Skip to reading view

Keyboard Shortcuts

Next slide Space
Previous slide
Reveal next questionEnter
Start / pause timerT
Reset timerR
First / last slideHome / End
Toggle reading modeM
Help?
CloseEsc
Close ✕
Movement I · Week 5 · Milestone 1 Due
Who Are We and What Do We Think?
The University
Under Neoliberalism
WEEK 5 · CRDM 790

"Neoliberalism attacks democratic values at the level of the subject, transforming citizens into entrepreneurs of themselves."

— Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos
◆ Due Today
Scholarly Identity Statement
Before class · 20% of grade
CRDM 790 · Week 5Session Map
Today's 3.5 Hours
Brown, Identity Statements, and the Close of Movement I
0:00–0:30
Open: "What is the university actually for?" Discussion
Hold this question before turning to Brown. Let the room answer it first — then read Brown's answer back to them. The gap between their answers and hers is the session.
0:30–1:15
Brown on neoliberalism as political rationality — Ch. 1 Discussion
Focus on the homo politicus / homo oeconomicus distinction. This is Brown's engine. Which are students being trained to be?
1:15–1:45
Brown on higher education — Ch. 6 Discussion
Students are in their subject here. This often generates the most personal responses of the semester. Give it room.
1:45–2:00
Break Rest
2:00–3:00
Identity Statement Swap & Respond Activity Milestone
Exchange drafts with a new partner. Reader's task: underline the most alive sentence. Circle anything written for a committee rather than from conviction. Write one question.
3:00–3:30
Cohort Synthesis — Close of Movement I
What does the cohort's collection of statements reveal? What do we seem most uncertain about? Name what vocabulary we now share as we enter Movement II.
CRDM 790 · Week 5Reading Guide
This Week's Text
Brown, Undoing the Demos
Assigned (Perusall) · Zone Books 2015
  • Introduction — pp. 7–21 (~15 pp.) — Brown's core claim and method
  • Chapter 1 'Undoing Democracy' — pp. 23–62 (~40 pp.) — the theory
  • Chapter 6 'Educating Human Capital' — pp. 175–222 (~47 pp.) — the application; most directly relevant
Discussion Anchor Pages
  • homo politicus / homo oeconomicus — pp. 83–99
  • Human capital as self-investment — pp. 32–36
  • The entrepreneurialized subject — pp. 37–45 and pp. 175–195
Suggested
  • Martha Nussbaum, Not For Profit
  • Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Generous Thinking
Pre-Class Writing Prompt (Perusall)

Find one moment in Brown where you feel implicated — where her argument lands on you personally, not just on an abstraction. Write an honest annotation.

And: your Scholarly Identity Statement is due before class today.

Key Conceptual Distinction
Homo politicus vs. Homo oeconomicus

The political citizen (capable of collective self-governance) vs. the economic subject (optimizing their own human capital investment). Brown's argument: neoliberalism is not just economic policy — it remakes subjectivity by replacing the first with the second.

CRDM 790 · Week 5Discussion Questions
Seminar · 0:30–1:45
Questions Worth
Sitting With
1
Brown argues that neoliberalism remakes the subject — not just economics but identity, values, and ways of relating to the world. Do you recognize that remaking in yourself?Where? In how you talk about your research? In how you justify taking this degree? In what you feel you're supposed to want from it?
2
What does it mean to pursue a PhD in the humanities under neoliberalism? What are you 'investing in'? What's the expected 'return'?Brown would say you've already internalized the answer. What is it? Do you agree with her analysis?
3
Brown distinguishes between homo politicus (the political citizen) and homo oeconomicus (the economic subject). Which are you being trained to be? Which do you want to be?Is it possible to be both at once? Or does Brown's argument foreclose that possibility?
4
If the PhD is partly a form of self-investment and partly a form of critical refusal — how do you hold both of those at once?Not as a theoretical puzzle. As a practical question about how you live inside this institution, this semester, doing this work.
Click any card or this button · or press Enter
CRDM 790 · Week 5Hands-On Activity
Activity · 2:00–3:00 · Milestone 1 Workshop
Identity Statement Swap & Respond
60 minutes total
1
Exchange drafts — with a partner you haven't worked closely with
Instructor assigns pairs. The goal: a reader who doesn't already know your research story and will encounter the statement fresh.
2
Read and respond — 10 minutes → use next slide for timer
Read your partner's statement. Then complete the three reader tasks in writing:
① Underline the most alive sentence — the one that sounds like them, not a committee ② Circle anything that sounds written for approval rather than from conviction ③ Write one question the statement opens for you (not a suggestion, a genuine question)
3
Partner conversation — 5 minutes each
Share your responses. The writer listens first. Then clarifies if needed. This is not critique — it's reflection back.
4
Cohort synthesis — 20 minutes
Full group: What keeps showing up across the statements? What do we seem most uncertain about? What do we seem most sure of — and is that sureness earned?
Instructor: Look for statements that list interests without stakes. "I study X" is not a scholarly identity. Push toward "I study X because ___."
UDL — Multiple Participation Modes
  • Written responses (default) — complete the three tasks in writing before speaking
  • Verbal only — share responses in conversation without writing, if preferred
  • Post to Moodle — if in-person sharing feels like a barrier, post written response to Moodle by end of day
CRDM 790 · Week 5Activity · Step 2
Identity Statement Swap · Reading & Responding
Read. Then respond in writing before you speak.
10:00
Ready to start
Task ①
Underline

The most alive sentence — the one that sounds like a real person wrote it, not a job application.

Task ②
Circle

Anything that sounds written for a committee rather than from genuine conviction. Mark it — don't editorialize yet.

Task ③
Write one question

A question the statement opens for you — not a suggestion, not a critique. A genuine question you want to ask this scholar.

CRDM 790 · Week 5Cohort Synthesis · Close of Movement I
Full Group · 3:00–3:30
What Does This Cohort Sound Like?
The synthesis questions
  • What keeps showing up across the statements? What do we seem to share — in our questions, our uncertainties, our commitments?
  • What do we seem most uncertain about — as scholars, as people inside this institution?
  • What do we seem most sure of? And is that sureness earned, or is it an inherited assumption we haven't examined?
Close of Movement I — What We Now Share

By end of today each student should be able to name:

  • A vocabulary: Giroux, Benjamin, Mbembe, Brown — not as names to drop but as tools to think with
  • A scholarly identity — however provisional — in writing
  • One question they carry into candidacy work
Closing Prompt

Go around the room. Each person says one sentence: not a summary of your statement, not a conclusion — the one thing you are taking into Movement II that you didn't have before.

Preview: Movement II begins

Next week: Federici, Caliban and the Witch. Movement II asks whose labor built the fields we're inheriting. Bring your first-pass exam list — 10 texts, one sentence each about why it belongs. Don't worry about getting it right. Just get it on paper.

CRDM 790 · Week 5Milestone 1 — Full Details
◆ Milestone 1 of 4
Scholarly Identity Statement
Due before class, Week 5  ·  Submit via Moodle, email to kkcole2@ncsu.edu, or hard copy
20% of final grade
In approximately 500 words: Who are you as a scholar? What do you care about, what animates your research, and why does it matter? Where did your intellectual questions come from, and what do you want your work to do in the world?

This is not a CV summary. It is a statement of intellectual purpose, written from conviction, not for institutional legibility.
Voice & conviction

Reads like you wrote it — specific, embodied, personal. A stranger could not have written this. It is distinctly yours.

Stakes & significance

You articulate clearly why your research matters — not only to your field but beyond it. The 'so what' is present and specific.

Intellectual origin

You trace where your questions came from — intellectually, experientially, or both. There is a thread of genuine curiosity or necessity.

Beyond CV summary

The statement argues and synthesizes — it does not list credentials or topics. It goes further than "I am interested in X."

Threshold Grading
Complete & SubstantiveGenuine intellectual purpose. Articulates why the research matters. Written with conviction and specificity. Voices a real scholar.
Nearly There / In RevisionEngages the prompt but reads as written for a committee rather than from conviction. Stakes unclear. Reads more like a topic list than a purpose statement.
Not Yet CompleteNot submitted, or does not meet minimum expectations for doctoral-level reflection. Please come talk to me.
CRDM 790 · Week 5Looking Ahead · Movement II
Moving Into Movement II
What Do I Know and Who Helps Me Know It?
Reading for Week 6 (Perusall)
  • Silvia Federici, Caliban and the Witch (Autonomedia 2004/2014)
  • Introduction — pp. 7–20
  • Chapter 2 'The Accumulation of Labor and the Degradation of Women' — pp. 75–131
Perusall annotation for Week 6

Find one place in Federici that speaks to your field specifically. Write an annotation connecting her argument to a dynamic you recognize in the fields you're inheriting.

Note: Wellness Day possibility

If course meets Tuesday, Wellness Day (Feb 16) may cancel Week 6. An asynchronous version will be on Moodle — Federici prompt and Canon Audit posted in advance.

Bring to Class — Week 6

First-pass exam list.

10 texts you are currently imagining on your comprehensive exam list. One sentence per text about why it belongs. Don't aim for finished — aim for honest. This is the raw material for the Week 8 workshop.

Movement II — On the Horizon
  • W6Federici — whose labor built your field?
  • W7Fisher / Derrida — what haunts your field?
  • W8◆ Milestone 2: Draft Exam List due
  • W9Committee as intellectual community
  • W10◆ Milestone 3: Committee Confirmation due
CRDM 790 · Movement I · Week 5 · Milestone 1 Due

Week 5: The University Under Neoliberalism

Who are we being trained to be — and who do we want to be?

Reading: Brown, Undoing the Demos (Perusall) Activity: Identity Statement Swap ◆ Milestone 1 due before class
“Neoliberalism attacks democratic values at the level of the subject, transforming citizens into entrepreneurs of themselves.”— Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos

Session Map

Brown, Identity Statements, and the Close of Movement I
0:00–0:30
Open: “What is the university actually for?”
Hold this question before turning to Brown. Let the room answer it first — then read Brown’s answer back to them. The gap between their answers and hers is the session.
0:30–1:15
Brown on neoliberalism as political rationality — Ch. 1
Focus on the homo politicus / homo oeconomicus distinction. Which are students being trained to be?
1:15–1:45
Brown on higher education — Ch. 6
Students are in their subject here. This often generates the most personal responses of the semester. Give it room.
1:45–2:00
Break
2:00–3:00
Identity Statement Swap & Respond
Exchange drafts with a new partner. Reader’s task: underline the most alive sentence. Circle anything written for a committee. Write one question.
3:00–3:30
Cohort Synthesis — Close of Movement I
What does the cohort’s collection of statements reveal? Name what vocabulary we now share as we enter Movement II.

Reading Guide

Brown, Undoing the Demos · Zone Books 2015
Assigned (Perusall)
  • Introduction — pp. 7–21 (~15 pp.) — Brown’s core claim and method
  • Chapter 1 ‘Undoing Democracy’ — pp. 23–62 (~40 pp.) — the theory
  • Chapter 6 ‘Educating Human Capital’ — pp. 175–222 (~47 pp.) — the application; most directly relevant to your situation
Discussion Anchor Pages
  • Homo politicus / homo oeconomicus — pp. 83–99
  • Human capital as self-investment — pp. 32–36
  • The entrepreneurialized subject — pp. 37–45 and pp. 175–195
Pre-Class Writing Prompt (Perusall)

Find one moment in Brown where you feel implicated — where her argument lands on you personally, not just on an abstraction. Write an honest annotation beginning: “I feel implicated because ___”

And: your Scholarly Identity Statement is due before class today.

Key Conceptual Distinction

Homo politicus vs. homo oeconomicus — The political citizen capable of collective self-governance vs. the economic subject optimizing their human capital investment. Brown’s argument: neoliberalism remakes subjectivity by replacing the first with the second.

Suggested (Not Required)
  • Martha Nussbaum, Not For Profit
  • Kathleen Fitzpatrick, Generous Thinking

Guiding Questions

Seminar · 0:30–1:45
1
Brown argues that neoliberalism remakes the subject — not just economics but identity, values, and ways of relating to the world. Do you recognize that remaking in yourself?
Where? In how you talk about your research? In how you justify taking this degree? In what you feel you’re supposed to want from it?
2
What does it mean to pursue a PhD in the humanities under neoliberalism? What are you “investing in”? What’s the expected “return”?
Brown would say you’ve already internalized the answer. What is it? Do you agree with her analysis?
3
Brown distinguishes between homo politicus (the political citizen) and homo oeconomicus (the economic subject). Which are you being trained to be? Which do you want to be?
Is it possible to be both at once? Or does Brown’s argument foreclose that possibility?
4
If the PhD is partly a form of self-investment and partly a form of critical refusal — how do you hold both of those at once?
Not as a theoretical puzzle. As a practical question about how you live inside this institution, this semester, doing this work.

Activity: Identity Statement Swap & Respond

2:00–3:00 · 60 minutes total · Milestone 1 Workshop
1
Exchange drafts — with a partner you haven’t worked closely with
Instructor assigns pairs. The goal: a reader who encounters the statement fresh, without already knowing your research story.
2
Read and respond (10 min)
Complete three reader tasks in writing: ① Underline the most alive sentence — the one that sounds like a real person, not a committee. ② Circle anything written for approval rather than from conviction. ③ Write one genuine question the statement opens for you.
→ A 10-minute countdown timer is available in Slide Mode (Slide 6).
3
Partner conversation (5 min each)
Share your responses. The writer listens first. Then clarifies if needed. This is not critique — it’s reflection back.
4
Cohort synthesis (20 min)
Full group: What keeps showing up across the statements? What do we seem most uncertain about? What do we seem most sure of — and is that sureness earned?
Instructor: Look for statements that list interests without stakes. “I study X” is not a scholarly identity. Push toward “I study X because ___.”
UDL — Multiple Participation Modes
  • Written responses (default) — complete the three tasks in writing before speaking
  • Verbal only — share responses in conversation without writing, if preferred
  • Post to Moodle — if in-person sharing feels like a barrier, post written response to Moodle by end of day

Cohort Synthesis — Close of Movement I

Full Group · 3:00–3:30
Go around the room. Each person says one sentence: not a summary of your statement, not a conclusion — the one thing you are taking into Movement II that you didn’t have before.
Synthesis questions

What keeps showing up across the statements? What do we seem to share? What do we seem most uncertain about? What do we seem most sure of — and is that sureness earned or inherited?

What Movement I gave us

By end of today each student should be able to name a shared vocabulary (Giroux, Benjamin, Mbembe, Brown — as tools, not names), a scholarly identity in writing however provisional, and one question they carry into candidacy work.

Milestone 1 — Full Details

Scholarly Identity Statement · 20% of final grade · Due before class, Week 5
The assignment

In approximately 500 words: Who are you as a scholar? What do you care about, what animates your research, and why does it matter? Where did your intellectual questions come from, and what do you want your work to do in the world?

This is not a CV summary. It is a statement of intellectual purpose, written from conviction, not for institutional legibility.

Voice & conviction

Reads like you wrote it — specific, embodied, personal. A stranger could not have written this.

Stakes & significance

You articulate clearly why your research matters — not only to your field but beyond it.

Intellectual origin

You trace where your questions came from — intellectually, experientially, or both.

Beyond CV summary

The statement argues and synthesizes — it does not list credentials or topics.

Complete & SubstantiveGenuine intellectual purpose. Articulates why the research matters. Written with conviction and specificity. Voices a real scholar.
Nearly There / In RevisionEngages the prompt but reads as written for a committee rather than from conviction. Stakes unclear. More like a topic list than a purpose statement.
Not Yet CompleteNot submitted, or does not meet minimum expectations for doctoral-level reflection. Please come talk to Kirsti.
Submission options
  • Google Drive — M1 subfolder at CRDM790_Submissions.html
  • Moodle upload (PDF, Word, or plain text)
  • Email to kkcole2@ncsu.edu
  • Hard copy before class begins

Looking Ahead — Movement II Begins

Reading for Week 6 (Perusall)
  • Silvia Federici, Caliban and the Witch (Autonomedia 2004/2014)
  • Introduction — pp. 7–20
  • Chapter 2 ‘The Accumulation of Labor and the Degradation of Women’ — pp. 75–131
Perusall annotation for Week 6
  • Find one place in Federici that speaks to your field specifically. Connect her argument to a dynamic you recognize in the fields you’re inheriting.
⚠️ Wellness Day (Feb 16) may cancel Week 6 if course meets Tuesday. Asynchronous version on Moodle — check in advance.
Bring to Class — Week 6
First-pass exam list

10 texts you are currently imagining on your comprehensive exam list. One sentence per text about why it belongs. Don’t aim for finished — aim for honest. This is the raw material for the Week 8 workshop.

Movement II — On the Horizon
  • W6 Federici — whose labor built your field?
  • W7 Fisher / Derrida — what haunts your field?
  • W8 ◆ Milestone 2: Draft Exam List due
  • W9 Committee as intellectual community
  • W10 ◆ Milestone 3: Committee Confirmation due