In this paper, we argue that Success as a Knowledge Economy and the Teaching Excellence Framework will constitute a set of mechanisms of perpetual pedagogical control in which the market will become a regulator of pedagogical possibilities. Rather than supporting pedagogical exploration or creating conditions for the empowerment of students and teachers, such policies support the precarisation and casualisation of both. We develop these claims through a reading of these policies alongside Gilles Deleuze's Postscript on the Societies of Control, and situating it in the context of what Gary Hall has termed postwelfare capitalism. We conclude by reaching out to others in the tertiary education sector and beyond to ask if this really is the direction we wish to take this sector in the UK.

As a celebratory crowd chants 'U.S.A!' with an unsettling military repetition, Trump takes the stage. It is 9 November 2016. The Air Force One film soundtrack plays in the background, ushering in the new president who declares the American Dream dead and promises to bring it back. A micropolitical desire is forging, signalled by the highly emotive military musicall hail the new Sandman. The camera closes in on Trump's face as he thanks his audience and solemnly pledges himself to the nation. Of the political election process, he comments: 'difficult business'. We are reminded that he is first and foremost a businessman whose time is money, and money is king. He proceeds to apologise for keeping his audience waiting. This is showbiz, lest we forget it. This is Trump's America proclaimed only months after he was caught on camera boasting about making sexual advances to a particular woman, although he seems to be speaking of women generally, when he states: 'I don't even wait. And when you're a star, they let you do it. You can do anything. Grab them by the pussy. You can do anything' (New York Times 2016). It is highly unsettling that these words should be spoken at all, let alone by the same man who promises to make America great again in his inauguration speech: 'From this day forward, a new vision will govern . . . it's going to be only America first, America first.' Trump's vision for America is prefaced by his self-ordained right to grab any woman 'by the pussy', and a revamping of feral misogyny, a classic in the canon of historical fascism. Therefore, we argue that reclaiming the pussy or indeed the vagina is an act of radical political protest against this misogynist fascism.As Pankaj Mishra notes, citing Mary Wollstonecraft, the project of nationalist politics is fundamentally misogynistic. Women are always supposed to know their place in a vision of lost greatness. And many white, bourgeois women seem to opt to reside in that place, considering the voting results (Philpot 2018). For many minority groups, nationalist politics has failed and continues to fail to provide a common ground to begin with.Exposed to microfascist nationalist politics that does not shy away from sexism, racism, classism and ableism on a daily basis, feminists, postcolonial and gender theorists, poets, activists and artists alike are, and have been for decades, challenging the protagonist of the dogma of an American Dream, as well as its entitlement to its land. Some dissidents have worked to bring into view the power structures inherent in what constitutes 'America' (Crenshaw 1989; hooks 2015;Lugones 2007;Mohanty 2003). Others have sought to expose the ethnocentrism and androcentrism of what is considered 'Great' (Haslanger 2008). Together they have argued for the need for a radically inclusive and

The version in the Kent Academic Repository may differ from the final published version. Users are advised to check http://kar.kent.ac.uk for the status of the paper. Users should always cite the published version of record.

In this article we focus on the potential for an alignment of certain feminist artistic practices and poststructuralist conceptions of critique that may enable ways of theorising practices of resistance and engender ways of practicing resistance in theory, without the lurch back into masculinist forms of dogmatism. It will be claimed that an ontological conception of art, considered as that which makes a difference in the world, can not only challenge the primacy of the dogmatic and masculine 'subject who judges', but also instil ways of thinking about, and ways of enacting, feminist artistic encounters with the capacity to resist dogmatism. The theoretical stakes of this claim are elaborated through complimentary readings of Deleuze and Guattari's constructivist account of philosophy and Irigaray's feminist explorations of what it means to think from within the 'labial', rather than from the position of the dominant phallic symbolic order. We argue that this creative conjunction between Irigaray, Deleuze and Guattari provides the resources for a conceptualisation of both feminist artistic practice and the critical practice of poststructuralist philosophy as forms of resistance to the dominant patriarchal order, in ways that can avoid the collapse back into masculinist forms of dogmatism. Revel's discussion of the role of constituent rather than constituted forms of resistance is employed to draw out the implications of this position for contentious politics. It is concluded that constituent practices of resistance can be understood as a challenge to the phallogocentric symbolic order to the extent that they are practices of a labial art-politics.

No abstract