Abstract
Bangladesh’s post-secondary education has become a hunting ground for local economic conglomerates and their transnational allies. Applying a holistic lens helps to understand the factors and short-term effects of blindly applying neo-liberal induced deregulation and privatization that constructed a mushrooming “McDonaldization” culture in the local post-secondary setting (Ball, 2003; Levin, 1998). The findings of a six-week-long study on Bangladeshi private universities, involving 32 interviews with students and faculty, civil society, and business community representatives and over 100 hours of ethnographic observation, contradict the ideal roles of universities in Bangladeshi society as they lead to demands that neither the universities nor the society can satisfy (Boulton and Lucas, 2011; Collini, 2012). These findings indicate this system constructs “zombie graduates” (Husain, forthcoming), who are entitlement happy yet lack critical understanding and suffer from acute ‘philosophical poverty’ (Husain, forthcoming). In addition, this paper highlights the psyche of upper-middle-class local students and how they reinforce a habitus for effective domination (Bourdieu, 1989, 1997). Finally, this paper critically analyses the imbalanced application of economics and philosophy in higher education governance and argues that the outcomes can hurt post-colonial Bangladeshi culture and society in the long run (Harvey, 2005; Sen, 2006). Critically, these impacts contribute to two arguments: White Men’s Germ on Brown Men’s Body (Husain, forthcoming) and Betrayal by the Intellectuals (Chatterjee, 2004; Orwell, 1949).
Keywords
Introduction
Investing in higher education and development feeds the ideology of empowerment and economic growth; it also embodies social inclusion narratives and sentiment of Western democracy (Percy, 2011). Since the end of WWII, higher education started to embrace deregulation and privatization; advancement in science and technology and market potentials, especially since the beginning of the 1980s, started to connect higher education with the developing parts of the world (Appadurai, 1990; McCowan, 2004). Governments and international development agencies, such as the World Bank and United Nations, facilitated the concept of privatizing or corporatizing higher education in the developing world. Arguably, in many ways these facilitations purported to stimulate economies and eventually develop equity for all in the society. Despite being imprisoned in that illusion of modernity, the lessons started to reveal that progress and sacrifice come hand in hand.
Considering the rise of wealth gap and neo-liberal ineffectiveness for the marginalized in the Global South, this paper takes on the development claims made by private enterprises in the context of higher education sector in Bangladesh. With recent standing as a middle-income country and with its large and young population base, Bangladesh holds immense potential for market development and growth (World Bank, 2015). In 1992, considering higher education as the medium for development and progress, the Bangladesh government gave permission to open the country’s first private university. As of 2012, the official number of private universities in Bangladesh has increased to 84 (University Grant Commission, 2015). However, the quality of education remains a topic of grave concern and demands qualitative deconstruction and analysis (Bose, 2014; Islam, 2014; Sultana, 2014).
For example, when one uses an interdisciplinary approach to critically assess the impacts of higher education in Bangladesh, arguably, one can infer that there exists a disjuncture between moral philosophy and the blind application of right-wing economic prescriptions in a country’s higher education sector. Moreover, Bangladesh’s emerging economy today continues to suffer from development and governance issues with multiple roots. Arguably, this part of the world was not a direct participant in the history of the evolution of the institutions of modern capitalist democracy. The civil society in many such developing countries appear “as the closed association of modern elite groups that remain sequestered from the wider popular life of the communities and walled up within enclaves of civic freedom and rational law” (Chatterjee, 2004: 4). As a result, Bangladesh is not entirely capable of accessing technical and managerial expertise and efficiency at the level that most Western countries are able to leverage functional democracy and reform systems. Bangladesh’s higher education industry, especially the private universities, is not an exception and appears to generate paradoxical results (Collini, 2012; McCowan, 2004).
This paper considers the historical, socio-economic, and political contexts of Bangladesh and analyzes the short-term constructed outcomes of mushrooming private universities in urban Bangladesh. The findings are gathered from a six-week-long study in six Bangladeshi private universities, involving 32 interviews with students and faculty, civil society, and business community representatives and over 100 hours of ethnographic observation. The major findings indicate the following patterns:
excessive profit-generating psyche of the private university and their lack of interest in allowing government to intervene; absence of basic student services on campus, such as classrooms equipped with technology, standard libraries, research facilities, and placement opportunities, among others; the faculty pool are treated as term employees; the part-timer ‘rickshaw faculty’ (Husain, forthcoming) ride rickshaws to teach from one university to the other and remain indifferent toward interacting with students or to monitor disciplinary misconducts, such as plagiarism.
Finally, our paper critically analyzes these findings using academic theories, especially how the application of globalization and power in development and social change processes on urban Bangladeshi cultural and socio-economic perspectives (Appadurai, 1990; Bourdieu, 1989, 1997; Bourgois, 2002; Geertz, 1973).
Bangladesh context
The geographical area of the Indian sub-continent is a recovering colonized space. For modern-day post-colonial Bangladesh, this historical context extends deep in time and includes the Indo-Aryan, Turk-Persian-Mongol, English, and Pakistani regimes (Eaton, 1996). The country’s post-colonial space also brings multi-faceted issues and includes various forms of human made conditions, such as social and economic inequality (Husain, 2015; Rahim, 2007). The outcomes affect 156 million Bangladeshis living in an area covering 144 thousand square kilometers, a land area equivalent to Iowa or New Brunswick (CIA, 2015). Largely, the Bangladeshi population is relatively young with 24.3 years as the median age (CIA, 2015). Market development strategists construe this large young population base as a pivotal revenue generation opportunity; thus, since the 1990s, Bangladesh’s higher education sector has undertaken various reforms, which resulted in a dramatic shift in the country’s post-secondary education landscape (Kabir, 2010). For example, these reforms transformed several key public universities into private institutions, while generating an increasing number of private universities in Bangladesh. In most cases, these reforms were implemented with an aim to increase institutional revenue and profit (Quddus and Rashid, 2000).
Although during 1971 and 1985 there were only four regular and two specialized public universities in Bangladesh, presently there are more than 84 private universities offering different courses at undergraduate and graduate levels (University Grants Commission, 2015). Despite their higher frequency in urban Dhaka, the questions remain if the Bangladeshi private universities are producing a better skilled workforce or at least shaping the young minds to become critical readers, writers, and thinkers by providing effective teaching and learning (Bose, 2014; Sultana, 2014).
Theoretical influences
The globalization of Western ideologies have significantly influenced in the higher education in Bangladesh. For example, after WWII the International Financial Institutions (IFIs), such the World Bank Group (WB) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), were established to develop the so-called “under-developed” world with the use of science and technology (Escobar, 1994: 4). The United States took the lead in designing and developing these institutions and through them provided economic assistance in European countries to prevent the spread of Soviet Communism (Lapsansky-Werner, 2011). During the early 1980s, these IFIs started to convince the developing world to privatize its public sectors, such as education, health, and transportation, among others, to develop respective economies (Harvey, 2005: 11–13).
Although privatization can create new jobs, this process also allows businesses or the hegemonic groups to exploit cheaper labor whenever they can to make extra profit; while doing so they exclude government from interfering or influencing corporate decisions or functions. This discourse of development through privatization derives from classical economic liberalism, which emerged during the caste system and European colonization periods and peaked during the rapid urbanization process in nineteenth century (Harvey, 2005: 3–4; MacEwan, 1999). As a result, society remains part of an economic system that gives more importance on the economy than on the society at large (Polanyi, 1944). This corporate-led economic system, in principle, echoes the “liberal” practices of caste-system and colonization; thus, many social science critics, such as Harvey (2005: 3), label it as “neo-liberal.” While this discourse advocates human welfare, it limits the functions of the state at enacting laws and reforms and excludes the state from influencing or making welfare policies that come in the way of corporate interests (Olssen and Peters, 2005; Peters, 2006).
Cultural theorist Samir Amin (2005) illustrates how paradigms within the social and economic sciences tend to shift with time and schools of thought often form in opposition to one another. His critical analysis reveals that the dominant paradigm becomes the “single thought” of the moment when it “responds best to the demands posed by the particular phase of capitalist development” – what best suits those with power and influence in society (2005: 20). In a similar context, Polanyi (2001) argues that instead of historically normal patterns of subordinating the economy to society, the system of self-regulating markets required subordinating society to the logic of the market. As a result, the so-called developed world now runs society “as an adjunct (accessory) to the market; instead of the economy being embedded in social relations, social relations are embedded in the economic system” (1944: 24). Similar to Polanyi’s argument, Amin’s (2005) argument demonstrates that in economic theory, the market cannot function unless placed in a hegemonic position over all other factors.
For example, since 1980s, with the advancement in finance and technology, globalizing Western education as an industry played an impeccable format in developing the under-developed process (Appadurai, 1990). IFIs, such as the World Bank, advised developing countries, such as Bangladesh, to cut public funding in higher education and instead invest on allowing the private enterprises to enter and contribute into the higher education industry (McCowan, 2004; World Bank, 1999a, 1999b, 1994). Unfortunately, the withdrawal of the state in low-income and developing countries generated resource shortage and capacity challenges while the rise of the middle classes in these countries with large population base, such as Brazil, Bangladesh, and India, produced an aspirational hunger for higher education that the state could not afford to provide. These factors eventually opened the door for private enterprises to leverage a new market demand and an ideal pro-profit opportunity.
Neo-liberal policies in post-secondary education
Since the 1980s, Bangladesh started to adopt neo-liberal policies in various sectors of the economy, such as agriculture, banking, and industries (Nuruzzaman, 2004). In fact, Bangladesh was one of the very first amongst the 35 countries to receive IMF’s Structural Adjustment Facility and Extended Structural Adjustment Facility (Bhattacharya et al., 1999). In 2005, the World Bank identified seven major crises in Bangladeshi education sector and allocated USD 100 million for the reformation of country’s higher education sector (Daily Ovimot, 2006). The key recommendations included:
Reduce government allocation in the higher education sector despite the fact Bangladesh makes a very low investment in higher education, which is 8.8% of its GDP, compared to some other developing countries such as India (20.3%), Thailand (19.2%), and Malaysia (33.3%) (University Grant Commission, 2006: 9). Most of the developed and developing countries all over the world have reduced public expenditure in the higher education sector by increasing tuition fees, financial aid, student loans, various cost-recovery measures, and different income-generating measures; therefore, Bangladesh should introduce such measures in the higher education sector to reduce government expenditure per student. Reduce government subsidy in the higher education sector and advise the universities to raise income by 50% through tuition increase and other income-generating activities, including 10% from leasing out land and buildings, 5% from cafeterias, cyber cafes, bookshops, souvenir and clothing shops, etc., 15% from offering courses in evenings for professionals, 5% from consultancy services, 10% from alumni contributions, 15% from university endowment, 15% from partnership with industries and the private sector and 25% from graduate tax.
Critics of neo-liberalism in higher education, such as Kabir (2010), remain skeptical about these recommendations. He argues that when a public university, similar to a business corporation, remains busy to maximize its profit, it puts itself in a position of conflicting interest; the profit-seeking function of a university can also contradict its traditional equitable objectives and visions (2010: 622). He further remarks these recommendations were made around the same time when some European countries, such as Germany, made public university tuition free (2010: 622). Essentially, Kabir (2010) indicates that the hegemonic roles played by the Western IFIs and local Bangladeshi political and economically powerful elites assist in materializing a market-driven higher education system in Bangladesh, eventually benefitting from these reforms and implementation process (Gramsci, 1971).
In a similar context, civil society critic, Bose (2014), argues that nepotism and corruption, both of which imply abusing power for personal benefit, remain as key national impediments for democracy in Bangladesh. Although he admits not everyone in positions of power is involved in corruption, there nonetheless remains a close relationship between power and corruption. He also refers to the annual Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) published by Transparency International (n.d.), which ranked Bangladesh at the bottom of the list for the fifth successive year; Bangladesh continues to stay in the lowest quarter in this index (Bose, 2014; TIB, 2014).
In the context of hegemony, Bose (2014) draws Bangladesh’s higher education sector. For example, according to him, most of Bangladeshi private universities are owned and managed by the local elites and former senior bureaucrats with strong ties to the main two political parties that ran Bangladesh in the last 25 years through an incumbency pattern (Bose, 2014). Unfortunately, piloting and sustaining neo-liberal ideologies by these hegemonic groups secured their vested economic interests at the expense of the students. The short-term outputs and relevant social constructs of applying neo-liberal reforms in Bangladeshi higher education sector are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Short-term neo-liberal outputs
The neo-liberal policy agenda transformed the Bangladeshi higher education sector in various ways. In 2005, for example, Jagannath University, one of Bangladesh’s most ancient and prestigious public universities, became a private one (Kabir, 2010). In addition, with an aim to generate additional revenues, the public universities started to offer evening courses. For example, the Institute of Information Technology and the Department of Development Studies at Dhaka University initiated offering market-oriented programs (Kabir, 2010). The same university’s Institute of Statistical Research and Training also started to offer short training modules for researchers, practitioners, and professionals (Kabir, 2010).
Given Bangladesh’s large and young population base and an insatiable demand for higher education, the local elites foresaw investing in the country’s higher education sector as an easy and straightforward way to accumulate further wealth (Islam, 2014; Rahman, 2014). Thus, since the late 1990s, private universities started mushrooming in Bangladesh (Kabir, 2010). Although specific academic conditions need to be fulfilled to secure the license to operate a private university, such as developing a permanent infrastructure over on at least five acres of land, unfortunately, over 90% of private universities in Bangladesh do not have permanent infrastructure (Kabir, 2010).
In addition, there is a pattern that indicates nepotism and mismanagement in hiring personnel in these institutions, especially for higher-level decision making positions, such as vice chancellors, pro-vice chancellors and treasurers (Sultana, 2014). From 1992 to 2008, out of the 56 private universities that received government permission to operate, the licenses of five universities were cancelled due to violation of the Private University Act. However, two of them continued to conduct academic activities with permission of the High Court (University Grants Commission, 2008). In 2008, 32,701 students earned degrees from 47 private universities (2009: 142); as of 2009, a total of 182,641 (75% male) students were studying in 51 private universities (2009: 144). Among them, 27% of students studied science related subjects, 26% of students studied business studies, and 18% studied arts and social sciences (2009: 144). However, we could not obtain specific assessment related information on the effectiveness of the curriculum to enhance the skills of the students and their contribution in Bangladesh’s labor market. In addition, we could not find specific information on availability of research facilities and job placement services offered by these private universities.
In 2009, it was discovered that the provisional approvals or the licenses for the private universities, which were given out for five-year terms, expired for 43 private universities out of 51 institutions (The Daily Star, 2010a). There were another five universities that had no eligibility to run their academic activities as their provisional approvals expired ten years ago. However, due to hegemonic indifference, all these universities still managed to enroll students in academic programs (Gramsci, 1971; Husain, 2015). In addition, they did not address the raised concerns over inadequate classroom size and non-existing research resources, as well as lack of qualified and permanent faculty members (The Daily Star, 2010a). Interestingly, the private university owners also successfully managed to restrict the amendment process of the country’s Private University Act (Bose, 2014; Islam, 2014; Sultana, 2014).
Qualitative findings from field observation
In addition to conducting an extensive archival research, we conducted a six-week-long study on Bangladeshi private universities in summer 2014. This study involved six focus group discussions that took place in six different private universities in Dhaka, Bangladesh. We also conducted over 100 hours of ethnographic observation in these institutions. In addition, four faculty members, two civil society representatives, and two influential business community members, respectively shared their views on the country’s higher education sector. Our analysis on observations and findings are shared in the sub-sections below.
Euphemisms and marketing globalization
The following types of advertisements, in principle, frequent in Bangladeshi print media: Better Education is a dream; is the priority of time! Our Education Loan enables parents/guardians/students for those who want to fulfill their dreams. You can avail the loan with competitive rates, convenient features and simple procedures. (Prime Bank, 2011)
In this context, civil society critics, such as Bose (2014) and Sultana (2014), highlighted the aspect of double-dipping and explained that the owners of the private universities and private banks often came from the same families. These practices can create socio-economic inequality in a post-colonial culture in the long run (Mosse, 2010; Sen, 1982). However, despite the threats of debt and inequality, there remains substantial demand from Bangladesh’s urban youth to enroll in a private institution over a public one (Focus Group Discussions, 2014b).
Moreover, through focus group discussions, we observed that the middle-class youth in urban Dhaka, whose age ranges between 18 and 28 years, view private university education as a symbol of prestige. We construe this social construct as a product of globalization. Appadurai (1990) argues that the outcomes of globalization is affecting social and cultural reproduction as they can exploit people and distort relations between men and women by constantly deterritorializing money, commodity, and people (1990: 302–303). He further argues that these practises envelope people through subtle constructs coined by media and ideascapes (1990: 305). Interestingly, these points also frequently came up during our focus group discussions. The participants, in this context, remarked that attending private universities meant being modern and often they felt pressure to adapt relevant social constructs by taking loans from relatives or banks to enroll at a private university (Focus Group Discussions, 2014c).
In addition, deconstructing the material conditions of Dhaka’s urban youth can indicate that their social life can be constructed by the name of the private university he or she attends (Focus Group Discussions, 2014d). Bourgois (2002) contextualizes reality with social symbols and remarks, “Reality is socially constructed.” This formation of such social groups also complements the views of Geertz (1973), who states culture should be read and interpreted as a symbolic system (1973: 30). Thus, it can be inferred that attending a private university is a fashion and prestige statement for an urban youth in Bangladesh.
Rickshaw faculty
Based on our focus group discussions and ethnographic observations in six private universities in urban Dhaka, less than 10% of faculty had tenure or full-time jobs. In addition, lack of research facilities, poor remuneration packages, and limited career prospects caused higher turnover rate. We interviewed four part-time faculty members of a well-known private university in Bangladesh, who requested to remain anonymous. They remarked teaching for about two to four years and eventually pursuing doctoral studies in Western countries, especially in United States or Canada (Unknown, 2014). These interviewees further remarked that they taught at 15–20 private universities. “I needed the money,” remarked one of the faculty interviewees (Unknown, 2014). Another complained about lack of full-time contract and relevant benefits as the main reasons for leaving his teaching job in the distant future (Unknown, 2014). None of the interviewees thought they had enough interaction with students to know the names of their students. “I used to take a rickshaw to go to the next university right after I completed my lecture at the previous one. Every day I lectured at least in three to four universities,” remarked another interviewee (Unknown, 2014). Thus, in order to refer such mobile part-time faculty members, we coin a term, ‘rickshaw faculty’ (Husain, forthcoming). This is a common phenomenon in Dhaka’s university hub, Banani, where approximately over 35 or so universities are located.
Although we interviewed only four faculty members and this small sample size is inadequate to form a generalization, in principle, the remarks shared above clearly highlight examples of neo-liberalism in the university in action. Essentially, the massive pools of exploited, and under-employed contingent or “adjunct” private university faculty in urban Dhaka meek out a living by teaching too many courses in too many different universities. They do not have time for students because they have hundreds of them, and are perpetually exhausted and marginalizing themselves. They also emphasize the precarious and dehumanizing experience of belonging to a workforce characterized by low wages (Harvey, 2005).
Although forming kinship and affiliation are embedded within Bengali culture, recent neo-liberalization or corporatization of higher education in urban Dhaka portrays a contradictory construction of deterritorialization between the teachers and students in private universities in urban Dhaka (Appadurai 1990). Polanyi (1944) predicted such outcome while analyzing the logic of the market and social relations (1944: 24). The ties between the interviewed faculty members and their employers appear to be based on a monthly business transaction; this space makes the recruiters treat the students as consumers while it makes the teachers treat embedded social relations with students as secondary. Although we are not generalizing, this type of superficial affiliation can undermine the objectives of inter-active learning and overall goals of education (Bose, 2014; Sultana, 2014).
In this context, Levin (1998) vents his concerns and refers neo-liberal reforms as “a policy epidemic”. Ball (2003) agrees to Levin’s (1998), in principle, and remarks, “The novelty of this epidemic of reform is that it does not simply change what people, as educators, scholars and researchers do, it changes who they are” (2003: 215). He further states, “This performativity gets in the way of ‘real’ academic work or ‘proper’ learning” (2003: 226).
“McDonaldization” culture
Although cultural identity and solidarity are important for the Bangladeshis, class rule prevails in post-colonial Bangladeshi space (Eaton, 1996; Sen, 1982, 2006). The latter can be reflected by observing the students attending post-secondary universities in Bangladesh. Based on the information shared by participants during the focus group discussion, we observed that the physical gestures, such as communication mannerism and level of confidence of private university students were different from ones that attended public universities. In addition, the students from private universities preferred to perceive themselves as relatively more modern or Western; this construction reflected their subtle claim for relative superiority and better social prestige (Bourgois, 2002). One interviewee remarked, “I expect a student from a private university to dress trendy and communicate in English” (Focus Group Discussion, 2014d). Overall, we observed that the students that attend private universities have a special interest for Western attire, especially jeans, and they like to eat out, especially Western food, such as sandwichs, burgers, and soft drinks.
Based on our observation, we construe that for students, private universities are bastions and producers of privilege, and the various shops that surround campuses usually reflect that. Since the students can easily transfer to a Western university, they start to act and behave like they already are in the West through their material conditions. For example, they prefer to have a sandwich and Coca-Cola over bhat-sabji (“rice and vegetable”) for lunch and while having lunch or snack, they prefer to check their Facebook updates on their expensive gazettes (Ethnographic Observation).1 Apparently, these private university students that drink Coca-Cola and eat sandwiches are participating in Western practices because it serves to mark their elite and privilege status (Bourdieu, 1989: 14–15). In addition, it serves to differentiate them from those around them (1989: 19).
Essentially, these examples help us to interpret a constructed “McDonaldization” culture in a local space (Ritzer, 1998). These constructs facilitated to open up more burger joints in the vicinity of university areas than the number of book shops, magazine outlets, libraries and photocopy stands combined (Ethnographic Observation, 2014). Civil society critics, such as Sultana (2014), while observing the constructed “McDonaldization” culture in the urban space, remarks, “they [Bangladeshi private universities] create dependency but not capacity. We will have more consumers and clerks, but neither CEOs nor chiefs in the future, as a result” (Sultana, 2014). She also refers to the World-Systems theory (Wallerstein, 1974, 2006), which splits the countries of the world into a three-level hierarchy – core, periphery, and semi-periphery – and where the core countries are dominant capitalist countries that exploit peripheral countries, such as Bangladesh, for labor, raw materials, or a new market to sell finished goods. In the context of this theory, further remarks Sultana (2014), “Creating the process of subtle dependency does not lead to progress; it leads to neo-colonization.”
We also observed that many urban youth in Dhaka view attending private universities in urban Dhaka for a year or two as an investment to gateway to a university in the West, especially in Australia, UK, or USA. In fact, based on collected data, we could draw a linear progression between the number of students that join private universities in the first year and the fraction of that cohort eventually transfer to a tier-two or tier-three university in the West (Focus Groups Discussions, 2014c, 2014e, 2014f). For example, in each of the six universities where we held our focus group meetings, approximately 40% students each year transferred to universities abroad when they reached third year (Focus Groups Discussions, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d, 2014e, 2014f). Given 743% emigration rate of Bangladeshis during 1990 to 2010, this estimation reflects a vivid picture of the harsh social reality that exists in post-colonial Bangladesh (Census, 2011).
Economic class and habitus
Based on interviewing 24 students at six different private universities, over 77% students shared that they find the business model of the university uninspiring (Focus Group Discussions, 2014a, 2014b, 2014c, 2014d, 2014e, 2014f). Since the culture between the public and private universities is mutually distinctive, unique identity formations that stem from these institutions generate mutually exclusive social relations and relevant constructs, which eventually form a dialectical relationship between the private university students and the public university students.
Bourdieu (1989) hypothesizes such a dialectical relationship between the classic division between objectivism and subjectivism and suggests that the key to understanding this dialectic lies in a relational model of social existence (1989: 15). He remarks that social structures express themselves as relations of power within a field and within that imagined field spatial distance indicates social distance (1989: 15). In the context of our ethnographic observation and Bourdieu (1989)’s explanations, we interpret the social relations constructed at the private university space more economically and politically influential. For example, the students from local rich families meet the other representatives of affluence to form fraternities. Such bonding often carries enough influence to alter university norms and protocols, such as in securing faculty placements through leveraging family ties and in finding placements for fellow subordinate students in the industries, among others (Focus Group Discussions, 2014a, 2014b, 2014d). In fact, education consumerism at the private university space leads local students from upper middle and upper class to construct social power and thus, reinforce a habitus, which eventually can become effective to leverage domination with ease (Bourdieu, 1997).
For example, a private university graduate can get better access over a student from a public university, and thus a private university graduate is likely to end up in a relatively more powerful position or can become quickly employed. Overcoming this gap within a generation can be difficult and often requires causing a shift in social reproduction (Doob, 2013). Often this is linked with breaking rules and laws and applying improper means to improve the material conditions.
Zombie graduates
Critics of neo-liberalism argue that neo-liberal reforms to the academy, which are centered on discourses of productivity and activity, paradoxically create feelings of compliance and passivity including: (i) inability to think; (ii) loss of individual control; and (iii) contagion tend to dominate the list (Beck, 2000; Wilken and McCrea, 2013). In addition, neo-liberal critics in higher education, such as Wilken and McCrea (2013) argue that the increasing emphasis on creating a labor force is matched by a decreasing encouragement of independent thought, and can be compared as a kind of “zombie concept” or a living/dead idea that is no long representative of reality, but can still “haunt peoples’ minds.” This outcome can change the relationship of the student to the university from one of learner to one of consumer, whereby the product they consume is their own educational transformation (Appadurai, 1990; Evans, 2004: 96; Naidoo and Jamieson, 2005).
According to Percy (2011), this outcome can ultimately position the students as products of the educational “machine,” emerging as “skilled and qualified bodies” that can be put to work in the global knowledge economy as zombie learners. The “Zombie graduates” (Husain, forthcoming) of such academic process are likely to suffer from “philosophical poverty” (Husain, forthcoming), who are unable to function as a critical reader, writer or thinker. This can also lead to deterritorializing an individual from agency, cultural roots, and values while making him or her submerged in a culture filled with corporate commodities (Appadurai, 1990; Sen, 2006). Collini’s (2012: 5) remarks this situation leads us to the right direction, “[a]t the bottom, it [a private university] is an independent corporation free to set its own goals and raise its own revenue.”
Therefore, it can be argued that the construction of “Zombie graduates” in Bangladesh is directly correlated with its private university system’s neo-liberal application, which presently lacks a balance between the application of right-wing economics and moral philosophy. This outcome also reminds us of the words of Edward Thurlow, an 18th-century Lord Chancellor of England, “corporations had neither bodies to be punished nor souls to be condemned, and thus were incapable of being ‘guilty’” (The Economist, 2014). Ball (1990: 3) agrees to that and remarks, “Policy is clearly a matter of the ‘authoritative allocation of values.’”
Therefore, in the context of Bangladesh’s higher education sector, we critically argue that there is room for balance between right-wing application of economics and basic moral philosophy, where importance can also be given toward developing conceptual clarity, critical understanding, and rational awareness through introducing inter-disciplinary perspectives. In this context, Sen (2006) remarks, “[s]olitarist” approach to human identity, which sees human beings as members of exactly one group [While] … a Hutu laborer from Kigali may be pressured to see himself only as a Hutu and incited to kill Tutsis … he is not only a Hutu, but also a Kigalian, a Rwandan, an African, a laborer and a human being. (Sen, 2006: 4) Pablo Picasso, after exiting in the Lascaux caves back in 1940, remarked that “Perhaps we are not creating anything new,” indicating everything happened in history and thus highlighted the importance of learning from the lessons of history (Chauved Cave, 2016); Shashi Tharoor (2015), while debating if “Britain Does Owe Reparations,” remarked that “[t]he sun did not set on the British Empire because the God could not trust the British in the dark.”
Unfortunately, the critical essence of these arguments remain cautiously hidden in the polarizing and imprisoned illusions of globalization and in its application in a neo-colonial space, while “zombie graduates” (Husain, forthcoming) get taught by “rickshaw faculty” (Husain, forthcoming).
Betrayal by the neo-elites and intellectuals
Philosophically, a critical deconstruction of the post-secondary education system in sync with the presence of a fragmented and fragile civil society in Bangladesh can also contribute to two further arguments: (1) “White Men’s Germ on Brown Men’s Body” (Husain, forthcoming), and (2) “Betrayal by the Intellectuals” (Chatterjee, 2004; Orwell, 1949; Tasnim, 2007). The former refers to the Western import of neo-liberal ideology into the Eastern occident, Bangladesh. The latter refers to the hegemonic local elites and their political patrons that justify the constructed illusions of equity, development, and modernity for the rest of the people in the country. According to Bangladeshi scholar Aminur Rahim (2007), [s]ince gaining independence in 1971, Bangladesh has witnessed a period of unforeseen political instability and bloodshed. This is due to the petty-bourgeois origins of Bangladesh nationalism when no particular group or faction could emerge as a hegemonic power bloc. (2007: 566)
Conclusion
Many countries in the Global South are not entirely capable of accessing technical and managerial expertise and efficiency at the level most western countries are able to leverage functional democracy and reform systems (Husain, 2016: 2). While weak governance and state capacity are by no means created by neo-liberal reforms, applying reforms can contribute negatively to some pre-requisites for strengthening of state capacity; including the state’s acquisition of capacity building, such as in education and infrastructure (Bull, 2016: 3). In addition, the rise of wealth gap critically undermines achieving the sustainable and equitable goals of modernity. These factors contribute to the concerns about neo-liberal effectiveness and philosophical advisory. Unfortunately, many post-colonial nations, in principle, suffer from similar outcomes.
In the context of stimulating the local economy and developing equity for all in Bangladeshi society, its private universities can contribute by creating jobs and increasing technical capacity and economic potentials of the urban youth in Bangladesh. However, multiple perspectives suggest, as shared through various examples in the paper, these institutions can also create dependency and neo-colonialism in post independent Bangladesh. The hegemony of the policy makers and their unaccountable ties to the local elites and the complicit fragmentation of the country’s civil society remain as Bangladesh’s main impediment to sustainable development and growth. This construction reiterates that corruption and mismanagement and non-capitalist forms of exclusion based on social class, gender, and ethnicity can rather lead to poverty in the long run.
We need to critically understand that while globalization comes with many promises, its uninformed application and negative outcomes can undermine the rich confluences of culture and construct an identity crisis. While we understand that the private sector is not entirely wicked nor is the public sector entirely efficient, we agree that often the government in a developing country lacks accessible resources in higher studies, which in turn can limit potentials and growth. However, modernity in terms of access, development, and resources are required to increase the critical, intellectual, and technical capacity of the local students first. Eventually they need to combine these outcomes with local industry and global market demands. However, the path to achieve desired results is not a linear one. The lack of having an active and vigilant civil society, especially in post-colonial Bangladeshi space, makes the task even harder.
Footnotes
Declaration of conflicting interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: We have received research grants from Queen Elizabeth Diamond Jubilee Scholarship Fund (grant number H12-00262) and the University of British Columbia (UBC) Social Science Research Fund (grant number F14-00515).