“Karl [Miller] turned his need for affection somehow inside out: to use a rather Midlothian word, he flyped it.” (Ascherson, 2014: 9)
“… [traditional realism’s] model of reality [is that it is] a dull independent state of affairs that the mind is forced to copy like a harassed student at some dreary provincial art school” (Harman, 2009: 112)
“There are clear and obvious connexions between the quality of a culture and the quality of its system of education.” (Williams, 1961: 145)
This will be difficult, slow, gradual, fragmented, tortuous and possibly torturous; and in need of revision and supplementation to overcome its limitations and confusions.
Is it simply to engage in a kind of defeatism, often confused with pragmatism, to believe that,
“Whatever you think about the changes to higher education that have been made in recent years, in particular the decision in the autumn of 2010 largely to replace public funding of teaching with student fees, this is now the system we’ve got.” (Collini, 2013: 3)
Do we, in fact, have a system? Rather, do we not have a proliferation of systems or a series of systems, arising from the break-up of a prior system, again one whose coherence should not be overstated and one that certainly should not be viewed through rose-tinted spectacles, or indeed specularised at all.
At a Symposium organised by Matt Charles held on 7 November 2014, under the joint aegis of the Institute for Modern & Contemporary Culture (IMCC) and the Higher Education Research Centre (HERC) at the University of Westminster, a number of pressing issues pertaining to those questions were raised for those partaking in higher education, whether as givers or receivers, in the UK, and elsewhere. Continue reading The familiar, yet strange, topological inversions and reversions of the flyped university