Can higher education change the future social stratification of society or will higher education continue to duplicate and perpetuate inequality? Should we hold higher education accountable for decreasing existing and future inequalities? With increasing numbers of graduates finding themselves joining the queues of the unemployed, what type of qualification will prevent this from happening?
In his book on “What are universities for?” Collini (2012, p.11) compares museums and universities and says that both these institutions enable “individuals to place themselves in relation to the world, and especially to time.” He (p.11) refers to Neil McGregor, the Director of the British Museum who said that museums’ purpose is to give “people their place in things.”
If one of the purposes of higher education is to create spaces where individuals can find their places in the bigger scheme of things, let us then not forget that this does not come cheap and that not all students find a place in higher education despite efforts to democratize higher education. Many of those who do find a place in higher education whether on the basis of privilege, potential or a quota, or by begging, stealing or borrowing, may find themselves without a place in the world joining the ranks of the unemployed. There is therefore increasing talk of the Ni-Ni generation – those who are Not in Employment, and Not in Education (Bauman, 2012, p.72) and, increasingly, if they have been higher education, they may find themselves in employment unrelated to what they studied.
Collini (2012) points to the fact that we cannot expect of higher education to unilaterally address the effects of a class-divided society. Bauman (2012) states that our neighborhoods, (as our student profiles…) not necessarily mirror class differences, but rather mirror the crude effects of a market and consumer driven society where the haves and have-nots stay in different neighborhoods, and end up having different trajectories based on their social and cultural capital. I agree with Collini (2012) that we cannot expect of higher education to make a dent in the crass income-based divisions in broader society when all our economic and higher education policies celebrate and perpetuate the effects of having access to markets and capital (in its various forms).
If we accept that access to education has always been based on criteria already found and validated in broader society – whether based on gender, race, culture or income – the expectation that higher education can be different and unilaterally address the inequalities kept in place by the market, is simply not fair (or logic). If we furthermore accept that higher education mirrors societal class differences, we are left with students as consumers – with haves and have nots – and where graduates are supposed to join the ranks for approved bulimic consumers (Bauman, 2012) who consume and throw away in a vicious cycle of rapturous consumption, living in gated communities and security complexes. Bauman (2012) describes the 2011 riots in the UK as “the mutiny of the humiliated” (p. 91) where the rioters did not riot against consumptions and rampant consumerism, but “made a (misguided and doomed) attempt to join” (p. 92). The have-nots or the Ni-Ni, are a category of “defective consumers” – where “non-shopping is the jarring and festering stigma of a life unfulfilled – of nonentity and good-for-nothingness (p. 89). The riots were “impotent rage and despair masked as a display of force; it is envy, masked as triumphant carnival” (p. 122).
If higher education’s purpose is to help graduates find a place, we need to question where that ‘place’ is. Is that ‘place’ among the ranks of a new “feral elite” (Bauman, 2012, p. 94) or as just another unfulfilled and defective customer in the ranks of the Ni-Ni generation? I want to contest the claim by Collini (2012, p. 11) that the purpose of higher education is to help graduates “to place themselves in relation to the world, and especially to time.” We need to help graduates to understand who and what allocates places in the world and the criteria of being part of those who have and those who don’t. Our graduates need to see how the allocation of place shapes inter-generational (dis)placement and categories of people that will be permanently displaced and disenfranchised. We need to create in our students a discomfort with the dominant discourses of the day, whether the impact of neoliberal market ideologies or the results of bulimic cycles of consumption. We need to provide our graduates with the necessary tools to disrupt these discourses and the ability to formulate alternative ways of seeing themselves and others.
I would like to conclude by making two final points: Higher education and especially faculty cannot redefine the purpose of higher education if we, ourselves, have sold out to the highest bidder, when we are comfortable in our role as bulimic consumers – constantly buying and throwing away, buying and throwing away.
We also have to soberly accept that current and future higher education cannot unilaterally change a consumption-obsessed society where protest against exclusion is not against the neoliberal market ideologies driving consumption, but against being excluded and being designated to a place amongst the ranks of those who do not fit in the bulimic cycle of consumption. Bauman (2012, p.68) states that “Social promotion through education served for many years as a fig leaf for the naked and indecent inequality of human conditions and prospects.” I am afraid the fig leaf has dried out…
Bauman, Z. (2012). On education. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
Collini, S. (2012). What are universities for? London, UK: Penguin Books.