|
|
|
The social production of hierarchy |
|
|
|
|
Written by XIANG Biao
|
|
Tuesday, 15 January 2008 |
The social production of hierarchy, and what we can do about
it: Notes from Asia.
Institutionalized education in most part of the human
society seems intrinsically hierarchical. One is supposed to
progress from a “lower” level of learning to the
“higher”; “average” kids study in mediocre schools,
and the “outstanding” go to top colleges; and finally,
“degree” is by definition hierarchical. Recent
discussions on higher education have focused on the
governmentalization /corporatization (roughly meaning
tightened administrative management in order to make
university managerially accountable) and the marketization
of universities. This essay explores the logic of hierarchy
making in a larger, societal context. It is beyond dispute
that established institutions have deeply vested interest in
maintaining exclusive and hierarchical systems, and it is
also true that hierarchy, particularly in the form of the
ranking tally, is imposed top down by the establishment.
However, we should not deny that educational hierarchy is
also widely recognized, respected and sometimes even
celebrated by the larger society. Nor should we reduce the
public acceptance to merely an example of false
consciousness. Most people know much better than us
(university nerds) how to deal with the world. There are
ethnical and moral dimensions to the socially produced
hierarchy. Instead of aiming to eradicate hierarchy
altogether (which cannot be a feasible agenda despite the
ideological appeal), this post wishes to explore room in the
social process of hierarchy making which may enable
realistic action agendas.
Precarious Hierarchy and the Ethnics of Hierarchy
In the modern time in general, higher education become less
exclusive, and educational hierarchy become much less
absolute. In colonial Asia, for example, formal English
education had such a magic power that it directly
contributed to the creation of the institution of modern
dowry in India. It is also safe to say that, in Asia at
least, higher education become less hierarchical in the
so-called neoliberal era. (I use neoliberal era with some
reluctance. By this term I am referring to the period
starting at the end of 1970s for China, the beginning of
1990s for India, the early 1990s for Japan, and the late
1990s for South Korea). China launched a new, unprecedented
round of university expansion in 1998. The number of newly
admitted students jumped from 1.08 million in 1998 to 2.5
million in 2001. By 2007, the planed intake reached 5.67
million! Similar to Japan and South Korea, entering
universities is no longer a crucial life event—it is not
difficult to get in, and furthermore getting in does not
guarantee good job prospects. Students have more freedom in
choosing universities according to location, subject or
campus “culture” instead of a single system of
hierarchical evaluation.
But hierarchy certainly does not go away. Universities
become ever more concerned about hierarchical ranking.
Shanghai Jiaotong University produces one of the best known
tallies in the world. This reflects the fact that previously
fixed hierarchy is replaced by more dynamic and unstable
differentiation. Hierarchy is in struggle. This also
suggests that the process of hierarchy making becomes more
public, or social, than before when it was declared by the
state or established by tradition.
Underlying the new project of hierarchy making in the higher
education is a unmistakable capitalist logic. The higher
rank a university secures, the higher tuition fees it
charges. But the opposite is untrue. In general, students
cannot enter a high-rank university simply by paying more
fees. There is a limit to capitalism. A curious example is
the mushrooming MBA courses in China. On the one hand, no
other institutions are more conscious than the MBA programs
about hierarchical ranking which directly determine the fees
they charge. On the other hand, most of the MBA students,
particularly those enrolled in the elite institutes in
China, had work experiences and many are self employed, and
thus the ranking does not mean much for them in the material
sense (say, compared to other students who may need a strong
university brand for looking for jobs). When I asked an
entrepreneur (incidentally, a Taiwanese) why he applied for
an expensive MBA course in Shanghai, he gave me three
reasons: good teachers, the reputation of the course (“it
sounds good”), and the opportunity to prove that, after
working for many years, he is still able to pass tough
examinations. The Chinese capitalist class in the making
need symbolic capital, but they need “solid” symbolic
capital, i.e., not cheap parody ready for sale.
The hierarchical ranking of universities undoubtedly
facilitates exchange between financial and cultural capital.
But at the very same time as different types of capital are
exchangeable, each capital must maintain minimum autonomy.
Thus, in order to be acceptable to the general public,
hierarchy must be based on “merit” to some extent.
Universities also have to maintain a balance. For example
elite universities in the US charge high fees but also
provide generous scholarships. Scholarships attract good
students to keep its ranking high which in turn justifies
high fees.
In China at least until the very recent time, socially
produced hierarchy in higher education has significant moral
connotations. For example, lecturers and students from top
universities are expected to be more vocal in criticizing
the status quo, and the state have to be more careful in
dealing with professors from these institutions. In a
largely authoritarian and politically conservative system,
this status provide the institutions with special clout to
be more independent, critical, daring in thinking
alternatives, and sometimes more eccentric in behavior.
People rank the universities high to counteract the state
power and private economic interest, no matter how
symbolically.
New Battles
Hierarchy itself may not be a problem. The issue is what
kind of hierarchy prevails. Our goals should be, apart from
continuing the historical progress of destabilizing and
“softening” hierarchy in general, making the hegemonic
hierarchy more ethical.
In Asia as well as elsewhere, states have been active in
domesticating and incorporating the institutions that are
high in hierarchy. The corporate world may have similar
desires, although their efforts are less orchestrated and
their relations to universities less clear. But, both the
state and the economic establishment need seemingly
independent universities for the purpose of legitimation.
(Say, the state occasionally needs some “independent
scholars” to back their views, and financial institutes
also like donating money to “independent” learning
institutes.) The contradictions internal to the project of
legitimation provide important space for actions.
Furthermore, the interests of the state and of the capital
do not always fit well, and playing one against the other
can be another strategy.
I cannot quite imagine autonomous universities in practical
sense. As Mao Zedong repeatedly reminded us, intellectuals
are a piece of feather who cannot exist without someone
else’s skin. We need others for our material survival. But
perhaps we can fight for a more “autonomous” evaluation
system with strong moral and ethical concerns.
Another important battle field is pre-university education.
I am not too worried about the corporatization or
privatization of universities as I believe that that will
not go too far. Even state bureaucrats and diehard
capitalists would frown upon universities that have no
intellectual or ideological teeth at all. What is much more
dangerous, for China, is the on-going process of
privatization and hierarchization in secondary education. As
it is less easy for money to infiltrate into higher
education, well-off families start the race early. Parents
spend thousands of US dollars to send children to good
primary and high schools and even kindergartens. (In
Beijing, top kindergartens literally charge thousands of US
dollars for a seat.) In Japan, elite private universities
such as Keio and Waseda set up their own so-called
“escalator” system including kindergartens, primary and
secondary schools. Children from wealthy families buy the
expensive ticket to enter the escalator on the ground floor,
which take them to the top universities in the future with
certain “merits.” Thus social inequality is produced and
reproduced without upsetting the “merit”-based hierarchy
of universities. In China, except those who are desperate to
consolidate their newly acquired financial assets into firm
class status, most people want to escape from the frenzied
competition in which children became the main victims. Thus
there is social base for mobilization to fight against this
trend. Among other things, top universities may be able to
do something, even symbolically, to counteract the education
industry.
|
|
