Kot opozarja Weber, nastopi čas, ko se nam samoumevna vsebinaznanstvene vednosti začenja izmikati in zato naša vednost postaja»negotova«: »vrednotna lestvica«, v skladu s katero raziskujemo»brez vrednotnih predstav«, se spreminja pred našimi očmi, todaobrisov nove »krajine« še ne vidimo dovolj jasno. Njihova jasnostbo odvisna od tega, kako jih bomo določili. To vrsto »določanj«opisujem v pričujočem besedilu. Poskušam interpretirati lokalnesimptome sprememb na področju univerze in na področju družbenihved v pozni moderni dobi. S pomočjo intervjujev, vsebinskeanalize štirih revij in uradnih dokumentov1 opazujem, kakovpleteni razlagajo procese institucionalnega restrukturiranja invlogo družbenih ved. Poskušam razumeti logiko lokalnih odzivovna globalni pritisk na institucionalne spremembe.Naslov besedila se nanaša na oznako enega neoliberalnihizvedencev za univerzitetno izobraževanje in znanost. »Novaparadigma vednosti« je nov pogled na »družbo, temelječo naznanju«, in na pomembnost univerze v času, ko »bodo ekonomskiimperativi počistili z vsem, kar je bilo pred tem« (Gibbons,1998: 43). Vendar naslov implicira tudi opredelitev kritike te paradigme in neoliberalnega»upravljanja znanja«. Kakor pravi Bourdieu, smo priča nevarnemu simboličnemu nasilju noveliberalne lingua franca – »napačni univerzalizaciji« in vsiljevanju dehistoriziranih pojasnjevalnihshem in teorij, ki ne upoštevajo zgodovinskega konteksta (Bourdieu in Wacquant, 1998:defending the ‘success’ of later ‘neo-avant-garde’ art, this article willattempt to offer a historical rethinking of the frame of radical avant-gardismin the art and writing of Dada and Surrealism by drawing on the ideas ofautonomist Marxist theorists such as Antonio Negri, Mario Tronti, andothers.4 This is a tradition that, while still Marxist, is opposed to thephilosophical Western Marxist tradition5 to which Bu¨rger belongs in itsemphasis on the primacy of revolutionary agency over ideological critique.This reappraisal of the radical avant-garde begins by examining the theme ofthe refusal of work in Surrealism and Dadaism.6 But to do so firstnecessitates a critical return to accounts of the avant-garde’s use or negationof the autonomy of art, alongside an examination of their engagement withcultural practices beyond this autonomy.On Strike against Society: Aesthetic and Political AutonomyIn the bourgeois era, as cultural production was enclosed by the market and artwas increasingly separated from the social institutions which had previouslysupported and conditioned it, a theoretical tendency emerged whichconceived of art as self-governing and autonomous from other socialinstitutions: what is usually called ‘the autonomy of art’. The ideologicalcharacter of this autonomy, which is bound up with bourgeois ideas of a free,independently rational subject, has been accounted for by a number ofMarxist critics.7 However, in writing on art and aesthetics from theRomantic period onwards, this idea also began to appear to celebrate asubjective freedom to, as well as a freedom-from, often variously alignedwith radical positions opposed to capitalism. One can sense this tension, forexample, in Mallarme´’s ambiguous assertion of art’s autonomy via ametaphor of social engagement, when he claims that ‘in our time the poet