Welcome to the German university precariat

"Now, please, bring the chairs of philosophy here: The young academics are rising up on the barricades and bemoaning the misery at German universities in a polemic.

Last year, a video by the Federal Ministry of Research caused a great deal of excitement. The harmless little film tried to present the advantages of the Science Contract Act in an almost child-friendly way, using the example of a fictitious biologist named Hanna. What followed was a media shitstorm. 

Because what the ministry praised as the actual achievement of the law - the facilitation of fixed-term employment at German universities - is considered by those affected to be the reason for the misery in which they have to eke out their existence as young scientists. 

Misery? Young people who can devote themselves to researching their own chosen scientific interests for years? Who can pass on their knowledge to other inquisitive young people who flock to universities, full of curiosity and enthusiasm for the adventure of higher education?

The authors can only read such a description of their professional situation as satire. Probably even more as a mockery. The three humanities scholars are the initiators of an academic protest movement that expressed their outrage at the video on social media in June 2021 under the hashtag #IchBinHanna. Now they have submitted a polemic in which they present their criticism of the Science Contract Act and make suggestions as to how the situation of young scientists could be improved. Your criticism is well founded, the proposals are all reasonable and should definitely be taken into account in the reform of the law that has already been announced.

A right to polemics and one-sidedness

But what harms the book is its shrill undertone: unbearable, untenable, catastrophic, frightening, cynical - the denunciation of the "scandal" of a "unkempt work culture" at German universities never ends. 

They must be inhabited by legions of a desperate lumpen proletariat, which, emaciated, claws its way from short contract to short contract, exploited by power-mad professors, who then also steal the scientific achievements wrested from their academic servitude. 

The self-satisfied exaggeration in these passages of the book is so penetrating that even the benevolent reader feels the need to put the chilling pamphlet away and shake his head.

It would actually have been up to the editors to ensure moderation and cuts here. However, the authors have published a polemic. As Hanna, they claim the right to polemics and one-sidedness. 

One's own fate is quickly declared to be the "general trend towards precariousness in society as a whole". 

A quote from a publication by a member of the Left Party serves as “evidence” of this bold thesis. Was there not at least one female economist among all the Hannas who would have contributed some economic sense here?

The utilization logic controls the need in research

But there was apparently no room in this polemic for reflective moments in which one's own privilegedness would be reflected. It would certainly have benefited the authors' concerns if even the inclined parts of the public had doubts about their misery. Of course, they do not need to justify being convinced of their personal qualifications for a professorship in philosophy or German studies. They may also consider doubts about a great need for further permanent positions in these subjects to be narrow-minded. But you won't be able to shake off these doubts with the noise about the "urgent future tasks of our society", for the solution of which science is needed. The science? What science?

It is enough to look at the "Federal Report on Young Scientists" to see that Hanna's problems mostly apply to humanities scholars who do not want to become teachers. 

In many subjects, especially in the STEM area, but not only there, there is a shortage of qualified young people at universities, not a surplus. 

Not to mention the industry, where most of the research money is still spent. The "utilization logic" that has appropriated the concept of innovation has long since controlled the need in research. When the authors write that a different "description of objectives would certainly make much more sense" for the humanities, one can only agree with them. In fact, there should be a broad discussion about it.

Unfortunately, "#IchbinHanna" doesn't contribute much to this discussion. Anyone who writes about the urge of future tasks should neither devote at least a few pages to the question of what German studies or philosophy might have to contribute to solving it. Or reject this imposition and find completely different sources of legitimacy for permanent university positions in these subjects. Otherwise one would have to concede that one operates only despicable interest politics here. There is nothing wrong with that either – after all, other professional groups do the same."

Amrei Bahr, Kristin Eichhorn and Sebastian Kubon: "#IBinHanna". Precarious science in Germany. Suhrkamp Verlag, Berlin 2022. 144 p., br., €13."

Why "in many subjects, especially in the STEM area, but not only there, there is a shortage of qualified young people at universities, not a surplus? Are German young too stupid to  study STEM, or they don't want to get stuck in the German university precariat for long time? Does Germany desire to learn to do proper 21-st century development? Is diesel scandal all that we are able to do in Europe?