The University in Ruins

The University in Ruins by Bill Readings is an interesting analysis of how the university might still function after it has lost its role in the nation state as the instrument that defines and spreads national culture. He argues that the present day university is rather dominated by an idea of excellence that is empty enough to allow for a purely administrative interpretation.

Though Readings makes several big mistakes, especially in attempting to heed the credo of postmodernism, in which relativism dominates, and which renders most interesting arguments impossible because one or another minority, or one or another context is not properly taken into account, he does succeed in succinctly depicting a few important historical sources for the ideal of the university that still dominates many discourses.

Readings underestimates that academics could globally unite, and teach and research in a planetary framework, and that they should be the most important players in administrative decisions. Arguments that academia becomes self-referential then, and that many academics are not suited for administration, for instance, are entirely correct, but should not be seen as decisive in this debate, just as administration should not be judged as inherently evil.

Clearly, there is an open road that stretches far beyond academic nationalism, and the application of empty administrative criteria. Academics have to take their fate into their own hands, instead of sheepishly implementing national and international administrative criteria, while simultaneously attempting to satisfy them in order to gain research grants. Academics should concentrate on what they know to be higher quality research, and they should honour those that attempt to do so persistently.

Black spot

Ok, so I should have locked the screw in a clamp while attempting to remove the point with a hammer. Anyway, the result is a little black bruise on the end of my thumb. It wouldn't be so bad if we didn't live in the Parisian appartment that was known as the cockroach terror under its previous owner. Although we eradicated at least ninety nine percent of the little creatures, they still tend to pop up in my sensitized field of vision, right near the edge. Haunted, I now sometimes mistakenly smack my thumb in the believe that a roach dares attack me.

The origin of specials

Most cultural, sociological, philosophical and other currents that are discussed superficially in contemporary Western European texts can be traced back to Greek society in the fifth century BC, or further. The reason for this is the fact that it is the first European society for which a lot of written source material is available. That triviality is often used as a justification for the existence of a current, while it merely states that not all that much changed in these domains in the last 2500 years. The evolution of thinking is rather slow on average.

There is however no reason to despair. We have all the more motivation to concentrate on what is truely contemporary and new. The surprising fact is rather that so much of the details change continuously, and gain at least temporary importance. These facets are fascinating and we must attempt to concentrate on them.

Toys for us

There are some baby items that work, and others that don't. For ease of future parents, I post a few that do serve a function.

The play mat by Tiny Love is useful from very early on in stimulating the baby's senses. Our two weeks old Alexander had a few minutes of fun attempting to bite the ape's foot and the elephant's trunk, before becoming hysterical either because he did not succeed or because he is addicted to bodily warmth.

The pet by Sigikid (which we have baptized Siegfried) is flat (and therefore manageable to a very young baby) and has nice contrasting checkered and striped panels. The material is soft enough to be pleasant to the baby, yet rough enough to make itself felt as a definite presence.

Financial rip-off

The bail-out money spent by (mostly western) governments was a rip-off for a majority of the population. The right course of action would have been, in my rough naive estimate, to have financial institutions go bankrupt for a total value of about half the amount of the bail-out money. The net effect of such politics would have been much more beneficial. A few more banks should have sunk.

Recall that it was argued that the bail-out money would benefit the little man. The immediate fear of the common man was to lose the savings he had in the bank. However, the fast government guarantees of savings up to a certain amount (depending on the country) alleviated that fear immediately, although it lingered irrationally. That guarantee was necessary and sufficient, in a first instance. At that point, in a crude first step approximation, only people with a lot of money in the bank had to worry. And they did, and pressured governments to save all the money they had in their bank, by saving their bank. And guess what the government did.

Therefore, the tax payers money went to saving the surplus savings of the very rich.
The little man's guarantee never came into effect. The limit of the guarantee of savings never came into effect. And that says it all. The rich remained rich.

Really, they became richer. Banks faired well, and bonuses were paid, not only for good results, but also for the most disastrous year since the great depression. You have to wonder how the word bonus applied to those financial specialists who guided their institution to bankruptcy, only saved by the lobbying power of their clients.

Anyway, that was a first step crude approximation. There is no doubt that in the middle term, banks needed to be saved. But only after a few rich had paid, and after a few ordinary people had reclaimed their guaranteed savings. Because the banking system is in effect important, as was correctly argued, to make sure the market is fluid.

This illustrates well how purely ideological left or right reasoning did not apply to the crisis. One needed ideas from both camps to act reasonably. Note how during the crisis, the right wing was mightely quiet, convinced as they were that the government should intervene to save their donors, and their party. Their ideological failing was commented upon, but never really became the center of a public debate. It was said however that the left could not profit from the manifest failing of rightwing ideology. I would argue that the reason is that the left did not realize that for once, it needed to use right wing ideology (- let the free market take care of itself for a while -) to clean up after the rich. Exceptionally, the free market was implementing left wing ideology. Sure enough, ideological flexibility is near zero these days, so none of the above points were thorougly debated, let alone implemented by prominent politicians.

The danger, one would argue against my position, is that the whole system would have collapsed in no time. I don't believe this is the case, because the demand for basic goods as well as for a large number of luxury products never went down. No enormous amount of jobs, except in the financial industry, and in industries that were already in grave difficulties were lost, and this is no accident. If we had saved less banks, we would just have lost more leechers from the system. Only the part of the system that was not essential for satisfying the still existing and persisting demand was in danger. Only that part profited from the massive bail-out.

Visionary blindness

When Louis XIV both dominated land and sea, he did not build a colonial empire. After brilliantly choosing his faithful strategists, and constructing a fantastic kingdom with plenty of richness for decadent wastefulness and impressive theatrics, he failed to execute a winning strategy for the future because he believed military dominance was rooted on land.

Ever since, France has attempted to catch up, with plenty of trumps in hand, and the occasional outburst of brilliant independence (as exemplified especially by the formidable De Gaulle). It is impressive how the country has maintained such vitality and spirit, while keeping its head buried in the ground.

At the present time, one can enumerate tens of themes on which it is trailing the competition (efficient administration, suburban policy, women's rights, integrating science and industry, a global strategy in higher education, language teaching, automotive industry, ...) which could easily be cured with the country's impressive resources and abilities, but which are not because it still seems to be digesting Louis' strategic mistake.

Only when one lives in a great nation can one feel the frustration of the waste of enormous collective possibilities.

French civil servants : to cut, or what to cut

While the French civil servant mass would seem to be too high (as advocated by the political right wing), cutting in railway, postal service, and especially education public employment is not the way out. Rather, the layered structure of public administration which makes for long pathways from the provincial base to the centralized political top should be trimmed. However, since it is this very backbone that permits the main man to effectively control and gain support from the whole of France, it is not the target of necessary reform. President Sarkozy often does seem to have the right central concept in mind, but too often fails to either be informed well enough, or to overcome political short term strategic reasoning to take the right decision on the ground. He should head the lesson from former shining examples in this department like the Roi Soleil, who managed to govern a country (without rapid means of communication or transport) with a handful of administrators.