel+8..? This criti1ue, writes Thom&son, emerges out o+ 6agency theory8 taught within *usiness schools, which +ound 6that managers, as a matter o+ economic principle, could not *e trusted8. 6>ith the demise o+ managerialism8, he as-s, 6do *usiness schools retain any genuine academic or societal mission?8 )ronically, although this -ind o+ soulBsearching emerges

within the academia o+ management, the management o+ academia continues to su++er a time lag. %o here is the nu* o+ the matter, managerialism can *e criticised *ecause, +ar +rom *eing a neutral technology, it constitutes an ideology;a system internally haemorrhaging under the weight o+ its contradictions, ironies, and sheer hy&ocrisies;a +aith, a *elie+ system more a-in to 6creation science8 or to a cult such as scientology than to a science. 3n insight into the mindset o+ managerialism is a++orded *y the case o+ 3l*ert %&eer, 9itler8s in+amous architect. The only <aJi leader to acce&t a share in collective res&onsi*ility +or war crimes, his de+ence at <urem*erg &leads two mitigations: one, the im&lausi*le claim that he was unaware o+ the gas cham*ersL the other, that he was just doing his jo*. 3s today, technology &layed a *ig &art in maintaining control. Declaring himsel+ a neutral technocrat without interest in ideology, he descri*es how the <aJi regime sim&ly &rovided o&&ortunities +or him to &ractise his cra+t on a huge scale. Modern technology, however, %&eer admits in hindsight, was the -ey element that Pdistinguished our tyranny +rom all historical &recedentsP .E. )n addition to *eing an architect, %&eer was undou*tedly a &rotoBmanagerialist. 3s Minister +or 3rmaments +rom !"?5, he nationalised German war &roduction to eliminate its 6worst ine++iciencies8. 9e de+ends himsel+ *y demonstrating that he im&roved conditions +or slave la*our, *ut contradicts this *eing inter&reted as an ethical decision *y adding that this was to ena*le them to wor- more e++iciently. <=> T=C9<':'GY The technology in the hands o+ managerialists that contri*utes to my concern +or the &resent, is in+ormation technology. 9owever, ) want to concentrate on one as&ect o+ this technology, so+tware. 3nd ) want to ma-e a distinction *etween the claims that can *e made +or in+ormation technology as a whole and the use o+ this technology through the +ilter o+ a cor&orate intranet and 6enter&rise8 so+tware.#. ut +irst, ) want to em&hasise again that technology alone does not guarantee a social e++ect: it is the com*ination o+ ideology and technology that is worrying. 3nd second, to draw attention to the +act that com*ination o+ technologies can have an e++ect greater than the sum o+ their individual contri*utions. Drawing +rom the wor-s o+ Gilles DeleuJe and ,Ili4 Guattari, Kevin 9aggerty and /ichard =ricson write that we are witnessing a convergence o+ what were once discrete surveillance systems to the &oint that we can now s&ea- o+ an emerging 6surveillant assem*lage8. This assem*lage o&erates *y a*stracting human *odies +rom their territorial settings and se&arating them into a series o+ discrete +lows. These +lows are then reassem*led into distinct 6data dou*les8 which can *e scrutiniJed and targeted +or intervention. )n the &rocess, we are witnessing a rhiJomatic leveling o+ the hierarchy o+ surveillance, such that grou&s which were &reviously e4em&t +rom routine surveillance are now increasingly *eing monitored. .C

The growing re1uirement, +or e4am&le, +or academics to use a university &ortal and only universityBauthorised 6enter&rise8 so+tware not only +acilitates cor&orate management rather than individual &ro+essionalism *ut encroaches onto the &rivate li+e o+ academics. =nter&rise so+tware such as :otus <otes and 'utloo- =4change, &ossesses e4tra surveillance and centralised timeB management ca&acities. )n addition, the so+tware stores your data on a server to *e administered remotely rather than on your own com&uter. =ven some management writers warn that this can *e counter&roductive. ,or e4am&le, 7aul %trassmann, sometime Director o+ )n+ormation +or the 0% De+ense De&artment, and Chie+ )n+ormation '++icer o+ the <ational 3eronautics and %&ace 3dministration, *elieves local com&uting is here to stay. 9e warns against com&anies dedicating their resources &rinci&ally to internal coordination and control and advises a com&romise: 3n organisation must +ind &olitically and emotionally acce&ta*le answers to the as&irations o+ individuals +or inde&endence, &rivacy, and sel+ directed e4&erimentation..D ,or academics, whose research and dayBtoBday activities are hardly distinguisha*le, centralised cor&orate control means that &rivate and wor-ing li+e are under the e1ual scrutiny o+ the 6cor&oration8. 'ur +aith in an always ethical dimension to this scrutiny should *e somewhat sha-en *y the 522C case o+ a college secretary in >ales having to a&&eal to the =uro&ean Court o+ 9uman /ights over eBmail and &hone snoo&ing .". >hat is additionally worrying is that, &rovided an em&loyer warns that they may monitor your com&uter use, they have every right to do so.?2 %uch warnings are &ossi*ly now standard at universities *ut this does not change the +act that in &ractical terms they legislate over &rivate lives and, li-e the /oman =m&eror Caligula8s laws which were &osted at the to& o+ a tall column, are not always easy to +ind nor to *e mind+ul o+. The ca&acities o+ centralised so+tware +or surveillance are matched *y their ca&acities +or censorshi&, which +urther com&romise academic +reedom and &ro+essional trust. During the course o+ researching +or this &a&er, +or instance, ) was on several occasions con+ronted with a we* &age telling me that 6accessing this we* site may contravene the 0niversity Code o+ Conduct8 and directing me to the university8s )T 7olicy document. That &olicy document lists numerous o*ligations and the conse1uences o+ their *reach +or the user o+ the technology, *ut none at all regarding the university8s choice o+ )T architecture, the res&onsi*ilities o+ its management to academics, nor regarding what is e4&ected o+ its contracted so+tware manu+acturers. The continued wisdom and integrity o+ 6ground control8 is deemed to *e outside the s&here o+ interest o+ those whose lives de&end on it. 3nd even i+ the wisdom and integrity o+ our masters were *eyond re&roach, why are university academics trusted with less in+ormation o+ the outside world o+ the we* than the mainstream &o&ulation? The conse1uences +or research in the humanities and social sciences are &atent: researchers e4&osed only to a &reB +iltered reality are unli-ely to con+ront social 6+acts8 as was cham&ioned *y

Dur-heim. 'ne wonders, i+ )T managers rather than academic disci&lines ma-e these +iltering decisions, how long will it *e *e+ore we see, say, a *an on e4&osure to nudity +or anatomy and li+eBdrawing classes, or restrictions &laced on electronic resources critical o+ managerialism? 3t the same time, we are not &rotected +rom commercial e4&loitation and &rivacy intrusion. The same technology de&osits unwanted messages, so+tware 6u&dates8 and, virtually daily, addons such as M%< messenger and widgets. 3&&lications such as )tunes and /eal 7layer clamour to &enetrate your vigilance in order to install themselves *y attachment to 6essential8 u&dates +or other &rograms. %ymantec8s <orton 3ntivirus so+tware, although made o*solete *y other so+tware, comes &reBinstalled, almost im&ossi*le to remove, and re1uests e4or*itant &ayments a+ter your initial thirty days use Gunless it has already deceived the university into e4tending its site licenceH. =ven the trend in +undamental o&erating systems such as Microso+t >indows Mista is to restrict individual li*erties. Mista under the &rete4t o+ enhancing security re1uires all &rograms to *e &rocessed through its registry and attached to installation on one set o+ hardware, des&ite the +act that hardware o+ten *ecomes o*solete *e+ore so+tware. Trans+erring so+tware +rom &ersonal home com&uter to worcom&uter and *ac- is *ecoming increasingly &ro*lematic. This means that while &osing as the &urchase o+ a discrete commodity, each so+tware ac1uisition is a *inding contract entirely in the vendor8s interest. 3s Giles DeleuJe descri*es it, 6the societies o+ control o&erate with machines A whose &assive danger is jamming and whose active one is &iracy or the introduction o+ viruses.8?! 0n+ortunately, the terms 6malware8 and 6&iracy8 can *e ascri*ed as much to the &roducts and actions o+ cor&orations as o+ terrorist hac-ers. %o+tware com&anies are o+ course also cor&orations with na-ed sel+Binterest that has nothing to do with the &ursuit o+ truth nor even with the goals o+ a university as a cor&oration. Their every new &ro+itBma-ing strategy seems to result in less individual li*erty rather than more. )+ universities as&ire to *e li-e them, woe *etide us. The integrity o+ &articularly the larger so+tware cor&orations is e4tremely 1uestiona*le. )n !""!, :otus Develo&ment Cor&oration attem&ted to manu+acture and sell Lotus ar!etplace" Households# a CD rom containing detailed mar-eting in+ormation a*out !52 million individuals sourced +rom their &artner, credit *ureau =1ui+a4. ?5 Google, as another e4am&le, has no 1ualms in assisting the Chinese government in its 1uest +or &olitical censorshi& ?.. /egardless o+ Google Des-to&8s &romise to res&ect the &rivacy o+ their cataloguing the entire data o+ your hard drive and the record o+ all your we*searches, the ca&acity to scrutinise all o+ these e4ists. )n the 0%3, since the 7atriot 3ct o+ 522!?? and a+ter the soonBtoB*eB&assed ,oreign )ntelligence %urveillance 3ct 3mendments o+ 522D?E, and even more so in countries without a ill o+ /ights such as 3ustralia?#, this &otential is ever &resent. Moreover, this technology8s long historical involvement with totalitarian control is a matter o+ record. ) M8s +lourishing *usiness in &reBwar and wartime Germany, as =dwin lac- documents in $B and the Holocaust Home# had

an essential role in &roviding &unchcard &rocessing o+ Qewish names +or arrest and e4ecution.?C )n universities, li-e the managerialism it has grown to serve, com&uter technology o+ten +alls short o+ its &romises. 3ssisting the growth o+ so+tware and hardware mono&olies and restricting +reedom o+ choice +or academics, the educational sector is lured *y discounts +or *ul- contracts to, in e++ect, *etaBtest un+inished &rograms. :ow )T *udgets ensure su*standard )T networ-s. 3nd, more &articularly, inade1uately documented, inade1uately trans&arently structured, inade1uately ethically 1uestioned, and inade1uately clearly communicated )T networ-s. 7art o+ the reason is that technology itsel+ is still has the re&utation o+ *eing the realm o+ slaves. Managers high in the hierarchy get secretarial hel& to o&erate their technology. The tale o+ the viceB chancellor who vainly shoo- his mouse at the Powerpoint screen during a &resentation, is &ro*a*ly not so a&ocry&hal. 0niversities install what &romises to *e an e++icient re&orting system without ever *ecoming aware o+ the +rustrations and time costs to those who have to re&ort through it.

':D 7/' :=M% >hether our technology is actually e++icient or not, as Martin 9eidegger o*served in a &a&er +irst &resented in !"?": everywhere we remain un+ree and chained to technology, whether we &assionately a+Rrm or deny it. ut we are delivered over to it in the worst &ossi*le way when we regard it as something neutralL +or this conce&tion o+ it, to which today we &articularly li-e to &ay homage, ma-es us utterly *lind to the essence o+ technology. ?D >hat 9eidegger considered to *e the essence o+ technology was not its 6neutral8 &otential utility *ut what he called its en%raming. 6Technology is a human activity8 writes 9eidegger. The two de+initions o+ technology *elong together. ,or to &osit ends and &rocure and utiliJe the means to them is a human activity. The manu+acture and utiliJation o+ e1ui&ment, tools, and machines, the manu+actured and used things themselves, and the needs and ends that they serve, all *elong to what technology is. The whole com&le4 o+ these contrivances is technology. ?" Technology thus e4ists only in its useL in 9eidegger8s terms it is 6revealed8, emerges out o+ mere &otentiality, only through a&&lication. Certainly, *oth management and com&uter in+ormation technologies could historically have emerged out o+ their &otentialities in countless other ways, *ut the +act is that they now e4ist in &ro+oundly ideological +orms. >hile en+raming is in 9eidegger8s words also a 6destining8, our essential li*erty as human *eings he argues consists in *eing +ree to re+use this destining. The great danger o+ technology, according to 9eidegger, is to not recognise en+raming +or what it is ;to a*rogate our +reedom to 6listen *ut not o*ey8. )n other words we must constantly 1uestion technology as it 6comes into &resence8.

10

The ,ran-+urt school o+ critical theory during the !".2s, &ractised, more or less li-e the +irst section on the &resent essay, what they called 6immanent criticism8;drawing attention to contradictions *y ju4ta&osing as&ects o+ contem&orary society against its own ideals. )n the !"?2s 3dorno and 9or-heimer turned to more general 1uestions. Their classic &u*lication The &ialectic o% 'nlightenment as-s 6why humanity, instead o+ entering into a truly human condition, is sin-ing into a new -ind o+ *ar*arism8. E2 3lthough *asing their stance on what to me seems a somewhat unwarranted con+lation o+ all &ositive science and technology, the answer they &ro&ose invo-es the clash *etween 6instrumental8 reason and critical reason that descri*es the contradictions o+ new managerialism &er+ectly. )nstrumental reason emerges when the &rocesses o+ e++iciency are no longer a means to an end *ut an end in themselves. This is &erha&s why it does not seem to matter to managerialism that neither its &rocedures nor its technology are actually terri*ly +unctional. 3nd 9eidegger, unwittingly, has another lesson +or us. 3s we -now, although not im&eacha*le +or any direct crimes against humanity, 9eidegger was as com&romised *y ,ascism as %&eer. >hen in !".. his mentor, and +ounder o+ 7henomenology =dmund 9usserl, was denied the use o+ the ,rei*urg li*rary as a result o+ <ational %ocialist antiBQewish legislation, it was 9eidegger, as a <aJi &arty mem*er, and newlyBa&&ointed ()hrer Brector o+ the university, who re&ortedly in+ormed 9usserl that he was discharged. 3nd, in !"?!, +earing re&ercussions he removed the dedication to 9usserl +rom his !"?! &u*lication o+ Being and Time.E! ,ully e1ui&&ed to recognise a technology o+ control as it 6came into &resence8, he chose to succum* to it. 9eidegger was &ro*a*ly just ty&ical o+ the new academic managerial class. DaJJled *y the +alse &romises o+ authority, although he surely intellectually recognised the threat o+ totalitarianism, 9eidegger sold his &ro+essional soul +or career advancement.E5 3s Thornton o*serves, what is lost in the trans+ormation o+ 0niversities 6are collegiality, academic +reedom, worsatis+action, and, not least o+ allAthe courage that was once considered an essential attri*ute in a worthy academic. E.

11

<eil >. 9amilton, Academic 'thics" Pro*lems and aterials on Pro%essional +onduct and Shared ,overnanc e G>est&ort CT: 7raeger, 5225H. 2 Magali %ar+atti :arson, The -ise o% Pro%essionalism G er-eley, C3: 0niversity o+ Cali+ornia 7ress, !"CCH:!C. 3 The .ew anagerialism G9/M Guide: )nternational 9uman /esources, Ncited !.S# 522DOHL availa*le +rom htt&:SSwww.hrmguide.netShrmScha&!Sch!Blin-s..htm. 4 )*id.GNcitedH. 5 $Athe time is coming when all great things will *e done *y that ty&e o+ coo&eration in which each man &er+orms the +unction +or which he is *est suited, each man &reserves his own individuality and is su&reme in his &articular +unction, and each man at the same time loses none o+ his originality and &ro&er &ersonal initiative, and yet is controlled *y and must wor- harmoniously with many other men.( ,rederic- >inslow Taylor, The Principles o% Scienti%ic anagement G<ew Yor-: 9ar&er T /ow, !"!!H:C. 6 P%ees Great Danger in <ew =++iciency,P .ew /or! Times, ,e*ruary 5C, %unday !"!#. 7 Taylor, The Principles o% Scienti%ic anagement :!E.. 8 )*id.:#. 9 )t leads me to wonder why shouldn8t university administrations *e seen to *e &rimarily in the service o+ academics;+acilitating their research and &edagogy as res&onsi*le &ro+essionals in the way a lawyer8s cham*ers or medical clinic serves its &ro+essionals. 10 ) criti1ued TFM in some detail at the time in George 7etelin, PFuality: 3 9igher :evel o+ Mediocrity,P Australian 0ournal o% +ommunication !", no. 5 G!""5H. The main thrust o+ my argument was that TFM threatened innovation, creativity and the arts. 11 $Modern Technology's 7ro*lems and 7romises,( htt&:SSwww.geocities.comS3thensS'lym&usSEE""S&hiloso&hyS&ro*lemsBtechnology.html. 12 Creative )ndustries is virtually a synonym +or what the critical theorists &ejoratively termed the Culture )ndustry. %ee Theodor 3dorno, and Ma4 9or-heimer 6The culture industry: =nlightenment as mass dece&tion8, in Qames Curran, Michael Gurevitch and Qanet >ollacott GedsH, ass +ommunication and Society. G:ondon: =dward 3rnold, !"CCH:.?"@D.. )n my view it generates an enormous amount o+ rhetoric a*out &rocess Gjusti+ied ironically through claims o+ elitism against the traditional artsH, and very little &roduct &recisely *ecause o+ its severance +rom the ideals o+ traditional creative disci&lines. 13 3 &articularly good e4am&le o+ this is %imon ,rith8s PChec-ing the oo-s: >hat 3re 0niversities ,or?P +ritical 1uarterly ?., no. ! G522!H. 14 Michael >. 3&&le, P=ducation, Mar-ets, and an 3udit Culture,P +ritical 1uarterly ?C, no. !@5 G522EH. 15 'nora ''<eil, $ CS'0 '&en5.net B /eith 5225: 3 Fuestion o+ Trust,( htt&:SSwww.o&en5.netSreith5225Sinde4.html. 16 %ee, +or e4am&le: ill Doolin, P7ower and /esistance in the )m&lementation o+ a Medical Management )n+ormation %ystem,P $n%o Systems 0, no. !? G522?H, also Margaret 9. Mic-ers and 3le4ander KouJmin, P<ew Managerialism and 3ustralian 7olice 'rganiJations: 3 Cautionary /esearch <ote,P $nternational 0ournal o% Pu*lic Sector anagement# # !?, no. ! G 522!H, and /on >alton, P%ocial >or- as a %ocial )nstitution,P British 0ournal o% Social 2or! G522EH. 17 /ichard =. Thom&son, P3ssault on the 7ro+essional =thic: >ill 7ro+essionalism %urvive?G=thical 3s&ectsH,P Physician '3ecutive G522CH. 18 <. 3le4iadou, PManagement )dentities in Transition: 3 Case %tudy +rom ,urther =ducation,P The Sociological -eview ?", no. . G522!H:?5". 19 :ouise Morley, PThe Micro&olitics o+ Fuality,P +ritical 1uarterly, ?C, no. !B5:DE. 20 Margaret Thornton, PCorrosive :eadershi& Gor ullying *y 3nother <ameH: 3 Corollary o+ the Cor&oratised 3cademy?,P Australian 0ournal o% La*our Law !C, no. 5 G 522?H. 21 Morley, PThe Micro&olitics o+ Fuality.P &DD 22 )t is +rightening to consider this &rocess in the light o+ &sychology e4&eriments in which more than hal+ o+ a grou& ordered to anonymously &unish a victim would do so until they reached the most &otent shoc- availa*le on the generatorL see %tanley Milgram, 4*edience to Authority" An '3perimental 5iew G<ew Yor-: 9ar&er and /ow, !"C?H. 23 )van %Jelenyi and ill Martin, $The Three >aves o+ <ew Class Theories,( Theory and Society# 5ol. 67# .o. 8# Special $ssue on Brea!ing Boundaries" Social Theory G!"DDH. 24 Michel de Certeau, The practice o% everyday li%e. Trans. %. /endall. G er-eley: 0niversity o+ Cali+ornia 7ress !"DEH. 25 %ee &articularly %. /ees, PThe ,raud and the ,iction'.P )n The Human +osts o% anagerialism" Advocating the -ecovery o% Humanity, edited *y %. /ees and G /odley. %ydney: 7luto 7ress 3ustralia, !""E.

26 27

Morley, PThe Micro&olitics o+ Fuality.P :D?. My italics. 28 Morley, PThe Micro&olitics o+ Fuality.P :D?. 29 63cademic sta++ at Gloucestershire A will *e e4&ected to involve undergraduates in their own research, and their success could a++ect &romotion &ros&ects. The university's estate will *e ada&ted to re+lect a reduced need +or lecture theatres.8 /e&orted in $Times 9igher =ducation B <o lectures +or reclassi+ied 'researchers',( htt&:SSwww.timeshighereducation.co.u-Sstory.as&?storyCodeU?22!.!TsectioncodeU5# 30 Michael 3tiyah, P3ddress o+ the 7resident, %ir Michael 3tiyah, '.M., Given at the 3nniversary Meeting on .2 <ovem*er !"".,P .otes and -ecords o% the -oyal Society o% Londo n ?D, no. ! G!"".H. This is &articularly ironic since the /oyal %ociety is the very *irth&lace o+ ritish em&iricism. 31 >alton, P%ocial >or- as a %ocial )nstitution.P :!5. 32 Mic-ers and KouJmin, P<ew Managerialism and 3ustralian 7olice 'rganiJations: 3 Cautionary /esearch <ote.P :!E. 33 /oger Thoms&on, How Business Schools Lost Their 2ay G9arvard usiness %chool 3lumni ulletin, 522C Ncited !E Qune 522DOHL availa*le +rom htt&:SSwww.alumni.h*s.eduS*ulletinS522CSdecem*erS*usinesschools.htm. 34 /a-esh Khurana, Higher Aims to Hired Hands" The Social Trans%ormation o% American Business Schools and the 9n%ul%illed Promise o% anagement as a Pro%essio n G7rinceton 0niversity 7ress, 522CH. 35 $<urem*erg Trial 7roceedings Molume 55,( 3ugust .!, !"?#, htt&:SSwww.*jornetjenesten.d-Ste-sterd-S<urn*erg&rocessenS.!BDB?#.htm 36 Much has *een written a*out whether the )nternet is a-in to Qeremy entham8s 7ano&ticon, +or e4am&le, Mar>ino-ur, $ The 3m*iguous 7ano&ticon: ,oucault and the Codes o+ Cy*ers&ace,( htt&:SSwww.ctheory.netSarticles.as&4?idU.C!, however, these do not ta-e into account the e4&erience o+ the we* through the +ilter o+ a cor&orate &ortal. 37 Kevin D. 9aggerty and /ichard M. =ricson, PThe %urveillant 3ssem*lage,P British 0ournal o% Sociology E!, no. ? G5222H. 38 7aul 3. %trassmann, The politics o% in%ormation management" policy guideline s G<ew Canaan CT: The )n+ormation =conomics 7ress, !""EH. 39 $College secretary wins s&ying damages against em&loyer V !D 3&r 522C V Com&uter>ee-ly.com,( htt&:SSwww.com&uterwee-ly.comS3rticlesS522CS2?S!DS55.5##ScollegeBsecretaryBwinsBs&yingBdamagesBagainstB em&loyer.htm. 40 The $<%> '++ice o+ )ndustrial /elations, >or-&lace %urveillance 3ct,( htt&:SSwww.industrialrelations.nsw.gov.auSrightsSem&loyerSwor-&laceWsurveillanceWact.html, +or e4am&le, rules that it 6does not &revent or signi+icantly restrict em&loyers +rom conducting email and internet surveillance. 3ll the 3ct re1uires is that notice o+ such surveillance is given.8 3t the time o+ writing there is even less &rotection +or em&loyees in the legislation o+ other %tates o+ 3ustralia. 41 Gilles DeleuJe, Postscript on the Societies o% +ontrol, 4cto*er G M)T 7ress, Cam*ridge, M3., !""5H. 42 =llen M. Kirsh, David >. 7hilli&s, and Donna =. Mc)ntyre, P/ecommendations +or the =volution o+ Cy*erlaw,P 0ournal o% +omputer: ediated +ommunication 5, no. 5 G!""#H. 43 $ C <=>% V Technology V Google censors itsel+ +or China,( htt&:SSnews.**c.co.u-S!ShiStechnologyS?#?EE"#.stm. 44 $X0niting and %trengthening 3merica *y 7roviding 3&&ro&riate Tools /e1uired to )nterce&t and '*struct Terrorism G0%3 73T/)'T 3CTH 3ct o+ 522!',( htt&:SSe&ic.orgS&rivacySterrorismShr.!#5.html. 45 The ,oreign )ntelligence %urveillance 3ct $%. 55?D: ,)%3 3mendments 3ct o+ 522D GGovTrac-.usH,( htt&:SSwww.govtrac-.usScongressS*ill.4&d?*illUs!!2B55?D. 3mongst other things this act e++ectively allows 0% agencies un1uestioned access to data *elonging to su*jects o+ 6+oreign &owers8 i.e. anyone outside the 0% using 3merican so+tware. 46 3t the time o+ writing, although there have emerged some state and territory legislations concerning human rights Gthe +irst o+ these was &assed in the 3CT only as late as 522?YH 3ustralia seems to *e the last develo&ed country not to have a national ill o+ /ights. <ew Zealand has had a ill o+ /ights since !""2. 47 =dwin lac-, $B and the Holocaust home G7enguin, 522!H, htt&:SSwww.i*mandtheholocaust.comS. 48 Martin 9eidegger, The 1uestion +oncerning Technology and 4ther 'ssays, Harper Torch*oo!s ; T* 6<=<. G<ew Yor-: 9ar&er T /ow, !"CCH:.!!@.!5. 49 )*id. 50 Ma4 9or-heimer and Theodor >. 3dorno. &ialectic o% 'nlightenment. Translator Qohn Cumming. G<ew Yor-: Continuum 7u*lishing, !"C5H:4i. 51 M[ctor ,ar[as, Qose&h Margolis, and Tom /oc-more, Heidegger and .a>is m G7hiladel&hia: Tem&le 0niversity 7ress, !"D"H.

52

) do not wish to suggest *y this that the &resent university regimes are a return to +ascism or are currently ca&a*le o+ condoning e1uivalent violence, *ut sim&ly to note how the unhealthy trend towards justi+ying total administration with irrational 6instrumental8 reasons contradicts the essential mission o+ universities;however worthy or unworthy the ultimate goal. 53 Malcolm %aunders, PThe Madness and Malady o+ Managerialism,P 1uadrant aga>in e :, no. . 0niversities G522#H.

Dr George Petelin is %enior :ecturer in 3rt Theory and Coordinator o+ 7ostgraduate %tudies at the Fueensland College o+ 3rt, Gri++ith 0niversity. 9is &rimary research interests are visual art criticism and art as research.