Social transformation on the neoliberal university: Reconstructing an academic commitment

IF 2.4 Q1 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY Journal of Occupational Science Pub Date : 2022-08-17 DOI:10.1080/14427591.2022.2110660
V. Santos
{"title":"Social transformation on the neoliberal university: Reconstructing an academic commitment","authors":"V. Santos","doi":"10.1080/14427591.2022.2110660","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Gelya Frank’s (2022) keynote at the 27th USC Occupational Science Symposium invites the occupational science community to face the contradictions between its aspiration to create a ‘science of occupation’ and its actual practices under neoliberalism. Frank’s scholarship offers a path for the stalled science to reconstruct itself. Her theory of occupational reconstructions calls for discipline-wide conversations to formulate empirically answerable ‘consequential questions.’ The global relevance of Frank’s argument makes it important to consider Ong’s (2007) nuanced view of neoliberalism as a technology of governance that migrates and shows up differently in different contexts. Her theory of Occupational Reconstruction emphasizes social experimentation, solidarity through embodied engagement in shared occupations, relationships between shared narratives and collective actions, and non-coercive participation by people hoping to ameliorate a shared problem. Because such categories are open to local communities’ histories, languages and desires, the theory lends itself to research and practice in diverse situations, wherever people are struggling for social and occupational justice. Frank’s critical perspectives also apply to occupational therapy professional education. I offer the example of neoliberalism’s differential effects in Brazil, focusing on the candangos, an underclass of migrant workers recruited in the 1950s to build the modernist city of Brasilia, and their children and grandchildren in a recent course on occupational reconstructions at the University of Brasília, Faculdade de Ceilândia. Continuing global dialogue is necessary as Frank invites us to reengage with our academic and activist commitments.","PeriodicalId":51542,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Occupational Science","volume":"29 1","pages":"482 - 486"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-08-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Occupational Science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/14427591.2022.2110660","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 3

Abstract

ABSTRACT Gelya Frank’s (2022) keynote at the 27th USC Occupational Science Symposium invites the occupational science community to face the contradictions between its aspiration to create a ‘science of occupation’ and its actual practices under neoliberalism. Frank’s scholarship offers a path for the stalled science to reconstruct itself. Her theory of occupational reconstructions calls for discipline-wide conversations to formulate empirically answerable ‘consequential questions.’ The global relevance of Frank’s argument makes it important to consider Ong’s (2007) nuanced view of neoliberalism as a technology of governance that migrates and shows up differently in different contexts. Her theory of Occupational Reconstruction emphasizes social experimentation, solidarity through embodied engagement in shared occupations, relationships between shared narratives and collective actions, and non-coercive participation by people hoping to ameliorate a shared problem. Because such categories are open to local communities’ histories, languages and desires, the theory lends itself to research and practice in diverse situations, wherever people are struggling for social and occupational justice. Frank’s critical perspectives also apply to occupational therapy professional education. I offer the example of neoliberalism’s differential effects in Brazil, focusing on the candangos, an underclass of migrant workers recruited in the 1950s to build the modernist city of Brasilia, and their children and grandchildren in a recent course on occupational reconstructions at the University of Brasília, Faculdade de Ceilândia. Continuing global dialogue is necessary as Frank invites us to reengage with our academic and activist commitments.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
新自由主义大学的社会转型:重建学术承诺
摘要Gelya Frank(2022)在第27届南加州大学职业科学研讨会上的主旨演讲邀请职业科学界面对其创建“职业科学”的愿望与其在新自由主义下的实际实践之间的矛盾。弗兰克的奖学金为停滞不前的科学提供了一条重建自身的道路。她的职业重建理论呼吁全学科的对话,以形成经验上可回答的“后果性问题”弗兰克的论点具有全球相关性,因此重要的是要考虑王(2007)对新自由主义的细致入微的看法,即新自由主义是一种在不同背景下迁移和表现不同的治理技术。她的职业重建理论强调社会实验、通过具体参与共同职业的团结、共同叙事和集体行动之间的关系,以及希望改善共同问题的人们的非强制性参与。由于这些类别对当地社区的历史、语言和愿望开放,该理论有助于在不同的情况下进行研究和实践,无论人们在哪里为社会和职业正义而奋斗。弗兰克的批判观点也适用于职业治疗专业教育。我举了一个新自由主义在巴西产生差异影响的例子,在巴西利亚大学Faculdade de Ceilândia最近的一门职业重建课程中,我重点介绍了坎丹戈斯人,这是一个在20世纪50年代被招募来建设现代主义城市巴西利亚的移民工人的下层阶级,以及他们的子孙后代。弗兰克邀请我们重新履行我们的学术和活动家承诺,继续进行全球对话是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Occupational Science
Journal of Occupational Science SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
41.70%
发文量
46
期刊最新文献
A dynamic and critical approach to belonging as a dimension of occupation “It’s a fight with your mind”: Experiences and meaning of occupation among men detained in immigration removal centres within the United Kingdom Special Issue: Occupational Experiences and Transitions Exploring occupational participation and engagement during disaster through the lens of the Participatory Occupational Justice Framework “It’s a bit of a paradox, as she considers herself a feminist”: Tensions of doing household-related occupations as a young cis-heterosexual couple in France
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1