Title Page

Article titleAgainst the corrosive language of Corpspeak in thecontemporary university

This is an Author’s Original Manuscript of an articlepublished by Taylor and Francis in the Higher Educationand Research Development on 2/12/2014, available online:http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07294360.2014.973377

AuthorLouise Katz Faculty of Arts and Social SciencesUniversity of SydneyAustralia

Emaillouise.katz@sydney.edu.au

1

Against the corrosive language of Corpspeak in thecontemporary university

Many universities today are businesses, embracingthe priorities and values of any other consumeristenterprise. There is an argument that, insofar asthe phenomenon of marketisation is a function ofwhat Flora Michaels (2011) terms a global economic‘monoculture’, these developments are inevitable.Nevertheless, this article argues against suchrhetoric that embraces the neoliberal principle ofunrestrained growth and that has public universitiesadopting a business model, applying managerialistapproaches, measuring and - most importantly in thecontext of this article - expressing worth and purposein corporate terms, as these prioritise commerceover the cultivation of creative and criticalthought essential to healthy social functioning. Itargues for an educational environment that enablesmultiple ways of seeing, thinking, and living toflourish. The particular focus is on the deleteriouseffects of corporatising language withinuniversities. I reflect upon how this language isused to express notions of value and to shapeidentity. In Norman Fairclough’s (2004) phrasing,texts ‘have causal effects upon, and contribute tochanges in, people … actions, social relations, andthe material world’; thus, I examine language-basedconceptual inadequacies, misrepresentations, andwhat Bourdieu terms ‘unconscious inclusions’ -within many contemporary universities. I thenconsider what style of language, what otherattitudes and approaches, actually support theuniversity as a learning place with a specificcultural role, rather than presenting it as another‘multi-output organisation’.

Keywords: academic identity; academic work;university; discourse analysis; narrative

Introduction

The power of inchantments, and verses is so great,that it is believed they are able to subvert almostall nature. (Agrippa, 1650, p. 583)

2

In Judaeo-Christian and Islamic mythology it is the spokenword that creates the universe. The earliest narratives,from The Epic of Gilamesh onwards, emphasise the creative powerof a proto-language that calls reality into existence.Belief in the power of the text and of storytellingcontinues in folklore and in other forms of popularculture through contemporary writers, from fantasists suchas Ursula le Guin to self-help writers who enjoin theirreaders to recite life-affirming avowals of strength andpurpose in order to control the course of their lifestories. One might baulk at the notion of words conjuringimages into tangible reality yet still argue that language– including details of lexical choice – not only signalsideological framework, but contributes to construction ofideology. That is, in making texts, people,‘simultaneously represent aspects of the world…enactsocial relations…desires and values’ (Halliday cited inFairclough, 2004, p. 27). To view ‘language as a socialpractice’ means noting how it simultaneously shapes and isshaped by social context (Fairclough, 1993, p. 134).

This article looks at ways in which language may beused either constructively of destructively. Some of thelinguistic issues I explore reflect and contribute to thedominant contemporary weltanschauung that envisions andnarrativises the world as a global marketplace. Twelveyears ago Bourdieu and Wacquant commented upon thetentacular spread of the ‘dictatorship of the shareholder-value’ whose message is transmitted through what theytermed ‘NeoLiberalSpeak’ (2001). A sub-dialect of thismight be termed ‘Corpspeak’, a potent patois native tothose trained in the manipulation of language forcommercial purposes, which, when transferred to ‘aknowledge field [… or any other …] redefines itsprinciples’ (Grenfell & James, 2004, p. 512). I focus onthese issues primarily in relation to public universities,frequently but not exclusively referring to the Australiancontext. My intention is to survey and speculate upon thechanges facing contemporary universities rather than tomeasure or quantify, which is why the methods employed areargumentative and textual. I use an approach referred to

3

by Paula Amad (in Hartley, 1996, p. 6) as ‘theoryshopping’, which involves ‘skills of browsing’ – in thiscase, through resources from a wide range of disciplinesincluding linguistic, philosophical, industrial, literary,journalistic, pedagogical, and sociological. As Hartleymentions, the quality of the result depends ‘on thebrowser’s astuteness as a reader’ (1996, pp. 6-7). I hopethat this essay does justice to the sources selected.

As words are active agents in realising academic workand in defining personal and professional identity,relationship to the public, and of effectiveness withinthe broader community, this essay examines the languageused to describe that academic work and identity, thosesocial and cultural roles. Pierre Bourdieu’s notion oflanguage as a symbolic system that has ‘the power toconstruct reality’ (1979, p. 79), Norman Fairclough’stheorising of the socially transformative aspects oflanguage use, and Richard Kearney’s position on thecentrality of narrative in creating meaning, underpin mydiscussion of words and texts. However, as this article isconcerned specifically with language in universities, itis first necessary to look at developments in highereducation alongside current conceptions of the university.Many conceptual changes are seen as largely market-driven,thus I first look briefly at the university in a marketcontext. This is followed by discussion of imagery andlanguage that contributes to the construction of aneconomic narrative, and that may be used to promotecaricaturish perceptions of public institutions ingeneral, so as to foreshadow the effect these perceptionshave on the public university in particular. A discussionof the concept of linguistic colonisation and its effectsfollows. I then consider the imaginative and creativepossibilities for a reformulated university, one thatengages with the community on many levels, including butnot limited to, business.

Education and the marketplace

We attain fullness by sympathy…but we find that

4

education of sympathy … in schools … is severelyrepressed. (Tagore, 1933)

In the tradition of medieval scholasticism, and stillenduring today in sandstone and ivy, is the perception ofuniversities as elitist institutions dedicated to theeducation of an elect minority destined for positions ofpower. This model is hardly desirable. But arguably,neither private for-profit nor corporatised publicuniversities necessarily represent an improvement. Suchforms have emerged with deregulation of economicmechanisms as another type of economic entrepreneurialism(or what some refer to as ‘academic capitalism’) but, asMary Evans points out, the field of education stillremains in the thrall of over-privileged controllers(2004, p. 45). These controllers are now corporate ratherthan clerical.

Marketisation is not new, nor are exchanges betweenuniversities and businesses. Early in the 20th century inAmerica, for instance, once rarefied academic enclavesrealised that their accomplished specialists had a greatdeal to offer society economically, and with the businesscommunity’s recognition of this capability, universitiescame to be seen as ‘competitors for the traffic ofmerchantable instruction in much the same fashion as rivalestablishments in the retail trade compete for custom’(Veblen, 1918, cited in Bok, 2003, p. 1). More recently in2003, then UK education secretary, Charles Clarke, wasreported as saying that the state should only subsidisesubjects of ‘clear usefulness’ - although he ‘didn’t mindthere being some medievalists around for ornamentalpurposes’ (Woodward and Smithers, 2003). Today,globalization – cultural, as driven by new technologies,and also as framed by neoliberal market expansion - alongwith deregulation and standardization, drivecorporatisation (Rhoads, 2006). In this climate, abusiness-focus has found increasing popularity for theperceived ‘competitive advantage’ of corporatised and/orentrepreneurial universities, who play a ‘strategic roleas the driving force of knowledge innovation’ (Rademakers,

5

2005, p. 130). Indeed, Burton Clark’s study of severalEuropean universities demonstrated that necessary adaptivechange might indeed be facilitated by means ofentrepreneurial strategies (1998, 2004). However, thequality of education has been found to be inconsistent inprofit-seeking universities (Rhoads, 2006, pp. 13-15).Shah and Sid Nair note concerns to do with for-profiteducation in China, Malaysia, Singapore, Poland, the UKand the US; and in Australia specifically regarding‘institutional governance; a compliance-led qualityculture … [over]use of sessional teachers; poorinvestment in staff professional development; pooralignment between growth, resourcing and infrastructure;and a huge reliance on international student income’(2013, pp. 823 - 825). Yet, in choosing to engage morewith the priorities of private industry regardless ofethical and pedagogical failures as identified above,public universities run the risk of marginalizing whatPaulo Freire calls ‘education for criticalconsciousness’(1973) in favour of an ethos that might becharacterised as ‘education for economic consciousness’.Financial pressure is one reason for this, but it islinked to a spurious yet tenacious narrative-basedperception that reifies the notional superiority ofprivate enterprise.

Words fail me

We are losing our ability to express ourselves innon-economic terms … We are losing those otherlanguages that we once spoke. (Michaels, 2013)

There exists a cultural perception of public institutions ingeneral as ‘wasteful, inefficient and unproductive’ andprivately-run institutions as ‘efficient’ and ‘effective’(Shah & Sid Nair, 2013, p. 824). According to economistMariana Mazzucato, ‘because of what's happening politicallyaround the world … the language that's used, the narrative,the discourse, the images, the actual words’, the widespreadbelief that the true ‘innovators’ come out of privately run

6

businesses is promoted (2013). These ‘hungry and foolish andcolourful guys’ are embraced as the forces of creative andrevolutionary change. Bourdieu and Wacquant presented asimilar ‘ideological schema’ when criticising NewLiberalSpeak,which is based on a series of oppositional perceptions ofstate versus market enterprises, including:constraint/freedom; fossilisation/dynamism; past/future;autocratic/democratic (2001, pp. 4-5). Twelve years later,Mazzucato demonstrates that in fact innovations in, forexample, pharmacology and technology (including the iphone,the internet, Facebook, GPS) were government funded at theoutset, often through grants to public universities, and weretaken up by business only after it became apparent thatinvestment in such novelties was likely to bear fruit.Nevertheless, the myth of ‘risk-taking, vibrant’ private and‘stodgy’ public endures. Like a monotheism, our currenteconomic monoculture dominates through logos: the powerinherent in words, and the frames and conceptual metaphorsused to sustain a particular world view. In Fairclough’sterms, the communicative value of language use in differenttypes of discourse may have significant ideological effects(Fairclough in Van Dijk, 2011, pp. 357-358).

Private providers tend to be strong in marketing,regardless of academic and vocational weaknesses. Positiveperceptions are constructed by means of ‘a form of linguisticslippage’ that uses equivocations, neologisms, and business-oriented euphemisms such as ‘flexible delivery’, ‘lifelonglearning’ and generic ‘excellence’ (Taylor, 2013). Publicuniversities emulate this language, and arguably it is lexicalchoices such as these that not only highlight the prevailingbusiness focus, but also help augment what Ronald Barnettdescribes as a form of imaginative, ideological and ethicalconstraint in universities (2013, pp. 6, 27, 31).

7

(University of Sydney Business School, printed in the Sydney MorningHerald, Oct 2012)

The above brand-building exercise of SydneyUniversity’s Business School (2012) is an exemplar of thisnarrow-minded ‘closing in’. Pictorially, it is carefullycontrived for broad appeal – note the careful politicalchoice of an attractive girl of non-specific ethnicity;verbally, it seeks to cultivate, out of its own narrowself interest, self-interest in potential candidates. Thecollage of the model’s flawless face with each shotgracing the viewer with her delight, cute surprise, cuterindecision, quizzical cocked eyebrow (who, moi?) and otherpert Facebook-ish jauntiness celebrates one of theshallower manifestations of celebrity culture. The tagline shouting ‘ME, FIRST’ represents a shift of the notionof individualism as quest for self-knowledge towardsselfishness. This advertisement is part of a greaternarrative structure where education is enlisted in thepervasive economic ‘story’ and redefined narrowly as‘product’ to be sold or bought as a private, personalinvestment. As Michaels observes, in this culturalenvironment, identity becomes self interested,entrepreneurial, individualistic. Interactions betweenhuman beings and the world become impersonal,transactional, fiercely competitive (2011).

This advertisement’s cynical appeal promotingnarcissism – if not as a virtue then certainly as aperceived (and insulting) cultural expectation of youth –is a simple invitation designed to draw bums towardslecture hall seats. The peculiar collocation ofsolipsistic me-ness and ‘re-imagining’ also leads toconsideration of how the vocabulary of dreams and

8

imagination is manipulated, reminiscent of Deleuze’sremark that, ‘advertising [is] taking over the words“concept” and “creative”, and these “conceptualists”constitute an arrogant breed that reveals the activity tobe capitalism’s supreme thought’ (cited in Pope, 2005 p.3). Thus, while on the one hand we have what Bourdieumight refer to as a ‘misrecognised’ or ‘unconsciousinclusion’ (cited in Grenfell & James, 2004) of a businessnarrative in the academic context exerting its influence -and to a large extent, controlling and driving it - wealso see the opposite occurring: the market absorbs and‘rebrands’ language from the domain of the humanities.‘Vision’ and ‘dream’, for instance, have been similarlyappropriated. What is corporate ‘vision’ if not a broadview towards future profits? And what are the ‘dreams’inculcated within students? Admittedly, this is anadvertisement for the school of business, not social work.Nevertheless, there is an argument for a university as aplace to instill values that would contribute to ahealthily functioning society; and if one agrees with thispremise then no school of learning ought to be mandated toencourage putting one’s own interests before those of allothers, but rather for teaching ethical behaviour andconsciousness of community responsibility. This would be away of re-imagining an MBA that was in accord with thenotion of a university as a place which seriouslyconsiders the sort of society we wish to create, and ‘whatit will take to get us there’ (Nussbaum, 2010).

Ironically, as advertising and marketing are genericpractices rather than professions identified with theparticularities of specific places, the ‘product’ marketedalso becomes more generic in style. While each universitystrives through various branding strategies to presentitself as unique, they simultaneously endeavour to meetcommon markers of value and intention, and to expressthese in a common lingua franca. The result ishomogeneity, where universities risk becomingindistinguishable from each other – and indeed, from other‘industries’. Perhaps it is less risky to simply ‘be seento be different’, rather than actually to be different;

9

that is, to engage in what Fairclough calls‘aestheticisation’, a partly textual form of image-building of public identity commonly used in the creationof political personalities, and more recently in education(2004, p. 183).

‘Together we can make a difference’ is an‘inspirational’ phrase favoured for the construction of animage of community, camaraderie and common purpose. Afive-minute Google search finds it used to promote dietarysupplements, shoes, religious missions, cosmetics. Thisutilitarian all-purpose catchphrase is enlisted in themarketing of education. It has often been repeated bySydney University’s VC Michael Spence (university’sInternational Student Guide, Undergraduate Guide, StudyAbroad Program, and 2012 honorary degrees ceremony).Sydney University’s 2010 re-branding was carried out by avery expensive US management company (Rees, 2010).Featuring minimalist blocks of red, yellow and blue and asimplified coat-of-arms, it might represent a buildingsociety or a hotel chain as readily as a place of learningwith its own history and ethical standards, motivationsand drives.

The colloquial use of the term ‘brand’ when referringto a university reflects an acceptance of the institutionas a commodity, and participates in a fetishisation of thegrowth imperative. To experiment, in Corpspeak: Marketersof the ‘university brand’ are obliged to sell their‘merchandise’ as effectively as they may to as many‘consumers’ of educational ‘product’ as possible in orderto ‘grow’ the ‘business’. Students founded Facebook groupsin protest against the particular style of SydneyUniversity’s re-branding (Atkinson, 2010) and Stuart Reeswas moved to question the staff’s acquiescence and theuniversity’s culture, which ‘is meant to be different fromgovernment departments, from business corporations and themilitary — but is it?’ (Sydney Morning Herald, July 2010).One might go further and question the desirability ofbranding government departments and the military (orpolitical parties, for that matter) as these also are

10

perhaps better viewed as public services designed to carefor the citizenry, rather than as consumables for sale.

Linguistic colonisation

‘One can institute a zone of proximity withanything, [if] one creates the literary means fordoing so’. (Deleuze, 1998, p. 2)

Financial challenges and global competitiveness haveresulted in universities employing senior officials withexpertise in financial and large-scale bureaucraticmanagement who have their own particular ethos andlanguage with which to articulate it. ‘ “Downsizing,”“restructuring,” ”realignment,” “reengineering,” and thelike began to take precedence over concerns about thecontent and quality of education’ (Steck, 2003, p. 68).The language of academics has changed along with it.‘Scholars become researchers; professors no longer professbut are teachers, encouraged to adopt fresh newpedagogical methodologies, to undergo faculty developmentand to submit to assessment, preferably of thequantitative sort’ (2003, p. 78).

When a colonising force occupies a nation, thereplacement of the local language with that of thecolonisers’ is instrumental in disempowering the denizensof the occupied territory. If integral aspects of culturalidentity and sense of purpose are embedded in language,then that may be altered by replacing local words withimported ones that reflect concepts useful to the invader.In a university, one can find analogous processes at work.To experiment again: substitute the Corpspeak term‘productivity unit’ for lecturer or tutor, and ‘keyperformance indicator’ to characterise that teacher’sefficacy in providing education in an exchange referredto, not as ‘teaching and learning’, but ‘knowledgetransfer’. Replace ‘scrutiny’ with ‘transparency’, andacknowledge the user-pays ethos implicit in the word‘client’ and replace ‘student’ with that, or with‘customer’; then it is natural, moving beyond the

11

institution’s gates, to see oneself as a ‘consumer’ (withits implications of a rather passive grazing animal)instead of a ‘citizen’ (actively engaged socialparticipant), and one’s society as a ‘market’. Education(or the arts, or health, or science…) conceptualised one-dimensionally as ‘industries’, rather than as endeavoursdedicated to creative or intellectual exploration or tothe public good, has a rank aftertaste for some.

Corpspeak is allied with another linguisticdevelopment I will call ‘Zombilingo’, a deathly dialect,vague, wooly-minded, utterly without nuance. Instances ofZombilingo may be found in the ‘Swinburne Behaviours’,where staff assessment criteria encourage employees to‘support, empower and encourage others to achieveexcellence’; perhaps because as previously mentioned,‘together we can make a difference’. Adam Brereton notesthat the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology’s BCF(Behavioural Capability Framework) regime, another human‘resources’ initiative devised to ‘enforce staffbehaviour’, is based on Neuro-Linguistic Programming (2012np). NLP is premised on the idea that one may change one’sapprehension of reality largely by changing one’s style ofverbal communication (Heap, 1988). There is certainlycredence in the premise, which is why the application isproblematic in this context: the intentions of Zombilingowill be familiar to those who have read Orwell’s (1949)1984, or Don Watson’s (2003) Death Sentence. The BCF requiresstaff to describe academic work in motivational termsoriginally designed to inspire corporate employees. Wordsare arranged so that specific details are obscured bypositive-sounding ambiguities. Swinburne staff are alsoenjoined to ‘seize opportunities and act upon them withinitiative and creativity’, and to ‘actively promote anddrive change’ (Swinburne, 2009). Indeed, ‘change’,although a qualitatively neutral term, is often usedsynonymously with ‘improvement’.

Recent administrative ‘improvements’ can also be foundin Sydney University’s ‘Vision for Change’, whose 2012staff reduction process was based solely on research‘performance’ judged according to quantitative quality

12

assurance measures. This assessment of value was maderegardless of the fact that most lecturers’ contractsspecify that an equal amount of time be devoted toteaching (Sydney, 2011). Thus, the issue of whether one’steaching is poor, mediocre or inspirational becomesredundant, signaling that success in academia requires atransfer of energy into research at the expense ofteaching. Such a shift of emphasis raises questions aboutthe pedagogical responsibilities of the university, andthe nature of the ‘qualities’ are being ‘assured’ by theuniversity for its ‘stakeholders’ and ‘customers’.

Human ‘resources’ and the language of institutionalaccountability

The sword of Damocles is hanging over my head…(The Rocky Horror Picture Show, 1975)

In her study of responses of academic ‘human resources’ tosystems devised to measure the value of their work,researcher Gina Anderson refers to an apparent ‘paradox’.Academics she interviewed cited issues relating not onlyto their effectiveness and the time spent in complying,but in ‘the distribution and exercise of power,differences in defining and understanding the notion ofquality’ (Anderson, 2006 p. 162). In particular, thelanguage of control and mistrust was noted: ‘The qualityproject involves correction and rehabilitation of academicsthrough the application of quality mechanisms’ (Morleycited in Anderson, 2006 p. 163, italics mine). This is avision not of a place of learning, but of a correctionalfacility where, according to Shore and Roberts, ‘qualityprocesses … are best understood as Foucauldian“disciplinary technologies” where academics becomeaccomplices in their own imprisonment’ (in Anderson, 2006,p. 163). For instance, the Australian CatholicUniversity’s HR executive (Human Resouces Directorate,2013) fosters academics’ collaboration by providing‘conversation guidelines’ for supervisors during the PRP(Performance Review Process) so as to better assess staff

13

‘behavioural competencies’, ‘ensure performance planning’that are ‘in line with ACU’s strategic objectives’, and tomonitor the ‘staff member’s choice of ACP (Academic CareerPathway). When setting goals, scholars are encouraged touse the SMART principle (Specific, Measurable, Achievable,Relevant and Time-Framed, with examples for the perplexedprovided in the appendix). Language reflective ofcorporate ideology ‘establishes a system of control, sincethose who control the competency list…control thepractice’ (Grenfell & James, 2004, p. 512). Compliance iswrested from academics by means of ‘a relationship ofconstrained communication’ in acts of what Bourdieu calls‘symbolic violence’; that is, ‘domesticat[ing] thedominated …by impos[ing] (and even inculcat[ing]instruments of knowledge and expression…of social reality’(1979, p. 80).

Chris Lorenz (2012) rightly points out that no casehas yet been made as to why bureaucratic formalism (towhich we might add, ‘phrased in Corpspeak’) is trustedover judgements made (in English) by professionalacademics, and no evidence has yet been presented to showhow this shift from professional to managerial representsimprovement. Standardised staff evaluation ischaracterised by some as means towards institutional‘transparency’ (though not clarity or truthfulness), butthis term might also be interpreted as a euphemism for‘surveillance’, and contributes to the creation of anaudit culture that employs a reflexive form of managerialsolipsism so as to enable judgements of academics’ work tobe based largely on ease of measurement by non-academicmanagerial staff: the ‘overseers’ may be trained inmanagement skills, though not in the area of work being‘managed’. According to Lorenz, such maladministrationleads to a range of responses amongst academics, including‘self exploitation’ (2012), which may be assisted byacquiescence to institutional ‘challenges’. Indeed, theterm ‘challenge’ used in this context is Zombilingo forthe English ‘very real difficulties’ (and may refer, forinstance, to incompatibility between student numbers andworkload, or trying to translate the value of teaching

14

theory into measurable ‘outcomes’). But since a challengeimplies an invitation to a duel, to refuse the gauntletdemonstrates cowardice or is an admission that one is notadequate to the task; an admission, ultimately, ofpersonal – rather than institutional – failure. This maycontribute to ‘understandable cynicism’ (Lorenz, 2012).Even the most highly regarded of scholars are not immuneto this form of demoralisation. Norman Faircloughillustrates the effects of the incursion of managerialistdiscourse and the advertising genre into the domain ofhigher education with an extract from his own applicationfor promotion in the 1990s. In order to ‘sell’ himself, hechose to see the composition of the document as anecessary ‘rhetorical exercise’. Although embarrassed bythe tone and certain lexical choices he adopted, which hefound ‘deeply antipathetic’, he was aware that he was‘parodying an alien discourse in order to “play thegame”’. Yet he claims in hindsight that he ‘underestimatedthe incorporative ability of the institutional logics andprocedures’, and concluded that assimilation of this formof discourse comes to affect one’s sense of identity(1993, pp. 152-153). Communications theorist Paul Taylorexpresses this anxiety extremely pungently as ‘self-hatred’ engendered by managerialist ‘inertial strength’(2013, pp. 1-3). Here we have a vision of a self-perpetuating disciplinarian system of control supportednot only by university policy and governance, but by‘preconstructed semantic systems [that] generateparticular visions of the world which may have theperformative power to … remake the world in their image’Fairclough (Fairclough, 2004, p. 130). Thus, ‘control overdiscursive practices … can be seen in terms of hegemonicstruggle over orders of discourse’ which shape the natureand identity of people and institutions (Fairclough, 1993,p. 137).

In the United States, the VSA (Voluntary System ofAccountability, which, although not used in alluniversities nationally, is described on some universitywebsites as a graduation requirement), uses statisticalmethodology to measure the ‘value-added’. The ‘value-

15

added’, I found, after looking vainly for the concept thisapparent adjective seemed to be qualifying, was in fact anoun. It signifies ‘the change occurring between enteringand exiting students’ in order ‘to link student outcomesto institutional effectiveness’ so as to ‘correctshortcomings in instruction to better prepare students forthe challenges in a global marketplace’ (Liu, 2011 pp. 81-82). Putting aside further discussion of correctionalprocesses for malfunctioning teachers, it is also worthnoting that no other role but that of workforce trainingis acknowledged here - as if there were no argument forthe university as a place to learn creative practices orsceptical thought. This paradigm and the mechanisticlanguage calls to mind less a place of learning than aFordist production line.

It becomes hard to argue that a place of learning isnot a corporation when the same language, reflecting thesame priorities, is applied. For instance, as Jill Johnesasserts in her study of efficiency measures inuniversities:

From an output-oriented perspective … efficiency isdefined as the ratio of a firm's observed output tothe maximum output which could be achieved given itsinput levels. Since a firm's observed productionpoint is known, the measurement of efficiencytherefore requires the estimation of the productionfunction in order to estimate its potentialproduction point.’ (Johnes, 2006 p. 274)

If we are to claim that university is not a firm,that it is not a machine requiring ‘inputs’ in order toproduce ‘outputs’, but is instead a place populated bystudents and teachers, readers and writers and thinkersand learners, then there is a dire need to reclaim a fewnouns and adjectives.

Creativity vs totalitarianism

We need to be original, sceptical, argumentative,often bloody-minded … in other words, creative.(John Howkins cited in Hartley, 2005)

16

Mary Evans reflects upon the connections Orwell makes in1984 between language, propaganda and totalitarianism(2004, pp. 49-52). If totalitarianism occurs when anideology ‘penetrates into the deepest reaches of societalstructure and … control[s] the thoughts and actions of itscitizens’ (Pipes, 1997, p. 40) then perhaps describingcorporate thinking as totalitarian is not too large aclaim to make. Montuori (2005, p. 20) avers, ‘Thetotalitarian mindset should not be assessed purely by itscontent and purpose, but also by the way it creates aparadigm or organising framework for thought anddiscourse’, and Lorenz insists that the prevalence ofneoliberal discourse in universities represents anincursion of ‘economic and bureaucratic totalitarianism’(2012, p. 629). Indeed, totalising ideologies find fertileground when any culture is drugged by a sense ofinevitability and its raison d’etre called into question, asits language and therefore its cultural memory and self-identity are corrupted. If, as Durkheim theorised,language is a system wherein “ ‘social solidarity” restson the sharing of a symbolic system’; and as Bourdieucontended, ideological effects are achieved when adominant culture ‘conceal[s] its function of division …under its function of communication’ (1979, pp. 79-80),then domination of one group (academia) by another(economic monoculture) is currently well underway. Thesymbolic system of the Corpspeak language is imposed, notonly as an ‘instrument of domination’ but also of‘legitimation of domination’(p. 80).

Totalitarian language is the language of certainty.Certainty demands that ‘challenges’ be met and pre-set‘outcomes’ achieved; and also, as Marilyn Strathernmentions in her response to the UK’s Quality AssuranceAgency requirements, that academic expectations beexpressed in accord with audit presentation: ‘clarity(rather than logic), itemisation (rather than connection)… and simplified organisation (rather than … evolution inargument). Above all, not ambiguity, contradiction orhesitation’ (cited in Evans, 2004, pp. 46-47). We might

17

argue against this enforcement by pointing out thatuncertainty is an essential part of scholarly striving,that subjectivity, doubt, and ambivalence are approachesto be used creatively - not impediments to be overcome.Being at home with paradox may enable one to form orderfrom the disorder of experience, and this level ofcomplexity, according to psychologist MihalyCsikszentmihalyi, is characteristic of creative people(1997). But what does creativity mean? Perhaps it is bestexplicated by considering its opposite, which is dullnessof mind represented in repetitive images and text: jargon,cliché and self-seeking sleight of mind designed toobscure rather than elucidate or communicate (ie.,Corpspeak). The opposite of creative vision istotalitarian narrowness: constraining, limited by short-sighted goals, dead-ended, and commonly expressed insimplistic and vague terms (Zombilingo). Therefore, if asRaymond Williams asserts, imagination is ‘our practicalconsciousness’ (cited in Milligan, 2007 p. 72) and ifcreativity is ‘applied imagination’ (Robinson & Aronica,2009 p. 67), then we need the right words to create theideas – and the places - that we would like to realise.Otherwise, the images of those places and the conceptionsof those ideas become muddled, our motivations andintentions confused. Certainly, evoking an orientationtowards profit-making, rather than enterprises ofintellectual, social or cultural value by referring toeducation as an ‘industry’, clouds perceptions both ofthose working within a university and in the minds ofmembers of the wider community: how the story isconstructed and how it is told is of primary importance.Narratives create storylines for reality to follow, or asKearney phrases it, ‘nature imitates narrative’ (2002, p.6).

We might envision the university as an environmentJohn Howkins calls a ‘creative ecology’(2010). Barnettalso, while formulating many visions of possibleuniversities, includes the ‘ecological university’, which‘takes seriously both the world’s interconnected-nessand the university’s interconnectedness with the world’–

18

and points to numerous examples of this emergent form(2011, pp. 451-453). This is a similar vision toFoucault’s heterotopia - a transitional space thatfunctions in relation to its surroundings, yet is adiscrete entity - an in-between zone like ‘the greatestreservoir of the imagination’, the ship, for ‘incivilizations without boats, dreams dry up, espionagetakes the place of adventure, and the police take theplace of pirates’ (Foucault & Miskowiec, 1986 p. 27). Theuniversity too is a ‘reservoir of the imagination, onethat is to be kept and nurtured, in opposition to …treating students merely as consumers and learning … asconsumption’ (Beyes & Michels, 2011 p. 523). Aheterotopian university would exist between oppositionalparadigms, pursuing learning while participating incommerce without allowing growth and pecuniary reward tocompromise its integrity or identity. It would be a placethat encourages Richard Kearney’s notion of ‘ethicalimagination’ (1994), rather than a dog race whereegomaniacal voices bay, ‘Me, first!’

Conclusion It is easy to forget how mysterious and mightystories are…They become part of you while changingyou. Beware of the stories you read or tell…they arealtering your world. (Okri, 1997, p. 120)

Writers and educators working in universities have thecreative ability and linguistic facility to countermandthe debilitating effects of Corpspeak, and to seekpathways through the inconsistencies created by‘misrecognised inclusions’ which currently form, in AlisonPhipps’ phrasing, ‘the legitimated perspective …transplanted from other contexts, industry, accountancy,military, colonialism’ (2007, p. 5). It may be possible tofind ways of being that include aspects of academiccapitalism without sacrificing values that relatespecifically to education and scholarly endeavour. In

19

fact, while commending entrepreneurial activity inuniversities, Clark insists that its success depends upon‘collective entrepreneurial action [guided by] academicvalues’ (1998, p. 4, italics in original). It is necessaryto differentiate academic from other pursuits through howthey are conceived, philosophically, and how they arearticulated. Various thinkers, some of whose thoughts Ihave drawn on in this article, have proposed theoreticalor concrete means by which this may be achieved:

Barnett’s philosophy feeds into possibilities forpractical improvement, but first the university mustaddress its imaginative paucity, or ‘thinness’, he claims,having observed that although marketisation might have apotential to open up the conceptual space of theuniversity, instead it has found itself constrained by‘Darwinian’ competition towards ‘global “excellence” ’(2013, p. 58). One might add that rather than using thisZombilingo descriptor we might instead stress aspirationsthat align with a place of learning: creativity, humanity,intellectual distinction, social responsibility. Indeed,Simon Marginson insists that it is neither through profit-based entrepreneurism, nor through demonstrations of‘efficiency’ or ‘transparent accountability’ that publicuniversities will gain public support, but through ‘theconduct of activities that are unique to universities andenable their distinctive social contributions’ (2007, p.126).

Universities have massive power and influence – asemphasised by proponents of marketization andentrepreneurialism, including Veblen, Rademakers and Clark- thus universities are in a position to consider advicefrom such voices as Barnett and Marginson. That is, toinsist upon greater autonomy and to proactively setpolitical, cultural and economic agendas, rather thanembracing those pre-set by corporate concerns and assessedby homogenising measures of value. Clark stresses theimportance of universities developing independentstrategies towards ‘institution-building’, rather thanpassively emulating those of their counterparts (1998, p.5). Therefore, one might argue for the possibility of

20

developing culturally- and civically-motivated, ratherthan profit-motivated, forms of entrepreneurism.Marginson’s call to re-establish control over mission andidentity, and Barnett’s insistence on engagement in the‘critical project’ of imagining the university byembracing a kind of ‘dispositional utopianism’ (2013, pp.26-29) also point to ways of balancing pragmatism andvisionary far-sightedness.

Universities are ideal sites for the ongoing creationof a multiplicity of stories and potential realities thatextend beyond the narrow and inhibiting economicmonocultural view, for it is here if nowhere else that oneought to be able to play with narratives, using languagethat allows for what Richard Kearney has termed ‘creativeredescription of the world’ (2002, p. 12). Regarding theuniversity ‘world’ specifically, Richard Hil insists thatwe ‘routinely reframe language by referring to …community, public education, students rather thanconsumers, dialogue and debate rather than inputs outputsand impacts’. He prescribes an ongoing dogged contestationof ‘the standardized, rigidified, mechanized approach toteaching and keep[ing] faith with the examined life’,asserting that ‘new systems might be created by ‘do[ing]away with intrusive monitoring and subsequentzombification of academics [and] a return to community,collegiality, fun, soul, and passion’ (2012, pp. 217-218).Alison Phipps cites Santos’ notion that ‘re-enchantment ofthe university could be a way of symbolising the future’.Although struggling with notions of ‘enchantment’, Phippsconcludes that it is ‘not a fixed state, but a way of workingwith words’ (2007, p. 10, italics mine). Norman Fairclough’sCritical Discourse Analysis points to the need ‘for astruggle to develop … a new “language” as a key element inbuilding resistance to marketization without simplyfalling back on tradition, and perhaps give a betterunderstanding of what might be involved in doing so’(1993, pp. 158-159). We need the right words with which toenvision a university that is engaged in, yet notunbalanced by, business concerns; one that reflects theheterotopian characteristic of being a distinct ecological

21

subsystem that functions in relation to the widercommunity, both local and international. Then, as Barnettproposes, might we tease out the imaginative ‘possibilityof possibilities … just beginning to open’ for the 21st

century university (2013, p. 4).

22

References

Agrippa, H. C. (1650). Three books of Occult Philosophy (J.F., Trans.Vol. Book 1).

Anderson, G. (2006). Assuring quality/resisting qualityassurance: academics’ responses to ‘quality’in someAustralian universities. Quality in Higher Education, 12(2), 161-173.

Atkinson, W. (2010). Sydney Uni Branding: the facts on thecampus crest's nip/tuck. Honi Soit Retrieved 6/62013, fromhttp://www.src.usyd.edu.au/archive/1000.pdf

Barnett, R. (2011). The coming of the ecological university.Oxford Review of Education, 37(4), 439-455.

Barnett, R. (2013). Imagining the university. London and New York:Routledge.

Beyes, T., & Michels, C. (2011). The production of educationalspace: Heterotopia and the business university.Management Learning, 42(5), 521-536.

Bok, D. (2003). Universities in the Marketplace. Princeton and Oxford:Princeton University Press.

Bourdieu, P. (1979). Symbolic Power. Critique of Anthropology, 4. Bourdieu, P. a. W., Loic. (2001). NewLiberalSpeak: Notes on

the new planetary vulgate. Radical Philosophy, 105. Brereton, A. (2012). Our Corporate Universities. New Matilda

12/06/2012. from http://newmatilda.com/2012/04/12/our-corporate-universities

Business School, U. o. S. (2012). ME, FIRST. The SydneyMorning Herald.

Clark, B. (1998). Creating Entrepreneurial Universities. UK: EmeraldGroup Publishing Ltd.

Clark, B. (2004). Sustaining Change in Universities. UK: OpenUniversity Press.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1997). Creativity: Flow and the psychology ofdiscovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins Publishers.

Deleuze, G. (1998). Essays critical and clinical. Minneapolis:University of Minnesota Press.

Evans, M. (2004). Killing thinking: The death of the universities. Londonand New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

23

Fairclough, N. (1993). Critical discourse analysis and themarketization of public discourse: The universities.Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133-168.

Fairclough, N. (2004). Analysing Discourse: Textual analysis for socialresearch. London and New York: Routledge.

Foucault, M., & Miskowiec, J. (1986). Of other spaces.diacritics, 22-27.

Freire, P. (1973). Education for critical consciousness (Vol. 1):Continuum.

Grenfell, M., & James, D. (2004). Change in the field—changingthe field: Bourdieu and the methodological practice ofeducational research. British Journal of Sociology of Education,25(4), 507-523.

Hartley, J. (1996). Popular Reality: journalism, modernity, popular culture.London: Arnold.

Hartley, J. (2005). Creative industries. USA, UK, Australia: Wiley-Blackwell.

Heap, M. (1988). Neuro-linguistic programming. London: Croom Helm.Hil, R. (2012). Whackademia: An insider's account of the troubled university.

Australia: NewSouth Publishing.Howkins, J. (2010). Creative Ecologies: Where thinking is a proper job. US:

Transaction Pub.Human Resouces Directorate, A. C. U. (2013). Academic

Performance Review and Planning: Conversation Guide forSupervisors, fromhttp://www.acu.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/459642/Academic_PRP_Conv_Gde_Supervisors_180713.pdf

Johnes, J. (2006). Data envelopment analysis and itsapplication to the measurement of efficiency in highereducation. Economics of Education Review, 25(3), 273-288.

Kearney, R. (1994). Poetics and the right to resist: Patočka'stestimony. International journal of philosophical studies, 2(1), 31-44.

Kearney, R. (2002). On Stories. Oxon: Routledge.Liu, O. L. (2011). Measuring value‐added in higher education:

conditions and caveats–results from using the Measure ofAcademic Proficiency and Progress (MAPP™). Assessment &Evaluation in Higher Education, 36(1), 81-94.

Lorenz, C. (2012). If You're So Smart, why Are You UnderSurveillance? Universities, Neoliberalism, and New PublicManagement. Critical Inquiry, 38(3).

24

Marginson, S. (2007). University mission and identity for apost post‐public era. Higher Education Research & Development,26(1), 117-131.

Mazzucato, M. (Producer). (2013). Government - investor, risk-taker, innovator. Technology Education Design: ideas worthspreading. [public lecture] Retrieved fromhttp://www.ted.com/talks/mariana_mazzucato_government_investor_risk_taker_innovator.html

Michaels, F. (2011). Monoculture: How One Story is Changing Everything:Red Clover Press.

Michaels, F. (Producer). (2013). How One Story is ChangingEverything. Technolgy, Education, Design: the young, the wise, theundiscovered. [public lecture] Retrieved fromhttp://talentsearch.ted.com/video/Flora-Michaels-How-one-story-is

Milligan, D. (2007). Raymond Williams: Hope and Defeat in theStruggle for Socialism Retrieved fromhttp://www.studiesinanti-capitalism.net

Montuori, A. (2005). How to make enemies and influence people:

anatomy of the anti-pluralist, totalitarian mindset.Futures, 37(1), 18-38.

Nussbaum, M. (2010). Being Human. New Statesman. Retrieved from Okri, B. (1997). A Way of Being Free. London: Phoenix.Orwell, G. (1949). 1984. UK: Penguin.Phipps, A. (2007). The sound of higher education: sensuous

epistemologies and the mess of knowing 1. London Review ofEducation, 5(1), 1-13.

Pipes, R. (1997). The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism andNationalism, 1917-1923: with a New Preface (Vol. 13). Harvard:Harvard University Press.

Pope, R. (2005). Creativity: history, theory and practice. London and NewYork: Routledge.

Rademakers, M. (2005). Corporate universities: driving forceof knowledge innovation. Journal of workplace Learning, 17(1/2),130-136.

Rees, S. (2010, July 14 2010). University's one-size brand isill-fitting, Opinion, The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrievedfrom Branding%20Exercise%20For%20Sydney%20University.webarchive

25

Rhoads, R. A. (2006). University reform in global times:Opportunities and challenges. Chung Cheng Educational Studies,5(1).

Robinson, K., & Aronica, L. (2009). The element: How finding yourpassion changes everything. US: Viking Pr.

Shah, M., & Sid Nair, C. (2013). Private for-profit highereducation in Australia: widening access, participationand opportunities for public-private collaboration. HigherEducation Research & Development, 32(5), 820-832.

Smithers, W. a. (2003, 9/5/2003). Clarke Dismisses MedievalHistorians, The Guardian. Retrieved fromhttp://www.theguardian.com/uk/2003/may/09/highereducation.politics

Steck, H. (2003). Corporatization of the university: Seekingconceptual clarity. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Politicaland Social Science, 585(1), 66-83.

Swinburne, I. o. T. (2009). PD Process Guideline. 36. Sydney, U. o. (2011). Draft Change Proposal. Sydney, U. o. (2012). Updated Final Change Plan Retrieved

March 2013, fromhttp://sydney.edu.au/staff/leadership/budget/updated_final_change_plan.shtml

Tagore, R. (1933). My School. Personality. Retrieved fromhttp://birbhum.gov.in/DPSC/reference/MySchool.pdf

Taylor, P. (2013). Putting theory to work - a.k.a 'if youdon't like academia, why don't you leave?'. ephemera: theory& politics in organization, 13 (4), 851 - 860. Retrieved fromhttp://www.ephemerajournal.org

Van Dijk, T. A. (Ed.). (2011). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinaryintroduction: Sage.

Watson, D. (2003). Death Sentence: the decay of public language.Australia: Vintage.

26