Barnett, Ronald. (2003). Beyond All Reason: Living With Ideology in the University. Reviewed by Chad Hanson, Casper College

	Barnett, Ronald. (2003). Beyond All Reason: Living With Ideology in the University. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Pp. 231 $34.95 (cloth)     ISBN 0-335-20894-0 Reviewed by Chad Hanson Casper College, Casper, WY March 8, 2004 Beyond All Reason is the most recent book by Ronald Barnett, professor of Higher Education, University of London. The present volume is the latest in a series of Barnett’s books published by the Open University Press. Other titles include The Idea of Higher Education (1990), Improving Higher Education (1992), The Limits of Competence (1994), and Realizing the University in an Age of Supercomplexity (1999). Each book is devoted to a specific aspect of university life: the history of the higher learning (1990), total quality management (1992), competency-based curriculum (1994), and the issue of technology transfer (1999). But despite a steady focus on substantive concerns, the most notable feature of Barnett’s work is the sociological nature of his analysis. In each text, Barnett uses a broad theoretical framework to demonstrate that higher education is, above all else, a social institution. His work sheds a revealing light on the beliefs and practices common to universities, and in the process he puts forth a case for understanding higher education as a component of the wider society. Specifically, in Beyond All Reason Barnett turns his attention to ideology. Here, he describes the culture that shapes the stories we tell ourselves about who we are and what our work is for in higher education. Barnett probes our sense of institutional identity, and he examines the ideological forces that shape our sense of purpose. Like a trained arborist he unearths the roots that give rise to the codes and values that we live by. The text is scholarly. But the book is more than a formal academic tome. In a style consistent with the other volumes in the series, a thread of social criticism is woven through the work. Although, I would point out that Barnett breaks with the tradition of many critical theorists, often content to disapprove and run. Barnett stays the course until he’s offered an alternative to the present state of affairs. The book serves, in part, as a call to arms. In the end, Barnett makes a plea for faculty to use the power of ideology to remake the university. Barnett begins by describing how higher education was insulated from the interests and demands of other institutions, over most of its 800 year history. In the past, the role of the university was singular and clear. Universities existed to advance and disseminate knowledge. Faculty and staff saw themselves as servants of scholarly and disciplinary interests. However, Barnett suggests the recent withdrawal of public financial support for higher education moved universities into a unique historical era. Waning public support forced universities to buttress their budgets with funds from private sources. In the process, Barnett claims that universities directed their attention away from their historic interest in pursuing knowledge for its own sake, and toward applied pursuits with practical applications for business. Barnett is not the first to make such a claim (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997), but his work is distinctive because he goes beyond an analysis of the financial and organizational changes that accompany the shift from public to private funding. His analysis includes an examination of the change in norms, roles, and values that accompany the shift. Barnett portrays the university as an institution that defines itself in entrepreneurial terms; an institution that maintains itself along the lines of corporations in the free market. In short, he describes the university as an institution drunk with the ideology of “entrepreneurialism” (2003, p. 73). In the ongoing quest to raise support for its operations, the university has abandoned the lonely ivory tower and refashioned itself as an integral part of the global economy. Changes in faculty hiring practices, increased reliance on sources of external funding, and the vocationalization of the curriculum are all documented here as symptoms of the wider cultural transformation of the university. But for Barnett, these changes are the least of our concerns. He suggests, in the process of turning itself into what is largely an engine of economic development, the university is undergoing a fundamental change in its identity. He claims: The entrepreneurial university is engaged . . . on an especially risky course. It may be risking more than it understands for it may be risking itself. In coming to be a different kind of institution, it risks coming to live by new sets of values. (2003, p. 66) Barnett questions the place of free market or entrepreneurial values in an institution meant to serve a higher purpose than the typical organization in the private sector, which we understand to be focused on the bottom line. But his primary concern is the insidious nature of the move toward entrepreneurial values. He suggests that the move has taken place without public debate, or even debate among university professionals closest to the change. According to Barnett, the debate has been stifled because entrepreneurialism produces consent. Within our current culture, the norms and values of the free market are accepted carte blanche, they seem natural to faculty and staff. Consequently, the changes associated with the recent transformation of higher education are rarely held up to scrutiny. Barnett stops short of suggesting that the values inherent to capitalism are altogether bad, but he maintains that the adoption of an entrepreneurial model is risky, and he contends that we have failed to examine the consequences of our efforts to reform and restructure the university along free market lines. According to Barnett, our silence on this matter is antithetical to the spirit of critical inquiry that was vital to higher education in the past. He suggests, on one hand, “The risk may be felt to be worthwhile,” but he hastens to add, “that consideration implies that the risk to the university’s value structure has been actually identified and weighed” (2003, p. 66). His concern is that the language and ideology of industry have breached and transformed the university, unchallenged. Administrators and faculty think in terms of “innovation, flexibility, and adaptation” (Barnett 2003, p. 67). We use words and phrases like, “efficiency, productivity, accountability, competition, and total quality management” to talk about our work (Bean, 1998, p. 497). The vocabulary of our vocation has changed incrementally and quietly. But Barnett points out that even though the changes have been inconspicuous, they are not paltry or innocent. He uses the current emphasis on “quality” as an illustration of the consequences that accompany the changes in our language and our way of thinking about the university. He writes: If higher education is felt to be a matter of producing highly qualified manpower for the labour market, a definition of quality is likely to result that plays up employability as a measure of quality. (2003, p. 95) Barnett is quick to point out that, “Quality is not neutral,” and he goes on to suggest that, “it is not . . . independent of wider socioeconomic interests” (2003, p. 95). On the contrary, words have the ability to veil interests, and they are used to wield power (Said, 1994). Under the cover of terms that are hard to find fault with, terms like “quality,” we move along without questioning the motives for changes in curriculum, hiring practices, or course delivery methods. We tend not to question. We are apt to see quality as something that is prearranged, but quality is not a given. The definition of quality involves a negotiation of power. Anyone in a position to define quality is in a position to determine what is good and what is not good. That is a big distinction, and the people who make it wield power. In the words of Robert Pirsig, “Quality for sheep is what the shepherd says” (1974, p. 392). Barnett’s overarching thesis is that ideology has the power to shape our understanding of what constitutes good practice in higher education, and in the process, alternative visions for the institution are undermined or cast aside. In short, ideology has the effect of limiting discourse. Rational conversations about the best future for the university are seen as quaint distractions from the real business of forging ahead, increasing productivity. Barnett’s image of the modern university is not flattering. It’s an image of an institution hardened into a pattern of fund raising and cost accounting; an institution incapable of fostering a dialogue critical enough to expose the current culture of higher education for what it is—a potent manifestation of free market ideology. At present, free market beliefs and practices seem cemented in place. But Barnett offers hope for readers uncomfortable with the current language, norms, and values embodied by the university, he asks: . . . why let the devil have all the best, or at least the loudest, tunes? If ideology can be a force for dubious ends, so it can be a force for positive ends. (2003, p. 62) Despite the fact that universities are under pressure to accept the values of ‘academic capitalism’ (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997), Barnett suggests that “universities enjoy large pools of space in which to take up value positions of their own” (2003, p. 119). Barnett’s plea is for faculty to use those pools of space to communicate a set of values with the potential to redefine the university as an institution that can challenge private interests and work toward the public good. He acknowledges that such an effort is bound to be fraught with problems. In an institution committed to value-free inquiry, the very notion of values is suspicious. For academics, the realm of values is often thought to lie “beyond all reason” (Barnett 2003, p. 121). But as far as Barnett is concerned, that characterization has kept academics quiet on too many issues of public importance. Within the void of silence, universities have slipped into the habit of disregarding social problems. We spend considerable time and energy developing technology with applications for the military, but less time contemplating strategies for peace; we put significant effort into streamlining industrial processes, but we put less effort into alleviating the effects of industrial waste; we have thrown ourselves headlong into the advancement of medicine, but we forget the public health risk that occurs when a large segment of the population lacks basic access to care. Barnett calls for a recalculation of our priorities. He calls for a new language of resistance. His plea is for academics to resist the temptation to serve established economic and political power. The goal is to remake the university into an institution where reflexivity and enlightenment are valued. The aim is to create a future where the university incites progressive discourse. Beyond All Reason is a thoughtful examination of the norms, roles, and values shaping higher education. In this book, Barnett takes a hard-edged look at the way culture, politics, and economics impact upon the university. He is not content with what he sees, but instead of lapsing into scorn or cynicism, he presents readers with an invitation to reinvigorate the promise of research and teaching for the greater good. In sum, Barnett offers a vision for a new institution; an institution willing to engage in politics, capable of challenging economic interests, and given to addressing social problems. References Barnett, Ronald. (1990). The Idea of Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Barnett, Ronald. (1992). Improving Higher Education. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Barnett, Ronald. (1994). The Limits of Competence. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Barnett, Ronald. (1999). Realizing the University in an Age of Supercompexity. Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education and the Open University Press. Bean, John. (1998). “Alternative Models of Professorial Roles: New Languages for Reimagining Work.” The Journal of Higher Education, 5, 496-512. Pirsig, Robert. (1974). Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance: An Inquiry Into Values. New York: William Morrow and Company. Said, Edward. (1994). Cultureand Imperialism. New York: Random House. Slaughter, Sheila and Larry Leslie. (1997). Academic Capitalism: Politics, Policies, and the Entrepreneurial University. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. About the Reviewer Chad Hanson Chad Hanson teaches sociology at Casper College. His research interests are focused on the social and political aspects of higher education. His essays, articles, and reviews have appeared in The Teaching Professor, Thought and Action, College Teaching, and The Journal of Higher Education, among others.