UK Higher Education Strike: A Message of Support

This article was first published under a different title by on 30/10/2013. Please click on the link or see Publications & Contributions for the original text and other articles I have published elsewhere.

Barring the event of a highly unlikely eleventh hour deal the members of UCU, Unison, and Unite working in higher education will proceed with industrial action on Thursday, October 31 across England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland.

The background to this strike like so many others is one of reluctant action against an unflappably disinterested employer. University staff – including technicians, administration staff, and lecturers – have been offered a derisory pay increase of 1%. This equates to a realImage terms pay cut of 13% over the last five years. Simply put, this is unacceptable.

Using the narrative of austerity to justify the degradation of public sector workers wages has become commonplace since 2010, and this is just another example of that most pervasive of concepts – cuts. Despite there being some dispute over whether the percentage of members who did vote was sufficient to carry the decision, this will be the first time all three unions have opted for action simultaneously. This fact alone highlights the weight of feeling against the current trends towards casual contracts and pay freezes for those staff already the hardest hit by the economic downturn.

Staff will be uniting across the UK on Thursday in defence of their right to a wage that reflects the hard work they have put in to build this country’s higher education network. Anyone who works within universities day to day either as students, researchers, or teaching staff knows very well that there is a significant contingent of low paid staff who cannot afford to maintain their positions with price rises as they are. Without a deal on wages we could lose a whole generation of early career academics and support staff. The deleterious effect this would have will damage the very quality of education we can rightly take pride in throughout these islands.

Today’s pay cut may well be tomorrow’s P45, and we owe it to ourselves and future generations of students to prevent this from happening. Whether you are a Scottish student paying zero tuition fees or from the rest of the UK and burdened with massive debts before you have even been honoured with a degree, there is a direct correlation between your treatment and how universities pay their staff. Such actions encompass a wider strategy of driving down wages, hiking up fees, and limiting the inclusivity of higher education in an attempt to create a model of education that is perfectly geared towards profit and only passively interested in social justice as an academic curiosity.

Remember that it is not staff on zero hours contracts or semi-employed lecturers who are responsible for hikes in tuition fees, but the policies which have seen vice-chancellors receive an average pay rise of £5000 in 2011/12. Their average pay and pensions package for the same year stood at £247,428. The highest among them, the University of Birmingham’s David Eastwood, took home £372,000 before even taking into account additional pension contributions. When told that this is in fact considerably less than they could earn in the private sector (presumably doing so out of their natural benevolent tendencies) then you garner a fairly cogent idea of how wages are distributed in this society of ours.

Higher education employees are not asking for any special treatment, merely the realisation of their expected pay increases as any hard working group of individuals would. It is important to remember that higher education staff have experienced one of the longest sustained wage cuts of any profession since the end of the Second World War. As always many sections of the press will attempt to present this as a case of public sector versus private sector workers, the former allegedly under the delusional belief that they deserve extra favour. This narrative falls so far short of any semblance of truth that it barely warrants mention. Unfortunately it is one that has been crucial in the past and remains pervasive. This is a concerted attempt to split social bonds and divide workers down lines which divert us away from the real culprits of working poverty nationwide.

The ISG like many other socialist organisations would like to stress that we stand behind the workers on strike. Using university facilities or attending lectures in defiance of the picket is a direct boon to the neoliberal ethos that has come to consume the higher education sector in the UK. Choosing to utilise the library or access your office for the purpose of work legitimises the pay structure of your university and suggests that the institution can operate without the vital service of their employees. At the very least please respect the political importance of the strike, and if you truly want to show solidarity with workers then join the picket line. Many a transformative political experience has been had at demonstrations such as this. Everyone is welcome regardless of affiliation, for in the display of unity the forgotten can be made enormous. It is our duty to stand shoulder to shoulder with striking workers wherever they may be, from Aberdeen to Plymouth, in canteens and lecture theatres – let us never forget which side we are on.

Please take some time to view the information surrounding the strikes and rationale for this decision. Here are links to the websites of the three unions involved:

Unison –
Unite –


Ivan Illich: A Contemporary Introduction

This article was first published in an edited form by on 15/10/2013. Please click on the link or see Publications & Contributions for the original text and other articles I have published elsewhere.

Not often do we find the character of a Roman Catholic Priest, radical social reformer, ascetic, philosopher, and all round rabble-rouser embodied in one person. Fortunately for those inclined towards such pursuits Austria provided us with the inimitable Ivan Illich in the year of 1926. Boasting an expansive bibliography concerning many topics of contemporary importance it is perhaps time we cast our eye over this enigmatic figure.

For those new to the works of Illich his writing variously covered the fields of education, medicine, sociology, technology, and ecology – yet rather noticeably not theology. He worked and taught in no fewer than twelve different countries in Europe and the Americas and at all times his focus was firmly on those at the sharp end of inequality. Like many polymaths before and after him there is a danger that his output loses significance because of its sheer scope, as such I will try to focus here on his two most important contributions, the way we work and the way we learn.

Illich wrote extensively on the function and role of the human being at work and interestingly also on their journey to work (he potentially leads the grumpy philosopher league table in terms of hatred of cars). His texts Shadow Work, Tools for Conviviality, and The Right to Useful Unemployment set out his benchmark philosophy of conviviality.

A convivial society would be the result of social arrangements that guarantee for each member the most ample and free access to the tools of the community and limit this freedom only in favour of another member’s equal freedom. [1]

Illich believed we should seek out tools, not machines. A tool by his definition is capable of a variety of functions and purposes whilst still being an extension of its user. All of the social structures and hegemonies we create are tools, they are however all too often malignant in nature – family, gender, environment – all tools to a perceived end, all tools which need not be as they are. In finding new tools for conviviality we can become a society of individuals within a purposeful efficient structure.

Illich’s most widely read text, which has received heightened exposure in recent years, is Deschooling Society. As a manifesto for educational change few philosophers have been so scathing in their pursuit of a new approach. It called for the unmasking of ritualised beliefs, the disintegration of formalised learning, and the prescient introduction of new technologies to hand power over to the agents of change – namely, us.

As long as we are not aware of the ritual through which school shapes the progressive consumer- the economy’s major resource – we cannot break the spell of this economy and shape a new one.[2]

Many have referred to Illich as an archivist of ideas rather than a philosopher or theorist and I think this is only to his credit. He is trying to show us what lies beneath the widely held beliefs that construct our supposedly benign institutions – schools, hospitals, churches – and at the same time pose the question ‘how can we seek change when we do not understand the nature of the machinery which nourishes us?’

Deschooling Society neatly encompasses the two bêtes noires of Illich’s work, modernisation and the illegitimate institution. For Illich language is very important and by speaking the language of the poor and allowing them to speak for themselves he hoped to find new modes of learning unfettered by structural imposition.

People can defend language as inherently theirs; they can find in their inalienable natures the confidence to use their unchanged formal structures to express contents entirely opposed to those for which they were taught to use them in their childhood.[3]

Words therefore become the soul of the people, the dormant means by which we can express discontent and truly reflect our own struggles. This kind of unshackled expression will simply not allow for the cosh of institutional arrangements. He was by no means alone in this pursuit, most notably echoing the work of the great Marxist educationalist Paolo Freire in Brazil, but Illich did lay down a manifesto for self education and voluntary arrangements that we can still see today in the emerging trends for lifelong learning and open universities.

Illich understood that systems – be they hierarchical, communitarian, despotic, or religious – are complex, and rarely can the fundamentals of a sound idea percolate from generation to generation without disharmony. It is with this in mind that he sought to question the assumptions of emerging ideas from the perspective of those who might fall under their auspices, namely the poor and disenfranchised. This mindset brought him to both Puerto Rico and Mexico where he taught new missionaries that every struggle is at its first point of fruition a local one. It must appeal to the common desires and shared language of the people swaddled in its injustices before it can hope to incubate change further afield. This was in stark contrast to the imposed doctrine of the Church he officially represented (though personally denounced) and flew in the face of the cultural western powers which sought to capitalise on the vast resources in the region by way of a religiously guided charm offensive.

So what can people in the UK draw from this revolutionary voice? If Scotland is to become a newly independent state it will be incumbent upon all living within its boundaries to question the long held tenets of centuries of UK social and economic policy. The answers to these questions are by no means simple but if we can learn anything from Illich it is this:

In a society caught up in the race for the better, limits on change are experienced as a threat. The commitment to the better at any cost makes the good impossible at all costs.[4]

Which begs the question, what do they mean when they say we are ‘better together’? For those in England, Wales and Northern Ireland the possibility of a break from this kind of rhetoric is not as clear. What is clear however is that radical groups and seekers of socialism have a lot of work to do in every country, city, and community across these islands entirely independently of their supposedly mandated governments in order to realise these essential ideas.

The growth of green industries and worldwide communications has brought about entirely new kinds of industry and social formations, new tools (potentially) for conviviality. In an independent Scotland where possibility is plentiful it is up to us therefore to decide how we can contribute to that society, to one another, and to enrich ourselves.  In doing so we can set an example for our friends throughout Europe and beyond by abandoning an aggressive neo-liberal agenda, thereby creating the most powerful tools for conviviality possible – peace and solidarity.

Illich by no means has all of the answers, yet he does present an interesting case for rethinking how we live, work, and learn – and it is with this in mind that he can be an inspiration still to all who seek a radical alternative in increasingly unimaginative times.

[1] Illich, I. (1973) Tools for Conviviality. p.12, Marion Boyars, London

[2] Illich, I. (1971) Deschooling Society. p.37, Marion Boyars, London

[3] Illich, I. (1973) Tools for Conviviality. p.97, Marion Boyars, London

[4] Illich, I. (1973) Tools for Conviviality. p.75, Marion Boyars, London

Morrissey and Post-Industrial Manchester

In honour of his forthcoming autobiography which will no doubt seek to wind up every bugger who was ever born unto the breath of dawn, here is Morrissey banging on about a spot of post-industrial decline in his classic pretty boy Manchester lilt: tumblr_mqxsctVZT71sv2ktho1_500

You may also interpret his comments as being about the decline of a great white British culture slowly eroding away under a torrent of immigration .

And therein lies the intrigue for all those who find questions and answers aplenty in this controversial figure.