The University in the Knowledge Society
The University in the Knowledge Society
复制标题
知识社会中的大学
DOI：
10.1177/1350508401082002
复制
发表时间：
2001
期刊：
影响因子：
3
通讯作者：
Gerard Delanty
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Gerard Delanty
近年来，大学已成为社会科学界备受争议的话题。虽然早期的解释，例如韦伯（参见 Shils，1973）、帕森斯（Parsons 和 Platt，1973）、布迪厄（Bourdieu，1988、1996）的解释，强调了现代性社会理论背景下大学的自主性，但最近的评价更具批判性，并对后现代和全球化时代现代性计划的连贯性提出了质疑。可以确定四个争论。
1.根深蒂固的自由主义批判，可以称为文化批判，因为它主要关注大学作为文化再生产的媒介。大学的自由主义理念——与艾伦·布鲁姆（Allan Bloom，1987）的立场相关，艾伦·布鲁姆（Allan Bloom，1987）对以多样性的名义对传统课程的攻击表示哀叹，而拉塞尔·雅各比（Russell Jacoby，1987）则对从大学中消失的公共知识分子的衰落感到遗憾——总体上回顾了早期大学的黄金时代。尽管在这一源于新人文主义传统的广泛立场中存在不同的立场，但趋势是认为大学因文化自主性的衰落而陷入危机，无论是批判文化还是更保守的经典传统文化。
2. 与利奥塔（Lyotard，1984）相关且最近由比尔·雷丁斯（Bill Readings，1996）重申的后现代论点宣布大学的终结与民族国家的终结一起。有人声称，知识已经失去了它的解放作用，鉴于知识的碎片化，例如教学与研究的分离，普遍性的概念，甚至课程的概念本身，现在都是不可能的。
3. 反身性论题最与声称存在一种基于用户和生产者之间更具反身性关系的新知识模式相关，它提供了一种不那么引人注目的理论，但仍然宣告了大学的过时（Gibbons等人，1984）。据称，随着围绕应用知识的模式 2 范式的出现，陷入等级化和基于学科的模式 1 知识生产的大学变得越来越与后福特经济无关。
4. 全球化论文关注大学的工具化，因为它拥抱市场价值和信息技术。根据多位作者的说法，大学远非像之前的论文所声称的那样与资本主义无关，而是实际上完全融入了资本主义，并且当新的管理主义接管大学时，学术自由就会丧失（Curie and Newson，1998；Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff，1997；Slaughter and Leslie，1997）。本文表明，大学已成为全球市场和信息资本主义的主要参与者。
对于这些关于大学危机甚至衰落的公告，我们该怎么办？我相信更细致的解释是可能的。
The university has become the subject of much critical debate in the social sciences in recent years. While earlier interpretations, such as those of Weber (see Shils, 1973), Parsons (Parsons and Platt, 1973), Bourdieu (1988, 1996), emphasized the autonomy of the university within the context of a social theory of modernity, the recent appraisals are more critical and call into question the very coherence of the project of modernity in the postmodern and global age. Four debates can be identified.
1. The entrenched liberal critique, which can be called a cultural critique since it is primarily concerned with the university as a medium of cultural reproduction. The liberal idea of the university—associated with the positions of Allan Bloom (1987), who bemoans the attack on the traditional curriculum in the name of diversity, and Russell Jacoby (1987), who regrets the decline of the public intellectual who has disappeared from the university—on the whole looks backwards to the golden age of an earlier university. Despite the different positions within this broad stance that derives from the neo-humanist tradition, the tendency is to see the university in crisis because of the decline of the autonomy of culture, be it the culture of critique or, in its more conservative version, the traditional culture of the canon.
2. The postmodern thesis, associated with Lyotard (1984) and recently restated by Bill Readings (1996), announces the end of the university along with the end of the nation-state. It is claimed that knowledge has lost its emancipatory role and the very notion of universality, or even the very idea of a curriculum, is now impossible, given the fragmentation of knowledge, as in, for instance, the separation of teaching and research.
3. The reflexivity thesis, which is best associated with claims that there is a new mode of knowledge based on a more reflexive relationship between user and producer, offers a less dramatic theory but one nevertheless that announces the obsolescence of the university (Gibbons et al., 1984). As a Mode 2 paradigm around applied knowledge emerges, the university, which is caught up in the more hierarchical and disciplinary-based Mode 1 knowledge production, becomes, it is claimed, increasingly irrelevant to the postfordist economy.
4. The globalization thesis draws attention to the instrumentalization of the university as it embraces market values and information technology. According to various authors, the university is far from irrelevant to capitalism, as the previous thesis would claim, but is in fact fully integrated into it and, as a new manageralism takes over the university, there is a resulting loss of academic freedom (Curie and Newson, 1998; Etzkowitz and Leydesdorff, 1997; Slaughter and Leslie, 1997). This thesis suggests that the university has become a major player in the global market and in information-based capitalism.
What are we to make of these announcements of crisis and even of the decline of the university? I believe a more nuanced interpretation is possible.