An Argument in Favor of Chaos and Suffering

I’m the last person– give my history in the tenure system– to argue that tenure is fine just as it is. It is not. In my book, I argue that the current systems of ranks and tenure ought to be replaced with a strong union and a seniority system with teeth. We all ought to be able to work ourselves into positions of relative comfort and security, and I think this relative comfort and security ought to come earlier rather than later. That’s the greater good, in a nutshell.

A reformed academia begins with a reformed society that funds a national pension system as well as a national health care system. We won’t be able to get those things, of course, until we also imagine a reformed system of labor law that encouraged workplace democracy and bottom-up governance systems, aka unions. These are the issues that too many reformers simply don’t want to be a part of the picture when they discuss tenure reform. Those are the difficult issues.

Given the powerlessness of teachers in higher education, it’s easier to imagine ending tenure once and for all. That’s the tact of Naomi Schaefer Riley in “A Smart Way to End Tenure.” It’s classic right-wing economics because, at bottom, it argues that a system that promotes misery– what is always called “flexibility”– is somehow better for all of us. These ideas have already done immeasurable damage to the rest of the economy. Why do it all over again, just to see if it might work this time?

The Department of “While Rome Burns”

There’s quite a lot of discussion about crisis in my book, both in terms of the two historical crises (the Great Depression and World War II) that had such a profound effect on the teaching of English, and in terms of the contemporary crisis, which I argue is less about pedagogy than it is about institutional power. Academics have allowed others to control our professional lives.

There’s not a fundamental crisis in funding, or in the market for English majors, or the use of part time labor, or the rising costs of tuition. (See this “Redesigning Today’s Graduate Classroom” for a recent example of these misconceptions.) The crisis is symptomatic of working people in academia who no longer believe in the power of organizing together towards collective goals.

The attacks on unions in Wisconsin should be instructive to academics. The budget crisis wasn’t caused by the unions, and it won’t be solved by breaking their power. The attacks on the unions is about trying to shift power away from democratic control so that money and capital can be moved out of the public sphere and into private hands. It’s simply a redistribution of wealth.

Markets are not natural phenomena; they are shaped by more or less explicit policy decisions. We can’t reshape the market for liberal arts graduate students simply by teaching them differently. We have to seize control of the mechanisms of policy and create a market that suits our goals. The only way to do that is to organized ourselves into unions. Right now, the rest is fiddling.

Oh What A Tangled Web We Weave…

Rahm Emanuel, mayor elect of Chicago, famously said ““You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” Conservatives made a lot of silly hay out of this (this one claimed that the economy would probably “recover on its own”) but Emanuel was, as usual, simply being ironic and blunt about political reality. In particular, he meant that the financial crisis allowed the administration to introduce regulations– and stimulus money– that it could not do otherwise.

I don’t think the Obama administration has gone far enough with financial regulations, or stimulus, but the point remains: we hate regulations until the economy collapses, and then we bemoan their absence like a long lost lover. The politically unfeasible is now politically necessary. That’s what the Republicans believe justify their ongoing attacks on workplace democracy, including legislation in Ohio that specifically targets faculty unions. It’s Big Lie rhetoric.

In fact, polls show that the public disagrees with the attacks on collective bargaining. Perhaps as a result, the governor of Wisconsin seems poised to negotiate the very compromise that he said he would never accept. The real crisis, I think, which I hope the unions in particular will take advantage of, is the sense of powerlessness that a majority of Americans feel, as their standard– and quality– of living continues to erode. It’s not just jobs.

It’s a long term structural problem created by more than three decades of income redistribution from the poor, working and middle classes, to the rich. The attempt to destroy the public sector unions– the last bastion of real power for working people– has been the final straw for many people. We cannot fix the budget problems unless we begin to revitalize democracy via card check reform and address the taxation inequities that have created the mess.

Autocratic Rhetoric

I continue to be fascinated– fascinated in the way I am fascinated by a train wreck– at the ways that the political rhetoric of the now-revolutionary Arab North Africa echos or overlaps the political rhetoric of the political crisis in the American Midwest. Colonel Gaddafi says he will never step down or negotiate with protesters; Governor Walker says there can be no compromise over collective bargaining rights. The situations are vastly different, of course, which make the similarities all the more interesting.

Here in the U.S., and I suspect in North Africa, this is at least in part due to our use of what I call a sports or game rhetoric that makes no truth claims. The goal isn’t veracity, it’s the demoralization of your opponent. On the other hand, this rhetoric does reflect reality, however mediated, in that it seems to help shape actual policy. Gaddafi says this and then resorts to a massive violent repression; Walker has shown no signs of a willingness to negotiate with either the unions or his democratic opponents.

A sports rhetoric is always tinged with autocratic implications. If you want to win the World Series, you don’t offer to negotiate. A sports rhetoric is a rhetoric about vanquishing your foe, utterly and once and for all. Again, it makes no claims to veracity. You devastate your opponent completely and then you go home and have a beer. Next season the cycle starts anew. It’s easy to see the loigc of this sort of rhetoric for Gaddafi. He’s maintained power by violent means and he’s not changing. The sports rhetoric is a Trojan horse.

It’s more difficult to understand Governor Walker. Even more perplexing, many conservatives seem to believe that his game rhetoric, despite all indications to the contrary, actually does make truth claims. He claims, for example, that he– and his allies in the municipal and county governments– need to end collective bargaining in order to maximize flexibility. In effect, he is making the autocratic claim that the democratic process is too cumbersome. Government officials, in other words, when faced with budget problems, cannot negotiate a solution.

We need to respond to whatever problem that arises so quickly that we cannot waste time by seeking the input and advice of the people directly affected. Democracy, in other words, is a deliberative process, one requiring time and reflection and careful thought; we don’t have time for all that and if we indulge in it disaster looms. It’s a wildly unlikely claim. In fact, what he is saying is that if he– or local officials– participate in the democratic process, they cannot ensure that their own ideas will prevail. I think Gaddafi would agree.