2007年11月30日 星期五
2007年11月26日 星期一
2007年11月13日 星期二
2007年11月1日 星期四
Prospectus for Second Round of edu-factory discussion, 25 Nov 2007 – 28 Feb 2008
Prospectus for Second Round of edu-factory discussion, 25 Nov 2007 – 28 Feb 2008
The first round of discussion on the edu-factory list showed that, despite the many differences between universities and countries, it is possible to identify a global trend and common experiences in the world of the university. These stem from the pervasiveness of the market and the processes of corporatisation that universities in many parts of the world are undergoing. But they also involve the struggles and movements that have contested academic borders as well as wider power structures, claiming the free circulation of knowledge and practicing alternative forms of knowledge production.
The emergence of the university as an important actor in the global economy is thus marked by a constitutive tension. In this conflictual field, it is easy to fall back on a nostalgic attitude that longs for the reconstruction of the ivory towers that were once the privileged seats of national cultures. It is also possible, however, to interrogate the processes of production of subjectivity in the new ‘knowledge factories’ with neither nostalgia nor apologies for the present. Needless to say, edu-factory has taken this second path. The first round of discussion focused on the processes of corporatisation, the transnational dimension of the contemporary university, and forms of resistance and conflict in the production of knowledge. On this basis, we propose to focus the next three months of discussion on two new axes of discussion. The first is the question of hierarchy. Today the university is one of many actors – private and public, formal and informal – within a complex and rapidly changing market for knowledge and education. Academic institutions have begun to think of themselves as competitors against others in this market. In many countries, universities are positioned in league tables, constructed through ever more calibrated ways of quantifying performance and the quality of knowledge. Not only this, but individual offices and departments within institutions are also compelled to compete, vying for students or research funds, and, in some cases, contracting services such as teaching space or information technology expertise to each other. Furthermore, academics, students and other university workers come to see themselves as entrepreneurial subjects, engaged in race to excel or just survive and often adopting a corporate attitude that makes them insensitive to how the changes in their workplaces relate to those in the wider economy. Today the value-form of knowledge is related not so much to its quality but to the ways in which it positions those who produce or acquire it in the labour market. This is why, in the next round of discussion, we propose to focus on the struggles surrounding access to the university. Today, these struggles involve those filters and gate keeping functions that actualise the processes of hierarchisation and control the mobility of students insofar as they are the bearers of labour power. These filters and gate keeping functions range from quasi-feudal systems of patronage (still embodied in conventions such as the letter of recommendation) to standardized tests like the GRE (based on cognitivist assumptions about reasoning and analytical skills that do not apply equally to all social groups). To this we must add the filtering of students by regular systems of grading, streaming and school assignment as well as the control of international student mobility through foreign language tests and complex systems of border policing. These technologies of hierarchisation operate across the global spectrum of education, establishing the line that separates literacy from illiteracy as well as those that divideunskilled from semi-skilled and skilled labour.
Undoubtedly these processes of hierarchisation intersect with lines of race, class and gender. But entry to the university no longer occurs through the classical dialectic of inclusion-exclusion, but rather through devices of differential inclusion. As it transforms itself into a hub for the accumulation of human and social capital, attracting brains within the global competition for talent, the university becomes one of many nodes for the regulation, control and disqualification of labour power. What is exploitation today? What are the new paradigms for the command of labour power? To respond to these questions it is necessary to approach the contemporary division and hierarchisation of labour not as presuppositions, but as results, or effects, of the relations we want to investigate. The second axis of discussion involves the central question about which the edu-factory project turns: how to construct an autonomous university? In the first cycle of discussion there were productive confrontations between different experiences of auto-education and ‘experimental colleges’ in Argentina, Italy, India and North America.With their multiple strategies, these experiments converge in the search for lines of flight and immediate practices of resistance and conflict within the university.
We propose to continue this line of investigation in the second round of edu-factory discussion, focussing this time not merely on single experiences of auto-education but on how to link them into a transnational organised network. It is envisioned that many of the contributions in this second axis of discussion will be collectively written, exploring the potentiality for the invention of the global autonomous university as a new institutional form. We also hope to organise an event in the northern summer of 2008 to allow some of the contributors to this discussion to gather for face-to-face encounters. Hierarchisation and multiple forms of resistance, the construction of autonomous institutions and the breaking of processes of governance and control: these are the themes, or better the challenges, we would like to confront in the coming round of discussion. We also think it is impossible to discuss the construction of a global autonomous university without considering problems that only seem technical at first sight: from the question of the use of information technologies and open source software to the access to funds necessary to realise such a project. It is thus necessary that these questions form part of the debate in a way that doesn’t confine them to an unjustifiably separate dimension but which also avoids the drift of the conversation into merely technical matters. This should allow the list to take the form of a cooperative project composed of multiple and heterogeneous subjectivities, just as the conflicts in the production of knowledge on the borders of the global university are themselves multiple and heterogeneous.
The first round of discussion on the edu-factory list showed that, despite the many differences between universities and countries, it is possible to identify a global trend and common experiences in the world of the university. These stem from the pervasiveness of the market and the processes of corporatisation that universities in many parts of the world are undergoing. But they also involve the struggles and movements that have contested academic borders as well as wider power structures, claiming the free circulation of knowledge and practicing alternative forms of knowledge production.
The emergence of the university as an important actor in the global economy is thus marked by a constitutive tension. In this conflictual field, it is easy to fall back on a nostalgic attitude that longs for the reconstruction of the ivory towers that were once the privileged seats of national cultures. It is also possible, however, to interrogate the processes of production of subjectivity in the new ‘knowledge factories’ with neither nostalgia nor apologies for the present. Needless to say, edu-factory has taken this second path. The first round of discussion focused on the processes of corporatisation, the transnational dimension of the contemporary university, and forms of resistance and conflict in the production of knowledge. On this basis, we propose to focus the next three months of discussion on two new axes of discussion. The first is the question of hierarchy. Today the university is one of many actors – private and public, formal and informal – within a complex and rapidly changing market for knowledge and education. Academic institutions have begun to think of themselves as competitors against others in this market. In many countries, universities are positioned in league tables, constructed through ever more calibrated ways of quantifying performance and the quality of knowledge. Not only this, but individual offices and departments within institutions are also compelled to compete, vying for students or research funds, and, in some cases, contracting services such as teaching space or information technology expertise to each other. Furthermore, academics, students and other university workers come to see themselves as entrepreneurial subjects, engaged in race to excel or just survive and often adopting a corporate attitude that makes them insensitive to how the changes in their workplaces relate to those in the wider economy. Today the value-form of knowledge is related not so much to its quality but to the ways in which it positions those who produce or acquire it in the labour market. This is why, in the next round of discussion, we propose to focus on the struggles surrounding access to the university. Today, these struggles involve those filters and gate keeping functions that actualise the processes of hierarchisation and control the mobility of students insofar as they are the bearers of labour power. These filters and gate keeping functions range from quasi-feudal systems of patronage (still embodied in conventions such as the letter of recommendation) to standardized tests like the GRE (based on cognitivist assumptions about reasoning and analytical skills that do not apply equally to all social groups). To this we must add the filtering of students by regular systems of grading, streaming and school assignment as well as the control of international student mobility through foreign language tests and complex systems of border policing. These technologies of hierarchisation operate across the global spectrum of education, establishing the line that separates literacy from illiteracy as well as those that divideunskilled from semi-skilled and skilled labour.
Undoubtedly these processes of hierarchisation intersect with lines of race, class and gender. But entry to the university no longer occurs through the classical dialectic of inclusion-exclusion, but rather through devices of differential inclusion. As it transforms itself into a hub for the accumulation of human and social capital, attracting brains within the global competition for talent, the university becomes one of many nodes for the regulation, control and disqualification of labour power. What is exploitation today? What are the new paradigms for the command of labour power? To respond to these questions it is necessary to approach the contemporary division and hierarchisation of labour not as presuppositions, but as results, or effects, of the relations we want to investigate. The second axis of discussion involves the central question about which the edu-factory project turns: how to construct an autonomous university? In the first cycle of discussion there were productive confrontations between different experiences of auto-education and ‘experimental colleges’ in Argentina, Italy, India and North America.With their multiple strategies, these experiments converge in the search for lines of flight and immediate practices of resistance and conflict within the university.
We propose to continue this line of investigation in the second round of edu-factory discussion, focussing this time not merely on single experiences of auto-education but on how to link them into a transnational organised network. It is envisioned that many of the contributions in this second axis of discussion will be collectively written, exploring the potentiality for the invention of the global autonomous university as a new institutional form. We also hope to organise an event in the northern summer of 2008 to allow some of the contributors to this discussion to gather for face-to-face encounters. Hierarchisation and multiple forms of resistance, the construction of autonomous institutions and the breaking of processes of governance and control: these are the themes, or better the challenges, we would like to confront in the coming round of discussion. We also think it is impossible to discuss the construction of a global autonomous university without considering problems that only seem technical at first sight: from the question of the use of information technologies and open source software to the access to funds necessary to realise such a project. It is thus necessary that these questions form part of the debate in a way that doesn’t confine them to an unjustifiably separate dimension but which also avoids the drift of the conversation into merely technical matters. This should allow the list to take the form of a cooperative project composed of multiple and heterogeneous subjectivities, just as the conflicts in the production of knowledge on the borders of the global university are themselves multiple and heterogeneous.
2007年10月31日 星期三
阿圖舍（L. Althusser）之「意識型態和意識型態的國家機器」
我搜尋到了一些相關的國內討論，供大家參考參考（其中有兩篇論文以阿圖舍的觀點來討論教育問題）：
（三）L. Althusser--意識型態與教育階層化
L. Althusser在「意識型態和意識型態的國家機器」一文中解釋了生產條件的再生產、基礎和上層建築的社會結構，再轉進說明國家機器的形成與賦予國家機器作用的意識型態之間的關係，並說明教育作為國家機器構造中的其中之一，無非是在進行階級再製的工作，在資本主義社會下，支配階級經此得以鞏固自身並操弄從屬階級的階層分配，據此而言，教育這一套機器，無疑的是一套設計精良的階層化機器。
意識型態國家機器作為西方資本主義社會中一種精密的控管機制，其機制作用在於維持了一個特定的社會秩序、一套特定的生產關係及一種不為人所察覺的特定權力運作。透過意識型態國家機器的作用，個人不在被組織、監督或甚至操控的對象，反而是被收編的對象。意識型態國家機器的作用在於使從屬階級將支配階級所有的意識型態內化，並受意識型態國家機器儀式支配而行事。
就教育制度作為一種意識型態國家機器的作用而言，Althusser認為教育制度作為一種意識型態國家機器的目的在於資本主義之生產條件的再製包括生產力的再製與生產關係的再製。在學校教育中關於生產力的再製，其途徑為學校中專業之能的教導。而關於生產關係的再製，其途徑是意識型態的陶冶即教導學生養成良好的行為紀律與道德規範。教育制度作為一種意識型態國家機器是指政治的統治階級藉著教育來傳遞有利於國家的意識型態，以利於鞏固其統治地位，並打壓不利於或對其統治地位可能造成威脅的思想。此外，統治者也透過教育中特定知識、道德、價值與哲學，來合法化其統治與宰制的正當性。（教社通訊26期）
以上摘自 陳俊升 南華教社所碩士
http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/37/37-14.htm
教師專業中教師角色之轉變 賴孟俞著
http://www.nhu.edu.tw/~society/e-j/64/64-40.htm
社會階級的意義與要素及其在教育研究的運用性與原則
姜添輝著 (國立臺南師範學院社會科教育學系副教授)
從最近Google與Facebook的競爭來看經濟意義上的外部性（externalities）
剛好今天下完課讀了紐約時報以下這篇報導，覺得可以拿來當作Boutang所講的知識經濟外部性的實例。其中值得注意的有以下幾點：
一、Facebook似乎體現了非物質知識生產的合作基礎：『Facebook...last spring opened its service to outside developers. Since then, more than 5,000 small programs have been built to run on the Facebook site, and some have been adopted by millions of the site’s users. Most of those programs tap into connections among Facebook friends and spread themselves through those connections, as well as through a “news feed” that alerts Facebook users about what their friends are doing』
二、知識經濟以局部性合作代替競爭
三、以open source當作競爭的手段（很弔詭）『Vic Gundotra, who heads Google's developer programs, said last week that Google would soon begin an aggressive project to create software tools and give them away free in an open-source format.』
四、外部性創造財富：『The goal, he said, is to improve not just Google’s applications, but any software that runs on the Web. That, in turn, would drive more Internet use, and Google would benefit indirectly by selling advertising, he said.』
全文轉載於下面：
New York Times
October 31, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/technology/31google.html?pagewanted=print
Google and Friends to Gang Up on Facebook
By MIGUEL HELFT and BRAD STONE
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 30 — Google and some of the Web’s leading social networks are teaming up to take on the new kid on the block — Facebook.
On Thursday, an alliance of companies led by Google plans to begin introducing a common set of standards to allow software developers to write programs for Google’s social network, Orkut, as well as others, including LinkedIn, hi5, Friendster, Plaxo and Ning.
The strategy is aimed at one-upping Facebook, which last spring opened its service to outside developers. Since then, more than 5,000 small programs have been built to run on the Facebook site, and some have been adopted by millions of the site’s users. Most of those programs tap into connections among Facebook friends and spread themselves through those connections, as well as through a “news feed” that alerts Facebook users about what their friends are doing.
The New York Times learned of the alliance’s plan from people briefed on the matter. Google, which had planned to introduce the alliance at a party on Thursday evening, later confirmed the plan.
“It is going to forestall Facebook’s ability to get everyone writing just for Facebook,” said a person with knowledge of the plans who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the alliance. The group’s platform, which is called OpenSocial, is “compatible across all the companies,” that person said.
“Facebook got the jump by announcing the Facebook platform and getting the traction they got. This is an open alternative to that,” the person also said.
The alliance includes business software makers Salesforce.com and Oracle, who are moving to let third-party programmers write applications that can be accessed by their customers. The start of OpenSocial comes just a week after Google lost to Microsoft in a bid to invest in Facebook and sell advertising on the social network’s pages outside the United States. And it comes just before the expected introduction by Facebook of an advertising system next week, which some analysts believe could compete with Google’s.
Joe Kraus, director of product management at Google, said that the alliance’s conversations preceded Microsoft’s investment in Facebook. “Obviously, we would love for them to be part of it,” Mr. Kraus said of Facebook. Facebook declined to comment.
Facebook’s success with its platform has proved that the combination of social data and news feeds is a powerful mechanism to help developers distribute their software. They are now seen as must-have functions for many Internet companies. Other social networks and Web companies, including MySpace and the instant messaging service Meebo.com, have announced plans to open their sites in similar ways.
For now, however, Facebook has become the preferred platform for software developers.
By teaming with others, Google hopes to create a rival platform that could have broad appeal to developers. A person briefed on the plans said the sites in the alliance had a combined 100 million users, more than double the size of Facebook.
The developers of some of the most popular Facebook applications, including iLike, Slide, Frixter and RockYou, are expected to be present Thursday evening at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., where they will announce that they will tailor their programs to run on the OpenSocial sites.
The effort faces several hurdles. Developers may not see the advantage to writing programs that run across such remarkably different networks as, for example, LinkedIn, which caters to business professionals, and hi5, which is popular in Central America.
For Google, the effort could breathe new life into Orkut, which is popular in Brazil and other countries, but not in the United States. While the move could also help some rival social networks, Google could benefit from their success, in part, by helping to sell advertising on those sites.
Indeed, that strategy would fit into a model that Google has begun talking about recently. Vic Gundotra, who heads Google’s developer programs, said last week that Google would soon begin an aggressive project to create software tools and give them away free in an open-source format.
The goal, he said, is to improve not just Google’s applications, but any software that runs on the Web. That, in turn, would drive more Internet use, and Google would benefit indirectly by selling advertising, he said.
Google has not been able to establish itself as a force in social networking, and it clearly wants to. “One of the things to say, very clearly, is that social networks as a phenomenon are very real,” Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said in a recent interview. “If you are of a certain age, you sort of dismiss this as college kids or teenagers. But it is very real.”
Google said it has advertising relationships with several social networks, including a $900 million partnership to sell ads on MySpace, which the company said is performing well. Google is also making some money on Facebook, through ads that run inside applications that are used on that network.
A person familiar with Google’s efforts said that those applications have been far more effective for advertisers on social networks than users’ personal pages. “It is early, but those ads work very well, whereas the ads in overall social media platforms have shown less performance,” the person said. Mr. Kraus said that over time Google hoped to bring other social elements to Web applications, whether or not they run inside social networks. Analysts expect other Google services, including iGoogle, to be equipped with social features eventually.
一、Facebook似乎體現了非物質知識生產的合作基礎：『Facebook...last spring opened its service to outside developers. Since then, more than 5,000 small programs have been built to run on the Facebook site, and some have been adopted by millions of the site’s users. Most of those programs tap into connections among Facebook friends and spread themselves through those connections, as well as through a “news feed” that alerts Facebook users about what their friends are doing』
二、知識經濟以局部性合作代替競爭
三、以open source當作競爭的手段（很弔詭）『Vic Gundotra, who heads Google's developer programs, said last week that Google would soon begin an aggressive project to create software tools and give them away free in an open-source format.』
四、外部性創造財富：『The goal, he said, is to improve not just Google’s applications, but any software that runs on the Web. That, in turn, would drive more Internet use, and Google would benefit indirectly by selling advertising, he said.』
全文轉載於下面：
New York Times
October 31, 2007
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/31/technology/31google.html?pagewanted=print
Google and Friends to Gang Up on Facebook
By MIGUEL HELFT and BRAD STONE
SAN FRANCISCO, Oct. 30 — Google and some of the Web’s leading social networks are teaming up to take on the new kid on the block — Facebook.
On Thursday, an alliance of companies led by Google plans to begin introducing a common set of standards to allow software developers to write programs for Google’s social network, Orkut, as well as others, including LinkedIn, hi5, Friendster, Plaxo and Ning.
The strategy is aimed at one-upping Facebook, which last spring opened its service to outside developers. Since then, more than 5,000 small programs have been built to run on the Facebook site, and some have been adopted by millions of the site’s users. Most of those programs tap into connections among Facebook friends and spread themselves through those connections, as well as through a “news feed” that alerts Facebook users about what their friends are doing.
The New York Times learned of the alliance’s plan from people briefed on the matter. Google, which had planned to introduce the alliance at a party on Thursday evening, later confirmed the plan.
“It is going to forestall Facebook’s ability to get everyone writing just for Facebook,” said a person with knowledge of the plans who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak on behalf of the alliance. The group’s platform, which is called OpenSocial, is “compatible across all the companies,” that person said.
“Facebook got the jump by announcing the Facebook platform and getting the traction they got. This is an open alternative to that,” the person also said.
The alliance includes business software makers Salesforce.com and Oracle, who are moving to let third-party programmers write applications that can be accessed by their customers. The start of OpenSocial comes just a week after Google lost to Microsoft in a bid to invest in Facebook and sell advertising on the social network’s pages outside the United States. And it comes just before the expected introduction by Facebook of an advertising system next week, which some analysts believe could compete with Google’s.
Joe Kraus, director of product management at Google, said that the alliance’s conversations preceded Microsoft’s investment in Facebook. “Obviously, we would love for them to be part of it,” Mr. Kraus said of Facebook. Facebook declined to comment.
Facebook’s success with its platform has proved that the combination of social data and news feeds is a powerful mechanism to help developers distribute their software. They are now seen as must-have functions for many Internet companies. Other social networks and Web companies, including MySpace and the instant messaging service Meebo.com, have announced plans to open their sites in similar ways.
For now, however, Facebook has become the preferred platform for software developers.
By teaming with others, Google hopes to create a rival platform that could have broad appeal to developers. A person briefed on the plans said the sites in the alliance had a combined 100 million users, more than double the size of Facebook.
The developers of some of the most popular Facebook applications, including iLike, Slide, Frixter and RockYou, are expected to be present Thursday evening at Google’s headquarters in Mountain View, Calif., where they will announce that they will tailor their programs to run on the OpenSocial sites.
The effort faces several hurdles. Developers may not see the advantage to writing programs that run across such remarkably different networks as, for example, LinkedIn, which caters to business professionals, and hi5, which is popular in Central America.
For Google, the effort could breathe new life into Orkut, which is popular in Brazil and other countries, but not in the United States. While the move could also help some rival social networks, Google could benefit from their success, in part, by helping to sell advertising on those sites.
Indeed, that strategy would fit into a model that Google has begun talking about recently. Vic Gundotra, who heads Google’s developer programs, said last week that Google would soon begin an aggressive project to create software tools and give them away free in an open-source format.
The goal, he said, is to improve not just Google’s applications, but any software that runs on the Web. That, in turn, would drive more Internet use, and Google would benefit indirectly by selling advertising, he said.
Google has not been able to establish itself as a force in social networking, and it clearly wants to. “One of the things to say, very clearly, is that social networks as a phenomenon are very real,” Eric E. Schmidt, Google’s chief executive, said in a recent interview. “If you are of a certain age, you sort of dismiss this as college kids or teenagers. But it is very real.”
Google said it has advertising relationships with several social networks, including a $900 million partnership to sell ads on MySpace, which the company said is performing well. Google is also making some money on Facebook, through ads that run inside applications that are used on that network.
A person familiar with Google’s efforts said that those applications have been far more effective for advertisers on social networks than users’ personal pages. “It is early, but those ads work very well, whereas the ads in overall social media platforms have shown less performance,” the person said. Mr. Kraus said that over time Google hoped to bring other social elements to Web applications, whether or not they run inside social networks. Analysts expect other Google services, including iGoogle, to be equipped with social features eventually.
2007年10月30日 星期二
2007年10月15日 星期一
2007年10月14日 星期日
新自由主義全球化之下的學術生產 <家瑩>
從二次大戰之後，在國家主權上，台灣形式上獨立於世界上的任何一個國家，然而，不論從政治、社會、教育或文化的發展卻是實質地深受美國的牽引。1980年代末期，冷戰結束後，各國的經濟更是以美國的資本主義、自由市場為發展目標，形成90年代以美國為主導的所謂全球化經濟。
綜合上述兩點歷史成因，再反思國內學習美國對個別學者研究成果評鑑的TSSCI。作者提出，SSCI本身在美國的實行就具有語言上的偏頗問題，並特指出ISI的引文系統為例說明了英文刊物為單一標準，在根本上就忽略了以其它語言發表的論文，與所謂的國際化、全球化正是背道而馳，而若台灣的TSSCI亦盲目仿效，同樣地的問題也將存在。
同時，這樣的SSCI決定論，不僅是對非英語刊物忽略，形成了一元論的不均等發展，對人文、社會科學的學術發展上更是一種傷害，其背後意謂著單一語言、單一文化。從語言文字的角度來反思，國內的TSSCI制度，雖是為了彌補單一語言的缺失，但在實施上卻也同樣存在著排它性侷限於台灣，忽略了中國的CSSCI及其它的華文地區的學術文化交流，尤其是隨著中國經濟的崛起，華文對全球化經濟發展的重要與日俱增，在文字上是存在著簡體與繁體的差別，而TSSCI這種限制區域的制度，無疑是作繭自縛、畫地自限。從社會文化發展的角度來看，TSSCI這種以量為評量標準的制度，嚴重的傷害了跨學科的科際整合研究，忽略了人文、社會科學以質為取向的研究，在經濟發展掛帥的社會下，自然科學成了引導學術發展的主要方向，與之抗衡的社會科學，卻無法建全的發展其批判能力。
從國內的TSSCI評鑑制度來看，新自由主義全球化的發展，對台灣的學術生產無疑是種不均衡的發展環境，在學生看來，語言不只是傳遞與學習知識的工具，同時，也是培養社會批判能力促使社會前進的工具，在全球化的環境下，英語一直在過去一直是領導發展的語言，而中國的經濟開放，確實是給華語帶來了機會，但若，台灣不借由語言之便，在國際間發展出台灣的社會人文研究，最終將隨著全球經濟發展的重心改變，由英文殖民轉為簡體殖民，淪為中國之後。
綜合上述兩點歷史成因，再反思國內學習美國對個別學者研究成果評鑑的TSSCI。作者提出，SSCI本身在美國的實行就具有語言上的偏頗問題，並特指出ISI的引文系統為例說明了英文刊物為單一標準，在根本上就忽略了以其它語言發表的論文，與所謂的國際化、全球化正是背道而馳，而若台灣的TSSCI亦盲目仿效，同樣地的問題也將存在。
同時，這樣的SSCI決定論，不僅是對非英語刊物忽略，形成了一元論的不均等發展，對人文、社會科學的學術發展上更是一種傷害，其背後意謂著單一語言、單一文化。從語言文字的角度來反思，國內的TSSCI制度，雖是為了彌補單一語言的缺失，但在實施上卻也同樣存在著排它性侷限於台灣，忽略了中國的CSSCI及其它的華文地區的學術文化交流，尤其是隨著中國經濟的崛起，華文對全球化經濟發展的重要與日俱增，在文字上是存在著簡體與繁體的差別，而TSSCI這種限制區域的制度，無疑是作繭自縛、畫地自限。從社會文化發展的角度來看，TSSCI這種以量為評量標準的制度，嚴重的傷害了跨學科的科際整合研究，忽略了人文、社會科學以質為取向的研究，在經濟發展掛帥的社會下，自然科學成了引導學術發展的主要方向，與之抗衡的社會科學，卻無法建全的發展其批判能力。
從國內的TSSCI評鑑制度來看，新自由主義全球化的發展，對台灣的學術生產無疑是種不均衡的發展環境，在學生看來，語言不只是傳遞與學習知識的工具，同時，也是培養社會批判能力促使社會前進的工具，在全球化的環境下，英語一直在過去一直是領導發展的語言，而中國的經濟開放，確實是給華語帶來了機會，但若，台灣不借由語言之便，在國際間發展出台灣的社會人文研究，最終將隨著全球經濟發展的重心改變，由英文殖民轉為簡體殖民，淪為中國之後。
2007年10月13日 星期六
Social Conflict and Educational Innovation 教學大綱上線囉!!
As was the factory, so now is the university. Where once the factory was a paradigmatic site of struggle between workers and capitalists, so now the university is a key space of conflict, where the ownership of knowledge, the reproduction of the labour force, and the creation of social and cultural stratifications are all at stake. This is to say the university is not just another institution subject to sovereign and governmental controls, but a crucial site in which wider social struggles are won and lost.
To be sure, these changes occur as capitalism gives new importance to the production of knowledge, and in the advanced capitalist world, moves such production of knowledge to the centre of the economy. With this movement, the university also loses its monopoly in this same sphere of knowledge production. Perhaps it once made sense to speak of town and gown. But now the borders between the university and society blur.
This merging of university and society takes diverse forms. It can be shaped by the pressure to market degrees. Or it can be forced by measures that link the provision of funding to ‘technological transfer’ or collaboration with ‘partners’ from government and/or commercial enterprises. Similarly, the growing precariousness of academic work means that many labour both in and out of the university, not to mention the labour conditions for non-academic workers. And the opening of many universities to previously excluded cohorts of students, whether on the basis of social class or national jurisdiction, means that their internal composition has also changed.
These transformations both shift the possibilities for political expression in the university and initiate new kinds of struggle. In some instances, a politicised student movement has disappeared. In others has begun to grow. The transnationalisation of many university operations, including the internationalisation and diversification of the student body, introduces new kinds of cultural conflicts and tensions. At the same time, the university is derailed from its traditional mission of safeguarding the national and official culture. How are we to make sense of these changes, and, above all, how should they inform radical political investigation and action?
The university is a key site for intervention because it is now a global site. Indeed, there is no such thing as ‘the university’ but only universities, in their specific geographical, economic, and cultural locations. Even within universities there exists a range of labour practices and conditions as well as different cultures of organisation. If, in analogy to the factory of yesteryear, we are to understand the university as a paradigmatic site of struggle, we must first map and understand these differences (even as they are taking shape), not as an end in itself but as means of generating shared resources to meet the conflicts at hand.
課程要求
1. 上課前一天將1頁的閱讀筆記post在課程部落格上，（30%）。
2. 課堂口頭報告，附書面大綱(30%)。
3. 期末報告（40%）。
課程介紹
第三週 10/03
陳光興、錢永祥，〈新自由主義全球化之下的學術生產〉
陳光興，〈全球化，遺忘所有非英語文化？〉
第四週 10/10
放假
第五週 10/17
David Harvey, Neoliberalism, 1-63
第六週 10/24
David Harvey, Neoliberalism, 64-119
第七週 10/31
Yann Moulier Boutang, “Cognitive Capitalism and Entrepreneurship”
第八週 11/07
Louis Althusser, “ideology and Ideological States Apparatuses” http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/LPOE70ii.html
第九週 11/14 期中考試週
《鬥爭俱樂部》
第十週 11/21
Michel Foucault, “Panopticism” http://cartome.org/foucault.htm
第十一週 11/28
Brett Neilson and Ned Rossiter, “From Precarity to Precariousness and Back Again: Labour, Life and Unstable Networks”
第十二週 12/05
Franco Ingrassia, “The Post-state university: hypotheses, tendencies, wagers”
Ned Rossiter, “Informational Universities and Neoliberalism as a Condition of Possibility”
第十三週 12/19
Andrew Ross, “Rise of the Global University”
第十五週 12/26
趙剛，〈反全球化該召喚出什麼樣的知識與政治──「慢社會學」的一個初步勾勒〉http://hermes.hrc.ntu.edu.tw/csa/journal/journal_park65.htm#b36
第十六週 01/02
馬庫賽（Herbert Marcuse）〈導論 批判的麻痺：沒有反對派的社會〉《單面人》
第十七週 01/09
Sohail Inayatullah, “The Futures of Neohumanist Education”
Sohail Inayatullah and Jennifer Gidley, “Forces Shaping University Futures” http://www.metafuture.org/Articles/Forces%20Shaping%20University%20Futures.htm
Constructing Future Higher Education Scenarios: Insights from Universiti Sains Malaysia
訂閱：
文章 (Atom)