LET’S talk about one word that annoys me to no avail: “industry”. There’s no escaping this word and it’s mentioned almost everywhere, every day, by everyone.

It leads me to my wit’s end because most people who spout this dirty little word oftentimes do it because it’s just the common-sense thing to do since the word is seemingly tied to how we make a living in this world and lead a meaningful life (or even the ability to live alone).

I see how hustling in the rat race is disguised as “passionate” pursuits, further romanticised in media images, narratives and advertisements (which themselves now resemble short films in which certain ideologies are forwarded subtly). The danger isn’t so much the word itself but its application as a “common sense” word in our epoch that is worrying.

Let me frame how the word “industry” pervades in one of the lives I lead: as an academic in the world of private tertiary university education a.k.a. the “education industry”.

I can’t identify exactly when the word “industry” became such a catchword in the world of higher education (I’m sure someone’s written about it somewhere but I confess I haven’t researched it yet) but my decade plus in this “industry” (gasp, there’s the word again!) as an academic at private universities has inoculated me to this dirty word.

New academics or those just making a transition from the rat race often buy into this “industry” discourse because they don’t know any better – not because they lack industry experience but because the realisation that tertiary education is an industry onto itself is often masked by the misguided notion that universities are supposed “factories” whose sole purpose is to churn out graduates for the “workforce” and related “industries”.

This belief then trickles down into the corporate management culture of “annual reviews” to which the KPIs of academics also expect them to “contribute” to whatever industry their faculty or department is supposedly training students for – and the rubric of this KPIs are often from the sciences – with words like “patents”, for example, are the norm. 

Academics in the arts and humanities have had to stand their ground to argue for the acceptance of creative output as equivalent to these KPI expectations and at the university I am at now, I’m happy to report that this practice has been accepted after much negotiation and engagement with the management. I am not sure of other private universities; you’ll have to ask around yourself if you’re curious. 

I’ve seen many industry people join academia and leave just as soon as they enter, oftentimes perplexed and flabbergasted at the level (or lack) of understanding their students have while also having to deal with office politics (which office doesn’t have politics? It’s a human thing).

Or also because the pay is better back in the industry and they really need the money at that point in their lives. You’re not going to get rich being an academic, but you may be more spiritually fulfilled if you’re doing it right.

It’s quite similar to politics in that sense – it’s a vocation more than just a “job” or “industry”.

Hence, we must question why and how are some politicians so filthy rich? How come politics is not considered an “industry”?

As I mentioned earlier, people forget that higher education is an industry in itself – not subservient to “industries” which the skills students are learning are specifically tailored for.

Yes, specific fields do train specific skills and abilities and a certain higher level of competency is expected of graduates and their academics who train them, but education is not a means to an end – it is the end itself.

Research is at the heart of a university – teaching is the bread and butter. I find it amusing to think that being a lecturer is just about standing in front of an attentive class spouting wisdom – it’s a lot more than that, folks.

There are harrowing and mundane tasks too just like any other job. What makes being an academic meaningful is your research pursuit (which also includes creative output) for this is also how one keeps abreast with the “industry” (there it is again!) and vice versa.

Don’t get me started on the simplistic binary of “theory” and “practice” – it’s about striking the balance. Too much theory will lead to bookish graduates without much muscle but too much practice means they become wholly subservient beasts ill equipped to think for themselves. 

We need money to buy things to survive, no doubt. We need jobs to earn the money to buy things to survive and so forth. Industries offer services and products that create the jobs we earn money from. It’s a clear pecking order – hence, there’s no real need to valorise and romanticise “industries”.

From us, the wilfully employed, we plead to those who run the show – let us do our job. Leave it to the experts. – June 11, 2021.

* Azmyl Yunor is a touring underground recording artiste, and an academic in media and cultural studies. He has published articles on pop culture, subcultures and Malaysian cultural politics. He adheres to the three-chords-and-the-truth school of songwriting, and Woody Guthrie’s maxim “All you can write is what you see”. He is @azmyl on Twitter.

* This is the opinion of the writer or publication and does not necessarily represent the views of The Malaysian Insight. Article may be edited for brevity and clarity.