Managerialism as the “New” Discursive Masculinity in the University

Abstract

Through its increasing corporatization in the last two decades, the university in the United States has implemented an organizational ideology that has created a climate unfavorable for women faculty. By overvaluing and intensifying managerial principles, the university in the United States has strengthened discursive masculinity and has worsened women faculty's likelihood of professional advancement. Consequently, the adoption and implementation of managerialism in higher education in the United States is a question of gender equity for the academic profession. Feminist educational scholars have been relatively quiet on the growth of managerialism in the university and its impact on gender equity. In particular, feminist scrutiny of managerialism's discursive masculinity and its effects on gender equity in the university has been lacking. This conceptual article presents a feminist analysis of managerialism and its implications for women faculty in the United States; it examines how managerial culture and practices adopted by universities have revived, reinforced, and deepened the discourse of masculinity.

Moments of collusion? Close readings of affective, hidden moments within feminist research

“…In recent years, critiques within the social sciences, particularly those from sociologists and feminist academics, have exposed the damaging effects of neoliberal processes: largely defined by encouraging business like competition, intensified accountability, market-first ideologies, increasingly precarious conditions and corporate managerialist practices in universities (Beck and Young 2005;Canaan and Shumar 2008;Davies and Petersen 2005;Shore 2008, Lynch 2010, Gill 2012. While the growth of a neoliberal academic culture where entrepreneurialism is valued has particularly grave impacts on women, working class and non-white academics (Alemán 2014;Clegg 2013;David 2014;Davies et al 2005;Joseph 2014;Swan 2010), it has been widely acknowledged that those entering their academic careers in such precarious conditions are also deeply affected:…”

Uneven Relationalities, Collective Biography, and Sisterly Affect in Neoliberal Universities

“…Although there is talk of collaboration and interdisciplinarity, individual performance is surveyed and rewarded. The subject positions made available to academics through neoliberal managerialist discourses elevate the individualized agency and competitiveness inherently associated with white masculinity (Alemán 2014;David 2014;Gonick 2004a;Swan 2010). The collective, relational, and emotional aspects of working in the academy, such as social and disciplinary relations that are traditionally associated with white feminine dispositions and feminist discourses, are backgrounded while competitive individualism is rewarded.…”

“…As many scholars have documented, this has entailed market deregulation, public disinvestment, a turn to corporate managerialist practices, and a market-first ideology that has contributed to a number of negative effects: volatile curriculum and program offerings; a constantly changing higher education landscape; continuous restructuring as universities try to anticipate markets; massive increases in student debt; precarious employment conditions; the casualization of academic workers; and regimes of accountability that fail to take into account those aspects of academic labor that are not amenable to measurement (Beck and Young 2005;Canaan and Shumar 2008;Davies and Petersen 2005;Shore 2008). Between and within universities and faculties there is increased competition in every sphere, with individualized entrepreneurialism particularly valued, and an organizational culture that claims to be gender-or race-neutral, but has had particular costs for women-in particular, for women of color and working-class women (Alemán 2014;Clegg 2013;David 2014;Davies et al 2005;Joseph 2014;Swan 2010). Paradoxically, alongside the discourses of freedom and choice that a market ideology promotes are ever more rigorous and onerous regulatory and audit practices.…”

“Educar es gobernar” Explorando los inicios del managerialismo masculino en la academia chilena

“…La literatura en torno al tema define este tipo de masculinidad managerial, en primer lugar, a través de prácticas discursivas que se articulan con el capitalismo neoliberal, tales como la búsqueda de "posiciones de poder", la centralidad de la lógica de los "negocios" y el énfasis en la "productividad" (Martínez Alemán, 2014; Carvalho y Machado, 2010), las relaciones sociales de "competencia" (Martínez Alemán, 2014;Thomas y Davies, 2002;Carvalho y Machado, 2010;Prichard, 1996;Morley, 1999;Kerfoot y Knights, 1999), el "individualismo" (Martínez Alemán, 2014; Carvalho y Machado, 2010; Morley 1999), la "autonomía" (Connell y Messerschmidt, 2005, citados en Martínez Alemán, 2014) y la "independencia" (Thomas y Davies, 2002); todos estos rasgos van performando un "trabajador ideal", que se dedica por sí mismo a la productividad académica (Drago, 2007, citado en Martínez Alemán, 2014. En segundo lugar, están aquellos discursos ligados al método científico o al positivismo, tales como la "objetividad", la "racionalidad", y la "instrumentalidad" (Connell y Messerschmidt, 2005, citados en Martínez Alemán, 2014; Thomas y Davies, 2002;Carvalho y Machado, 2010;Barry, Berg y Chandler, 2006).…”

“…En segundo lugar, están aquellos discursos ligados al método científico o al positivismo, tales como la "objetividad", la "racionalidad", y la "instrumentalidad" (Connell y Messerschmidt, 2005, citados en Martínez Alemán, 2014; Thomas y Davies, 2002;Carvalho y Machado, 2010;Barry, Berg y Chandler, 2006). Finalmente, están aquellas prácticas académicas de "homosociabilidad" que reproducen las exclusiones y fronteras de la participación a todo aquello que no coincide con tal masculinidad (Martínez Alemán, 2014;Prichard, 1996, citado en Collinson y Hearn, 1996.…”