Stefan Collini challenges the common claim that universities need to show that they help to make money in order to justify getting more money.

I will begin by distinguishing between three logics or tendencies in modernity: the logic of technology, the logic of the functional allocation of social positions, and the logic of political power. This conception of three logics or developmental tendencies suggests that the modern world is heterogeneous. Each logic, as it exists potentially, contains within it more than one option. The development itself excludes certain options either forever, or merely for the present. If there were one logic, fewer and fewer potentialities (...) would present themselves in time, and the unfolding of the potentialities would become narrower and increasingly unilinear. However, if there is not only one logic, but three, and if they are relatively although not entirely independent, then the selection of one logic from the three possiblities is not just an internal matter because the environment is essential in the process of eliminating certain possibilities and letting others evolve more forcefully. A category cannot develop possibilities other than the ones which lie dormant in it at the moment of its conception. In this respect the development of each of the logics of modernity is self-propelling. Yet, which of the possiblities will be selected and which of them eliminated—for the short-term or long-term—is not written on the body of the category as it exists potentially. I may add, that even if the evolution of one of the constituents is thwarted for only an historically insignificant time, its character will be different, and this may influence the other logics in a different manner. This is why it would be foolish to think of the developmental logics in teleological terms. Of course, retrospectively, one can establish a teleological sequence, but this would prove only the one thing we already know: that all categories can develop out of themselves only those realities which exist in a state of slumber during their coming-into-being. (shrink)

Universities and Innovation Economies examines the rise and fall of the mass university and post-industrial society, considering how we might revitalize economic and intellectual creativity. Looking to a much more inventive social and economic paradigm to drive long-term growth, the author argues for a smaller, leaner, more effective university model - one capable of delivering a greater degree of high-level discovery and creative power.

The complete system of knowledge is a standard trope of science fiction, a techno-utopian dream and an aesthetic ideal. It is Solomon’s House, the Encyclopaedia and the Museum. It is also an ideology – of Enlightenment, High Modernism and absolute governance. Far from ending the dream of a total archive, 20th-century positivist rationality brought it ever closer. From Paul Otlet’s ‘Mundaneum’ to Mass-Observation, from the Unity of Science movement to Wikipedia, the dream of universal knowledge dies hard. As a political (...) tool, the total archive encompasses population statistics, gross domestic product, indices of the Standard of Living and the international ideology of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the World Health Organization, the free market and, most recently, Big Data. Questions of the total archive engage key issues in the philosophy of classification, the poetics of the universal, the ideology of surveillance and the technologies of information retrieval. What are the social structures and political dynamics required to sustain total archives, and what are the temporalities implied by such projects? This introduction and the articles that follow describe and place in historical context a series of concrete instances of totality. Our analysis is arranged according to four central themes: the relationship between the Archive (singular) and archives (plural); the image of the archive and the aesthetics of totality; pathologies of accumulation; and the specific historical trajectory of the total archive in the 19th and 20th centuries. (shrink)

In The Value of the Humanities prize-winning critic Helen Small assesses the value of the Humanities, eloquently examining five historical arguments in defence of the Humanities.

This article distinguishes between two constituents of modernity which together stand for the essence of modernity. It also distinguishes between three logics or tendencies in modernity. In pursuit of these aims it concentrates on a single issue, arguing that one cannot understand modernity, particularly not its heterogeneous character, from the viewpoint of the technological imagination (the Heideggerian Gestell) alone. The article interprets modernity as a world that draws on two sources of imagination: the technological and the historical. Most of this (...) article is devoted to discussing these two kinds of imagination, their conflicts, balances, and imbalances within each of the three logics of modernity. The article demonstrates that the balance between the two kinds of imagination is different in each of the three logics, and that the role of the historical imagination is different not only in terms of force and magnitude but also in kind. (shrink)

Universities have flourished in the modern era as central public institutions and bases for critical thought. They are currently challenged by a variety of social forces and undergoing a deep transformation in both their internal structure and their relationship to the rest of society. Critical theorists need to assess this both in order to grasp adequately the social conditions of their own work and because the transformation of universities is central to a more general intensification of social inequality, privatization of (...) public institutions, and reorganization of the relation of access to knowledge. This is also a pivotal instance for asking basic questions about the senses in which the university is or may be ‘public’: (1) where does its money come from? (2) who governs? (3) who benefits? and (4) how is knowledge produced and circulated? (shrink)