Corporate Sovereignty LAW and GOVERNMENT UNDER CAPITALISM
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Corporate Sovereignty LAW AND GOVERNMENT UNDER CAPITALISM Joshua Barkan University o f Minnesota Press f t Minneapolis K.'f • L o n d o n |ft A different version of chapter 3 previously appeared as “Liberal Government and the Corporate Person,” Journal o f Cultural Economy 3, no. 1 (2010): 53-68, reprinted by permission of Taylor &c Francis. A portion of chapter 5 previously appeared in “Roberto Esposito’s Political Biology and Corporate Forms of Life,” Law, Culture, and the Humanities 8, no. 1 (2012): 84-101, reprinted with permission of SAGE Publications. Copyright 2013 by the Regents of the University of Minnesota All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Published by the University of Minnesota Press 111 Third Avenue South, Suite 290 Minneapolis, MN 55401-2520 http://www.upress.umn.edu Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Barkan,Joshua Corporate sovereignty : law and government under capitalism / Joshua Barkan. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-8166-7426-8 (he : alk. paper) ISBN 978-0-8166-7427-5 (pb : alk. paper) 1. Corporation law. 2. Corporate power. 3. Corporate governance— Law and legislation. 4. Corporate state. 5. Sovereignty. 6. Capitalism. I. Title. K1315.B36 2013 346'.066—dc23 2013010385 Printed in the United States of America on acid-free paper The University of Minnesota is an equal-opportunity educator and employer. 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 The Corporate University The preceding chapters have argued that corporate power and political sovereignty are genealogically linked and therefore unintelligible without one another, and they have explained the political implications that fol low from such an argument. In particular, I have set out to demonstrate that the problem of sovereign abandonment reappears not only through the exercise of corporate power but even, and more alarmingly, in some of the best attempts to limit corporate power and redirect corporations toward more socially beneficial ends. Readers might understandably take from this the politically paralyzing notion that corporations or corporate power are somehow impervious to social control, destined to regulate life itself in particularly nefarious ways. In truth, my argument runs pre cisely in the other direction. Approaching corporate power genealogi cally shows the true tragedy of corporate sovereignty1—a tragedy inherent in the double nature of corporations as collective institutions. Although corporations continually pose questions about being in common and po litical autonomy, these potentialities are for the most part unrealized in the particular renderings of corporate power in modern Western political and legal thought. Nonetheless, the problems of collective action and au tonomy remain internal to the articulation of sovereignty and capitalism that structures corporate institutions. In this final chapter, I would like to show the nonnecessity of this articu lation by thinking through one specific issue: the corporate university. As an academic who has spent a large portion of my life institutionalized, so to speak, in the university, current questions about the social functions and governance of universities play an outsized role in my own concerns. The claim, however, that universities are ivory towers and that what happens in these institutions is only of narrow academic interest fails to grapple with the important role of universities in contemporary political economy.2 Regional scientists and planners have examined the roles of universities in the development of regional innovation centers, such as Silicon Valley and the Route 128 corridor in Massachusetts, which are presented as the leading edge of today’s “knowledge economy” 1 Similarly, the creation of higher education markets, transnational research collaborations, and the importing and exporting of researchers, students, and physical university assets have become important avenues by which states promote and profit from foreign direct investment.4 Scholars have also documented the use of university-led development as a strategy for industrializing states in the context of contemporary globalization.1 In the United States, public research institutions, cognizant of these changes, Justify public support in the language of Jobs and economic growth, while also attempting to profit from university research, on one hand, and increasing tuition, on the other.6 Students are well aware that academic credentials are a nec essary precondition for entering global labor markets and are taking on unprecedented levels of indebtedness toward that end.7 Meanwhile, the sectors of for-profit and online universities are rapidly expanding, with even worse results for student finances.8 In response, universities are re- emerging as one of the primary locations for political activism and opposi tion, as these transformations, along with more localized policies such as department closings, labor struggles, and fee increases and tuition hikes, have set off protests at universities across the United States but also in many other parts of the world.9 Contrary to the ivory tower image, then, universities already are an integral part of the world and central to new circuits of capital accumu lation. Yet the connections between universities and contemporary global political economy have many activists and scholars concerned. A grow ing chorus has come to fret about the corporatization of the university. Rather than being a clearly articulated concept, the corporate university stands in with a series of other terms— including the neoliberal university, the military-industrial-academic complex, knowledge factories, academic capitalism, diploma mills, and the commodification or commercialization of higher education— for the ways that universities and the business world bleed into one another.10 In this sense, identifying the troubling changes confronting higher education as corporatization is accurate but also leaves underexamined the question of what corporatization actually entails. The great irony of contemporary discussions on the corporate university is that universities have always been corporations. In fact, universities are one of the primary institutions on which the legal form of incorporation is modeled. This includes not only the power of collective representation for aggregate forms of capital that characterizes modem business corpora tions, along with many aspects of the contemporary university, but, more important, the claims to autonomy and freedom that make corporations so troubling for constituted political orders. There are thus vital stakes in how we think about and engage the cor porate university. This chapter offers a response to corporatization that is quite different from the current talk of “dismantling” these institutions." The first section begins by reviewing the structural transformations com monly referred to as the corporatization of the university. This is a large and ever-growing literature, and the central concept of “corporatization” remains somewhat ill defined. My purpose is not to provide an exhaus tive empirical account of the changes across a wide variety of institutions of higher learning in different geographic settings but rather to provide a general overview of the concerns critics have associated with the corpo ratization of the university. Scholars have argued that corporatization is changing the institutional practices of universities as well as the content of university teaching and research. One of the notable aspects of these arguments is the way they have congealed into an interdisciplinary discus sion, if not a full-blown field, of “critical university studies.”1-The second section examines the way that the corporate university and corporatiza tion are constructed as obJects of disciplinary reflection in this emergent field and advocates a different way of approaching research, thinking, and reading about the corporate university that is not interdisciplinary as much as it is antidisciplinary. The third section considers the corporate university from an antidis ciplinary perspective by examining two texts: a pamphlet written by the noted medievalist Ernst Kantorowicz (who we met in chapter 1), titled The Fundamental Issue, and Ernst Freund’s short 1897 text (which we encountered in chapter 3), The Legal Nature of Corporations. Although there are many troublesome arguments in both of these documents, I sug gest that they allow us to envision an alterative formulation of the corpo rate university, one that is oriented not around an anticorporate capitalism (which maintains the production of capitalist value while lashing out at the corporate legal form) or a corporate anticapitalism (in which global businesses market to consumers reified inversions of their revolutionary desires) but rather an anticapitalist corporatism, where corporatism stands for an autonomous politics of being in common." The Corporate University The corporate university thesis is an account of economic restructuring. Although critics note long-standing concerns about the influence of busi ness in university education (dating back at least to Thorstein Veblen’s 1918 tract The Higher Learning in America), they equate the corporati zation of the university with a series of macroeconomic, institutional,