Why Are Schools and Universities Woke?
Many people of a conservative bent often have, as one of their primary concerns, the spread of ‘woke’ ideologies in our schools and universities. Even Catholic institutions, they rightly observe, have progressively—pun not intended—abandoned Catholic orthodoxy for the spirit of this age. But why is this the case? For us to come to an understanding of the causes of this present crisis, we must look at it from a historical lens.
In the Middle Ages, formal education in Western Europe was essentially pluralistic. Parishes, monasteries, cathedrals, guilds, and noble households all had their own ways of providing instruction to children and young adults. Overlapping jurisdictions and spheres of independence existed in both civil and ecclesiastical life. There was generally no concept of a monopolistic, all-encompassing civil government like the one we have now.
Universities, which originated from the voluntary association of students and masters, enjoyed real and substantial independence, and students were given immunity from civil law on account of them being counted among the clergy. Many universities began their operations without the presence of a royal charter, and the presence of one did not entail a centralized, bureaucratic regulatory framework.
The ideological interest of educational institutions were obviously tied in with the priorities of the available job market as well as those persons or institutions who served as their sources of legitimacy. Universities, monastic schools, and cathedral schools catered to the needs of the Church, and they therefore focused on the study of the seven liberal arts, philosophy, and theology. Also included, however, was the study of medicine and law.
As the Christian world expanded to the New World and Asia, universities established in the colonial frontiers—such as North America and the Philippines—took upon a somewhat distinct character from their medieval predecessors. Nevertheless, they maintained a distinctly local and somewhat independent character and were largely meant for the training of clergy.
This would change, however, at the turn of the eighteenth century, where developments in science and technology gave rise to new particular needs. In order to consolidate power within the borders of emerging nation-states (such as revolutionary France), civil governments needed to mobilize their populations en masse through robust bureaucratic systems which dealt with the manifold aspects of social life, most especially with respect to the nationalist ideology.
Hence, the civil authorities pushed to nationalize education over and against the traditional prerogatives of the Church by establishing compulsory public education, and although the latter put up substantial resistance (see Pius IX, Quanta cura, 1864), it was often forced to make compromises in order to secure its other rights.
The growth of mass populations also gave rise to mass organizations in the areas of industry, government, culture, and the like. This necessitated the existence of people who could efficiently manage large populations through scientific technique. These managers soon took over effective control of the mass organizations, and as the latter became the dominant form of social organization throughout the twentieth century, they became a ‘managerial’ or ‘technocratic’ elite (Samuel Francis).
The formal educational system changed in light of these developments, becoming a technocratically managed system where learning outcomes were determined through quantitative metrics (objective tests, regurgitation). The crafting of curricula also became a matter for a centralized panel of experts seeking to instill managerial values and skills for the workforce.
Schools and universities themselves became mass organizations catering to large quantities of students and maintaining robust internal bureaucracies, as well as the means by which the managerial order is reproduced through the formation of new managerial elites. Courses such as business administration, public administration, marketing, and accountancy have become staples of any modern university.
At the same time, the managerial elite established the mass educational system as the normative means of getting a job. In the Philippines, the legal practice of a craft other than medicine or law sometimes requires both a college degree (sometimes even in that specialization) and the passing of a professional licensure exam. Through this, the educational system firmly situated itself within the nation’s economy of permission.
At the same time, however, the only schools and universities that matter in the eyes of the mass State (and other mass organizations) are those recognized by regulatory bodies (DepED, CHED) and accrediting bodies. Government bodies also set roadblocks and hurdles when it comes to who can teach basic education (must pass a licensure exam), who can hold tenure at universities (only postgraduates), and so on and so forth.
Given that the formal educational system is completely integrated into the managerial order, it is not surprising that its ideological priorities would follow those of the managerial elites, for the promotion of a given order entails the inculcation of its associated beliefs and values through education. The managerial elite, in turn, consolidate their common interest around the further promotion of mass organizations and the stimulation of mass consumption through the creation of a generally homogeneous and pliable mass consumer base.
This also entails the levelling, destruction, or absorption of institutions which belong to an order alien to, or even hostile to, the core priorities of the managerial elite, along with their corresponding values and ideals. This is especially true for traditional society and its institutions, which does not make for ‘mass society’ and whose values and beliefs tend to go against the core priorities of mass consumption, homogeneity, conformity, etc. (Samuel Francis.)
It is therefore necessary for managerial elites to promote a new ideological paradigm which could both justify the dominance of mass organizations and undermine traditional institutions and values. Samuel Francis’s Leviathan and Its Enemies identified various aspects of this new paradigm: cosmopolitanism (globalism), scientism (materialism), environmentalism (which holds that man and his behavior are products of an external environment), and meliorism (the belief that man will naturally tend toward his own perfection given the right environment).
But he also mentioned two mentalities which sometimes went hand-in-hand with the managerial paradigm in the ‘free world’: hedonism and relativism. These mentalities are useful insofar as they undermine the legitimacy of traditional institutions and therefore give rise to a new ethos inclined toward mass consumption and new ideological frameworks.
Finally, the managerial elite undermines or absorbs traditional social ties by encouraging the formation of new identity groups which cut across these traditional social distinctions. Things such as subcultures, consumer fanbases (anime, pop music, celebrities), gender and sexual orientation, ideological alignments and the like are beginning to replace family and traditional community ties.
Philippine universities serve to spread this new ideological paradigm through a mutated “liberal arts” or “general education” curriculum which gives students enough philosophical, historical. literary and ethical content to think within the managerial order’s moral frame but not beyond it. This often involves the subtle encouragement of ideologies or cultural values associated with the destruction of traditional family ties, the reinterpretation of gender norms, and so on and so forth.
It also allows for the institutional absorption of currents such as Marxism which also seek to bring forth a managerial society, at least intermediately (James Burnham, The Managerial Revolution, Putnam and Company, 1942). Insofar as the Left is useful for the creation of mass society over the corpse of traditional society, the managerial regime will be very happy to accommodate it. It is not altogether surprising that in some state universities, student activism is encouraged both by professors and administrators alike.
But the managerial regime also seeks to find ways to absorb currents which might threaten the very foundations of managerial society, such as the Catholic Church which operates according to a premodern concept of society contrary to the notion of ‘mass society.’ There are many ways in which this is done (which I will discuss in another article), but it suffices to say that the importation of feminist, indifferentist (relativist), and Marxist lenses into Catholic theology has become a mainstay in many Catholic institutions.
In other words, the presence of woke ideology in universities has a structural basis: it must cater to a job market imbued with the managerial paradigm, it must reproduce the basic elements of the managerial order, and it must inculcate ideologies conducive to the managerial order. At the same time, they must undermine or absorb traditional institutions and their corresponding norms, values, and assumptions. For this reason, woke ideology is not a bug, but rather a feature of today’s educational system.
Daniel Tyler Chua is president of the Collegium Perulae Orientis.
