UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Academic economies : scholarship, publishing, capital 2000

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
ubc_2001-611566.pdf [ 23.96MB ]
ubc_2001-611566.pdf
Metadata
JSON: 1.0099671.json
JSON-LD: 1.0099671+ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 1.0099671.xml
RDF/JSON: 1.0099671+rdf.json
Turtle: 1.0099671+rdf-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 1.0099671+rdf-ntriples.txt
Citation
1.0099671.ris

Full Text

ACADEMIC ECONOMIES: SCHOLARSHIP, PUBLISHING, CAPITAL by MICHAEL POLLEX B.A., Queen's Uni v e r s i t y , 1992 M.A., Queen's University, 1994 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department of Anthropology and Sociology) We accept t h i s t h e s i ^ as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA SEPTEMBER 2000 (c^ Michael Pollex, 2000 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Date fir*. ^ / 3 J Q 6 0 DE-6 (2/88) A b s t r a c t This thesis explores the growing r e l a t i o n s h i p between the realms of academic knowledge production, scholarly publishing and the c a p i t a l i s t marketplace. Beginning with an early formulation of the goals of the modern u n i v e r s i t y as understood by Immanuel Kant, I examine the extent to which these i d e a l s , which I refer to as academic l i b e r a l i s m , are inadequate to account for academic practices today. Despite several t h e o r e t i c a l attempts to j u s t i f y the autonomy of academic p r a c t i c e , I demonstrate how a contemporary account of academic p r a c t i c e must reconsider i t s socio-economic s i t u a t i o n . I follow a sociology of knowledge methodology to examine the extent to which our current p o l i t i c a l economic s i t u a t i o n leads to economic c r i s e s i n academia. Among the more s i g n i f i c a n t of these c r i s e s , I argue, i s the v c r i s i s of consumption' for academic l i b r a r i e s . In t h i s c r i s i s l i e s one of the connections of scholarship to the l o g i c and practices of contemporary capitalism. With the loss of academic knowledge's primary consumer, a chain reaction i s set o f f throughout the system of scho l a r l y production where scholarly publishers must scramble for new markets i n order to maintain t h e i r already modest p r i n t runs. Through interviews and i n s t i t u t i o n a l ethnographic data, I demonstrate the extent to which the consumer i s considered as a factor i n the pub l i c a t i o n of scholarly knowledge. An engagement of scholarship with consumer culture also brings about many s i g n i f i c a n t changes for the academic author. Using the c u l t u r a l Marxist theories of Jean B a u d r i l l a r d and Pierre Bourdieu, I examine how publishing i n consumer culture leads to a v a r i e t y of forms of commodification for the academic author. Ultimately, I demonstrate that economic forces penetrate the very practices that are t r a d i t i o n a l l y thought to exi s t outside of economic determination. i i i Table of Contents A b s t r a c t i i Table of Contents i i i L i s t of Figures v Acknowledgements v i In t r o d u c t i o n 1 Part One: Ideologies of Production Chapter 1: Academic L i b e r a l i s m 24 1.1 The Conflict of Faculties 25 1.2 Freedom of Inquiry i n the Modern U n i v e r s i t y 29 1.3 Modernity, 'Autonomy' and D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n 32 1.4 The L i b e r a l Mandate f o r S c h o l a r l y P u b l i s h i n g 40 1.5 The P u b l i s h i n g of a S c h o l a r l y Manuscript 44 Chapter 2: The Theory of the Knowledge Society 50 2.1 S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e , P o l i t y , Culture 53 2.2 O b j e c t i v i t y and the U n i v e r s a l i t y of Knowledge 55 2.3 The 'Black Box' of Knowledge 61 2.4 Knowledge Production and C a p i t a l i s m 67 Chapter 3: C a p i t a l i s m and Academic Knowledge 81 3.1 The P o l i t i c a l Economy of Academic Knowledge Production. . 83 3.2 L i b r a r i e s and the Consumption of Academic Knowledge . . . 86 3.3 S c h o l a r l y Journals and D i s t r i b u t i o n 88 3.4 Venture C a p i t a l and D i s t r i b u t i o n 90 3.5 Knowledge, Labour and Value 98 Part Two: Practices of Consumption Chapter 4: The Market, the Monograph and S c h o l a r l y P u b l i s h i n g . . . 106 4.1 Researching Academic Economies 107 4.2 The S c h o l a r l y Monograph and the S e r i a l s C r i s i s . . . . 112 4.3 Academia Meets the Marketplace: U n i v e r s i t y Press P u b l i s h i n g 117 4.4 Scholarship that S e l l s : Commercial S c h o l a r l y P u b l i s h e r s 132 4.5 Commodification and C r i t i c a l Studies: P u b l i s h i n g at Routledge 136 4.6 The Monograph, the Superstore and the 'Mass' Market . . 143 i v C h a p t e r 5: Consumer C u l t u r e and t h e A c a d e m i c Commodity 150 5 .1 C a p i t a l i s m as an Economy o f S i g n s 151 5 .2 The Commodity i n Consumer C u l t u r e 159 5 .3 The Book as Commodity 163 5.4 S c h o l a r l y P u b l i s h i n g i n Consumer C u l t u r e 164 5 .5 S e e k i n g t h e S c h o l a r l y Consumer: A c a d e m i c A d v e r t i s i n g i n M a g a z i n e s 166 5 .6 S e e k i n g t h e ' I n t e l l e c t u a l ' Consumer: ' M a s s ' A d v e r t i s i n g 17 8 C h a p t e r 6: The A c a d e m i c Commodity and t h e S i g n o f C u l t u r a l C a p i t a l 191 6 .1 C u l t u r a l C a p i t a l : Knowledge as C a p i t a l 193 6 .2 C a t a l o g u i n g C a p i t a l 198 6 .3 Book D e s i g n , t h e A c a d e m i c Commodity and C u l t u r a l C a p i t a l 211 6.4 A r t and A c a d e m i c C a p i t a l 224 6 .5 C r i t i c a l C o n t e n t and t h e Commodity Form 231 C h a p t e r S e v e n : The C u l t u r a l Economy o f P i e r r e B o u r d i e u : S c h o l a r s h i p as C a p i t a l 241 7 . 1 The C o n d i t i o n s f o r A c a d e m i c R e c o g n i t i o n 242 7 .2 C a p i t a l i n C o n t e n t 243 7 .3 Language and A c a d e m i c C a p i t a l 251 7 .4 P u b l i s h i n g and A c a d e m i c D i s t i n c t i o n 258 7 . 5 The A c a d e m i c Commodity o f M i c h e l F o u c a u l t 262 7 . 6 The A c a d e m i c Commodity o f P i e r r e B o u r d i e u 267 7 .7 The A u t h o r , t h e M a r k e t and t h e C o m m o d i t y - T e x t 270 7 .8 S c h o l a r s h i p as C a p i t a l : The C o n v e r t i b i l i t y o f A c a d e m i c C a p i t a l 278 C o n c l u s i o n 284 B i b l i o g r a p h y 291 A p p e n d i x 299 L i s t of Figures F i g u r e 2.1. I d e o l o g y i n t h e Theory o f t h e Knowledge S o c i e t y . . . 69 F i g u r e 3.1. Monograph and S e r i a l C o s t s i n ARL L i b r a r i e s 1986-1997 . 97 F i g u r e 4.1. Academic Economies o f S c h o l a r l y Knowledge P r o d u c t i o n . I l l F i g u r e 5.1. U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s Ad 173 F i g u r e 5.2. S t o d d a r t P u b l i s h i n g Ad 174 F i g u r e 5.3. M c G i l l - Q u e e n ' s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s Ad 179 F i g u r e 5.4. C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s Ad 185 F i g u r e 5.5. B e r r e t t K o e h l e r P u b l i s h e r s Ad 186 F i g u r e 5.6 M.I.T. P r e s s Ad 188 F i g u r e 6.1. M c G i l l - Q u e e n ' s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s C a t a l o g u e 200 F i g u r e 6.2. U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia P r e s s C a t a l o g u e . . . . 201 F i g u r e 6.3. U n i v e r s i t y o f Texas P r e s s C a t a l o g u e 202 F i g u r e 6.4. U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o P r e s s C a t a l o g u e 203 F i g u r e 6.5. C l o t h - B o u n d L i b r a r y E d i t i o n S c h o l a r l y Monograph . . . 213 F i g u r e 6.6. X7-Up' J a c k e t f o r the conquest of cool 216 F i g u r e 6.7. Max E r n s t ' s Two S i s t e r s c o v e r 227 F i g u r e 6.8. Joseph S t e l l a ' s B a t t l e of Lights c o v e r 230 F i g u r e 6.9. Andy Warhol's Diamond Dust Shoes c o v e r 233 v i Acknowledgements I want to express my profound g r a t i t u d e to Professors Richard E r i c s o n , Dawn C u r r i e , and Thomas Kemple f o r t h e i r guidance, support, patience and f r i e n d s h i p . Their i n t e l l e c t u a l c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s p r o j e c t i s insurmountable and i t c e r t a i n l y would not have been p o s s i b l e i n i t s present form without t h e i r generous c o n t r i b u t i o n s . I could not have completed t h i s p r o j e c t without the i n t e l l e c t u a l and moral support of my f r i e n d s and colleagues, who each i n t h e i r own way c o n t r i b u t e d to the s p i r i t of t h i s p r o j e c t . I e s p e c i a l l y thank Kevin Haggerty, Aaron Doyle, Karen E i s l e r , Carlos Neves, J i l l S p icer, Randy-Lee C u t l e r , Monica Landolt, the Levenstein f a m i l y and everyone e l s e who g r a c i o u s l y endured my sometimes harsh c r i t i c a l s e n s i b i l i t i e s d e s p i t e t h e i r own p o s i t i o n on such matters. This t h e s i s would not have been p o s s i b l e without the love and support of my f a m i l y . I want to thank my s i s t e r Sonya Peters and her f a m i l y f o r t h e i r encouragement through a l l times good or bad; my mother Inge P o l l e x f o r her kindness, patience and c l a r i t y ; and most of a l l my f a t h e r , the l a t e Paul P o l l e x , whose honesty, hard work and d e d i c a t i o n made me a b e t t e r person. This t h e s i s i s dedicated to him. F i n a l l y I want to thank my wife E l i z a b e t h Hardy. Not only was the l i f e of a graduate student t h r u s t upon her but a l s o the e n t i r e i n t e l l e c t u a l p r o j e c t that accompanies i t . She managed to be l o v i n g , supportive, encouraging and n o u r i s h i n g f o r me while at the same time p r o v i d i n g a l l of these q u a l i t i e s f o r our new son N i c o l a s . I owe her my most h e a r t f e l t g r a t i t u d e . 1 Introduction As i t i s t h e power o f e x c h a n g i n g t h a t g i v e s o c c a s i o n t o t h e d i v i s i o n o f l a b o u r , so t h e e x t e n t of t h i s d i v i s i o n must always be l i m i t e d by t h e e x t e n t o f t h a t power, o r , i n o t h e r words, by t h e e x t e n t o f t h e market. (Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations) No t h e o r y t o d a y escapes the m a r k e t p l a c e . Each one i s o f f e r e d as a p o s s i b i l i t y among competing o p i n i o n s ; a l l a r e p u t up f o r c h o i c e . (Theodor Adorno, Negative D i a l e c t i c s ) E v e r y y e a r p u b l i s h e r s from around t h e w o r l d g a t h e r a t t h e F r a n k f u r t I n t e r n a t i o n a l Book F a i r . Much l i k e t r a d e shows from o t h e r i n d u s t r i e s , t h e book f a i r ' s p r i m a r y purpose i s t o p r o v i d e a venue f o r m a n u f a c t u r e r s t o d i s p l a y t h e i r l a t e s t wares t o p o t e n t i a l consumers w i t h t h e hope of f i n d i n g new markets f o r t h e i r p r o d u c t s . For t h e s e few days i n O c t o b e r , t h e c i t y o f F r a n k f u r t becomes h o s t t o t h i s g i a n t m a r k e t p l a c e where p u b l i s h e r s who a t t e n d a r e l o o k i n g t o e x t e n d t h e i r b u s i n e s s i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y w i t h t h e p u b l i s h i n g r i g h t s o f t h e i r books on t h e b a r g a i n i n g t a b l e . Here book's r a n g i n g from t h e l a t e s t computer s o f t w a r e manuals (e.g. Windows for Idiots) t o t h e newest o f f e r i n g s i n c u l t u r a l t h e o r y (e.g. a new t r a n s l a t i o n o f Theodor Adorno's Aesthetic Theory) a r e bought and s o l d by o v e r 8000 p u b l i s h e r s w i t h a f e r v o r t h a t i s u n r i v a l l e d by any o t h e r book f a i r i n t h e w o r l d . From an o u t s i d e r ' s p e r s p e c t i v e , F r a n k f u r t appears as a g i a n t p h a n t a s m a g o r i a o f t h e commodity s p e c t a c l e : a b u s t l i n g t r a d i n g house l i k e t h e W o r l d E x p o s i t i o n o r an a u t o m o t i v e show. New p r o d u c t s a r e c o l o u r f u l l y d i s p l a y e d t o consumers from booths t h a t r i v a l s t a l l s i n s h o p p i n g m a l l s , i m p o r t a n t i n t e r n a t i o n a l d e a l s a r e made f o r t h e c i r c u l a t i o n o f t h o s e goods, and o f t e n t h e commodities t h a t a r e d i s p l a y e d s u c c e e d o r f a i l f i n a n c i a l l y b ased upon t h e i r c ommercial a c c e p t a n c e a t t h e f a i r . From t h i s 2 p e r s p e c t i v e , the f a c t that i t i s books that are the commodity on d i s p l a y i s i n the l a r g e r scheme of things somewhat i r r e l e v a n t . As one immediately understands from the o v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n and p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f a i r - from i t s unavoidable presence i n p u b l i s h i n g magazines i n North America to gia n t b i l l b o a r d s at the Frankfurt a i r p o r t and throughout the c i t y during the f a i r - i t could be any l a r g e - s c a l e product f o r sa l e from the range of seductive o f f e r i n g s i n consumer c u l t u r e . In t h i s respect, the f a i r i s the epitome of the kind of commercial a c t i v i t y that t i e s a l l contemporary business endeavors to each other, regardless of i t s product. I t i s on i t s most b a s i c l e v e l a marketplace where commodities are exchanged by producers with consumers and d i s t r i b u t e d with the u l t i m a t e hope of f i n a n c i a l gain. The Frankfurt Book F a i r i s , f i r s t and foremost, a place of business. As a commercial book f a i r whose mandate i s to provide a medium f o r exchange and as an i n t e r n a t i o n a l marketplace f o r the t r a n s i t i o n of g l o b a l book c a p i t a l , i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g to f i n d i n attendance a l l of the world's l a r g e s t commercial book p u b l i s h e r s from a l l r e p r e s e n t a t i v e languages and c o u n t r i e s . Their attendance i s mandatory as i t i s indeed among the demands f o r the movement of today's g l o b a l c a p i t a l . On t h i s l e v e l , there are no apologies about the nature of the business of book s e l l i n g : the value of a book comes down to i t s economics, i t s exchange value and subsequently i t s commercial p o t e n t i a l f o r the accumulation of c a p i t a l . The f a c t that many commercial p u b l i s h e r s are now p a r t of l a r g e r t r a n s - n a t i o n a l corporations (e.g. Fox T e l e v i s i o n owner Rupert Murdoch's a c q u i s i t i o n of mega-publisher H a r p e r C o l l i n s and the now defunct s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r Basic Books) demonstrates the inherent connection of books as commodities f o r g l o b a l c a p i t a l . The book p u b l i s h i n g i n d u s t r y has, since i t s i n c e p t i o n with the Gutenberg Press, never e x i s t e d p u r e l y f o r the sake 3 of communicating knowledge: from i t s beginning book p u b l i s h i n g has always been a commercial venture, a l b e i t not always a l u c r a t i v e one. As a consequence of t h i s connection of books to commerce, today i t i s a l s o not s u r p r i s i n g to see elements of consumer c u l t u r e at the f a i r . As today's c a p i t a l i s m n e c e s s i t a t e s the manipulation of signs as a fundamental aspect of communication and the symbolic management of exchange, marketing and a d v e r t i s i n g r e i g n supreme at such an event. Often product d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s based upon the symbolic currency of the producer as w e l l as the d i s t i n c t i o n of the product. In t h i s respect, each booth s e l l s the p u b l i s h e r as w e l l as the books and t h e i r authors and seeks to e s t a b l i s h the potency of t h e i r product l i n e - the books that comprise t h e i r p u b l i s h i n g l i s t s - i n r e l a t i o n to other p u b l i s h e r s . Such competition breeds a semiotic s o p h i s t i c a t i o n i n the form of b o l d marketing techniques where a p u b l i s h e r ' s success at the f a i r i s r e l a t e d to i t s a b i l i t y to manipulate signs i n order to stand out from the crowd and s y m b o l i c a l l y p o s i t i o n i t s e l f i n the p u b l i s h i n g h i e r a r c h y . Of course, a l l of the i d e n t i f i e r s of the consumer c u l t u r e 'outside' can indeed be found on the ' i n s i d e ' as ways of communicating brand names and products. Here i t i s not a s t r e t c h of the imagination to see a p a r a l l e l between the world of books and the l a r g e r world of commodities where p u b l i s h e r s are s u f f i c i e n t l y , although not n e c e s s a r i l y , semiotic c a p i t a l i s t s seeking r e t u r n on t h e i r magnanimous investment. Consequently, p u b l i s h e r s u t i l i z e a l l of the a d v e r t i s i n g and marketing resources a v a i l a b l e to them from consumer c u l t u r e i n order to ensure the consumption of t h e i r product. Although such commercial s t r a t e g i e s do not appear i n c o n s i s t e n t with the greater impulse of the f a i r , what does appear somewhat enigmatic among a l l of the g l i t t e r and s w i r l i n g of the commodity signs at the Frankfurt Book F a i r i s the presence of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s . While the appearance 4 of Penguin t o u t i n g t h e i r l a t e s t c o l l e c t i o n of abridged c l a s s i c s or Doubleday s e l l i n g the l a t e s t John Grisham novel i s of l i t t l e s u r p r i s e , the presence of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s invokes c u r i o s i t y i n those who are aware of the age-old mandate of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s : 'to p u b l i s h knowledge f o r knowledge's sake'. Most do not commonly as s o c i a t e s c h o l a r l y a c t i v i t y , even i n i t s p u b l i s h i n g form, with commercial a c t i v i t y . Indeed many see these a c t i v i t i e s as occupying opposite ends of the v o c a t i o n a l spectrum. However, at Frankfurt we witness a s y n c h r o n i c i t y where commercial and s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s a l i k e e x i s t side-by-side, each vying f o r a share of the i n t e r n a t i o n a l book t r a d i n g market. What makes s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s such u n l i k e l y patrons at t h i s event i s not t h e i r r e s i s t a n c e to commerce, f o r a l l p u b l i s h e r s regardless of the commercial v i a b i l i t y of t h e i r book l i s t s must s e l l t h e i r books i n order to stay f i n a n c i a l l y a f l o a t . Rather, the academic a u t h o r i t y of t h e i r t i t l e s , the type of knowledge that i s communicated, the c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y such knowledge invokes and the i d e a l s of academic freedom underpinning academic w r i t i n g make s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s a s u r p r i s i n g p a r t i c i p a n t at a commercial book f a i r . U n l i k e commercial p u b l i s h e r s who often o f f e r l u c r a t i v e contracts f o r authors of varying backgrounds who can w r i t e books that s e l l , s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s are not i n the business of p u b l i s h i n g s t r i c t l y f o r commercial gain. S c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s , e s p e c i a l l y those presses that are u n i v e r s i t y a f f i l i a t e d , are i n the rather awkward and somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y p o s i t i o n of being i n the business of p u b l i s h i n g to f u r t h e r the l i b e r a l - d e m o c r a t i c goal of the 'free' dissemination of knowledge. Unl i k e commercial p u b l i s h e r s who must p u b l i s h f o r p r o f i t and whose authors do l i k e w i s e , by v i r t u e of t h e i r s c h o l a r l y mandate s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s are seldom able to o f f e r t h e i r authors a s i g n i f i c a n t f i n a n c i a l reward. Among other f a c t o r s , t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s the r e s u l t of b a s i c f i s c a l 5 c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : the knowledge that s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s disseminate through the p u b l i s h i n g of s p e c i a l i z e d monographs seldom provokes enough book sales to even recover the costs of p u b l i s h i n g . The f a c t that the s c h o l a r l y knowledge contained w i t h i n the books i s s p e c i a l i z e d n e c e s s a r i l y means that there are only a few consumers to whom t h i s knowledge i s of i n t e r e s t . The r e a l i t y of low sales does not t y p i c a l l y pose a problem f o r s c h o l a r l y authors, f o r u n l i k e commercial authors, they are not l o o k i n g to make f i n a n c i a l gains but rather, true to the h i s t o r i c a l t r a d i t i o n of l i b e r a l academia, academics are l o o k i n g to make a c o n t r i b u t i o n to knowledge regardless of i t s m a r k e t a b i l i t y , l i m i t e d audience and p o t e n t i a l f o r mass consumption. In t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n l i e s the t r a d i t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e between commercial and s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g : commercial p u b l i s h i n g i s p r i m a r i l y about p u b l i s h i n g 'books f o r economic gain, s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i s p r i m a r i l y about p u b l i s h i n g books f o r the advancement of knowledge. H i s t o r i c a l l y , both are supported by authors/producers and readers/consumers who maintain s i m i l a r values. Academic authors continue to produce the knowledge that i s disseminated by s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s because, u n l i k e commercial authors, they are f i n a n c i a l l y supported by an i n s t i t u t i o n whose r a i s o n d'etre has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been the autonomous production of 'knowledge f o r knowledge's sake' and the advancement of knowledge more g e n e r a l l y . In co n t r a s t to commercial authors whose books must s e l l i n order f o r them to eat academic authors are normally fed, so to speak, by the u n i v e r s i t y . I d e a l l y , then, academic authors need not worry about the economics of p u b l i s h i n g when producing, exchanging and d i s t r i b u t i n g t h e i r knowledge i n pu b l i s h e d form. E s s e n t i a l l y academics are f i n a n c i a l l y cared f o r i n t e r n a l l y as a consequence of t h e i r i n s t i t u t i o n a l a f f i l i a t i o n (so that they need not w r i t e out of the e x t e r n a l i n t e r e s t s of f i n a n c i a l g a i n ) . With t h i s i d e a l , 6 an a s p e c t o f t h e l a r g e r p r i n c i p l e o f 'academic freedom' , t h e modern u n i v e r s i t y environment a l l o w s a u t h o r s t o produce knowledge t h a t i s c o n s i d e r e d more 'pure', l e s s b i a s e d and c l o s e r t o i t s o b j e c t i n s o f a r as i t i s o n l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h t h e a c t i v i t y o f t h e production o f knowledge and not t h e c o m m e r c i a l v a l u e , consumption or f i s c a l f e a s i b i l i t y o f knowledge. Academic knowledge, i n t h i s r e s p e c t , i s endowed w i t h a p a r t i c u l a r c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y t h a t i s i n d e e d d i f f e r e n t from o t h e r c u l t u r a l s o u r c e s o f knowledge. I t s a u t h o r i t y i s based i n i t s a t t e m p t t o d i s t a n c e i t s e l f f rom t h e b i a s e s o f c o m m e r c i a l s e l f - i n t e r e s t and knowledge f o r t h e sake o f economic g a i n . Academic a u t h o r i t y a t t e m p t s t o be ' f r e e ' o f economic as w e l l as p o l i t i c a l , r e l i g i o u s and o t h e r b i a s i n g f o r c e s o f p a r t i s a n i n t e r e s t . I n l i g h t o f t h i s impetus of t h e modern u n i v e r s i t y and t h e s e i d e a l s p a r t i a l l y based upon t h e l a r g e r p r i n c i p l e o f academic freedom, t h e p r e s e n c e o f s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s a t F r a n k f u r t i s a l i t t l e more p u z z l i n g , f o r what i s b e i n g s o l d , t r a d e d and exchanged among t h e many book- commodities a r e t h e p r o d u c t s o f s c h o l a r l y r e s e a r c h . The d i s t a n c e from commerce on w h i c h academic a u t h o r i t y i s p a r t i a l l y based i s n o t a t a l l c l e a r o r o b v i o u s when one i s c o n f r o n t e d w i t h thousands o f s c h o l a r l y monographs p r e s e n t e d i n much t h e same form as t h e l a t e s t c o m m e r c i a l book on p e r s o n a l f i n a n c e . Not o n l y a r e monographs exchanged i n t h e same way as many c o m m e r c i a l p u b l i c a t i o n s , b u t t h e way i n w h i c h t h e s e books a r e p r e s e n t e d t o consumers a t t h e f a i r a l s o d i f f e r s l i t t l e from t h e i r o v e r t l y c o m m e r c i a l c o u n t e r p a r t s . We w i t n e s s t h i s o v e r t c o m m e r c i a l i z a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y books i n many forms. We see t h i s i n t h e way i n w h i c h many s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r ' s i m p r i n t s a r e p r o j e c t e d l i k e b r a n d names from g i a n t m o n o l i t h i c t r a d i n g k i o s k s (e.g. t h e t r a d i n g booths o f O x f o r d and Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s e s ) . We see t h i s w i t h t h e d i s p l a y of such s c h o l a r l y books as A n t h o n y G i d d e n s ' Capitalism and Modern Social Theory t h a t i r o n i c a l l y b o a s t s on i t s c o v e r : ' o v e r 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 c o p i e s s o l d ' . We see t h i s w i t h t e x t book ' v a l u e - p a c k s ' t h a t a t t e m p t t o a p p e a l t o t h e b a r g a i n c o n s c i o u s s c h o l a r l y c o n s u m e r . However , t h e s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e h e r e i s t h a t t h e p r o d u c e r s o f s c h o l a r l y b o o k s - a c a d e m i c s and s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s - s t i l l v i e w t h e i r work i n c o n t r a s t t o c o m m e r c i a l e n d e a v o r s and g a r n e r a p a r t i c u l a r l y p o w e r f u l c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y f o r d o i n g s o . Many o f t h o s e i n v o l v e d i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e do n o t see t h i s i s s u e as p o s i n g any s i g n i f i c a n t p r o b l e m s f o r a c a d e m i c s o r a c a d e m i c p u b l i s h e r s . To some, a c a d e m i c r e s e a r c h a p p e a r s t o r e m a i n r e l a t i v e l y u n t o u c h e d by s u c h c o m m e r c i a l f o r c e s . H o w e v e r , as I e x p l o r e i n more d e t a i l i n t h e pages t o come, t h e s i m i l a r i t y o f f o r m when c o m p a r i n g c o m m e r c i a l a n d a c a d e m i c t e x t s e x p o s e s a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a c a d e m i c p r o d u c t i o n o f t h o s e c o m m o d i t i e s a n d t h e s y s t e m o f e x c h a n g e i n w h i c h t h e y a r e c i r c u l a t e d . On t h e one h a n d , c i t i n g t h e i d e a l o f a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m , many a c a d e m i c s c l a i m t h a t t h e y a r e autonomous and immune f r o m ' e x t e r n a l ' i n t e r f e r e n c e . On t h e o t h e r h a n d , a t F r a n k f u r t and e l s e w h e r e i n t h e p u b l i s h i n g w o r l d , i n a c a d e m i a and i n consumer c u l t u r e a t l a r g e , i t i s c l e a r t h a t a c a d e m i c knowledge i n d e e d c i r c u l a t e s as a c o m m o d i t y t h a t i s s u b j e c t t o a' d e f i n i t i v e s y s t e m o f e c o n o m i c e x c h a n g e . S e e i n g M a r t i n H e i d e g g e r ' s Being and Time ' r e a d ' by a p o c k - f a c e d t e e n i n a C l e a r a s i l acne c r e a m c o m m e r c i a l on Much M u s i c o r s e e i n g N i e t z s c h e i n n o c u o u s l y ' r e a d ' by a r e c e p t i o n i s t i n a s c e n e f r o m t h e H o l l y w o o d f i l m The Birdcage o n l y r e v e a l s t h e s u r f a c e o f s u c h p e r v a s i v e c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n oJ c r i t i c a l a c a d e m i c a l l y p r o d u c e d k n o w l e d g e . The q u e s t i o n i s t h u s w h e t h e r a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e c a n c i r c u l a t e as a c o m m o d i t y , t h a t i s , as s u b j e c t t o t h e e c o n o m i c demands o f consumer c u l t u r e , w i t h o u t i n f l u e n c i n g t h e p r o d u c t i o n o r t r a n s f o r m i n g t h e p u r p o s e o f t h a t k n o w l e d g e . Or t o r e p h r a s e 8 the question s l i g h t l y : Can academia r e s i s t i t s commodification when academic knowledge c i r c u l a t e s as a product i n consumer c u l t u r e , or, has the r e s i l i e n c e of c a p i t a l put an end to such autonomous f i e l d s of production? The Frankfurt Book F a i r i s an i n t e r e s t i n g and f r u i t f u l s i t e to open an e x p l o r a t i o n of the c i r c u l a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y books and academic knowledge i n consumer c u l t u r e because i t i s not exc e p t i o n a l but rat h e r t y p i c a l of the commodification of academic knowledge i n consumer c u l t u r e . As we see at Fra n k f u r t , s c h o l a r l y products such as Adorno's r a d i c a l c r i t i q u e of advanced c a p i t a l i s m are i r o n i c a l l y , much i n the s p i r i t of Adam Smith, e q u a l l y exchanged i n the marketplace as commodities by p u b l i s h e r s , l a r g e s c a l e commercial or smaller s c a l e s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s , p r i m a r i l y f o r commercial reasons. However, i f one buys a s c h o l a r l y book published by a s c h o l a r l y press at a l o c a l bookstore or (as i s becoming more common today) a book chain superstore such as the Canadian bookstore gi a n t Chapters, chances are that the s c h o l a r l y book's appearance c l o s e l y resembles i t s commercial counterparts. That i s , i t s cover, t i t l e , the author's c r e d e n t i a l s , the c r e d e n t i a l s of the authors of the blurbs ( t e s t i m o n i a l p r a i s e s from c r e d i b l e sources used to s e l l books as w e l l as f i l m s , music, a r t e t c . ) , and the f a c t that i t has blurbs at a l l , are a l l geared to s e l l the book to prospective readers/ consumers. Even when the book i s promoted as s c h o l a r l y research and a product of 'academic freedom' t h i s f a c t does not change. In t h i s and many other ways we witness the c i r c u l a t i o n of academic knowledge as a commodity not u n l i k e any other product i n the g l o b a l marketplace. The issu e that I explore here i s not g e n e r a l l y whether or not knowledge i s a commodity, f o r I b e l i e v e with many others that today t h i s can h a r d l y be disputed ( B e l l 1973; B a u d r i l l a r d 1981; Lyotard 1984; Stehr 1994), but rather, my concern i s s p e c i f i c a l l y to 9 what extent academic knowledge becomes a commodity i n contemporary consumer c u l t u r e . As I have discovered i n the course of my i n t e r v i e w s f o r t h i s p r o j e c t , even the suggestion that academic knowledge i s a commodity i s deemed by many l i b e r a l academics to be preposterous. Skeptics p o i n t to the average s a l a r y of an academic or the f i n a n c i a l gains earned from a p u b l i c a t i o n i n j o u r n a l or book form as evidence that the m a j o r i t y of academics do not produce knowledge f o r commercial gain. For many, t h i s view i s f u r t h e r supported by the range of research t o p i c s explored by academics that have a b s o l u t e l y no commercial value or l a r g e consumer appeal. Further, many contend that the degrees of academic s p e c i a l i z a t i o n c e r t a i n l y l i m i t the number of a c t u a l consumers of such knowledge. Given the l i m i t e d market range f o r academic knowledge and the meager f i n a n c i a l compensation, many l i b e r a l academics uphold the idea that academic production i s immune or s h e l t e r e d from the types of market forces that i n f l u e n c e other forms of production. Other forms of knowledge production simply do not operate under the conditions of as c r i b e d freedom to produce l i k e those that supposedly e x i s t i n the tenured s e c u r i t y of an academic s e t t i n g . Many would argue, then, that because of the academic freedom embodied i n the tenure system, the production of academic knowledge as a commodity i s u n l i k e l y or impossible e s p e c i a l l y since academia i s by d e f i n i t i o n separate from commercial i n t e r e s t s . In what follows I attempt to c l a r i f y the confusion i n t h i s a s s e r t i o n by examining the extent to which commercialization and commodification are r e l a t e d but d i s t i n c t processes. Whereas commercialization r e f e r s to a c t i v i t i e s undertaken s t r i c t l y f o r the purposes of f i n a n c i a l gain through p r o f i t , commodification ( i n the way i t i s used by t h e o r i s t s of consumer c u l t u r e and throughout t h i s d i s s e r t a t i o n ) r e f e r s more broadly to the 10 s t r u c t u r i n g of value embedded i n systems of exchange. This, of course, i s a departure from the t r a d i t i o n a l notion of the commodity as s t r i c t l y an object of commerce that i s simply bought and s o l d . Rather, commodification, ( p a r t i c u l a r l y as i t i s used here i n r e l a t i o n to the production of knowledge) r e f e r s to the c a p i t a l i s t economic system and the general l o g i c of unequal accumulation and exchange i n which knowledge, and other commodities, c i r c u l a t e . The l o g i c of c a p i t a l , as we see below, has many forms - from a s t r i c t l y p o l i t i c a l economic l e v e l on which commerce i s a primary f a c t o r such as the Frankfurt Book F a i r , to a c u l t u r a l economic l e v e l where symbols are organized according to an economic l o g i c that i s based on accumulation and a symbolic hierarchy. To speak of academic knowledge as a commodity then i s not to say that academics are i n the business of knowledge production and p u b l i s h i n g simply to accumulate f i n a n c i a l wealth. This i d e a , as every underpaid academic w i l l s u r e l y p r o t e s t , i s p a t e n t l y absurd. However, an economic l o g i c e x i s t s which i s common to a l l production regardless of i t s i d e o l o g i c a l p o s i t i o n i n g i n r e l a t i o n to such f o r c e s . While there i s a l e v e l of commerce th a t cannot be denied, the commodity form i n academia takes on a much deeper symbolic meaning as the accumulation of c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l and symbolic power. As I attempt to demonstrate, t h i s i s not e a s i l y i d e n t i f i a b l e s t r i c t l y i n terms of commerce but indeed possesses a s i m i l a r l o g i c . In t h i s respect the a s s e r t i o n that knowledge i s a commodity i s not as r a d i c a l as i t may at f i r s t appear. Many contemporary s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s have pointed to academic production and knowledge production more g e n e r a l l y as being i m p l i c a t e d w i t h i n a l a r g e r economic system of c a p i t a l i s t exchange. Most famously perhaps f o r s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s , Jean- Francois Lyotard i n The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge claims 11 t h a t i n c r e a s i n g l y knowledge i n contemporary s o c i e t y f l o w s a c c o r d i n g t o an economic l o g i c : The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f s u p p l i e r s and u s e r s o f knowledge t o t h e knowledge t h e y s u p p l y and use i s now t e n d i n g and w i l l i n c r e a s i n g l y t e n d , t o assume t h e form a l r e a d y t a k e n by t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f commodity p r o d u c e r s and consumers t o t h e commodities t h e y produce and consume - t h a t i s , t h e form o f v a l u e . Knowledge i s and w i l l be p r o d u c e d i n o r d e r t o be s o l d , i t i s and w i l l be consumed i n o r d e r t o be v a l o r i z e d i n a new p r o d u c t i o n : i n b o t h cases t h e g o a l i s exchange. Knowledge ceases t o be an end i n i t s e l f ( L y o t a r d 1984 : 4) . O t h e r s such as N i c o S t e h r i n Knowledge Societies see t h e i n e v i t a b l e consequence of t h e c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n o f knowledge as an i n h e r e n t a s p e c t o f t h e s h i f t o f p r o d u c t i o n from manual l a b o u r t o i n t e l l e c t u a l l a b o u r where a s i g n i f i c a n t p a r t of s o c i e t y l i v e s o f f t h e s e l l i n g o f knowledge: I t would appear t o be a l m o s t s e l f - e v i d e n t t h a t , i n a s o c i e t y i n w h i c h knowledge becomes t h e dominant p r o d u c t i v e f o r c e , t h a t knowledge, o r c e r t a i n t y p e s o f knowledge a t l e a s t , t u r n s i n t o a commodity and can be a p p r o p r i a t e d , r e c o g n i z e d and t r e a t e d as p r o p e r t y . Of c o u r s e knowledge has always had i t s p r i c e and has n e v e r been a v a i l a b l e i n an u n l i m i t e d s u p p l y , t h a t i s , knowledge has been not u n l i k e o t h e r c o m m o d i t i e s , s c a r c e , and i n o r d e r t o u t i l i z e i t , one had t o sometimes buy i t ( S t e h r 1994:109) . A l t h o u g h t h e s e s t a t e m e n t s r e l a t e t o t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f contemporary knowledge more g e n e r a l l y , o t h e r s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s such as A l v i n G o u l d n e r i n The Future of I n t e l l e c t u a l s and the Rise of the New Class and P i e r r e B o u r d i e u i n Homo Academicus p o i n t t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n o f academia as t h e s i t e o f economic p r a c t i c e s t h a t c o n v e r t knowledge i n t o v a r i o u s forms o f c a p i t a l . I n t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e a n a l y s e s , b o t h argue t h a t a c q u i r e d knowledge t h r o u g h t h e e d u c a t i o n a l system o p e r a t e s as c a p i t a l t h a t r e p r o d u c e s t h o s e c o n d i t i o n s t h a t l e d t o i t s a c q u i s i t i o n and t h a t s e c u r e t h e p o s s e s s o r a p o s i t i o n i n t h e s o c i a l h i e r a r c h y t h a t r i v a l s the c a p i t a l i s t o f i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . Knowledge as a form o f c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l c r e a t e s a new c l a s s o f e l i t e s whose s t a t u s i s b a s e d on t h e p r o d u c t i o n of knowledge as a commodity, i t s a c c u m u l a t i o n , and u l t i m a t e l y i t s p o s s e s s i o n by r e l a t i v e l y few consumers. 12 In a d d i t i o n to these d i s c u s s i o n s on the s o c i a l development of the commodification of knowledge are those excurses i n which academic production i s examined i n the context of a more general l i t e r a r y economy. In these analyses, academic production i s seen i n terms of w r i t i n g and p u b l i s h i n g and the extent to which such p r a c t i c e s are v i a b l e and v a l i d a t e d i s seen as r e l a t e d to the academic marketplace, g l o b a l c a p i t a l i s m and the economy of w r i t i n g . As Ben Agger t e l l s us i n 'Aporias of Academic Production': 'the dominant view of American academia i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the metaphor of an open market of competing ideas, p a r a l l e l i n g the l i b e r a l metaphor of a market economy' (Agger 1991:89). A l i t e r a r y economy f o r Agger i s comprised of the c r e a t i o n of ideas i n an academic s e t t i n g that c a t e r to market forces as s t r u c t u r e d and sanctioned by State i n t e r e s t s . P u b l i s h i n g i n t h i s respect plays an i n t e g r a l r o l e i n the production of knowledge which i s l i m i t e d by the extent to which p u b l i s h i n g places l i m i t a t i o n s on the development of p a r t i c u l a r forms of knowledge. The economy of academic w r i t i n g then i s not so much an e f f e c t of i t s commercialization, as some might p r o t e s t , but more i m p o r t a n t l y of the academic producer's response and concession to p a r t i c u l a r market f o r c e s . I mention these d i s c u s s i o n s by s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s of the commodification of knowledge i n order to demonstrate the burgeoning l i t e r a t u r e that concerns i t s e l f with the s i t u a t i o n of knowledge production i n contemporary c a p i t a l i s m . However, regardless of t h i s l i t e r a t u r e , the idea of the commodification of knowledge s t i l l might seem r a d i c a l , d i s t a s t e f u l or a l t o g e t h e r i n c o r r e c t to those who uphold a l i b e r a l v i s i o n of academic knowledge production and the autonomy to f r e e l y pursue knowledge. This problem c l e a r l y d i v i d e s those who recognize the phenomenon from those who do not; t h i s , i n tur n , brings me to a f u r t h e r problem. 13 On the other side of the coin l i e s the l i b e r a l ideology that i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y a s s o c i a t e d with academic knowledge production that adheres to a b e l i e f i n the autonomy of academic p r a c t i c e . According to t h i s view, academics are i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y accorded freedom to pursue knowledge that i s free from e x t e r n a l i n t e r e s t s . Although I develop the h i s t o r y of t h i s b e l i e f below, f o r now i t i s enough to say t h a t , i n theory, t h i s autonomy allows f o r a ' d i s i n t e r e s t e d ' p u r s u i t of research. Whether the knowledge concerns a f i s h , an atom, a s o c i e t y or a behaviour, the autonomy of academic p r a c t i c e i s deemed e s s e n t i a l f o r unpacking the ' o b j e c t i v e ' world. As a r e s u l t , academic knowledge as developed through pure research i s accorded a p r i v i l e g e d e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a t u s . I t s a u t h o r i t y i s based upon the u n f e t t e r e d p u r s u i t of i t s object as e s t a b l i s h e d through the autonomy of the i n s t i t u t i o n . Given t h i s p o s i t i o n , which i s both e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l , one can see why l i b e r a l s might t h i n k the premise of the commodification of academic knowledge i s p a t e n t l y absurd. Knowledge, i n t h i s view, n e c e s s a r i l y r e f l e c t s i t s object and not i t s context. However, the problem i s that the l i b e r a l view a c t u a l l y obscures the i s s u e of the commodification of knowledge. As I develop f u r t h e r i n chapter two, such obfuscation e x i s t s because of l i b e r a l i s m ' s connection to Enlightenment epistemology. By t h i s account the methodological primacy of 'the object' that i s the basis f o r the l i b e r a l production of knowledge i s a h i s t o r i c a l whereas the commodification that I am r e f e r r i n g to can only be understood as a r e l a t i v e l y recent h i s t o r i c a l occurrence. The autonomy of academic p r a c t i c e h i s t o r i c a l l y e x i s t e d to allow knowledge to r e v e a l the i n t e r n a l features of the object of research without e x t e r n a l i n t e r f e r e n c e , such as p o l i t i c a l , economic or r e l i g i o u s censorship. The t r a d i t i o n a l focus of the p u r s u i t of knowledge i s s t r i c t l y i n t e r n a l i s t and as such does not see s o c i a l or h i s t o r i c a l f a c t o r s as i n f l u e n c i n g the p u r s u i t of 14 k n o w l e d g e , e i t h e r i d e a l l y o r i n p r a c t i c e . The f o c u s i s p r i m a r i l y u p o n t h e content o f a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e , n o t i t s form. I n t h i s way, e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l y s p e a k i n g , a n e m p i r i c a l e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n o f a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e a p p e a r s n o n s e n s i c a l , a t a u t o l o g y , f o r t h e v e r y b a s i s o f e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h i s t h e a u t o n o m y s u c h a l i n e o f i n q u i r y n e c e s s a r i l y n e g a t e s . By c o n t r a s t t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o n t h a t f o l l o w s c h a l l e n g e s t h e a s s u m p t i o n o f a n a u t o n o m o u s f o u n d a t i o n t h a t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e o n e - d i m e n s i o n a l a u t h o r i t y o f e m p i r i c a l l y r e s e a r c h e d a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e b y r e f l e x i v e l y s i t u a t i n g k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c t i o n i n a c o n t e m p o r a r y s o c i o - h i s t o r i c c o n t e x t . N o n - c r i t i c a l s t u d i e s o f k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c t i o n h a v e l a r g e l y n e g l e c t e d o r r e j e c t e d t h i s a p p r o a c h f o r i t u n d e r m i n e s t h e s t r i c t l y o b j e c t i v i s t a n d a u t o n o m o u s f o u n d a t i o n o f a c a d e m i c a u t h o r i t y , i n c l u d i n g o f c o u r s e i t s own. I n t h i s r e s p e c t , a c a d e m i c l i b e r a l s a r e o f t e n q u i t e d i s m i s s i v e o f a n y c l a i m s r e g a r d i n g t h e e x t e r n a l i n f l u e n c e s o f m a r k e t f o r c e s on t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e . T h e r e i s a n i d e o l o g i c a l r e s i s t a n c e t o s u c h i d e a s a b o u t a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c t i o n . A s we s e e i n a r e c e n t b o o k t i t l e d Marketing Modernisms: Self Promotion, Canonization and Rereading t h a t a t t e m p t s t o r e e x a m i n e t h e c a n o n o f E n g l i s h l i t e r a t u r e i n l i g h t o f s u c h m a r k e t f o r c e s , t h e e d i t o r s n o t e t h a t t h e y e x p e r i e n c e d some d i f f i c u l t y a c q u i r i n g a r t i c l e s t h a t e x p l o r e t h e i r t h e s i s ( D e t t m a r a n d W a t t 1 9 9 6 ) . I n t h i s c o l l e c t i o n t h e a u t h o r s c h o o s e t o e x a m i n e how t h e f o u n d e r s ' o f t h e l i t e r a r y c a n o n s u c h as E z r a P o u n d , T.S. E l i o t a n d James J o y c e among o t h e r s , w e r e i n f a c t w r i t i n g i n r e s p o n s e t o m a r k e t f o r c e s w i t h a n e y e f o r c o m m e r c i a l s a l e s . A s one s e n i o r s c h o l a r who d e c l i n e d t h e i n v i t a t i o n t o w r i t e a n e s s a y f o r t h e a n t h o l o g y r e s p o n d e d : ' T h a n k - y o u f o r y o u r i n v i t a t i o n ; b u t I d o n ' t f e e l moved t o c o n t r i b u t e . The p h r a s i n g o f t h e p r o s p e c t u s b e t r a y s a c o n c e p t t h a t b e l i t t l e s . J o y c e , W o l f e , F o r d , e t a l . 15 were a f t e r a l l not j u n i o r academics with a way to make' (Dettmar and Watt 1996:1). While t h i s response c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e s a c e r t a i n d i s d a i n f o r both the subject matter and the form i n which i t i s presented, i t a l s o reveals the reluctance of some l i b e r a l academics to confront, i f not deny a l t o g e t h e r , the e x t e r n a l features of knowledge production, simply as i f they do not e x i s t . However, the tone of the response i s t e l l i n g l y c o n t r a d i c t o r y . I t both frowns upon the reexamination of the canon i n terms of market force s , yet al s o i m p l i c i t l y acknowledges the s i t u a t i o n of j u n i o r academics 'with a way to make' and thus as c a t e r i n g to market fo r c e s . Even i f the authors of the c o l l e c t i o n are misguided and canonical l i t e r a r y f i g u r e s are not as they c l a i m 'market-driven' , does not the acknowledgement of the need f o r j u n i o r f a c u l t y to be so i n c l i n e d i n d i c a t e a need to examine t h i s f u r t h e r rather than simply to dismiss t h e i r a c t i v i t y as 'with a way to make'? In a s i m i l a r v e i n , the message at an American S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n workshop I attended f o r graduate students on p u b l i s h i n g one's d i s s e r t a t i o n was al s o r e f l e c t i v e of such ideology. On the one hand, both a tenured s o c i o l o g i s t and an e d i t o r from a h i g h l y respected u n i v e r s i t y press argued that students must pursue t h e i r passions f o r knowledge and ignore the pressures to produce f o r the academic marketplace. As the s o c i o l o g i s t , whose Ph.D. d i s s e r t a t i o n on Freaks on Television Talk Shows l a t e r p u blished as a book, put i t : ' i t i s a b a t t l e between i n t e g r i t y and instrumentalism. Don't l e t instrumental considerations i n f l u e n c e your research'. Or as the e d i t o r who published the book put i t : 'I look f o r passion and love i n a manuscript. I never l e t instrumental c o n s i d e r a t i o n s inform the process. Manuscripts where t h i s i s apparent get o f f my desk r e a l f a s t ' . A l l of the speakers on the panel s t r o n g l y urged students not to l e t instrumental considerations i n f l u e n c e research design, and contrary 16 to what students might think i s i n demand, they urged students to produce something that they themselves f i n d i n t e r e s t i n g . They then suggested that i f the t o p i c i s i n t e r e s t i n g to the student then i t w i l l e v e n t u a l l y f i n d i t s way to p u b l i c a t i o n , f o r i t i s only out of t h i s genuine, autonomous quest f o r knowledge that t r u l y worthy knowledge i s produced. Here the ideology of the message i s c l e a r l y l i b e r a l - the genuine academic p u r s u i t of knowledge i s i n h e r e n t l y autonomous. Although there are indeed many who as c r i b e to t h i s view, the question that t h i s n e c e s s a r i l y r a i s e s i n today's academic context, however, i s whether t h i s l i b e r a l view of academic p r a c t i c e a c c u r a t e l y describes the contemporary p r a c t i c e of academic knowledge production. As I demonstrate below, adherence to t h i s ideology often leads to c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between l i b e r a l academic theory and a c t u a l contemporary academic p r a c t i c e s . B r i e f l y , t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n can be summarized from an i n t e r v i e w I conducted f o r t h i s research. This academic maintained t h a t , on the one hand, he only w r i t e s f o r himself (the standard l i b e r a l view of academic autonomy). But i n the course of the i n t e r v i e w he a l s o recounted how he wanted a 'sexy' t i t l e f o r h i s l a t e s t book i n order to gain a wider appeal f o r the student market. This example s u p e r f i c i a l l y demonstrates what I explore at a deeper l e v e l : that the market as comprised by consumers of academic knowledge plays a fundamental yet unacknowledged r o l e i n today's production of academic knowledge. I t i s t h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n with the l i b e r a l view of academic production that requires explanation. The l i b e r a l account of knowledge production i s c l e a r about where i t stands on the i s s u e of market forces and commodification as they r e l a t e to academia, and t h i s i n i t s e l f l a r g e l y prevents f u r t h e r examination of the is s u e . For many l i b e r a l s the commodification of academic knowledge simply does not and should not e x i s t . On the other hand, however, much of the 17 c r i t i c a l t h e o r e t i c a l work t h a t p o i n t s t o t h e i n h e r e n t c o n t r a d i c t i o n s between t h e c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n o f knowledge and t h e economics o f academic knowledge p r o d u c t i o n o f t e n l e a v e s t h e i s s u e r e l a t i v e l y u n n o t i c e d , e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e N o r t h A m e r i c a n s e t t i n g . A s i d e from v a r i o u s a n e c d o t e s c o n t a i n e d i n c r i t i c a l e xegeses, t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s e s o f t h e c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n o f knowledge a r e o f t e n c o n d u c t e d on such a l e v e l o f a b s t r a c t i o n as t o appear c o n t e x t - f r e e . That i s , a l t h o u g h such commentaries i n d e e d r e f e r t o contemporary a s p e c t s i n knowledge p r o d u c t i o n t h e y do not e l a b o r a t e t h e p a r t i c u l a r i t i e s t h a t ground t h e phenomenon i n contemporary s o c i a l p r a c t i c e s . Thus, a l t h o u g h t h e t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e c r i t i c a l l y c o n f r o n t s c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n more g e n e r a l l y , i t i s not n e c e s s a r i l y grounded i n a r i g o r o u s a n a l y s i s o f t h e c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n o f knowledge as an ong o i n g s o c i a l p r a c t i c e i n academia o r as a p a r t o f t h e consumer c u l t u r e t h a t g e n e r a t e s such p r a c t i c e s . I n o t h e r words, much o f t h e l i t e r a t u r e i n contemporary s o c i a l t h e o r y c r i t i c a l l y acknowledges and d e v e l o p s t h e m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l e g i t i m a c y o f t h e e x t e r n a l f e a t u r e s o f knowledge p r o d u c t i o n ( c f . G o u l d n e r 1979; Agger 1991; O ' N e i l l 1992); however, l i t t l e i s f u r t h e r d e v e l o p e d by way o f a contemporary grounded s o c i o l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s t h a t examines how t h e market c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the c i r c u l a t i o n o f commodities i n consumer c u l t u r e i n p r a c t i c e i n f l u e n c e the p r o d u c t i o n o f knowledge i n an academic s e t t i n g . Thus as t h e m a t t e r s t a n d s i n t h e c r i t i c a l t h e o r e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n , academic knowledge has y e t t o be r e f l e x i v e l y examined as a commodity t h a t c i r c u l a t e s i n t h e c o n t e x t o f consumer c u l t u r e . I n t h i s a n a l y s i s I seek t o d e v e l o p t h e t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e s o f c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n , from Marx's e a r l y f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e commodity form t o the more contemporary v e r s i o n s found i n Jean B a u d r i l l a r d and P i e r r e B o u r d i e u , by way of a grounded a n a l y s i s t h a t examines t h e e x t e n t t o wh i c h academic knowledge f u n c t i o n s as a commodity f o r consumer c a p i t a l i s m . 18 Although my aim i s p r i m a r i l y to develop a t h e o r e t i c a l framework for the ana lys i s for academic knowledge i n consumer c u l t u r e , I u t i l i z e empir i ca l examples as i l l u s t r a t i o n s of p a r t i c u l a r t h e o r e t i c a l i n s i g h t s to the issues revo lv ing p r i m a r i l y around the d i s t r i b u t i o n and consumption of academic knowledge. In th i s respect I hope not only to advance a c r i t i c a l contemporary framework for s o c i o l o g i c a l analyses of knowledge but a lso to advance our understanding of the ro le of s c h o l a r l y publ i shers and the marketplace i n the l arger system of academic knowledge product ion . This ana lys i s follows most c l o s e l y with other c r i t i c a l s o c i o l o g i c a l studies that attempt to demonstrate the complex mosaic invo lved i n the i n s t i t u t i o n a l product ion of knowledge (cf. Gouldner 1979, Latour 1987, Bourdieu 1988) . Furthermore, fo l lowing i n the footsteps of t h e o r i s t s of cu l ture and c a p i t a l i s m ( B a u d r i l l a r d 1981; Horkheimer and Adorno 1988; Lash 1990; Jameson 1991; Bourdieu 1991), I attempt to b u i l d upon the not ion of the b l u r r i n g of boundaries between these prev ious ly d i s t i n c t s o c i a l spheres and the omnipotence of the commodity form. With reference to t h i s r e l a t i v e l y recent s o c i a l development, I examine the symbiosis of the academic and the economic spheres in to what I re fer to as the academic economy. This term i s meant to provoke those l i b e r a l academics who are i d e o l o g i c a l l y b l i n d to the increas ing ro le of the market i n the crea t ion of ' l i b e r a l ' academic knowledge. As I intend to demonstrate, i t i s impossible to conceive of any form of product ion that occurs i n i s o l a t i o n from greater economic and s o c i a l forces . Thinking of academic knowledge product ion i n t h i s way i s not an exception but rather proves the ru le of the encroachment of the economic in to every s o c i a l sphere and the commodification of everyday l i f e (cf. Gottdiener 1994). What we see i s that the not ion of a separation between academic and economic value i s no 19 l o n g e r an adequate f o r m u l a t i o n o f academic p r i v i l e g e . R a t h e r , t h e o n l y way t o u n d e r s t a n d t h e contemporary s i t u a t i o n o f academe i s t o f u l l y i n c o r p o r a t e an a n a l y s i s o f some o f t h e ' e x t e r n a l ' f e a t u r e s o f knowledge p r o d u c t i o n such as t h e m a r k e t p l a c e , consumption, c o m m o d i f i c a t i o n and t h e l o g i c and forms o f l a t e c a p i t a l i s m . I n e x p l o r i n g t h e s e i s s u e s we come t o see t h a t a t t h e h e a r t o f academic economies i s s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g and t h e exchange and d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s c h o l a r l y knowledge. The p r o v o c a t i o n i n t e n d e d by t h e n o t i o n o f an 'academic economy' o n l y makes sense i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e academic i d e a l o f 'knowledge f o r knowledge's sake'. T h i s i d e a l and i t s c o n t e x t a r e e x p l o r e d i n t h e f i r s t t h r e e c h a p t e r s i n P a r t One: Ideologies of Production. I n c h a p t e r one I e x p l o r e t h e o r i g i n s o f t h e n o t i o n o f 'pure' academe and t h e s e p a r a t i o n and r e l a t i v e autonomy o f academic p r a c t i c e . I n l o o k i n g a t how academic p r o d u c t i o n i s o r i g i n a l l y f o r m u l a t e d and how i t s mandate remains a fun d a m e n t a l p r i n c i p l e o f academic endeavours t o d a y , we come t o see how t h e n o t i o n o f academic knowledge as a commodity might o f f e n d t h o s e l i b e r a l s who i d e o l o g i c a l l y adhere t o such'a p o s i t i o n . Moreover, i n e x p l o r i n g t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t h e modern u n i v e r s i t y we come t o see how fu n d a m e n t a l s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i s t o s e c u r e t h e mandate o f 'knowledge f o r knowledge's sake'. T h i s c h a p t e r a c t s as an i d e o l o g i c a l m e a s u r i n g s t i c k t o gauge how f a r t h e p r a c t i c e s o f contemporary academe have s t r a y e d from t h e i r i d e o l o g i c a l o r i g i n s . I n c h a p t e r two I e x p l o r e how t h e l i b e r a l c o n c e p t i o n o f knowledge p r o d u c t i o n i s not a r o m a n t i c i d e a l from t h e p a s t b u t i s r a t h e r u p h e l d by a pr o m i n e n t contemporary s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y o f knowledge: t h e t h e o r y o f t h e knowledge s o c i e t y . I n t h i s c h a p t e r I examine how t h e o r e t i c a l l y and m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y o n e - s i d e d such l i b e r a l t h e o r i e s o f knowledge p r o d u c t i o n a r e and how t h e y u l t i m a t e l y l e a d t o an e n t i r e l y i n a d e q u a t e f o r m u l a t i o n o f 20 knowledge production. In the t r a d i t i o n of a Marx i s t s o c i o l o g y of knowledge, I demonstrate how economic f a c t o r s cannot m a t e r i a l l y nor h i s t o r i c a l l y be fa c t o r e d out of any explanation of production, regardless of the many i d e o l o g i c a l attempts to do so. In chapter three I demonstrate by way of current e m p i r i c a l data the r o l e of economic forces and the e x t r a c t i o n of surplus value from academic labour w i t h an examination of the r o l e of s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s f o r commercial s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s . Here we see how academic labour used f o r the c r e a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s plays a fundamental r o l e i n the generation of surplus value f o r venture c a p i t a l . Here academics d i r e c t l y c o n t r i b u t e to t h e i r s i t u a t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n s of c a p i t a l . This r e l a t i o n s h i p reveals the r o l e of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i n the commodification of academic knowledge f o r i t i s through the p r i c i n g of jo u r n a l s that a chain r e a c t i o n occurs throughout the academic system that e v e n t u a l l y poses s i g n i f i c a n t economic concerns f o r academic authors. C a p i t a l i s m confronts academic production as yet another form of labour, thereby a s s e r t i n g i t s dominance as the primary c r e a t o r of value i n c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y . . Following an a n a l y s i s of commercial s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s and t h e i r r e l i a n c e upon academic labour f o r the generation of surplus I examine i n chapter four what many are now c a l l i n g 'the s e r i a l s c r i s i s ' i n s c h o l a r l y communication. Through an examination of t h i s c r i s i s I demonstrate how the marketplace plays a greater r o l e f o r s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s and t h e i r d e c i s i o n to p u b l i s h academic books. Largely drawing upon i n t e r v i e w data, I explore the i n c r e a s i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e of the consumer f o r s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s i n the p u b l i s h i n g of academic work. This chapter opens Part Two of the t h e s i s : Practices of Consumption that attempts to balance the ideology of knowledge production with t h e o r e t i c a l l y informed e m p i r i c a l 21 i l l u s t r a t i o n s of academic practices of consumption - from s c h o l a r l y publishers to publishing academics, t h e i r students and other p o t e n t i a l readers - i n order to more c l e a r l y i l l u s t r a t e the t h e o r e t i c a l arguments presented throughout the the s i s . Chapter Five examines the growing influence of consumer culture upon the practices of scholarly publishers and how academic books c i r c u l a t e according to the l o g i c of the commodity-sign. Here I look at how advertising plays a large role i n the communication of academic product to a consuming market of readers. As I demonstrate, p a r t i c u l a r strategies are u t i l i z e d by scholarly publishers i n order to make t h e i r books v i s i b l e i n a highly competitive academic marketplace. In t h i s we see how the practices of scholarly publishers are growing more s i m i l a r to t h e i r commercial counterparts. Following t h i s l o g i c i n Chapter Six I examine how the sc h o l a r l y monograph, and scholarly books more generally, can be viewed as among the primary s i t e s of the commodification of academic knowledge. Using Pierre Bourdieu's concept of c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l I demonstrate how academic values are u t i l i z e d by scholarly publishers for the sale of s c h o l a r l y books and how such a pra c t i c e reveals a symbiosis of values between the economic and the academic spheres. Using several examples from 'popular' academic books I examine more c l o s e l y the connection between the c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l of the author, the market for such a work and the c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l of i t s readership. Ultimately I set out to demonstrate that no matter how l i b e r a l or c r i t i c a l the content of an academic work, the function of c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l ultimately asserts the commodity form over i t s c r i t i c a l content. F i n a l l y i n Chapter Seven I r e f l e x i v e l y explore how a l l of the factors d e t a i l e d thus far come to bear on the academic author. Here using 22 s o c i o l o g i s t P i e r r e Bourdieu's career as an example, I explore how through s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g , academic p r a c t i c e s of c a p i t a l are geared towards the academic marketplace. In t h i s examination we see s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g as a form of c a p i t a l that u l t i m a t e l y has economic c o n v e r t i b i l i t y as i t s f i n a l d e s t i n a t i o n . Here the p r a c t i c e s of c a p i t a l are shown not only i n the f i n a n c i a l motives of p u b l i s h e r s but a l s o , i n the shorter term, i n the symbolic p r o f i t of the academic author. Using Bourdieu and h i s s i t u a t i o n i n the French i n t e l l e c t u a l marketplace as an example I a l s o show how an academic economy based upon the s t r a t e g i c accumulation of c u l t u r a l c a p i t a l through s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i s relevant f o r academics today i n North America. Through t h i s examination we come to see how the ideology of academic l i b e r a l i s m cannot adequately account f o r these changes i n s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e . I t r y to demonstrate that any account of s c h o l a r l y knowledge must not only account f o r the adequacy of academic content but must a l s o attempt to address the relevance of i t s form f o r the generation and acceptance of such knowledge. Since s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i s i n t e g r a l to the c i r c u l a t i o n and exchange of such knowledge, then the c o n d i t i o n s of the p u b l i c a t i o n of knowledge must a l s o be incorporated i n t o a s o c i o l o g i c a l examination of knowledge. The notion of an academic economy, beyond i t s polemical value, expresses an attempt to address the h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t mediating f u n c t i o n of economic value f o r the c i r c u l a t i o n of academic knowledge, i f only to provide a concrete a n a l y s i s f o r the c r i t i c a l i n s p e c t i o n of how these economic forces c o l o n i z e the realm of l i b e r a l s c h o l a r s h i p . P A R T O N E I D E O L O G I E S O F P R O D U C T I O N 2 4 1 Academic Liberalism F r e e d o m t h r o u g h r e a s o n i s t h e b a s i c p r i n c i p l e b e h i n d m a n y f o r m s o f l i b e r a l i s m . H o w e v e r , a s S t a n l e y F i s h o b s e r v e s i n h i s e s s a y ' L i b e r a l i s m D o e s n ' t E x i s t ' , t h e f o u n d a t i o n o f l i b e r a l t h o u g h t i s s e l d o m q u e s t i o n e d : ' I n d e e d t h e s t a t u s o f l i b e r a l i s m d e p e n d s o n n o t i n q u i r i n g i n t o t h e s t a t u s o f r e a s o n , d e p e n d s , t h a t i s , o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t r e a s o n ' s s t a t u s i s o b v i o u s ' ( F i s h 1 9 9 4 : 1 3 5 ) . A c a d e m i c l i b e r a l i s m a n d t h e c o n t e m p o r a r y p r a c t i c e s o f s c h o l a r s h i p a r e n o t e x e m p t f r o m t h i s c h a r g e . T o d a y t h e s p e c i a l s t a t u s o f a c a d e m i c a u t h o r i t y r e l i e s o n t h e a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e t r u t h f u l d i s c o v e r y a n d f r e e d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e a r e i n d e e d o b v i o u s o r ' n a t u r a l ' . T a k i n g u p F i s h ' s c h a l l e n g e , i n t h i s c h a p t e r I i n q u i r e i n t o t h e s o c i a l a n d h i s t o r i c a l f o r c e s t h a t l e d t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f a c a d e m i c l i b e r a l i s m . I n t h e a n a l y s i s t h a t f o l l o w s I i n s p e c t t h e i d e a s i n f o r m i n g t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l a n d e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l d e v e l o p m e n t o f t h e n o t i o n o f a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m t h a t a t t e m p t s t o f i r m l y e s t a b l i s h t h e i d e a l s o f l i b e r a l i s m i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s o f a c a d e m e . R a t h e r t h a n b e i n g a ' n a t u r a l ' f e a t u r e o f k n o w l e d g e i n q u i r y , t h e n o t i o n o f t h e ' a u t o n o m y o f s c h o l a r l y i n q u i r y ' t h a t g r o u n d s a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m i s t h e h i s t o r i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e o f m o d e r n i z a t i o n a n d t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y a s a l i b e r a l i n s t i t u t i o n o f k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c t i o n i n a s o c i a l d e m o c r a c y . B y d e v e l o p i n g t h e s e r e l a t i o n s w e s e e h o w t h e c o n s t r u c t e d a u t o n o m y o f t h e u n i v e r s i t y , w i t h i t s e m p h a s i s o n ' p u r e ' r e s e a r c h a s a v a l u e i n t r i n s i c t o t h e i n s t i t u t i o n , d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t s l a r g e r i d e o l o g i c a l t e n d e n c i e s i n h e r e n t i n m o d e r n i t y . I d e m o n s t r a t e t h r o u g h t h i s e x a m i n a t i o n h o w t h e m o d e r n u n i v e r s i t y a t t e m p t s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i d e a l s o f l i b e r a l i s m i n a c a d e m i c p r a c t i c e i n 25 three d i s t i n c t but r e l a t e d ways: f i r s t , through the i s o l a t i o n of academe as an 'autonomous' sphere of knowledge production; second, through the production of academia's own mode and methods of e v a l u a t i o n as a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d 'value sphere'; and t h i r d , through the c r e a t i o n of d i s t i n c t c u l t u r a l p r a c t i c e s , such as s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g , separate from other s o c i a l spheres such as r e l i g i o n , p o l i t i c s and economics. Once I e s t a b l i s h the connection between l i b e r a l i d e a l s and s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e i n t h i s chapter I then examine i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter how accounts of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production, such as the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , focus only upon those s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e s that a f f i r m l i b e r a l i d e a l s , thereby c o n s t i t u t i n g what I r e f e r to as academic ideology. 1 . 1 The Conflict of the Faculties The c e n t r a l tenet of l i b e r a l i s m , whether i n i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l , economic, p o l i t i c a l or academic sense, asse r t s the freedom n a t u r a l l y endowed upon i n d i v i d u a l s to pursue t h e i r i n t e r e s t s according to t h e i r own d e s i r e s and without r e s t r i c t i o n from e x t e r n a l f o r c e s . ' L i b e r a l i s m denotes an o f f i c i a l l y a gnostic or n e u t r a l g r i d that allows s e l f - g o v e r n i n g i n d i v i d u a l s to co-ordinate t h e i r r e c i p r o c a l r e l a t i o n s i n ways that maximize the attainment of t h e i r own i n d i v i d u a l purposes' -(Beiner 1997:4). I f a c e n t r a l theme can be drawn from Enlightenment thought i t i s that the i n d i v i d u a l who obtains knowledge through reason i s t r u l y f r e e . According to philosopher Immanuel Kant: 'reason i s by i t s nature f r e e ' (Kant 1970:29) . We commonly witness t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n i n the u n i v e r s a l humanist equation that emerges out of Enlightenment t h i n k i n g : Reason = Truth = Freedom. This p o s i t i o n i s s t i l l i d e o l o g i c a l l y maintained by many academic l i b e r a l s (cf. Bloom 1987). However, i n Kant's philosophy the freedom to know i s not an a p r i o r i r i g h t but rather one that must be s o c i a l l y sanctioned. For Kant there i s 26 a n i m p l i c i t a n d c o n t r a d i c t o r y a w a r e n e s s t h a t t h e f r e e d o m t o k n o w , e s p e c i a l l y t h e f r e e d o m t o i n q u i r e n e c e s s a r i l y o c c u r s w i t h i n t h e p a r a m e t e r s o f a s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l c o n t e x t . T o a c q u i r e k n o w l e d g e f r e e l y , t h a t i s w i t h o u t r e l i g i o u s o r p o l i t i c a l t u t e l a g e o r c o n t r o l , t h e r e m u s t e x i s t a n i n s t i t u t i o n t h a t i s g i v e n s p e c i a l p r i v i l e g e a n d s t a t u s b y t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e s t a t e , s u c h t h a t n o e x t e r n a l i n t e r e s t s n o r c o n s t r a i n t s c a n b e p l a c e d u p o n t h e p u r s u i t o f k n o w l e d g e , r e a s o n , t r u t h a n d ( u l t i m a t e l y ) f r e e d o m . F o r K a n t , t r u e f r e e d o m o f i n q u i r y , i r o n i c a l l y , m u s t b e s e c u r e d t h r o u g h l e g i s l a t i o n b y t h e S t a t e . I n h i s p r o p h e t i c s t a t e m e n t o n t h e f r e e d o m o f r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y , On the Conflict of the Faculties ( 1 7 9 8 / 1 9 7 0 ) , K a n t o u t l i n e s a p r o g r a m , a n a g e n d a f o r t h e p u r s u i t o f ' t r u e ' k n o w l e d g e , w h i c h t o a l a r g e e x t e n t s t i l l e x p r e s s e s t h e f o u n d i n g p r i n c i p l e s f o r t o d a y ' s m o d e r n u n i v e r s i t y s y s t e m i n m o s t o f E u r o p e a n d N o r t h A m e r i c a . I n t h i s t r e a t i s e K a n t p r e s e n t s a b l u e p r i n t t h a t n o t o n l y e s t a b l i s h e s t h e c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e s t r u c t u r a l f o u n d a t i o n o f m o d e r n u n i v e r s i t y c u r r i c u l a b u t a l s o d e t a i l s a t r e a t i s e o n t h e n e c e s s i t y o f f r e e i n q u i r y a n d i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o r e a s o n a s t h e b a s i s f o r t r u e k n o w l e d g e . H e n c e , K a n t ' s ^Conflict' e s t a b l i s h e s t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r t h e a u t o n o m y o f s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e , t h e n e e d f o r k n o w l e d g e p r o d u c e d b y s c h o l a r s t o b e f r e e f r o m i n t e r e s t s o t h e r t h a n t h e p u r s u i t o f ' k n o w l e d g e f o r k n o w l e d g e ' s s a k e ' , a n d f r e e a n d r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y i n t o t r u t h a s o n e o f t h e b a s i c c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h a t t r u t h ( c f . R u s s e l l 1 9 9 3 ) . I n t h i s c o n c e p t i o n l i e s t h e f o u n d a t i o n f o r t h e l e g i t i m a t i o n o f t o d a y ' s p r o d u c t i o n o f a c a d e m i c k n o w l e d g e a n d t h e b a s i s f o r i t s c o n t i n u i n g p r i v i l e g e d c u l t u r a l a u t h o r i t y . T h e f o u n d a t i o n o f w h a t w e k n o w t o d a y a s a c a d e m i c f r e e d o m f o r s c h o l a r s h a s i t s r o o t s i n a c o n f l i c t t h a t i n v o l v e d i t s o p p o s i t e , n a m e l y , c e n s o r s h i p . I n 1 7 9 8 , I m m a n u e l K a n t c r i t i c a l l y r e s p o n d e d t o t h e c e n s o r s h i p o f h i s w o r k ' R e l i g i o n w i t h i n t h e L i m i t s o f M e r e R e a s o n ' b y F r i e d r i c h 27 W i l h e l m I I w i t h a c a l l f o r t h e e s t a b l i s h m e n t o f a p r o t o c o l f o r t h e p u r s u i t o f h i g h e r knowledge. A c c o r d i n g t o Kant, such c e n s o r s h i p o b v i o u s l y impedes th e ' f r e e ' s e a r c h f o r t r u t h as t h e b a s i s f o r r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y . I n t h e i n t e r e s t s o f r e a s o n , knowledge, and t r u t h , combating such r e s t r i c t i o n s r e q u i r e s t h e g r a n t i n g o f p r i v i l e g e t o an i n s t i t u t i o n where such p u r s u i t s can be f r e e l y e x e r c i s e d f r e e from e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t . I n The C o n f l i c t of the F a c u l t i e s Kant p r o v i d e s a b l u e p r i n t f o r such an i n s t i t u t i o n n o t o n l y by mapping t h e s e p a r a t i o n o f t h i s i n s t i t u t i o n from o t h e r s b u t a l s o by e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e h i e r a r c h y and d i v i s i o n s w i t h i n t h e i n s t i t u t i o n i t s e l f . To b e g i n , Kant maps a d i v i s i o n i n t h e u n i v e r s i t y between t h e h i g h e r f a c u l t i e s - Law, M e d i c i n e and R e l i g i o n - and t h e l o w e r f a c u l t y o f p h i l o s o p h y . I n t h i s he e s t a b l i s h e s t h e grounds f o r g r a d u a t e c u r r i c u l a and t h e g r a n t i n g o f a d o c t o r a t e o f p h i l o s o p h y : 'the u n i v e r s i t y a d m i t s s t u d e n t s s e e k i n g e n t r a n c e from t h e l o w e r s c h o o l s and, h a v i n g c o n d u c t e d e x a m i n a t i o n s , by i t s own a u t h o r i t y [ i s a b l e t o ] t o g r a n t d e grees o r c o n f e r t h e u n i v e r s a l l y r e c o g n i z e d s t a t u s o f " d o c t o r " on f r e e t e a c h e r s - i n o t h e r words, t o create doctors' (Kant 1970:23). The d i s t i n c t i o n between h i g h e r and l o w e r f o r Kant i s not a s u b l i m a t e d form o f s e l f - d e p r e c a t i o n but r a t h e r a p o l i t i c a l r e s p o n s e o f d e f e r e n c e t o t h e a u t h o r i t y of t h e S t a t e : 'For a f a c u l t y i s c o n s i d e r e d h i g h e r o n l y i f i t s t e a c h i n g s i n t e r e s t t h e government i t s e l f , w h i l e t h e f a c u l t y whose f u n c t i o n i s o n l y t o l o o k a f t e r the i n t e r e s t s o f s c i e n c e i s c a l l e d l o w e r because i t may use i t s own judgement about what i t t e a c h e s ' (Kant 1970:27). The l o w e r f a c u l t y o f p h i l o s o p h y o c c u p i e s a c e r t a i n freedom o f i n q u i r y t h a t t h e h i g h e r f a c u l t i e s do not p o s s e s s , f o r t h e h i g h e r f a c u l t i e s a r e u l t i m a t e l y c o n s t r a i n e d by t h e a u t h o r i t y o f t h e S t a t e and t h e c e r t a i n t y r e q u i r e d by i t s c a n o n i c a l t e x t s , such as t h e code o f c i v i l law, t h e B i b l e and m e d i c a l / s c i e n t i f i c t e x t s . A c c o r d i n g t o Kant t h e l o w e r f a c u l t y o f p h i l o s o p h y must have t h e freedom t o q u e s t i o n t h e grounds 28 f o r c a l l i n g such t e x t s and t h e i r knowledge 'true' and, t h e r e f o r e , must e x i s t independently of the State i n order to do so: I t i s a b s o l u t e l y e s s e n t i a l that the learned community at the u n i v e r s i t y a l s o c o n t a i n a f a c u l t y that i s independent of the government's command with regard to i t s teachings; one that, having no commands to give i s free to evaluate everything, and concerns i t s e l f with the i n t e r e s t s of the sciences, that i s , with t r u t h : one i n which reason i s aut h o r i z e d to speak out p u b l i c l y . For without a f a c u l t y of t h i s kind, the t r u t h would not come to l i g h t ; but reason i s by i t s nature free and admits of no command to hold something as true . The reason why t h i s f a c u l t y , d e s p i t e i t s great p r e r o g a t i v e (freedom) i s c a l l e d the lower f a c u l t y l i e s i n human nature; f o r a man who can give commands, even though he i s someone el s e ' s humble servant, i s considered more d i s t i n g u i s h e d than a free man who has no one under h i s command (Kant 1970:29). Here l i e s the connection of reason and freedom to the idea of i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d autonomy that i s the foundation of l i b e r a l s c h o l a r s h i p today - 'one t h a t , having no commands to give i s free to evaluate everything'. Of p a r t i c u l a r importance to Kant i s the autonomy of philosophy (which i s i t s e l f d i v i d e d i n t o the departments of h i s t o r y , geography, p h i l o l o g y , humanities, n a t u r a l sciences, pure mathematics, pure metaphysics and pure philosophy) from e x t e r n a l c o n s t r a i n t s . As a consequence of t h i s freedom, 'the philosophy f a c u l t y can, t h e r e f o r e , l a y c l a i m to any teaching i n order to t e s t i t s t r u t h ' (Kant 1970:45). I t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s to 'test t r u t h ' i s l a r g e l y based on an i n t e r n a l i s t a p p r a i s a l of i t s c a t e g o r i e s , or, upon philosophy's a b i l i t y to produce i t s own judgements and evaluate those judgements based upon i t s own c r i t e r i a . Granted t h i s freedom, philosophy stands as the u l t i m a t e judge of reason. Because of i t s separation from the other f a c u l t i e s and the s t a t e , philosophy, i n Kant's formulation, i s the most free and l i b e r a l of s c h o l a r l y p u r s u i t s . Through the i n s t i t u t i o n of such freedom by the State and i t s implementation of these ideas, freedom can be a t t a i n e d f o r the p u r s u i t of higher knowledge, i t s t r u t h , and the dissemination of t h i s t r u t h to the masses. The e n l i g h t e n i n g and progressive character of 'higher' knowledge 29 i s founded upon t h i s ' n a t u r a l ' , free search f o r the t r u t h and i t s eventual dissemination to 'the masses'. Today's l i b e r a l mandate f o r s c h o l a r l y communication and education of the general p u b l i c i s seen i n Kant as an e a r l y i n s i g h t i n t o the e l e c t i v e a f f i n i t y between s c h o l a r s h i p and p u b l i s h i n g : Enlightenment of the masses i s the p u b l i c i n s t r u c t i o n of the people i n i t s d u t i e s and r i g h t s v i s - a - v i s the s t a t e to which they belong. Since only n a t u r a l r i g h t s and r i g h t s a r i s i n g out of the common human understanding are concerned here, then the n a t u r a l heralds and e x p o s i t o r s of these among the people are not o f f i c i a l l y appointed by the s t a t e but are free p r o f e s s o r s of law, that i s philosophers who, p r e c i s e l y because t h i s freedom i s allowed to them, are o b j e c t i o n a b l e to the s t a t e , which always d e s i r e s to r u l e alone . . . Thus the p r o h i b i t i o n of p u b l i c i t y impedes the progress of people toward improvement, even i n that which a p p l i e s to the l e a s t of i t s claims, namely i t s simple, n a t u r a l r i g h t (Kant 1970:161). The c a t e g o r i c a l d i v i s i o n s that Kant makes p h i l o s o p h i c a l l y i n t h i s t r e a t i s e provide not only the founding i d e a l s f o r what we know today as academic freedom but also provide a p r a c t i c a l b l u e p r i n t f o r the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and 'autonomous' modern u n i v e r s i t y . As such the idea of producing t r u t h f u l knowledge, l e g i t i m a t e d through the autonomy of s c h o l a r l y p u r s u i t , i s based on the impetus f o r being f u l l y i n s t i t u t e d i n the p r a c t i c e of academic s c h o l a r s h i p and the guaranteed freedom to conduct research to advance knowledge. In the name of t r u t h , reason and freedom these i d e a l s are determined by scholars and a d m i n i s t r a t o r s as worthy of implementation i n the modern u n i v e r s i t y system. 1.2 Freedom of Inquiry i n the Modern Un i v e r s i t y During h i s l i f e Kant d i d not implement h i s t r e a t i s e i n the p r a c t i c e s of the German u n i v e r s i t y . However, a contemporary of Kant's, the philosopher Wilhelm von Humboldt, brought about i t s s u c c e s s f u l a p p l i c a t i o n to the U n i v e r s i t y of B e r l i n i n 1810 (Readings 1996:62; Rand 1 9 9 2 : v i i i ) . From the appeal of Kant's i n s t i t u t i o n a l categories f o r r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y i n B e r l i n , 30 i t was not much l a t e r that h i s plan f o r the autonomy of the f a c u l t i e s was implemented i n u n i v e r s i t i e s both i n Germany and abroad, seeing i t s f i r s t i n c a r n a t i o n i n the United States s e v e r a l decades l a t e r w i t h Columbia and Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t i e s (Rand 1 9 9 2 : v i i i ) . The i m p o r t a t i o n of the German b l u e p r i n t f o r higher education plays a c r i t i c a l r o l e i n the transformation of the American higher education system and t h e r e f o r e these i d e a l s continue to have a s u b s t a n t i a l impact on the p r a c t i c e s of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production i n North America. In a short p e r i o d f o l l o w i n g i t s implementation i n Germany, over 9000 Americans studying at German u n i v e r s i t i e s i n the nineteenth century brought back with them the methods and i d e a l s of the German u n i v e r s i t y system (Stone 1996:65; Muto 1993:3). Most e n t h u s i a s t i c a l l y , they imported the Kantian concept of f r e e research through academic freedom that provided the American system with a much-needed p r o v i s o to ensure the q u a l i t y and standards of higher education and i t s research programs. No longer were mere pedagogues and d i s c i p l i n a r i a n s the pursuers of higher knowledge but now the research u n i v e r s i t y a t t r a c t e d i n d i v i d u a l s of d i v e r s e i n t e l l e c t u a l a b i l i t i e s (Stone 1996:66). This d i v e r s i t y r e f l e c t e d a new found freedom of academic i n q u i r y that allowed f o r the vpure' p u r s u i t of knowledge f o r knowledge sake without the i n t e r f e r e n c e of p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s or p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . As Stone points out i n the f o l l o w i n g passage, t h i s free p u r s u i t of knowledge based upon the German model became the d e f i n i t i v e and d i s t i n c t i v e aspect of the academic p r o f e s s i o n . The modern conception of the u n i v e r s i t y as a research i n s t i t u t i o n was i n l a r g e p a r t a German c o n t r i b u t i o n . The object of the German u n i v e r s i t y was the determined, methodical and independent search f o r t r u t h , without regard to p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n . The German professor enjoyed the freedom of teaching and freedom of i n q u i r y . The German system held that t h i s freedom was the d i s t i n c t i v e p r e r o g a t i v e of the academic p r o f e s s i o n and that i t was the e s s e n t i a l c o n d i t i o n of a u n i v e r s i t y (Stone 1996:66). Further, Stone adds, the assumption that academic freedom defines the modern u n i v e r s i t y i s the s i n g l e greatest c o n t r i b u t i o n of the German 31 u n i v e r s i t y to the American system. P r i o r to t h i s , the American U n i v e r s i t y was plagued with r e l i g i o u s z e a l o t r y and p o l i t i c a l censorship not u n l i k e what Kant experienced i n Germany (Stone 1996:66). The freedom of r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y , achieved through the German i d e a l of the autonomy and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the i n s t i t u t i o n , now provides the foundation f o r today's e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l a u t h o r i t y of s c h o l a r l y knowledge. Through the autonomy of s c h o l a r l y values comes the freedom to pursue 'knowledge f o r knowledge's sake'. As we see i n t h i s statement from W i l l i a m Rainey Harper, the f i r s t p r e s i d e n t of the U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago, academic freedom through i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y guaranteed autonomy must c o n s t i t u t e the c e n t r a l mandate of a u n i v e r s i t y : When f o r any reason . . . the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of a u n i v e r s i t y or the i n s t r u c t i o n i n any of i t s departments i s changed by an i n f l u e n c e from without, or any e f f o r t i s made to dislodge a professor because the p o l i t i c a l sentiment or r e l i g i o u s sentiment of the m a j o r i t y has undergone a change, at th a t moment the i n s t i t u t i o n has ceased to become a u n i v e r s i t y (quoted i n Stone 1996:66). So strong i s t h i s b e l i e f i n the freedom to pursue higher knowledge without c o n s t r a i n t that the American A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Professors (AAUP) is s u e d the f o l l o w i n g p u b l i c statement: I n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education are conducted f o r the common good and not to f u r t h e r the i n t e r e s t of e i t h e r the i n d i v i d u a l teacher or the i n s t i t u t i o n as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search f o r t r u t h and i t s free expression (quoted i n Hamilton 1995:3). The i d e a l of academic freedom a l s o a p p l i e s e q u a l l y today to the modern research u n i v e r s i t y and the contemporary production of s c h o l a r l y knowledge. As we see i n a recent mission statement from the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, these i d e a l s are deeply entrenched i n the modern research u n i v e r s i t y . Among the o b j e c t i v e s s t a t e d i s the f o l l o w i n g : The u n i v e r s i t y w i l l maintain i t s p o s i t i o n as one of North America's major research u n i v e r s i t i e s , and car r y out research that i s at the f o r e f r o n t of human knowledge and which can be f r e e l y and openly disseminated i n a wide range of f i e l d s . . . I t w i l l s t r i v e to maintain an environment which respects the academic freedom of students and f a c u l t y (U.B.C. 1999). 32 Through the i d e a l of academic freedom as the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the academic p r o f e s s i o n , s c h o l a r l y knowledge enjoys a p a r t i c u l a r l e g i t i m a t i o n that other sources of knowledge production do not possess. However, as we f i n d below, the 'autonomy' of the modern u n i v e r s i t y i s not only the r e s u l t of the i d e a l s of Enlightenment philosophy and i t s attempts f o r a p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n but such 'autonomy' i s a l s o the r e s u l t of the l a r g e r s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l processes of s o c i a l modernization and an i n c r e a s i n g d i v i s i o n of labour i n i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . In t h i s respect, s c h o l a r s h i p , rather than being s t r i c t l y i n t e r n a l l y d efined by i t s own system of values as Kant suggests, already begins to d i a l e c t i c a l l y r e f l e c t i t s s i t u a t i o n i n modern i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . 1.3 Modernity, 'Autonomy' and D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n As s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s of modernity t e l l us, among the many observable features of the h i s t o r i c a l process of modernization i s the i n c r e a s i n g d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e s . The i n s t i t u t i o n of the autonomy of s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e can be understood to be a r e s u l t of t h i s i n c r e a s i n g tendency of modern s o c i e t i e s toward s o c i a l differentiation. According to i t s p undits, d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s the process i n modernity whereby each c u l t u r a l sphere a t t a i n s the f u l l e s t p o s s i b l e autonomy, and becomes s e l f - l e g i s l a t i n g , developing i t s own conventions and modes of v a l u a t i o n (Lash 1990:9) . In modernity, academic autonomy achieves a d i s t i n c t status r e l a t i v e to other s o c i a l spheres. I f we examine here the work of s o c i o l o g i s t s Emile Durkheim i n h i s study The D i v i s i o n of Labour in Society (1893) and T a l c o t t Parsons i n The American University (1973) we see how vary i n g s o c i a l spheres such as the r e l i g i o u s , p o l i t i c a l , i n t e l l e c t u a l and economic i n s t i t u t i o n s are d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from one another w i t h i n the greater whole of modern s o c i e t y . We can then see how the academic sphere 33 acquires a r e l a t i v e autonomy as a s p e c i f i c i n s t i t u t i o n that i s d i f f e r e n t i a t e d from other modern s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s through i t s p a r t i c u l a r value s t r u c t u r e f o r the advancement of knowledge and the freedom of r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y . Through an understanding of the idea of s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n we come to see how the notion of autonomy that l e g i t i m a t e s s c h o l a r l y i n q u i r y does not take place outside of the parameters of l a r g e r s o c i o - h i s t o r i c a l processes. In Durkheim's The Division of Labour we see the emerging d i f f e r e n c e s that a r i s e i n the t r a n s i t i o n from t r a d i t i o n a l to modern s o c i e t i e s . In t h i s study he demonstrates that one of the c e n t r a l features of modern i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y that best i l l u s t r a t e s the i n c r e a s i n g tendency toward l a r g e - s c a l e d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s that ' r e l i g i o n embraces a s m a l l e r and smaller p o r t i o n of s o c i a l l i f e ' (Durkheim 1973:5) . Here Durkheim i s p o i n t i n g to the f a c t that the supposedly homogenous s t r u c t u r e of t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i e t i e s , where a l l members a s c r i b e to a s i n g l e , shared common b e l i e f system, or a conscience collective, t y p i c a l l y through the r e l i g i o u s d o c t r i n e of the church, t r a n s m o g r i f i e s i n t o a heterogenous c o l l e c t i o n of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s each se r v i n g a s p e c i f i c s o c i a l f u n c t i o n w i t h i n the developing d i v i s i o n of labour. R e l i g i o n , i n t h i s sense, as a common bi n d i n g force plays a smaller r o l e i n people's l i v e s as i t i n c r e a s i n g l y competes with the values of the various other developing s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , such as the economy, p o l i t i c s , a e s t h e t i c s and the i n t e l l e c t u a l sphere (cf. Weber 1958). S o c i a l l i f e i n modern s o c i e t i e s , r ather than being dominated by a s i n g l e i n s t i t u t i o n , i s subject to the values from a m u l t i p l i c i t y of s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Of course, t h i s i s what Durkheim famously r e f e r s to as the s h i f t away from the mechanical solidarity of t r a d i t i o n a l s o c i e t i e s , where s o c i a l cohesion i s d efined by an almost automatic conformity to one set of common norms, to that of organic solidarity i n modern s o c i e t i e s , where cohesion i s d efined by 'the 34 co-operation between i n d i v i d u a l s or groups of i n d i v i d u a l s which d e r i v e from t h e i r occupational interdependence w i t h i n a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d d i v i s i o n of labour' (Giddens 1973:8) . In comparing the two forms of s o l i d a r i t y Durkheim s t a t e s : The s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t i e s where organic s o l i d a r i t y i s preponderant i s q u i t e d i f f e r e n t [from those where mechanical s o l i d a r i t y i s preponderant]. These are formed not by the r e p e t i t i o n of s i m i l a r , homogenous segments, but by a system of d i f f e r e n t organs each of which has a s p e c i a l r o l e , and which are themselves formed of d i f f e r e n t i a t e d p a r t s . Not only are s o c i a l elements not of the same nature, but they are not d i s t r i b u t e d i n the same way (Durkheim 1973:143). For Durkheim, s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n i s the i n e v i t a b l e consequence of an i n c r e a s i n g d i v i s i o n of labour through i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n . Through t h i s i n c r e a s i n g d i v i s i o n , people who are afforded a p l e t h o r a of o ccupational choices take on the new o b j e c t i v e s of t h e i r employment. Each p o s i t i o n determines the s p e c i f i c s of the v a l u e - s t r u c t u r e where norms are u l t i m a t e l y e s t a b l i s h e d through the occupational s t r u c t u r e . Academe simply achieves d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n as a s p e c i f i c value-sphere. D i f f e r e n t values can p o t e n t i a l l y e x i s t i n harmony, according to Durkheim, because of t h e i r d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t i v e s : In the same c i t y , d i f f e r e n t occupations can c o - e x i s t without being o b l i g e d mutually to destroy one another, f o r they pursue d i f f e r e n t o b j e c t i v e s . The s o l d i e r seeks m i l i t a r y g l o r y , the p r i e s t moral a u t h o r i t y , the statesman power, the businessman r i c h e s , and the s c h o l a r s c i e n t i f i c renown. Each of them can a t t a i n h i s end without preventing the others from a t t a i n i n g t h e i r s (Durkheim 1973:154). In the i n d u s t r i a l i z e d d i v i s i o n of labour occupational spheres create various demands fo r the employed, each of which i s thought to possess values that are mutually e x c l u s i v e from the next. For example, the businessman wants r i c h e s (the l i b e r a l - e c o n o m i c value of s e l f - g a i n ) , the s c h o l a r s c i e n t i f i c renown (the l i b e r a l - a c a d e m i c value of the advancement of knowledge). D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , f o r Durkheim, i m p l i e s a d i s t i n c t i o n and s eparation of these values throughout various i n s t i t u t i o n s i n the o ccupational world. The i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of s c h o l a r s h i p extends t h i s 35 process i n t o the sphere of r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y . However, ra t h e r than being p u r e l y autonomous, i n Durkheim's account s c h o l a r l y values are understood in relation to the values of other occupational spheres where s c h o l a r l y values are apparently absent. Academic p u r s u i t then f i n d s i t s relative autonomy i n the d i f f e r e n t i a t e d value sphere of the modern u n i v e r s i t y where the values f o r the p u r s u i t of knowledge are upheld as values s p e c i f i c to t h i s occupational sphere. Academe's i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n , however, i s undeniably an e x t e r n a l aspect of the l a r g e r process of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n w i t h i n which d i f f e r e n t i n s t i t u t i o n s f i n d t h e i r r e l a t i v e autonomy. Durkheim observes f u r t h e r that the u n i v e r s i t y and the knowledge produced t h e r e i n not only develop t h e i r own modes of v a l u a t i o n but a l s o r e f l e c t other tendencies of modernization, such as i n c r e a s i n g s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . The s p e c i a l i z a t i o n inherent to the d i v i s i o n of labour i s then not s t r i c t l y an aspect of the economic sphere but can a l s o be witnessed w i t h i n other s o c i a l spheres, f u r t h e r demonstrating the r e l a t i v e autonomy of the academic sphere: But the d i v i s i o n of labour i s not p e c u l i a r to the economic world; we can observe i t s growing i n f l u e n c e i n the most v a r i e d f i e l d s of s o c i e t y . The p o l i t i c a l , a d m i n i s t r a t i v e , and j u d i c i a l functions are growing more and more s p e c i a l i z e d . I t i s the same with the a e s t h e t i c and s c i e n t i f i c f u n c t i o n s . I t i s long since philosophy reigned as the science unique; i t has been broken i n t o a multitude of s p e c i a l d i s c i p l i n e s each of which has i t s own o b j e c t , method, and thought (Durkheim 1955:40). Rather than being totally immune or separate from e x t e r n a l f o r c e s , academia i s revealed to e x h i b i t some of the l a r g e r features of s o c i a l modernization, such as the i n c r e a s i n g tendency towards s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . As a modern s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n academia i s somewhat awkwardly i n f l u e n c e d by the l a r g e r laws of modernization. On the one hand the academic sphere promotes the advancement of knowledge as s t r i c t l y an i n t e r n a l 'autonomous' p u r s u i t s p e c i f i c to the academic i n s t i t u t i o n yet, on the other hand t h i s sphere i s undeniably i n f l u e n c e d by the greater s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l features of modernity, such as d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and s p e c i a l i z a t i o n . In 36 t h i s awkward r e l a t i o n a r i s e s a tension that i s not yet obvious to Durkheim between the i n t e r n a l demands of the advancement of knowledge and the e x t e r n a l demands of various other value spheres, such as those of the economic sphere. This ambiguity of the r o l e of e x t e r n a l forces f o r s c h o l a r l y knowledge production i s s i g n i f i c a n t i n understanding the complications a r i s i n g from the c o l l i s i o n of the academic and the economic spheres that I explore i n subsequent chapters. However, such complications are not acknowledged by s o c i a l t h e o r i s t s such as T a l c o t t Parsons who c l e a r l y maintains, f o r the sake of academic i n t e g r i t y , the separation of the values of the academic sphere from other s o c i a l spheres. While the i n s t i t u t i o n of academe i s c l e a r l y a product of modernity, the knowledge i t produces appears as i f i t i s r e l a t i v e l y immune from such 'external' f o r c e s . The l a c k of r e f l e c t i o n upon t h i s problem i n Parsons' The American University q u i c k l y moves the academic i d e a l of freedom of i n q u i r y i n t o the realm of academic ideology. Eighty years f o l l o w i n g Durkheim's d e s c r i p t i o n of s o c i a l modernization, T a l c o t t Parsons' f u r t h e r described the i n c r e a s i n g d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the academic sphere. However, i n Parsons' account we see more s p e c i f i c a l l y how i d e o l o g i c a l l y secure the not i o n of academic freedom i s , not only as an explanation of academia's s p e c i f i c value s t r u c t u r e but now a l s o as a l e g i t i m a t i o n of the epistemic p r i v i l e g e of academic knowledge production. Here the academic sphere procures a s p e c i a l p r o t e c t e d s t a t u s , not at a l l u n l i k e that which Kant d e s i r e d f o r philosophy from the Prussian State. As Parsons t e l l s us: Learning can most e f f e c t i v e l y take place i n protected s i t u a t i o n s . Membership s t a t u s , which defines the boundaries of the academic system and r e i n f o r c e s i t s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n from other systems, s p e c i f i e s the range of t h i s protectedness. Academic freedom defines c o n d i t i o n s of opportunity w i t h i n these boundaries that bear on the performance of these primary functions (Parsons 1973:149). 37 In Parsons' account we have a s p e c i f i c development of the unique s t r u c t u r e of contemporary (American) academe that i s not found i n Durkheim's a n a l y s i s but i s , however, a d e l i b e r a t e extension of the same p r i n c i p l e s . The unique value s t r u c t u r e of academe, f o r example, i s based i n p a r t upon the ' f a c t u a l ' foundation of knowledge: 'the focus of the sanction system l i e s i n the realm of p r e s t i g e and i n f l u e n c e ; the e f f o r t i s to be persuasive, but on l e v e l s of g e n e r a l i t y which preclude persuasion s o l e l y through l e t t i n g the f a c t s of the s i t u a t i o n speak f o r themselves' (Parsons 1973:124). The i n s t i t u t i o n a l i n t e g r i t y of academic values then renders i t s unique p o s i t i o n i n s o c i e t y and allows the producers of knowledge p r i v i l e g e d access to 'pure' research and i n q u i r y i n t o 'knowledge f o r i t s own sake' (Parsons 1973:92-93). Parsons adds: 'In the s t r u c t u r e of the i d e a l type of the American u n i v e r s i t y i t (pure research and knowledge f o r knowledge's sake) has been " d i f f e r e n t i a t e d out", above a l l , i n f a c u l t i e s of a r t s and sciences and f o r them with respect to t h e i r combined functions of p r o f e s s i o n a l l e v e l research and the t r a i n i n g of graduate students f o r p r i m a r i l y academic f u n c t i o n s ' (Parsons 1973:93). What f u r t h e r gives academia a s p e c i a l status as a p r i v i l e g e d realm of knowledge production i s , f o r Parsons, i s i t s f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (Parsons 1973:140). U n l i k e market competition, b u r e a u c r a t i c enforcement or democratic a c c o u n t a b i l i t y that define other s o c i a l spheres, academia i s defined by the t r u s t conferred on i t by s o c i e t y a t - l a r g e that i t performs i t s s a i d f u n c t i o n of knowledge production and maintain i t s commitment to the value of c o g n i t i v e r a t i o n a l i t y . Academic values must be respected by the s o c i e t y i n which they f u n c t i o n i n order to maintain academic p r i v i l e g e . In r e t u r n f o r t h i s p r i v i l e g e academe must share i t s knowledge: The c e n t r a l d e f i n i t i o n of the r o l e s of i t s members i s that they are e x e r c i s i n g a f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y on behalf of other sectors of s o c i e t y . F i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y must be grounded i n commitment to values - i n t h i s case the value of c o g n i t i v e r a t i o n a l i t y . The presumptive commitment of members of the academic p r o f e s s i o n , e s p e c i a l l y i n i t s higher 38 echelons, l e g i t i m i z e s the p r i v i l e g e d status which academic tenure and academic freedom confer. Since tenure and academic freedom i n d i f f e r e n t ways b u i l d i n exemptions from pressures which operate i n other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s e t t i n g s , there must be a presumption that the modal incumbent can be t r u s t e d to perform h i s expected functions without the d e t a i l e d c o n t r o l s , f o r instance, through market competition, b u r e a u c r a t i c enforcement, or democratic a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to a defined constituency, which operate i n other sectors (Parsons 1973:123). U n l i k e other o r g a n i z a t i o n a l models such as those of the market, bureaucracy or democracy, the model of f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n the u n i v e r s i t y best defines f o r Parsons the s o c i a l f u n c t i o n of academia i n s o f a r as the other models have value s t r u c t u r e s that are not present i n academic p r a c t i c e : The absence of f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the performance of a d i f f e r e n t i a t e d set of s o c i e t a l functions makes a l l three of the above s t r u c t u r a l types i n a p p r o p r i a t e to the academic case. Markets and bureaucracies do not have f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s and democratic government i s not f u n c t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c enough f o r the academic system (Parsons 1973:129). The d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of the value-spheres thus provides academia with a degree of autonomy that indeed separates i t s s o c i a l f u n c t i o n s from that of other i n s t i t u t i o n s . Academe i s then accorded a p r i v i l e g e d s t a t u s with respect to knowledge production as i t i s entrusted with the s o c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of ' i n t e g r i t y , development and the implementation of knowledge and other components of the c o g n i t i v e complex' (Parsons 1973:130). Such p r a c t i c e s as tenure and p u b l i c a t i o n f u r t h e r support the uniqueness of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n and i t s l i b e r a l mandate. At the f a c u l t y l e v e l , the symbol of status i n a f i d u c i a r y a s s o c i a t i o n a l c o l l e c t i v i t y i s academic tenure. Tenure i s r e l a t i v e l y o l d i n the h i s t o r y of European u n i v e r s i t i e s and has become widely e s t a b l i s h e d i n America, though i t i s now under attack. C a l l i n g i t a symbol of status i n an academic community stresses the d i s t i n c t i o n of tenure from the status of ord i n a r y c o n t r a c t u a l employment. Tenure i s the badge of f u l l membership i n the l o c a l academic c o l l e c t i v i t y . A tenured f a c u l t y member i s thereby t r u s t e d on a l e v e l than are other members. Tenure i m p l i e s that i t i s not necessary that h i s performances or other q u a l i f i c a t i o n s be repeatedly reviewed. Tenure does not imply freedom from any normative c o n t r o l . A tenured member i s expected to f u l f i l l high standards of f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and i s t r u s t e d to do so. In t h i s context i t i s an i n s t i t u t i o n a l form of p r o f e s s i o n a l autonomy (Parsons 1973:131). 39 The c o n d i t i o n s f o r t e n u r e , P a r s o n s a c k n o w l e d g e s , a r e n o t b a s e d upon a c a d e m i c f reedom i n i t s most l i t e r a l sense b u t r a t h e r upon s t a n d a r d s t h a t a r e i n t e r n a l l y e s t a b l i s h e d by t h e a c a d e m i c communi ty . These s t a n d a r d s i n v o l v e , t o a l a r g e d e g r e e , t h e c o m m u n i c a t i o n and d i s s e m i n a t i o n o f knowledge t h r o u g h t h e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f r e s e a r c h i n t h e fo rm o f p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t s . As we s h a l l s ee , t h r o u g h t h e p u b l i c a t i o n p r o c e s s , a c a d e m i c s t a n d a r d s s u r p a s s s c h o l a r s and e n t e r t h e r e a l m o f t h e p u b l i s h i n g w o r l d o f e d i t o r s . Th rough p u b l i s h i n g t h e w o r l d o f s c h o l a r s h i p expands i n t o o t h e r d o m a i n s : Two mechanisms o f e v a l u a t i o n were m e e t i n g s a t w h i c h members f rom a v a r i e t y o f i n s t i t u t i o n s met w i t h each o t h e r f o r p r e s e n t a t i o n o f p a p e r s and d i s c u s s i o n o f t o p i c s and new r e s e a r c h r e s u l t s and new p r o f e s s i o n a l j o u r n a l s i n w h i c h c o m m u n i c a t i o n c o u l d t a k e p l a c e . As soon as t h e o u t p u t o f m a n u s c r i p t s began t o e x c e e d t h e space a v a i l a b l e i n t h e j o u r n a l s , and t h i s happened v e r y q u i c k l y f o r f i n a n c i a l and o t h e r r e a s o n s , a c c e p t a n c e f o r p u b l i c a t i o n became h o n o r i f i c ; t h e e d i t o r s o f j o u r n a l s a c q u i r e d an e v a l u a t i v e r o l e , b o t h h e l p i n g t o e s t a b l i s h r e p u t a t i o n s - o r d i m i n i s h them - and s e t t i n g e v a l u a t i v e s t a n d a r d s (Pa r sons 1 9 7 3 : 1 1 2 ) . The e v a l u a t i o n o f a c a d e m i c s t a n d a r d s , as we see i n P a r s o n s ' a c c o u n t o f t h e a c a d e m i c s p h e r e , i s p a r t i a l l y b a s e d upon t h e i n t e r n a l e v a l u a t i o n s by t h o s e who p u b l i s h a c a d e m i c m a n u s c r i p t s . P u b l i s h i n g , i n t h i s r e s p e c t , becomes t h e b a s i s f o r a c a d e m i c e v a l u a t i o n t h a t s u p p o s e d l y r e a f f i r m s t h e autonomy o f t h i s v a l u e s p h e r e . The v a l i d a t i o n o f a c a d e m i c knowledge i s b a s e d upon an i n t e r n a l i s t a p p r a i s a l o f t h e v a l u e s t h a t c o n s t i t u t e l e g i t i m a t e k n o w l e d g e : 1) autonomy - t h e p r a c t i c e o f p u r e r e s e a r c h 2) i n t e g r i t y - ' k n o w l e d g e f o r k n o w l e d g e ' s s a k e ' 3) o b j e c t i v i t y - l e t t i n g the f a c t s speak f o r t h e m s e l v e s 4) r e s p o n s i b i l i t y - t o communica te t h e f i n d i n g s o f r e s e a r c h The e n t r e n c h m e n t o f t h e s e v a l u e s i n t h e p u b l i c a t i o n p r o c e s s as t h e s i t e o f t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f s c h o l a r l y knowledge i s an a t t e m p t t o e n s u r e t h e 40 i n t e g r i t y of the i n s t i t u t i o n as i t reproduces i t s standards i n a l l knowledge production and the s o c i a l p r i v i l e g e of academe's f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to the free production of knowledge. The b e l i e f i n the autonomy of the academic i n s t i t u t i o n i s then maintained through these i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y s p e c i f i c values. Parsons produced t h i s ' d e s c r i p t i o n ' of the American U n i v e r s i t y i n the 1970s at a time i n which these i d e a l s were already r e l a t i v e l y entrenched i n the system of academic knowledge production. Although h i s theory of the American u n i v e r s i t y i s indeed an i d e a l type, he sought to provide a model that explained the a c t i v i t i e s of academe as c o n s i s t e n t with the s o c i e t a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of a l l s o c i a l spheres. In t h i s regard, Parsons' model of the American u n i v e r s i t y provides us w i t h an understanding of the b e l i e f i n academic autonomy that i s entrenched i n the formation of the u n i v e r s i t y system. I t a l s o acts as a d e s c r i p t i o n of how l i b e r a l i d e a l s now act i d e o l o g i c a l l y to l e g i t i m a t e the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p r i v i l e g e of s c h o l a r s h i p . In Parsons' model academia's values appear to be i n t e r n a l l y defined and t o t a l l y separate from other i n s t i t u t i o n s . In moving from a p r e s c r i p t i o n to a d e s c r i p t i o n , academic l i b e r a l i s m moves from the realm of i d e a l s to the realm of ideology. This b e l i e f i n academia's unique value s t r u c t u r e i s f u r t h e r evidenced and supported by the mandate f o r s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g . 1.4 The L i b e r a l Mandate f o r Scholarly Publishing The p u b l i c a t i o n of the r e s u l t s of s c h o l a r l y research i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the process by which l e a r n i n g i s advanced. A s c h o l a r has not only the d e s i r e but the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to submit the r e s u l t s of h i s i n q u i r i e s to the judgement of h i s peers and to as wide an audience as p o s s i b l e . The American Council of Learned S o c i e t i e s The equation of reason with freedom i n the Enlightenment f o r m u l a t i o n i s presumed to have u n i v e r s a l s i g n i f i c a n c e that i s to be p o s s i b l e only i f 41 reason and freedom are a v a i l a b l e to a l l . As evident i n the knowledge produced by 'free' and 'autonomous' s c h o l a r s , t h i s r e q u i r e s that reason be communicated and made a v a i l a b l e to the reading p u b l i c . In order f o r t h i s to occur, the knowledge produced out of such freedom must a l s o then be ' f r e e l y ' disseminated. According to t h i s p r i n c i p l e , the ba s i s f o r the unique character of s c h o l a r l y knowledge, as Parsons p o i n t s out, l i e s i n the connection between u n i v e r s i t i e s and s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g . While academic freedom, understood as the c e n t r a l mission of a modern u n i v e r s i t y , was imported from the German model, the idea behind p u b l i s h i n g s c h o l a r l y research f i n d i n g s , understood as a c e n t r a l f u n c t i o n of a u n i v e r s i t y , was imported from the E n g l i s h models of Oxford and Cambridge u n i v e r s i t i e s to North America. The 'Oxbridge' b l u e p r i n t of a u n i v e r s i t y press was f i r s t implemented i n the United States at C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y i n 1869 (Kerr 1958:38). From t h i s long t r a d i t i o n of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g came a conception of the duty of the u n i v e r s i t y not only to produce knowledge through s c h o l a r s h i p but als o to communicate that knowledge through p u b l i c a t i o n . The t r u t h of the r e s u l t s of s c h o l a r l y research i s i n t h i s way given the mandate of communication to the masses. In reference to the 'Cambridge formula' M.H. Black makes the f o l l o w i n g observation with respect to the u n i v e r s i t y as p u b l i s h e r : . . . t h i s t i t l e [ u n i v e r s i t y press] i m p l i e s a s p e c i a l status - namely that the u n i v e r s i t y i t s e l f has decided that i t i s a n a t u r a l p a r t of i t s f u n c t i o n as a centre of 'education, r e l i g i o n , l e a r n i n g and research' to make a v a i l a b l e to the r e s t of the learned world those books which i t s own members ent r u s t to i t s press . . . (Black 1984:3). A l l u n i v e r s i t y presses i n North America used Oxford and Cambridge U n i v e r s i t i e s as t h e i r models f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the u n i v e r s i t y and i t s scholars to the p u b l i c a t i o n of s p e c i a l i z e d s c h o l a r s h i p f o r the p u b l i c a t - l a r g e . We see t h i s commitment i n an e a r l y mission statement from Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press: 42 I n a u g u r a t e d p r i m a r i l y f o r t h e p u b l i c a t i o n of books of a h i g h s c h o l a r l y c h a r a c t e r , t h e H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s aims t o a i d i n t h e advancement o f knowledge by making p o s s i b l e t h e wide d i s t r i b u t i o n o f t h e work o f t h e f o r e m o s t s c h o l a r s of t h e w o r l d . I t w i l l a l s o h e l p i n p r o m p t l y d i s s e m i n a t i n g t h e r e s u l t s o f o r i g i n a l r e s e a r c h and i n v e s t i g a t i o n by p r i n t i n g a number o f s e r i a l p u b l i c a t i o n s . I t does not p l a n , however, t o compete w i t h a c o m m e r c i a l p u b l i s h e r , s i n c e i t s c h i e f f u n c t i o n w i l l be t h e i s s u i n g o f books t h a t would not be c o m m e r c i a l l y p r o f i t a b l e ( H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y C a t a l o g u e 1913). The freedom t o p u r s u e knowledge a p a r t from t h e p r e s s u r e s o f c o m m e r c i a l p r o f i t a b i l i t y i s o n l y one a s p e c t o f t h e l i b e r a l n o t i o n o f s c h o l a r s h i p . As we see i n P a r s o n s ' n o t i o n o f f i d u c i a r y r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , a n o t h e r n e c e s s a r y a s p e c t i s t h e need t o d i s s e m i n a t e t h a t knowledge t o t h e p u b l i c as p a r t o f t h e d i f f e r e n t i a t e d s o c i a l f u n c t i o n o f l i b e r a l s c h o l a r s h i p . W i l l i a m R a i n e y H a r p e r , p r e s i d e n t o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o , a s s e r t e d from t h e o u t s e t t h a t he e x p e c t e d h i s p r o f e s s o r s t o be s c h o l a r s as w e l l as t e a c h e r s (Shugg 1 9 6 6 : x i ) . F u r t h e r , he j u d g e d i t e s s e n t i a l t h a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y i n c l u d e d a p r e s s t o p u b l i s h the p r o d u c t s o f t h e i r r e s e a r c h . Wanting t o e x t e n d t h e i n f l u e n c e o f t h e U n i v e r s i t y f a r beyond i t s campus and c l a s s r o o m s , he i n s i s t e d upon d e v e l o p i n g a p r e s s t o g i v e s c h o l a r s h i p t h e added power o f t h e p r i n t e d page, not as an a c c i d e n t , an a t t a c h m e n t , but as an organic part of the i n s t i t u t i o n (Shugg 1 9 6 6 : x i ) . T h i s n o t i o n was a l s o s u p p o r t e d and advanced by D a n i e l G i l m a n , t h e f i r s t p r e s i d e n t o f Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y . . I n a r e p o r t e n d o r s i n g t h e f u n c t i o n o f a u n i v e r s i t y p r e s s , G i l man contended: ' i t i s one o f t h e n o b l e s t d u t i e s o f a u n i v e r s i t y t o advance knowledge and t o d i f f u s e i t n o t m e r e l y among t h o s e who can a t t e n d t h e d a i l y l e c t u r e s but f a r and wide' (quoted i n K e r r 1958: 38) . As i s o b v i o u s i n t h e s e e a r l y a c c o u n t s , s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i s seen as e s s e n t i a l t o t h e s u c c e s s o f a r e s e a r c h u n i v e r s i t y , b o t h i n terms o f t h e p r o d u c t i o n o f q u a l i t y s c h o l a r s h i p and i n terms o f communicating t h a t knowledge w e l l beyond t h e w a l l s o f the i n s t i t u t i o n . T h i s n o t i o n i s q u i t e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e i d e a l s o f knowledge i n a l i b e r a l democracy where t h e 43 s t a t e f i n a n c i a l l y supports the p u r s u i t of knowledge through i n s t i t u t i o n s that are set aside from p o l i t i c a l a f f a i r s . Such i n s t i t u t i o n s should produce o b j e c t i v e knowledge i n order f o r the masses to r e f l e x i v e l y , e f f e c t i v e l y and d e m o c r a t i c a l l y inform t h e i r s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic l i v e s f r e e from the biases of r e l i g i o n or p a r t i s a n p o l i t i c s . In t h i s way s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g , as w e l l as p u b l i s h i n g more g e n e r a l l y , i s seen to be e s s e n t i a l to the healthy f u n c t i o n i n g of a democratic s o c i e t y , as A l e x i s de T o q u e v i l l e proudly declared: 'The press i s the c h i e f e s t democratic instrument of freedom' (quoted i n Kerr 1958:42). As the l i b e r a l mandate of academe cannot separate the production of s c h o l a r l y knowledge from i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n , the mission of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i n North America was c l e a r l y a r t i c u l a t e d as the medium f o r the dissemination of the t r u t h f u l knowledge produced by u n i v e r s i t y s c h o l a r s . Marsh Jeanneret, the former d i r e c t o r of the U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press, confirms t h i s mission: . . . the emancipation of p u b l i c i n s t i t u t i o n s from p o l i t i c a l c o n t r o l has been most s u c c e s s f u l i n the case of our u n i v e r s i t i e s , and that through the c r e a t i o n of what i s o r d i n a r i l y described as academic freedom Western democracy may have i t s greatest a d m i n i s t r a t i v e achievement. . . The unique feature of a u n i v e r s i t y press p u b l i s h i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n i s that i t provides scope f o r the free e x e r c i s e of s c h o l a r l y o b j e c t i v i t y (Jeanneret 1961:4). In t h i s way, the i n s t i t u t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i s e s s e n t i a l to the t r u t h f u l and accurate dissemination of the knowledge produced by i t s s c h o l a r s . S c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g d i f f e r s , i n t h i s sense, from other forms of p u b l i s h i n g i n three s u b s t a n t i a l ways. F i r s t , as we see above i n the cases of Chicago and Harvard, a s c h o l a r l y press i s often a f f i l i a t e d w i t h a host u n i v e r s i t y . In t h i s way a s c h o l a r l y press enjoys the autonomy of the academic mission of the u n i v e r s i t y and the freedom to p u b l i s h the research of members of that i n s t i t u t i o n as w e l l as s c h o l a r s h i p from other i n s t i t u t i o n s . Second, i n order to ensure the s c h o l a r l y standards of the books i t p u b l i s h e s , a s c h o l a r l y press submits a l l 44 r e c e i v e d manuscripts f i r s t to academic reviewers who are t y p i c a l l y peers i n the scho l a r ' s f i e l d and second to an academic review board t h a t i s comprised of f a c u l t y members from the host u n i v e r s i t y . T h i r d , and i n many ways most important to the t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i n a u n i v e r s i t y s e t t i n g , i s the n o t - f o r - p r o f i t mandate: the separation of s c h o l a r s h i p from commercial concerns. As these components comprise the uniqueness of u n i v e r s i t y p u b l i s h i n g programs, they deserve some a t t e n t i o n here f o r i t i s through t h i s agenda that the commitment to the l i b e r a l p r a c t i c e of s c h o l a r l y knowledge i s i n part upheld. Such p r a c t i c e s attempt to maintain the i d e a l s of freedom of academic i n q u i r y , d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and the i n t e r n a l focus of academic knowledge production. 1.5 The Publishing of a Scholarly Manuscript Of utmost importance to a s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g program at a u n i v e r s i t y press i s , of course, the s c h o l a r l y merit of the books they p u b l i s h . The i n t e r n a l e v a l u a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y merit i s accomplished through s e v e r a l mechanisms that ensure that a commitment to academic standards of t r u t h and v e r i f i c a t i o n i s upheld. In unpacking t h i s process we f i n d that the i d e a l s of academic l i b e r a l i s m are adhered to as an attempt to maintain the s t r i c t l y i n t e r n a l e v a l u a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y knowledge and uphold the values of the academic sphere. In t h i s regard academic l i b e r a l i s m appears to have a t t a i n e d a r e a l i t y outside of i t s ideology i n the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p r a c t i c e s of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g . The f i r s t mechanism that attempts to ensure that academic standards are upheld i n the s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g process i s the 'gatekeeper' f u n c t i o n of the a c q u i s i t i o n s e d i t o r at a s c h o l a r l y press. The e d i t o r acts as the f i r s t r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the standards of the press and o f t e n turns away manuscripts that (s)he deems as 'unscholarly'. In seeking the p u b l i c a t i o n of a s c h o l a r l y manuscript every author must begin the process 45 by e s t a b l i s h i n g contact with an a c q u i s i t i o n s e d i t o r . However, the e d i t o r i s not s o l e l y r e l i a n t on the passive acceptance of manuscripts and may a c t i v e l y seek p u b l i s h a b l e s c h o l a r l y m a t e r i a l elsewhere. T y p i c a l l y the e d i t o r , through experience gained i n the s c h o l a r l y f i e l d , acquires a broad knowledge of what manuscripts are p u b l i s h a b l e through an i n i t i a l e v a l u a t i o n of a f i e l d and the merits of a p a r t i c u l a r manuscript f o r i t s o v e r a l l c o n t r i b u t i o n to s c h o l a r s h i p . The a c q u i s i t i o n s e d i t o r plays a primary and s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e f o r the maintenance of l i b e r a l academic i d e a l s as (s)he i s among the f i r s t i n a chain of decision-makers to decide upon the s c h o l a r l y merit of a manuscript f o r p u b l i c a t i o n . In essence, (s)he decides whether or not a manuscript i s indeed worthy of communication i n s c h o l a r l y book form. The second mechanism that attempts to maintain the s c h o l a r l y standards of a manuscript and perhaps the most important mechanism f o r the ' i n t e r n a l ' e v a l u a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y merit i s the peer review process. Every manuscript that i s submitted to a u n i v e r s i t y press must undergo a peer review process where the manuscripts are evaluated f o r t h e i r s p e c i f i c c o n t r i b u t i o n to s c h o l a r s h i p . The u l t i m a t e d e c i s i o n to p u b l i s h a manuscript r e s t s here. In a peer review s i t u a t i o n one or more scholars who are acknowledged experts i n the s p e c i a l i z e d f i e l d of the manuscript are asked by the a c q u i s i t i o n s e d i t o r to read the manuscript thoroughly and comment on 'the o r i g i n a l i t y and the c o n t r i b u t i o n of knowledge of the manuscript and the competence of the author's p r e s e n t a t i o n : they are thus expected to provide informed advice about the s e r v i c e to s c h o l a r s h i p the manuscript would perform and whether i t deserves p u b l i c a t i o n ' (S.S.H.R.C. 1980:44). In t h i s way, the peer review process i s deemed e s s e n t i a l to maintaining the standards of 'objective' knowledge of a u n i v e r s i t y press i m p r i n t . Peer review i s often discussed as the way of maintaining e d i t o r i a l o b j e c t i v i t y , as Marsh Jeanneret a s s e r t s : 46 What must be preserved i s a complete e d i t o r i a l o b j e c t i v i t y concerning the q u a l i t y of the manuscripts accepted f o r p u b l i c a t i o n . This o b j e c t i v i t y can best be ensured by b r i n g i n g to the e d i t o r i a l committee the most a u t h o r i t a t i v e and most detached readers' reports that can be procured. I t f o l l o w s that these reports w i l l normally be from other i n s t i t u t i o n s than the author's own, that the reader's anonymity w i l l be s c r u p u l o u s l y p r o t e c t e d by the u n i v e r s i t y press and by the e d i t o r i a l committee, and - most important, perhaps - that care w i l l have been taken to procure a q u a l i t y of reports which w i l l permit the e d i t o r i a l committee to make a sound d e c i s i o n . A press's greatest r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s a r i s e i n connection wit h the p r o c u r i n g and a d m i n i s t r a t i o n of these readers' reports (Jeanneret 1962:8) . The standards of e v a l u a t i o n f o r the p u b l i c a t i o n of a s c h o l a r l y book by a u n i v e r s i t y press are, according to these c r i t e r i a , e s t a b l i s h e d not by the press and i t s p o t e n t i a l biases f o r p u b l i c a t i o n but r a t h e r by the s c h o l a r l y community and i t s u n i v e r s a l commitment to the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of t r u t h f u l knowledge. This goal i s achieved through a peer review process that can p r o p e r l y evaluate the manuscript according to i t s s p e c i f i c c o n t r i b u t i o n to knowledge. The d e c i s i o n s anonymously made i n the review process are assumed to be ' o b j e c t i v e l y ' based on the s c h o l a r l y merit of the work and not according to the s u b j e c t i v e biases of the readers or other f a c t o r s extraneous to the work i t s e l f . Anonymity i s o b v i o u s l y important here as i t frees the reader from any p o t e n t i a l p o l i t i c a l b a t t l e s that might ensue as a r e s u l t of h i s or her comments on a p a r t i c u l a r manuscript. In theory, anonymity allows f o r greater e d i t o r i a l obj e c t i v i t y . As we see i n the U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto Press' Author's Handbook, steps are taken by both the press and i t s reviewers to ensure the s c h o l a r l y character of a manuscript. Among the c r i t e r i a , manuscript reviewers are asked to consider s p e c i f i c questions when assessing manuscripts such as: What i s the t h e s i s of the work? Is the s c h o l a r s h i p sound and up-to-date? Does the manuscript make a s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n to i t s f i e l d ? How does t h i s work compare with other major books pu b l i s h e d on the subject? These questions o r i e n t the reviewers to focus 47 s p e c i f i c a l l y on the s c h o l a r l y q u a l i t y of the manuscript and t h e r e f o r e emphasize an i n t e r n a l i s t reading of the t e x t and i t s o b j e c t . In a peer review s i t u a t i o n the readers are expected to examine the s c h o l a r l y merit of the work and ensure the maintenance of s c h o l a r l y standards f o r u n i v e r s i t y p u b l i s h e r s . This process fo r m a l i z e s the a u t h e n t i c i t y of published s c h o l a r s h i p so that n o n - s p e c i a l i s t readers of the work published by a u n i v e r s i t y press are guaranteed of i t s merit. Robert Merton supports t h i s p o i n t with respect to the h i s t o r y of science p u b l i s h i n g and the Royal Society's establishment of the peer review process. His comments here speak e q u a l l y to the contemporary needs of non-science s c h o l a r s h i p and the s t r u c t u r e of the u n i v e r s i t y press: In t h e i r c a p a c i t y as producers of science, i n d i v i d u a l s c i e n t i s t s were concerned w i t h having t h e i r work recognized through p u b l i c a t i o n i n forms valued by other members i n the emerging s c i e n t i f i c community who were s i g n i f i c a n t to them. In t h e i r c a p a c i t y as consumers of science, they were concerned with having the work produced by others competently assessed so that they could count on i t s a u t h e n t i c i t y (Merton 1973:469). The need f o r an authorized, authentic t e x t reveals i t s e l f on many l e v e l s of u n i v e r s i t y press p u b l i s h i n g . In t h i s regard the manuscripts are not only evaluated f o r t h e i r s c h o l a r l y content and the form of knowledge presented by peer reviewers, but these reviews are a l s o then f u r t h e r reviewed by the e d i t o r i a l board of the u n i v e r s i t y press. The e d i t o r i a l board of a u n i v e r s i t y press c o n s i s t s p r i m a r i l y i f not s o l e l y of d i s t i n g u i s h e d f a c u l t y members of the parent u n i v e r s i t y . A f t e r a manuscript has been peer reviewed, and i f those peer reviews are indeed favorable f o r p u b l i c a t i o n , then the manuscript with the reviews attached i s brought to the e d i t o r i a l board by the e d i t o r r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a c q u i r i n g that manuscript. I t i s here that the f i n a l d e c i s i o n i s made with respect to s c h o l a r l y p u b l i c a t i o n . Of utmost concern to the e d i t o r i a l board i s whether the manuscript i s a c o n t r i b u t i o n to s c h o l a r s h i p , that i s , whether or not i t advances knowledge i n i t s f i e l d (S.S.H.R.C. 1980:44). This i s 48 assessed through the peer review process, the e d i t o r ' s broad knowledge of the author's work, i t s s i t u a t i o n i n the s c h o l a r l y community, and the wisdom and experience of the members of the board. The s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r l i b e r a l s c h o l a r s h i p of the s t r u c t u r e of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g l i e s i n i t s p r o f e s s i o n a l commitment to the advancement of knowledge and the p u r s u i t of 'knowledge f o r knowledge's sake'. Based upon the i d e a l s of academic freedom and s c h o l a r l y autonomy, a u n i v e r s i t y p u b l i s h e r s ' f i r s t goal i s to p u b l i s h knowledge that i s v e r i f i e d as l e g i t i m a t e with respect to s c h o l a r l y standards of t r u t h and v e r i f i c a t i o n , thereby reproducing the mandate of the u n i v e r s i t y and guaranteeing the t r u t h f u l knowledge i t produces and disseminates. At f i r s t appearance t h i s i s the most s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e of a s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g program from commercial p u b l i s h e r s : commercial p u b l i s h e r s are p r i m a r i l y concerned with the economics of p u b l i s h i n g and t h e i r f i s c a l a c c o u n t a b i l i t y to the 'bottom-line'. Broadly speaking, commercial p u b l i s h e r s are concerned with the s i z e of the readership of a p o t e n t i a l book that, i n t u r n , amounts to the sales p o t e n t i a l and consumption of a book. By contrast a s p e c i a l i z e d work such as an academic monograph i s of l i m i t e d readership, consumption and p r o f i t a b i l i t y . S c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i n t h i s way attempts to f u r t h e r the l i b e r a l p r o j e c t of the u n f e t t e r e d quest f o r t r u t h f u l knowledge, f i r s t , by attempting to e l i m i n a t e e x t e r n a l biases such as economic i n t e r e s t that could p o t e n t i a l l y censor knowledge by e x c l u s i o n , second, by e s t a b l i s h i n g standards f o r the advancement of knowledge, and t h i r d , by attempting to communicate the e s t a b l i s h e d t r u t h beyond the w a l l s of the u n i v e r s i t y to the p u b l i c - a t - l a r g e . The i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i n the academic sphere demonstrates the attempt by u n i v e r s i t i e s and scholars a l i k e to keep the values of knowledge i n q u i r y i n t e r n a l to the s c h o l a r l y process. 49 So f a r the p r a c t i c e of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g stands as a model demonstration of the i n s t i t u t i o n of academic l i b e r a l i s m i n the production and d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c h o l a r l y knowledge. The accounts explored above lead one to b e l i e v e that academia has s u c c e s s f u l l y separated i t s e l f from 'exter n a l ' forces through i t s d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n as an 'autonomous' value- sphere, thereby making the notion of the c o l l i s i o n of academe with the economic realm l u d i c r o u s . However as we come to see, an explanation of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production that only r e l i e s upon the ' i n t e r n a l ' values as an accurate d e s c r i p t i o n of s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e f a i l s to account f o r the s o c i o - h i s t o r i c dynamic that c o n t i n u a l l y informs s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e . L i b e r a l i s m as a contemporary account of s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e i n t h i s way acts as an i d e o l o g i c a l b l i n d to the changing character of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production. These i d e o l o g i c a l tendencies are most obvious i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , f o r what we see i n t h i s theory are the taken-for-granted features of l i b e r a l i s m , such as o b j e c t i v i t y and autonomy, that exclude any 'external' a n a l y s i s of s c h o l a r l y knowledge. What we come to see through a c r i t i q u e of l i b e r a l i s m i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i s that many 'external' features indeed i n f l u e n c e the production of knowledge i n the modern u n i v e r s i t y . That i s , the values f o r s c h o l a r l y knowledge are not only i n t e r n a l l y defined by l i b e r a l academics but they are a l s o dependent upon t h e i r s o c i o - h i s t o r i c context. Once I t h e o r e t i c a l l y e s t a b l i s h the need to examine the s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production today, I w i l l then r e t u r n to s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g as the e m p i r i c a l s i t e f o r an i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the e x t e r n a l ( h i s t o r i c a l , s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic) i n f l u e n c e s upon s c h o l a r l y knowledge production. 50 2 The Theory of the Knowledge Society Academic l i b e r a l i s m f i n d s i t s most complete and unadulterated endorsement i n s o c i o l o g i c a l theory i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y . As I have demonstrated thus f a r , s o c i o l o g i c a l theory i n the t r a d i t i o n of Durkheim and Parsons of t e n produces l e g i t i m a t i n g accounts f o r the d i f f e r e n t i a t e d , 'autonomous' and p r i v i l e g e d s t atus of s c h o l a r l y knowledge i n modern s o c i e t i e s . As a contemporary extension of t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l l i n e a g e , the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , developed by Daniel B e l l i n The Coming of Post Industrial Society (1976) and advanced by Nico Stehr i n Knowledge Societies (1994), f u r t h e r s the l i b e r a l e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l claims of the academic sphere. In these accounts, 'the knowledge s o c i e t y ' i s the r e s u l t of the success of the i n s t i t u t i o n of academic l i b e r a l i s m (the autonomy of the sphere of knowledge production) and i s evident i n the s o c i a l and t e c h n o l o g i c a l progress of Western s o c i e t i e s . The knowledge s o c i e t y i s i n t h i s sense a s o c i e t y that i s based upon the growth of 'knowledge' as a v i t a l s o c i a l resource. Since the w e l l s p r i n g of t h i s knowledge i s the 'pure' research generated p r i m a r i l y by science i n the academic sphere, there i s an inherent connection between the claims of the knowledge s o c i e t y t h e o r i s t s and the advocates of academic l i b e r a l i s m that I describe above. However, as we see below, s e v e r a l d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s e i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y p r e c i s e l y because of t h i s i n t r i n s i c connection with l i b e r a l i s m . Much l i k e academic l i b e r a l i s m ' s treatment of academic knowledge production as autonomous and o b j e c t i v e , the understanding of knowledge i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i s based upon s i m i l a r assumptions of how knowledge i s produced. The d i f f i c u l t y l i e s i n how knowledge i s not 51 opened to e i t h e r s o c i a l or h i s t o r i c a l i n s p e c t i o n . Rather, a crude v e r s i o n of the l i b e r a l theory of knowledge production (academic knowledge as d i f f e r e n t i a t e d and autonomous) i s taken as the unquestioned and primary d e f i n i t i o n of knowledge. In t h i s regard, an understanding of knowledge i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i s not l i n k e d to i t s present h i s t o r i c a l circumstances, as the theory claims, but rat h e r i s abs t r a c t e d from them i n order to ensure the continued e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l p r i v i l e g e of academic a u t h o r i t y . As I demonstrate, i n t h i s account the understanding of knowledge remains v i r t u a l l y undeveloped from i t s Enlightenment formu l a t i o n . In the remaining chapters I f o l l o w a Marxian s o c i o l o g y of knowledge methodology i n order to inspec t the impact of recent s o c i a l and economic changes i n the form of consumer c u l t u r e upon the production of s c h o l a r l y knowledge. The premise that I borrow from Marx that stands as a methodological i n s i g h t f o r t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s h i s p o s i t i o n i n The German Ideology and throughout h i s work concerning the production of knowledge: The production of ideas, of conceptions, of consciousness, i s at f i r s t d i r e c t l y interwoven with the m a t e r i a l a c t i v i t y and the m a t e r i a l i n t e r c o u r s e of men. . . The same ap p l i e s to mental production as expressed i n the language of p o l i t i c s , law, m o r a l i t y , r e l i g i o n , metaphysics, e t c . of a people. Men are the producers of t h e i r conceptions . . . as they are conditioned by a d e f i n i t e development of t h e i r productive forces (Marx and Engels 1970:47). While Marx maintains that knowledge i s 'conditioned' by production, he al s o i n s i s t s that such productive forces cannot be understood outside of t h e i r h i s t o r i c a l s p e c i f i c i t y . Production, he continues, i s a l s o an i n h e r e n t l y h i s t o r i c a l act: But l i f e i n v o l v e s before everything e l s e e a t i n g and d r i n k i n g , a h a b i t a t i o n , c l o t h i n g and many other t h i n g s . The f i r s t h i s t o r i c a l act i s thus the production of the means to s a t i s f y these needs, the production of m a t e r i a l l i f e i t s e l f . And indeed t h i s i s an h i s t o r i c a l a c t , a fundamental c o n d i t i o n of a l l h i s t o r y (Marx and Engels 1970:48). 52 These pages from The German Ideology e s t a b l i s h t h e b a s i c a s s u m p t i o n s f o r t h e M a r x i a n t r a d i t i o n i n t h e S o c i o l o g y o f Knowledge. These a r e : a) knowledge i s t h e r e s u l t o f p r o d u c t i o n , b) p r o d u c t i o n i s an h i s t o r i c a l a c t , c) as a consequence of a) and b ) , knowledge i s a l s o h i s t o r i c a l . By v i r t u e o f t h i s u n d e r s t a n d i n g , the s t r u c t u r e o f knowledge i n b o t h i t s c o n t e n t and form i s r e l a t i v e t o i t s s o c i a l , economic and h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n . F o l l o w i n g t h e s e c r i t e r i a f o r t h e s o c i o l o g y o f knowledge my aim i n t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o d e v e l o p a t h e o r e t i c a l c r i t i q u e o f academic l i b e r a l i s m t h r o u g h an e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e t h e o r y o f t h e knowledge s o c i e t y . I do t h i s i n two ways. F i r s t , I conduct an e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e i d e o l o g i c a l u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f knowledge t h a t i n f o r m s t h e t h e o r y o f t h e knowledge s o c i e t y . I n t h i s a n a l y s i s I de m o n s t r a t e t h e n e c e s s i t y f o r p r o d u c i n g a new a c c o u n t o f knowledge p r o d u c t i o n , one t h a t i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h s c h o l a r l y p r a c t i c e s t o d a y . Second, I conduct an e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n o f knowledge t o economic p r o d u c t i o n i n t h e t h e o r y o f t h e knowledge s o c i e t y . I n t h i s i n s p e c t i o n we see how t h e t r e a t m e n t o f knowledge i s i n h e r e n t l y i d e o l o g i c a l as i t p o r t r a y s t h e w o r l d 'upside-down' t h u s c l e a r l y e m p h a s i z i n g t h e d e t e r m i n a c y o f knowledge over p r o d u c t i o n . I argue t h a t because o f t h e i n h e r e n t d i a l e c t i c a l r e l a t i o n s o f p r o d u c t i o n as a r t i c u l a t e d by Marx, s c h o l a r l y knowledge cannot be vi e w e d as autonomous o r s e l f - l e g i s l a t i n g i n r e l a t i o n t o o t h e r s o c i a l s p h e r e s . F o l l o w i n g a M a r x i a n p o s i t i o n , I argue t h a t t h e p r o d u c t i o n of s c h o l a r l y knowledge i s i n h e r e n t l y an economic a c t i v i t y t h a t must be vi e w e d as such i n o r d e r t o p r o p e r l y u n d e r s t a n d i t s c u r r e n t s i t u a t i o n i n advanced c a p i t a l i s m . To u n d e r s t a n d s c h o l a r l y knowledge p r o d u c t i o n one must s i t u a t e academic l a b o u r i n t h e c o n t e x t o f c a p i t a l i s m r a t h e r t h a n f a l s e l y a b s t r a c t t h e economic sphere out o f a t h e o r y o f s c h o l a r l y knowledge p r o d u c t i o n . Here I c o n t i n u e a c r i t i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f t h e t h e o r e t i c a l t e n e t s o f l i b e r a l i s m i n o r d e r t o 53 e s t a b l i s h the conceptual parameters f o r analysing academic economies of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production. 2 . 1 S o c i a l Structure, P o l i t y , Culture Before examining the treatment of knowledge i n the Theory of the Knowledge Society, I f i r s t want to s i t u a t e Daniel B e l l ' s work i n the modern t r a d i t i o n of s o c i o l o g i c a l theory to c l e a r l y e s t a b l i s h h i s connection to the v e r s i o n of academic l i b e r a l i s m described above. In B e l l ' s theory we again see how the academic sphere i s separated from other s o c i a l spheres through d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n and p r i v i l e g e d as the realm of freedom of i n q u i r y . S i m i l a r to Durkheim before him and h i s s o c i o l o g i c a l contemporary T a l c o t t Parsons, Daniel B e l l adheres to the b a s i c p r i n c i p l e s of s o c i e t a l modernization as the product of the modern d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n of s o c i a l spheres and the subsequent development of t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e autonomies. For B e l l , s o c i e t a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n can be understood as the conceptual separation of three spheres: s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , p o l i t y , and c u l t u r e . A n a l y t i c a l l y s o c i e t y can be d i v i d e d i n t o three p a r t s : the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , the p o l i t y and the c u l t u r e . The s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e comprises the economy, technology and the occupational system. The p o l i t y regulates the d i s t r i b u t i o n of power and adjudicates the c o n f l i c t i n g claims and demands of i n d i v i d u a l s and groups. The c u l t u r e i s the realm of expressive symbolism and meanings ( B e l l 1976:12). B e l l i s f i r m l y placed i n the t r a d i t i o n of modern s o c i o l o g i c a l theory by a n a l y t i c a l l y d i v i d i n g s o c i e t y i n t o these d i f f e r e n t i a t e d c a t e g o r i e s ; l i k e h i s predecessors, he e s t a b l i s h e s the s e l f - l e g i s l a t i n g a b i l i t y of each value-sphere to be governed by a s p e c i f i c axial p r i n c i p l e . Although the categories appear somewhat d i f f e r e n t from t h e i r predecessors, the idea i s much the same: each value sphere i s regulated by s p e c i f i c p r i n c i p l e s that are i n t e r n a l l y generated by that sphere. What i s important here i s that B e l l t h e o r i z e s the separation of 'the economic' from 'the c u l t u r a l ' , thereby e s t a b l i s h i n g the ' p u r i t y ' , separation and i n t e g r i t y of the values 5 4 inherent to each realm. In a s i m i l a r v e i n , s c h o l a r l y knowledge i n the form of t h e o r e t i c a l s c i e n t i f i c knowledge al s o acquires autonomy through the s e paration of the u n i v e r s i t y and i t s s c i e n t i f i c community from other s o c i a l spheres. B e l l claims: ' t h i s very autonomy i s the very heart of the ethos - and o r g a n i z a t i o n - of science' ( B e l l 1973:379). Consequently s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y stowed away from the p o l l u t i n g ' external' i n f l u e n c e s of the p o l i t y or the economy i n order to s u s t a i n i t s e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l i n t e g r i t y . In t h i s t h e o r e t i c a l separation of s o c i a l spheres and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e values, the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y reproduces the fundamental assumptions held by many modern s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r i s t s and academic l i b e r a l s a l i k e . I t i s u s e f u l to d i v i d e s o c i e t y i n t h i s way because each aspect i s r u l e d by a d i f f e r e n t a x i a l p r i n c i p l e . In modern Western s o c i e t y the a x i a l p r i n c i p l e of the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i s economizing - a way of a l l o c a t i n g resources according to p r i n c i p l e s of l e a s t cost, s u b s t i t u t a b i l i t y , o p t i m i z a t i o n , maximization, and the l i k e . The a x i a l p r i n c i p l e of the modern p o l i t y i s p a r t i c i p a t i o n , sometimes m o b i l i z e d or c o n t r o l l e d sometimes demanded from below. The a x i a l p r i n c i p l e of c u l t u r e i s the d e s i r e f o r the f u l f i l m e n t and enhancement of the s e l f . In the past these three areas were l i n k e d by a common value system. But i n our times there has been an i n c r e a s i n g d i s j u n c t i o n of the three ( B e l l 1973:12-13) . B e l l ' s theory e x h i b i t s the pa r a d o x i c a l formulation t h a t w i t h i n such d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n the value of the autonomy of knowledge p r e v a i l s . This a n a l y t i c separation allows B e l l , and l a t e r Nico Stehr, to examine the u n i l a t e r a l e f f e c t s of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge on changes i n the economy and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e more g e n e r a l l y . 'Knowledge' as an a n a l y t i c category i s abs t r a c t e d from i t s s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l context i n order f o r the t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y to ' o b j e c t i v e l y ' measure the extent to which modern s o c i e t y has changed i n r e l a t i o n to such knowledge. However, t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n c o n f l a t e s o b j e c t i v e knowledge as an i d e a l w i t h science as a p r a c t i c e based upon the shared autonomy of the academic sphere and i t s i n t e r n a l , s e l f - l e g i s l a t i n g value s t r u c t u r e . Since both 'science' and ' o b j e c t i v i t y ' are assumed to be immanent i n the academic sphere, h i s 55 account of knowledge i s s t r i c t l y i n t e r n a l . Such s e l f - r e f e r e n t i a l i t y e l i m i n a t e s the p o t e n t i a l f o r c r i t i c a l r e f l e c t i o n upon the p o s i t i o n of academic knowledge production as i t assumes that that knowledge i s already accounted f o r by the values inherent to the academic sphere. In other words, knowledge as an object of s o c i o l o g i c a l i n q u i r y remains hidden from proper a n a l y s i s . This i d e o l o g i c a l c l o s i n g of meaning i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y begins with the r e l a t i o n of o b j e c t i v e knowledge to s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y . 2 .2 O b j e c t i v i t y and the U n i v e r s a l i t y o f Knowledge In 1966, Robert Lane produced a d e f i n i t i o n of the 'knowledgeable s o c i e t y ' that today stands as a general r e f e r e n t f o r t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y ( B e l l 1973:176; Stehr 1994:5). I t reads: As a f i r s t approximation to a d e f i n i t i o n , the knowledgeable s o c i e t y i s one i n which, more than i n other s o c i e t i e s , i t s members: a) i n q u i r e i n t o the basis of t h e i r b e l i e f s about man, nature and s o c i e t y ; b) are guided, (perhaps unconsciously) by o b j e c t i v e standards of v e r i d i c a l t r u t h , and, at upper l e v e l s of education, f o l l o w s c i e n t i f i c r u l e s of evidence and inf e r e n c e i n i n q u i r y ; c) devote considerable resources to t h i s i n q u i r y and thus have a la r g e store of knowledge; d) c o l l e c t , organise and i n t e r p r e t t h e i r knowledge i n a constant e f f o r t to e x t r a c t meaning from i t f o r the purposes at hand; e) employ t h i s knowledge to i l l u m i n a t e (and perhaps modify) t h e i r values and goals as w e l l as to advance them. Just as the democratic s o c i e t y has a foundation i n governmental and i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s , and the a f f l u e n t s o c i e t y i n economics, so the knowledgeable s o c i e t y has i t s roots i n epistemology and the l o g i c of i n q u i r y (Lane 1966:650) . Among other features of the 'knowledgeable s o c i e t y ' , the establishment of 'objective standards of v e r i d i c a l t r u t h ' and ' s c i e n t i f i c r u l e s of evidence i n i n q u i r y ' are among the primary a x i a l p r i n c i p l e s f o r t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y . This d e f i n i t i o n i s used by both Daniel B e l l and Nico Stehr to emphasise the s i g n i f i c a n c e of o b j e c t i v e , s c i e n t i f i c knowledge f o r the growth and development of contemporary Western s o c i e t i e s (cf. Stehr 1994:119). Consistent w i t h academic l i b e r a l i s m , here s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s accorded a s p e c i a l 56 e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l status that provides the r e s t of s o c i e t y with a foundation f o r t r u t h f u l knowledge f o r the o r i e n t a t i o n of s o c i a l a c t i o n . The d i f f e r e n t i a t e d autonomy of the academic sphere out of which s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s produced allows f o r i t s o b j e c t i v i t y . The p o s s i b i l i t y f o r o b j e c t i v e knowledge then acts as a u n i f y i n g foundation f o r knowledgeable s o c i a l a c t i o n t h a t , according to t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y , informs and remakes our b a s i c s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s . Science and technology are remaking our b a s i c s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , f o r example i n such areas of work, education, p h y s i c a l reproduction, c u l t u r e , the economy, and the p o l i t i c a l system. The hope that s c i e n t i f i c knowledge w i l l open up many, i f not a l l , of the secrets of nature and the heavens and that such i n s i g h t s w i l l prove to be instrumental i n b u i l d i n g a b e t t e r world, based on nature's design but f o r the b e n e f i t of mankind, i s a dream long a s s o c i a t e d with the l e g i t i m a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c a c t i v i t y (Stehr 1 9 9 4 : v i i i ) . Knowledge i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i s based upon the assumption that s c i e n t i f i c knowledge only corresponds with the objects i t seeks to e x p l a i n - not a l s o with the s o c i e t y out of which those concepts are produced. In t h i s way s c i e n t i f i c knowledge as described by t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y possesses an autonomy and hence an a u t h o r i t y that i s not accorded to other forms of knowledge. Here the t r u t h behind knowledge l i e s i n i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r o b j e c t i v i t y . Such o b j e c t i v i t y i s only p o s s i b l e from an autonomous sphere of i n q u i r y - the research u n i v e r s i t y - of which the i n s t i t u t i o n of the sciences i s a fundamental and c o n s t i t u t i v e component (Stehr 1994:80). The account of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge as that which i s best m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y s t r u c t u r e d f o r ' o b j e c t i v i t y ' i s h i s t o r i c a l l y based upon the success of the s c i e n t i f i c method i n conceptually a p p r o p r i a t i n g the laws of nature. While the discovery and f a b r i c a t i o n of the s c i e n t i f i c method i s i n i t s e l f undoubtedly h i s t o r i c a l , the laws themselves that are revealed through i t s a p p l i c a t i o n are supposedly not subject to e i t h e r s o c i a l or h i s t o r i c a l f orces. They are, i n t h i s e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l account, 57 independent of such ' r e l a t i v e ' f o r c e s : the laws of nature are u n i v e r s a l . Human knowledge through i t s 'natural' and ' u n i v e r s a l ' c a p a c i t y f o r Reason can subsequently appropriate such laws. The u n i v e r s a l i t y of Reason i s , as I r v i n g Z e i t l i n p o i nts out, among the c e n t r a l founding p r i n c i p l e s of the Enlightenment: More than the t h i n k e r s of any preceding age, the men of the Enlightenment h e l d f i r m l y to the c o n v i c t i o n that the mind could comprehend the universe and subordinate i t to human needs. Reason became the god of these philosophers who were enormously i n s p i r e d by the s c i e n t i f i c achievements of the preceding c e n t u r i e s . Those achievements l e d them to a new conception of the universe based on the u n i v e r s a l a p p l i c a b i l i t y of n a t u r a l laws; u t i l i z i n g the concepts and techniques of the p h y s i c a l sciences, they set about the task of c r e a t i n g a new world based on reason and t r u t h . Truth became the c e n t r a l goal of i n t e l l e c t u a l s of t h i s age, but not t r u t h founded on r e v e l a t i o n , t r a d i t i o n or a u t h o r i t y ; rather i t was reason and observation that were to be the twin p i l l a r s of t r u t h ( Z e i t l i n 1968:1). This u n i v e r s a l understanding of the r e l a t i o n of our knowledge to the world i t claims to understand through reason i s designated as o b j e c t i v i t y by advocates of the power of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. This conception of o b j e c t i v i t y provides the i d e o l o g i c a l foundation f o r a notio n of l e g i t i m a t e knowledge that claims to represent the e x t e r n a l world. O b j e c t i v i t y , as we see i n chapter one, i s often synonymous with s c h o l a r l y production as o b j e c t i v e knowledge i s seen to be n e c e s s a r i l y autonomous and independent of i t s l a r g e r context. P a r a l l e l to the idea of autonomy i s the idea that o b j e c t i v i t y a l s o claims a direct r e l a t i o n to the world based on 'causal r e l a t i o n s h i p s that hold with respect to man and nature independently of t h e i r procedures f o r c o n s t r u c t i n g contexts i n which these r e l a t i o n s h i p s are found to have l o c a l dominance' ( O ' N e i l l 1982:153). In t h i s way, both concepts are a n a l y t i c a l l y freed from t h e i r l a r g e r context. As Richard Bernstein suggests, the b e l i e f i n o b j e c t i v i t y adheres to the c o n v i c t i o n 'that there i s or must be some permanent, a h i s t o r i c a l matrix or framework to which we can u l t i m a t e l y appeal i n determining the nature of knowledge, t r u t h . . . '. He argues that o b j e c t i v i t y has been 58 used to designate a metaphysical r e a l i t y - 'the c l a i m that there i s a world of o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y that e x i s t s independently of us and that has a determinate nature or essence that we can know . . . What i s out there (objective) i s presumed to be independent of us (subjective) and knowledge i s achieved when a subject c o r r e c t l y m i r r o r s or represents o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y ' (Bernstein 1983:8) . Understood i n t h i s way, c o r r e c t knowledge i s b e l i e v e d to r e f l e c t or 'mirror' i t s object as i t i s not p o l l u t e d by the i m p u r i t i e s of surrounding i n f l u e n c e s such as personal r e l a t i o n s , p o l i t i c s or economics. In t h i s formulation there i s again an i n t r i n s i c l i n k between the procedures of 'objective' knowledge (science) and the autonomy of the sphere of knowledge production (academe). Through t h i s c o n v i c t i o n to o b j e c t i v i t y , i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y the d i s t i n c t i o n between the 'natural' and ' s o c i a l ' worlds i s minimised, f o r i t i s b e l i e v e d that such o b j e c t i v i t y i s e q u a l l y a t t a i n a b l e i n both realms. This c o n v i c t i o n provides a common ground f o r s c h o l a r l y endeavours to u n i v e r s a l i z e the e v a l u a t i v e standards f o r l e g i t i m a t e academic knowledge. The cap a c i t y of the s c h o l a r l y sphere f o r s e l f - l e g i s l a t i o n then e s t a b l i s h e s a d e f i n i t i o n f o r s c h o l a r s h i p as the p u r s u i t of the t r u t h of the o b j e c t i v e world. I t s standards are b e l i e v e d to be based upon the u n i v e r s a l commitment to the u n v e i l i n g of the o b j e c t i v e world. Many s c h o l a r l y p u r s u i t s i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , regardless of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n a r y a f f i l i a t i o n , cannot escape such c r i t e r i a . Therefore the primacy of the o b j e c t i v e world e f f e c t i v e l y e l i m i n a t e s the methodological d i f f e r e n c e s between the 'hard' n a t u r a l and the ' s o f t ' s o c i a l sciences. In t h i s sense much academic i n q u i r y i s u n i f i e d through i t s shared methodology: . . . the m a t e r i a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n of nature means that nature i n t o t o i s g r a d u a l l y transformed i n t o a human product by superimposing on nature new, s o c i a l l y constructed designs. This s t r u c t u r e i s o b j e c t i f i e d knowledge, namely, an e x p l i c a t i o n and r e a l i s a t i o n of what we know are the laws of 59 n a t u r a l processes extended by engineering design and c o n s t r u c t i o n . The same a p p l i e s to s o c i a l processes and s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n s (Stehr 1994:105). I t i s maintained by t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y that s o c i a l f a c t s do not d i f f e r from n a t u r a l f a c t s or s o c i a l knowledge from n a t u r a l knowledge i n t h e i r a p p l i c a b i l i t y i n s o f a r as both forms of knowledge r e l a t e to an object 'out there' that can be e x p e r i e n t i a l l y appropriated f o r purposes of s o c i a l a p p l i c a t i o n . S o c i a l progress i n t h i s sense, a r t i c u l a t e d i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y as s o c i a l a c t i o n informed by s c i e n t i f i c a l l y - p r o d u c e d knowledge, i s but a mere extension of the f a c t u a l a p p r o p r i a t i o n of the laws of the e x t e r n a l world (science) and the subsequent a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s knowledge to the mastering of nature and s o c i e t y (technology). 'Knowledge as a ca p a c i t y f o r a c t i o n enables one to set something i n t o motion . . . science and technology c o n s t a n t l y add to the e x i s t i n g stock of knowledge and therefore to the a b i l i t y of i n d i v i d u a l actors to a f f e c t t h e i r circumstances of a c t i o n ' (Stehr 1994:97- 98) . The idea that s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and the harnessing of nature leads us from s o c i a l a c t i o n to s o c i a l progress through technology i s indeed not new to the knowledge s o c i e t y . In f a c t , i t i s i n t h i s p r i n c i p l e that the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y reveals i t s foundation not as a contemporary theory of knowledge but rather as a d i r e c t i n h e r i t a n c e of the Enlightenment t r a d i t i o n of t e c h n o l o g i c a l l i b e r a l i s m . In t h i s l a r g e l y unacknowledged connection we f i n d that the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y denies i t s own h i s t o r i c i t y as an Enlightenment theory of knowledge. To make t h i s h i s t o r i c a l connection c l e a r , we can turn to the p o s i t i v i s t philosophy of Auguste Comte f o r h i s d i s c u s s i o n of the s i m i l a r i t y of the n a t u r a l and the s o c i a l worlds and, hence, the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r a science of s o c i e t y . According to Comte, the laws that show t h e i r relevance i n physics and chemistry are al s o found i n the realm 6 0 of the s o c i a l , thus c r e a t i n g not only the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r an o b j e c t i v e ' p o s i t i v e ' science of the e n t i r e object world but a foundation f o r the a p p l i c a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge to s o c i a l p r a c t i c e and the p e r f e c t i o n of the human c o n d i t i o n . The f o l l o w i n g passage reads as i f Comte were al s o a t h e o r i s t of the knowledge s o c i e t y ; the t h e o r e t i c a l p a r a l l e l between the t h e o r i s t s i s c e r t a i n l y c l e a r . When the a b s t r a c t laws e x h i b i t i n g various modes of a c t i v i t y have been brought s y s t e m a t i c a l l y before us, our p r a c t i c a l knowledge of each s p e c i a l system of existence ceases to be p u r e l y e m p i r i c a l , though the greater number of concrete laws may s t i l l be unknown. We f i n d the best example of t h i s t r u t h i n the most d i f f i c u l t and important subject of a l l , s o c i o l o g y . Knowledge of the p r i n c i p l e s t a t i c and dynamic laws of s o c i a l e xistence i s e v i d e n t l y s u f f i c i e n t from the purpose of systematizing the various aspects of p r i v a t e or p u b l i c l i f e , and thereby of rendering our c o n d i t i o n f a r more p e r f e c t (Comte 1975:331). As an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l undertaking, the foundation f o r knowledge i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i s a h i s t o r i c a l , i d e o l o g i c a l , and r e i f i e d , e s p e c i a l l y when i t i s moved i n t o a contemporary theory without s u b s t a n t i a l r e f l e c t i o n . In these accounts the d i f f i c u l t i e s of o b j e c t i v i s m a r i s e as a s u b s t a n t i a l problem not only i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y but f o r 'theory' more g e n e r a l l y , as Max Horkheimer p o i n t s out: ' [ i n the p u r s u i t of science] the conception of theory was a b s o l u t i z e d , as though i t were grounded i n inner nature of knowledge as such, or j u s t i f i e d i n some other a h i s t o r i c a l way, and thus became a r e i f i e d i d e o l o g i c a l category' (1972:194). Knowledge viewed i n l i g h t of o b j e c t i v i s m i s pure ideology: i t attempts to leave no t r a c e of i t s c o n s t r u c t i o n and t h e r e f o r e conceals the s o c i a l conditions that make i t p o s s i b l e . Hence the treatment of knowledge i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y conceals the very s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l c o n ditions that make such knowledge p o s s i b l e . Opening the h i s t o r i c a l t i e s with Enlightenment epistemologies to i n s p e c t i o n i s one way of c r i t i c a l l y s i t u a t i n g t h i s treatment of knowledge i n a t h e o r e t i c a l t r a d i t i o n . 61 2.3 The 'Black Box' of Knowledge Another d i f f i c u l t y that a r i s e s with the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i s that knowledge i s examined no deeper than i t s e f f e c t s . Here we are confronted with the 'black box' problem of knowledge i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y . In the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y science 'as the growing stock of o b j e c t i v e knowledge' i s not p r o p e r l y t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s i t i o n e d to question the basis f o r c a l l i n g science t r u e . 'Objective' knowledge i s t h e r e f o r e p o s i t i v e l y advanced i n t o the realm of p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n without s u b s t a n t i a l r e f l e c t i o n upon the p o s s i b i l i t y or changing s t r u c t u r e of such knowledge. The conditions f o r c a l l i n g knowledge true are i n t h i s sense deeply taken-for-granted i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y . As a theory i t r e l i e s upon an already e s t a b l i s h e d d e f i n i t i o n of o b j e c t i v e s c i e n t i f i c knowledge t h a t , although h i s t o r i c a l l y s i t u a t e d , denies i t s own h i s t o r i c i t y . As such, s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y remains a r t i f i c i a l l y pure - a s e l f - l e g i s l a t i n g value-sphere f a l s e l y separated from i t s own s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l r e l a t i v i t y . In t h i s theory knowledge (science) moves i n t o the realm of p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n (technology) without s u b s t a n t i a l r e f l e c t i o n or questioning of the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l a u t h o r i t y of such knowledge. Returning to the d e f i n i t i o n of the knowledge s o c i e t y as discussed by Lane, we see a matrix emerge i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y that describes science and o b j e c t i v i t y , knowledge and s o c i a l a c t i o n as the four p i l l a r s f o r 'the knowledge s o c i e t y ' - a v i s i o n of s o c i e t y not at a l l u n l i k e Comte's v i s i o n f o r i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . This model i s a l s o evident i n B e l l ' s d i s c u s s i o n on the i n f l u e n c e of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge on modern s o c i e t y . In B e l l ' s v e r s i o n of the knowledge s o c i e t y the e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l foundation of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s c l e a r l y that described by o b j e c t i v i s t epistemology. B e l l does l i t t l e to f u r t h e r develop a 62 s o c i o l o g i c a l understanding of knowledge beyond the taken-for-granted status of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge already e s t a b l i s h e d i n Enlightenment thought. In the f o l l o w i n g passage B e l l , l i k e Lane before him, academic l i b e r a l i s m more g e n e r a l l y , and Stehr f o l l o w i n g him, assigns the i n s t i t u t i o n of science a p r i v i l e g e d e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l s t a t u s : The community of science i s a unique i n s t i t u t i o n i n human c i v i l i z a t i o n . I t has no ideology, i n that i t has no p o s t u l a t e d set of formal b e l i e f s , but i t has an ethos which i m p l i c i t l y describes r u l e s of conduct. I t i s not a p o l i t i c a l movement that one j o i n s by s u b s c r i p t i o n , f o r membership i s by e l e c t i o n , yet one must make a commitment i n order to belong. I t i s not a church where the element of f a i t h r e s t s on b e l i e f and i s rooted i n mystery, yet f a i t h , passion and mystery are present but they are d i r e c t e d by the search f o r c e r t i f i e d knowledge ( B e l l 1973:380). Although science's ' n o n - i d e o l o g i c a l ' status here appears as fundamental to i t s p r i v i l e g e , i t i s r e a l l y only an immanent c o n d i t i o n i n the greater quest f o r ' c e r t i f i e d knowledge'. C e r t i f i e d knowledge means knowledge subject to the i n t e r n a l 'objective' values of the s c i e n t i f i c sphere. In t h i s a s s o c i a t i o n of c e r t i f i e d knowledge with science B e l l reduces the p o s s i b i l i t y f o r l e g i t i m a t e knowledge to the s t r u c t u r e of i n s t i t u t i o n a l science. Evidence of t h i s reduction i s even c l e a r e r i n the f o l l o w i n g d e f i n i t i o n of knowledge: 'I s h a l l define knowledge as a set of organised statements of f a c t s or ideas, presenting a reasoned judgement or an experimental r e s u l t , which i s tr a n s m i t t e d to others through some communication medium i n some systematic form' ( B e l l 1973:175). Here such phrases as 'reasoned judgement' and 'experimental r e s u l t ' when a p p l i e d s p e c i f i c a l l y to a d e f i n i t i o n of knowledge leave us with a very l i m i t e d understanding of what a c t u a l l y c o n s t i t u t e s knowledge other than the r u l e s of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s of science. A 'reasoned judgement' may indeed q u a l i f y as a feature of l e g i t i m a t e knowledge. However, i n a l a r g e r sense, the ground f o r t h i s reason remains a question of standards that f a l l outside of the realm of the r a t i o n a l i n q u i r y of science. 63 So f a r knowledge i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i s accounted f o r no f u r t h e r than through an instrumental understanding of science, i . e . the e f f e c t s or pragmatics of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. B e l l emphasises the c e n t r a l importance of t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge i n s o f a r as i t 'means an i n c r e a s i n g dependence on science as the means of innovating and o r g a n i s i n g t e c h n o l o g i c a l change . . . whereby the c o d i f i c a t i o n of t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge and m a t e r i a l s science becomes the basis of innovations i n technology' ( B e l l 1973:xix). However, i t i s c l e a r that t h i s knowledge i s s t r i c t l y t h e o r e t i c a l s c i e n t i f i c knowledge as i t r e l a t e s to technology; there i s no f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n of how such knowledge i s a c t u a l l y produced. B e l l f u r t h e r e s t a b l i s h e s the all-encompassing r o l e of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge through a demonstration of i t s omnipotent impact on the realms of s o c i a l discourse that were t r a d i t i o n a l l y contained w i t h i n the realms of philosophy and p o l i t i c s . M i r r o r i n g the b e l i e f s of many academic l i b e r a l s , B e l l contends: 'Now science has become i n e x t r i c a b l y i n t e r t w i n e d not only with technology but with the m i l i t a r y and s o c i a l technologies and s o c i e t a l needs. In a l l t h i s , the character of the new s c i e n t i f i c i n s t i t u t i o n s - w i l l be c r u c i a l f o r the future of free inquiry and knowledge' ( B e l l 1 9 7 3 : x v i i ) . This unacknowledged, i d e o l o g i c a l reduction of a l l types of l e g i t i m a t e knowledge to s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s c r i t i c a l l y r e f e r r e d to by Juergen Habermas as s c i e n t i s m . In Knowledge and Human Interests (1971) Habermas exp l a i n s that the p r o j e c t of the theory of knowledge - epistemology - has l o s t i t s p h i l o s o p h i c a l o r i g i n s through the philosophy of science. The r e s u l t i s that philosophy i n e v i t a b l y becomes subject to the methods and language games of science, thereby g i v i n g way to the l e g i t i m a t i o n claims of science. In other words, philosophy only becomes l e g i t i m a t e through 64 science and the t e s t of the s c i e n t i f i c method. Although, as we see i n Kant, philosophy was once considered a discourse separate from pragmatic c o n s i d e r a t i o n , i t i s now inc l u d e d i n under the instrumental umbrella of s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The problem with s c i e n t i s m i s , as Habermas sees i t , 'science's b e l i e f i n i t s e l f : that i s , the c o n v i c t i o n that we can no longer understand science as one form of p o s s i b l e knowledge, but rather must i d e n t i f y knowledge with science . . . i n order to strengthen science's b e l i e f i n i t s e x c l u s i v e v a l i d i t y , a f t e r the f a c t , i n s t e a d of to r e f l e c t on i t and to account f o r the s t r u c t u r e of the sciences on the bas i s of t h i s b e l i e f (Habermas 1971:4). The unquestioned p r a c t i c e of s c i e n t i s m e s t a b l i s h e s the ba s i s f o r a c r i t i q u e of the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , as such b l i n d acceptance of science's l e g i t i m a c y does not allow f o r proper s o c i o l o g i c a l r e f l e c t i o n on the categories that comprise 'free' i n q u i r y or f o r r e f l e c t i o n upon the e x t e r n a l features of knowledge production. Scientism, as witnessed i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , i d e o l o g i c a l l y reduces a l l knowledge to the taken-for-granted d i c t a t e s of the s c i e n t i f i c method, thereby e l i m i n a t i n g the p o t e n t i a l f o r r e f l e c t i o n upon knowledge production more g e n e r a l l y . A f t e r e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l y grounding l e g i t i m a t e knowledge i n science, B e l l forwards the t h r u s t of h i s argument 'that the major source of s t r u c t u r a l change i n s o c i e t y - the change i n the modes of inn o v a t i o n i n the r e l a t i o n of science to technology and i n p u b l i c p o l i c y - i s the change i n the character of knowledge' ( B e l l 1973:44). What B e l l means by t h i s , a f t e r c l e a r l y demonstrating that h i s p o s i t i o n on the u n i v e r s a l v a l i d i t y of o b j e c t i v i t y and s c i e n t i f i c knowledge has not changed from i t s Enlightenment formulation, i s that the contemporary changes i n knowledge are not q u a l i t a t i v e but rather q u a n t i t a t i v e . B e l l demonstrates that the 65 c h a r a c t e r o f knowledge i t s e l f has not changed i n an e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l sense, but more s i g n i f i c a n t l y f o r h i s argument, i t s q u a n t i t a t i v e i m p a c t on t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e / e c o n o m y has changed. T h i s q u a n t i t a t i v e change i s w i t n e s s e d , f o r example, i n t h e e x p o n e n t i a l growth and d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n o f s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. B e l l c i t e s t h e i n c r e a s e o f s c i e n t i f i c j o u r n a l s , e x p o n e n t i a l l y d o u b l i n g e v e r y t e n y e a r s , as an i n d i c a t i o n o f t h e m e a s u r a b l e 'change' t h a t knowledge produces i n t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e ( B e l l 1973:181). I n t h i s and o t h e r examples c i t e d , such as t h e growth o f t h e s e r v i c e s e c t o r i n t h e economy ( c f . B e l l 1973:ch. 02), i t i s o b v i o u s t h a t t h e changes r e c o r d e d by B e l l have l i t t l e t o do w i t h t h e h i s t o r i c a l change i n t h e c h a r a c t e r o f knowledge and more t o do w i t h t e c h n o l o g i c a l and economic development based on t h e s o c i a l e f f e c t s o f s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. So f a r , knowledge i n t h e t h e o r y o f t h e knowledge s o c i e t y i s n o t r e a l l y a c c o u n t e d f o r s o c i o l o g i c a l l y as i t i s not s i t u a t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o ' e x t e r n a l ' s o c i a l o r h i s t o r i c a l f o r c e s . I n t e r e s t i n g l y , t h i s p r o b l e m i s even acknowledged by knowledge s o c i e t y t h e o r i s t s . B e l l a d m i t s t h a t q u e s t i o n s r e l e v a n t f o r t h e s o c i o l o g y o f knowledge such as 'the s o c i a l s e t t i n g o f i d e a s , t h e i r i n t e r c o n n e c t i o n s , t h e i r r e l a t i o n t o some s t r u c t u r a l f o u n d a t i o n ' a r e ' o u t s i d e o f my p u r v i e w here' ( B e l l 1973:177). Moreover N i c o S t e h r c r i t i c a l l y acknowledges t h a t knowledge i n t h e knowledge s o c i e t y i s l e f t unexamined: i t i s a ' b l a c k box' t h a t i s s i m p l y p o s t u l a t e d w i t h o u t f u r t h e r i n s p e c t i o n : A l o o k a t t h e c o n c e p t i o n s o f knowledge employed by t h o s e who have e l e v a t e d knowledge t o t h e new a x i a l p r i n c i p l e o f modern s o c i e t y i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e s e t h e o r i s t s pause b u t b r i e f l y t o c o n s i d e r t h e s o c i a l n a t u r e o f knowledge, p a r t i c u l a r l y s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. A l t h o u g h many and e l a b o r a t e d e f i n i t i o n s o f knowledge a r e o f f e r e d an e q u i v a l e n t e f f o r t t o w a r d a t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f t h e d e c i s i v e phenomenon 'knowledge as such' i s not t h o u g h t n e c e s s a r y ( S t e h r 1994:92). The d i f f i c u l t y f o r knowledge s o c i e t y t h e o r i s t s l i e s i n d e v e l o p i n g a c o n c e p t i o n o f knowledge 'as such'. As we see w i t h Lane and B e l l , t h e o r i e s 66 of the knowledge s o c i e t y begin with the assumption that s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s the ' a x i a l p r i n c i p l e ' of s o c i a l change: 'The theory of the [knowledge] s o c i e t y recognizes a p a r t i c u l a r c e n t r a l p r i n c i p l e , viewed as a dominant l o g i c , which allows the observer to impose a s p e c i f i c conceptual order on vast s o c i e t a l developments of modern s o c i e t y ' (Stehr 1994:44). However, because t h i s p o s i t i o n i s the assumption that grounds the theory, i t i s l e f t unexamined by the theory. I r o n i c a l l y , we are l e f t without a s o c i o l o g i c a l conception of knowledge. While Stehr agrees that t h e o r i e s of the knowledge s o c i e t y do not open the 'black box' of knowledge as an advocate f o r t h i s theory he does l i t t l e to a l l e v i a t e i t s c e n t r a l problem. Despite the f a c t that Stehr obviously recognises t h i s problem, h i s c l a i m to open the black box by i n s p e c t i n g the s o c i a l nature of knowledge i s completely undermined by the f a c t that the t h e o r e t i c a l apparatus of the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y does not allow f o r such an examination. This i s to say that because the accepted status of o b j e c t i v e s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i s only able u n i l a t e r a l l y to examine how knowledge a f f e c t s s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . The theory cannot inspe c t the reverse of how changes i n the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e e f f e c t knowledge, f o r t h i s p o s i t i o n i m p l i e s a c e r t a i n c r i t i c a l r e f l e x i v i t y t hat the theory i t s e l f does not encourage. We are not o f f e r e d , i n deference to the model e x p l i c a t e d i n the philosophy of science, any s o c i o l o g i c a l account of the c o n d i t i o n of the r a p i d growth of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge w i t h i n the contemporary s c i e n t i f i c e n t e r p r i s e i n c o n t r a s t to the s c i e n t i f i c community i n the past. Nor do we encounter t h e o r e t i c a l c u r i o s i t y about the reasons f o r the growing demand f o r s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, i n various s o c i e t a l i n s t i t u t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y the economic system . . . An adequate understanding of the r o l e of knowledge i n knowledge s o c i e t i e s requires one to open up the black box i n each instance (Stehr 1994:93). To open the black box, as Stehr suggests, requires a d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l apparatus than the one provided by the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y . I f we are to develop an adequate understanding of knowledge, we 67 must f i r s t t r e a t knowledge i t s e l f as an object of t h e o r e t i c a l and s o c i o l o g i c a l c u r i o s i t y . This demands t h a t , rather than s t a r t i n g w i t h an e s t a b l i s h e d , a u t h o r i t a t i v e and i n t e r n a l l y defined d e f i n i t i o n of knowledge as a departure p o i n t to i n v e s t i g a t e changes i n the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , we f i r s t examine the s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n of that knowledge e v e n t u a l l y to a r r i v e at an understanding of knowledge 'as such'. Put t h i s way, a d i a l e c t i c between s o c i e t y and knowledge opens the u n i l a t e r a l , l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p of knowledge to s o c i e t y to a r e c i p r o c a l s e r i e s of h i s t o r i c a l l y embedded s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s . Knowledge, when understood i n i t s context, i s then no longer a black box since i t i s understood to emerge i n the h i s t o r i c a l l y embedded m a t e r i a l p r a c t i c e s of human s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . In t h i s respect one way of opening the black box i s to examine c o n c r e t e l y knowledge production as a form of labour: as a p r a c t i c e that i s embedded i n a d e f i n i t i v e s e r i e s of s o c i a l and economic r e l a t i o n s . Contrary to the p o s i t i o n of the t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y , an examination of t h i s kind requires a r e t u r n to Marx's a n a l y s i s of c a p i t a l i s m . 2.4 Knowledge Production and Capitalism In t h e i r treatment of knowledge as a black box that i s ordained with absolute e p i s t e m o l o g i c a l l e g i t i m a c y , t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y produce a Utopian v i s i o n of the r o l e of knowledge i n s o c i e t y that m i r r o r s the i l l u s o r y goals of Enlightenment l i b e r a l i s m . As we see i n t h e i r v i s i o n , s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s a p p l i e d to s o c i e t y and the r e s u l t i s immense s o c i a l r e s t r u c t u r i n g . They argue that science through i t s p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n transforms the oppressive 'machine-driven' s t r u c t u r e of i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y with i t s dehumanizing shackles on manual labour i n t o a l i b e r a t i n g occupational and economic s t r u c t u r e based upon 'knowledge- d r i v e n ' mental labour. Knowledge s o c i e t y t h e o r i s t s indeed see knowledge as r e l a t e d to production. They account, not i n c o r r e c t l y , f o r the many 68 ways i n which s c i e n t i f i c knowledge transforms the occupational s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y and thereby transform the mode of production i t s e l f . However, they do not see the other side of t h i s d i a l e c t i c a l c o i n : namely, how the transformations i n the mode of production a l s o i n f l u e n c e knowledge at i t s most e s s e n t i a l l e v e l . Their p o s i t i o n r e f l e c t s a world 'upside-down'; a camera obscura where knowledge determines production rather than production being d i a l e c t i c a l l y r e l a t e d to knowledge: ' I f i n a l l ideology men and t h e i r circumstances appear upside-down as i n a camera obscura, t h i s phenomenon a r i s e s j u s t as much from the h i s t o r i c a l l i f e process as the i n v e r s i o n of objects on the r e t i n a does from t h e i r p h y s i c a l l i f e process' (Marx and Engels 1970:47). Marx's metaphor of the camera obscura a p t l y describes t h i s i d e o l o g i c a l r e l a t i o n of knowledge to production i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y . Figure 2.1 i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s r e l a t i o n . On the r i g h t hand side of the diagram ( r e c t o ) , we see how a l i b e r a l understanding of academic knowledge production works. L i b e r a l i s m , e s p e c i a l l y as i t i s formulated i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , assumes knowledge to be the foundation of production wi t h the commodity as i t s end product. Here knowledge i s accorded l o g i c a l primacy over production. In t h i s v e r s i o n the freedom that i s as s o c i a t e d with knowledge i s then c a r r i e d through s o c i e t y at the l e v e l s of production and the c i r c u l a t i o n of ob j e c t s . As we see below, t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y look at the commodity produced by s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and see t r u t h , e q u a l i t y and freedom: the freedom of thought, the freedom of p r a c t i c e . In the t r a d i t i o n of Enlightenment l i b e r a l i s m , knowledge based on reason i s t h e o r e t i c a l l y formulated as the true s o c i a l emancipator (reason=truth=freedom). As the diagram attempts to demonstrate however, t h i s i s an upside-down, p a r t i a l and i d e o l o g i c a l understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p of knowledge to production. 69 Figure 2 . 1 Ideology i n the Theory of the Knowledge Society 70 On the l e f t hand side of the diagram (verso), we see how a Ma r x i s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of knowledge production emphasizes the primacy of the mode of production as the m a t e r i a l force behind knowledge, consciousness, ideas e t c . . Therefore not only i s knowledge a product of a s p e c i f i c mode of production but a l s o , l o g i c a l l y , the ideology that emerges to account f o r t h i s r e l a t i o n , i s a l s o a product of that mode of production. However, u n l i k e the i d e a l freedom produced i n a l i b e r a l account and supposedly witnessed i n the knowledge commodity, i n a Marxist account the inherent i n e q u a l i t i e s of the c a p i t a l i s t mode of production are c a r r i e d through knowledge production and are e v e n t u a l l y represented i n the commodity form. The commodity f o r Marxism i s the s i t e of the inherent i n e q u a l i t i e s ( i . e . the unfreedom) of the c a p i t a l i s t mode of production. M a r x i s t s look at the same commodity as l i b e r a l s and see ideology, power and unfreedom. As t h i s t h e s i s draws s u b s t a n t i a l l y from a Marx i s t s o c i o l o g y of knowledge, i t i s p r i m a r i l y f o r t h i s reason that the remainder of t h i s study focuses upon the academic commodity, with an emphasis on the commodification of j o u r n a l a r t i c l e s and books: the academic commodity reveals the l i m i t a t i o n s of the account of academic l i b e r a l i s m f o r understanding academic knowledge production. As I intend to demonstrate, s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g as the s i t e of the consumption, exchange and d i s t r i b u t i o n of the academic commodity i s one way of examining the impact of economic forces upon academic knowledge production. Such an a n a l y s i s provides us with the rel e v a n t categories r e q u i r e d f o r an ' e x t e r n a l i s t ' examination of the contemporary s i t u a t i o n of knowledge production and there f o r e completes the i d e o l o g i c a l p i c t u r e drawn by l i b e r a l i s m by r o o t i n g academic knowledge production i n economic p r a c t i c e . L i b e r a l i s m must be turned upside-down (or r i g h t - s i d e up) i n order to produce a more accurate and complete account of knowledge production i n c a p i t a l i s m . 71 As the diagram attempts to i l l u s t r a t e , the d i f f i c u l t y continues with the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y i n that the r e l a t i o n of knowledge to production i s not r e f l e x i v e , contextual or c r i t i c a l . As we see here and f u r t h e r below, i n the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y the r o l e of o b j e c t i v e s c i e n t i f i c knowledge acts i d e o l o g i c a l l y i n a l i n e a r f a s h i o n to have an impact on and transform the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . However, the reverse or d i a l e c t i c a l r e l a t i o n of the impact of the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e , economy, or system of production upon knowledge i s not a fundamental component of t h i s a n a l y s i s . What i s t r o u b l i n g about such an account are the conclusions drawn about knowledge production and labour i n 'the knowledge s o c i e t y ' . Taking the l i b e r a l p o s i t i o n of knowledge one step f u r t h e r , t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y see the 'freedom' that i s embedded i n s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y a l s o embedded i n the economic s t r u c t u r e of the knowledge s o c i e t y since such knowledge that extends to a l l facets of the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . In t y p i c a l l i b e r a l fashion, knowledge i s seen a p r i o r i to be the embodiment of freedom. When such knowledge informs s o c i a l a c t i o n on a l l l e v e l s then the r e s u l t s are l a r g e l y p o s i t i v e . However as I demonstrate, t h i s view can only be maintained i f one does not in s p e c t the e f f e c t s of the economic mode of production upon knowledge production. Once t h i s r e l a t i o n i s opened, as I argue below with reference to Marx's d i a l e c t i c a l understanding of knowledge and production i n c a p i t a l i s m , knowledge can no longer be seen to be the embodiment of freedom as i t i s i n i t s l i b e r a l d e f i n i t i o n but ra t h e r knowledge production must be understood to be u l t i m a t e l y constrained by the economic forces of c a p i t a l i s m which give knowledge s t r u c t u r e as a c t u a l human labour. Academic knowledge production i s the r e f o r e not 'autonomous and f r e e ' as i t i s understood i n i t s l i b e r a l v e r s i o n ; rather, such knowledge i s l i m i t e d by 72 the extent to which i t i s s t r u c t u r e d by the economic forces and, more impor t a n t l y , by the value s t r u c t u r e generated by c a p i t a l . T h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y e f f e c t i v e l y r u l e out any examination of the s t r u c t u r i n g e f f e c t s of the c a p i t a l i s t economy upon the production of knowledge when they p r o j e c t the i n s t i t u t i o n a l values of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i n t o the realm of economic r e l a t i o n s . In an equation charted by the s h i f t from i n d u s t r i a l to ' p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l ' s o c i e t y , B e l l et a l contend that s c i e n t i f i c knowledge of nature's laws leads to t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances. These advances lead to a transformation i n the i n d u s t r i a l order of s o c i e t y where machines g r a d u a l l y replace human labour as the primary force of production. To manage these machines s c i e n t i f i c knowledge then becomes a dominant force of production. Technology rather than nature i s now what must be mastered by humans, and a 'knowledge boom' i s created i n the form of a s e r v i c e economy to accommodate these growing t e c h n o - s o c i a l needs (cf. B e l l 1973:ch. 02). Such mastery re q u i r e s s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge t r a i n i n g (e.g. post-secondary education) on a mass l e v e l to cope with the immense transformation from manual labour of i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y to the s o c i a l l y necessary mental labour of an advanced, t e c h n o l o g i c a l ' p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l ' s o c i e t y . Workers, now endowed with knowledge over muscle power, are seemingly able to cope with s o c i e t y i n a way that i s profoundly d i f f e r e n t from the s i t u a t i o n of manual labour ( p r o l e t a r i a n s ) i n i n d u s t r i a l c a p i t a l i s m : I n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s - p r i n c i p a l l y those around the North A t l a n t i c l i t t o r a l plus the Soviet Union and Japan - are goods producing s o c i e t i e s . L i f e i s a game against f a b r i c a t e d nature. The world has become t e c h n i c a l and r a t i o n a l i z e d . The machine predominates, and the rhythms of l i f e are mechanically paced: time i s c h r o n o l o g i c a l , methodical, evenly spaced. Energy has replaced raw muscle and provides the power that i s the b a s i s of p r o d u c t i v i t y - the a r t of making more with l e s s - and i s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the mass output of goods which c h a r a c t e r i z e s i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . Energy and machines transform the nature of work. S k i l l s are broken down i n t o simpler components, and the a r t i s a n of the past i s replaced by two new f i g u r e s - the engineer, who i s responsible f o r the layout and flow of work and the s e m i - s k i l l e d worker, the human cog between machines - u n t i l the 73 t e c h n i c a l i n g e n u i t y of the engineer creates a new machine which replaces him as w e l l ( B e l l 1973:127). In B e l l ' s post-industrial/knowledge s o c i e t y the crude production of i n d u s t r i a l goods tr a n s m o g r i f i e s i n t o the production of inf o r m a t i o n and a service-based economy, thereby e f f e c t i v e l y r e v o l u t i o n i z i n g the character of production a l t o g e t h e r . In contrast to i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y , the r a p i d l y expanding production of the knowledge commodity ( t h e o r e t i c a l s c i e n t i f i c knowledge) c o n t r i b u t e s to the i n c r e a s i n g q u a l i t y of l i f e f o r a l l members of the post-industrial/knowledge s o c i e t y . True to the l i b e r a l impulse of the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y (reason + knowledge = freedom) here knowledge i s seen as the great emancipator where an ' i d y l l i c ' l i f e of w h i t e - c o l l a r p r o f e s s i o n a l i s m dominates the occupational and l e i s u r e landscapes and awaits the growing knowledge c l a s s : A p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y i s based on s e r v i c e s . Hence i t i s a game between persons. What counts i s not raw muscle power, or energy, but info r m a t i o n . The c e n t r a l person i s the p r o f e s s i o n a l , f o r he i s equipped, by h i s education and t r a i n i n g , to provide the kinds of s k i l l which are i n c r e a s i n g l y demanded i n the p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . I f an i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y i s defined by the q u a n t i t y of goods as marking a standard of l i v i n g , the p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y i s defined by the q u a l i t y of l i f e as measured by the s e r v i c e s and amenities - he a l t h , education, r e c r e a t i o n and the a r t s - which are now deemed d e s i r a b l e and p o s s i b l e f o r everyone ( B e l l 1973:127) . The Knowledge Commodity As I i n d i c a t e above, among the major transformations that mark a s h i f t away from the oppressive features of i n d u s t r i a l c a p i t a l i s m i s , f o r B e l l the s h i f t i n commodity production. He argues that because of the i n c r e a s i n g input of knowledge i n t o the production process there i s a major s h i f t i n commodity production - from ' i n d u s t r i a l commodities produced i n d i s c r e t e i d e n t i f i a b l e u n i t s , exchanged and s o l d , consumed and used up . . . governed by s p e c i f i c l e g a l r u l e s of contract' to 'information and knowledge - not consumed and "used up'" ( B e l l 1973:xiv). B e l l e x p l a i n s that there i s a profound d i f f e r e n c e between the machine-produced 74 i n d u s t r i a l commodity and the i n t e l l e c t u a l l y produced knowledge product. He claims that the former r e l a t i o n of i n d u s t r i a l commodity production i s subject to a system of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s dependent upon the i n h e r e n t l y unequal and e x p l o i t a t i v e r e l a t i o n of labour to c a p i t a l . Here an a n a l y s i s of c a p i t a l i s m such as Marx's i s acceptable ( B e l l 1973:55) . However, according to B e l l , when the product of labour i s knowledge, as i t i s i n the post-industrial/knowledge s o c i e t y , labour forms a p e c u l i a r r e l a t i o n s h i p to the commodity, one that apparently e l i m i n a t e s c a p i t a l i s m as a v a l i d category of a n a l y s i s f o r knowledge. The p o i n t that s h i f t s the a n a l y s i s away from c a p i t a l i s m as a v a l i d explanatory framework f o r knowledge production i s t h i s : knowledge, when exchanged, remains with the producer of that commodity. According to B e l l , t h i s f a c t of knowledge production has a great impact on the s o c i a l system as a whole f o r i t r e v o l u t i o n i z e s the e n t i r e system of production and the ideas of ownership a s s o c i a t e d with p r i v a t e property. Following B e l l , Nico Stehr proudly announces i n the opening pages of h i s book Knowledge Societies: 'the age of labour and property i s at an end' (Stehr 1 9 9 4 : v i i i ) . U n l i k e the commodity of i n d u s t r i a l c a p i t a l i s m , the knowledge commodity, i n t h i s account, frees the worker from the p r o l e t a r i a n chains of oppressive i n d u s t r i a l production as the c a p i t a l i s t does not s o l e l y possess the product of labour. In the knowledge s o c i e t y the worker does not wholly 'give away' the knowledge product and t h e r e f o r e i s not 'alienated' i n the same way as the manual i n d u s t r i a l labourer. 'Freely' produced knowledge i n t h i s respect t r i g g e r s a chain r e a c t i o n throughout the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e where the freedom endowed upon academic science to produce the t r u t h about the n a t u r a l and s o c i a l worlds then moves through the occupational sphere thus f r e e i n g mental labourers from the oppressive shackles of c a p i t a l i s t s , p r i v a t e property and ownership. As i s c l e a r from 75 the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , knowledge i s supposedly the ba s i s of t h i s l i b e r a t i n g transformation of the economic sphere. Seemingly p u t t i n g to r e s t Marx's a n a l y s i s of c a p i t a l i s m f o r knowledge production, B e l l continues that i t i s the more s u b t l e r e v o l u t i o n of knowledge, not a p r o l e t a r i a n r e v o l u t i o n , which transforms s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s of commodity production. F u r t h e r i n g h i s p o i n t about the l a c k of c l e a r l y d e l i n e a t e d ownership of knowledge, B e l l a s s e r t s that the product of knowledge i s a c o l l e c t i v e good that i s l e s s s u s c e p t i b l e to mo n o p o l i s t i c ownership: 'knowledge i n the form of a c o d i f i e d theory i s a c o l l e c t i v e good. No s i n g l e person, no s i n g l e set of work groups, no co r p o r a t i o n can monopolize or patent t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge, or draw unique product advantage from i t . I t i s a common property of the i n t e l l e c t u a l world' ( B e l l 1979:237). Stehr r e i t e r a t e s t h i s b e l i e f i n Knowledge Societies where he comments tha t : 'knowledge i s a p u b l i c good; i t i s oft e n seen as the c o l l e c t i v e commodity par excellence; f o r example the ethos of science demands that i t i s supposed to be made a v a i l a b l e to a l l , at l e a s t i n p r i n c i p l e ' (Stehr 1994:94). As such, t r a d i t i o n a l c ategories f o r understanding property, commodity exchange and the s t r u c t u r e of the labour force i t s e l f , must be r e t o o l e d to incorporate the r e l a t i o n s of the production of knowledge f o r i t i s understood to be a commodity u n l i k e other commodities. For t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y t h i s r e t o o l i n g r e q u i r e s a theory of value that takes i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the unique and ubiquitous character of knowledge. The Knowledge Theory of Value But a p o s t - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d not by a labour theory of value but by a knowledge theory of value. I t i s the c o d i f i c a t i o n of knowledge that becomes d i r e c t i v e of innov a t i o n . Yet knowledge even when i t i s s o l d remains with the producer. I t i s a c o l l e c t i v e good i n that once i t has been created, i t i s by i t s character a v a i l a b l e to a l l and thus there i s l i t t l e i n c e n t i v e f o r any s i n g l e person or e n t e r p r i s e to pay f o r the production of such knowledge unless they can obtain p r o p r i e t a r y 76 advantage, such as a patent or copyright. But i n c r e a s i n g l y patents no longer guarantee e x c l u s i v i t y . . . ( B e l l 1973:xiv). For t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y the Marxian understanding of labour i s a l e s s v a l i d category f o r a n a l y s i s of commodity production as production i n the post-industrial/knowledge s o c i e t y has s h i f t e d away from issues of p r i v a t e property and ownership. As B e l l e n v i s i o n s i t , the knowledge s o c i e t y has s h i f t e d from 'the economics of goods' to the 'economics of information' ( B e l l 1973:xv). What he then s t r a t e g i c a l l y suggests i s to move away from the labour theory of value as i s understood by Marx i n Capital f o r the value of knowledge i n the knowledge s o c i e t y i s a question a l t o g e t h e r d i f f e r e n t from value i n the l a b o u r / c a p i t a l terms of i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t y . A proper a n a l y s i s of the knowledge commodity i n r e l a t i o n to labour, according to B e l l and l a t e r to Stehr, s p e c i f i c a l l y r e quires a knowledge theory of value ( B e l l 1979:237; Stehr 1994:160). 'In c l a s s i c a l and Marxian economics, c a p i t a l i s thought of as "embodied labour", but knowledge cannot be conceived i n that fashion' ( B e l l 1979:237). In t h i s recommendation we come to understand that knowledge has supposedly transformed the occupational sphere to the extent that the production of the knowledge commodity has changed the r e l a t i o n s of labour to c a p i t a l and thus requires a new theory of value that takes t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . As Stehr puts i t , the value of c o l l e c t i v i t y i n science and the transcendent, symbolic character of knowledge are now what must be taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n a theory of the value of the knowledge commodity. The c r i t i c a l question to consider at t h i s p o i n t however i s whether knowledge has a c t u a l l y transformed the r e l a t i o n of labour to c a p i t a l as suggested by the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y , or whether knowledge production i s simply another form of labour subsumed under c a p i t a l . I f we r e t u r n to the t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge 77 s o c i e t y to answer t h i s question we f i n d the obvious answer that i s , they cl a i m , a l s o supported by Marx: through technology, knowledge as a f o r c e of production transforms the r e l a t i o n s of labour to c a p i t a l : But to the degree that large i n d u s t r y develops, the c r e a t i o n of r e a l wealth comes to depend l e s s on labour time and on the amount of labour employed than on the power of the agencies set i n motion during labour time, whose 'powerful e f f e c t i v e n e s s ' i s i t s e l f i n t u r n out of p r o p o r t i o n to the d i r e c t labour time spent on t h e i r production, but depends rather on the general s t a t e of science and on the progress of technology, or the a p p l i c a t i o n of t h i s science to production (Marx 1973:705). In reading t h i s quote, one has the impression that Marx i s presenting an argument s i m i l a r t o , and indeed i n agreement with, the knowledge s o c i e t y t h e s i s . This i s e s p e c i a l l y so i f one reads the b r i e f quote from Marx c i t e d by Stehr a l i t t l e f u r t h e r down from the above passage i n the Grundrisse: 'man's understanding of nature and h i s mastery over i t by v i r t u e of h i s presence as a s o c i a l body . . . appears as the great foundation stone of production and of wealth, so that general knowledge becomes a d i r e c t force of production' (Marx 1973:705; Stehr 1994:9). However, i f one takes the e n t i r e t y of Marx's p o s i t i o n on knowledge what we f i n d i s not only that Marx does not see the p r i v i l e g e d ' a u t h o r i t y ' of knowledge as outweighing the forces of c a p i t a l but a l s o , and much more s i g n i f i c a n t l y , that knowledge as a productive force i s i n c r e a s i n g l y subsumed under the dominance of c a p i t a l i s t r e l a t i o n s . In other words, knowledge i s t r e a t e d by Marx as a type of l i v i n g human labour t h a t , as labour, i s subject to the s t r u c t u r e of c a p i t a l i s t production. This d i a l e c t i c advances a c r i t i q u e of the l i b e r a l notions of autonomy and o b j e c t i v i s m i n that knowledge i s seen i n r e l a t i o n to the s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l forces that give i t i t s character and i t s form. For Marx, s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and even the o b j e c t i v i t y upon which i t s a u t h o r i t y r e s t s are not seen outside of the context of c a p i t a l f o r 'the value placed upon o b j e c t i v e knowledge and knowledgeableness i n l a t e c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y 78 may be understood as key elements of c a p i t a l i s t ideology' (Kemple 1994:24) . We r e t u r n again to Marx's Grundrisse to see the d i a l e c t i c between knowledge and production emerge: In machinery, the a p p r o p r i a t i o n of l i v i n g labour by c a p i t a l achieves a d i r e c t r e a l i t y i n t h i s respect as w e l l : I t i s , f i r s t l y , the a n a l y s i s and a p p l i c a t i o n of mechanical and chemical laws, a r i s i n g d i r e c t l y out of science, which enables the machine to perform the same labour as that p r e v i o u s l y performed by the worker. However, the development of machinery along t h i s path occurs only when la r g e i n d u s t r y has reached a higher stage, and a l l the sciences have been pressed i n t o the s e r v i c e of c a p i t a l ; and when secondly, the a v a i l a b l e machinery i t s e l f provides great c a p a b i l i t i e s . Invention then becomes a business, and the a p p l i c a t i o n of science to d i r e c t production i t s e l f becomes a prospect which determines and s o l i c i t s i t (Marx 1973:704). While the theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y focuses on the productive and t r a n s f o r m a t i v e aspect of knowledge on the economic s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y , i t i s not without a p a r t i c u l a r t e n sion, l a r g e l y unrecognized by t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y , that Marx r a i s e s the r e l a t i o n of knowledge to c a p i t a l i s t production. In Marx's famous 'Fragment on Machines' i n the Grundrisse (pp.692-711) he points out that although science indeed c o n t r i b u t e s to the transformation of i n d u s t r i a l production through technology and the machinery i t creates, such a r e l a t i o n can only e x i s t when science i s 'pressed i n t o the s e r v i c e of c a p i t a l ' . Rather than emancipating labour from the oppressive surround of i n d u s t r y knowledge i s seen by Marx as a l s o subject to the f o r c e s , values and d i r e c t i o n of c a p i t a l : I t i s hence the tendency of c a p i t a l to give production a s c i e n t i f i c c haracter; d i r e c t labour i s reduced to a mere moment of t h i s process. As with the transformation of value i n t o c a p i t a l , so does i t appear i n the f u r t h e r development of c a p i t a l , that i t presupposes a c e r t a i n given h i s t o r i c a l development of the productive forces on the one side - science too i s among these productive forces - and on the other, d r i v e s and forces them f u r t h e r onwards (Marx 1973:699). Knowledge production i n t h i s respect i s s t i l l an aspect of production i n c a p i t a l i s m that i s , l i k e any other form of production, subject to the value s t r u c t u r e of c a p i t a l . As a productive f o r c e , 79 knowledge does not transcend the r e l a t i o n s of l a b o u r / c a p i t a l but q u i t e to the contrary, embodies the fundamental s t r u c t u r e that i s at the heart of t h i s r e l a t i o n . C a p i t a l , as Marx so eloquently put i t , 'absorbs labour i n t o i t s e l f "as though i t s body were by love possessed"' (Marx 1973:704). Labour, however, must be understood most g e n e r a l l y i n t h i s regard as any human a c t i v i t y that i s productive. Knowledge production viewed i n t h i s l i g h t must n e c e s s a r i l y be considered as an e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t to the proper f u n c t i o n of the c a p i t a l i s t machine. I t i s not then, as t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y suggest, merely knowledge that has an impact on the economic s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y but al s o that the economic s t r u c t u r e of c a p i t a l i s t s o c i e t y has an impact on knowledge. As Marx contends, c a p i t a l i s m i s an economic system that requires c o n t i n u a l i n n o v a t i o n f o r the perpetuation of surplus. A l l human a c t i v i t y - c u l t u r e , knowledge, science - i s p o t e n t i a l fodder f o r such inno v a t i o n . As academic knowledge today i s c l e a r l y s i t u a t e d w i t h i n t h i s s o c i o - h i s t o r i c dynamic, the forces of c a p i t a l indeed i n f l u e n c e the form and content of knowledge. In f a c t , as we see i n the remaining chapters, c a p i t a l provides the very s t r u c t u r e f o r the production, consumption, exchange and d i s t r i b u t i o n of knowledge. Contrary to the l i b e r a l accounts described above, academic knowledge i n t h i s account i s not a s e l f - l e g i s l a t i n g sphere but rat h e r i s l e g i s l a t e d through i t s necessary r e l a t i o n to c a p i t a l . Academic values cannot be understood outside of the values of the sphere of a c a p i t a l i s t p o l i t i c a l economy. Although the l i b e r a l - e n l i g h t e n m e n t myth of knowledge as the great emancipator i s indeed b e a u t i f u l and necessary as a U t o p i a n moment f o r knowledge producers ( i . e . l i b e r a l scholars) the l i n e that must now be drawn i s between l i b e r a l i s m as knowledge U t o p i a and l i b e r a l i s m as an ideology that l e g i t i m a t e s the power, a u t h o r i t y and s o c i a l standing of 80 academics. The theory of the knowledge s o c i e t y u l t i m a t e l y acts to support the power base and l e g i t i m a c y f o r the producers of 'expert' knowledge i n the knowledge s o c i e t y to the po i n t where i t t o t a l l y overlooks the p r a c t i c e s of knowledge production as reproducing the fundamentally e x p l o i t a t i v e and e s s e n t i a l l y unequal, h i e r a r c h i c a l character of c a p i t a l . Rather than concluding that knowledge transforms commodity production to the p o i n t that p r i v a t e property, and u l t i m a t e l y the p r a c t i c e of ownership i s challenged, what we f i n d i f we take a c l o s e r look at 'knowledge as a commodity' i s that the ideas of ownership, p r i v a t e property and c a p i t a l remain as dominant features of the system of production. Contrary to the p o s i t i o n of t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y we f i n d that knowledge can only be understood i n i t s e n t i r e t y as a fundamental component of c a p i t a l i s t exchange. 81 3 Capitalism and Academic Knowledge Just as the p r o l e t a r i a n today has many comforts and c u l t u r a l enjoyments that were formerly denied to him, while at the same time - p a r t i c u l a r l y i f we look back over s e v e r a l centuries and m i l l e n n i a - the g u l f between h i s way of l i f e and the higher s t r a t a has c e r t a i n l y become much deeper, so, s i m i l a r l y the r i s e i n the l e v e l of knowledge as a whole does not by any means b r i n g about a general l e v e l i n g , but rat h e r i t s opposite. (Georg Simmel, The Philosophy of Money) Despite the claims of the t h e o r i s t s of the knowledge s o c i e t y , not only i s the age of labour and property not over, but the e x p l o i t a t i v e economic r e l a t i o n s upon which these p r a c t i c e s are based are found today i n what many l i b e r a l s might see as the most u n l i k e l y (or at l e a s t overlooked) of places : academically-produced knowledge. I f we open the economic 'black box' of academic knowledge and c l o s e l y examine the current p o l i t i c a l economic s i t u a t i o n of the u n i v e r s i t y what we f i n d i s that although h i s t o r i c a l l y the i d e o l o g i c a l p r a c t i c e of academic l i b e r a l i s m i s able to stave o f f the forces of c a p i t a l through government s u b s i d i z a t i o n and thus maintain a degree of autonomy, the u n i v e r s i t y ' s i n e v i t a b l e s i t u a t i o n i n a dominant c a p i t a l i s t marketplace leaves i t s u s c e p t i b l e to the encroachment of economic values i n t o the academic sphere. An examination of the contemporary p o l i t i c a l economic context of the system of academic knowledge production i n North America exposes the s h i f t of c o n t r o l away from the ' i n t e r n a l l y ' defined values of the academic sphere toward the ' e x t e r n a l l y ' defined values of the marketplace, thus f u r t h e r i n g Marx's i n s i g h t that knowledge i n c a p i t a l i s m e x i s t s l a r g e l y f o r the purposes of c a p i t a l . In t h i s chapter I examine the current context of the system of academic knowledge production as s i t u a t e d w i t h i n a l a r g e r c a p i t a l i s t 82 p o l i t i c a l economy. Moving from the p o l i t i c a l economic r e l a t i o n s of knowledge production inherent to Canadian and American u n i v e r s i t i e s , I examine the impact that t h i s has upon the c i r c u l a t i o n of academic knowledge and i t s f i n a l product, the academic t e x t - i n p a r t i c u l a r , a r t i c l e s p u blished i n peer-reviewed j o u r n a l s and s c h o l a r l y monographs published by u n i v e r s i t y and commercial s c h o l a r l y presses. Below I inspec t how economic forces e f f e c t the c i r c u l a t i o n of s c h o l a r l y knowledge and the media f o r i t s d i s t r i b u t i o n . As I i n d i c a t e above but have not yet f u l l y explored, s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g i s the focus of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n since i t i s the primary s i t e f o r the exchange and d i s t r i b u t i o n of s c h o l a r l y knowledge. Through t h i s examination a complex web of r e l a t i o n s emerges through the economic i n t e r r e l a t i o n s of production, d i s t r i b u t i o n , exchange and consumption that i l l u s t r a t e the impingement of economic c a p i t a l on the system of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production. This chapter begins with an i n s p e c t i o n of the current economic status of u n i v e r s i t i e s i n North America and t h e i r changing r e l a t i o n s h i p with ' l i b e r a l ' governments. From here I move on to explore the subsequent changing r o l e of u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s as consumers of academic knowledge and the impact of the current p o l i t i c a l economy on the system of academic knowledge production. Following t h i s I examine what i s r e f e r r e d to as the ' s e r i a l s c r i s i s ' i n s c h o l a r l y communication and the r e l a t i o n of t h i s c r i s i s to 'venture' c a p i t a l and s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h i n g . F i n a l l y , I examine the emerging r o l e that academic labour plays f o r the exchange value of academic product i n a c a p i t a l i s t economy and how t h i s labour i s subsumed by venture c a p i t a l thereby converting q u a l i t a t i v e academic value i n t o a q u a n t i t a t i v e economic value. As we s h a l l come to see, there i s a convergence of contemporary c a p i t a l i s m with academia. Indeed economic c a p i t a l plays an i n c r e a s i n g l y s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e f o r the o v e r a l l s t r u c t u r e of academia - from the l e v e l of operating budgets of u n i v e r s i t i e s 83 (production) to the d e p l e t i n g resources of research l i b r a r i e s (consumption) and f i n a l l y to the market-driven responses of s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s ( d i s t r i b u t i o n ) . 3.1 P o l i t i c a l Economy and Academic Knowledge Production The i n f l u e n c e of the p o l i t i c a l economy upon academic knowledge production i s best i l l u s t r a t e d by the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the u n i v e r s i t y to the l i b e r a l democratic s t a t e and the 'trickle-down' e f f e c t t h i s has on various l e v e l s of academic p r a c t i c e and the o v e r a l l system of knowledge production. In the l a t t e r h a l f of t h i s century we see that governments i n Canada and the United Sates have become i n c r e a s i n g l y i d e o l o g i c a l l y and f i n a n c i a l l y committed to the economic support of the research u n i v e r s i t y and to post- secondary education g e n e r a l l y (Guppy and Davies 1998:21; Slaughter and L e s l i e 1997:77; Rubin and Huber 1986). Daniel B e l l ' s Coming of Post- Industrial Society shows that behind the notion of 'the knowledge s o c i e t y ' i s the p o l i t i c a l and economic support of research and t h e o r e t i c a l knowledge necessary f o r the growth of o b j e c t i v e knowledge, and, hence, f o r the development of a knowledgeable s o c i e t y as a whole ( B e l l 1973:212). H i s t o r i c a l l y , the p r a c t i c e s of l i b e r a l governance r e f l e c t B e l l ' s p o s i t i o n : since W.W.II, government subs i d i e s to u n i v e r s i t i e s c o n s i s t e n t l y grew i n pr o p o r t i o n to enrolments and i n f l a t i o n through the 1970s (cf. Rubin and Huber 1986:64-65). To a la r g e extent t h i s support ensures the i d e o l o g i c a l autonomy and freedom of academic production and the autonomous p r a c t i c e s of the i n s t i t u t i o n as free from the l a r g e r forces of c a p i t a l i s m and the marketplace. In North America, as i n other Western nat i o n s , the f i n a n c i a l cost of academic freedom has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been acknowledged to be a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of the s t a t e . This support allowed f o r immense, r e l a t i v e l y u n b r i d l e d growth f o r academic research i n 'the knowledge i n d u s t r y ' , 84 e s p e c i a l l y through the 1970s and i n t o the 1980s (C.A.U.T. 1999; Rubin and Huber 1986) . Government support f o r academic endeavors i s , however, i n d e c l i n e . On a p o l i t i c a l l e v e l , t h i s d e c l i n e occurs with the emergence of more f i s c a l l y conservative governments i n the 1980's such as the Thatcher/Reagan/Mulroney governments of England, America and Canada r e s p e c t i v e l y and the d r i v e to s h i f t the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r funding post- secondary education from the p u b l i c to the p r i v a t e s e c t o r (cf. Slaughter and L e s l i e 1997:7). In Canada f o r example, as a r e s u l t of t h i s s h r i n k i n g f i n a n c i a l commitment, u n i v e r s i t y operating expenditures per student d e c l i n e d by 17% between 1980 and 1993 ( ( A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t i e s and Colleges Canada (A.U.C.C. 1996)). We see t h i s percentage f a l l even f u r t h e r from 1993 to present: 'In 1992-93, p r o v i n c i a l governments - the main paymaster of post-secondary education - spent about $410 per c a p i t a i n 1997 d o l l a r s on higher education. By 1996-97 that f i g u r e has f a l l e n to $335, a d e c l i n e of 18%' (Cockburn 1998). This decrease i s due to the more general trend i n Canada of p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments c u t t i n g spending on post-secondary education. A study conducted by the Canadian A s s o c i a t i o n of U n i v e r s i t y Teachers (C.A.U.T.) documents how f e d e r a l s u b s i d i e s continued to f a l l throughout the n i n e t i e s : 'Federal cash t r a n s f e r s , when adjusted f o r i n f l a t i o n , have d e c l i n e d from $2.9 b i l l i o n to $1.6 b i l l i o n , a walloping 44 per cent. On a constant per c a p i t a b a s i s , cash t r a n s f e r s f e l l from $102 i n 1992 to j u s t $54 i n 1998' (C.A.U.T. 1999). Elsewhere, the C.A.U.T. argues that government grants and cont r a c t s that accounted f o r 74.5% of t o t a l u n i v e r s i t y revenue i n 1978 have dropped to 55.6% i n 1998 (C.A.U.T. 1999). According to t h i s r e p o r t , the revenues to replace government c o n t r i b u t i o n s are then sought i n the p r i v a t e sphere through industry-sponsored research a c t i v i t i e s that i n 1998 t o t a l e d $12 b i l l i o n (C.A.U.T. 1999) . 85 Among the r e s u l t s of such dramatic cuts i n funding to post-secondary education are fewer academic s t a f f , fewer new f a c u l t y h i r i n g , l e s s p u b l i c money a v a i l a b l e from government agencies f o r s c h o l a r l y research, higher t u i t i o n fees f o r students, fewer course o f f e r i n g s and bigger c l a s s e s (C.A.U.T. 1999). Undoubtedly knowledge production i n the u n i v e r s i t y s u f f e r s from such a f i s c a l r e t r e a t l e a v i n g many p u b l i c l y funded North American u n i v e r s i t i e s s u s c e p t i b l e to corporate i n t e r e s t s . Academic l i b e r a l i s m as an ideology can only e x i s t as a p r a c t i c e w i t h the f i n a n c i a l support of a non-partisan l i b e r a l - d e m o c r a t i c government. Without such support many u n i v e r s i t i e s and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e departments are sent l o o k i n g to the p a r t i s a n p r i v a t e sector to replace those e s s e n t i a l operating funds. With respect to a d e c l i n e i n governmental post-secondary spending, Canada i s not alone. The trend i n Canada follows a much l a r g e r trend among Western na t i o n s , e s p e c i a l l y O.E.C.D. countries ( cf. Slaughter and L e s l i e 1997). As we see i n the United States f o r example, there i s a l s o evidence of dramatic cuts i n governmental spending on higher education. As Slaughter and L e s l i e p o i n t out, the d e c l i n e witnessed i n America i n f e d e r a l post-secondary education t r a n s f e r s i n the e a r l y 1980s was constant i n t o the 1990s (Slaughter and L e s l i e 1997:77). The revenues from f e d e r a l sources f o r American i n s t i t u t i o n s of higher education dropped from 14.9% of t o t a l revenues i n 1980-81, to 12.2% of t o t a l revenues i n 1990-91, a d i f f e r e n c e of s e v e r a l b i l l i o n d o l l a r s . A recent study published by The Center f o r the Study of the States at the R o c k e f e l l e r I n s t i t u t e t e l l s us that t h i s d e c l i n e continues today where the reduction of post-secondary funding i n American State budgets dropped i n the p e r i o d of 1990-1994 from 14% to 12.5% of t h e i r t o t a l budget and f e d e r a l support has been d r a m a t i c a l l y , reduced by $5 b i l l i o n , from $20 b i l l i o n to $15 b i l l i o n , i n 1996 {New York Times, Sunday August 31, 86 1997:4.1) . In a d d i t i o n to the economic n e c e s s i t y of u n i v e r s i t i e s to turn to the p r i v a t e sphere to b o l s t e r t h e i r operating budgets, such cuts have a s u b s t a n t i a l impact on s c h o l a r l y communication and the i n s t i t u t i o n a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of knowledge production. While these cuts are immediately obvious i n the undergraduate c u r r i c u l a i n the form of bigger c l a s s e s , fewer tenured f a c u l t y members teaching undergraduate classes and i n c r e a s i n g t u i t i o n fees (C.A.U.T. 1999), the economic impact on the system of knowledge production i s e q u a l l y f a r - r e a c h i n g . Since my primary concern here i s the eventual e f f e c t upon the t e x t u a l p r e s e n t a t i o n of academic knowledge, I begin t h i s a n a l y s i s at the i n s t i t u t i o n a l l e v e l of t e x t u a l consumption with u n i v e r s i t y research l i b r a r i e s , t r a d i t i o n a l l y the l a r g e s t consumers of academic knowledge, and examine how t h i s f i s c a l d e c l i n e d r a m a t i c a l l y a f f e c t s the l i b e r a l mission of the u n i v e r s i t y research l i b r a r y . Through t h i s examination the web of s o c i a l and economic r e l a t i o n s can be seen to c o n t r i b u t e to the i n e v i t a b l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c a p i t a l i s m and academic knowledge. 3.2 L i b r a r i e s and the Consumption of Academic Knowledge As a consequence of the l a s t few decades of d e c l i n e i n f e d e r a l , s t a t e and p r o v i n c i a l funding that l e d to o v e r a l l cuts i n u n i v e r s i t y operating budgets, u n i v e r s i t y research l i b r a r i e s a l s o f i n d themselves operating on a reduced budget. Few l i b r a r i e s have escaped the hard times (Bennett 1992:132). For example, i n Canada between 1980 to 1993 u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y o perating budgets d e c l i n e d by 22% (A.U.C.C. 1996). This reduction manifests i t s e l f most apparently i n the l i b r a r i e s ' a b i l i t y to consume and accumulate new research and s c h o l a r s h i p through new book and s e r i a l a c q u i s i t i o n s : vAs a r e s u l t [of the c u t s ] , t h e i r a b i l i t y to provide and maintain access to knowledge at the l e v e l expected by users has been 87 s e v e r e l y challenged. Despite the growing body of knowledge, and the need f o r more rat h e r than fewer resources, Canadian u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s have been forced to cut back on j o u r n a l s u b s c r i p t i o n s as the most v o l a t i l e c o n t i n u i n g cost at a time when o v e r a l l a c q u i s i t i o n of books i s a l s o i n serious d e c l i n e (A.U.C.C. 1996:4). Again, Canadian u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s are not alone i n the f i n a n c i a l squeeze. American u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s are a l s o f e e l i n g the pressure: 'In recent years our campus l i b r a r i e s have been forced to cope with intense f i n a n c i a l pressures' (Ketterman 1994:27). Consistent with both Canadian and American research u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s i s the impact of the f i n a n c i a l cuts to higher education on the a b i l i t y of l i b r a r i e s to acquire new academic knowledge i n the form of j o u r n a l s , monographs and s c h o l a r l y books. An o v e r a l l decrease i n l i b r a r y a c q u i s i t i o n s budgets by many u n i v e r s i t i e s presents one hurdle to purchase new s c h o l a r l y product f o r research l i b r a r i e s . Another e q u a l l y devastating hurdle f o r l i b r a r y a c q u i s i t i o n s and operating budgets i s 'the s e r i a l s c r i s i s ' . The s e r i a l s c r i s i s r e f e r s to the e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y high costs of s c i e n t i f i c , t e c h n i c a l and medical j o u r n a l s and the impact these costs are having on research l i b r a r i e s ' a b i l i t y to purchase new m a t e r i a l s (Ketterman 1994:27) . The f i n a n c i a l pressure on l i b r a r y a c q u i s i t i o n s i s not only based i n the f e d e r a l , s t a t e and p r o v i n c i a l reductions to u n i v e r s i t y and subsequently u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r y operating budgets. According to the A s s o c i a t i o n of Research L i b r a r i e s (A.R.L.), the pressure i s a l s o coming from an increase i n the cost of s e r i a l p u b l i c a t i o n s and academic j o u r n a l s t h a t i s usurping an enormous p o r t i o n of the a c q u i s i t i o n s budgets of research l i b r a r i e s . L i b r a r i e s now have to cope with the growing costs of immensely expensive j o u r n a l s as w e l l as the growing cost of u n i v e r s i t y press monographs on top of already s h r i n k i n g budgets. For example, a recent report from the A.R.L states that between 1986 and 1996 the 88 consumer p r i c e index rose 44%. Over that same decade, the cost of monographs increased 62% and the cost of s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s increased 148%, more than three times the rate of i n f l a t i o n . As one u n i v e r s i t y provost put i t : 'our budget would have to increase 70% i f we were to buy the same p r o p o r t i o n of s e r i a l s and monographs as we d i d i n 1986' (A.R . L . 1998). This dramatic r i s e i n costs, as we see below, i s the d i r e c t r e s u l t of the c o l l i s i o n of the academic and the economic spheres. In t h i s way, book and s e r i a l costs f o r l i b r a r i e s are an extremely s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r i n t h i s complex web as they i n d i c a t e a realm i n which the i n t e r e s t s of economic c a p i t a l play a d i r e c t r o l e ( d i s t r i b u t i o n ) i n the o v e r a l l system of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production. As a r e s u l t of government cutbacks i n post-secondary spending and i n c r e a s i n g costs of research m a t e r i a l s (journals and monographs) the u n i v e r s i t y research l i b r a r y ' s a b i l i t y to consume the academic knowledge that i s widely produced by the 'knowledge i n d u s t r y ' i s g r e a t l y impeded. As we see the r o l e of s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s plays a s i g n i f i c a n t part i n how t h i s c r i s i s unfolds. 3 . 3 Scholarly Journals and the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Academic Knowledge I f we r e c a l l Parsons' d i s c u s s i o n of academic endeavors i n Chapter One, f o r many p r a c t i c i n g l i b e r a l academics, j o u r n a l p u b l i c a t i o n appears as among the purest forms of s c h o l a r l y communication. The r a i s o n d'etre of a s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l i s f o r academics from the growing p l e t h o r a of f i e l d s of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n to communicate with each other on t o p i c s deemed s i g n i f i c a n t by t h e i r academic peers. P u b l i c a t i o n of s c h o l a r s h i p i s based p r i m a r i l y upon academic values, such as peer-evaluated merit and the assessments of the o v e r a l l c o n t r i b u t i o n to knowledge. By v i r t u e of the degrees of s p e c i a l i z a t i o n , the audience and market f o r s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s i s l i m i t e d to the few experts i n the f i e l d . S c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s are the epitome of the l i b e r a l p r i n c i p l e 'knowledge f o r knowledge's sake' and e x i s t p r i m a r i l y 89 because of the i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d p r a c t i c e of academic freedom and the s t a t e funded economic support of l i b e r a l education. No other system would al l o w f o r the extensive production of such s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge without a considerable market demand. I d e a l l y , then, the knowledge contained i n academic j o u r n a l s i s , according to the l i b e r a l academic system, not subject to extraneous forces but rather i s i n t r i n s i c to the supposedly autonomous process of academic knowledge production. In support of l i b e r a l s c h o l a r s h i p research l i b r a r i e s have been committed to a c q u i r i n g such s p e c i a l i z e d academic j o u r n a l s since t h e i r i n c e p t i o n ; o f t e n , the number of j o u r n a l s to which a research l i b r a r y subscribes r e f l e c t s the p r e s t i g e of the i n s t i t u t i o n as a 'research u n i v e r s i t y ' . In t h i s respect, j o u r n a l a c q u i s i t i o n s s i g n i f y not only the connection of the u n i v e r s i t y to important research outside of that u n i v e r s i t y but a l s o the p r e s t i g e that comes with i t s i n t e r n a t i o n a l connections to other research u n i v e r s i t i e s . The a c q u i s i t i o n of j o u r n a l s by research l i b r a r i e s i s an e s s e n t i a l i n g r e d i e n t f o r s c h o l a r l y communication and c o n t r i b u t e s s i g n i f i c a n t l y to the o v e r a l l status of a u n i v e r s i t y . To a l a r g e extent the l i b e r a l b e l i e f i n the s c h o l a r l y i n t e g r i t y of j o u r n a l s i s founded, at l e a s t i n the immediate economic sense, as j o u r n a l p u b l i c a t i o n f o r c o n t r i b u t i n g scholars f i n d s no d i r e c t economic gain. Academics who p a r t i c i p a t e i n the production of j o u r n a l s - from the w r i t i n g of a r t i c l e s to the e d i t o r i a l work - are not monetarily reimbursed f o r t h e i r labour through the s a l e of the j o u r n a l , nor are the j o u r n a l s produced f o r f i n a n c i a l p r o f i t by i t s e d i t o r s . They are produced p r i m a r i l y as a means of s c h o l a r l y communication. O p t i m i s t i c a l l y , j o u r n a l s are produced to recover the costs of p u b l i c a t i o n . In t h i s respect, u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s absorb some of the costs of maintaining s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s through t h e i r commitment to paying s u b s c r i p t i o n fees. In research u n i v e r s i t y l i b r a r i e s s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s have had a devoted consumer who 90 shares s i m i l a r values regarding academic freedom and the d i s s e m i n a t i o n of a l l s c h o l a r l y knowledge and who has the budget p a r t i a l l y to support such endeavors. Academics i n v o l v e d i n the production of a j o u r n a l r e l y p r i m a r i l y on t h e i r s a l a r i e s as tenured f a c u l t y to produce knowledge, as w e l l as f u r t h e r s u b s i d i e s from among such n o n - p r o f i t f e d e r a l g r a n t i n g agencies as S.S.H.R.C. i n Canada and the N a t i o n a l Endowment f o r the A r t s (N.E.A.) and the N a t i o n a l Endowment f o r the Humanities (N.E.H.) i n the United States. While many c o n t r i b u t o r s to j o u r n a l s are aware of the production side of academic j o u r n a l s , few are aware of t h e i r l a r g e r l o c a t i o n i n the economy of s c h o l a r l y knowledge production, and i n p a r t i c u l a r , the economics of j o u r n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n i n the s e r i a l s c r i s i s . What may seem s u r p r i s i n g to many i s the i n c r e a s i n g r e a l i t y that the d i s t r i b u t i o n of academic j o u r n a l s a c t u a l l y c o n s t i t u t e s a sound f i n a n c i a l investment f o r commercial p u b l i s h e r s and venture c a p i t a l i s t s . As we see below, through d i s t r i b u t i o n by commercial s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s academic products are brought i n t o the g l o b a l marketplace and s o l d f o r an e x o r b i t a n t p r o f i t . Here, academic knowledge as i t c i r c u l a t e s t e x t u a l l y i n an o b j e c t ( i v e ) form i s indeed a commodity, a t a n g i b l e , usable product f o r c a p i t a l , and the forces of economic c a p i t a l p l a y a l a r g e r o l e i n i t s dissemination. 3 .4 Venture C a p i t a l and the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Academic Knowledge I n i t i a l l y , the connection between u n i v e r s i t i e s and commercial p u b l i s h e r s through j o u r n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n was deemed e s s e n t i a l and advantageous to both p a r t i c i p a n t s . North American u n i v e r s i t i e s i n the 1960s and 1970s were experiencing enormous growth i n f e d e r a l funding, enrolments and f a c u l t y research (cf. Rubin and Huber 1986). This meant that u n i v e r s i t i e s were i n f a c t experiencing a knowledge boom where the production of knowledge f a r exceeded t h e i r c a p a c i t y to d i s t r i b u t e that knowledge. U n i v e r s i t i e s , as a 91 r e s u l t , were experiencing d i f f i c u l t y i n f i n d i n g enough venues f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p l e t h o r a of new research: 'Recognizing a b o t t l e n e c k , commercial p u b l i s h e r s came to absorb an i n c r e a s i n g share of the [ j o u r n a l d i s t r i b u t i o n ] market, with the broad support of higher education i n s t i t u t i o n s , s c h o l a r l y s o c i e t i e s and f a c u l t y who served as e d i t o r s , reviewers and members of e d i t o r i a l boards' (A.R.L. 1998:3) . A report from the A.R.L. suggests that t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was i n i t i a l l y b e n e f i c i a l f o r a l l p a r t i c i p a n t s as i t increased the needed o u t l e t s f o r knowledge d i s t r i b u t i o n and provided commercial p u b l i s h e r s with access to a new market (A.R.L. 1998:4). However, i n a dominant g l o b a l c a p i t a l i s t marketplace commercial p u b l i s h e r s q u i c k l y gained the upper hand, f o r c i n g the s c h o l a r l y community r e l u c t a n t l y to embrace market values as a r e s u l t of the i n e v i t a b l e commodification of s c h o l a r l y knowledge. The commodification of scholarly knowledge, that i s , the conversion of academic knowledge i n t o a product s o l d f o r p r o f i t at the expense of the producer, through the commercial v i a b i l i t y of academic j o u r n a l s i s c l e a r l y evident i n the example of B r i t i s h media magnate Robert Maxwell. As a d i s t r i b u t o r of German science p u b l i s h e r Springer V e r l a g and owner of the academic p u b l i s h i n g press Pergamon, f o r t y years ago Maxwell discovered the r e l a t i v e l y untapped economic p o t e n t i a l of science j o u r n a l s . In p a r t i c u l a r he n o t i c e d that there were few o u t l e t s f o r the dissemination of h i g h l y s p e c i a l i z e d s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, e s p e c i a l l y on a g l o b a l s c a l e . A f t e r attending s e v e r a l i n t e r n a t i o n a l s c i e n t i f i c conferences to ' e s t a b l i s h a r e l a t i o n s h i p and d i scover the p o t e n t i a l f o r new p u b l i c a t i o n s ' , Maxwell gathered s p e c i a l i s t s i n the f i e l d s and e s t a b l i s h e d e d i t o r i a l boards f o r new s c i e n t i f i c j o u r n a l s 'whom he s e l e c t e d f o r t h e i r p r e s t i g e ' (Carrigan 1996:209). In a matter of two years, from 1955 to 1957, the output of Pergamon Press grew from f i f t y j o u r n a l s and books to over one hundred: 92 In a d d i t i o n to p u b l i s h i n g new j o u r n a l s , Maxwell was a l e r t to the o p p o r t u n i t i e s provided by e x i s t i n g ones, and he began to take over the business management of e s t a b l i s h e d but unexploited s p e c i a l i s t j o u r n a l s from learned s o c i e t i e s . . . R e l e n t l e s s l y , u n i v e r s i t i e s throughout the world were being o f f e r e d an i n c r e a s i n g range of j o u r n a l s which, because of the p r e s t i g e of the e d i t o r i a l boards, t h e i r l i b r a r i a n s were i n i t i a l l y eager to buy (Carrigan 1996:210). Although i t may be d i f f i c u l t f o r some to conceive of a s p e c i a l i z e d s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l as being an a t t r a c t i v e business venture, one commercial science p u b l i s h e r I interviewed i n the course of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n put i t t h i s way: F i r s t , research l i b r a r i e s of major research i n s t i t u t i o n s are o b l i g e d to subscribe to those j o u r n a l s that disseminate v i t a l s c h o l a r s h i p , whether i t i s i n the sciences, s o c i a l sciences or humanities. That i s the mission of a reputable research u n i v e r s i t y . Their l i b r a r i e s are the market f o r such j o u r n a l s , perhaps even a captive market. Second, the labour f o r j o u r n a l s i s free from the perspective of the j o u r n a l p u b l i s h e r : e d i t o r s are p a i d by e i t h e r u n i v e r s i t i e s or f e d e r a l funding agencies and are not f u r t h e r compensated by p u b l i s h e r s , and the authors w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to the j o u r n a l without any expectation of monetary r e t u r n . In support of t h i s c l a i m , a report on the status of s c h o l a r l y communication proclaims that academic labourers: "are motivated by the s a t i s f a c t i o n d e r i v e d from c r e a t i n g and disseminating knowledge' (A.U.C.C. 1996:3). I t i s widely accepted that d i r e c t monetary gain i s not a primary m o t i v a t i n g f a c t o r f o r the c o n t r i b u t i o n of academic authors. T h i r d , the s u b s c r i p t i o n fees are p a i d w e l l i n advance by subscribers even before a product i s r e c e i v e d and most commonly at the beginning of a s u b s c r i p t i o n year. These advance fees act w e l l f o r a j o u r n a l p u b l i s h e r as investment c a p i t a l , f o r one has a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of money up f r o n t f o r f u r t h e r investment with few production costs over the course of the year. With reference to the f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n of a s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l p u b l i s h e r , Robert Maxwell once proudly s t a t e d i n an i n t e r v i e w : 'I set up a perpetual f i n a n c i n g machine through advance s u b s c r i p t i o n s as w e l l as the p r o f i t s on the s a l e s 93 themselves. I t i s a cash generator twice over' (quoted i n Carrigan 1996:210). Given t h i s l o g i c , one can understand the appeal that Maxwell and now many other s c h o l a r l y p u b l i s h e r s see i n commercially developing s c h o l a r l y j o u r n a l s . Further, i f one possesses a l l of the top j o u r n a l s i n a f i e l d , as Maxwell d i d , one has a v i r t u a l monopoly on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of s p e c i a l i z e d knowledge. A monopoly, as i n any other i n d u s t r y , o f t e n ends up being the grounds f o r charging e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y high r a t e s . This i s indeed the case with l i b r a r y s u b s c r i p t i o n s to j o u r n a l s . The monopoly of science j o u r n a l s combined with the e x t r a o r d i n a r y high rates f o r j o u r n a l s u b s c r i p t i o n s , comprise what many l i b r a r i a n s today are c a l l i n g the ' s e r i a l s c r i s i s ' . For example, today the Dutch science p u b l i s h e r E l s e v i e r Science BV i s f i r s t among science j o u r n a l p u b l i s h e r s p u b l i s h i n g over 650 science j o u r n a l s and over 8000 science monographs, books and inf o r m a t i o n databases. As one observer put i t : 'In essence, the s t r u g g l e i s t h i s . Academic and research l i b r a r i a n s and l i b r a r i a n s of l a r g e urban i n s t i t u t i o n s , pay STM [Science, T e c h n i c a l , Medical] p u b l i s h e r s enormous amounts to buy back value-added i n t e l l e c t u a l property that i s donated to them by researchers employed with p u b l i c funds, u s u a l l y employees of these purchasing i n s t i t u t i o n s . For t h e i r t r o u b l e , STM p u b l i s h e