The university, Prevent and cultures of compliance

McGovern, Mark

doi:10.1080/08109028.2016.1222129

Cited by 16 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2016, the National Union of Teachers (NUT) voted overwhelmingly against the programme saying that 'it causes suspicion in the classroom and confusion in the staffroom' (Adams, 2016). In the higher education sector, McGovern (2016) argues that Prevent's identification of the new category of 'non-violent extremism' as central to the process of student radicalisation has little to do with violence or terrorism and more to do with 'a vaguely defined ideological well of illiberalism which, in the view of the Prevent duty guidance, "'can create an atmosphere conducive to terrorism and can popularise views which terrorists can exploit"' (p. 52). Durodie (2016), too, points to the way the Prevent programme reveals 'an implicit willingness to act in bad faith' (p 6.)…”

Section: The Prevent Programme: An Exceptional Practice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Pre-crime’,Prevent,and practices of exceptionalism: Psychotherapy and the new norm in the NHS

Rizq

2017

Psychodynamic Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Prevent Programme: An Exceptional Practice?mentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Pre-crime’,Prevent,and practices of exceptionalism: Psychotherapy and the new norm in the NHS

Rizq

2017

Psychodynamic Practice

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Student unions are subject to charity law which can encourage risk-averse behaviour in backing certain plans and actions, for example, the concerns raised around Feminist Pro-Choice Campaigns (NUS, 2015) and Faith Societies (Nagdee, Ghani and Ibrahim, 2017). Both trade unions and students' unions are limited by the Prevent guidance of which has been widely criticised for being racist and Islamophobic (Allen, 2017;Nagdee, Ghani and Ibrahim, 2017;McGovern, 2016;O'Donnell, Alisinn, 2015).…”

Section: Critiquing Our Resistancementioning

confidence: 99%

Invisible Roots of Knowledge Production and their Role in Resistance to the Marketisation of Education

McKnight¹

2020

EXS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent, highly visible, struggles in Higher Education in the UK, such as the pensions strike, have aimed to recast such protests as part of a bigger struggle to maintain the public university. Viewing the shared pension scheme as one of the last defining features of a public institution. However, Federici in her recent book Re-enchanting the World: Feminism and the Politics of the Commons warns us if we wish to change the university in line with the public construction of a ‘knowledge commons’ that there is a need to question “the material conditions of the production of the university, its history and its relation to the surrounding communities” (Federici, 2019) and not just the academics within it. There is a need to consider how debate on knowledge production is insulated from the invisible work that sustains academic life including cleaners, cafeteria workers and groundkeepers, as well as to consider the potential colonisation of land institutions are built upon (Federici, 2019). Narratives of resistance to marketisation in Higher Education, while well meaning, still create disproportionate invisibility on the grounds of gender, race and socio-economic status, ignoring the material and intellectual value of such contributions. This paper considers how Federici’s approach to the politics of the commons discredit, deconstruct and potentially transform approaches to resistance to marketisation in education. It argues that struggles against marketisation, or for academic freedom, should be seen in the broader scope of access to education for all, and a continuum of co-dependant knowledge production. It will consider how different structures of privilege and oppression structure what is represented, resisted and fought for within and by the institution. Issues that are seen as marginal or controversial can be avoided in increasingly legislated upon, and therefore risk averse, students’ unions and trade unions. Which in turn reproduces a student and staff body that similarly continue to propagate such damaging structures both within and out with the institution. A rethinking around who the knowledge producers are, can help us restructure the university as a commons that resists the violence of capitalist logic, rather than one that upholds it. Thus problematising and reconstructing how we view the idea of a future university commons, in a way that recognises intersectional oppression and a misuse of certain bodies as a commons in and off themselves.

show abstract

“…Education is an essential vehicle for change, but education now also faces increasing securitisation. In the process, it stigmatises existing isolated individuals, especially in schools and in higher education settings (Abbas, 2018; Durodie, 2016; McGovern, 2017; Qurashi, 2017). Prisons are another area of critical research, as they are networking and learning opportunities, as well as spaces targeted by certain radicalisers.…”

Section: Putting the Cart Before The Horsementioning

confidence: 99%

Implementing ‘Prevent’ in countering violent extremism in the UK: A left-realist critique

Abbas

2018

Critical Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper attempts to situate the UK 'Prevent' policy debate in the wider framework of the global Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) paradigm that emerged in late 2015. By omitting a nuanced approach to the social, cultural, economic and political characteristics of the radicalised, there is a tendency to introduce blanket measures that inadvertently and indirectly lead to harm. Moreover, although 'Prevent' has been the outward-facing component of the UK government's counter-extremism strategy since 2006, it conflates legitimate political resistance among young British Muslims as indications of violent extremism, providing credence to the argument that 'Prevent' is a form of social control, ultimately mollifying resistance by re-affirming the status quo on domestic and foreign policy. In this vicious circle, 'Prevent' can unintentionally add to structural and cultural Islamophobia, which are amplifiers of both Islamist as well as far right radicalisation. 'Safeguarding' vulnerable young people is imperative in this social policy domain but the language of inclusion is absent.

show abstract

The university, Prevent and cultures of compliance

Cited by 16 publications

References 19 publications

‘Pre-crime’,Prevent,and practices of exceptionalism: Psychotherapy and the new norm in the NHS

‘Pre-crime’,Prevent,and practices of exceptionalism: Psychotherapy and the new norm in the NHS

Invisible Roots of Knowledge Production and their Role in Resistance to the Marketisation of Education

Implementing ‘Prevent’ in countering violent extremism in the UK: A left-realist critique

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About