As someone who is clearly a right-wing symbolic capitalist, I can say I greatly enjoyed the book. Well done!!!
A couple of nits.
I was more than a little amused to see you reference MLK's talk to the APA in 1967. I WAS THERE!!! I was 15 at the time. My father was a very prominent psychologist, and he attended the convention. Since it was in DC we made a family vacation out of his visit. Although I was a bit young to be an official attendee, NO ONE was going to stop me from listening to MLK speak!! Most of the talk concerned the Vietnam War, of which he was a very early critic. Much of his decline in popularity was due to that position and not desegregation efforts in the north. In 1967 the war still had strong popular support. My parents were very involved in the civil rights movement at the time, so I have some knowledge of this.
I was also quite surprised at your statement that adjunct professors do fairly well economically. Data suggest the opposite. Many live in poverty. In 1984, University of Texas -Dallas found themselves without a sedimentologist/stratigrapher. They contacted me and asked if I would fill in. The courses would be taught at night so they would not interfere with my full-time job as a research scientist with a major oil company. I was paid $3500 per course and taught one per semester. The chairman and I both agreed we made a great deal. He was getting a "professor" for the price of TA and since I already had a well-paying real job it was "mad money" for me. 40 YEARS LATER that is still a top rate for an adjunct. Inside Higher Ed claims that: "Nearly a third of the 3,000 adjuncts surveyed for the report earn less than $25,000 a year. That puts them below the federal poverty guideline for a family of four. Another third of respondents make less than $50,000." As you point out, in comparison, diversity administrators make $200K+ Those of us on the right cannot help but notice that those great paragons of virtue - prestigious universities, are some of the most exploitive institutions in the country. If I treated my own employees like many universities treat adjuncts, I would be in jail.
The stats I pulled were for full-time contingent faculty members. Many adjuncts are not full time. And if the average is as I noted, that's compatible with many also not making much. More broadly, I think it's absolutely the case that adjuncts are exploited, as I detailed here: https://musaalgharbi.com/2020/05/01/disposable-scholars/
But I also think it's important to bear in mind that the exploitation that adjuncts experience is very different than, say, what Wal-Mart workers experience (https://cup.columbia.edu/book/working-for-respect/9780231188425). And the job is very flexible, relatively high-status, relatively non-demanding (relative to other work), and so on. The per hour rate for adjuncts is much higher than most other workers. Especially for classes that aren't new preps -- executing those takes very little work week to week.
I was an adjunct for a while myself, before I got cancelled. I think I also made about 3500 per class.
But the reason many stick in this work is because they'd rather do that than get a real job. As I note in the book, they could get work as a manager at a Waffle House or something instead, and probably get paid more. But then they'd have to do real work -- like, on the floor, very set hours, high-demand work. And even if they got more pay or benefits, they'd view it as something like a social death to work a job like that. They'd rather make less and be an adjunct than pursue alternatives which, of course, they could do at any time.
So, again, I think its true that adjuncts are exploited relative to, say, tenure-line professors or DEI administrators. But we shouldn't necessarily conflate their condition with, say, people who work at Amazon warehouses, etc. IMO. I'm not saying you're doing that. But a lot of symbolic capitalists very much do that.
The average Walmart warehouse worker makes $20.92/hr. That comes out to a yearly salary of $43,513.16 assuming 260 workdays per year. That is almost certainly above the average yearly income for adjuncts. A Walmart truckdriver makes over $100K. Store managers make up to $500K. All Walmart employees also get full health benefits, as well as paid time off for maternal and paternal care. Part time adjuncts at most universities do not get any of these benefits. I was an adjunct by choice. That is not true today most adjuncts.
With all due respect, you are falling into your own trap. You make the assumption that working for Walmart is somehow less fulfilling than teaching English 101. That is symbolic capitalist conceit, and it is simply not true. You just wrote several hundred pages about this. Many blue-collar workers, including those at Walmart, take great pride in their jobs. 73% of Walmart employees say that is a great place to work. Do you think that 73% of faculty members at any university would say the same? How about 73% of adjuncts?
Years ago, I had a friend who managed a large restaurant. He took me behind the scenes and introduced me to an employee whose full-time job was scrubbing pans. It is not a job you or I would enjoy. This employee was never going to get a Ph. D. but he was damn good at scrubbing pans and he was very proud of this. I saw him beam with pride when my friend complimented his work ethic. There is real dignity in work, be it scrubbing pans or writing scholarly texts. Symbolic capitalism is not for everyone.
I agree that many adjuncts are working where they want to, but I strongly suspect that is a function of their desire to become tenure-track professors. Sadly, few will get there. The “baby bust” of the 2000’s is working its way up to the universities. Add in the huge tuition cost increases and the reputational damage that many universities have suffered due to far left polices and the glory days of infinite expansion are over. In addition, there are just not that many jobs for someone with a humanities degree. Not everyone with a B.S. or even a Ph.D. in sociology is going to be an Al Gharbi.
However, the willingness of scholars to work for starvation wages very clearly proves a point you made in your book. Being a symbolic capitalist is not about the money. It is about the cultural capital that you accrue.
Here I think we're maybe talking past eachother just slightly.
I agree with you for pretty much all of this. And again, the thing I was doing before 2016, I spent the previous decade+ managing retail stores and working sales and freight jobs.
So I'm not making wild guesses about the nature of these jobs, it's from experience. I made more as a TA at Columbia than I ever did working full-time retail. And when I taught a class, I could get as much from teaching a class ($3.5k) as more than a month's wages, working full-time. And I did not put in 200+ hours of work to get that money. And the 'work' such as it was, was talking about things I find interesting. And occasionally grading papers.
That said, I absolutely agree there is dignity in these jobs. And more than that, many of these jobs are genuinely necessary and important in a way that symbolic jobs often aren't. As I mentioned briefly in the book, this is actually a source of mutual resentment between 'us' and 'normie' workers.
But you're right that most adjuncts today aren't choosing to be adjuncts -- if by that, you mean, they would prefer to be tenure-line. But they definitely ARE choosing to be adjuncts in the broader sense. As your comment powerfully illustrates: Wal-Mart jobs are right there! They could make more working full-time at Wal-Mart at any time. So why don't they?
Well, because Wal-Mart is a real job: a boss, a fixed schedule, productivity surveillance, a uniform, imposed discipline, and so on. And it's also a job with litle social status, especially for the people whose opinions they care about. They would much rather tell someone they teach at the university than tell people they work at Wal-Mart. They're prioritizing status because they look down on those people and those jobs, and they don't want to do real, normie work. So they stick with adjuncting when they absolutely could make more money as, say, a manager at a Waffle House, or as a post-office worker, and so on.
And I think it's important to keep both of these in mind simultaneously: adjuncts are 'exploited' relative to tenure-line folks. But it's a situation that they choose to be in. They cling to these positions, because God forbid they have to live like a regular person. They're absolutely not in the 'same boat' as people who are working poor, who are doing the best jobs they can get and are struggling to get by. The 'poverty' of adjuncts is self-imposed. They would rather earn poverty wages (although most full-time contingent faculty do earn salaries individually that are higher than the median *household* income, as I detail in the book and also do a deep dive on here: https://musaalgharbi.substack.com/p/being-a-professor-is-a-product-and) -- they would rather earn $3.5k per class on precarious contracts -- than to work the ways that normies work, in the kinds of jobs that normies hold.
And they're often able to do this because they're partnered with someone else who earns a larger salary allowing them to consistently make rent, etc. So they can take this indulgence. And then larp about how 'poor' they are.
So far, I just finished chapter 1, I love this line you are walking as you described here. I think that book is very valuable already and I've got a lot more pages to go through.
It is very accessible indeed, unless you read all the footnotes and take your own notes like I do 😂, but heh, I'm an academic so here we are.
As someone who is clearly a right-wing symbolic capitalist, I can say I greatly enjoyed the book. Well done!!!
A couple of nits.
I was more than a little amused to see you reference MLK's talk to the APA in 1967. I WAS THERE!!! I was 15 at the time. My father was a very prominent psychologist, and he attended the convention. Since it was in DC we made a family vacation out of his visit. Although I was a bit young to be an official attendee, NO ONE was going to stop me from listening to MLK speak!! Most of the talk concerned the Vietnam War, of which he was a very early critic. Much of his decline in popularity was due to that position and not desegregation efforts in the north. In 1967 the war still had strong popular support. My parents were very involved in the civil rights movement at the time, so I have some knowledge of this.
I was also quite surprised at your statement that adjunct professors do fairly well economically. Data suggest the opposite. Many live in poverty. In 1984, University of Texas -Dallas found themselves without a sedimentologist/stratigrapher. They contacted me and asked if I would fill in. The courses would be taught at night so they would not interfere with my full-time job as a research scientist with a major oil company. I was paid $3500 per course and taught one per semester. The chairman and I both agreed we made a great deal. He was getting a "professor" for the price of TA and since I already had a well-paying real job it was "mad money" for me. 40 YEARS LATER that is still a top rate for an adjunct. Inside Higher Ed claims that: "Nearly a third of the 3,000 adjuncts surveyed for the report earn less than $25,000 a year. That puts them below the federal poverty guideline for a family of four. Another third of respondents make less than $50,000." As you point out, in comparison, diversity administrators make $200K+ Those of us on the right cannot help but notice that those great paragons of virtue - prestigious universities, are some of the most exploitive institutions in the country. If I treated my own employees like many universities treat adjuncts, I would be in jail.
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2020/04/20/new-report-says-many-adjuncts-make-less-3500-course-and-25000-year
The stats I pulled were for full-time contingent faculty members. Many adjuncts are not full time. And if the average is as I noted, that's compatible with many also not making much. More broadly, I think it's absolutely the case that adjuncts are exploited, as I detailed here: https://musaalgharbi.com/2020/05/01/disposable-scholars/
But I also think it's important to bear in mind that the exploitation that adjuncts experience is very different than, say, what Wal-Mart workers experience (https://cup.columbia.edu/book/working-for-respect/9780231188425). And the job is very flexible, relatively high-status, relatively non-demanding (relative to other work), and so on. The per hour rate for adjuncts is much higher than most other workers. Especially for classes that aren't new preps -- executing those takes very little work week to week.
I was an adjunct for a while myself, before I got cancelled. I think I also made about 3500 per class.
But the reason many stick in this work is because they'd rather do that than get a real job. As I note in the book, they could get work as a manager at a Waffle House or something instead, and probably get paid more. But then they'd have to do real work -- like, on the floor, very set hours, high-demand work. And even if they got more pay or benefits, they'd view it as something like a social death to work a job like that. They'd rather make less and be an adjunct than pursue alternatives which, of course, they could do at any time.
So, again, I think its true that adjuncts are exploited relative to, say, tenure-line professors or DEI administrators. But we shouldn't necessarily conflate their condition with, say, people who work at Amazon warehouses, etc. IMO. I'm not saying you're doing that. But a lot of symbolic capitalists very much do that.
The average Walmart warehouse worker makes $20.92/hr. That comes out to a yearly salary of $43,513.16 assuming 260 workdays per year. That is almost certainly above the average yearly income for adjuncts. A Walmart truckdriver makes over $100K. Store managers make up to $500K. All Walmart employees also get full health benefits, as well as paid time off for maternal and paternal care. Part time adjuncts at most universities do not get any of these benefits. I was an adjunct by choice. That is not true today most adjuncts.
With all due respect, you are falling into your own trap. You make the assumption that working for Walmart is somehow less fulfilling than teaching English 101. That is symbolic capitalist conceit, and it is simply not true. You just wrote several hundred pages about this. Many blue-collar workers, including those at Walmart, take great pride in their jobs. 73% of Walmart employees say that is a great place to work. Do you think that 73% of faculty members at any university would say the same? How about 73% of adjuncts?
https://www.greatplacetowork.com/certified-company/1120506#:~:text=73%25%20of%20employees%20at%20Walmart,a%20typical%20U.S.%2Dbased%20company.
https://www.glassdoor.com/Reviews/Walmart-Reviews-E715.htm
https://fortune.com/ranking/best-companies/?bestcos_industry=Retail
Years ago, I had a friend who managed a large restaurant. He took me behind the scenes and introduced me to an employee whose full-time job was scrubbing pans. It is not a job you or I would enjoy. This employee was never going to get a Ph. D. but he was damn good at scrubbing pans and he was very proud of this. I saw him beam with pride when my friend complimented his work ethic. There is real dignity in work, be it scrubbing pans or writing scholarly texts. Symbolic capitalism is not for everyone.
I agree that many adjuncts are working where they want to, but I strongly suspect that is a function of their desire to become tenure-track professors. Sadly, few will get there. The “baby bust” of the 2000’s is working its way up to the universities. Add in the huge tuition cost increases and the reputational damage that many universities have suffered due to far left polices and the glory days of infinite expansion are over. In addition, there are just not that many jobs for someone with a humanities degree. Not everyone with a B.S. or even a Ph.D. in sociology is going to be an Al Gharbi.
https://www.concordcoalition.org/blogs/birth-rates-reach-record-low-no-recovery-in-sight/
However, the willingness of scholars to work for starvation wages very clearly proves a point you made in your book. Being a symbolic capitalist is not about the money. It is about the cultural capital that you accrue.
Here I think we're maybe talking past eachother just slightly.
I agree with you for pretty much all of this. And again, the thing I was doing before 2016, I spent the previous decade+ managing retail stores and working sales and freight jobs.
So I'm not making wild guesses about the nature of these jobs, it's from experience. I made more as a TA at Columbia than I ever did working full-time retail. And when I taught a class, I could get as much from teaching a class ($3.5k) as more than a month's wages, working full-time. And I did not put in 200+ hours of work to get that money. And the 'work' such as it was, was talking about things I find interesting. And occasionally grading papers.
That said, I absolutely agree there is dignity in these jobs. And more than that, many of these jobs are genuinely necessary and important in a way that symbolic jobs often aren't. As I mentioned briefly in the book, this is actually a source of mutual resentment between 'us' and 'normie' workers.
But you're right that most adjuncts today aren't choosing to be adjuncts -- if by that, you mean, they would prefer to be tenure-line. But they definitely ARE choosing to be adjuncts in the broader sense. As your comment powerfully illustrates: Wal-Mart jobs are right there! They could make more working full-time at Wal-Mart at any time. So why don't they?
Well, because Wal-Mart is a real job: a boss, a fixed schedule, productivity surveillance, a uniform, imposed discipline, and so on. And it's also a job with litle social status, especially for the people whose opinions they care about. They would much rather tell someone they teach at the university than tell people they work at Wal-Mart. They're prioritizing status because they look down on those people and those jobs, and they don't want to do real, normie work. So they stick with adjuncting when they absolutely could make more money as, say, a manager at a Waffle House, or as a post-office worker, and so on.
And I think it's important to keep both of these in mind simultaneously: adjuncts are 'exploited' relative to tenure-line folks. But it's a situation that they choose to be in. They cling to these positions, because God forbid they have to live like a regular person. They're absolutely not in the 'same boat' as people who are working poor, who are doing the best jobs they can get and are struggling to get by. The 'poverty' of adjuncts is self-imposed. They would rather earn poverty wages (although most full-time contingent faculty do earn salaries individually that are higher than the median *household* income, as I detail in the book and also do a deep dive on here: https://musaalgharbi.substack.com/p/being-a-professor-is-a-product-and) -- they would rather earn $3.5k per class on precarious contracts -- than to work the ways that normies work, in the kinds of jobs that normies hold.
And they're often able to do this because they're partnered with someone else who earns a larger salary allowing them to consistently make rent, etc. So they can take this indulgence. And then larp about how 'poor' they are.
You are correct. We agree. Well put!!
You got cancelled?!?! Now there is an essay I would love to read 😁😁😁😁
So far, I just finished chapter 1, I love this line you are walking as you described here. I think that book is very valuable already and I've got a lot more pages to go through.
It is very accessible indeed, unless you read all the footnotes and take your own notes like I do 😂, but heh, I'm an academic so here we are.
I hope you are enjoying the responses at least as much as you seem (in your elegantly understated way) to be. Congratulations!