Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- Praise for Mass Intellectuality of the Neoliberal State -- Contents -- List of Figures -- List of Tables -- Chapter 1: The Political Potential of Mass Intellectuality -- 1.1 The Condition of Mass Intellectuality -- 1.2 Researching the Orientations of Mass Intellectuality in the University System -- 1.3 Effects of Mass Intellectuality in the Neoliberal State -- 1.4 Overview -- References -- Chapter 2: The Non-bureaucratic Basis of the Bureaucracy: Universities and Mass Intellectuality -- 2.1 Ideological Socialisation of Mass Intellectuality: Theoretical Remarks -- 2.1.1 Class, Professions, and Mass Intellectuality -- 2.1.2 Socialisation of Public Professionalism: Ideals and Ideology -- 2.2 Data Collection and Analysis -- 2.3 Universities as Ideological State Apparatuses -- 2.3.1 University Reform and Counter-Reform: From Development to Neoliberalism -- 2.3.2 Massification, Marketisation, and Material Differentiation -- 2.3.3 Patterns of Ideological Differentiation -- (A) Public-Elite -- (B) Private-Elite -- (C) Private-Mass/Commercially-Oriented -- (D) Private-Mass/Public-Oriented -- (E) Public-Mass -- 2.4 The 2011 Student Movement and the Politicisation of Intellectual Labour -- References -- List of Referenced Interviews -- Chapter 3: The Shift of State Autonomy: From Formal Bureaucracy to Autonomous State Work -- 3.1 The Classical Framework of Bureaucratic Action and Its Functionalist Critique -- 3.1.1 Weber's Classical Framework -- 3.1.2 The Functionalist Critique -- 3.2 Marxist and Post-Marxist Theories on State Autonomy in Advanced Capitalism -- 3.2.1 Relative Autonomy and State Power -- 3.2.2 Transformations of the State Apparatus -- 3.2.3 The Technocratic Rediscovery of State Autonomy -- 3.3 Post-Structuralist Approaches: Mass Intellectuality, Neoliberalism, and Post-Bureaucracies.

A conceptual strategy is proposed in order to link Max Weber's theory and politics of nationalism. The argument is oriented to rescue the coherence between the scarce theoretical work published by Weber on nation and nationalism, with the prolific role he had as intellectual and militant of German nationalism before and after the First World War. Broadly, nation constitutes itself as a sociological phenomenon in the realm of values, and its effectiveness depends on the nationalist action toward the consolidation and mobilization of the group solidarity through prestige and power. Consequently, a distinction is introduced between "nation in itself", as an spontaneous process of inter-subjective differentiation of the group –regardless of any objective or racial argument according to Weber's theory– and "nation for itself", as the collective action of consolidation of its identity in terms of internal homogeneity and external differentiation (opposition to other nations), through the role of intellectuals in the diffusion of the prestige of the group, and the vocation for political power (state) –where the arguments of Weber nationalism dwell–. Finally, key subjects of Weber's sociology, as the ethics of political action, the legitimacy of state domination, and social modernization, are reinterpreted in an instrumental sense, as means for the ends of his practical nationalism. ; Se propone una estrategia conceptual para vincular la teoría con la política del nacionalismo de Max Weber. La argumentación se orienta a rescatar la coherencia entre el escaso trabajo teórico que Weber publicó sobre nación y nacionalismo, con el rol prolífico que él tuvo como intelectual y político del nacionalismo alemán antes y después de la Primera Guerra Mundial. De manera general, la nación se constituye como fenómeno sociológico en el ámbito de los valores, y su efectividad depende de la acción nacionalista dirigida a consolidar y movilizar la solidaridad del grupo a través del prestigio y el poder. Se plantea la distinción entre ...

This article analyses the material and ideological implications of a highly commodified mass higher education system on the 2011 students' mobilisations in Chile. Drawing upon quantitative and qualitative data, we show that the grievances denounced by the movement emerged from the differences in the process of socialisation/reproduction of intellectual labour among universities, which in turn correspond to forms of class exploitation. Moreover, we demonstrate that students' engagement in/with the movement varies across universities in accordance with the differentiation of these institutions along class and political cleavages. The article offers insights to understand why a sectoral conflict became the most significant challenge to the neoliberal consensus that has prevailed since the late‐1980s.