{"id":4070,"date":"2025-04-08T13:40:49","date_gmt":"2025-04-08T13:40:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/staging01\/?p=4070"},"modified":"2025-06-10T14:34:29","modified_gmt":"2025-06-10T14:34:29","slug":"struggle-at-the-point-of-knowledge-production","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/struggle-at-the-point-of-knowledge-production\/","title":{"rendered":"Struggle at the point of knowledge production"},"content":{"rendered":"

Jasper Schut<\/h4>
\"\"<\/figure><\/div>

The university is in ruins and still we should work towards its abolition (Readers, 1997; Harney  & Moten, 2013). These two things are nothing but mutually exclusive. The university being in  ruins comes from the idea that the role of this institution is no longer clear within the modern  capitalist society. It used to serve the nation state and the reinforcement of its national culture, applicably called the university of culture (Readers, 1997). This is more and more being  replaced by what Readers (1997) calls the university of excellence. A place that serves international capital, functions as a corporation and has the generation of profit instead of  knowledge as its goal. It was a shift that went hand in hand with the rise of the neoliberal  economic order. This shift is also described by Saunders (2023) as a shift in the raison d\u2019\u00eatre  <\/em>of the university from that of a public good to a private investment for an individual. Up until  the 1970\u2019s university was also viewed as a means to creating a more educated population and  labour force. What came after was, just like any other neoliberalisation, an attempt to further  commodify and exploit what is situated in and comes out of academia. All the while, the  university still holds up a veneer of being an institution of enlightenment, progress and one that  works for the commons good –\u201cpositive societal impact, the erasmian way\u201d <\/em>my derri\u00e8re. <\/p>

Academia clings on to the outdated role of the university being a public institution that defends  culture on behalf of the nation state. Readers (1997) describes the modern university as an  institution that is in ruins as it has lost its historical raison d\u2019\u00eatre <\/em>of defending the nation state.  Two decennia later, I would argue that the raison d\u2019\u00eatre <\/em>has been firmly established, even  getting solidified after the new austerity measures planned by the new far right government of  the Netherlands. The exploitation of student and academic labour has been accelerated  massively (Saunders, 2023). This serves capital in two ways: it produces more labour-power  in students while working in the university industry and also by cheapening the exploitation of the knowledge being produced. The university of excellence is there to serve itself as a  corporation.  <\/p>

There is one group of people that occupies space in these ruins that doesn\u2019t seem to fit  within this raison d\u2019\u00eatre. The people that want to undermine the system, the critical academics, the professionals, the activists, the annoying class reductionist Marxist philosophers, the people  doing (and teaching) engaging public issues. Here I also find my connection with the issue of  the university<\/em>. As a student activist and organiser, I want to struggle against the system in my  own community. I will come back later to possible relations to the university but for me, the  idea of in-against-beyond and the criminal relation are essential (Saunders, 2023; Harney &  Moten, 2013). I\u2019m in the university while being against it and struggling for something beyond  it. The goal of this paper is then to explore how to best do this. This means an inquiry into the  theories of change that drive social change such as those put forward by Jane McAlevey (2019) and how they relate historically and tactically to the context of the university. In other words,  how do we organise in the university. Here I\u2019m mainly interested in the specific public of the  student and that of the critical academic. The former being the group I\u2019m personally trying to  organise and the latter playing an interesting role in this.  <\/p>

To understand the modern university better, it is useful to have some understanding of how it  came into being and how different publics related to the university. The emphasis here will be  on the role of the university and how people organised and agitated. I will use two distinct but  complimentary frameworks to analyse this historical period, a Marxist one derived from the  work of Gary Saunders (2023) and a more cultural approached from the university in ruins  <\/em>(1997) by Bill Readings. Saunders (2023) writes specifically about the English context and the  policies there. Starting in the post world-war two period, an idea of the university being a public  good dominates. There is the general idea that a more educated and skilled workforce is  necessary to be a competitive nation. To do this, there is more state involvement in the  expansion of higher education. This leads to a mass higher education system, a publicly funded system with the ambition to create as many skilled workers as possible. The driving force is  making Britain a more competitive nation trough the enhancement of labour-power (Saunders,  2023).  <\/p>

The role the university plays in the nation state and its identity is emphasized by  Readings (1997). This university of culture he writes about, exists in the same period as the  public university and is one and the same I would argue. Although Saunders (2023) has a slight  focus on the technical education and Readings (1997) the cultural and social side of academia.  Both ultimately serve the reinforcement of the nation state and capital accumulation that takes  place within it. Readings (1997, p. 69) describes the role of the university of culture as such: <\/p>

The University\u2019s social mission is not to be understood in terms of either thought  or action. The university is not just a site for contemplation that is then to be  transformed into actions. The University, that is, is not simply an instrument of  state policy; rather, the University must embody thought as action, as striving for  an ideal. This is its bond with the state, for state and University are two sides of  a single coin. The University seeks to embody thought as actions toward an ideal;  the state must seek to realize action as thought, the idea the nation. The state  protects the action of the University; the University safeguards the thought of the  state. And each strives to realize the idea of national culture.<\/p><\/blockquote>

The role of the university is thus twofold. It is a common good that provides society  with more skilled workers to make a nation as a whole more competitive in the global market.  On the other hand, it legitimises and reinforces the ideas that are associated with the nation  state. <\/p>

Then what happens when the nation state declines? What happens when the very thing  that gives the university its raison d\u2019\u00eatre <\/em>is in decline? This is the process happening from the  1970\u2019s onward but it really accelerates in the 1990s (Readings, 1997). This is the process of  neoliberalisation and globalisation of the economy. A process of privatization of public  institutions, offshoring of industries and the erasure of any obstacle for global capital. These  things undermine the national ideology of a nation state which in turn erodes the role of the  university, leaving it in ruins (Readings, 1997). The university itself also has to adhere to the  new logic of privatization, meaning a power shift from academics and different departments to  centralised management (Saunders, 2023). Universities become more dependent on private  financing, have to increase efficiency (read fire or underpay workers), start contributing to  economic growth and open up to businesses. All this turns the university in to just another  corporation. This new economic order gives rise to the idea of excellence, even though it is a  fundamentally empty notion (Readings, 1997). It is a way to communicate an arbitrary standard  that can be moulded to the circumstance at hand serving the interests of that time. This makes  the university a completely self-centred and bureaucratic institution. <\/p>

Besides the changed role of the university within society, the internal organisation and  production also changes drastically. The neoliberal university further perpetuates capitalist  relations in academia and commodifies what is being produced (Saunders, 1997). For the next  part to make sense, I will shamelessly use Marxist logic of value and production, however faulty  it may be. According to Saunders (2023), the main work conducted in a university is that of  teaching and research which is often carried out by the same people. While academic labour is  just another service that can be exchanged, the use value produced is more abstract. This is the  added value to the student\u2019s labour power to be more employable later. Here, students are not  mere consumers but unpaid co-producers. They have to discuss, write, review, read et cetera.  The research being produced is value that can be appropriated by individuals or organisations  outside of the university (Saunders, 2023). The neoliberal university tries to produce more labour-power in students as cheaply as possible and makes the production of knowledge  cheaper. This increases the precarity of labour in the university for staff and for students. Maybe the most important conclusion that comes out of this history and role of the  university, is that academia is just another industry. A very specific industry that plays a very  particular role in the capitalist system, especially in post-industrial countries, but an industry, nonetheless. It operates on largely the same class divide of work and capital where students and  staff are workers, the administrations interest almost always aligns with that of capital. The  university works on the same exploitation of unpaid labour that largely follows gender and  racial lines and also undervalues all the reproductive labour that keeps the university running.  What this seemingly negative shift in attitude does is allow us to think differently about how  we relate to the university. It no longer requires us to be loyal to the institution because we are  doing something for the greater good. When we see the university an industry, it allows for  industrial action, it allows us to organise. In, against and beyond.  <\/p>

What it also does, is uncover the different publics involved with the university. I will  start with the publics that represent the side of capital. This is usually the administration of a  university. These are usually appointed boards and layers of management that run the university  like a corporation (Saunders, 2023). Their goal is usually (economic) growth and an increase in  efficiency. A next public are companies, they work closely with universities. They have  influence on curricula, provide funding and recruit at the university. Their interest is that of  skilled labour and the privatization of the knowledge produced at a university. At last, there is  the government, it is the main funder of Dutch universities and has massive influence on how  they operate. With the decline of the nation state, its interest is largely the same as that of  transnational cooperations. It facilitates the production of knowledge and a skilled workforce.  This increasingly means getting less involved with the university by means of austerity  measures and privatisation. What is interesting here is that there is a conflicting interest here,  especially in times of rising nationalist or even fascist sentiment. These currents heavily rely on  the nation state for their legitimacy and for that they need the university. In the Dutch context  this doesn\u2019t mean a shift towards the public university as that would require more funding and  government involvement. Instead, there is more so a push for policies that establish national  identity such as limiting international students and a reintroduction of the Dutch language in  academia. This, in a way, restricts the flow of international capital going against its interest. <\/p>

On the side of labour there is firstly the staff. For this paper I will focus on academic  staff. However, the almost always overseen non-academic staff is equally important. Like any  system, the whole thing would collapse without them. I\u2019m very aware that what I\u2019m doing in  this paper is again, the reaffirming of the critical negligence of what goes on in and comes out  of the undercommons (Harney & Moten, 2013). I\u2019m participating in the professionalisation.  This also means that in this paper, this group and this foundation isn\u2019t heard. I would argue that  the only implication is that we should think of how to build solidarity. Academic staff is a  highly divided public with varying degrees of precarity. It\u2019s a complicated hierarchy that ranges  from professor to PhD candidate and tutors. For the academic staff there often is a conflicting attitude towards their role in the university. The first aligns with the public university or the  university of culture, they are there for the betterment of society, to teach people to become  more critical members of society (Readings, 1997; Saunders, 2023). Maybe they even try to  implement elements of critical pedagogy to achieve this. Their research is meant to promote  progress for the nation state or humanity as a whole. This attitude is usually abused by the  institution. It draws people in under false pretences of progress and enlightenment to then use what they call love or passion but what is unpaid labour (Harney & Moten, 2013). The second  attitude is one that aligns with the university of excellence and the neoliberal university. Their  teaching is more transactional where they offer a service for students to consume. Teaching and  research might be done for capital gain or just simply as a job to make a living.<\/p>

The next public is that of the student. This is by far the biggest public in the university. For this public there is also a conflicting attitude similar to that of staff. That of studying to  become a more productive or good member of society or to be the consumer of a service for  the furtherment of a personal career. There is a third, universal, interest for this public and that  is gaining access to the (problematic) public sphere (Readings, 1997). To make the transition  from ignorant to knowledgeable. From student that isn\u2019t to be taken serious to adult, someone  that is allowed to have an opinion on things. This of course already relies on the idea that the  public sphere is dominated by academia, undermining its very ideal. It was also the Parisian  student revolt of 1968 that agitated against this phenomenon (Readings, 1997; Saunders, 2023).  What students are in the end is also just workers, regardless of their own attitude towards  university (Saunders, 2023). They participate in the knowledge production of the university and  their education is part of the necessary step to becoming a good worker. This gives them a lot  more agency for action against the university than being passive consumers. <\/p>

There is one public that cuts across the publics of the student and the staff which is the  critical academic. These are people who seek refuge in the university as they use the little  hospitality that\u2019s there (Harney & Moten, 2013). They try to live in the cracks of the system  while being against it. Even though the university thrives on their \u2018critical\u2019 work as this is labour  it can use to further professionalise. Critical academics are often very comfortable in the  university as they are allowed to be critical, it makes them controllable, maybe even docile. <\/p>

Now that we have an idea of what publics are involved with the university, I would like to take  a slight detour before we move to what role they (can) play in undermining it, how they have  done so in the past and how we can move forward. I want to cover how people can effectively  organise and agitate against the system. This can be used to as a framework to analyse history,  the different roles of the publics involved, and it can give us ideas of how we can implement  these tactics in the specific context of the university.  <\/p>

The framework I\u2019m using the one put forward by legendary organiser Jane McAlevey.  In her book No Shortcuts; organizing for power in the new gilded age <\/em>(2018) she lays out a  critique of current day social movements and what must be done. This critique is threefold:  first, progressives and leftists have over the past decades moved away from deep organising <\/em>towards a shallow mobilising <\/em>(McAlevey, 2018). Second, there has been a split between social  movements and the labour movement. Third, different ways of trying to work towards change  get different outcomes, a different victory. Only one of these strategies can effectively confront power effectively. These three types of change are: advocacy, mobilising and organising. The  first approach, advocacy, doesn\u2019t rely on masses. It is a method that uses backroom deals,  lobbying done by elites, experts, lawyers and interest groups. They focus on very small wins  and policy changes. Although perfectly fine for getting companies to use paper instead of plastic  straws, it doesn\u2019t challenge power structures.  <\/p>

The second approach is mobilising. This approach does focus on large numbers of  people to demand something. They are often run by professional staff doing campaigns. The  numbers mostly come from dedicated activists that show up time and time again but without  the support of their coworkers or fellow students. Usually with the sole effect of getting a nice  picture for social media and an article in a few news outlets (McAlevey, 2018). Often the  professionals engage in secret backroom deals without the involvement of any of the non processionals involved with the campaigns.  <\/p>

The third approach is organising. This approach completely focuses on a constantly  expanding mass of people that were usually not previously engaged. All agency for success is  with this mass of people. Their motivation is a specific injustice or outrage but the goal is a  transfer of power from the few at the top, to the many at the bottom. Instead of backroom deals and professional leadership, this method includes everyone that\u2019s organised. This is in the strategy, the negations and all other factors of pushing for change, all agency is with them (McAlevey, 2018). Once a sufficient mass is organised, change is achieved through the  withdrawal of labour or direct action. The goal is to create a crisis big enough that it is  impossible to not give in. This makes the movement much less dependent on outside forces  such as the media or friendly politicians. This tactic has historically been by far the most  impactful. Things such as the eight-hour workday, weekends, the abolition of child labour but  also the victories of the civil rights movement largely came out of this strategy.  <\/p>

A question remains though: how do you know when you can create a big crisis that\u2019s  big enough? The answer lies in the way the organising approach works as it is built on a method  called structure-based organising <\/em>(McAlevey, 2018). <\/em>Organising takes place in a place where  people are already located like their workplace, church, university or flat. They already have a  network there. The goal is to use this network of people to organise a majority, or preferably a  supermajority, of people within this structure. This way it is possible to quantify how close you  are to taking collective action. This differs drastically from the mobilizing approach. Here,  groups are self-selecting. People get involved because they have preexisting motivations. It  almost entirely consists of people that are already agree with each other, usually activists. <\/p>

To get to a majority, various tactics can be deployed to ease this process. Probably the  most important one is organic leader identification (McAlevey, 2018). This is a process where  an organiser tries to identify people that already have an organic following within their structure  and persuade them to organise themselves and their colleagues. Another important tactic is the  structured organising conversation, a 1-on-1 conversation with the goal of persuading someone  to get organised. A conversation where the organiser uses the right semantics does a lot of  listening to then ask the right question. This also means learning how to talk to people that  might not already agree with you. The next tactic to get to that majority is the methodically  charting of how well organised you are. This means keeping track of everyone in a structure  and how social networks work to reach everyone. Here you also keep track of how well  organised a structure is and how engaged people are. The last tactic is the structure test. These  are tests to see how well organised you are, think of petitions, photos or other actions. They  build solidarity and energise the movement while keeping pressure on those in power. Structure  tests are endless and must be trained like a muscle to get stronger.  <\/p>

McAlevey (2018) describes how there is a difference in what type of structure you are  organising in. She gives two examples of extremely high stakes but successful organising  efforts: union organising in the workplace from the US labour movement in the 1930s and faith based organising done by the civil rights movement in the 1960s. Faith-based, and broad-based, organisations are named organisations of organisations, or O of Os. These are often religious  institutions. The big difference between these and workplace structures is that they are not  antagonistic towards the organiser. Their leaders, maybe a priest, rabbi, imam, board or president often welcome the organiser. Whereas in workplaces, the boss and management will  fight organising efforts with tooth and nail. <\/p>

This is also why most current day unions have abandoned this strategy, actively choosing for a mobilising or even an advocacy approach in their theory of change (McAlevey,  2018). In the US this coincided with the McCarthy era which did two things with the labour  movement; it made them adapt these new tactics which were much easier for power to contain. Unions became external organisations that provided a service to workers and advocated for them, instead of being organisations of workers coming together to change their own  circumstances. The second thing it did, is drive out most skilled organisers, their tactics being  no longer welcome. This had a domino effect across social movements whereas a lot of leftists,  stubborn as they are, no longer learned the art of organising and instead turned to mobilising  and advocacy. <\/p>

Now that I have established a framework to analyse social change, it can be applied to the  university. Starting with the university as an institution; this is, as previously established, just  another industry and with that, also a structure to organise. For different publics, the structure  appears differently though. For staff, the structure is best characterised as a normal workplace,  especially in the neoliberal university. In the Dutch context, there is still some remanence of the  public university, probably making it less hostile towards organising efforts. There is a normal  employer \u2013 employee (work \u2013 capital) relationship with management trying to increase  efficiency and cut costs (Saunders, 2023). Although it also has a peculiar hierarchy with more  and less precarious workers. I would argue that a lot of them are part of the professional  managerial class, or as Harney & Moten (2013) put it more aptly, turns the insurgents into state  agents. Most are workers nonetheless, often more easily exploited if their attitude aligns with  that of the public university. The neoliberal university doesn\u2019t treat them that way and sees  their academic labour as a service they can buy (Saunders, 2023). Which also means that it can  be withdrawn during collective action, becoming insurgent once more.  <\/p>

For students, their experience with the structure of the university is different. Besides  the peers in their year, they are active at many different student related organisations. Such as: study associations, student associations, cultural associations, student sport clubs, student  housing and all sorts of other committees, clubs and organisations. These organisations are  usually run by students for students making them much less antagonistic to organising efforts,  they might even be welcoming depending on the organisation. Especially with boards often  consisting of engaged students already acting as leaders. The university is for students more so  an organisation of organisations, a broad-based organisation (maybe faith-based in the case of  the fraternities, with some combination of capitalism and alcohol being the faith). These  organisations are all places within the public of students that can be organised. These are all  places that are typically not a strategic target to transfer power from. As we have previously  established in the different roles of the publics in the university, students are also workers and  thus, also have the agency to withdraw their labour. It also means that they have a conflict of  interest with capital. This is usually being represented by the university administration, the  government or the municipality. Making them into strategic targets for collective action and the  transfer of power. The student public is also peculiar in the sense that it has massive turnover.  They are usually only in their structure for a maximum of four years, making organising very  difficult. There is limited time to get to know a social structure and organise it for effective  collective action, especially considering that people don\u2019t have any social structures in the  beginning. This makes for only a small window of opportunity to organise. This requires a  skilful organiser to do adequate leadership identification and effectively use the O of Os to  organise students.  <\/p>

The two publics are both agents of change on the side of labour, if they get organised.  But what is the role of the third public that cuts across the two, the critical intellectual. Harney  and Moten (2013, p.26) write that: \u201cthe only relationship to the university today, is a criminal one\u201d. <\/em>A relationship where one abuses the hospitality of the university, steals from it, seeks  refuge but doesn\u2019t become part of it. I agree with this to a large extent, but I don\u2019t think it goes  far enough. They themselves already point out that the negligence of the critical academic  asserts bourgeois individualism and turns, trough own their labour of critiquing, the most  critical academics from insurgents into state agents. Only dwelling in the university ruins to  abuse its hospitality won\u2019t get its abolition much closer as it is often done individually. So, yes,  steal from the university, abuse its hospitality. But also, be an organiser. Think strategically  about what you want to accomplish. Is it worth trying to shape the university trough it\u2019s  countless committees, councils and articles. Is it worth only organising little action groups to  occupy buildings or do teach-ins, even though it\u2019s a lot of fun. When leftists forgot how to  organise, this also includes the leftist academics and I think it is time we remember what we did in 1968. The critical academic can function as a bridge between staff and student as their  interests align. They already have access to most structures and are imbedded in the social  networks. When playing the role of organiser, the critical academic can be in, against and  beyond the university.<\/p>

The university as an industry plays an essential role in capitalist reproduction (Saunders, 2023).  For the neoliberal university is vital for the reproduction of cheap labourers and knowledge. In  some cases, universities still legitimise the nation state and with that the violence that they are  built on. Israel being the clearest example, legitimising the apartheid and the genocide on  Palestinians (Wind, 2024). But like any other industry, it is possible to fight back against it. It  is possible to bring the whole thing to a halt and not only beg, ask, steal, or dwell but to take  the whole thing, as its already ours. To build alternatives with the materials of the ruins,  throwing away what we don\u2019t like and keeping the things we like. To work toward the abolition  of the university is to struggle at the point of knowledge production, is to be a real criminal, is  to get organised and be an organiser. In, against and beyond.  <\/p>

Literature<\/h4>

Harney, S., & Moten, F. (2013). The Undercommons: Fugitive Planning & Black  Study<\/em>. http:\/\/ci.nii.ac.jp\/ncid\/BB13042092 <\/p>

McAlevey, J. F. (2018). No shortcuts: Organizing for Power in the New Gilded Age<\/em>. Oxford  University Press, USA. <\/p>

Readings, B. (1996). The university in ruins<\/em>. http:\/\/ci.nii.ac.jp\/ncid\/BA27691697 Saunders, G. (2023). Prefiguring the idea of the university for a Post-Capitalist society.  In Springer eBooks<\/em>. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1007\/978-3-031-46649-6 Wind, M. (2024). Towers of ivory and steel: How Israeli Universities Deny Palestinian  Freedom<\/em>. Verso Books<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Jasper Schut The university is in ruins and still we should work towards its abolition (Readers, 1997; Harney  & Moten, 2013). These two things are nothing but mutually exclusive. The university being in  ruins comes from the idea that the role of this institution is no longer clear within the modern  capitalist society. It used […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":4737,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"elementor_theme","format":"standard","meta":{"content-type":"","_surecart_dashboard_logo_width":"180px","_surecart_dashboard_show_logo":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_orders":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_invoices":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_subscriptions":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_downloads":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_billing":true,"_surecart_dashboard_navigation_account":true,"_uag_custom_page_level_css":"","site-sidebar-layout":"default","site-content-layout":"","ast-site-content-layout":"default","site-content-style":"default","site-sidebar-style":"default","ast-global-header-display":"","ast-banner-title-visibility":"","ast-main-header-display":"","ast-hfb-above-header-display":"","ast-hfb-below-header-display":"","ast-hfb-mobile-header-display":"","site-post-title":"","ast-breadcrumbs-content":"","ast-featured-img":"","footer-sml-layout":"","theme-transparent-header-meta":"","adv-header-id-meta":"","stick-header-meta":"","header-above-stick-meta":"","header-main-stick-meta":"","header-below-stick-meta":"","astra-migrate-meta-layouts":"set","ast-page-background-enabled":"default","ast-page-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-4)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"ast-content-background-meta":{"desktop":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"tablet":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""},"mobile":{"background-color":"var(--ast-global-color-5)","background-image":"","background-repeat":"repeat","background-position":"center center","background-size":"auto","background-attachment":"scroll","background-type":"","background-media":"","overlay-type":"","overlay-color":"","overlay-opacity":"","overlay-gradient":""}},"_price":"","_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_header":"","_tribe_default_ticket_provider":"","_tribe_ticket_capacity":"0","_ticket_start_date":"","_ticket_end_date":"","_tribe_ticket_show_description":"","_tribe_ticket_show_not_going":false,"_tribe_ticket_use_global_stock":"","_tribe_ticket_global_stock_level":"","_global_stock_mode":"","_global_stock_cap":"","_tribe_rsvp_for_event":"","_tribe_ticket_going_count":"","_tribe_ticket_not_going_count":"","_tribe_tickets_list":"[]","_tribe_ticket_has_attendee_info_fields":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,14],"tags":[5],"class_list":["post-4070","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-media","category-nieuwsbrief","tag-media"],"aioseo_notices":[],"uagb_featured_image_src":{"full":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image.png",454,317,false],"thumbnail":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image-150x150.png",150,150,true],"medium":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image-300x209.png",300,209,true],"medium_large":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image.png",454,317,false],"large":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image.png",454,317,false],"1536x1536":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image.png",454,317,false],"2048x2048":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image.png",454,317,false],"trp-custom-language-flag":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image-18x12.png",18,12,true],"woocommerce_thumbnail":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image-300x225.png",300,225,true],"woocommerce_single":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image.png",454,317,false],"woocommerce_gallery_thumbnail":["https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/04\/image-100x100.png",100,100,true]},"uagb_author_info":{"display_name":"STUUR Rotterdam","author_link":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/author\/stuur\/"},"uagb_comment_info":0,"uagb_excerpt":"Jasper Schut The university is in ruins and still we should work towards its abolition (Readers, 1997; Harney  & Moten, 2013). These two things are nothing but mutually exclusive. The university being in  ruins comes from the idea that the role of this institution is no longer clear within the modern  capitalist society. It used…","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4070","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/5"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4070"}],"version-history":[{"count":19,"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4070\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4892,"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4070\/revisions\/4892"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/4737"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4070"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4070"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/stuur-rotterdam.nl\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4070"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}