Most of the scientific articles that I
read are very neutral in emotions they awake in me.
Instead, they usually evoke simple
reactions:
"Ok, understandable what is said"
"Ok, not understandable. I have
not yet reached this level of abstraction"
"Ok, simply, very simply, so that
stupid"
"Ok, nothing new".
This is the first article that makes me
angry. It really irritates! The article tells about changes in social structures in Germany. Although the author does not mention the word
"Germany". In the article I recognise the current situation
in Germany. The whole article is the product of the German reality.
The author lives in it and reflects it.
Closer to the content. The article
tells how the value and the meaning of higher education and academy
titles have changed. Earlier (in the 70s) it was quite elitist to
have a doctoral degree in Germany. Today however a doctoral degree is
not always associated with the elite. The article clearly
states that those who have reached higher education (especially women
and people from lower social status) – Master and Doctoral degrees
– cannot find a job, dissent paid job and hence cannot reach a
higher status in society. They have to look for other ways of engagement and other roles that they can play in a society. This role
appears to be voluntary activity in civic organisations.
The author dwells a lot about their situation.
The author concludes that the value of doctoral degrees decreases.
But he does not simply states it. The
author is totally angry about
it. He is angry at all those masses that received PhD and in such a
way de-valued this title. He
virtually blames women and people from lower social lays to devalue
academic titles that used to a sign of the elite. His anger and blame
is totally chauvinistic outrage!
Women by making own PhD devalued the title?! I am
totally angry with this article, because the author firstly is not
right and secondly dares to be angry at someone who is least to be
blamed in the situation!
Let me remind
the author, the elite, put it shortly, is a male capitalist. So I see
this situation as
the feminist-chauvinist conflict. The
wide entry of women in higher education is
a result of feminist movements of the 60s-70s.
They strived to reach the same status as
men. But the elite class is a closed circle. The access requirement to the circle is not only an academic
degree but also relations. But the network of these relations is closed and
defined by social status. To remain elite the circle simply denies
the entry to those PhD-carriers that are unwellcomed. No!
Women and those from lower social classes
did not devalued the PhD title. It is just
the old system built by male capitalists
does not value, does
not recognise and does not accept the
content of PhD that women chose! That is what makes me angry.
The
author is angry that a closed circle of elite class is trespassed with unwellcomed PhDs. To
prevent it, a male capitalist simply ignores unwellcomed PhD titles.
What questions would women and lower social class rise in the PhD?
If they are not fully primed with the system, they would rise
questions that go in conflict with the system and intend to criticise
it and destroy it and try to finally bring the aim of movement of
the 60s to the end - change the system! Change is a nice tricky word. So I should
add: to change it the way they wanted. I can imagine a range of those
topics. The topics that have hints of feminism and socialism
and intend to destroy the capitalistic logic that tries to beget
the notion of economic effectivity in every aspect of human life.
My interpretation of the situation
described in the article is the following. It can only mean that the
system did not change. The elite class remains closed, despite PhD
titles from those who does not belong to the
circle. After all revolutions and social movements in the
60s-70s the system did not change. The system, the money, decisions and
elite class created and controlled by male is still there. They
simple do not accept women and others in
their closed circles. The full change of the society would be the
full acceptance of women with academic degrees into working life and
decision making process and introduction of their views and
perspectives. Only has the facade of the system changed. The core
system is still there and the author is the part of it. And
I am one of immense number of females who
strive for PhD in Germany but it seems not working.
The article is called
On a contradictory way to the 'learning society': A critical approach
Alheit, P 1999 in Studies in the Education of Adults;Apr99, Vol. 31 Issue 1, p66
