Fragments of anarchism in higher education critical art pedagogies

The Neoliberal University

The term ‘neoliberalism’ is often used pejoratively within educational discourse to decry the move towards education being subjected to values that do not align with healthy education practices (Giroux, 2009). Establishing an exhaustive taxonomy of neoliberal policy in HE is a difficult undertaking, but exposing institutions to market forces, the notion of ‘purchasing’ education, and the imposition of managerialist practices provide a useful overview of the current state of HE in England. Key moments such as the introduction of variable student tuition fees in England in 2006 of £3000 and then later £9000 in 2012 meant that students were now individually financially investing in their prospective education and futures. We can therefore see a shift from an ‘education citizen’ to an ‘economic citizen’, a reorientation towards the economy and teaching had to change to suit this distinction (Ainley, 2016; Morrish, 2020). Furthermore, neoliberal policies are actively attempting to shift the discourse away from education benefiting society, to focus on the individual gain and cost (Lynch, 2006) as students are viewed as customers of the university (Bunce et al., 2017; Collini, 2018) there to gain human capital to then use in the neoliberal marketplace (Brown, 2019). We can therefore see neoliberalism influencing social interactions in HE (Ball, 2012) with students being positioned as passive consumers of education (Wilkinson 2020; Williams 2013). Furthermore, there has been an increasingly prevalent discourse on ‘low value’ or ‘rip-off’ degrees (Department for Education, 2023t), which emphasises the continued financialisation, and neoliberalisation of HE.

Critical arts pedagogies in the Neoliberal University

Pedagogies attributed to subject areas are bound by their cultural surroundings, epistemological structures and historical practices (Löytönen, 2017). Although the neoliberalisation of HE has impacted practices across institutions, there are perhaps particular tensions that emerged within the arts due to the imposition of neoliberal policies and the specific critical pedagogies embedded in this discipline. Although the purpose of this paper is not to provide a detailed critique of critical arts pedagogies, a brief exploration is offered here in order to contextualise the subsequent findings of anarchist principles being inherent in the arts.

Arts educators embrace less stratified and authoritarian approaches to teaching to that seen in other subjects, with tutors identifying themselves as facilitators or guides (Orr and Shreeve, 2018) as opposed to a figure of authority (Vanada, 2016). Shreeve et al. (2010) consider specific signature pedagogies embedded in the arts, that ultimately have a ‘kind of exchange’ between staff and students that facilitate the core the work students undertake.

Critical arts pedagogies also incorporate emancipatory, transformative aspects which question and actively challenge institutional power and practices, and forms of oppression (Darts, 2004). Mernick (2021) discusses how critical arts pedagogies have a specific intentionality on being anti-racist, anti-exploitative and campaigning for social justice. Specifically, Mernick explores how critical arts pedagogies must be ‘liberating’ and allow students themselves to challenge these injustices. There is therefore, an inherent sense of possibility of what comes from this resistance and students are encouraged to create these new visions through art (Dewhurst, 2014; Goessling, 2017). Critical arts pedagogies also therefore draw on influences outside their teaching environment, referring to industry or real-world examples to influence their work often blurring the distinction between them (Orr and Shreeve, 2018).

There is a rejection from within arts-based subjects that anything goes within this discipline (Orr and Shreeve, 2018). However, it has been referred to as the pedagogy of ambiguity (Austerlitz et al., 2008; Danvers, 2003), and irrationality (Elkins, 2001) due to its complex nature. Elkins draws attention to the assumption that teaching, understood in its broadest sense, is framed by an acceptance that it is highly rationalised and employs propositional forms of education, which teaching in the arts does not ascribe to. The recognition of its difference, and attempted validation of these core differences highlight the value driven nature of the arts and its pedagogies. Other scholars have explored the complex nature of the arts pedagogies, including Orr and Shreeve who describe it as ‘sticky’ as it is “messy and uncertain”, “embodied” and “troubling and challenging” (2018, 7).

The emphasis upon non-hierarchical, exploratory, complex and emancipatory pedagogies can prove problematic for arts subjects in the context of the contemporary university, as they frequently find themselves operating within the increasingly managerialist structured domain of HE. Frayling (1993), for instance, has explored the contrast between quantified managerialist approaches to learning that are common in academia, and the highly qualitative modes of enquiry that are present in arts teaching; Frayling likewise emphasised the importance of experiential embodied modes of understanding. However, in the context of the arts, there is an emphasis upon novelty, experimentation and the production of the new, which when coupled with the emphasis upon pluralism, contingency, anti-essentialism and ambiguity that arose in the transition from the modern to the postmodern period can prove problematic within the quantified, neoliberalised domain of HE in the UK (Elkins, 2001, 2018; Orr and Shreeve, 2018). In a neoliberal context in which knowledge is sought predominantly for capital enhancement (Brown, 2019), pedagogic practices in the arts which historically promoted self-expression face deep, systemic challenges. We can see, therefore that a subject area and pedagogy which is messy, irrational, embodied may have particular issues to face as it is constrained within an environment that prioritises structure, predictability, quantification and conformity (De Lissovoy, 2017).

Anarchism

When it comes to political terminology, there is perhaps no other term that has been so widely misunderstood than the term ‘anarchism’. Anarchism or anarchy has broadly come to be used in a derogatory way to describe situations in which there is a lack of control or disorder (Suissa, 2006). However, this characterisation is an oversimplification of a complex ontology and is rejected by anarchists as a slur which seeks to re-assert control and dominance. Anarchism as a political concept and associated principles was formally explored in the 19^th Century through seminal texts written by Kropotkin (2015, 2021), Proudhon (1876, 1851), and Bakunin (1990, 1970, 2004), which first postulated some key principles of Anarchist thinking. Marshall (2008) and Woodcock (1963) later explored the histories of anarchism and detail a wide-ranging ideology that encompasses individualist interpretations of anarchism that promoted the uniqueness of each person and rejected the notion of society, through to mutualism and collective anarchism, which was based around the social doctrine and collective action. This has meant the categorisation of anarchist positions is notoriously difficult to do, given the spectrum of positions anarchism can legitimately cover (Fowler, 1972).

However, despite the multiplicitous definition of anarchist positions, key traits can be identified which underpin anarchist thought and span across the spectrum of anarchism. Perhaps most famously is the rejection of authority and domination, which is needed to establish the core underlying principle inherent in Anarchism – that of freedom and equality (Kinna, 2019; McLaughlin, 2012). This has manifest itself in a rejection of many forms of dominance; most notably the state, but has also been used to reject patriarchal systems, imperial systems, property ownership, religion and other elements of state control such as the police, courts and the prison system (Woodcock 1963). The rejection of hierarchies and pursuit of freedom has in turn led to horizontal, collaborative, non-hierarchical approaches underpinning anarchist interactions – most notably mutual aid, free association and self-organisation (Kinna, 2019). Anarchists also reject representative democracy, due to its ties to the state and governance. Instead they favour direct, radical democracy in which individuals and societies make decisions themselves (Chrostowska and Ingram, 2017).

However, as Carter points out, “anarchists have never won a permanent victory” (2010, 1), meaning that anarchist approaches to various aspects of life have most commonly existed within other hegemonic societies, cultures and governance. Notable recent moments of anarchist principles guiding approaches include the occupy movement of the early 2010s (Gibson, 2013), the absence of leaders within the Arab Spring (Bamyeh, 2013) and the widespread emergence of mutual aid during the COVID-19 pandemic (Chevée, 2022). Anarchist principles have emerged within educational settings as part of broader (anti) political projects that seek to develop a society based on anarchistic principles such as in Rojava (Dirik, 2022) and Zapatista controlled regions of Mexico (Maldonado-Villalpando et al., 2022). Anarchist ideals have also been developed and embedded in schools and other educational settings around the world without being developed in, or necessarily working towards a utopian anarchist society (Gribble, 2018). Anarchist principles therefore have the adaptability to be explored and applied both within and outside societies that are anarchistic, which has exciting, disruptive possibilities for current educational movements and policy.

Anarchism & education

Anarchism has often been overlooked in educational discourses (Lupinacci, 2012) despite the view that anarchism has been described as having “revolutionary implications for education” (Krimerman and Perry, 1966, 11). There have, however been instances of anarchist principles embedded in schools, notably at the turn of the 20^th Century, such as the Escuela Moderna and La Ruche (Suissa, 2006), with subsequent “Modern” schools opening and sustaining around the world (Gribble, 2018). Anarchist educational practices manifested perhaps most illustratively through the Anarcho-syndicalists of Catalonia in the 1930s (Ealham, 2015). There are also influential historical figures in education who have, despite not being referring to themselves as anarchists, have elements of anarchist principles in their work. Perhaps most notably, Dewey, has had his work linked to elements of anarchism as a result of his questioning of the state and associated doctrines (Bartenberger, 2015; Manicas, 1982; Price, 2014). Similarly, Paulo Freire’s seminal work has been discussed alongside anarchist thought (Larkin, 2012; Mueller, 2012) with his questioning of pedagogical authority and desire to implement co-operative practice through mutuality and dialogue can be seen to have affinities with anarchism. Suissa (2006) explores historical elements of anarchist education and the philosophical perspectives inherent in anarchist positions to education, charting what she refers to as the utopian vision of anarchist education, attempting to rescue the word “utopia” from its negative connotations and reclaim it as an “urgent and committed form of social hope”. In this sense, her work charts anarchist educational practices that seek to improve the social conditions of those learning and wider society through the pedagogies inherent in that endeavour.

There have also been moments and projects of resistance to the neoliberal university which can seen to be influenced, at least in part, by anarchist principles. For example, student occupations took place in 2010 and 2011 in 46 universities in England as a result of the increase in tuition fees (Ismail, 2011). Though this may not have represented the radicalism that embodied the New Left in the 1960s – dubbed at the time as the ‘new anarchism’ with anarchist ideals of horizontal spontaneity (Marshall, 2008), the protests demonstrated anarchist-like resistance can still be observed and is to be noted. The discontent saw the emergence of alternative educational provisions such as The Social Science Centre in Lincoln, which saw subjects taught with students and teachers alongside each other. In a flattening of power dynamics, a central tenet of anarchism, the terms ‘students’ and ‘teachers’ were not used and everyone attending was referred to as ‘scholars’ (Neary and Winn, 2017). The ‘Really Open University’ established in Leeds was established on non-hierarchical principles which challenged the commodification of knowledge in the neoliberal HE landscape (Pusey and Sealey-Huggins, 2013). Projects such as ‘Student as Producer’ at The University of Lincoln sought to recreate the university as a ‘new form of social institution’ away from ‘academic capitalism’ (Neary, 2012). Key to the theoretical positioning of ‘Student as Producer’ was the idea of the institution of the common to produce shared ‘living knowledge’, ‘self-education’, and ‘co-research’ drawing on the writings of Giggi Roggero whose work is grounded in anarchist sociology (Roggero, 2011). We can therefore see the subtle influence of anarchism in these projects in their resistance, flattening of hierarchies, mutual organisation and co-operative practices. In many respects, observing anarchist practices in a sector that has transformed the university into an entity that is increasingly structured to only provide human capital may in fact demonstrate a radicalism that is greater than it seems at face value, something which requires further exploration.

Rejecting hierarchy

“It’s kind of stupid to think of me or someone else being in charge. It doesn’t work like that.” P001

Much of the descriptions of the various aspects of arts pedagogies were built on the premise of relational, non-hierarchical structures and interactions. Although this key component emerged from the data during analysis of focussed codes, this non-hierarchical principle was also referenced directly in interviews:

But I'm also keen on peer learning, and the fact that there shouldn't be a hierarchy really; professors, students lecturers, all just learning in the same subject area but at different stages P008

Participants directly detailed the desire to work without hierarchies and often felt that the university systems tried to coerce them to work in hierarchical ways because of the increasingly marketised institutions in which they worked. This, at times, limited their ability to maintain close personal relationships with their students and impacted their desire to work without hierarchies (Wilkinson 2020). More broadly however, the participants rejected managerialist, hierarchical approaches to learning and teaching, which dominate the current HE landscape (Brown, 2010; Collini, 2018; Molesworth et al., 2011). Interview participants explored the relationships between tutors and students with the reciprocal peer-learning model – all of which are fundamentally non-hierarchical.

As the original study was exploring the use of e-learning tools in the arts, interview participants articulated their aversion to hierarchical exchanges with students when discussing how traditional e-learning tools instil these hierarchies:

I think there are a whole set of assumptions built into a conventional VLE which is a particular model of TAL which is quite different to how A&D generally does it…. in Art it’s a lot more emphasis on the student generating the content. P015

These quotations point to the lack of horizontal exchanges available to educators when using institutional VLEs. Again, these institutionally approved technologies promoted a particular type of interaction between staff and students that positioned staff as the deliverers of knowledge; thus positioning them hierarchically above the students.

Rejecting hierarchies has practical ramifications in a HE context, as it requires educators to actively resist approaches favoured by HE institutions. As interview participants articulated their desire to work without hierarchies, they also spoke about their resistance to elements that interfered with their values and pedagogy and embrace elements of rebellion against these perceived threats:

We like to see it as the rebel alliance. You might try to impose the empire on us but we know what's good for our students so we're going to do what's good for them and you can deal with it later. P011

This presented an understanding of the need for arts practitioners and departments to question and innovate when it came to university policy, which requires agency and the ability for them to develop their own pedagogies. By naming their active rebellious beliefs and practices, participants displayed a defiance to HE structures which sought to impinge on their teaching. They therefore placed themselves in direct opposition to the powers which they viewed were attempting to control their pedagogic practice. In this instance educators are stepping outside of institutional structures and directives, taking direct control of learning for their students away from the university.

Embracing fluidity

“There’s all sorts going on, it really is different every day” P014

Challenging institutionally driven practices requires a degree of confidence and reflexivity in practitioners’ approaches to their work, particularly as their approaches directly confront what have become normative practices in the current HE educational economy. Participants described discursive, reactive processes in the arts, which required them to be flexible and reactive in their work. They described responding to students with learner-centred, reactive approaches to student-led initiatives. Rather than delivering a prescribed or pre-determined mode of teaching, arts pedagogies allow and encourages flexibility in student learning. This flexible approach is a core aspect of an arts-based pedagogy, meaning it is hard to define, freeform and adaptable:

In terms of doing things within our teaching its quite difficult because of the range of stuff that students are doing…. So, I think it’s hard to go “this is what we should do” because it varies a lot because the programme is so multi-faceted. P009

These statements highlight the reactive nature of arts pedagogy, responding to the work created by students and collaborating alongside them. It also shows that although educators are responding to students whilst they are in learning spaces, the work of re-designing and reflecting on materials and methods is taking place outside these spaces, indicating this non-static approach is embedded on a number of different pedagogic levels. In addition to the materials and teaching techniques being reactive, the way the material is explored is often non-linear and freeform:

I think it may be that the structure thing is a concern in that it’s just not as structured in that we tend to be a bit more freeform and we turn up in the studio and you respond to something that's just happened that morning. So you can't prepare in advance so much. P018

These examples above provide broad insights into the flexibility needed from staff in arts departments. They are also sympathetic to messy (Orr and Shreeve, 2018), ambiguous (Trowler, 2014) and even irrational (Elkins, 2001) modes of interaction. In many ways therefore, much of critical arts pedagogy can be described as non-quantifiable, which is problematic within an increasingly striated, monitored landscape of HE (Thiel, 2019). There were repeated rejections of structure and linearity, as well as descriptions of practitioners being ‘freeform’. Discussions extended to rejections of formalised teaching spaces and times, with interactions taking place in different locations and outside traditional teaching hours. A more structured, ranked series of interactions would create distance between tutor and student and position tutors’ role as delivering knowledge, which is antithetical to both anarchist principles and the values espoused by the interview participants.

This fluidity extends to the need to reject other rules or directives in favour of the pedagogies and values that are inherent in their practice. The idea of questioning protocols, or institutionally delivered instructions is described as being intrinsic to an ‘arts place’

… it can't be an arts place if there's a protocol for everything….It fundamentally doesn't make any sense. Because you're supposed to be stepping outside all the time…. but also its our job to encourage students to constantly be questioning and kind of destroying and rebuilding P002

There is therefore an openness and willingness to question orthodoxies wherever they present themselves in their educational spheres. This again points to the recalcitrance towards authority and a desire to ensure that nothing remains in a fixed position in their teaching.

Staff-student co-operation – a mutual exchange

“We work together really closely; the students teach me so much” P007

In addition to the flexibility needed whilst teaching, the non-hierachical nature of their work ultimately led to co-operative learning experiences for staff and students. The sense of co-operative mutual learning was described as being vital to Arts pedagogy with practical examples such as shared feedback from both tutors and peers (Motley, 2016; Orr and Shreeve, 2018) and students collaborating with each other on shared interests. Participants also referred directly to how they learned from students:

So, my own knowledge has been growing alongside them because they're always looking at new things and I'm having to find out about them to help them. So, I end up enriched by them. P004

This reciprocity is a result of the non-hierarchical relationships that arts practitioners strive for and students leading on their learning. Although peer learning has become widely adopted across HE generally, participants detailed how this approach was a particularly important element of their approach to their subject:

But there is something about that community of practice where you learn to be an artist by talking and being with other artists. P001

The communal two-way exchanges between student and tutor and peer-learning strategies that participants described offer an insight into a sense of community within arts-based subjects. These quotations also provide further examples of the reflexive, non-hierarchical nature of arts pedagogy; much of the learning is done in response to events or prompts that occur during these exchanges as opposed to being pre-determined, before the exchanges take place. This communality is linked to the personal nature of the arts (Wilkinson, 2020) but also stems from the experiential and relational experiential nature of the subject (Orr and Shreeve, 2018).

Participants also detailed how the sense of co-operation and community extended beyond traditional academic spaces and into the spaces in and around the institution:

You come into somewhere, say it’s a studio, like <location> you come in every day you make a cup of tea you chat to the person who, I don’t know they might have an estates man…you see the receptionist every day. You see other artists every day you might chat about your practice, you might chat about politics. P006

Again, themes of limited hierarchy and dynamic, fluid pedagogies are expressed in this quotation, as arts practitioners operate in an inclusive exploratory way to develop a community of practice in and out of teaching spaces. It also speaks more broadly to a type of holistic, interconnected pedagogy that arts practitioners considered vital to their work, which encourages students to situate their learning in their own context and draw on their own experiences. In this we see co-operative, relational exchanges which sit outside standardised educational HE norms.