There are some reasons internal to universities, and some external. The internal reasons include the rise of corporate-style management at most universities, changing the balance of agendas and purposes, and the associated outsourcing and casualization (i.e. precarity) of university staff. Economic insecurity undoubtedly makes it more difficult for university staff to take a public stand on a contested issue.

‘Economic policies intended to shrink the public sector, also backed by powerful interests, have cut into the resources available for public higher education’

The external reasons include the rise of knowledge-denialist movements (climate change denial, cancer causation denial, gender theory denial), often backed by powerful interests. Economic policies intended to shrink the public sector, also backed by powerful interests, have cut into the resources available for public higher education. ‘Uncomfortable truths’, such as the causes of climate change, are often hard to convey because this knowledge is in the interest of a diffuse majority, while denialism is supported by compact and well-resourced interest groups. Yet patient work, much of it done by university workers, has gradually spread the knowledge.

Yes, absolutely.  Instead of speaking of the ‘Anthropocene’ era, we should be speaking of the ‘Sociocene’ – since it is not simply humans, but human institutions, economies, ideologies, decision-making, technologies and growth-and-profit strategies that are the effective cause of environmental degradation. And it is social progress and collective action – such as the development and uptake of solar and wind power generation, social pressure against industrial pollution, opposition to fossil fuel extraction – that give humanity a chance of survival in the developing catastrophe we now face.

‘Instead of speaking of the “Anthropocene” era, we should be speaking of the “Sociocene”’

There are already some excellent models of widespread participation in intellectual work. I describe some of them in my book The Good University: popular ornithology (birdwatching); popular astronomy; or the amazing ‘Dig Where You Stand’ movement in Sweden, with workers researching the history of their own jobs and industries. Within universities, there are many ways we can involve all our students in producing knowledge, not just receiving it. (Unfortunately, the outsourcing of courses and pre-packaged curricula push in the opposite direction.) 

The more that large numbers of people participate in the making of science the less likely they are to be deceived by the rhetoric of denialist propaganda

The more that large numbers of people participate in the making of science – natural science as well as social science – the less likely they are to be deceived by the rhetoric of denialist propaganda. Most denialisms present themselves as ‘expert’ advice, though the expertise is often fictitious. The tactic relies on the audience not really understanding the issues. Widespread hands-on experience of knowledge-making and intellectual work is the best defence!

That’s a large question, which deserves a fuller answer than I can give here! A crucial part of the answer is that major decisions in the contemporary world are made by institutions (corporations, states, markets, military forces) that are strongly hierarchical and mostly controlled by privileged groups with powerful incentives to maintain their own privilege. Among their tools are policing, financialization, control of mass media, new systems of surveillance, armed intervention, and social selectivity in education, health, housing and access to careers.

‘Major decisions in the contemporary world are made by institutions that are strongly hierarchical and mostly controlled by privileged groups with powerful incentives to maintain their own privilege’

The world’s elites are not united. Indeed there’s a gaudy history of conflict among them, turnover in power, and shifting alliances. That gives some reason for hope, since ‘the weakest’ may – and often do – participate in alliances for change. But this is not guaranteed either. It is a feature of contemporary populism that authoritarian leaders can become popular by claiming to represent the excluded. It is common on the Internet, for instance, for reactionary groups to present themselves as ‘victims’. We need a robust concept of social justice to overcome that kind of manoeuvre.

There is a popular and a technical meaning for ‘masculinity’. The popular meaning is ‘acting like a man’ or ‘as an admired man is expected to act’. The technical meaning (essentially, trying to make the idea more precise) is a distinct configuration of practices associated with the structural position of men in a given gender order. The plural term ‘masculinities’ came into use in the 1980s as more researchers, and activists in gender politics, recognized multiple forms of masculinity – and that the differences among them were not random, but related to the larger gender order.

The study of masculinities is important because in contemporary gender orders, men collectively are the socially privileged group (even though many men do not experience privilege as individuals), who collectively hold crucial resources for change. So, if we are concerned with gender equality, a great many men will need to be involved in the process, and many features of contemporary masculinities (such as the masculinized occupational culture of the elite groups I mentioned in the previous question) will need to change.

Yes, I think there is definitely more awareness of gender inequalities than in previous periods of history. Social survey data, for instance, show long-term trends in this direction. The younger generation especially tend to support gender equality. There is also institutional evidence: currently, 189 countries (almost the full UN membership) have ratified CEDAW, the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women; and anti-discrimination and equal-opportunity laws have been adopted in many jurisdictions.

‘I think there is definitely more awareness of gender inequalities than in previous periods of history’

But there are also counter-trends. More than a quarter of the countries that ratified CEDAW did so with reservations. In some countries there is now a surge of political action to impose restrictions on women’s lives, criminalize abortion, criminalize homosexuality, or deny medical care and other rights to trans women and men. Gender equality is once again a battleground. We are on a track towards gender equality, but it is a contested track. There can be severe setbacks, as we see in Afghanistan under the Taliban and in US states controlled by the Republican Party. Social progress is not automatic; we still need activism, and we need research that supports action for change.