The university is a space for meeting, confrontation and conflict. All this is far from romantic or naive ideas. There may be a dominant profile at certain moments in the history of universities, but it is difficult to argue and support notions about uniformity in the university space. For this reason, Hugo Casanova, a colleague from UNAM, alluded to “the presence of Luis Javier Garrido.” […] Nominated as a candidate for chaplain of the United Nations mission […] Garrido’s proposal stood out … because, in addition to his academic career and his decisive role against the policies of neoliberal governments, he was a recognized adviser to the CGH and constituted living proof of a scenario radically different from eight years ago (Casanova, UN Mission at the beginning of the twenty-first century, Ornada 11 March 2021).
Multiple meanings and determinants coexist in the university. If we take a closer look, moving from the woods to the trees, there we can appreciate the activity of diverse academic groups, with multiple interests embodied in journal profiles and editorial committees that often function as tight-knit minorities. Besides, the Governing Committees also represent the diversity that exists in higher education institutions. How beautiful they are in the presence of their academic peers! But the acknowledgment of the existence of interests, the sense of purpose they leave in their actions, must be clearly visible. Another is the case of postgraduate courses—sometimes with hereditary behavior—, links with economic groups, or the importance of particular institutions, with their specific effect on penetrating the inbreeding layer of some institutions, or the strategic approach of universities to networks of the national system of researchers. It was also discussed, with nuances, at the second meeting of the Latin American Regulatory Studies Network (March 16, 2022), regarding the presence of capital in educational institutions, i.e. all this group is present in universities and research centers, and as a challenge to be faced from organizational studies.
No surprises, no neutrality in this detour. The indicated set of definitions reveals the weight of demarcation, the division of tasks, the subordination of different spheres of society to requirements on productivity – the subordination of science to capital, which refers to Geli and Ro, as a gift. A problem, or “servants of power,” guided by the orientation and interest of capital, as categorized by Ibarra and Montaño (1986).
Let us put forward in this discussion an argument or. Lewis: “In the nineteenth century, when the social sciences were still in its infancy, the work of recording the effects of the process of industrialization and urbanization on the personal and family lives of novelists, playwrights, journalists, and social reformers was left. Lewis raised this in the first pages of Sanchez’s children’s book, explaining that they did not They occupy a place in the areas of science, or in the frontiers of problems or in the historical construction of what is closely related, in terms of domination, the effects of industrialization and the destruction of worlds and ways of life.It is a partial reading, because the approaches of Marx in Capital and F. Engels to the situation of the working class in England, As examples, it does not cease to concern itself with the impoverishment of workers, their subordination to conditions of exploitation and the effect on nature, a matter of thorough reflection by H. Braverman in his study of capitalism and the decline of labor in the twentieth century.
If it is true that men have set themselves the tasks they can achieve, then the dominant discourse in economics and management, as a whole in the social sciences, has raised questions and problems that have reduced or completely ignored the relationship between man and nature: “In its capitalist environment, technology is neither and cannot be a tool to emancipation or emancipation; rather, their training (and occupational guidance) systems contribute, on the contrary, to the classification and distribution of socially acceptable and socially acceptable forms of intelligence” (Jean-Marie Vincent, Gilly and Rowe, 2008).
I want to make some observations about a very sensitive problem, of which our awareness is very limited, despite the teachings of the epidemic: “They do not treat the Earth as a sister but as an enemy.” In these terms, in a famous document, an Indian leader addressed the then President of the United States of America in the year 1854. Concepts of the world existed. Water, land, wind, are for sale, so “any attempt to address such aspects of the econometric conceptual framework necessarily involves valuing them with money,” says Ramos Gorostiza, in a 2005 reflection, in Logic of the Conquerors.
It is not a linear history of human difference in general, and in particular difference in economics and management. Industrial progress, mechanization, and the control of nature with extraordinary force, reasserted in various scales and ways the human attitudes, which were inseparable from the expansion of capitalism in the world as a result of the “Les Miserables of the Earth”. In Africa, the “silent followers” of Asia—following the reversal of J. Spivak—or “open veins in Latin America.” Taylor’s ideas—the mantra of monotheism not as a nightmare but as a daytime goal—see nature not as a problem, but as a means and subject of human activity. In this broken dialogue, very little says that the land is the meeting place of the indigenous cultures of North America, an inexplicable romantic argument from the eyes of the invaders, becoming a logical argument that it is something typical of the “noble savage.”, but without reflections on Acts of expropriation carried out by others. In this context, the nuts and bolts of the human condition are tightened, as the influence of ideas on the pioneers of management was as a system, as a rationalization, and as a faithful product of productive activities linked to the fact that “management was born directly from commercial and industrial activities in the second half of the nineteenth century. Before that period, Modern management, as a set of codified principles and techniques, according to management historians, has been almost non-existent”, says JF Chanlat (2020). How do we counter this, without risking being faithful servants of power, in the sense proposed by Ibarra and Montaño? Distrust exists, but also, occupies a significant place, rudeness, rethinking of D. Alighieri.
“Social media evangelist. Student. Reader. Troublemaker. Typical introvert.”