You're allowed to criticize everything but capitalism, therefore you can only shallowly criticize anything (?)

Examples of circling professionalization: In C Riley Snorton's Black on Both Sides , there is a history of how American gynecological tools have been used to abuse Black and enslaved women--many of these tools, or variations on them, are still used today where you are statistically likely to have a white OBGYN or primary care physician using them on you.

Similarly with how schools have managed to put social theory in a vacuum. The inaccessibility of language is always seen as something to overcome or fake your way through rather than a way writers avoided censorship, an issue of translation, or something connected to the political/activist context of it's time/authors. This context is ignored (maybe because it is often Marixst and at odds with the state), and getting on j-stor (more money back into the university!) seems to be more like the end-all-be all.

This makes me think especially of Steven Salita getting a job offer revoked from University of Illinois after posting tweets critical of Israel and just the existence of Canary Mission in general. What gets deemed as professional/unprofessional seems inseparable from the board and where their money is. My undergraduate school also had a lot of zionists on their board and there was a big effort on behalf of them and several students to have a Palestinian professor who taught the conflict (using, honestly, a really moderate reading list) fired.

with every promotion, academics take on more and more the role of middle management.

It is weird to me how this process mirrors the diet industry... and also connects to the issue of perversion and capitalism in the Total Education reading.

Biopower (Foucault) means disciplinary power over the body or institutional power over the population usually as it pertains to life and death.

I definitely experienced this in college--Professors who were under so much pressure to get tenured (because job security is important!) that they paid little attention to actually teaching.

Perceived "intellectual freedom" is actually a really censored process in it's elitism, selectivity and calculated chain of knowledge production.

Anyone have ideas/opinions about why they are using "her" here?

Biographical information about Trinidadian Trotskyist writer, CLR James

I agree, but also I don't think we all have this dormant ability to revolt or even challange at a moments notice as the state has so many tools (that we talked about during the Stuart Hall week), like neoliberalism, that balkanize and manipulate us(?)

Here's a thread from an educator on Twitter discussing the "burdened individuality of freedom."

seeking knowledge without productivity :)

Forced, tacit assimilation to time reminds me of a quote from the Colored People Time: Mundane Futures exhibit at the ICA in Philadelphia: "The challenge is how to reconcile an in-time philosophy with the on-time demands of mainstream America."

This makes me think of how the U.S. has more class action lawsuits than any other country, because the government, rather than reviewing corporations for false advertising etc, expects people to have the resources to get together and sue.

"Etiolated" refers to plants deprived of light... So maybe this means we are asked to be responsible for our own survival while being deprived of the necessary tools to survive?

I think she actually sang "I just don't wanna be free" in "I'd Rather Go Blind" but to reference the song is cool because the idea of reform also applies to marriage institution and compulsory heterosexuality's ties to capitalism!

Are they are arguing that the premise of prisoners being forced to be reformed/reform themselves, can be applied to all institutions and all individuals? That capitalism runs on the idea that we are all inherently flawed beings who need to be fixed?

Research-led institution seems almost like an oxymoron. I might assume institutions are invested in maintaining themselves (maybe that's not a fair assumption), so research-for-research's-sake (without a premeditated argument or plan to exploit the knowledge for gain) might be anti-institutional or at the very least not productive in a capitalist sense? It might be one of the oldest anti-institutions? [Research like oral histories, gossip, etc, that float around the network without a physical archive.]

I am confused about what counts as an institution. Is this any social structure? (Does the family count?) Or does it have to be long standing? Does it have to be connected to resources?

New Institutionalism is a method of doing sociology, political science, economics that requires examining institutional structures as part of understanding individual actors(?)