Studies consistently find that academics today embrace “left-leaning” political views. However, we also know that this varies by discipline and type of institution. You’re more likely to find a Marxist in English or sociology than in engineering, a finding consistent since The Social and Political Views of American Professors was authored by Neil Gross and Solon Simmons in 2007.
The “soft sciences” (areas often including “studies” in their names) decry “hegemony” while being strangely homogenous within their silos. Yes, there are outliers, but we are rare.
Economics and finance, which might not be considered humanities at many institutions — these often fall within business schools or departments within a university — are the only disciplines in which professors self-identify in relatively balanced numbers as liberal, moderate, and conservative. That’s held steady for more than a decade.
Then, you get English, history, and communications. These fields often have 60 percent of higher self-identified liberal faculty and less than 10 percent conservative. In history, 80 percent of faculty in several surveys self-identified as on the “left” of political views, including Marxists.
As the saying goes, to find a Marxist, look outside economics.
But what if you study economics within rhetoric, writing, and communication? That’s where I exist, and it seems to be a lonely place. There are many progressive faculty in rhetorical studies with only a passing interest in economics, but a political commitment against economic theories and historical analyses within economics.
These rhetoricians dislike Niall Ferguson, Amity Shlaes, and Deirdre McCloskey, scholars of economic history and rhetoric.
There isn’t much space within rhetoric for me. I’m not going to pretend to be a progressive when my passions for economics lead me to conclude the evolution of markets has advanced human civilization.
When academic journals keep issuing “calls for papers” that address the dangers of neoliberalism and capitalism, of course it is difficult for other perspectives to be represented. Two CFPs, issued two years apart, reflect the progressive hegemony within rhetoric, communication, and writing studies:
- Using Located Agency to Resist Neoliberal Rhetorics and Instrumentalist Practices
- Neoliberalism has Failed: Communication toward a New Political Economy
At first glance, work within the rhetoric of economics fits within those CFPs. Yet, most scholars engaged in rhetorical studies of economics lean towards market-based theories. The imprecision of “neoliberalism” as an insult from progressives, socialists, and communists leaves it unclear what balance of markets to regulation are acceptable. Among the purists (the Jacobin writers, DSA, et al), they reject all classical liberalism and markets.
The language of the CFPs reflects the biases and beliefs of a great many, leaving little space for a rhetorical scholar outside the political majority. The CFPs encourage certain arguments, actively dissuading dissent while offering a veneer of open-mindedness.
Long, often meandering rant follows.
I know my interests limit my success in academia. What I study and how my research has shaped me troubles my colleagues in rhetoric. Clearly, I’m deeply flawed.
I don’t understand my colleagues in rhetoric, and they don’t understand me.
Using Located Agency to Resist Neoliberal Rhetorics and Instrumentalist Practices
September 2018 Deadline
In the age of neoliberalism and attacks on Basic Writing and Developmental Education, we ask how do programs resist and foster best practices in the face of austerity, deprofessionalization, and the instrumentalization of education, which reduces education to a mere economic outcome?
Education has always been about an economic outcome, as economics is more than financial income. University students represented the elites of society (and still do in most nations). These elites might prosper in business today, but universities have always had social capital. The ruling class learned how to be proper leaders. The future clergy learned the skills considered key to religious leadership.
Stop the fantasy that there was a time when universities were some great spaces for anyone to explore knowledge for the love of learning. That was limited to the privileged as it was, and reinforced their status in society. Don’t blame capitalism for the fact universities act as gatekeepers.
Neoliberalism predicates a reality dominated by market ideologies, particularly those prizing efficiency, austerity, production, and competition over other values (Welch and Scott; Saunders; Stenberg). Faculty advocacy is essential to preserving best pedagogical practices that serve students and a rich vision of our profession in the face of these pressures.
Markets are not merely ideological. We know that humans engage in trade and barter in most cultures and across eras. We are also competitive beings, regardless of economics. Efficiency? That’s one of the major promises (and failures) of centralized governments.
What the CFP authors really mean is “Reagan-Thatcher and beyond” were all bad, including Tony Blair and Bill Clinton. The word neoliberal is too imprecise to convey that, but academics know what the CFPs want.
The teacher-scholar-activist identity in local communities of practice can provide models for resisting the instrumentalization of education witnessed in the over-reliance on data-driven decisions, inauthentic placement measures, adjunctification of labor, lack of professionalism, lack of shared governance and more.
Does anyone use the word “instrumentalization” outside academia? What the CFPs I dislike share is that they claim education has become a tool, a machine, a factory for employers. Again, that’s what the institutions have always been. That’s not new and our students largely don’t want that to change.
How do I know our students don’t want that to change? Because English, history, and rhetoric are majors in decline, while students enroll in career-path, professional credentialing programs like engineering and nursing. These CFPs call for precisely the attitude that our students seem to be walking away from en masse.
Students attend colleges and universities to get jobs. You can dislike that all you want. Some students might agree. The English majors who graduate and struggle will surely agree with the authors of these CFPs.
I am not against being an activist, and teaching itself means I care about students. I particularly care about people from marginalized backgrounds (like mine) and want to help those students achieve economic mobility. The act of blogging and speaking publicly makes me an advocate, but I don’t want to be considered a dogmatic ideologue in my classroom. Thankfully, I have taught within business schools and my students want to hear about my business experiences and my entrepreneurial adventures.
We invite examples of how basic writing and developmental educators assert themselves as “teacher-scholar-activists” to establish viable local responses to austerity measures and neoliberal logics.
The phrase “neoliberal logic” in this context means an emphasis on working within university budgets, often beyond the control of administrators as enrollments decline and costs rise. It also means emphasizing student placement after graduation, reducing loan default rates, and meeting community pressures.
For 40 years (or more) the faculty in English, writing, and rhetoric have railed against the same problems. Forty years. Nothing has changed. Probably because unlike expanding departments with rising budgets, we’re not meeting market demands.
See the circle? A bunch of people who teach in struggling departments, producing struggling graduates, dislike markets because markets indicate these programs aren’t valuable to… markets!
Engineering majors? They aren’t leading the revolution. Their professors aren’t seeking ways to make electrical engineering or chemical engineering places of resistance to neoliberalism.
But… but… rhetoric is different! We’re explicitly about public policy!
Okay, but what if what you’re promoting isn’t supported by behavioral economics or quantitative economics? What if what you are promoting has a documented history and that history suggests markets surpass centralized systems? What if the history of socialism and communism offer compelling evidence these systems actually increase social problems?
My colleagues respond, “You’ve naturalized neoliberalism! You don’t see how bad it is because you benefit from the system. You’re not intellectually advanced enough to bracket your reality from what is right.”
Basically, I’m not smart enough to realize how horrible neoliberalism is. Especially since I’m a privileged white male who has worked in banking, technology, and media. I’m part of the machine, and the machine has blinded me to its evil ways. See? The system is self-perpetuating, and I’m a victim of its power. My leftist colleagues are only trying to save students from becoming me.
This first CFP ends with an obligatory nod to the highly unlikely possibility that the effect of neoliberalism might not be all bad.
Here are some of the questions prospective authors might examine:
(long list of 14 multi-part bullets, ending with…)
Have neoliberal discourses positively influenced our teaching and institutions? How might developmental educators enact their agency to benefit from neoliberal discourses?
Finally! A place for my rhetoric of economics and my perspectives. But, when you’re only a bullet and it’s the one contrarian bullet, there’s limited chance of a successful paper submission. Plus, what I consider a “positive” metric will likely be a negative to the dominant groupthink.
Some answers seem obvious, but my favorite is: competition for student enrollment forces our departments and programs to innovate. That competition has led some departments to add new minors that appeal to science and technology majors. We have expanded technical communication as a result. We have moved beyond writing and speaking to teaching about digital modes of communication.
Our programs aren’t dying because of neoliberalism, even if that’s what some of us want to believe. Yes, if only students didn’t need jobs to pay off student loans, they’d enroll in our courses in overwhelming numbers. There’s no way to disprove that imagined potential, of course.
Markets are crowdsourcing. They are the masses, indicating a preference. We’re out of favor and the CFPs reflect a desire for a scapegoat.
I like numbers. Economists like numbers. That doesn’t mean I always like what the numbers tell me.
Economists tend to be “neoliberal” based on data reflecting the human condition today versus the conditions of most people in the past. Basically, most economists are centrists, whether labeled “left” or “right” out of simplification. They support markets with some regulation and debate that balance within the field of economics. Recall, economics is the study of allocating scare resources. Today’s economics is data-driven, not a program subordinate to philosophy.
Basically, the rhetoric publications and conferences start with assumptions opposing the trends within economics and current research in behavioral economics.
A newer CFP reflects our COVID-19 reality and proceeds to toss a lot of things under the heading of neoliberalism. That’s a mistake, even though I agree with many criticisms of our circumstances. The authors of this CFP conflate neoliberalism with everything distasteful. That’s a sloppy argument, but one unlikely to be noticed by the academic audience.
Yes, our president also is a misguided anti-science racist, bigot, misogynist, homophobe (the list goes on), but he is not a free market proponent. He’s a nationalist. He’s pretty far from the core values of neoliberalism. In fact, neoliberalism traditionally embraces many things Donald Trump and the current Republican leadership reject. Neoliberalism supports open borders (migration of labor), international trade (“free trade” treaties), an independent Federal Reserve, and other market solutions that Trump rejects.
Donald Trump doesn’t trust the market: he wants to manipulate it. That’s crony capitalism, yes, and it is also what authoritarians do. Neoliberals don’t want strong central government, while Trump craves more power and influence for the executive branch. Trump admires the antithesis of neoliberalism: Vladimir Putin.
This CFP is rightfully angry, but neoliberalism is the wrong target. And the understanding of business troubles me. The CFP resorts to ad hominem attacks and over-simplifications.
I would never feel welcomed into this community of thinkers. They hate capitalism, not merely some vague neoliberal variety of capitalism.
Neoliberal Capitalism has Failed: Teaching Communication toward a New Political Economy
December 2020 Deadline
The inability of the neoliberal capitalist political economy, which has dominated the Western political landscape for nearly 50 years, to address the basic needs of most of its citizens is readily apparent. In the United States, COVID-19 erupted across the nation resulting in over 100,000 U.S. citizens dead within six months due, in part, to the failure of a stripped down, inept government response — the culmination of decades of anti-government rhetoric undermining the effectiveness of public safety departments.
Neoliberalism’s “blame” for the United States’ problems isn’t apparent to “most of its citizens” according to Gallup or Pew surveys on voter identification. Not even close. In fact, only 22 percent of voters self-identify as liberal or progressive, while 40 percent of voters identify as conservative. Trump might not be popular, but more adults remain conservative than progressive, by an overwhelming number. (Curiously, nearly a third of conservatives are registered as or align with Democrats. That’s a huge blindspot for progressives in academia.)
California does not have a “stripped down” government, but it still was unable to respond well to the pandemic. What happened? People. People are why the novel coronavirus 2019 keep spreading. Ask the governors of New York or California, where leaders tried to implement good plans to protect the public. People, ignored the rules and suggestions.
I live near Austin, Texas. Houston, Austin, and Dallas are all “blue” progressive cities. They are COVID-19 hotspots. People didn’t follow health guidelines.
The CFP tries to blame racism on neoliberalism, too. No, racism is because people stink, and we need to admit that racism runs deep in most communities. We are deeply flawed creatures.
Ten of thousands across the nation protested the killing of unarmed Black citizens by white supremacist forces while police and military personnel were deployed against everyday people.
Were the police these “white supremacist forces” or are there other events I’ve missed in the news? Yes, policing has encouraged racism and racial prejudice, even among police of all ethnicities. There’s a cycle of violence in our cities.
Neoliberalism didn’t cause our racism. Sadly, the roots of racism (and slavery) predate the United States. Today, Jewish communities in Europe live in fear once again. The Chinese and Russian government have committed atrocities against Muslim minorities.
Racism must be dealt with, but neoliberalism might help. Visit the 1776 Project for more on this perspective. That’s not a perspective these CFPs want to consider.
Circling above, vulture capitalists continue to tighten their grip on power, mega-corporations maintain record-breaking profits, and the President of the United States declares himself the “law and order” president.
What does “vulture capitalists” mean? That’s an ad hominem attack on venture capitalism. Here’s what the authors of the CFP don’t understand: most venture capitalists invest in companies that are in default or will be in default. Venture capitalists take a chance on reviving failing businesses. Sometimes, that works. Many times, the businesses still fail. Saving some jobs is better than losing all of them at struggling firms.
I’m all for reforming the tax benefits of things like real estate investment trusts (REITs). I support business and investment tax reforms, but none of this has anything at all to do with neoliberalism.
The CFP tries to return more directly to neoliberalism, but fails. There’s no space for a scholar of economics in a field dominated by passages such as this:
Higher education has been key in disseminating cultural truths about neoliberal capitalism to students: meritocracy, racial (in)equity, entrepreneurship, self-interestedness, and social Darwinism.
What system doesn’t want to support genuine meritocracy? That’s the promise of social democracy and socialism, too.
The reason I’m an outsider is that I don’t reject the system that enabled me and millions (or billions) of people to rise from poverty to a more secure existence. When economist study human living conditions, the places with the most improvement are those with the most open economic markets. I am lucky. I didn’t choose to be born in the West, in the United States. That’s why I believe in open borders, too. Everyone should be free to move to places with vibrant markets.
Yes, we need to improve opportunity. We must fix our system. That’s not the same as abandoning the model that’s been most beneficial to humanity over the last century. You address flaws by admitting them and owning up to past failures.
To the CFP authors, all oppression is connected to neoliberalism. (Apparently, nobody has informed any number of authoritarians around the world that they should try neoliberalism since it is the most oppressive system in existence.)
According to my peers, remember, I’m just unable to imagine something else is better than capitalism and markets. I’m the ignorant fool; the Frankfurt School offered the only truth (as they exiled in the United States for safety). I’m a victim of the machine, just as Herbert Marcuse warned. After all, Marcuse suggested only educated elites could save the world and get us to Marxism.
At their heart, these ideological points inculcate students with a submissiveness to the cult of work, an acquiescence to stratification, an investment in intersecting oppressive systems (e.g., racism, patriarchy, and imperialism), an uncaring attitude toward environmental degradation, an uncurious mind toward history, and a lack of empathy for others. Although never fully secured, the ideological hegemony of neoliberal capitalism has made it almost impossible to imagine its failure or change.
Marcuse, and too many of my colleagues, engage in mental gymnastics to excuse Marxism gone wrong. Marcuse argued that the existence of a competitive, capitalist West led to the perversion of Marxism in the Soviet Union, which tried to compete in amoral ways. In other words, capitalism is so powerful that it ruins Marxism in other nations.
The labor theory of value hasn’t withstood economists. It doesn’t stand up to technological change, especially when one person can write an app that earns millions of dollars. Value is market demand. It is not how many hours or how much effort is required to create a product. That might seem unfair or unfortunate, but that’s true regardless of underlying philosophies.
Professors value themselves highly. They explain away their salaries and sabbaticals. They are certain that if only there were a revolution, a social democratic or socialist moment, then the real value of all academics would be realized — especially academics in the humanities.
Socialism is based on the idea that the needs of society are greater than the needs of any one person. We are a collective organism first, individuals second. What if the people in power don’t consider English and writing teachers that essential to the progress of the nation or world?
At least the CPF authors admit any change might not be for the better.
And yet, the catastrophes of the past two decades have reopened the public imagination to alternatives to its machinations not seen since it came to dominance in the 1980s. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that what is on the other side of our current historic moment is a more humane or just system of living.
Revolutions end badly. The French Revolution the Jacobin Magazine celebrates ended with the Reign of Terror and Napoleon assuming control of the nation. Intellectuals are always among the executed in these revolutions, even after they agitate for the uprising.
Yes, people are more equal after these revolutions: more equally miserable.
The evidence that the CFP authors champion socialism and not merely a reversion to another form of capitalism appears within their text:
Specifically, submissions may address teaching about issues such as:
- Developing student consciousness beyond the bounds of capitalist-driven colonialism, nativism, or imperialism through social justice-oriented and/or intersectional methods/approaches.
Colonialism began and expanded most during the days of mercantile monarchies. Those were not capitalist enterprises. Spain, Portugal, France, and Britain were ruled by Kings who were fighting wars that spanned centuries. I’m sorry, but the authors even state that neoliberalism is a term of only 50 years or less.
Colonialism covered five hundred years. Most of those years had nothing to do with capitalism. They had everything to do with religion and funding European wars between major powers. The search for gold was to pay for wars in Europe, not to promote capitalist markets and venture capital funds.
Now, we can argue about “economic imperialism” — but China seems to be dominating economic imperialism in Africa, South America, and parts of the Asia-Pacific.
The United States certainly engaged in imperialistic moves, especially in South America and the Middle East, during the twentieth century. However, these were often motivated more by anti-communism than capitalism, though business interests were also served. We were obsessed with countering the Soviet Union, to the detriment of our ideals and standing in history.
- Identifying environmental issues and corporate plundering / greenwashing.
Okay, colleagues, explain why most social democracies rely on carbon extraction to support their social welfare systems? Netherlands: oil. Venezuela: oil. Russia: gas. China: coal. Where is the social democracy that isn’t destroying the environment? Oh, yes, we’re back to the Marcuse argument that capitalism forces everyone to plunder the earth.
Meanwhile, we have incredibly efficient solar panels on our house because it benefits us economically. That’s right: we have 31 solar panels generating a gigawatt each month because we’re motivated by the market to save money. Neoliberalism at work.
Socialists don’t want me to own my own power company, selling that power for a profit. The CFP makes clear that private ownership is a problem:
- Promoting democratic deliberation and public ownership.
Public ownership of what? Some services? All services? The bullet point does not say.
Of course these journals are peer—reviewed and demand adherence to APA style guidelines. The ironies abound. Peer-review is, supposedly, a form of meritocracy — but progressives have been critiquing the concept of meritocracy aggressively. So, meritocracy is bad… except when they get to define merit? And in a time of “cancel culture” that requires we distance ourselves from all evils, using the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association as a standard for academic writing could be interpreted as supporting the APA and ignoring its many, many racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist positions in the not-so-distant past.
When a professor told me I was immature, and that explained my interest in economics and data, that was an insult to everyone interested in quantitative fields.
“Of course you like STEM fields. They don’t require critical thinking.”
The CFPs ask for “transdisciplinary action” to bring about radical change. If those same scholars are going to insult me for liking other disciplines, then what they really mean is that writing and rhetoric should work with the “critical theory” disciplines that see the light of Marx.
This post is largely composed out of frustration because I encounter a lot of closed-minded, hateful, uncurious, and uncritical people within rhetoric and writing. They are right, the truth seers. Everyone else is misguided and ignorant. Everyone else is controlled, probably by the Koch Brothers, to support neoliberalism that oppresses us and destroys everything in its way.
Nuance is lacking, when nuance is what we need most as a society.
Capitalism should be critiqued. It should evolve. But, the CFPs in rhetoric and writing leave little room for nuance because they see themselves as the guerrillas fighting for freedom. Revolutions from the upper-middle class seem contradictory. There must be a fair amount of self-loathing and guilt among my colleagues.
I was never a fit in English or rhetoric departments. I feel so blessed (lucky, fortunate) to be where I am, and I attribute some of that rise from the lower-class to upper-middle to capitalism. It’s not always fair, and I do want to help make opportunities more equitable within a market system.
We should want diversity within rhetoric. There were great rhetorical scholars from across the political spectrum. Today, there’s a lack of diversity as potential scholars from different perspectives decide that think-tanks and careers outside academia are more inviting.
Thankfully, I’m content with teaching in business and technology programs.