Holmwood,John."TheIdeaofaPublicUniversity."AManifestoforthePublicUniversity.Ed.JohnHolmwood.

London:
BloomsburyAcademic,2011.1226.BloomsburyCollections.Web.24Aug.2015.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781849666459.ch001>.
RetrievedfromBloomsburyCollections,www.bloomsburycollections.com
Copyright JohnHolmwood2011.Allrightsreserved.Furtherreproductionordistributionisprohibitedwithoutprior
permissioninwritingfromthepublishers.

AManifestoforthePublicUniversity
JohnHolmwood(ed)
BloomsburyAcademic2011
BloomsburyOpenAccess

ChapterDOI

10.5040/9781849666459.ch001

Page
Range

1226

Chapter1.TheIdeaofaPublicUniversity
JohnHolmwood
Inthischapter,Iwanttoaddresstheideaofthepublicuniversityspecifically,thefunctionsthatmightbeattributedtoitandtodoso
inthecontextofchangesinthewiderenvironmentinwhichuniversitiesoperate.Ishallalsoexaminetheideaofthepublic(or
publics),fromwhichthemodernuniversitymightderiveitsmeaningasapublicuniversity.Indoingso,Iwilldrawontheworkofthe
Americanpragmatistphilosopher,JohnDewey.
IshallalsoconnectthesefunctionstothethemeoftheBigSociety,somethingpromotedbythePrimeMinister,DavidCameron,as
thealternativetoBigGovernmentandthekeyideabehindreformsacrossanumberofdifferentsectors.Ishallsuggestthatthe
problemsassociatedwiththisideaderivefromafailuretoarticulatethemeaningofthepublic(orpublics).
TheproblemsIaddressarenotnew.Writingin1963,ClarkKerr(2001[1963])setoutthehistoryofthemodernresearchuniversity
ormultiversityasaninstitutionsustainedbycontractresearchandcontinuousgovernmentgrants.Withincreasedpublicfunding
cameanincreasedpoliticalinterestinusingthatfundingtodirecttheuniversitytowardsmeetingpublicpolicyobjectives.Forthemost
part,thesecametobereducedtothetwinobjectivesofsecuringeconomicgrowthandaneducatedworkforce.However,forKerr,the
universityalsoservedasocialmission.Ifthisremainedobscuredbyitsotherfunctions,theexplanationwas,inpart,becausetherise
ofmasshighereducationwasalsoassociatedwithageneralsocietalprocessofdemocraticinclusionandanarrowingofeconomic
inequalities.[10]
Whatisradicallydifferentaboutourowntimes,amidthecontinuities,isthatforthefirsttimetheuniversityisbeingaddressedasan
instrumenttoextendsocialinequality.Thepromotionofthemarketmechanisminhighereducationissettoreproduceandsolidify
inequalities,ratherthantodissolvethem.Wecannolonger,then,avoidtheissueoftheuniversity'ssocialmissionand,inparticular,
itsroleinsocialjustice.FollowingDewey,Ishallarguethattheproblemsofthepublicareproblemsofsocialjustice.Thefailureof
presentpoliciesandthedebatethatsurroundsthemisthecommonreductionoftheuniversitytoinstrumentalfunctions.

Thefunctionsofauniversity
Idonotintendtoprovideadetailedhistoryoftheuniversity.Aninstitutionthatcantraceitsoriginstothethirteenthandfourteenth
century,ithascometobeacentralpartofthemodernsocialorder,and,inthecourseofthatjourney,ithasdrawnitscharacterand
functionsfromthewiderenvironmentinwhichitfindsitself.Anumberofkeyfunctionshavebeenattributedtotheuniversityfromthat,
endorsedbyImmanuelKantandAlexandervonHumboldt,oftheuniversityasarepositoryofreasonandculture(asexpressedby
thehumanitiesandthefacultyofphilosophy),toCardinalJohnHenryNewman'sideaoftheuniversityasacommunityengagedinthe
educationofcharacterandintellect(asexpressedinthecollegiateorganizationofOxfordandCambridge).WhereasHumboldt

arguedfortheimportanceofresearchalongsideteaching,Newmansawnoroleforresearchwithintheuniversity,believingittobe
organizedaroundutilitarianendsandtobesomethingthatcouldbepursuedjustaseffectivelyoutsidetheuniversity,whereitwould
notconflictwiththelatter'sproperpurposes.
Theseideasoftheuniversityhaveapowerfulhold,butwerealreadyindeclinewhenMaxWeberwrotehisessayonscienceasa
vocation(1948[1919]).Accordingtohim,scholarshipandresearchwerebecomingmorespecializedandauniversityappointment
wasincreasinglyseen,notintermsofavocation,butintermsofemploymentandacareerembeddedwithinabureaucratic
organization.[11]WeberwasreflectingontheriseoftheuniversityintheUnitedStatesand,inpart,ontheimpactofthelatter's
democraticethos,whichencouragedapracticalattitudetoeducationanditsvalueineveryday,commerciallife.Incontrast,theideal
ofthepursuitofknowledgeasavocationbetrayeditsoriginaspartofanupperclassstatusordertowhichothersmightaspiretobe
recruited(thoughnotwomenorJewstothelatter,Webersaid,abandonallhopeofacademicadvancement[1948(1919):134]
and,ofcourse,intheUSA,unnoticedbyWeber,notblackAmericans,whoweretobesegregatedscholars[Wilson2006]untilthe
1960s).
Formuchofthetwentiethcentury,thedevelopmentofuniversitiesintheUnitedStatesseemedtoprogressinamannerdifferentto
thatofothercountries.Tobesure,theriseofthecivicuniversitiesinEnglandandWalesfromthelatenineteenthcenturyonwards,
togetherwiththeratherdifferentScottishuniversities,hadbeguntoloosentheholdofthecollegiateideaoftheuniversityandits
orientationtowardtheliberalprofessions.AsSandersonargues,thenewcivicuniversitiesweredesignedtomeetthedemandsof
localbusinesselites(1972).[12]However,theholdofthecollegiateideawasalsoevidentintheRobbinsReport(1963).Itgaveriseto
thecreationofsevennewuniversities,whichincorporatedthecollegiateideaintotheirorganizationandarchitecture.Theideathata
universityeducationwasnotsimplyaboutthetransmissionofskills,butalsoaboutabroaderdevelopmentoftheindividualwhich
requiredinteractionamongteachers,whoalsopursuedresearch,andamongstudents,whowereinresidenceandpartofa
communityofindividualspursuingcoursesofstudytogether,wasacentralidea(whichalsobecamethenormforoldercivic
universities,too).
Thetraditionalideaoftheuniversity,asWeberacknowledged,servedanelitestatusorder.InEnglandthisinvolvedanalignmentof
theprivatesecondaryschools,suchasEton,Harrow,WestminsterandWinchester,withOxbridgecolleges,somethingalsoreflected
intheircommonarchitectureofquadrangle,dininghallandchapel.Asignificantpartofthehistoryoftheuniversityinthetwentieth
century,then,isitsaccommodationtothetransformationofthatstatusorderandthedemocratizationofthewidersocietythatit
served.ThisispreciselythesignificanceoftheRobbinsReportanditsrecommendationofasystemofpublichighereducationandits
expansion.
Althoughtheparticularitiesofuniversityandsecondaryschoolsystemsdifferacrosscountriesand,indeed,inthecaseoftheUK
withinthem,too,therearesimilaritiesinhowtheyhavedeveloped.Paradoxically,givenitsdeterminedlyantielitistethos,theUnited
Statesisoneofthefewcountriestohaveprivateuniversitiestheivyleaguealongsidestatefundedinstitutions(goingbacktothe
landgrantinstitutionsintroducedbyPresidentLincoln).Otherwise,thedominantmodelisofpubliclyfundedinstitutions.Some
universities,likethepubliclyfundedinstitutionsoftheUnitedStates,UnitedKingdom,AustraliaandNewZealand,alsochargetuition
feestostudents(incontrasttothepublicfundingofuniversalsecondaryeducation).Withthechargingoffeescomestheattenuation
oftheresidentialideaoftheuniversity,asstudentscombinestudywithparttimeworkandseektoreducetheircostsbylivingathome
andattendingthelocaluniversity.Itisinthiscontextthattherelativelyequalstatusofdifferentinstitutionsbecomesimportant,orelse
statusdifferencesalsoexpresstheabilitytopay.ThisisaverycleartensionintheUSsystemofhighereducationandonethatthe
governmentisnowseekingtointroduceintoBritain.[13]
AtthesametimethatLordRobbinsdeliveredhisreporttotheBritishParliament,ClarkKerr,PresidentoftheUniversityofCalifornia,
deliveredhisGodkinlecturesontheusesoftheuniversity(Kerr2001[1963]).Hespokeofthetransformationoftheuniversityintoa
multiversity.Heusedthistermtoindicatethedifferentfunctions,oruses,ofthemodernuniversityandhowithadbeentransformed
fromasinglecommunityintoamultiplicityofcommunities,eachreflectingitsdifferentfunctions.Kerrwasalsoclearthatwhilemodern
universities(andtheiracademicconstituencies)werejealousoftheirautonomy,theywerealsohighlyadaptiveinstitutions.Mostof
thechangeshadtakenplaceasaconsequenceofchangesinthewidersocialenvironment,towhichtheuniversityhadadjusted,but
ineachcasetheadjustmenthadalsobeenbroughtaboutbytheactiveengagementofatleastoneofitsconstituentcommunities.
Thisfrequentlygaverisetoconflictwithinthemultiversity,justinsofarasaconflictofinterestamongitsdifferentconstituencieswas
associatedwithshiftsinthevaluationofitsdifferentactivities(forexample,withregardtorewardsofpromotion,statusandthelike).
Themultiversity,forKerr,then,isnecessarilypluralist,butalsonecessarilyintension.Whatisatissue,now,istheextenttowhichthat
pluralityandtensionisbeingresolvedbythereductionoftheuniversitytothedeterminationbythemarketandutility,wherethe
universitybecomesnotamultiversitybutamonoversitythatis,neitheracommunityinNewman'ssensenorapluralityof
communitiesinKerr's,butacorporationdeliveringhighereducation.
Essentially,Kerrdescribestwobroadtrends.Thefirstwasashiftfromtheuniversityconcernedwithteaching(associatedwiththe
liberalprofessionsoflawandreligiousministry,andsubsequentlymedicine)tooneconcernedwithresearch(withitsemphasison
postgraduateratherthanundergraduateeducation).Thesecondistheshiftfromhighereducationastheprovinceofanelite(initially,
ofmen)toitbeingmadeavailableforallaspartofamasseducationsystemthatintegratedsecondaryschooleducationwithhigher
education.EachdevelopmentisassociatedwithwhatKerrcalledtheknowledgeindustries.Theseincorporatedresearchand
developmentasaspectsofthecorporatecapitalisteconomyand,atthesametime,increasedthedemandforaneducatedworkforce
(ineffect,creatingnewprofessionsandquasiprofessions,basedonuniversitylearning).However,theexpansionofthemass

educationsystemwasalsoassociatedwithdemocratization,aseducationbecameseenasarighttobeguaranteedbythestateand
equalopportunitiesbecameembodiedwithinthatright(although,ofcourse,intheUnitedStatesraciallysegregatedhighereducation
remainedareality,unremarkedbyKerrwhenhefirstdeliveredhislectures).
Thus,anumberofrefractionsseparateCardinalNewman'sdisparagementofresearchanditsutility,inhisexpressionoftheessential
ideaoftheuniversity,fromClarkKerr'sideaofthemultiversityanditsmultipleutilities.Kerr'smultiversityisaresearchuniversityandit
islocatedinamasseducationsystem.Withtheriseoftheknowledgeeconomyithasalsobecomeincreasinglyanobjectofpublic
policy.Wheretheuniversityhadpreviouslybeenmaintainedbyprivateandpublicendowments,themultiversitywouldincreasingly
besustainedbycontractresearchandcontinuousgovernmentgrants.EvenifNewman'shighidealswereattenuated,thegrowthof
theresearchfunctionwithinuniversitiesdidnotdisplacetheimportanceofteaching.However,itdidfrequentlybringresearchinto
conflictwithit.Inaddition,anewconflictemergedbetweenexternalpressurestomakeeducationreflectthedemandsof
employmentandvocationaltrainingandtheinternalorientationofacademicstowardthereproductionofdisciplinesandrecruitment
topostgraduateprogrammes.[14]
Kerr'sargumentscoincidedwiththeexpansionofhighereducationandwiththeenrolmentofagenerationofstudents,manyofwhom
werethefirstintheirfamiliestoattenduniversities.Hiswiderargumentsabouttheuniversitywerequicklyovertakenbyawaveof
studentandfacultyradicalismthatattackedhisacceptancethatoneofitsroleswasengagementwiththecorporateeconomy.His
criticsperceivedadifferentrolefortheuniversity,aspartofthedemocratizationofpubliclifeagainstitsincreasingdominationby
corporateinterests.Inthisway,anolderideaoftheuniversityasacommunityengagedwithfundamentalissuesofcultureandpublic
lifewasalsoarticulated,ifonlybriefly,andfrequentlywitharadicalandcombativetone.
Kerr'saccountofthemodernuniversitywasprescient.Thestudentsfordemocracyofthe1960sand1970shavebecomerecastas
consumersofeducationandinvestorsintheirownhumancapital(evenifthestudentoccupationsandproteststhathave
accompaniedthecurrentgovernment'splanshaveprovidedanechoofthosepastconcerns).[15]Kerr'sbookhasbeenrepublished
fourtimes,whenhereturnedtohisoriginalthemeswiththebenefitofhindsight.Eachneweditionshowshimbecomingprogressively
lesssanguineandmoreconcernedaboutthefuture.Hecametosuggestthatsomeofthefunctionsofthemultiversitymightatrophy
andthatamorerestrictedfundingenvironment(associatedinhislocalcontextwithrelativelypoorproductivitygrowthintheUS
economyandcompetingdemandsforpublicfunds)wouldincreasecompetitionamonguniversities,acompetitioninwhichprivately
fundeduniversitiesmightbenefitoverthosestillreliantonsomepublicfunding.[16]
Universities,Kerrargued,wouldalsoconfrontresistancetospendingonactivitiesotherthanthosethatcouldbejustifiedintermsof
theircontributiontohealthandmedicine,economicgrowthorthedevelopmentofthemilitaryindustrialcomplex,allofwhichcould
commandsupportintheelectoralpoliticsofpublicspending.Therewouldbeadecline,hesuggested,inthehumanitiesandmost
socialsciences,exceptthattheyfunctionedinsupportofthesebigthreetopics,andtherewouldbeadeclineintheconcernwith
equalitiesandthesocialmissionoftheuniversity.Eachofthesedevelopments,then,representsapotentialpathologyofthemodern
university,especiallyoftheresearchuniversity.Inthisrespect,then,forKerr,thehealthofauniversitycannotbejudgedsimplybyits
financialpositionorplacewithinglobalrankorders,butbytheextenttowhichitmanagesthetensionsamongitsdifferentpurposes.
Despitethefactthatnearlyalluniversityvicechancellorsandsenioradministrators,andcivilservantsinvolvedinhighereducation,
havereadKerr'saccountofthemultiversity,itishardtoresisttheconclusionthatcurrentpoliciesforhighereducationintheUK
reinforcetheverypathologiesthatKerrdescribed.Forexample,thecurrentemphasisisuponthebigthreetopicsandresearchisto
bedrivenbyafundingagendathatemphasizestheimportanceofimpactovertheshortandmediumterm.Publicfundingfor
teachinginthearts,humanitiesandsocialscienceshasbeenwithdrawn,toberetainedonlyforprioritysubjects(themselves
definedbyreferencetothebigthree).Otherwise,thedirectionofuniversityteachingandresearchistobedeterminedbythemarket,
tobedrivenbystudentchoicesinthelightoftheir(necessarilypartialandproblematic)knowledgeofthedifferentialreturnsto
educationfromdifferentsubjectsanduniversities.Thesedifferentialreturnsareexpectedtobematchedbydifferentialfees,withfor
profitprovidersandfurthereducationcollegesenteringtoundercutfeesatthelowerend.Educationtodegreelevelwillnolonger
presupposeauniversityeducation,areturntothesituationthatprevailedpriortotheRobbinsReport.
Theintroductionofstudentfeesdoesnotcreateasystemthatissustainableforthefuture.Withfeesat6,000,studentswillpaymore
forcoursesthatwillreceivefewerresourcesthantheydounderthesystemoffundingthatisbeingreplaced.Withfeesat9,000,and
settorisehigherinthefuture,studentswillbeaskedtopayhighfeesfortheprivilegeofattendingaselectiveuniversitywiththelikely
consequencethataportionofthosefees(especiallywhenfeesrisefurther)willbeusedtofundresearch.Theconflictbetween
teachingandresearchthatKerrarguedtobecharacteristicoftheresearchuniversityissettocontinue.Indeed,itisnowmade
generaltothesystem,despitetheemphasisonplacingthestudentatthecentre,withteachinguniversitiesstarvedofresources
(includingaccesstoresearchfunding)andresearchuniversitiesprivilegingresearchoverteaching.Insofarasstudentsareattracted
bythebrand,theywillbeencouragedtoseekaplaceataselectiveuniversityregardlessofitsteachingqualityoroftheproportion
ofthefeesthattheybringbeingdevotedtoteaching.
Finally,theintroductionofhigher,differentiatedstudentfeesexacerbatesissuesofequalityofaccessandunderminesthesocial
missionofuniversitiesintermsofthedemocratizationofhighereducation.Indeed,thedifferentiationofuniversitiesislikelyto
reinforcecurrenttendencieswheremoststudentsarefrommiddleclassbackgrounds,withlowparticipationfromstudentsfrom
workingclassbackgrounds.Moreover,asRoberts(2010)hassuggested,thedifferentiationoftypesofuniversitiesislikelytocreatea
divisionbetweenstudentsfromtheuppermiddleclassandthosefromthemiddleclass,withtheformerconcentratedinselective
universities.[17]

Writingin1931inhisbookonEquality,R.H.TawneyobservedthattheEnglishmakeareligionofinequalityand,further,thatthey
seemtoliketobegovernedbyEtonians(1964[1931]).Ournewpoliticalgoverningcastehascertainlymadethemarketitsarticleof
faith,[18]withthecynicalconsequencethatonlythoseabletoattendeliteinstitutionswillhavetheadvantageofenjoyingthewider
purposesofeducationthathavepreviouslysustainedoursystemofpublicuniversities.If,asNewfieldargues(2008),theattackupon
thepublicuniversityisanattackuponthemiddleclassthatis,thewiderpopulation(includingwomenandethnicminorities)brought
intouniversitiesfollowingtheexpansionofmasshighereducationand,thuschallenginghighereducationasaformofculturalcapital
appropriatefortheprivilegedfewthenthereformscurrentlybeingenactedinEnglandrepresentthatattackinitspureform.Itisnot
theconsequenceoftheatrophyofpublicfundingandvariouskindsofpopulisttaxrevoltsasskirmisheswithintheculturalwars.Itis
systematicgovernmentpolicydesignedtodismantlefiftyyearsofeducationalpolicythatsoughttoestablisheducationasasocial
right.

Theideaofthepublic
Forthemostpart,Kerrwasconcernedtoprovidesociologicaldescriptionratherthanphilosophicalinsight.Intheseterms,therecan
benowaybackfromthemultiversitytoanearlierideaoftheuniversity,norcanthepublicuniversitybedefendedbyreferenceto
principlesthatderivefromastatusorderwithwhichitisnowinconflict.However,itisimportanttoacknowledgethatthenecessary
publicfunctionsoftheuniversityarepartofthesameprocessesofdevelopmentthatseemnowtobecallingthemintoquestion.To
argueforthepublicuniversityanditssocialmissionisnottolookbacktoagoldenageoftheuniversitybeforemasshigher
education,buttoembracetheveryprinciplesassociatedwiththedevelopmentofmasshighereducation.
ForKerr,theatrophyofthepublicfunctionsoftheuniversityrepresentsapotentialcrisisintheadvancementoftrainedintelligence
(2001[1995])andthis,forhim,iswhatthefuturerequires,notnostalgiafora(mispresented)past.KerrderivesthephrasefromAlfred
NorthWhitehead,butasimilartermisusedbytheAmericanpragmatistphilosopher,JohnDewey,inhisideaofcollective
intelligence.Isuggestthatitisthroughtheideaofthepublicuniversityasaninstrumentforcollectiveintelligencethatwecanbegin
tounderstanditsfundamentalroleforcultureandforpubliclife.Inwhatremainsofthischapter,Ishalladdressthisrequirementin
termsoftheideaofthepublicandhowitsinterestsmaybeservedbytheuniversity.
First,Iwanttoexaminetherhetoricofthepublicanditsinterests,asitfunctionsinthejustificationsofcurrentpolicies,especially
thoseassociatedwiththeBigSocietyandtheoppositiontoBigGovernment.Thepublicisvariouslyinvokedashavinganinterest
inthereductionofthefiscaldeficit,aninterestingreaterchoiceandaninterestintheefficientdeliveryofservices.Inthisway,the
publicisidentifiedasanaggregateofprivateindividualsandgovernmentistaskedwithrepresentingitsinterests.Thepublicinterest,
conceivedinthisway,issetagainstatendencyofgroupstoexertaformofcollectivepowertomaintainservicestotheirown,private
benefit.Inthisway,producersofservicesaresetagainstconsumersandthewaytopreventtheirmonopolisticappropriationisvia
amechanismthatservestheirinterestsdirectly,thatofthemarket.
Indeed,theproblemofcollectivitiesisextendedtogovernmentitself,which,apparently,mustrepresentthepublicagainstitsown
tendencytoappropriatedecisionmaking.Onitswebsite,theCabinetOfficestatesthat,TheBigSocietyisabouthelpingpeopleto
cometogethertoimprovetheirownlives.It'saboutputtingmorepowerinpeople'shandsamassivetransferofpowerfrom
Whitehalltolocalcommunities.[19]Oneoftheweaknessesofthisrhetoricisthatthetransferistocommunitiesinwhichmarketsalso
operate.Atbest,itrepresentstheselforganizingcommunityasthesolutiontomarketfailure.[20]However,themarketisalso
representedasputtingmorepowerinpeople'shandsandsothepoliciesthatpromotetheBigSocietyaresimultaneouslyengaged
withthepromotionofthemarket.Whatismissingisanyunderstandingthatthemarketisitselfantisocial,bringingaboutthe
disorganizationofthecommunitywhoseempowermentisbeingsought.TheBigSocietyiscounteredtotheBigState,butthereis
noequivalentanalysisoftheroleofthemarket.
ThefirstusageofthetermBigSocietyoritsanalogue,theGreatSocietyoccursinaspeechbyPresidentWoodrowWilsonin
1913.Heusesittodescribetheshiftfromasocietyofindividualstoasocietywheretherelationamongindividualswasmediatedby
largescaleorganizations,primarilythoseofthecorporateeconomy.ThisthemewastakenupbyGrahamWallasinabook,TheGreat
Society(1936),butwhichhedescribesinaprefaceashavingagestationbackin1910andtodiscussionswiththeAmericanpolitical
theorist,WalterLippmann.IdonotwanttogetintothenatureofWallasargumentforanewsocialpsychology,butLippmann's(1925)
contributiontothedebateiscrucial,sinceitformsthecontextofJohnDewey'sintervention.
Essentially,thecoreofLippmann'sargumentisthatincreasedsocialcomplexityunderminesthepossibilityofdemocracy
approximatingtheformsendorsedbystandardliberalaccountsofrepresentativedemocracy.Thepublic,forLippmann,is
increasinglyillequippedtomakethesortofjudgementsattributedtoitwithindemocratictheory.Hearguesthatthepublicisa
phantomcategory(thatis,somethingthatfunctionedonlyintheoriesofdemocracyandhadlittlerealsubstance).ForLippmann,
whatDeweycametocalltheeclipseofthepublicisanecessaryconsequenceofthecomplexityofmodernsocietiesthat
increasinglyrequiredorganizedexpertiseofvariouskinds.Inconsequence,expertopinionwouldreplacepublicopinionand
democracywouldnecessarilybeattenuated.Lippmannanticipatedthatexpertopinionwouldoperateinconjunctionwiththestate
andeconomiccorporationsand,ineffect,wouldbecoproducedbythem.Theseareideasabouttherelationbetweenknowledge
andpublicpolicythatcontinuetodeterminethethinkingofresearchcouncilsandgovernment,especiallyintheUKintermsofthe
impactagenda(ResearchCouncilsUKn.d.).
Dewey'sbook,ThePublicandItsProblems(1927),isaripostetoLippmann.However,healsonotedthattheeclipseofthepublicis
prefiguredintheveryideaofthemarketeconomyinwhichdecisionsby(consumer)sovereignindividualsareperceivedtobe
efficientlyaggregatedthroughimpersonalmarketexchanges.Thisisheldtobeincontrasttotheirinefficientaggregationbycollective

politicaldecisionmakingthroughtheagencyofthestate.Inotherwords,accordingtoDewey,theideaofapoliticalrealminwhichthe
publicexpressesitsdemocraticwillisalreadyseverelycompromisedbytheliberaldistrustofgroup,orcollective,actionsandthe
ideathatitisonlythemarketthatcanproperlyexpressthegeneralinterest.
Deweyproposestorescuethepublicfromitseclipsebymarketandexpertopinionbyaradicalrefocusingofpoliticalphilosophy,not
asatheoryofthestateanditsforms,butasatheoryofthepublicandoftherelationofinstitutionalformstothepublic,withthe
universityasonecrucialinstitutionalform.Hedoessothroughanaccountofthesocialself,whichhecontrastswiththeliberalself,
asexpressedineconomicsandpoliticaltheory(inthisway,alsoindicatingthenormativeassumptionsintheliberalideaof
instrumentalknowledge).
Deweybeginsfromtheargumentthattheindividualisnecessarilyasocialbeinginvolvedinassociativelife,andthatthisistrueof
whatareconventionallyregardedasprivateactionsaswellasofpublicactions.[21]ForDewey,individualsformassociations,butthey
arealsoformedbyassociations.Atthesametime,themultiplicityofassociationsandtheirinterconnectedactionshave
consequences.Inallofthis,Dewey'sideaofapublic,andoftheseveralnatureofpublics,iscrucial.Itcontainsastrongideaof
democracyassociatedwithparticipationanddialogue,butdoesnotdenythattherewillbefunctionallydifferentiatedpublics,whose
articulationwillbeatissue.Thekeytohisdefinitionofapubliciscontainedintheideaofactionintheworldhavingeffectsand
consequencesthatareramifiedandimpactuponotherswhoarenottheinitiatorsoftheaction.Essentially,allactionisassociative
action,butapublicisbroughtintobeinginconsequenceofbeingindirectlyandseriouslyaffectedbythoseactionsofothers.His
analysisoftheproblemofmoderndemocracy,then,isconcernedwiththeimbalanceinthedevelopmentofassociationsandthe
proliferationofproblemsinareaswherethepubliccannotproperlydefenditself.
Thisimmediatelyraisestheissueofthestateastherepresentativeofthepublic.ItisthepointatwhichDeweyshiftsgeartoargue
thatthewiderideaofapubliccanachievealevelofgeneralitythatrequiresorganizationandpersonneltoexpressit.Thisistheidea
ofastate,understoodasasetofpublicauthorities.Thus,Deweyproposesthat,thelasting,extensiveandseriousconsequencesof
associatedactivitybringintoexistenceapublic.Initselfitisunorganizedandformless.Bymeansofofficialsandtheirspecialpowers
itbecomesastate.Apublicarticulatedandoperatingthroughrepresentativeofficersisthestatethereisnostatewithouta
government,butalsothereisnonewithoutthepublic(1927:67).
Deweybynomeanssuggeststhatthesedevelopmentsmeanthatastatenecessarilywillactinthepublicinterestpowercanbe
accrued,authoritycanbeexerciseddespoticallyand,indeed,thepersonnelofgovernmentcanactontheirownprivateorother
specialinterests.Thefundamentalpoint,however,isthatthestatetakesitsmeaningfromtheideaofapublicanditsinterests,and
thatthisisconceivedasadynamicthing.Thismeansthat,forDewey,notonlyassociationsexternaltothestate,butthestateitself
anditsmodesoforganizationaresubjecttochangeandrevisioninthelightofotherchangesinthedevelopmentofassociativelife.In
otherwords,althoughthestateexistsinrelationtotheproblemsofassociative,sociallifethatcreateapublic,itsownformsand
modesoforganizationmaycometoconstituteaproblemfortheexpressionofthatpublic,although,paradoxically,thatisitsraison
d'tre.Sofar,then,DeweyisexpressingideasthatfitwithconcernsrecentlyexpressedundertheideaoftheBigSociety.
However,Deweyhasashistargettwopathologies.Thefirstsetsthestateagainstthepublic,andisattributedtoliberalindividualism
anditsargumentfortheminimumstate.Thesecondisattributedtotheconditionsofmoderncorporatecapitalisminwhichthere
appearstobeaneclipseofthepublicbroughtaboutbythedominanceofcorporateinterestsoverthestate.Deweyarguesthatthe
firstunderminestheindividualassurelyasitseekstosettheindividualfree.Thisisbecausetherulingideaofliberalismisthatofthe
individualfreeofassociations,whichislinkedwiththeideaofthenaturalnessofeconomiclaws(embodiedinmarketexchanges).It
ispreciselytheideologyofliberalindividualism,accordingtoDewey,thatsuggeststhatthemarketcanreplacethestateasthe
regulatorofsociallife,butleavestheindividualvulnerabletotheoutcomesofthemarket.
However,accordingtoDewey,thisdoctrineemergedjustastheideaofanindividualfreeofassociationswasbeingrendered
untenablebytheverydevelopmentsofcorporatecapitalismwithwhichitwaslinked.Thus,Deweysaysthat,theindividual,about
whichthenewphilosophycentreditself,wasinprocessofcompletesubmergenceinfactattheverytimeinwhichhewasbeing
elevatedonhighintheory(1927:96).Theideologywhichoperatesinthenameoftheindividual,then,servestounderminethevery
protectionoftheindividualfromegoistic,corporateassociationsthatwerethemselvestheveryantithesisofthedoctrinebeing
espoused.
ForDewey,whatisnecessaryfortheproperexpressionofthepublicandfordemocracyisaGreatCommunity.Withoutit,theBig
Societyinvolvesnothingmorethanstatesupportedcorporateinterests,togetherwithpartialandadhocresponses.Incontrast,
DeweywritesofdemocracyintheGreatCommunitythat:
Fromthestandpointoftheindividual,itconsistsinhavingaresponsibleshareaccordingtocapacityinformingand
directingtheactivitiesofthegroupstowhichonebelongsandinparticipatingaccordingtoneedinthevalueswhich
thegroupssustain.Fromthestandpointofthegroups,itdemandsliberationofthepotentialitiesofmembersofagroup
inharmonywiththeinterestsandgoodswhichareincommon.Sinceeveryindividualisamemberofmanygroupsthis
specificationcannotbefulfilledexceptwhendifferentgroupsinteractflexiblyandfullyinconnectionswithother
groups.(1927:147)[22]

Theuniversityandthepublic

Whatdoesallofthishavetodowiththemodernuniversity?Deweywasalsowritingatthebirthofthemultiversity.Knowledge
productionandprofessionalserviceswerecomingincreasinglytobeuniversitybased,and,atthesametime,theuniversitywas
becomingincreasinglyinvolvedinthecorporateeconomywiththecommodificationofresearch.Yet,Deweywishestoarguethatthe
universityhasanecessaryrolefordemocracyandinfacilitatingtheGreatCommunity.
Thekeyissueiswhetherthecomplexityattributedtomodernsocietyandtheproblemsitposesforademocraticpubliccanbe
answeredbytheroleofexperts.Quiteapartfromtheundemocraticimplicationsoftheargument,Deweyalsochallengesiton
sociologicalgrounds.Incontemporarydiscussionsoftheimpactofresearch,muchismadeoftheengagementwithusersandthe
developmentofpathwaystoimpactinwhichresearchiscoproducedwithusersorbeneficiariesofit(ResearchCouncilsUKn.d.).
However,thistakesthestructureofassociationsasgiven,whentheproblemofpublicsisalwaystheproblemoftheconsequencesof
associatedactionsforothers.Howarethepublicsaffectedintheknowledgeprocesstobeprotectedandbroughtintoaresponsible
shareinthedirectionofactivities?Coproductionisnecessarilybaseduponformsofinclusionandexclusion(Jasanoff2004).On
Dewey'sanalysis,thisisnotsomethingthatcanbelefttogovernment.Indeed,thisisevidentinthecurrentgovernment's
managementofthefiscaldeficit,whichishavingverysignificantanddifferentialconsequences,withtheverywealthyincreasingtheir
shareandthosemostdisadvantagedbearingadisproportionateburden,anoutcomejustifiedbyreferencetothemarket.[23]
Whiletheoperationofeconomicinterestscanoperateunseen,preciselybecauseoftheformalseparationofeconomicandpolitical
institutionstypicalofmoderncapitalism,theapplicationofexpertknowledgemustnecessarilytakeplaceinfrontofthepublic.Where
theargumentabouttheroleofexpertsdependsupontheideathatthepublicisunabletojudgecomplexmatters,itremainsthecase
thattheywillbeabletojudgethepretensionsofexperts.Moreover,theyarelikelytobevulnerabletopopulistmobilizationsbythe
veryintereststhatexpertopinionisbeingcalledupontomoderate.Thus,Deweywritesthat,rulebyaneconomicclassmaybe
disguisedfromthemassesrulebyexpertscouldnotbecoveredup.Itcouldonlybemadetoworkonlyiftheintellectualsbecamethe
willingtoolsofbigeconomicinterests.Otherwisetheywouldhavetoallythemselveswiththemasses,andthatimplies,oncemore,a
shareingovernmentbythelatter(1927:206).Assoonasexpertiseisdefinedintermsoftheinstrumentalizationofknowledge,
therearisestheproblemthatitisalignedwithinterestsand,thereby,aproblemoftrust.
WhatisprescientisDewey'sconcernwiththeproblemofexpertpublicsandtheirrelationtowiderpublics.Asexpertiseis
increasinglycoproduced,sowhatseemstobeattenuatedistheroleofthewiderpublic.Inacontextwhererisksofconcentrated
activitieswhetherofnuclearpowerproductionorcarbonhungryeconomicprofitseeking,togivejusttwoexamplesarealsoseen
tobewidely(indeed,globally)distributed,thosethatareaffectedaredisplacedfromparticipationindecisionsaboutthem.Atthe
sametime,thenatureofdemocracyisthatwiderpublicopinionscanbemadetocountinelectionsandaresubjecttopopulist
influencebyadvertisingandbymassmedia,preciselyasDeweysetout.ItishardtoresistTurner'sconclusionthattheproblemof
expertiseisoneofthedefiningproblemsofmoderndemocracy(Turner2003).Andifthatisso,theanswernecessarilyentailsa
universityfunctioningforthepublic.ForDewey,thesignificanceofexpertknowledgeishowitcanfacilitatepublicdebate,not
governmentandcorporatedecisionmakingindependentlyoftheparticipationofthewiderpublic.Theincreasinglyembedded
characterofexpertknowledgewithincorporationsandgovernmentservestodelegitimateexpertisepreciselybytheseformsof
associations.Itisnecessarilypartoftheeclipseofthepublic.AsDeweyputsit,theessentialneedistheimprovementofthe
methodsandconditionsofdebate,discussionandpersuasion.Thatistheproblemofthepublic(1927:208).
Iftheimprovementofdebate,discussionandpersuasionistheproblem,thentheuniversityisnecessarilypartoftheanswer.But,itis
onlypartoftheanswerifitisattheserviceofthepublic.Auniversityattheserviceofthepublic,inDewey'ssense,isauniversitythat
shouldproperlyberegardedasapublicuniversity.Thiswouldnotbetheonlyfunctionofauniversity,butitisanecessaryfunction
anditisonethatwouldplacesocialjusticeatitsheart.Anythinglessandtheuniversityisjustanotherprivatecorporationinwhicha
corporateeconomyhasbecomeacorporatesociety.Theuniversitywouldfinallyhavegivenupanypretensiontoasocialmission
otherthanbeingatservicetowhoeverpaid.

Copyright2015
BloomsburyPublishing
RegisteredinEnglandNo.01984336