Value and its Discontents

Where does one start with value? By pluralising? By identifying different types?

It seems to me that a “good place” is with the human person, regardless of any ‘qualifiers’. The human person is valuable. There is no Platonic, Aristotelian or Kantian reasoning required; the human person is valuable because they are human. From this “base line” (as business-speak would no doubt describe it), we can move on to responsibility, obligation and duty. One has these to others in virtue of their ‘human-ness’. My moral responsibility (R), moral obligation (O) and moral duty (D) to others in this respect is absolute: it guides my thought, my action, my being-in-the-world. The combination – ROD – is the formulation of my consciousness and conscience as a human person. My first thought should always be “What does this mean for others?” This formulation should temper my self-expression, inform my choices, be an integral part of my creativity and imagination.

This is what we see in the Arts; a set of practices (applicable to any medium) that puts forward, in a broad sense, the idea “Don’t see it like that, see it like this” and “These are the injustices, what can we do to make these right?” (N.B. The artefact does not necessarily have to posit solutions, merely foster questions in the spectator.)

This is why the TU undermines and rejects the Arts. Its ‘mission’ is to reproduce what exists and variants on what exists. It is decidely not in the business of encouraging critical thought about, or recognition of, societal unfairness or injustice. The ‘idea’ of the TU is to perpetuate the system as it is, to suggest, by omission, that there are no alternatives. (N.B. We might here acknowledge the class-basis of the TU; the TU is ‘for’ the working class, hence the emphasis on producing graduates who are “ready for work” – market-led and market-driven.)

The TU attempts to position itself ‘outside’ politics, yet its proponents fail to realise that this is a reactionary, right-wing stance – there is no political neutrality in claiming to be non-political (in much the same way as the HEA). This bogus argument is on the level of those who argue that “this is just the way things are”, making grandiose claims about human nature and ‘tradition’…their notion being that, regardless of one’s position in history, the human person remains the ‘same’.

This is, of course, an ideological position but one that denies ideology – as business is wont to do. The economic is prioritised over the human; this kind of ideological notion hides behind ‘tradition’ (cf. Edmund Burke, Reflection on the Revolution in France) – a tradition that claims the elite must prosper because, without them, society as we know it would cease to function, would collapse. If we abandon the system, those characterised as ‘lazy’, as ‘feckless’, would have an input into decisions. The redistribution of power would lead to a re-evalution of value(s).

Thus, what we have lived through, and continue to live in, is the ideological ‘refinement’ of capitalism: the natural order is one of comeptition amongst individuals who, because of their nature, strive against one another, strive to be “better than” each other. The metric of ‘betterness’ being financial wealth.

Financial wealth, accepted as the core value, generates binary values: rich/poor; good/bad; success/failure; hard-working/lazy. The value that it does not, cannot, conceive of is morality. When wealth, therefore, profit is central, morality is redundant: good/bad are notions linked to wealth generation, outwith this the terms cease to have meaning.

However, what becomes central, in terms of the pseudo-education I’m discussing are metrics. ‘Outcomes’ must be measurable in conventional terms – those which aren’t, for example value and values, are first marginalised then disguarded. Is it possible to measure the value of philosophy? Of Art? Or would such an attempt call the validity of metrics into question? What are the value(s) of metrics? What hides behind the supposedly “real world” nostrums that it is claimed they represent?

The introduction of “learning outcomes” several years ago can illustrate some of the points I’m making. The administrative apparatus was not content to demand that academics predict what students “will know” have taken this or that module, lists of acceptable terms were introduced. Professional Development workshops were held on “Writing Learning Outcomes” which instructed on which temrs could be applied to which stages of a degree programme, regardless of discipline. This marked, one can argue, the “businessifcation” of education: the idea that “one size fits all” and, more importantly, that education could be run as a business – as we’ve seen, for instance, in healthcare, social care and national broadcasters. Behind this is the idea that the market is the guarantor of freedom, of choice. With the introduction of market forces, the consumer is reinstated (so the argument goes) as the central ‘player’. Yet, one might ask, is the student a consumer? Should a university be bound to the vagaries of “the market”?

What we’ve seen in education is, as business ‘practices’ become dominant, the demand for uniformity increases, monolithic administrative control grows ever tighter. The bureaucratic paper trail becomes all-encompassing, from learning outcomes, to assignment extension forms, to records of meetings with students. In short, another “base line” has been introduced: distrust. Academics are encouraged to distrust students, who will cheat and lie if they can; admin staff should distrust academics, who will blithely go on their chaotic ways. Collegiality is lost in a plethora of mission statements, administrative requirements, committees and handbooks. Thus, the deliberate undermining of democracy is complete…but this ‘system’ goes further: students are being trained to expect rules which they must obey without question and, thus, they are “ready for work”…

Which wasn’t where I expected to end up when I started. Back to value next.