Tuesday, 17 March 2026

A Faustian Bargain: Are Universities Selling Their Soul to the Market? (for readers in the academic world)

A Small Note to My Readers

I’m trying something new with my writing.

For some topics, I’ll be creating two versions of the same idea — one for the academic community, using theoretical frameworks and references, and another for general readers, where the same ideas are explored in a more accessible and less jargon-heavy way.

The aim is simple: to make complex ideas travel across different spaces without losing their depth.


(And now, here is the version of the blog for readers in the academic world)

Higher education today is increasingly driven by metrics, markets, and measurable outcomes.
But education was never meant to be only about productivity—it was also about thinking, questioning, and imagining otherwise. This piece asks: what happens when knowledge is valued only for its economic return?


A Faustian Bargain? Rethinking the Future of Higher Education

What if the transformation of higher education today is not merely reform — but a bargain?

And not just any bargain, but a Faustian one — an agreement that promises power, efficiency, and global relevance, while quietly demanding something far more valuable in return.


Literature, Theory, and the Question of the Present

The relationship between literature and theory has always been deeply intertwined. Theories often carry a certain literariness, while literary narratives generate conceptual frameworks through which we interpret reality.

It is from this intersection that we may begin to understand the present crisis of higher education.

Literature does not merely tell stories — it gives us metaphors to think with. And perhaps no metaphor captures our current moment better than the Faustian bargain.


The Faustian Temptation

In German folklore, Faust makes a pact with Mephistopheles, exchanging his soul for unlimited knowledge, pleasure, and power. Later popularized in Christopher Marlowe’s Doctor Faustus (1594), this story has come to symbolize reckless exchanges — short-term gains for long-term loss.

Today, higher education appears to be entering a similar pact.

Universities promise:

  • global competitiveness

  • employability

  • innovation

  • measurable success

But what is being surrendered in return?


When Market Logic Becomes Common Sense

To understand this transformation, we must first examine the spread of neoliberal rationality.

As Sam Binkley and Jorge Capetillo-Ponce observe, neoliberalism does not operate only at the level of the state. It emerges from everyday practices of buying and selling, gradually expanding into all spheres of life. Drawing on Michel Foucault’s Birth of Biopolitics (1978–79), they note how economic logic becomes a model for understanding subjectivity itself:

neoliberalism produces “uniquely economic subjectivities—the entrepreneurial self, who undertakes her own self-government as an economic enterprise” (Binkley & Capetillo-Ponce, 2009).

Foucault’s broader project was precisely to examine

“the different modes by which, in our culture, human beings are made subjects” (Foucault, 2009).

Under neoliberalism, the subject is no longer simply social or political — it becomes economic.

From:

  • homo sapiens (biological being)

  • to homo sociologicus (social being)

  • to homo oeconomicus (calculating, self-investing individual)


Education Reimagined as Investment

What happens when this logic enters higher education?

Education is no longer primarily about knowledge. It becomes:

  • an investment

  • a productivity enhancer

  • a pathway to employability

  • a measurable return

As Gary Becker (1992) puts it, education enhances “the productivity of people in market and non-market situations.”

The student becomes an entrepreneurial self:

  • building portfolios

  • curating CVs

  • branding identity

  • constantly upskilling

Universities become training grounds for self-management.


Governmentality and the Entrepreneurial Self

Foucault’s concept of governmentality helps us understand this shift.

He defines it as:

“the ensemble formed by institutions, procedures, analyses and reflections… that allow the exercise of this very specific… power that has the population as its target” (Security, Territory, Population, 1977–78).

Neoliberalism extends economic reasoning into previously non-economic domains:

“the possibility of giving a strictly economic interpretation of a whole domain previously thought to be non-economic” (Birth of Biopolitics, 1978–79).

Education, then, is no longer outside the market — it is fully absorbed into it.


The Audit University

This transformation is accompanied by the rise of what Michael Power (1997) calls the “audit society”—a world governed by measurement, verification, and quantification.

We now live in an academic culture defined by:

  • rankings

  • citation indices

  • impact factors

  • performance metrics

As Theodore Porter (1996) puts it, we increasingly place our “trust in numbers” rather than judgment.

Marilyn Strathern (2000) observes that audit has become a universal logic:

“applicable to all kinds of reckonings, evaluations and measurements.”

In universities, this produces what Stephen J. Ball (2000, 2003) calls a culture of performativity, where academics must constantly demonstrate measurable productivity.

Ball describes how these pressures are lived:

tensions are “played out in the everyday/everynight lives of individual academics.”

Under such conditions, institutions and individuals engage in what Ball calls “fabrications”—performances designed to satisfy evaluation systems.

Here, Foucault’s insight becomes crucial:

power “produces reality… domains of objects and rituals of truth” (Discipline and Punish, 1975).

And Butler’s concept of performativity reminds us that these practices are:

“reiterative and citational” (Butler, 1993).

Knowledge becomes visibility.
Visibility becomes value.


Knowledge as Commodity

The transformation of education is inseparable from the transformation of knowledge itself.

As Jean-François Lyotard (1984) observed:

“Knowledge is and will be produced in order to be sold… it loses its ‘use-value.’”

Knowledge is no longer pursued for its own sake. It becomes:

  • exchangeable

  • marketable

  • commodified

David Harvey (2005) captures this broader shift:

neoliberalism seeks “to bring all human action into the domain of the market.”

This leads to what Canaan and Shumar (2008) call the transition from the welfare state to the market state.

Universities now resemble marketplaces:

  • students become consumers

  • degrees become investments

  • knowledge becomes product

As Aronowitz and Giroux (2000) note:

universities are increasingly seen as “training grounds for corporate berths.”


Inequality and Academic Capital

This shift also reshapes academic hierarchies.

Pierre Bourdieu (1977) reminds us:

culture and education are central to “the reproduction of social differences.”

When economic capital dominates academia:

  • STEM fields gain prestige

  • Humanities are marginalized

  • critical inquiry loses value

“Cultural capital” itself becomes monetized.


Debt and Discipline

Another dimension of neoliberal education is financialization.

Declining public funding leads to:

  • rising tuition

  • student loans

  • institutional debt

As Pettifor (2017) notes, austerity is justified through the claim that “there is no money.”

This produces a cycle of:
debt → dependency → compliance

Debt becomes a disciplinary mechanism.

Students choose careers not based on passion, but repayment.


The Managerial University

Universities themselves are changing.

Henry Giroux (2002) warns:

civic discourse has been replaced by “commercialism, privatization, and deregulation.”

He argues that this transformation produces:

“compliant workers, depoliticized consumers, and passive citizens.”

Bill Readings (1996) describes the modern university as organized around the empty ideal of:

“excellence.”

Everything must be measured, optimized, justified.

Vice-Chancellors become CEOs.
Academic labour becomes precarious.
Research aligns with market priorities.


The Emotional Costs

Neoliberal academia is not only structural—it is affective.

It produces:

  • anxiety

  • burnout

  • competition

  • insecurity

As Ball (2003) puts it, academics live under the “terrors of performativity.”

Failure becomes individualized.

Structural issues disappear.
Personal inadequacy takes their place.


The Digital University

In the present moment, this transformation is intensified by digital technologies.

We live in what Esposito and Stark (2019) call a “society of rankings.”

Education is increasingly datafied:

  • learning analytics

  • AI assessment

  • behavioural tracking

Drawing on Shoshana Zuboff (2019), this can be understood as part of surveillance capitalism.

Education becomes optimization.

As Lyotard (1984) warned:

the computerization of society may become an instrument of control governed by “the performativity principle.”


Can Universities Still Resist?

Despite these pressures, universities are not fully lost.

Alternative pedagogies continue to exist:

  • feminist classrooms

  • decolonial curricula

  • critical pedagogy

  • community-based learning

These practices remind us that education can still be:

  • reflective

  • ethical

  • democratic


The Question Before Us

The neoliberal university promises:

  • efficiency

  • innovation

  • global relevance

But we must ask:

At what cost?

If education becomes entirely governed by markets and metrics, we risk losing something fundamental:

  • critical thinking

  • intellectual freedom

  • collective imagination

And once lost, these may not be easily recovered.


A Final Reflection

Faust’s tragedy was not that he desired knowledge.

It was that he accepted a bargain without fully understanding its cost.

Today, as we reshape higher education, we must ask:

Are we doing the same?

Because what is at stake is not just the future of universities—
but the future of thinking itself.


References:

Aronowitz, Stanley  & Henry A. Giroux. “The Corporate

    University and the Politics of Education.” The

    Educational Forum, 64:4, 332-339. 2000.

Ball, Stephen J. “Performativities and Fabrications in the 

Education Economy: Towards the Performative Society?” The Australian Educational Researcher, vol. 27, no. 2, Aug. 2000, pp. 1–23.

Ball, Stephen J. “The teacher’s soul and the terrors of 

performativity.” Journal of Educational Policy (2003). 

Bauman, Z., and D. Lyon. 2013. Liquid Surveillance: A 

Conversation. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Becker, Gary S. “The Economic Way of Looking at Life.”

    Nobel Lecture, 9 December 1992. 

Binkley and Jorge. A Foucault for the 21st Century: 

Governmentality, Biopolitics and Discipline in the New Millennium. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009.

Bourdieu, P. (1977). “Cultural Reproduction and Social 

Reproduction. In J. Karabel, & A. H. Halsey (Eds.), Power and Ideology in Education (pp. 487-511).

Butler, Judith. Bodies That Matter: On the Discursive

    Limits of “sex.” Taylor and Francis US, 1993.

Canaan, Joyce E., and Wesley Shumar, eds. Structure

    and Agency in the Neoliberal University. Routledge,            2008.

Esposito, E., and D. Stark. 2019. “What’s Observed in a

    Rating? Rankings as Orientation in the Face of                  Uncertainty.” Theory, Culture and Society.

Foucault, Michel. Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the

    PrisonVintage, 1995.

Foucault, Michel. Security, Territory, Population. Lectures

    at the Collège de France 1977–1978, [2004], ed. Michel

    Sennelart, trans. Graham Burchell. New York: Palgrave     Macmillan, 2009.

Foucault, Michel. The Birth of Biopolitics: Lectures at the

    Collège de France, 1978-79. 2009.

Foucault, Michel. “The Subject and Power” in Michel

    Foucault, Power: Volume 3: Essential Works of                 Foucault -1984 (J Faubion, ed; R Hurley, trs) (Penguin, London 2002) 326, 341.

Giroux, Henry. “Neoliberalism, Corporate Culture, and the 

Promise of Higher Education: The University as a Democratic Public Sphere.” Harvard Educational Review, vol. 72, no. 4, Dec. 2002, pp. 425–64.

Harvey, David. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford

    UP, USA, 2007.

Lupton, D., and B. Williamson. 2017. “The Datafied Child:

    The Dataveillance of Children and Implications for

    their Rights.” New Media & Society 19 (5): 780–794.

Lyotard, Jean François. The Postmodern Condition: A

    Report on Knowledge. University of Minnesota, 1984.

Nir, T. (2024). “On Debt Obligations as Market Relations:

    The Entanglement of Debtors in Market Organization.”     Journal of Cultural Economy, 17(3), 331–344.

Pettifor, A. 2017. The Production of Money: How to Break

    the Power of Bankers. London: Verso.

Porter, Theodore M. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of

    Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton UP,         1996.

Power, Michael. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification.

    OUP, Oxford, 1997.

Readings, Bill. The University in Ruins. Harvard UP, 1996.

Smyth, J. 2017. The Toxic University: Zombie Leadership, 

Academic Rock Stars and Neoliberal Ideology. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Strathern, Marilyn. Audit Cultures: Anthropological

    Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy.            Routledge, 2003.

Williamson, B., Bayne, S., & Shay, S. (2020). “The         

    Datafication of Teaching in Higher Education: Critical

  Issues and Perspectives.” Teaching in Higher Education,

    25(4), 351–365.

Zuboff, S. 2019. The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The

    Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of                Power. London: Profile Books.






No comments:

Post a Comment

Featured post

The Quiet Rise of Political Religion

Politics has always involved trust, hope, and belief. But what happens when belief turns into devotion? When leaders are no longer question...