Institutional Discourse and the Cult(ure) of Managerialism

Liz Morrish contemplates the legacy of Foucault's concept of governmentality in this piece on the construction of managerial identity in UK universities.

In UK universities, the conflict between managerial and academic values is primarily a struggle over discourse and the symbolic. It operates by forcing the academic to cite discourse which redefines their subjectivity in terms of managerial values.  We have seen a destabilization of established academic practices, and a superseding of existing values of cooperation, collective governance and democracy.  Whereas, once the university was once conceived of as a refuge from market values in its tolerance of risk and failure, they now reward only entrepreneurial, self-governing and competitive subjects, who are happy to function within the limits and discourse set for them by the managerial project. 

This paper draws on an ongoing project to collect and analyse data to support the argument that university management is like a Ponzi Scheme which is having a malign effect on the character of British higher education institutions. These schemes only succeed when you can persuade new investors to join the scheme, and so the internal priorities of universities are distorted away from teaching and research, towards feeding the managerial Ponzi. 

I am fortunate to be able pursue my research as an outsider on the inside by embedding myself in the rich environment of managerial apprenticeship now offered by most universities. The project of neoliberal governmentality is for the institution to produce its ideal employee (Morrissey 2013) and there can be no rejection of the new subjectivity. Our professional lives are dominated by the need to provide discursive evidence that we are compliant with the managerial regime in the form of performance management reviews, teaching evaluations, student satisfactions surveys, research excellence frameworks. Failure to enter into the discourse results in illocutionary silencing. A kind of biopower is exacted by compelling academics to undergo dressage training (Bendix Petersen and Davies 2010) in the new ratified behaviours and discourses. Linguistic data supporting this analysis emerges from management training programs such as: Leading High Performance Teams, Succession Planning, and Supporting Gold Standard Customer Service. 

I argue that those who pursue management roles in higher education are in the grip of a cult. Their identification with others in that tier, and their search for community, demands that they police the borders of the in-group while compelling subordinates to cite their norms. It is precisely because a fiction has been constituted, that management has to work so hard to maintain this precarious identity by discourse. Academics, however, are very aware that the official university culture of transparency and access to information is a perverse parody, retreating to what Docherty (2011) has called the ‘clandestine university’ within to pursue meaningful teaching and research.

References

• Bendix Petersen, Eva and Davies, Bronwyn. (2010) In/Difference in the neoliberalised university. Learning and Teaching in the Social Sciences. 3:2. 92-109
• Docherty, Thomas (2011). The unseen academy. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/418076.article
• Morrissey, John. (2013). Governing the academic subject: Foucault, governmentality and the performing university. Oxford Review of Education. 39:6. 797-810.

Neoliberal Discourses in British University Mission Statements

Liz Morrish's latest work with Helen Sauntson (University of Birmingham) analyzes neoliberal discourses in British university mission statements. The paper produces a critical analysis of a corpus of British university mission statements as a means of examining how text producers within higher education (HE) institutions use appraisal features to engage in public-sector marketing.

The paper focuses upon one specific marketing practice which has emerged in British universities over the past decade – the production of ‘mission statements’ or ‘university visions’. This is a standard practice used in businesses, particularly multinational corporations, which has been more recently adopted by the HE sector, arguably as part of the wider emergence of a neoliberal governmentality in university management. It has been argued that the values upheld by universities now centre around the marketisation, financialisation and commodification of enterprises which used to offer a public service but which are now much more driven by a neoliberal market economy (Canaan & Shumar 2008, Duggan 2003, Harvey 2005, Lynch, 2006). Mission statements serve the primary function of marketing the university in an environment of increasing competitiveness and commodification within British HE. Mission statements tend to be characterised by a discourse which realises and reinforces the competitive, market-driven values of the university. Appraisal (Martin 2000, 2003) is particularly helpful for uncovering these discourses which, as we argue in this paper, permeate and typify university mission statements.

 Preliminary findings suggest that the university mission statements make extensive use of Judgement and Appreciation markers, particularly around activities such as research and learning. Judgement markers tend to fall mainly into the sub-category of Social Esteem (especially tenacity and capacity). Appreciation markers are, predictably, positive and seem to cluster around particular 'products' which the universities are seen to be marketing. The authors have previously examined the ‘products’ marketed by universities via their mission statements (2010). This study complements the corpus linguistic approach of this study with the application of APPRAISAL analysis. 

Liz Morrish & Helen Sauntson (2013): ‘Business-facing motors for economic development’: an appraisal analysis of visions and values in the marketised UK university, Critical Discourse Studies, 10 1, 1-20. DOI:10.1080/17405904.2012.736698

Queer Impact and Practices

Queering Paradigms III: Queer Impacts and Practices is a new collection edited by Liz Morrish (co-edited with Kathleen O'Mara of SUNY Oneonta) which will be published soon by Peter Lang.

Their book brings together chapters arising from the third annual Queering Paradigms conference. Queer Theory is still evolving and extending the range of its enquiry. It maps out new territories via radical contestations of the categories of gender and sexuality. This approach de-centers assumptions of heteronormativity, but at the same time critiques a new homonormativity. 

In this collection, Liz and Kathleen incorporate the work of queer theorists and queer activists who are seeking new boundaries to cross, and new disciplines and social relations to queer. The sections of this book interrogate the impact of Queer Theory in studies of culture, nationalism, ethnography, intimacy, the social sciences as well as activism. Chapters address contemporary theorizing about gay citizenship and ‘homonationalism’ as well as a critique of gay visibility. Authors examine the symbolics of queer subversion and transgression in performers who transgress gender and sexuality codes. Queer activists extend their analysis into the world of punk, Buddhist religious teaching and Native Studies. Recent work attempts to transform several disciplines within the social sciences: linguistics, psychology, and ethnography.  Their book aims to demonstrate that Queer Theory, as well as being a disposition, is now deployed by many researchers as a legitimate framework of analysis which questions many of the categories, constructs and relationships we encounter in twenty-first century society.

The 'right' to bear arms?

Liz Morrish investigates the language of the Second Amendment.

I spent the recent Winter Break in the USA, arriving in New York on the day of the appalling mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. It seemed from the voices of outrage that this incident might open the way to reform of the permissive laws on gun ownership in the US. Indeed, a whole week passed before any sign of 'pushback' from the politically powerful National Rifle Association. I listened to the Vice President of America's National Rifle Association, Wayne Lapierre, defending what he assumed is his constitutional right to bear arms. To this speaker, it is a Right which is hardly necessary to justify, and brazenly, in the certainty of his analysis, he proclaimed, "the only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun."

This may seem an absurdity to most people in Europe where gun ownership is restricted by law, but in the USA it is well received by a large proportion of the population whose gun ownership rates are 88.8 per 100 people. Indeed CNN were claiming that there are more gun sale outlets in the US than all supermarkets and McDonalds burger restaurants combined.  How did guns become so essential to American culture? Why is personal gun ownership so vigorously defended by so many people? The NRA is fond of pointing to the US Constitution's Second Amendment which is said to guarantee the citizen's right to bear arms, but rarely is the full text of the amendment quoted. What the statute actually says is: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The right to bear arms is frequently cited by proponents and adversaries of gun control laws, but in the weeks after the Newtown tragedy, I did not hear any mention of the important first clause. 

I am not writing as an expert on constitutional law, rather, I write as a linguist versed in English grammar. There are three things to note about the construction of this statute: firstly, the initial clause ("A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state…”) is a reason-type subordinate clause - it provides the justification for the provision of the main clause. Secondly, we note that this clause is non-finite - it contains no tensed verb - and this usually gives the proposition a general applicability. Thirdly, and most importantly, the clause is placed first, and so fulfils the grammatical role of theme and focus of the sentence. In layman's terms, this first clause is the most important bit of the sentence.

For the founding fathers of the US constitution to have laid so heavy an emphasis on a "well-regulated militia" suggests that this was considered the necessary and appropriate context for the keeping and bearing of arms. They might have envisaged a situation similar to that found in Switzerland where young adult males are expected to serve in a people's militia, and to keep their weapons at home as part of their military obligations, in a state which has no standing army. We can be sure that the second amendment was not drafted with a view to providing untrained civilians with unfettered access to the assault weapon of their choice. At some point, the US state decided to entrust its defence to a national professional military arm, not a civilian militia.  It is unfathomable that Members of Congress could attempt to justify the carrying of concealed weapons on university campuses and the routine arming of teachers. It is already common to find US college campuses employing their own armed police force. We can only hope that they are "well regulated", but the consequences of both police and students having guns is a prospect I'm glad we do not face at NTU or the UK generally.

The US quite rightly defends its Constitution vigorously, but the language of the statute ensures that there need be no undermining of its wisdom in order to bring about serious restriction on gun ownership.   

Liz Morrish is Principal Lecturer in Linguistics in the Centre.

'I did not have sex with that bishop'

Liz Morrish explores what linguistics can tell us about current debates in the UK about gay bishops.

In early January 2013, The Church of England made an announcement “Regarding Clergy in a Civil Partnership as Candidates for the Episcopate.” This was widely reported in the press as approval for the ordination of gay bishops. What the statement from the House of Bishops says is: "The House has confirmed that clergy in civil partnerships, and living in accordance with the teaching of the Church on human sexuality, can be considered as candidates for the episcopate….The House believed it would be unjust to exclude from consideration for the episcopate anyone seeking to live fully in conformity with the Church's teaching on sexual ethics or other areas of personal life and discipline. All candidates for the episcopate undergo a searching examination of personal and family circumstances, given the level of public scrutiny associated with being a bishop in the Church of England.”

Reading between the Episcopal lines here, we find that, although no such sanction is applied to heterosexual married bishops, those who are gay and in civil partnerships with another man must swear an oath of celibacy in order to remain in conformity with the Church’s teaching. From this, we may surmise that, according to the Church of England, sexual ethics is about what sexual acts you perform, not about love, fidelity and commitment with a partner. 

Coming so soon after the Church had voted not to allow women as bishops, the talk on social media was of the Church being out of touch and obsessed with sex. One of the first to respond, angrily, was The Reverend Dr Giles Fraser who offered this solution to a gay bishop who may find himself in a quandary -  just lie. This seems unsatisfactory, as it forces gay clergy to retreat to an uncomfortable closet, and commit the sin of lying as well. None of this is a burden to heterosexual bishops, and so the advice leads to inequality and discrimination.

As a linguist, and a lesbian, the whole argument reminded me of a piece of academic research done in 1999 by Stephanie Sanders and June Reinisch on how differently men and women define ‘having sex.’ Their work was inspired by the public debate inaugurated by former US president Bill Clinton’s 1998 declaration that “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” Indeed, it turns out that Mr Clinton is not alone in his rather circumscribed definition of having sex, with 56% of men and 62% of women agreeing with him that oral-genital contact does not count. For most heterosexuals, ‘having sex’ would be about penetrative intercourse; however, gay men would almost certainly require a wider portfolio of sexual acts to delineate their notion of ‘having sex.’ I was once present at a workshop on sexual health where the introductory ice-breaker required each participant to recount in turn, “the last time I had sex, I…” The rule of the game, was, no repetition, and there was none. The task went round the group of fifteen gay men three times before they ran out of ideas. This just illustrates that this group’s perception of ‘having sex’ might not tally with the House of Bishops’ notion. Moreover, how ludicrous it would be if each gay bishop was required to seek a ruling on whether last night’s congress had constituted ’having sex.’ Would deep kissing offend? Or watching a porn movie? Or any of the other myriad and creative ways human beings can pleasure each other? It would certainly force clarity of thinking onto a group of theologians who seem to have overlooked some rather basic research into human sexuality. 

Looking forward to Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual History Month, this linguist offers that radical solution to Dr Fraser, and to the Church of England, and it would guarantee that Church business would be stymied, until its hierarchy finally did stop being so unnaturally obsessed with a gay man’s sex life. 

Liz Morrish is Principal Lecturer in Linguistics in the Centre.

'How Gay is Football this Year?'

Liz Morrish recently gave a paper at the Queering Paradigms IV conference (with Helen Sauntson, University of Birmingham) exploring how 'desire' operates within women's Varsity football.

Their paper starts by considering arguments from Bucholtz and Hall (2004; 2005), Morrish and Leap (2006) Morrish and Sauntson (2007) about how sexual identity emerges in context, is done relationally (i.e. between interactants) and can be linguistically signalled in various ways. Differences in culture, class, gender and race all coalesce in the production of sexually dissident identity. Bucholtz and Hall’s (2004; 2005) ‘intersubjective tactics’ framework offers a clear framework of analysis for the study of language and sexual identity. The framework is informed by aspects of queer theory and sociolinguistic theory. The framework sits well within the sociolinguistic Communities of Practice framework advocated by Eckert ( 2000) and further developed by Eckert and Wenger (2005). Queer theory reminds us that identity is not fixed, but permeable. The framework focuses analysis on three different dimensions of intersubjective enactment of identity:  adequation and distinction; authentication and denaturalisation; authorisation and illegitimation -- through which identity is intersubjectively constructed in local contexts of language use.

In this paper, they applied the tactics of intersubjectivity framework to data from conversations within a women’s football team, comprising a number of straight, questioning, bisexual and newly out lesbians. In the data, desire is constantly evoked as a way of performing adeqaution and distinction, and in this, simultaneously doing the work of identity in this context. They suggest that in a context where sexual identity is highly salient, unfixed and eroticised, desire becomes the vehicle and proxy for the signalling of adequation, authentication and authorization. In this way, enthusiastic expressions of heterosexuality, bisexuality and homosexuality reveal a celebration of sexual discovery in late adolescence, together with experimentation with the limits of tolerance. 

Liz Morrish (Nottingham Trent University, UK) and Helen Sauntson (University of Birmingham UK), “How gay is football this year?” Desire as adequation and distinction in a women’s Varsity football team, Queering Paradigms IV conference (Rio di Janeiro), July 2012.