Living in Denial: Climate Change, Emotions, and Everyday Life

company that commercialized research he had developed while on the faculty. In addition to running the university, he now finds time to sit on the board of directors of Google and Cisco. Stanford not only aggressively encourages this kind of entrepreneurial effort, it provides significant resources to the surrounding Silicon Valley, including the development of a large industrial park that is now home to Facebook, Hewlett Packard, and numerous law firms, investment firms, and other players in the Valley’s success. But this example tugs at the heart of Mirowski’s narrative. Stanford is home as well to a major center of neo-liberal thought, the Hoover Institution, where Milton Friedman spent the latter period of his career. Yet far from a decoupling of the university from the private sector that Mirowski contends is the goal of the neo-liberal agenda, we find a particularly deep-seated partnership between the market and the academy. This partnership stretches back well into the Golden Age when, some have argued, it was really Stanford’s role to bring many private sector players to the table with figures from the Department of Defense in order to shape jointly the direction of Cold War science and strategy. And does Mirowski believe that scientists were ever as naı̈ve about either power or money in American society as he portrays Viridiana Jones to be? Was there an era in which the relationship between the intellectual and surrounding society was not deeply problematic? Certainly the Cold War era was not free of such conflict. In fact, one could argue that the field of science studies itself owes something to efforts like the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in 1964 to recast our understanding of the modern university. The FSM was in part a reaction to the worldview of Clark Kerr, the president of the University of California from 1958 to 1967, and a leading architect of the modern higher education system. As early as 1963 Kerr, certainly no neo-liberal, coined the term ‘‘multiversity’’ and noted in The Uses of the University (Harvard 1963) that ‘‘the university and segments of industry are becoming more alike. As the university becomes tied into the world of work, the professor—at least in the natural and in some of the social sciences—takes on the characteristics of an entrepreneur’’ (p. 90). Kerr’s work sparked a response from two key figures at Berkeley, Hal Draper and Mario Savio. Draper’s widely circulated essay ‘‘The Mind of Clark Kerr’’ would savage Kerr, noting the irony of promoting the integration of the university with the wider world yet limiting the ability of students to engage in campus political organizing. Savio, in turn, used Draper’s work as intellectual capital to give birth to a new era of critical thinking about the university and society. While I question here the periodization that Mirowski relies upon, nonetheless, in doing so, he provides a powerful and compelling narrative of important trends in the world of science, the university and the wider economy. The book will be of significant value to scholars across numerous disciplines as the institution that sustains them weathers the important changes now underway.