What do you think?
Zombie University: Thinking Under Control
What if we have lost the ability to think straight? And what if this is why the shocking injustices of contemporary life go unchallenged in spite of being widely acknowledged? And what if the institution that is supposed to help us to think is in on the act? This is the thesis put forward by Zombie University, which shows the modern university as the fulcrum of our societies' mode of control, tempting more and more young people to rituals of education that work to keep us down rather than raise us up.
173 pages, Paperback
Published November 21, 2017
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
January 2, 2021
I purchased this book assuming it was going to be a critique of the increasingly marketised higher education system in the UK. Having now finished it, I admit I'm not entirely sure what it was about?
Certainly there were interesting passages deconstructing 'employability', student experience, and the pernicious metrics that have lead to the demise of many 'underperforming' departments. I somehow enjoyed the prose, despite it being dense and meandering, yet I struggled to grasp the point of various arguments being made. This is not aided by Murphy frequently referring to work of various authors', but with a complete lack of bibliography or even footnotes.
Murphy's main argument appears to centre around the current age of 'post-control' which has led Generation Z to become Generation Zombie, painting contemporary students as mindless consumers, intellectually incurious, and wishing to be spoon fed difficult content; "but what does Heidegger want me to do".
The author seems to hold this situation up against some ivory tower bygone era where the student revered their superior professor and appreciated not being able to understand Heidegger. This is all delivered with an air of superiority, the author holds herself above and outside this system she critiques.
The lack of self-reflexivity in questioning her own place within the 'zombie university' felt like a missed opportunity to me. Perhaps this was a deliberate omission, but along with a number of anecdotes relating to Murphy's interactions with the mindless horde of her students, I quickly lost sympathy with the author.
I wanted to like this book, as I say I enjoyed the prose, even if I struggled to comprehend it. I would have offered a three star 'not for me' review, but for a bizarre throw away passage uncritically endorsing the reactionary bogeyman of 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings' in the final portion of the book. This left me wondering who the desired audience was, surely not the completely unserious reactionary 'free speech' critics of the contemporary university? But then it wasn't the critique of the neoliberal university that I was expecting from a left wing perspective either..
Certainly there were interesting passages deconstructing 'employability', student experience, and the pernicious metrics that have lead to the demise of many 'underperforming' departments. I somehow enjoyed the prose, despite it being dense and meandering, yet I struggled to grasp the point of various arguments being made. This is not aided by Murphy frequently referring to work of various authors', but with a complete lack of bibliography or even footnotes.
Murphy's main argument appears to centre around the current age of 'post-control' which has led Generation Z to become Generation Zombie, painting contemporary students as mindless consumers, intellectually incurious, and wishing to be spoon fed difficult content; "but what does Heidegger want me to do".
The author seems to hold this situation up against some ivory tower bygone era where the student revered their superior professor and appreciated not being able to understand Heidegger. This is all delivered with an air of superiority, the author holds herself above and outside this system she critiques.
The lack of self-reflexivity in questioning her own place within the 'zombie university' felt like a missed opportunity to me. Perhaps this was a deliberate omission, but along with a number of anecdotes relating to Murphy's interactions with the mindless horde of her students, I quickly lost sympathy with the author.
I wanted to like this book, as I say I enjoyed the prose, even if I struggled to comprehend it. I would have offered a three star 'not for me' review, but for a bizarre throw away passage uncritically endorsing the reactionary bogeyman of 'safe spaces' and 'trigger warnings' in the final portion of the book. This left me wondering who the desired audience was, surely not the completely unserious reactionary 'free speech' critics of the contemporary university? But then it wasn't the critique of the neoliberal university that I was expecting from a left wing perspective either..
August 21, 2018
Often good fun, which is just as well because there is some tortuously sticky prose to wade through here, in the tradition, I suppose, of “this won’t taste nice but it’s good for you”: Kant, Foucault, Deleuze, and the others cited as the text unfolds. Most of all though Paolo Virno, and part way through reading this I broke away to read the article so central to Murphy’s argument.
Yikes.
There were whole swathes of Virno I won’t even pretend I understood, and the same goes for Zombie University, it has to be said. The section in which Murphy traces the disappearance of the individual, the surfacing instead of the dividual... this I kind of grasped. When positing the further stripping away of distinguishing traits, leaving the idual, that’s when I ran away screaming.
On the other hand the sections on the REF, on the “who can take the best selfie” bouncy castle infantilism of “student experience”, the perpetual distractedness of “well go on... teach me!” Generation Zee... great.
I wish Murphy would dismember this book. The stuff about all this spinning in a vacuum of non thought will no doubt make a great work of philosophy but really I was just hankering for the gore. I would have preferred way more of the sarcastic rants about “how things are”. An interesting read nevertheless and definitely one to read again.
Yikes.
There were whole swathes of Virno I won’t even pretend I understood, and the same goes for Zombie University, it has to be said. The section in which Murphy traces the disappearance of the individual, the surfacing instead of the dividual... this I kind of grasped. When positing the further stripping away of distinguishing traits, leaving the idual, that’s when I ran away screaming.
On the other hand the sections on the REF, on the “who can take the best selfie” bouncy castle infantilism of “student experience”, the perpetual distractedness of “well go on... teach me!” Generation Zee... great.
I wish Murphy would dismember this book. The stuff about all this spinning in a vacuum of non thought will no doubt make a great work of philosophy but really I was just hankering for the gore. I would have preferred way more of the sarcastic rants about “how things are”. An interesting read nevertheless and definitely one to read again.
August 6, 2024
If it was the professor's intended goal to write a book that fails to communicate (in any viable manner) her philosophical thesis/argument...she has succeeded admirably. This book is a jumble of semi-nonsensical postmodern-esque obscurantism - w/ a smattering of Gadamer's moderate philosophical hermeneutics thrown in for no seemingly discernible purpose.
Montaigne afforded authors three chances to communicate their message - if they failed after the third read, he would retire the book. Admittedly, I'm not as generous with my time or patience as was Montaigne!
The author's interpretation of and differentiation between "discipline" and "control" (Late Capitalism?), is THE difference upon which the entire "zombie" thesis (lack of thinking/over-thinking/no-thinking) apparently hinges. In relation to these ideas, the author references both Deleuze and Foucault, but one wonders how much Foucault the author has actually read, specifically regarding the idea of the fragmentation or dissolution of human "subjectivity"?
One reviewer of this book seemed confused, asking in a serious manner, "What is this book actually about?" Truly, I can't answer that question with any sense of confidence. If the book was interesting and well-written, I was considering her text on Jane Austen - (The Jane Austen Rules, 2014). However, after my unpleasant experience with Zombie University, I won't be purchasing that Austen book.
James M. Magrini
Former: Philosophy & Ethics/College of Dupage
Montaigne afforded authors three chances to communicate their message - if they failed after the third read, he would retire the book. Admittedly, I'm not as generous with my time or patience as was Montaigne!
The author's interpretation of and differentiation between "discipline" and "control" (Late Capitalism?), is THE difference upon which the entire "zombie" thesis (lack of thinking/over-thinking/no-thinking) apparently hinges. In relation to these ideas, the author references both Deleuze and Foucault, but one wonders how much Foucault the author has actually read, specifically regarding the idea of the fragmentation or dissolution of human "subjectivity"?
One reviewer of this book seemed confused, asking in a serious manner, "What is this book actually about?" Truly, I can't answer that question with any sense of confidence. If the book was interesting and well-written, I was considering her text on Jane Austen - (The Jane Austen Rules, 2014). However, after my unpleasant experience with Zombie University, I won't be purchasing that Austen book.
James M. Magrini
Former: Philosophy & Ethics/College of Dupage
June 12, 2018
I received this book for free via Goodreads First Reads.
"Have we list the ability to think straight?"
The blurb asks this question. The book does answer it in a way. Based on the book we have. It just lacks a linear progression at times which caused this reader to have to skip back to try and understand certain points.
It raises some good points and has an occasional idea which might help but as a whole it just lacks focus. I feel the author had too many ideas and cut them down for space reasons.
This wasn't a bad or an uninteresting read. It just wasn't a great one. It seemed rushed. I feel that it could be turned into a book that could help education in this country as well as the world. It just would need some more work on it first.
"Have we list the ability to think straight?"
The blurb asks this question. The book does answer it in a way. Based on the book we have. It just lacks a linear progression at times which caused this reader to have to skip back to try and understand certain points.
It raises some good points and has an occasional idea which might help but as a whole it just lacks focus. I feel the author had too many ideas and cut them down for space reasons.
This wasn't a bad or an uninteresting read. It just wasn't a great one. It seemed rushed. I feel that it could be turned into a book that could help education in this country as well as the world. It just would need some more work on it first.
January 25, 2025
It certainly had points to think about. It was interesting, hence the 3 stars. I just failed to see the main point of the book.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews