> 1. You're too well educated not to know what imminent potential is AND
> you're too good at reading not to know that the whole discussion of public
> space pertained to it, but you can play dumb if you like.
Actually, I don't believe I've ever heard the phrase before. The only meaning I can get out of it is something like proximate, right-around-the-corner, easily recognized potential, as opposed to distant, conjectural, Utopian potential. Have I got this right?
If so, then the 'imminent potential' of the Unis playing anything but an essentially conservative role in preserving the status quo seems just about nil, and arguing for the preservation of their present institutional arrangements doesn't move the ball downfield an inch.
> 2. Just so we're clear, your argument is this: because universities don't
> do what you want them to do there is no reason to defend any aspect of them
> much less support the people working in them against neoliberal attacks on
> their wages, benefits, working conditions or livelihoods...
Not at all. I like it when any group of toilers fights back against neoliberalism, whether they work in a university or an abattoir. What I was objecting to is the notion that it was particularly important for edumacation workers to succeed in their fight because the institutions they work in play such an valuable and 'progressive' role in the society. This argument fails, I think, because the premise is false.
-- --
Michael J. Smith mjs at smithbowen.net
http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org http://www.cars-suck.org http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
Any proposition that seems self-evident is almost certainly false.