Abstract:Deploying the Foucauldian concepts of 'conduct' and 'counter-conduct', this article provides an analysis of 'Occupy Sussex' -a two-month long student occupation launched in opposition to the outsourcing of service staff at the University of Sussex. Situated in the context of a post-Fordist political economy, we argue that the British university constitutes an especial site of conduct formation -a University Factory -wherein individuals are sorted and socialised as immaterial labourers. We argue that Occupy Sussex was a reaction to such conduct formation. As such counter-conduct is deployed as concept that can effectively map the tactics and strategies undertaken by Occupy Sussex against the university management. Moreover, counter-conduct is used in order to trace prefigurative attempts to redefine the university within the space of the occupation -away from the University Factory, toward collective self-management, alternative understandings of the 'university experience', and an emergent notion of 'community'. Finally, the use of counter-conduct serves to highlight the dangers of appropriation and co-optation; how university management attempted to co-opt and thus defuse the counter-conduct of Occupy Sussex.Key Words: Counter-conduct; Foucault; Occupy Sussex; post-Fordism; University IntroductionThis article analyses the recent struggle at the University of Sussex over management proposals to outsource 235 service staff members, culminating in a two month long student occupation of 1 We would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and guest editors for their precious comments. In addition, we are particularly thankful to the organisers Louiza Odysseos, Carl Death and Helle Malmvig, and participants of the workshop 'Counter-Conduct in Global Politics' held at the University of Sussex in September 2013, where this paper was first presented. Finally, our most special thanks go to members of the occupation and campaign against the outsourcing of the 235, in particular to our respondents and to those who agreed to share their views and concerns with us. Any errors remain entirely our own. 2 As such, the study of Occupy Sussex has the potential to provide insights into how we theorise both HE reform and the resistance to it, as well as developing a wider understanding of contemporary social movements.In order to tease out the significance of Occupy Sussex, we deploy the concepts of 'conduct'and 'counter-conduct' as a framework through which some overlooked elements of resistance to HE reform can be disclosed. By capturing the 'messiness and complexity of contemporary politics', 3 a 'counter-conducts approach' 4 helps to serve a strategic function. Insofar as conduct and counter-conduct are mutually constitutive, these concepts may help identify ways in which attempts at conducting might therefore inadvertently generate conditions and subjectivities that make counter-conduct a possibility. Conversely, it also helps us trace how resistance might, ironically, be subsumed or appropriated in ways that reproduce t...

Toward critical pedagogies of the international? Student resistance, otherregardedness and selfformation in the neoliberal university Article (Accepted Version) http://sro.sussex.ac.uk Odysseos, Louiza and Pal, Maïa (2018) Toward critical pedagogies of the international? Student resistance, other-regardedness and self-formation in the neoliberal university. International Studies Perspectives, 19 (1). pp. 1-26.

No abstract

The majority of European early modern empires - the Spanish, French, Dutch and English/British - are best characterised as developing practices of jurisdictional accumulation. These practices are distinguished by the three categories of extensions, transports, and transplants of authority, and this book is mostly concerned with various diplomatic and colonial agents which enabled the transports and transplants of their sovereign's authority. Through historical analyses of ambassadors and consuls in the Mediterranean based on primary and secondary material, and on the empires' Atlantic imperial expansions and conquests, the book makes two major analytical contributions. It firstly develops jurisdictional accumulation as a conceptual innovation, based, secondly, on an interdisciplinary mix of methodological angles. These intertwined contributions enable us to go beyond common binaries in both conventional and critical histories of international relations and international law through the use of a Political Marxist framework and its concept of social property relations.

This article reviews Alex Anievas and Kerem Nişancıoğlu’s How the West Came to Rule: The Geopolitical Origins of Capitalism (2015). It argues that the book offers a stimulating and ambitious approach to solving the problems of Eurocentrism and the origins of capitalism in growing critical scholarship in historical sociology and International Relations. However, by focusing on the ‘problem of the international’ and proposing a ‘single unified theory’ based on uneven and combined development, the authors present a history of international relations that trades off methodological openness and legal complexity for a structural and exclusive consequentialism driven by anti-Eurocentrism. By misrepresenting the concept of social-property relations in terms of the internal/external fallacy, and by confusing different types of ‘internalism’ required by early-modern jurisdictional struggles, the book problematically conflates histories of international law and capitalism. These methodological problems are contextualised by examples from the Spanish, French and British empires’ conceptions of sovereignty and jurisdiction and their significant legal actors and processes.