Dark Academia: How Universities Die

by Peter Fleming

"Fleming's books are sparklingly sardonic and hilariously angry" —Guardian
"An excellent and important book" —Journal of Education, Innovation, and Communication

To Professor Peter Fleming, there is a strong link between the neo-liberalization of higher education over the last 20 years and the psychological hell now endured by its staff and students. He believes that impersonal and unforgiving management hierarchies have supplanted academic judgement, collegiality, and professional common sense. He bemoans the modern system of higher education and shines a spotlight on what’s gone wrong and why.

While academia was once thought of as the best job in the world, one that fosters autonomy, craft, intrinsic job satisfaction, and vocational zeal, you would be hard-pressed to find a lecturer who believes that now.

Fleming delves into this new metrics-obsessed, overly hierarchical world to bring out the hidden underbelly of the neoliberal university. He

*Commercialization
*Mental illness and self-harm
*The rise of managerialism
*Students as consumers and evaluators
*The competitive individualism which casts a dark sheen of alienation over departments
*And much more!

Arguing that time has almost run out to reverse this decline, this book shows how academics and students need to act now if they are to begin to fix this broken system.

Genres: Nonfiction, Academia, Education, Politics, Sociology, History, Dark Academia

216 pages, Paperback

First published May 1, 2021

Reviews

[Tara Brabazon · Rating 5 out of 5]

Dark Academia is the Dark Side of the Moon of Higher Education Studies. It is magnificent. It is mythic. It is also horrifying. I found myself spontaneously crying while reading particular chapters. It is so real. It is so close to the daily life of academics. Intriguingly, most of us have probably experienced worse events and people that the 'horror stories' presented in this monograph.

Every person who is thinking of working in higher education should read this book. It demonstrates the scale of what we have lost in our universities. But this book is more than the conventional genre of critical higher education studies. It is not nostalgic.

This is a book of despair. It continues Stanley Aronowitz's The Knowledge Factory. But it demonstrates the scale of suicide, mental health challenges, bullying, attacks and abuse that now dominate our universities. These are not one-off incidents. This is a culture of name calling, abuse, attacks, ridicule and pointlessness.

Covid-19 is part of this narrative and is incorporated into the monograph. The dark behaviours that punctuate research and teaching are discussed. There are no punches pulled.

We are all used to the catalogue of performance indicators and metrics in international higher education. The losses, scars and deaths caused through commitment to these indicators and metrics are now clear.

Post-Covid, we are now in a (post)university sector. The inhumanity is killing people. This is no longer a sustainable system.

Peter Fleming has offered workers in higher education a great service. It is a dark book. But now we see the meaning in the darkness. And through sharing the despair, perhaps there is a pathway out of it.

[Dina · Rating 5 out of 5]

It’s a brilliant and much needed read. I am divided between mourning the academia and rejoicing over the planet still having some sensible humans. My abundant thoughts on the topic have been richly validated, and I no longer feel alone in seeing the downfall where the world of business would see success. My spontaneous email to our masters director with a shoutout about turning academic writing into marketing was apparently very much justified.

I’ll be forever incredulous of why people so avidly avoid reason. Only mass idiocy can make people keep choosing to pretend to be important instead of actually working on something useful. All that thousands of “managers” who try to control the workers who really produce something (goods, knowledge, service, something!), what else do they have in their heads instead of a bucket of narcissism and obsession with revenues and meaningless numbers? It’s crazy how nations started to value money as a separate entity instead of the actual values that money were supposed to get for them (cultural and intellectual growth, for instance). That applies to universities of course, and I’ve witnessed all dreary consequences of a neoliberal university the author discussed, but it’s everywhere in our modern lives - starting from novel writing to medical help. In a world where one buys a sandwich to post it on Instagram to imitate good life instead of enjoying its taste and actually living the moment, why am I not surprised that higher education became just another mass market pass-time?

[Trâm · Rating 2 out of 5]

2.5 stars // Informative, and would recommend it to anyone interested in pursuing academia in any form, but not necessarily to the layperson.

I just wished Fleming had included a more detailed historic overview of academia, instead of simply listing the various forms academia has taken. That way he could have also clarified and reflected on the fact that education has not been accessible for anyone but white men for a very long time. He did briefly touch upon the racism and discrimination in the present, but I think it is important to clarify that the past was even worse. Because although academia used to be much more innocent in its intent (seeking knowledge for the sake of knowledge), its execution was not flawless (exiling pretty much anyone but white men). But then again, this book was about neoliberalism ruining our universities. Writing about systemic discrimination in academics (including intersectionality) would take up multiple books.

[Areeb Ahmad (Bankrupt_Bookworm) · Rating 4 out of 5]

"If hope is to be redeemed, it must be placed within the constraints of the present juncture, which is bleak and wreckage-like. Moreover, seeing future possibilities in the present allows us to better survey the damage in a sober light and hopefully chart a path out."

Although Fleming's book is an account of tertiary education in the Global North—UK, USA, Australia—it's a window into a possible future for higher education in India, especially if one is aware of new policies for the last few years and regular protests in DU over privatisation, particularly the ones by AISA and/or DUTA. Fleming potently outlines how neoliberalism, beginning in the 90s, has drastically changed universities through the process of "businessification" where it does its best to emulate a corporate organization.

The pundits might promise it as a solid step towards sleek and efficient functioning in a way where every taxpayer's contribution is accounted for, a much vaunted transperency, but it leads to a top-heavy & bloated system bogged down by managerialism and array of metrics where the exchange of knowledge is limited. The twin impact of "you are on your own" and "we will not leave you alone" turns out to be quite devastating for both students and professors (who are the focus here) in a totally consumerized soulless transaction.

Fleming accords students too much power. While I agree that neoliberal education has ended up prioritizing certain things, they're virtually powerless within it. It is foolish to really believe that student evaluations have any monumental effect on professor's lives and jobs, especially if tenured. It's a very unequal power relationship. Tauthoritarian streak of the system can be pointed out without comparisons to Hitler and Stalin; it is needless hyperbole. The editing overall could have been better, I suppose (especially repeated arguments.) I did appreciate the foundational research, the structure, as well as Fleming's engrossing and appreciable sardonic tone.



(I received a finished copy from the publisher in exchange for an honest review.)

[Jill · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book triggered me.

[Lewis Isbell · Rating 4 out of 5]

neoliberalism can suck my ass !!!!!!

[Aleksandr Popov · Rating 5 out of 5]

Ostsin selle teose ainuüksi pealkirjat motiveerituna - see kõnetas minu surnud hinge sügavamalt, kui ükski teraapia või tablet kunagi teha on suutnud. Ja ma ei hakka siin midagi ilustama - ma olen üks nendest hingedest, kes suri ülikoolis. Aga see oli minu süü ...
Selles raamatus on peidus nii palju, mida me tegelikult näha ei taha. Nii süsteemis sees, kui ka sellest väljas. Jah - kohe saab tulla ja öelda, et järjekornde läbipõlenud saamatu debiilik võtab sõna ja ei tea, kuidas asjad tegelikult käivad, sest ta pole ise švaansugi saavutanud. Tõsi! Täpelt nii ongi!
Aga ma mäletan seda, kui ma proovisin ... Ja ma mäletan ka seda, et neid, kes ootasid mu põrumist oli rohkem, kui neid, kes oleks tulnud ja küsinud, et "kas vajad abi?"
Las ta siis olla nii, nagu on - mina olen vähemalt elus ... Praegu ... Eks aeg näitab, mis edasi saab ...
See raamat räägib sellest, mis saab siis, kui ülikoolist saab toode. Kui sind ümbritseb mõttemaailm, et kõik on müügiks ja kui sa ei müü, siis oled saa vääritu tühi koht, mille ülalpidamine on sama ajuvaba tegevus, kui mõistliku hinnaga teenust pakkuda. Kiirelt, kallilt ja kõige arvelt - see on biznizplan!
Jah, keskmes on UK ja Põhja-Ameerika. Aga meie väike Eesti on täpselt sama vasikavaimustuses muricaniseerumisest, kui ta on pettunud, et UK valge laev eelmise sajandi teise suure sõja eel meid päästma ei tulnud. Me olemegi põhimõtteliselt ameerikas: me lihtsalt oleme väiksemad, vaesemad ja valgemad. Aga noh, äkki issi Donald ostab meid ikka ära!
Lugeja kohtub teadlastega, kes avastasid, et kolleegid on suurem oht, kui välisagendid - kolleegid koputavad, sest tahavad sulle keerata. Välisagendid infiltreeruvad, sest arvavad, et saavad mingit uut väärtusteavet. Aga kolleegid on sinuga iga päev - ja sul ei ole nende eest pääsu!
Tudengite tagasiside "anonüümne vaimuterror" toob kaasa kaks olulist asja - kedagi ei koti, kas tagasiside on sisuline ning täiesti ükskõik on sellest, mida võiks arvata asjast see, kelle kohta štuudentid tagasisidestasid. Kui anonüüm ütles, siis nii ongi! Ja kedagi ei koti, et su kuradi audikas tühi oli! Nad on maksnud - suu kinni ahv!
Me kohtume mälestustega tudengitest, kes võtsid endalt elu, sest keegi ei märganud, et nad vaevlesid - neile anti võimalus olla nii iseseisvad, et kuudepikkune puudumine ei tekitanud ühtegi küsimust, kuniks lõppude lõpuks hakkas keegi ühikas kaebama, et kuskilt immitseb mingit rõvedat lehka. Jah, lagunev inimkeha ei ole just kõige aromaatsem.
Me kohtume mälestustega akadeemilise maastiku töötajatest - nii põhjakihi õppeülesannete täitjatest (meie akadeemia alustala, töövõtuleping ja optimeeritud maksud) kui ka professoritest, kes surid kas oma käe või puuduliku sissetuleku tagajärjel avastamta jäänud haiguste või stressi tõttu. Aga eks ole see viimanegi iseendatekkeline - sa kardad minna arsti juurde, sest sa kardad selle visiidi hinda! Ja sa tead, et su sissetulek ei kata seda hinda.
Näiteks saame me teada vaprast mehest, kes palgati tippülikooli tudengite suitsiidiennetusega tegelema, sest suitsiidi oli liiga palju, et seda vaiba alla pühkida. Me saame teada, et ta võttis endalt elu samas kohas, kus viimane tudengki, kes tema palkamiseni viis - ükskord murduvad ka tugevaimad.
Me kohtume akadeemilise maailma vägevatega, keda hoitakse palgal, sest nad toodavad sisu - ka siis, kui see on vasturääkiv või isegi täielik vale. Kes siis vaidleb jumalatega, kui nad toovad suurkorporatsioonidele sisse miljoneid. Ja siis saavad midagi ka ülikoolid. Need vähesed, kes on paljastatud on olnud tähelennu epitsentris ja keegi pole muhvigi öelnud, sest muidu tullakse ka neile järgi.
Selle teose keskmes on pinge. Pinge, mis tapab. Pinge, mis on loodud eesmärgiga teenida tulu inimelude ja -hingede arvelt. Pinge, mis on tekkinud sellest, et me oleme minetanud oma inimlikkuse ja toonud ennast ohvriks mammona kokku kuhjamise ja kiire tulu altaril.
Ülikooliharidusest on saanud Türgi turu guccikott - kõigil peab see olema, ka siis, kui pole raha päris asja osta. Aga päris asja on keeruline saada, sest surve on nii suur, et päris asja pakkujad mingi hetk suure tõenäosusega, kas surevad eest ära või leiavad end valiku ees, kas jätkata kuni surmani või tõmmata pidurit ja loota, et jäädakse ellu.
Siinkirjutaja on üks neist, kes langes kahe stsenaariumi vahele. Ta oli piisavalt loll, et proovida midagi, milleks tema vaim teps mitte sobilik ei olnud - ja süsteem nägi seda viga ning mälus ta läbi ja väljutas seedetraktist nagu kasutu biomassi mis ta ka on. Selle tulemusel süvenes veelgi tema eneseviha ja äng ning tal oli soov elust lahkuda, aga ta ei suutnud sellega lõpuni minna, sest mingi osa vaimu jäänustest tõrkus miskipärast vastu ja ta ei suutnud otsustada kuidas seda teha.
Nüüd on ta katki, kuid samas pseudoõnnega koos - keegi ei oota sult midagi, kui sa kasutu oled! Meemides peitub tõetera - nagu ka selles suurepärases raamatus! Kui me ei märka teiste muret ei maksa ka imestada, et meid keegi raskel hetkel ei märka!

[Ana Lassa · Rating 4 out of 5]

Me llamó el título, no voy a mentir.

Lo he disfrutado mucho, aunque mi única pega es que cojea mucho del ámbito económico.

[Anna Klein · Rating 5 out of 5]

this was so fucking depressing… but also cathartic to read not gonna lie to you guys.

truly wish we weren’t living in the late capitalist hellscape that fleming describes, truly wish everything he says in this book wasn’t /that/ frightening or accurate (or frighteningly accurate).

i liked that the author didn’t shy away from concluding with a pessimist outlook. not every nonfiction book has to offer a Great Method to Solve Your Problem™ and peter fleming was so real for not mishmashing some unsatisfactory fake solution. keep it truthful, king.

i feel the need to push this book into the hands of every friend of mine in academia, every casualised academic that’s ever taught me and every lecturer i know… but maybe it’s a double-edged weapon to do so, i don’t know.

the only thing i can say (very gen z of me) is uh, we move?

[Cassandra · Rating 2 out of 5]

I feel so bad writing this but:
Ugh, this book really could have been a 30 -page-long essay. The authors does raise some thought-provoking and instructive points, but while E. gave me three new books to read I kept on reading this book - whining and complaining... for nothing, not the book I hoped for.

[Annas Jiwa Pratama]

Fleming laments the state of current universities, assaulted by neoliberal encroachment and the right-wing push against higher education’s perceived ideological infestation. Staffs are constantly under micromanaging eyes, hounded by metrics. This system breeds guru and starlet academics, despairing and ill researchers, and frauds.

An important insight from early on in this book that I couldn’t stop thinking was how much of a contradiction this type of extremely micromanaged, hierarchical system is to academics. Income obsessed universities, aided by consultant types, non-academics that sits at managerial positions, transmogrified the self-driven and collegiate ideas of the academia. This push also comes from below, as college students become ‘consumers’ of higher education, their satisfaction becomes just another metric. The pressure is on lecturers to inflate grades and deal with an increasingly unreasonable number of students.

Another bleak discussion was on impact. Impact, as with many other things in higher education, is defined by the accumulation of wealth. Universities are increasingly becoming R&D factories, chasing after ‘practical’ disciplines. The humanities is a slowly dying discipline with less and less funding and support available for its faculties.

At the end of the book, Fleming presents two outs. Two theories. One, Derrida’s unconditional university, one with fundings provided, no strings attached. The other, is the fugitive university, where the ‘undercommons’ is upheld, the more clandestine collegial, communal universities are kept running, albeit underground. Now, I’m not even sure how either would look like. But the first alternative would be kinda funny, and I would really like to see if someone already tried it, though I suspect this would ring truer to dipshit right wing grifters like Jordan Peterson (who is launching a not-mooc type university soon), who tries to mooch off of people with the promise of a more liberated university.

It’s fascinating to read this book and look at it from the lens of how things are in Indo, which I’m currently researching. Micromanagement, push for publications and ‘impact’, are all painfully present. However, here these are driven by the government. Indonesia’s more centralized regulatory bodies for higher education makes these pressures all the more universal. Academics from the most remote to the wealthiest universities are more or less under the same micromanaging pressure from the state. Instead of their managers peering over their work, academics here report to a nebulous super-power (who might also be management consultant-pilled themselves). Oddly enough, this puts the strain not only to academics themselves, but the universities and even the government, as they are the ones who keep the gears turning, and monitoring the work of hundreds of thousands of academics is a behemoth of a task. Every part of this machine is buckling under its own weight. And what for?

Fleming remains pessimistic throughout. And I don’t disagree.

“The corporate university is essentially a symptom of powerful constellations lying beyond its own remit. Managers, scholars and students still have agency, of course. But the institutional field is overdetermined and formidably delimited by the state first, the market and economic matrix second and the corporate industrial-complex third, which increasingly define the macro-rules of the games we must play.”

[Annaliese · Rating 4 out of 5]

Fleming sees ‘dark academia’ as the way academics are helpless to prevent the corporatizing of the university, struggling to maintain jobs and stability in a university climate that has rapidly changed over the last thirty years, but especially (and contemporary with Fleming’s writing) during the COVID-19 pandemic. In each chapter, he analyzes the problems of the neoliberal university and how matters have progressed to that point.

This monograph is comprehensive and, while dense, written in an irreverent tone that makes for overall ease of reading. On the (mostly) other side of the pandemic, it appears slightly outdated. In the end, his outlook on the university as it stands is negative.

[Nel Jones · Rating 4 out of 5]

Should be read by everyone involved in higher education. A little repetitive at points and there were some things I think warranted more attention then they were given. Author has excellent music taste (he quoted Lorde).

[anet]

ultracapitalism really out there making every possible job unbearable hm:/

[Mike Witcombe · Rating 4 out of 5]

An illuminating and righteously angry polemic. Fleming covers an impressive amount of ground, tracking how changes in university governance have altered the experience of those who work or study in them. "Dark Academia" focuses on Western universities, with most of its supporting examples coming from American, Australian, and British universities. It's a fairly quick read, and I found it a mostly persuasive one.

Unlike some his (many) fellow university polemicists, whose view of the university can tend to instrumentalise professional services staff and students, Fleming is keen to assert how damage is done across the university as an institution. Moreover, a keen sense of the limits of agency motivates many of his arguments. His focus is not just about what those within universities should do, but what they can do within the oppressive structures they've come to work within.

As the title gives away, "Dark Academia" not the most hopeful of reads. For those wanting light at the end of the tunnel, Raewyn Connell's "The Good University" is equally sceptical of the direction universities have taken, but has a considerably more optimistic view of what the future could hold. Still, few of those who read this book will find much new in it that will surprise them. Part of Fleming's argument is that certain ideologies and mechanisms surround universities so completely that those of us in them have to respond in one way or another. As he points out, the aftermath of COVID-19 could make things considerably more complicated.

None of this is to say that this is a dour read. Fleming is one of the most entertaining writers on the contemporary university that I've read, and there are passages in this book which are laugh-out-loud funny (honestly!). Fleming incorporates complex ideas from a wide range of disciplines, while keeping the more casual reader firmly on side.

The major issues with "Dark Academia" aren't Fleming's fault. The book's copy-editing leaves something to be desired, with numerous spelling mistakes and a cavalier attitude to commas visible throughout. Sure, it's not the biggest problem in the world - it just sits oddly amid Fleming's eloquent, passionate, and rambunctious prose. Talking of rambunctious prose, a more cautious editor might also have removed Fleming's references to Stalin and Hitler when discussing university management, which feel a bit silly (even allowing for a certain amount of polemical hyperbole).

"Dark Academia" will find a sympathetic audience among academics, but I hope it'll find receptive ears within the broader university community - and with all of those who want to know what it's like to be part of a modern university.

[Amy · Rating 4 out of 5]

A bleak but essential read for anyone in academia.

[James Magrini · Rating 5 out of 5]

The title of the book is a clever play on a current Internet and Tik Tok trend, which is also considered a somewhat bleak and dissonant (but attractive) “life-aesthetic” labeled, “Dark Academia” (traceable to and popularized by the novel Secret History by Donna Tarrt). So, potential readers must not be misled by the Fleming’s use of the phrase “Dark Academia” in the title of his book.

I never heard of Prof. Peter Fleming before reading this book. I can now say with confidence that he is a superb and highly engaging author and scholar! He is a keen observer, a careful researcher, and a superb analyst – unfortunately, his conclusions (he’s also a prescient if not prophetic seer of sorts) regarding the future of our current university system(s) are decidedly bleak and even pessimistic – but not to the point of a fatalism…for there is a brief prescriptive offered here, albeit tempered.

The book focuses on – in succinct terms – the “dark” and deleterious influence that social efficiency (Taylorism), instrumentalism, vocationalism, and corporatism – spawns of neoliberalism’s insidious expansion of the free market – have on both contemporary university systems (US, UK, Australia, New Zealand) and the psychic-emotional-intellectual health of pedagogues and their students. And, as he concludes, the results are downright depressive.

This book is not about statistics per se, rather it focuses on the human or “inhumane” toll that living, teaching, and learning in an educational system that has graduated from a “factory” model to a “corporate” model, operating in terms of a business model grounded in efficiency and economic advancement – at the exclusion of learning – has taken on all those involved.

Each chapter reads as a “self-contained” essay, organized around the general theme I mentioned above. This is probably not surprising, since the author informs readers that the complete book was developed from the publication of one of the chapters.

Topics: A specific introduction to the phenomenon of “dark academia” is given and nested within the milieu of late capitalism, through the expression of the “edu-factory,” which include “education/industry partnerships with arms manufacturers and fracking firms, among othered”; the turn toward authoritarianism in educations’ corporate design and structure; the death of the traditional or free academic; the exploration of what efficacy and “impact” mean in the corporatization of higher education; the analysis of “student hellscapes,” within which students are stressed to the point of suicide, under the insurmountable weight of financial burdens inextricably tied to securing an education; and one of my favorite chapters, the folly of the “academic star-complex” (here, one cannot help but think of the cult of Derrida).

The book concludes with speculation concerning a potential way out of the dire situation – a diagnosis accompanied by a highly tempered prescriptive. I’ll leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions and assess the effectiveness or plausibility of Fleming’s suggestions, all this considering the moribund conditions that he so vividly describes and brings to life for readers. “The darkness evolves over time. It begins with outrage, transitions to frustration and finally settles as a deep-seated dismay. But seldom is it expressed as open rebellion (collective or otherwise).”

Fleming is certainly not the typical (oldish) plodding academic; he’s of a newer and younger breed. He writes in a fast and agitated, but highly readable, style. Be warned, however, he has the tendency to construct short and dramatic sentences that require, for readers not steeped in the ongoing and agonistic debates about these issues, a bit more unpacking and elaboration.

This is an excellent and alarmingly disturbing book. It is one of the best I have read on the topic and stands with the likes of Mark Slouka and Martha Nussbaum, both of whom write on this continuing crisis (this opinion coming from an oldish, plodding academic!).

To concretize a personal observation related to Fleming’s book: According to the business or corporate model – the “edu-factory” – “Homo Academicus is now one of the most measured and audited characters in modern society.”

Casuals and adjuncts (“ghost employees”) are now closely monitored and scrutinized, evaluated for their so-called pedagogical efficacy. However, they are not assessed by master-teachers or administrative staff members, but instead by young, inexperienced auxiliaries reporting to the higher-ups, all in service of the economic and instrumental ends of the university – professors must best serve at once the products and consumers of education: the students – with the bottom line of producing “earners’ and “return customers.”

These evaluators are typically early post-graduates without doctorates, possessing little to no teaching experience (or modicum of knowledge related to the fields of study that the professors they evaluate have in terms of expertise), but they are steeped in typical “methods” courses that comprise the common curricula of most education degrees. It is shameful, and beyond, harmful, that such evaluations hold the potential to determine the fate of professors who might have successfully taught for upwards of 20-years. These reports are submitted to department heads (as the auxiliaries serve the management regime) who often don’t even know the name of the professor under evaluation and are thus oblivious to the good work he or she might have done for many years in the classroom - all this with the realization that "contemporary appraisals systems are designed to ensure everyone falls short in some shape or form."

Dr. James M. Magrini
Former: Philosophy/College of Dupage
NCIS
See also my: “Beyond Profit: The Value of the Humanities” Academia.edu
https://www.academia.edu/111363093/Be...

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Somewhat relatable and worrying non-fiction horror. Very relevant currently.

[Gwendolyn · Rating 3 out of 5]

3,25 (denk ik?), review volgt

[sara r.]

tw: ansia, paranoia, depressione, suicidio.

Peter Fleming, professore inglese, propone una disamina lucida ma incompleta del sistema universitario, sottolineando come ormai anche l'educazione sia un prodotto del sistema capitalista, complici l'illusione neoliberale e la recente romanticizzazione delle università. L'academia di cui parla è dark non per la recente tendenza estetica delle giacche tweed e del tè nero, ma perché si fonda su una serie di pressioni e disturbi mentali che in molti casi conducono al suicidio.
L'obiettivo di Fleming è quello di dissezionare l'accademia, non ancora morta ma di certo moribonda. Malata cronica di cui vengono isolati i sintomi, l'università è ben lontana dalla fatata Faculty Land (Lewis & Shore) i cui abitanti trascorrono le giornate a discorrere filosoficamente e leggere romanzi. Fleming vuole sdoganare il mito della La La Land accademica fatta di privilegiat* finanziat* dai taxpayers, che puntano il dito contro l* ragazz* che trascorrono le giornate a fare nulla.

In beffa alle torri d’avorio in cui si crede che alloggino l* student*, le fondamenta delle strutture universitarie sono competitività e individualismo, che si danno man forte a vicenda. Il successo accademico è raggiungibile attraverso vie sempre più impraticabili: se tutt* puntano allo stesso traguardo ne consegue che qualcun* si perderà per strada.
L’impianto competitivo delle università contempla il fallimento e prevede che ci siano vint* e vincitor*. Risposta automatica in questo gioco malsano di tutt* contro tutt* è un atteggiamento individualista che fa dei suoi pilastri egoismo e invidia, che si aggiungono alla montante pressione performativa che grava sull* student*.
La malattia della competitività trova terreno fertile nell’iniziale motivazione dell* student*. Studiare più del previsto per indole o passione è un atteggiamento più che valido, ma nel momento in cui l’ansia da prestazione fa sbiadire il confine tra vita personale/sociale e doveri universitari si parla di workaholicism.

La mercificazione delle università ha trasformato l’aula in una Edu-Factory, industria che lucra sull’apprendimento dell* student*. Adepte del culto del lavoro, le accademie si sono appropriate dei concetti di domanda e risposta, tramutando il rapporto insegnante/student* nella strategia venditor*/cliente.
Dopo la vendita (il pagamento delle tasse) l* student* si sono assicurat* il posto a sedere, e ricevono l’illusione che anche il voto sia una garanzia dell’acquisto: nel momento in cui prendi un voto basso o vieni bocciat* la sensazione che ti rimane impressa è quella di aver sprecato del denaro. Per arrivare a buoni risultati non sei più moss* da un genuino desiderio di imparare, ma sei ridott* alla logica economica che ti spinge a non sperperare ciò che hai già speso. In questo modo l’apprendimento è stato strumentalizzato e monetizzato, e l* student* ne esce reificat* e ridott* a merce.

Si rende così necessaria la registrazione dei dati di fabbrica, ottenuti attraverso questionari di valutazione che trasformano un’opinione spesso non veritiera in indici di successo e soddisfazione: è così che hanno origine i titoloni di giornale che annunciano “L'Università migliore d'Italia”.
Questi metodi di feedback anonimo, che imitano la passività di quelli creati da Amazon per i suoi dipendenti, quantificano l’educazione anziché favorirne la qualità.
L’accanimento disumano sul dato numerico contamina la percezione che ha di sé l* student*, che si ritrova a valutare la propria vita nel ventaglio limitato che va da 18 a 30. Il concetto di giudizio ha perso valore, e sei costrett* a ricevere sullo schermo un voto privo di spiegazioni che si piega alla necessità statistica del metro quantitativo richiesto dal sistema.

Una volta avviata la vita universitaria, l* student* è più indipendente rispetto a quanto non fosse abituat* in precedenza, ancor più se è fuorisede. Mentre i genitori sono convinti che si stia dando alla vita da bohémien, anche in complessi affollati come i collegi l’individuo è costretto a rinchiudersi nella propria stanza e trascurare qualsiasi attività che non rientri nell’ambito universitario. Viene normalizzato un rituale di impegno ipertrofico per cui socializzare è una perdita di tempo e denaro.
Nella solitudine forzata, la concentrazione iperfocalizzata partorisce dapprima stress; presto l’ansia da prestazione si trasforma in paranoia; infine la pressione che avverti in ogni impegno ti spinge a sprofondare nella depressione, spesso pregressa e dagli esiti tragici. Di fronte ai dati Istat (su 4mila suicidi il 5% coinvolge student*) le università se ne lavano le mani, cercando di insabbiare al più presto il fattaccio che rovinerebbe la reputazione, e sminuendo l’accaduto parlando di diagnosi precedenti, coincidenze e casualità.

Fleming segnala una forte interconnessione tra la natura socio-economica dell’accademia (carico di lavoro, scadenze, gerarchie) e problemi personali (relazioni, vita quotidiana). Essendo l’università un’esperienza totalizzante in senso negativo, diventa difficile separare le due sfere di azione. Di conseguenza, la sensazione di non riuscire a portare a termine un capitolo della tesi diventa la convinzione di non riuscire a portare a termine nulla; non farcela a rispettare la scadenza della sessione ti fa sentire in ritardo su qualsiasi tipo di esperienza che i tuoi coetanei stanno vivendo. La logica del sistema universitario si insinua nei tuoi meccanismi cognitivi come un tarlo.
Nonostante le centinaia di casi di student* che si sono tolti la vita per l’ansia montante indotta dall’università, spesso costrett* a mentire sugli esami dati e sulla data della laurea, si tende comunque a perpetuare l’idea della fantomatica “alta” educazione come mondo ideale e privilegio dell* nullafacenti.

L’autore non parla del fenomeno recente della dark academia, senza rendersi conto che in realtà non è che l’emblema dell’idealizzazione capitalista da lui criticata. Quella della romanticizzazione è una tendenza nociva, che contribuisce a diffondere la concezione dell’università come realtà ideale, priva di problemi, in cui il tempo viene trascorso leggendo libri vecchi e sorseggiando caffè amaro. Inviterei a una riflessione chi riconosce ne “L'attimo fuggente” (1989) il film per eccellenza della dark academia: è senza dubbio poetica e passionale l’idea di succhiare il midollo della vita, ma cosa succede a Neil alla fine, quando si ribella alle imposizioni del collegio?
Nessuno critica il guscio esterno dell’aesthetic, i filtri VSCO o le scelte d’abbigliamento. La mia posizione si fa più forte quando la dark academia viene innalzata a sottocultura che idealizza un sistema marcio e ne minimizza le problematiche.

L’analisi di Fleming, tutt’altro che completa, pecca di una presa di posizione fortissima e insopportabile se come me si legge il saggio in qualità di student* universitari*. Il punto di vista a cui devi adattarti sin dalle primissime pagine è quello di un professore che, non soddisfatto, ha insegnato in decine di università di tre continenti diversi. Non gli sta bene la presenza dell’oscurocrazia (darkocracy) di tecnici, direttori e “para-accademici” che non possono fregiarsi del titolo di insegnanti. Critica la gerarchia universitaria, ma non si pone problemi a sottolineare quanto più in basso di lui siano situat* l* student*. Minimizza la pandemia di disturbi mentali dell* student* con tono piccato, perché anche (sembra quasi dire soprattutto) l* professor* ne sono affetti. Pur di difendere le sue tesi preferisce fare di tutta l’erba un fascio e difendere la categoria dell* insegnanti, anche a costo di sminuire quella studentesca. Riconosce la presenza di bullismo e invidia nel corpo docente, ma sembra non accorgersi della rivalità e delle disparità tra student*.
Ben più grave è il fatto che Fleming, maschio bianco, non considera i problemi di razzismo e sessismo che si presentano nelle università. Il capitalismo viene criticato senza pietà, ma colonialismo e patriarcato, suoi figli, non vengono citati.

[Chloe · Rating 5 out of 5]

According to Simone Murray (https://doi.org/10.1080/0013838X.2023...), lovers of Dark Academia fiction and adherents to the social media aesthetic are performing bookishness and embodying nostalgia for a time when university education, especially literature and the arts, was culturally valued.

Peter Fleming picks up on a similar idea in his accessible monograph. His questions:
1. When did the university leave the golden age of the past that DA pines for?
2. How and why does the university now resemble a profit-driven corporation rather than a space to nurture and celebrate knowledge and learning?
3. Can we return to the university model of the past? If so, how?

Fleming never mentions the modern social media DA aesthetic. Upon reflection, I think Fleming used the title 'Dark Academia' to remind readers of the nostalgia embodied by the social media aesthetic and DA fiction, but also in a way that is reminiscent of the 'Dark Ages'. For Fleming, 'darkness' has connotations of bad, immoral, backward, and needing radical change, much as, generally speaking, the European dark ages prefigure the renaissance. While Fleming is sceptical about the success of possible solutions to the quandary faced by universities and academics today, he seems hopeful that positive change is afoot, though where it will come form and how it will come about, nobody can say). After all, it can't get much worse.

‘While the modern university has managed to keep up appearances, pretending to remain the idyllic and gentle institution in the popular imagination, complete with sandstone buildings and Latin mottos, in reality it has become one of the more saturnine [gloomy, melancholy, miserable] zones in the new economic order.’ (96)

‘Can the university be saved? It is difficult to answer his question without nostalgically longing for some golden past. But let’s face it: universities were never pristine domains of liberty before New Public Management and market discipline took over...’ (161)

Fleming's work is accessible, structuring an incredibly complex issue into neat chapters which build upon the one before. His work is incredibly well-referenced and he draws information and statistics from a variety of recent and reputable sources. Overall, while Fleming's thesis is depressing (especially for this wannabee academic), it's well-considered and well-rounded. He doesn't mince words or try to soften the issues. He tells it how it is and lays out all the statistics one needs to be convinced that the issue is endemic in Western universities.

What can we do about it? Arguably, academics and student's can't change the system, but by knowing the stark reality of the problems the modern university faces, at least we know what we're dealing with, and we're no longer hiding from the truth.

This is a must-read for academics, university management, administrators, and students. Read this book to know the institution you're part of, the struggles it faces, and start respecting the academics and colleagues working in the system. A little respect on all sides of the equation will go a long way towards nurturing productive dialogue and actions to improve working conditions for academics and administrators and learning conditions for students.

I agree with M. Z. Muttaquin's review (https://doi.org/10.1080/1360080X.2021...)., that Fleming's book is one that rewards the reader who takes the time to read it slowly, cover-to-cover to fully appreciate the breadth and depth of the issues that plague the modern university. In fact, Muttaquin's review is an excellent primer to Fleming's monograph, as is this interview with the author himself: https://www.plutobooks.com/blog/podca...

[Lisandra Linde · Rating 4 out of 5]

A very grim but important book examining the current state of universities. CW: death, suicide, sexual harassment.

Fleming examines the impact of corporate universities on students, academics and society as a whole. He discusses the effect of metrics-based management on staff, and shows how this numbers/profits system fails to acknowledge the reality of research work.

For example:

"A scholar who apparently produces nothing for two years is harassed by the university until they finally look for a job elsewhere, to only then publish the field-changing paper they'd been working on all that time. Managers under the spell of metric short-termism find it impossible to attune their mental schemas to the longue dureé of deep scholarship" (72).

He details the impact of the 'publish or perish' mentality of universities on its staff, many of whom suffer from mental and physical health issues as a result of hostile and demanding work environments. Deaths from suicide or the effects of overwork and insecure contracts (which in the US in particular leave academics unable to access healthcare) feature with tragic frequency throughout this book.

Fleming also discusses the ways in which students miss out on proper education because of large class sizes and an overemphasis on grades rather than learning. Student evaluations of staff also become troubling, as students become dissatisfied customers whose feedback can be detrimental to their teachers' careers.

Harrowing but crucial, this book asks us to consider what is worth salvaging when universities inevitably collapse.

[matt hooper · Rating 4 out of 5]

I would put this at a 3.5 but I was unfortunately not offered the option. Fleming’s book is a morbidly fascinating insight into the bleak underbelly of University. There is very little positivity in this appropriately titled book, but there are many insightful perspectives on the true nature of University, showcasing how bleak it can be, not just for students, but for lecturers and fellow academics also.

The book feels like an elongated essay or critique on neoliberalism more than University at times, and I do think the criticism neoliberalism is the core driving force behind this book. At times, it is terminology-laden and can become tiresome to get through page after page where a new political term is introduced. Another criticism aside from this would be the tendency to become repetitive in places.

However, the chapter on mental health, and the final symptoms of a dying university were amongst many fascinating parts of this book where Fleming captured my attention. It is bleak and depressing, but an important read for academics, those who aspire to attend university, and for those who have lived the experience already.

[Steve Wiggins · Rating 4 out of 5]

Quite a few books lament the state of higher education. Having historical training (as well as having been a professor), it’s sad to me to see how politicians decided to make them businesses. I suppose I was naive when I studied for my doctorate in the humanities, supposing that universities supported learning for its own sake. They weren’t about money, but, I thought a higher calling.

As I noted elsewhere (Sects and Violence in the Ancient World), I drew several of the same conclusions as Fleming, but anecdotally, from my own experience. I’ve seen careers derailed and very bright people left broken. What Fleming does is document it. This is not a cheery book.

I try to stay away from politics as much as I can, but it seems Fleming is correct that neoliberalism, which helped make universities businesses, bears the blame for this. Life as a professor wasn’t easy, but I’d have stayed in it, if I could have. Reading about how things have declined in the last decade or so is disheartening. But it’s important to know.

[Martyna · Rating 5 out of 5]

myślę, że to konieczna lektura dla każdego, kto rozważa karierę akademicką, ale też dla każdego kto chce zrozumieć współczesne problemy uniwersytetów spowodowane późnym kapitalizmem i neoliberalizacją placówek edukacyjnych - zatrważające statystyki dotyczące problemów psychicznych wśród studentów i pracowników, biurokratyzację, która wręcz uniemożliwia efektywne wykonywanie pracy, technokratyzację, sprowadzanie naukowców do liczb w tabelce w excelu z ich osiągnięciami, ocenianie wszystkiego i wieczne ewaluacje, zanik współpracy i wspieranie konkurencji i podkładania sobie nóg wśród pracowników wspierane przez przełożonych, stworzenie fabryki oferującej jako produkt edukację zamiast naprawdę uczenia ludzi, kultura zapierdolu, darmowe nadgodziny i brak normowanych czasów pracy, mobbing, seksizm, ageizm i rasizm, ale to wszystko ubrane jest w piękną PRową ściemę o tym, że w wysokich zabytkowych budynkach kształcą się owiane mistyczną aurą "elity intelektualne" za ogromne pieniądze podatników

TW: samobójstwa, depresja, przemoc, mobbing, molestowanie seksualne

[Timur Hakan Barak · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kitabı Koç Üniversitesi Yayınlarının Türkçe çevirisinden okudum. Büyük bir beklentiyle başlasam da kitap tam manasıyla beklentimi karşılamadı. Çok daha fazla bilgi ve yorumlama beklerken, tek boyutlu bolca sübjektif değerlendirme buldum. Neoliberalizm'in Üniversitelere büyük zarar verdiği doğru tespitlerle ortaya konulmuş olduğu için yine de kıymetli fikirler var ancak kitabın neredeyse tamamı sosyal bilimler ile ilgili değerlendirmelerden oluşuyordu. Sanki makale yazarak anlatılabilecek şeyler uzun tekrarlarla kitaba dönüştürülmüş gibiydi. Üniversitelerin piyasalaşması tabi ki büyük bir sorun ancak tek sorun kesinlikle değil. Ayrıca tüm dünyada aynı derecede sorun mu o da değerlendirilmemiş. Sadece ABD, İngiltere, Avustralya ve Yeni Zelanda üzerinden değerlendirme yapılmış. O yüzden alanla ilgili kişilerin ilgisini çekebilecek ama beklentilerimin biraz altında kalmış bir kitap diyebilirim.

[Louisa Olivia Hadiwirawan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The few pages of this book make me feel uneasy, it describes the situation the same as I've experienced in the past years. It shook my idealism in education and threw an existentialist question about what am I as an educator? The author comprehensively describes the academic situation that I don't want it to be and I don't wish it to be. Sadly, I'm going to experience this situation much sooner than I can cope.

The book tells a story about Edu-Factory that you can find in almost every university. Moreover, it told the darker side of this capitalism slash neo-liberal part on shaping the education serves nowadays. It argues that this kind of Edu-Factory only brought miserable conditions for the students, the lecturer, and the academic staff. Once again, capitalism seems taking over education to serve its benefit.

[Kerri · Rating 5 out of 5]

Whatever else anyone can say, this is...yeah. Looking at my university, this makes sense. Trying to wrap my head around the fact that it hasn't always been this way is upsetting and feels impossible. I slept for two hours last night, I have six papers overdue, I spent the last year working three jobs and still attending classes, I'm at work right now and on the verge of a breakdown. This book tracks all of that.

It also helped me to realize the ways in which I have bought into this myth of the neoliberal university, and how I interact with it. Having that all laid out in front of me is going to make it much easier to challenge those ideas within myself. The next, and more difficult, step is to see if that can be dealt with in the university itself at all.

[Tao Chen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Worth a read by those considering working in higher ed, which has evolved over the past decades quite a distance from the common perception of ivory tower. However I disagree with the despair painted here. Just like any institution universities are evolving in terms of their purpose and mode of operation. The book seems to suggest that we should go back to a model of full public funding for higher ed, but that would undo the widened participation made financially possible by the current tuition fee model (in the UK where I’m familiar with). The current funding model is not working either, as can be seen in majority of UK universities struggling with finance, but going back is not a solution either.

[Leni Huyghe · Rating 5 out of 5]

A rather accurate description on how the neoliberal system and its capitalist logics are destroying the core functions of universities. Instead of building communities where knowledge is shared and critical thinking is practiced, universities favor managerism and are constantly obsessing over data measuring, forgetting the students and teachers in the process making universities rather lonely and dehumanized places. Written with wit and very smart, and it would be funny if it weren't so tragic.