thought fragments
Stimulated by Arendt’s ‘Denktagbuch’ we encourage the publication of texts that represent the way participants ‘think with Arendt’: reflections on key ideas, sharing work in progress towards publication, etc. These are not finished pieces but written to invite responses.
The Vogon University?
Written By Morten T. Koorsgaard
Are universities in fact run by Vogons?
In the book series, The hitchhiker’s guide to the galaxy, earth is destroyed in order to make way for an hyperspatial express route. The actual destruction is carried out by a race called Vogons. These creatures, we are told, are slug-like beings that through sheer stubbornness have taken over the galactic civil service from a group of ruling philosophers that were banished to the tax office, where they were placed in charge of licking stamps. Much like philosophers and other scholars today often find themselves both metaphorically and literally licking stamps as part of their job.
Vogons were not destined for governance. When they first emerged from the “sluggish primeval seas of Vogsphere, and had lain panting and heaving on the planet’s virgin shores … when the first rays of the bright young Vogsol sun had shone across them that morning, it was as if the forces of evolution had simply given up on them there and then, had turned aside in disgust and written them of as an ugly and unfortunate mistake.” 1 Vogons never evolved from this state, yet somehow survived. “Evolution? They said to themselves, Who needs it?”2 Slowly the Vogons took control of their planet, feeding on and destroying the resources of the planet, until they somehow discovered the principles of interstellar travel. “Within a few short Vog years every last Vogon had migrated to the Megabrantis cluster, the political hub of the Galaxy, and now formed the immensely powerful backbone of the Galactic Civil Service.” 3 Vogons have tried to acquire learning and social graces, and even dabble – unsuccessfully – in poetry, but in most respects, they have not evolved from their primitive forebears.
The entry on Vogons in the Hitchhikers guide to the galaxy has the following to say about them:
Here is what to do if you want to get a lift from a Vogon: forget it. They are one of the most unpleasant races in the Galaxy. Not actually evil, but bad-tempered, bureaucratic, officious and callous. They wouldn't even lift a finger to save their own grandmothers from the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal without orders – signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, queried, lost, found, subjected to public inquiry, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as firelighters … On no account should you allow a Vogon to read poetry at you. 4
In the movie adaption of the books, one of the main characters, Ford Prefect, adds; “They can’t think, they can’t imagine, most of them can’t even spell. They just run things.” The creatures in charge of running the Galaxy and of deciding which planets are to be destroyed in order to make way for a hyperspatial express route, are not evil so much as thoughtless and unimaginative. This description of bureaucratic characters reminds us – albeit eerily perhaps - of Hannah Arendt’s analysis of Eichmann. In Eichmann, Arendt was “struck by a manifest shallowness in the doer that made it impossible to trace the uncontestable evil of his deeds to any deeper level of roots or motives. The deeds were monstrous, but the doer . . . was quite ordinary, commonplace, and neither demonic nor monstrous.” 5 Eichmann exhibited to Arendt a certain kind of thoughtlessness, an inability to see matters from the viewpoint of others. An unwillingness to see the actual consequences of his actions beyond those of following order in an efficient manner. Eichmann was not alone in this of course and in fact; “the trouble with Eichmann was precisely that so many were like him, and that the many were neither perverted nor sadistic, that they were, and still are, terribly and terrifyingly normal.” 6 Although Vogons can of course not be said to be terrifyingly normal, but mostly just terrifying, they do share attributes with the bureaucratic and thoughtless totalitarian character examined by Arendt. Before returning to the Vogons then, let us have a look at Arendt’s notion of thoughtlessness.
Thoughtlessness
In her posthumously published work on the life of the mind, Arendt asked herself if the thinking activity might be a kind of guard against evil. Building her analysis in part on her experiences from following the Eichmann trial, and in part on a reading of Plato’s Socrates, Arendt describes thinking as the ‘two in one’ process of going over what has befallen me. It is the inner dialogue between me and myself, which does not bring results, but rather permits me to form judgements about the world.
The manifestation of the wind of thought is not knowledge; it is the ability to tell right from wrong, beautiful from ugly. And this, at the rare moments when the stakes are on the table, may indeed prevent catastrophes, at least for the self. 7
What thinking enables, according to Arendt, is thus not so much an access to truth, but rather to the ability of judging right from wrong. This is connected to conscience as it emerges out of the dialogue between me and myself. Or as Arendt pointedly put it, “It is better for you to suffer than to do wrong because you can remain the friend of the sufferer; who would want to be the friend of and have to live together with a murderer? Not even a murderer.”8 Thinking thus leads to a form of conscious(ness) about the events of the world and our part in it. The events and facts of the world give rise to thinking in us and gives us the possibility of confronting our actions with regards to them. This of course also entails that thinking is always ‘late to the party’ and can thus not be seen as the source of our actions. Rather it comes after and provides us with the possibility of reflection. How then does it guard against evil? In order to understand this, we must look at the particular form of thoughtlessness that Arendt ascribed to Eichmann.
Thoughtlessnees for Arendt is to neglect or ignore the claim the objects and events of the world lay on our thinking attention. And this is more common than we might think and part of widespread human practices. “Clichés, stock phrases, adherence to conventional, standardized codes of expression and conduct have the socially recognized function of protecting us against reality, that is, against the claim on our thinking attention that all events and facts make by virtue of their existence.” 9 This is something we all do from time to time, quite simply because having to go over everything that enters our mind via our senses would quickly exhaust us. “[T]he difference in Eichmann was that he knew of no such claim at all”10 . The thoughtlessness of Eichmann laid in his refusal to allow the facts of the world enter his reasoning and the way he stubbornly clung to the doctrines and cliches of his belief system. This did not stop Eichmann from being and extremely efficient organizer, and as such we should probably be hesitant to follow Arendt’s claim that he did not think. Rather, and Zygmunt Bauman among others have argued this, we should look at different forms of thinking. One productive way would be to separate thinking into substantively orientated and instrumentally orientated thinking. 11 (Veltesen, 2001, p. 9). Instrumentally oriented thinking is a means and ends form of thinking similar to Weber’s notion of ‘Zweckrationalität’, and it is “suited to practical-technical tasks such as organizing the most efficient means to attaining a given end, instead of questioning or determining that end as such.” 12 Substantive thinking on the other hand, entails “foundational moral questions about what ends an individual and society should be orientated towards.” 13 Eichmann was incredibly skilled in finding efficient ways of attaining the horrible given end of the Endlösung. However, he was completely unwilling to engage with the foundationally moral questions arising from his work once the doctrine had been accepted.
Following this, we can say that Ford Prefect is not correct when he explains to Arthur Dent that Vogons ‘can’t think’ and they just run things. They are quite skilled in instrumentally oriented thinking, such as where to place a hyperspatial express route. They just do not have any thought for the possible moral consequences of the decision. Which is also why their response to any form of dissent is; "resistance is useless!"
Why resist?
Before turning to some examples of systemic thoughtlessness in university education, perhaps it is necessary to declare that the reason I turn to the imagery of Vogons and of Nazi perpetrator Adolf Eichmann, is not to say that university management and administrators are Vogons or Nazis. Rather, it is to highlight how things that are morally and academically destructive are being done and implemented at universities across the globe, with the same thoughtlessness as has been portrayed above. Not thoughtlessness as not thinking but as systemic ways of excluding substantive thinking about the consequences of the policies and practices we implement in the name of efficiency and other doctrines. In a haunting description of the lead up to Nazi rule in Germany, and the lack of resistance to it, recorded by Milton Mayer, we can see how the slowness of the process was a contributor to the lack of resistance.
To live in this process is absolutely not to be able to notice it … Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained … Each act, each occasion, is worse than the last, but only a little worse … In the university community, in your own community, you speak privately to your colleagues, some of whom certainly feel as you do; but what do they say? They say, “It’s not so bad” or “You’re seeing things” or “You’re an alarmist.” And you are an alarmist. You are saying that this must happen, lead to this, and you can’t prove it … In between come all the hundreds of little steps, some of them imperceptible, each of them preparing you not to be shocked by the next. Step C is not so much worse than Step B, and, if you did not make a stand at Step B, why should you at Step C? And so on … And one day, too late, your principles, if you were ever sensible of them, all rush in upon you. The burden of self-deception has grown too heavy, and some minor incident, in my case my little boy, hardly more than a baby, saying “Jew swine,” collapses it all at once, and you see that everything, everything has changed and changed completely under your nose. 14 (Quoted in Tubbs, 2019, para 4).
This description, terrifying as it is, also speaks to the many times academics say to each other, ‘let’s just do it, so that we can go home’, or ‘it is not really important, just fill in the form’. Or the many times critique is swept of the table on account of procedure or lack of time at staff meetings. In the following, I give a couple of examples of how systemic thoughtlessness shows itself in the everyday life of academics. These examples have been generously shared in email correspondences by colleagues from different university contexts across the globe.
‘Dear Morten
“Thanks for your note of the 10th May. One of the most bureaucratic things I've observed in recent years/decades in Irish universities is the tendency to replace the traditional Academic Council structures with a corporate managerial structure. Under the older structure there were of course long-winded contributions, but also there were some good ideas, some stormy disagreements, some genuine criticism and some decent efforts to constrain mercenary impulses in university policy. But the new corporate structures mean that in addition to the President there are six or seven vice-presidents, and the Academic Council becomes no longer a forum for any real debate. One simple reason for this is that meetings and agendas are structured in such a way that each vice-president makes his/her report in turn, and often at length - in the "interests of transparency". In XXXX some of these elevated functionaries were nicknamed the "Ministers for Power-Points." When the order of work is arranged in this way, the real vibrant business of the university is largely sidelined. The Academic Council becomes a place where something unexpected is least likely to happen. This governance pattern has become international I think.’
Dear Morten,
just recently. When the on-line teaching was instituted, the government was not sure if the universities would be able to organize it properly. Hence, the government threatened that the universities will not receive their funding for teaching if they can’t manage to organize on-line teaching in a way that would fully substitute normal stationary classes. Hence, our salaries were at stake. The solution came from the government: we had to report every class we did on-line (date, time, the platform, the means used [i.e. whether it was just on-line meeting, or some other form, like working on documents in cloud], the number of students attending + the information about the previously planned time and space to do these classes [this was just in the case of the summer semester of 2019/2020]). They then believed this data is so great, that now they want it regardless of the pandemic. Before the pandemic, we just went to a room (as planned) - where students were waiting (or they were waiting on a corridor for us) - and did the classes. Nobody would even imagine to control an academic if she is doing the classes - because if she was not there, the students were immediately asking "what's happening?". So, there was some kind of trust that the classes are just performed. But now we need a report indicating the number of students attending (I never have checked the attendance on a lecture as these are groups of few hundreds). This report has to be done by everyone from the teaching staff every month, and sent to a special admin lady, who spends most of her work time in dealing with these reports. Nonsense!’
’Hi Morten,
Well, I am quite fortunate to work at a small liberal arts college that does not require us to jump through as many bureaucratic hoops as so many other, larger institutions do. But nevertheless, we still encounter hoops from time to time. For myself, the most egregious of these is our annual assessment where we pretend to gauge the quality of our teaching by attempting to measure the quality of student learning by using some small set of variables—like randomly selected seminar papers. I am not entirely against the idea of assessment, but the problem is that, over time, assessment protocols tend to have a significant influence on the content they are designed to passively measure. That is the most damaging effect. But there is also a less damaging aspect of assessment, which is perhaps the most frustrating. That is the theatrics of it all. We all go through the motions knowing full well the outcome that will result. It is, I suppose, a form of ‘assessment theater’. This is not I really a detailed example—it’s just some quick thoughts on assessment--but again, I am lucky to not be at a larger, state institution.
Ah, something else did come to mind. We have been instructed as a faculty to take an increasing number of online “mandatory training” modules regarding such things as Harassment Prevention, Diversity and Inclusion, Data Security, Emergency Response, etc. etc. (One module is actually called “Staying Healthy in a Changing Environment”). This year we have been instructed to complete a total of eight of these. The official estimated of the duration for completing all of them adds up to something like six hours. Six hours! Having recently completed these myself, I can say that although there is some useful information, the fact that it takes five or six hours to complete them means that the truly important information is buried. The number and length of these has increased steadily over the years and I expect this will continue… And they always throw in a foolish incentive of some kind (as if keeping your job is not incentive enough). This year, for those who finish early, we are treated to a raffle. The winner receives (wait for it) a $20 gift card that can be used to purchase something at our college bookstore. Well, actually, it’s just a store. There are literally no more books left in it. Just sweatshirts, key chains and coffee mugs.’
I will end this polemic essay with just a few words since the final sentence of the email above really should have been the last one, as it could easily have been the eulogy for the modern university; ‘Well, actually, it’s just a store. There are literally no more books left in it. Just sweatshirts, key chains and coffee mugs’! But Arendt gave us a few words of advice when talking about the in-action of the German people in the years leading up to the Second World War. Although she recognized that most people keep quiet, and just entered the raffle for coffee mugs, filled in the forms, listened quietly to the ‘ministers for power points’. She also saw something else. She saw that ‘some people will not’.
1 Douglas Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhikers Guide, (New York, 1996): 33
2 Ibid.
3 Ibid.
4 Adams, The Ultimate Hitchhikers Guide: 38
5 Hannah Arendt, The Life of the Mind, (New York, 1978): 4
6 Hannah Arendt, Eichmann in Jerusalem, (New York, 1963): 276.
7 Arendt, The Life of the Mind, 193.
8 Hannah Arendt, “Thinking and Moral Considerations,” Social Research; 38, 3 (Fall 1971) 417-446: 442.
9 Arendt, ”Thinking and Moral Considerations”, 418
10 Ibid.
11 Arne Johan Vetlesen, “Hannah Arendt on conscience and evil,” Philosophy & Social Criticism, 27; 5, (Fall, 2001), 1– 33: 9.
12 Ibid.
13 Gavin Rae, “Hannah Arendt, evil, and political resistance,” History of the Human Sciences 32, 3 (Summer 2019), 125- 144: 140.
14 Quoted in: Nigel Tubbs, ”Fascisms: then, and now? Arendt and The Origins of Totalitarianism,” Liberal Arts (10th September 2019).