> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://aontachtmedia.ie/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Nothing Outside the State: The Structural and Discursive Production of Political Subjectivity in the Student Movement
- URL: https://aontachtmedia.ie/nothing-outside-the-state-the-structural-and-discursive-production-of-political-subjectivity-in-the-student-movement/
- Published: 2026-09-18T11:55:39.000Z
- Updated: 2026-09-18T11:55:38.000Z
- Description: With the rise neoliberalism, the student union undergoes both a discursive change and a corresponding structural adjustment, leading to an apolitical shift where students are regarded as consumers and the union itself as mere service provider.
- Author: László Molnárfi
- Tags: Critical Analysis

## Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my supervisor Steven Loyal, and comrades Harun Šiljak and Niall Kennedy, as well as my parents, for their support during the process of writing this thesis during the summer of 2026, and to the countless student activists and university workers who have taken up the struggle before us, and will take up the struggle once again, to bring revolutionary socialist politics to the stage of world-history, as our generation had done in the stormy period between October 7th 2023 and April-May 2024 for the cause of the liberation of the Palestinian people, which is the cause of humanity. 

## Abstract

This thesis will investigate discursive and structural aspects of the relationship between student unions, the university and the State. Following the general theoretical framework of (Gramsci in Boggs, 1976), Foucault (1972), (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992), (Deleuze & Guattari, 2005) and, specifically, Molnárfi (2023), combined with the historical context provided by (Walsh, 2018), it will be argued that with the rise neoliberalism, the student union undergoes both a discursive change and a corresponding structural adjustment, leading to an apolitical shift where students are regarded as consumers and the union itself as mere service provider. Using empirical data from journals and handbooks from the 1960s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, this process of co-optation will be demonstrated from a historical perspective, on the concrete example of the Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union. The main finding will be that co-optation represents a structural and semiotic change, dissolving the independent values of both the university and student union into the hegemonic image of the ruling mode of production, paired with a change in subjectivity for the student body. In this sense, the student movement is tamed, rebellion is substituted for co-optation, autonomy is lost and activism becomes representation in a framework of service provision.

## **Theory Explainer**

Thermidorian: A period of conservative resurgence following radical social change, such as the rise of Napoleon following the French Revolution.

Assemblage: An assemblage is a set of connections between things, social or otherwise, which come to form a process of producing a phenomenon, such as the various parts of the body coming together to form a human. 

Lines of flight: An element within an assemblage shifts the behaviour of the assemblage or transforms it into something radically new, such as the election of a revolutionary socialist to parliament which destabilizes the State. 

Lines of articulation: An element within an assemblage fixes its behaviour and acts as a stabilizer by attempting to keep it within a set boundary, such as a calendar at work which tells the employee what to do. 

Hegemonic: 'Common sense' and standardised customs that reflect the interests of dominant economic powers, such as the idea that people go to school, then university, secure a job, take out a mortgage for a house and raise a family. 

Machinic process: Different elements within the assemblage are constantly in flux internally, as well as externally connecting to other assemblages, a process which can be conceived of having inputs and outputs and producing something, such as how a mouth can be used for eating, breathing or sex depending on what it is interacting with. 

Apparatus of capture: There are assemblages which seek to take over others, remaking them in its own image, the prime example of this being the State, which captures social forces towards its own ends.

Symbolic forms: Language, gestures and images which are part of culture and help people structure and understand social reality, such as the flag of one's nation. 

Subjectivity: The way that people see themselves and their role in society, such as whether someone conceives of themselves as a liberal or a Communist. 

## Introduction

It is the liberal perspective on student unions which compartmentalise them into standalone representative organizations, in this perfect world acting as a counter-balance to the power of the university and of the State, as if they were not affected by the milieu into which they are submerged, threatening at all times to subvert their stated aims. But if Kafka *“is the greatest theorist of bureaucracy, it is because he shows how, at a certain level \[...\], the barriers between offices cease to be "a definite dividing line" and are immersed in a molecular medium (milieu) that dissolves them and simultaneously makes the office manager proliferate into microfigures impossible to recognize or identify, discernible only when they are centralizable”* (Deleuze & Guattari, 2005: 214). Along similar lines, the student union forms part of a continuous circuitry of power, emanating from the apparatus of capture of the State, traversing the university, into the offices of sabbatical officers and beyond, Capital coursing at each step of the way, its most eminent representative being the State, which is ‘inevitably’ tied by ‘a thousand threats’ to the capitalist class (Lenin, 1918). However, as (Gramsci in Boggs, 1976) notes, institutions under the capitalist mode of production possess relative autonomy, whether that be the student union, the university or the State. They are fields of contestation. The power of Capital may rely primarily on the protection of the State, but even the State, which appears plainly as a central instrument to uphold capitalist rule, can through the primacy of the political restrain its excesses. Despite this, it is the case that the State’s apparatus of capture attempts to reach the university and the student union, to subsume it at the behest of Capital, more likely to act on its behalf than to moderate it. It can be said that the university and the student union are more out of reach for the State; they are, to some degree, distanced from it, but this does not mean that the apparatus of capture of the State does not attempt to ultimately subsume them. The more distant an institution is from the center, the more autonomous it is becoming, with more possibility of swinging anti-establishment; with each swing, a counter-balancing Thermidorian reaction towards the center of gravity; with each act of rebellion, a perfection of counter-insurgency; and so it has proceeded, for decades, on the field of power, the substitution of rebellion for co-optation, and the taming of the student movement. In this field, it is not merely that the circulating objects interact with each other, but a line of power, the entire weight of the States’ economic, political and cultural power, traverses from the apex of the hierarchy, making each more State-like, transforming them, subsuming their independent processes of production, a *becoming-State*. 

Following this line of thought, in (Molnárfi, 2023), a general theory of student union co-optation was drawn up, based on the following main assumption: 

> The corporate university copies the state structure with its rigidity, bureaucracy and autocracy. The student union copies the university. The process of dissolving the independent values of both the university and the student union into the hegemonic image of the ruling mode of production is thus complete. (Molnárfi, 2023)

However, an important limitation of this framework was that it fell short of providing specific analysis. The present thesis aims to overcome this shortcoming by focusing on the process of semiotic-production and recognizing that language does not merely signify but is an active part in producing subjectivities, to birth forth an understanding of the one’s position vis-a-vis the myriad of objects in a societal field, directing thought and action, part-and-parcel with the rest of the student union’s machinic components. It is a machine insofar as it is “defined by a system of interruptions or breaks” (Deleze & Guattari, 1972: 36). It is intersected by power, whether positioned against the State or with the State, it functions to create subjects, including some and excluding others. Social subjection “*creates and allocates roles and functions; it provides us with a subjectivity and assigns to us a specific process of individuation (via categories such as identity, sex, profession, nationality, etc.)”*, meaning that *“subjection causes us to individuate; it constitutes us as subjects, determined by the specific demands of power”* (Lazzarato & O’Neill, 2006). It will be assumed that through the decades, the once-independent interior of the student union is subverted by its dependent exteriorities, the nearby objects circulating on the field, so much so that in the end, it is independent in name only, its interior having been subsumed by the university, and then the State. The processes of the State, in other words, attempt to absorb the university and the student union, albeit meeting conscious resistance on the way. The semiotic changes attached to this process not only reflect, but reinforce the underlying mechanisms whereby the objects attain closer and closer proximity to each other, so that the once-independent centers cannot hold their own but become hooked on each other’s resources, whether it be for social legitimacy, economic advantage, access to the labour market or otherwise. There is, however, no primary factor driving the political moderation of the student union over time, as it dissolves into a common totality containing less-visible processes, for instance structural changes, economic necessities and likewise. Nevertheless, language can be used to study the interrelation of the representative organisation with the university and the State, precisely because it is a visible process. As (Deleuze & Guattari, 2005 : 8) notes, *“there is no mother tongue, only a power takeover by a dominant language within a political multiplicity. Language stabilizes around a parish, a bishopric, a capital*”. Having considered the multiplicity of processes flowing out of the student union, its semiotics stand out as an outcome, a point of stability; which, at the next point in time, comes to flow into the student union as a reflexive process. It can be analysed whether the student union adopts an attitude of defiance towards their processes of production or whether it amalgamates as one continuous stream of power, in other words, the framing and counter-framing that is employed by student union leaders in order to mobilize or demobilize the student body against certain actors. 

The main focus of this thesis is therefore the semiotic production of the student union, and the particular subjects that its leadership desire to mould out of the ‘student’, as this is the most visible manifestation of the process of State capture. By studying the self-presentation of the Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union (TCDSU), contained in 16 handbooks which were made available for the purposes of this thesis, distributed to students at the start of each year, semiotic changes can be tracked across the decades. These documents have been scanned via Optical Image Recognition (OCR) technology into readable PDF files. In other words, I will conduct a thematic analysis through a Foucauldian lens, which reveals the interrelationships of the student union with its nearby objects, the university and the State. Broadly speaking, the material can be split into four categories, these being the 1960s (based on journals), the 1980s, 1990s and the 2000s (based on handbooks), which support the hypothesis that alongside the rise of neoliberalism, and the collapse of anti-capitalist ways of thinking, there is both a discursive change, and a corresponding structural adjustment in the student union, the enunciations, the actions and the bodies under one continuous, historically-constituted assemblage. An assemblage is composed of heterogenous elements which become visible as “lines of articulations” as well as “lines of flight”, that is to say, determined outcomes as well as the possibility of rupture (Deleuze & Guattari, 2005 : 3-4). In a student union, this may show itself as the adoption of a specific discourse which is friendly to the State, such as conceiving of students as consumers, and as the possibility of renewed militancy, which is antithetical to the State. I will show that throughout the decades, the distance between the student union, the university and the State on the societal field undergoes a shortening, as the transmission strength of the line of power is strengthened, and the features of the State begin to make their nest within the university, and then student union. In other words, the student union becomes less democratic, employs corporate language, and moderates its oppositional politics, when examined through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA). This method *“views written, spoken, and visual (and other forms of multimodal) discourse—language use in speech, writing, and visuals (and other forms of modality)—as an important form of social practice that contributes to the constitution of the social world, including social identities and social relations, and that is in turn constituted by social practices such as the structure of the political system or the institutional structure of the media”* (Aydın‐Düzgit, 2017). It focuses *“specifically on the struggles for power and control through the study of competing discourses in various public spaces and different genres across time”* and notes that *“discourses are historical and thus need to be analyzed against their context*” (Aydın‐Düzgit, 2017: 2). It cannot be said that this process has an absolute beginning and end, only insofar as the purview of this thesis declares a starting point and an ending point, as this is a process of *becoming*. I do not believe under capitalism researchers can be entirely objective and make no claim to be, rather, I start from a revolutionary socialist perspective and consider myself to be a ‘researcher-militant’, whose *“quest is to carry out theoretical and practical work oriented to co-produce the knowledges and modes of an alternative sociability, beginning with the power”* (Colectivo Situaciones, 2003). 

The thesis is structured as follows. In section 2, the main lines of a general theory of structure, discourse and subjectivity will be presented, based on the works of Foucault (1972), (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992) and Deleuze (1990). Section 3 will investigate the historical formation of student unions in general and introduce the theoretical concept of co-optation, that is, a semiotic process where the student body loses its political, activist character with students becoming consumers and the student body taking up the function of a mere service provider. Section 4 will provide a concrete, detailed historical analysis of the development of the student union at Trinity College Dublin, based on contemporary journals and student handbooks from the 1960s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Section 5 presents the conclusions, followed by Annex I, providing a tabular overview of the historical development of the definition of the "Assembly" structure within the Student Union, Annex II, a photographic comparison of the 1984 and 2007 handbooks, and References. 

## Subjectivity, Structure and Discourse 

![](https://aontachtmedia.ie/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-5da64cda-f3c0-42a0-9696-6f584526cc41.jpeg)

Mandelbrot set fractal

There is, at the outset, a progression from centers of power, their preferred framing of the world, and corresponding discourses which hold an overall plane of consistency together. It is (Foucault, 1972: 49) who shows that discourses do not merely signify, but *“systematically form the objects of which they speak”*. As in (Foucault, 1972: 28), subjectification occurs through discourse, in each enunciation of the individual the historian must *“determine its conditions of existence, fix at least its limits, establish its correlations with other statements that may be connected with it, and show what other forms of statement it excludes”*. According to Foucauldian theory, therefore, words and their statements must be traced back to their historical origins in order to uncover how they sustain power relations between different groups, insofar as to govern means to *“structure the possible field of action for others”* (Foucault, 1982). A line of power asserts certain discourses, which, in turn, births certain subjects, whose freedom to act is curtailed, be it internalized by the individual. However, a counter-balancing line of power, an oppositional discourse, may co-exist with it. Discourse is thus relational, being connected to various actors on the field, endorsing some, rejecting others. Rhetoric, that is discourse mobilized to some end, can form pockets of resistance, interrupt the chain of power through appealing to the subjective element, forming ideational power as seen in the case of trade unions (Boyle, 2024: 686; Samila, 2024: 12). This will to power, from the perspective of the State, needs to be suppressed as far as practicable. The line of power must proceed uninterrupted so as to stabilize the cultural hegemony of the capitalist mode of production (Gramsci in Boggs, 1976) and so State power strives to have no beginning and no end, it strives to be everywhere, all at once, reproducing like a series of nested fractals. Benito Mussolini, who represented Capital pushed to its most extreme, and the embodiment thereof in the State, said: “All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”.

![](https://aontachtmedia.ie/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-2dc265b7-817d-4e3b-a690-350e4aef5341.jpeg)

(Deleuze and Guattari, 2005: 135)

The line of power assures the fractal formation, through reimagining all in its way in terms of structure, circularly descending, and attached to it, is the discursive dogma which stabilizes this formation, as above, so below. A fractal formation means that the university and the student union begin to take on the characteristics of the State. From our perspective, proliferation of the State thus proceeds as a structural virus, it submits the university to its own image at its apex of which is the Ministerial Cabinet, by centralizing power in the University Board, and then, in the student union, by centralizing power in the Sabbatical Executive, and then encoded in the Constitution, the University Statute and the Student Union Constitution; and does each, in fact, not have its punitive bodies, the police and the courts, the Junior Dean and security officers, and the oversight commissions, responsible for interpreting the rules? It thus becomes necessary that within each enclosure, discourses align themselves with the State discourse - students as consumers and eventual participants as workers exploited by the capitalist class - to reaffirm the enclosure itself, or as (Deleuze, 1990) explains through the concept of ‘societies of control’, *“the individual never ceases passing from one closed environment to another, each having its own laws: first, the family; then the school (“you are no longer in your family”); then the barracks (“you are no longer at school”); then the factory*”. The line of power is laid bare here, and the necessity of the enclosure becomes clear from the perspective of the State, that there be no true demarcation from segment to segment, that it nests itself in every corner of society. As Deleuze (Ibid.) puts it, in the *“the disciplinary societies one was always starting again (from school to the barracks, from the barracks to the factory), while in the societies of control one is never finished with anything—the corporation, the educational system, the armed services being metastable states coexisting in one and the same modulation, like a universal system of deformation”*. This is, at least, what the ideal model for the State is, as it, acting on behalf of Capital, seeks to re-align the priorities of all institutions towards needs of the capitalist mode of production, but this may be resisted by individuals and the groups they form, making this a contestation of power. Whereas a disciplinary society relied on direct forms of modulation, in a society of control, modulation is dispersed. Therefore, it becomes necessary to explain to the student that they are, upon entering the university gates, a ‘student-as-consumer’ of education, which the student union, for instance, will safeguard through ‘quality control’, and as can be seen the discourse already encloses a desired subject within its bounds and limits the range of possibilities to by assigning bounded rules to what can, and what cannot, be done as an identity field. There is, in fact, as the May 68’ers recognized, a State in each individual, a cop in each person; the nesting fractal traverses all the way down to the subject.

### 2.1 The State’s line of power

According to (Bourdieu & Wacquant, 1992)’s field theory, these objects, the university and the student union are still separate on the field to the State, and thus pose the risk of deviation, as they are involved in a struggle; the reach of the State is weakened the more its line of power departs from the center, being situated in a relational position to each other. Strongest at the center, the State, it cannot afford a deviation in the sub-State structures of the university, or of the student union; as if the chain of power is interrupted and disobeys, it, in fact, becomes a para-State structure, asserts its autonomous existence, and begins to carry out its own functions, prefiguring a dual-power situation. If, however, the State is only strong at its center insofar as it is able to capture surrounding institutions, it paradoxically becomes clear that it has no center; rather, it is a dispersed form of power, which ultimately resonates in the State as a center, its form being the *“resonance of formations of power”* (Deleuze, 1979), and hence, it is an apparatus of capture. Oppositional rhetoric, that which breaches the boundaries of the State-mandated discourse, threatens to upset this social order. If, for instance, the student ceases to conceive of themselves as a consumer, and consequently rejects the labour market, recognizing it as the site of an unequal exchange between the worker and the capitalist, this forms the basis of class consciousness, which, on a mass scale, threatens the ruling class. Autonomy, as such, is a direct challenge to the line of power descending from the State, a deflection of its rhetoric, as it asserts autonomy precisely *in the face of* the university and the State, in other words, a pocket of resistance interrupting the chain of power. The more distance from the centrum, the more bipolar, the more the object can swing from the dominant to oppositional narratives. Traversing the uppermost spectrum of autonomy, it intersects with the core of revolutionary socialist theory, as it represents none other than (an approximation of the) the *council-form*, radical democracy practiced by mass assemblies. Oppositional discourse within the student union pushes towards the threshold of the *council-form*, even if unconsciously, as it, necessarily, by its structure, pushes towards autonomy from the regime of the university and of the State, pushes away from the centralizing drive of Capital towards decentralized management. The fundamental rebellion of ‘May 68 was precisely the questioning of centralism (Deleuze, 1986), and the associated subjectivities that emerge in reciprocity to the dissolution of centralized power structures. As (Laberge, 2024) describes, non-centralizing modes of organisations, called transversal formations, *“which allows subject-groups to be in touch with (en prise avec) their determinations as opposed to groups subjugated to the external synthesis carried out by centralism”*, asserting their revolutionary, non-enclosed, anti-State nature. Centralism within the student union, the ‘pyramid’ structure, works to cut off mass student participation by filtering each layer until reaching the apex, the sabbatical officers, who are, by virtue of their position, connected to university management through periodical meetings, who are then connected to the State. Centralism can, in turn, be also understood as a narrowing of the line of power, and should such a process be in the place, the discursive formations around it will also undergo a narrowing, foreclosing the field of political possibility, part-and-parcel of the same process. This is also, at the same time, a process of expulsion of radical elements from the State’s line of power, which is also its line of sight. It can thus be stated that within the very structure of the States’ line of power, is the possibility of interruption, requiring a permanent force of stabilization - direct repression through university disciplinary or physical means through the State, indirect repression through co-optation, etc. - at each step of the way depending on which is the most convenient tool; this, in turn, will breed resistance, and the process repeats. In other words, the State is an apparatus of capture which clamps down on those processes which would seek to subvert its totalizing drive, recognizing that this possibility of revolt always exists within its actuality (Sibertin-Blanc, 2016), and is, in fact, trapped by the same process, forcing it to affirm itself at each step. There is a line of power which cuts across the institutions, horizontally, and a line of power which cuts across them, vertically, all of which amalgamate at the apex. 

## The historical development of student unions

The historical formation of student unions took place in the post-May 68’ milieu, through negotiations with university bureaucracy and the State leading to legitimization (Dickinson & Day, 2018). Through the process of negotiation, as a result, the embryonic seed of the State fractal is planted, structurally, within the student union. The line of power, from the moment of legitimization once the negotiations had been concluded, positions itself to subsume the student union. As per the anarchist perspective on centralism, these structures can be functionally understood as pressure valves on student radicalism, designed to crush radical politics, insofar as they“*replicate and perpetuate power structures that exist across society as a whole*”. (Anarchist Communist Group, 2018). Similarly, (Walsh, 2018: 306) also notes in his study of the Irish higher-education sector that *“the existence of a stronger student institution offered a representative interlocutor for the college authorities and a more stable framework for resolving disputes”*. However, the cultural presence of the political left which worked to set up ‘red bases’ of resistance (Barnett, 1969) delayed, and fought back against this process, building perhaps on sandbanks, but building nonetheless through class-conscious, subjective intervention. What strength does the subjective factor possess? It is the work of (Lukács, 1923; Lukács, 2001), which sparks the restoration of the subject to its rightful position in the ontology of Marxism, against the nihilism of one-sided determinism. Drifting further towards the subjectivist deviation, the student, and the worker, is always faced with an oppressive force, but whether this breeds resistance also depends on whether the correct discursive articulations are in place to express it, whether these can come to form a hegemonic oppositional bloc or whether the dominant State hegemony continues to hold (Laclau & Mouffe, 1989). Discourse acts to interrupt the chain of enumeration of social events, forming key signifiers, the ‘student-as-militant’ versus ‘student-as-consumer’, which, in turn, drives the subject’s will to power, and eventually, praxis (Ibid.). The institutions hitherto referred to as objects contain within them the subject, and it is the dance of the subject and object which drives history. Similarly to economic mechanicalism, structure, not being able to claim determinism, does not, in the final reading, determine outcome, but merges into a common totality, with vectors driving co-optation, and vectors working against co-optation, vectors working with the State, vectors working against the State. These vectors, structural, discursive and economic, and so on and so forth, can also be construed as machinic processes, precisely the kind which forms (Althusser, 1962)’s concept of over- and under- determination (Sibertin-Blanc, 2016: 52). What appears visible is the result of an overdetermination from the vectors, lines of power, which course through institutions, while what does not appear is still brewing in the background, waiting for its emergence once it crosses the threshold. It thus becomes necessary to define the relationship between the State, the university and the student union within this framework. 

### 3.1 The relationship between the State, the university and the student union

The State, according to Bourdieu, *“is the sector of the field of power, or bureaucratic field, which is defined by a possession of the monopoly of legitimate physical and symbolic violence”* (Loyal, 2017: 67). In this sense, the State does not operate solely by repression, but by co-optation too, through amassing social capital from across society to secure consent for its rule. The reach of the State is wide, seeking to install itself in each institution which holds power, and clamping down on politics opposed to its existence. This is precisely why it is defined by (Deleuze, 1979) as an ‘apparatus of capture’. It seeks *“symbolic forms and symbolic power in reproducing the social order entails the imposition, through struggles and confrontations, of the social visions of dominant social groups upon the competing social viewpoints of the social world held by dominated groups”* (Loyal, 2017: 69). It is, therefore, not necessary to use force, which may breed resistance, but those in power can use concessions in order to secure consent from sections of the population. This is in line with the advances made in Marxist theory by (Gramsci in Boggs, 1976), which recognized that the State functions to assert cultural hegemony, acquiring the consent of the working class through ideological justification, mass propaganda and cultural means for its exploitation by the capitalist class. As such, the individual is trained to comply with the demands of the ruling class, whose interests, often competing, are represented in the State overall. According to Gramscian insights, this training can be provided by organisations which are traditionally consigned to the realm of the civil society, insofar as they rule by cultural leadership, such as student unions, trade unions and universities, rather than the political society, which is the State’s rule by force. Crucially, they make up the integral State, which is the totality of Capital’s domination, through consent and through force. The multitude of processes in this circuitry can be conceived of as Althusserian processes of over- and under-determination (Althusser, 1962), which, in turn, is understood as machinic processes, vectors working in favour of the State, and those working against (Sibertin-Blanc, 2016: 52). It is, for instance, the case that the student union, and the university, historically enter into conflicts of various intensity with the State. Their co-optation is not pre-determined, but is contested, with periods of resistance, and subsequent acquiescence. Society is *“composed of the real social forces, the concentrations and structures of economic, political, military and ideological power, which both shape individuals and limit their freedom of action”* (Molyneux, 1995). This, notably, implies that individuals, and the masses they make up on a larger scale, can be activated towards conflict with dominant actors. If (Barnett, 1969; Lukács, 1923; Lukács, 2001) place heavy emphasis on the subjective factor, it is precisely because they appeal to the masses to resist the long-arms of the State, just as (Foucault, 1979) underlines the ability of the State discourse to seep in unnoticed through specific subjectivity-evoking terminology which supports the dominant power(s). As the societal field is conceived of as a battleground, it becomes a ‘contested terrain’, waged through politics, specifically between those forces which support the State, and those which function against it, which (Laclau & Mouffe, 1989) emphasize as discursive conflicts. 

### 3.2 An example of the power of the subject: the student encampments 

The power of the subject was seen with the student encampments for Palestine after October 7th 2023, where students set up proto-socialist structures, mass meetings, formulating proto-socialist demands, such as to have meaningful input in the management of the universities, sparking repression from university and State actors. The locus of power was diverted, oftentimes, without the consent of the student union leadership; or if it was done in agreement with the student union, it represented a radical transformation in the chain of power. The subjective factors come to override the status quo in instances of radical upsurge, or as (Lukács, 2001: 58) puts it, these are *“moments that are consciously made, that is to say brought into being by the subjective side (by the conscious acting subject - grouping of forces, surprise attacks, etc.)”* and signify the *“decisive predominance”* of the subject*.* The corresponding discourses shifted in parallel to the structural readjustment. By expanding autonomy, the ‘student-as-consumer’ identity was shredded and replaced with the ‘student-as-militant’, at times even breaking down the gulf between the ‘student’ and ‘non-student’ subjectivities, when participants invited in ordinary people, which was perceived as an ‘opening’, precisely of the enclosure which had up to this point been in force. By expanding autonomy, shedding the ‘student-as-consumer’ identity replacing it with the ‘student-as-militant’, and breaking down the gulf between the ‘student’ and the ‘non-student’, a significant threat was posed to the powers that be, leading to various methods of repression being deployed. For instance, the destruction of a separation between the ‘student’ and the ‘non-student’ beckons the creation of the student-worker alliance, which has its roots in the ‘May 68 uprisings across the world. It is also noteworthy that introduction of the ‘student-as-militant’ identity calls for the very negation of the ‘student’ identity in the first place, similarly to how the negation of the ‘working class’ is foretold by the ‘class-conscious worker’ as per revolutionary socialist theory. The discursive deployment, for instance, of the ‘external agitator’, which is ‘non-student’ and ‘badly behaved’, as a narrative, and the associated negative thereof, the ‘student’ which is also at the same time, ‘internal’ and ‘well-behaved’, in other words a ‘good institutional citizen’ (Dolhinow, 2017: 20), and therefore exists ‘-as-consumer’, is reflective of an attempt to re-crystallize the subjectivities that had been shed by the student body. The rationale behind this is to reassert the dominant discourse, to recast the identity field which had been broken out of, and its corresponding structures, to swiftly foreclose the horizon of possibility before it can escalate. The weakest link in the chain, the student body and its associated organisations, were demanding a serious reorganization of the line of power. It can be, simply, considered that a demand for divestment from Israel interrupts the university’s enclosure over its financial matters; an escalated demand for the co-management of the university prefigures the council democratic system; a demand for students to handle their own disciplinary investigations threatens the university’s power and eventually the carceral justice system itself and so on and so forth, precisely because these actors, situated on the field, are traversed by a single line of power emanating from the State, and an interruption at one of its points interrupts all its points, due to its interlinked nature. 

### 3.3 An indirect form of repression: co-optation 

It is often, however, not direct repression, but co-optation, the same process as seen with trade unions (Bondy, 2025), which manages to tame the student union (and the student body) and bring it in line with the dominant powers. Rather than forming separate islands of being, as liberal theory posits, these institutions are all submerged in a single milieu (Jacobs & Malpas, 2022), insofar as they are situated on the same field, that of capitalist relations coursing through them. They are, thus, by necessity predisposed to co-operation, rather than antagonism, unless resisted, at which point, methods of repression can be deployed by the authorities. Their structures, their dominant narratives, their behaviour is a consequence of this state of affairs; antagonistic relationships are the exception, not the norm, especially with the advent of neoliberal capitalism, as the decades advance and the possibilities of another world seem to dwindle. If co-optation *“is the process of absorbing new elements into the leadership or policy-determining structure of an organization as a means of averting threats to its stability or existence”* (Selznick, 1949: 259), then it is understandable, that having calculated a cost-benefit ratio of continuing oppositional politics within this milieu, the student union opts for co-operation with the authorities whose power is significant. It is a logic, which, arising from the conditions inflicted upon the student union, no longer invites itself to being questioned. 

### 3.4 Neoliberalism: students as consumers

One aspect of neoliberalism *“is precisely the absence of questioning; it \[is\] surrender to what is seen as the implacable and irreversible logic of social reality*” (Bauman, 1999, p.127), based on privatization, centralisation of powers in the hands of the few, and market-logic. Its earliest form was lab-tested by Pinochet’s military dictatorship of Chile in the 1970s with the backing of American economists known as the Chicago Boys, but soon became widespread, and was the ever-intensifying standard economic dogma for the ruling class from that point on. This logic, effectuating a modulating flow downwards from the State, bears with it consequences towards individualization, atomization, endless competition and so on and so forth. Crucially, as (Harvey, 2007: 65) points out, the State under neoliberal conditions will *“seek out internal reorganizations and new institutional arrangements that improve its competitive position as an entity vis-à-vis other states in the global market”*. As I observed elsewhere, this process provides capitalist incentives to domesticate radical movements and make them work within the system rather than against it (Molnárfi, 2023). This process, carried out through the State providing a series of economic incentives for and political pressure on universities to adopt a corporate logic will also affect the student union, leading to a loss of autonomy for both of these institutions while greater integration with the State is secured. At its core, the university adopts the priorities of the State, corporatizing itself to the benefit of the labour market, while, intersecting with this newfound worldview, students increasingly see themselves as consumers who demand the ‘provision’ of the ‘student experience’ which will ‘prepare’ them for the labour market as a ‘homogenizing’ process (Sabi, 2011), and in turn, the student union adapts to this burgeoning attitude. The student union is encouraged to co-operate with the university due to the State underfunding the latter in terms of student services, while the sabbatical officers, sitting in administrative meetings with university officers, pick up a capitalist cultural education, adopting their bureaucratic, hierarchical styles, losing rank-and-file engagement. University rankings, competitive in nature, force further cooperation in order to boost enrollment, and eventually, funds for both institutions. The outright integration of the student union into the labour market, to advertise participation within it as a career ladder in terms of CV enhancement, and consequently the perceived need to avoid radical politics also functions as a line of power connecting it to the university and the State. Student unions also rely on university funding, such as block grants, data access, space and thus avoid confrontation to safeguard resources. As student unions become co-opted, independent activist groups may emerge to take on confrontational roles. In trade unions, a similar set of incentives is mirrored in the process of ‘social partnership’, integrating them with the employer class and the State, while in student unions, it is through ‘student partnership’, integrating them with the university, and the State. The student union thus becomes annexed to the university as one of its departments ensuring, and through the university, to the State (Ibid.). This is what power is: it is everywhere and nowhere at the same time, intersecting from all angles, social, economic, cultural, political, discursive and so on. 

These formally independent institutions, the student union, the university and the State amalgamate using supple connections. Through this process, the student union shifts in its self-perception from ‘activism’ to ‘representation’ through making co-operative overtures towards university management (Brooks et al. 2015), as it finds it difficult to resist consumerist discourse (Brooks et al., 2014; Jonathan & Hoque, 2025; Mulderrig, 2024), and eventually, links with the State. At the same time, however, it has been noted that student union leaders, at least in theory, recognize the danger of ‘creeping’ consumerist discourse (Brooks, 2021), but, as a result of this language being perpetually ‘reinforced’ by the authorities, they may not be mounting a strong challenge in practice (Raaper, 2018). Activism is associated with the ‘student-as-militant’, while representation is associated with the ‘student-as-consumer’ identity fields, resulting in the ‘politics of force’ and the ‘a-politics of partnership’ respectively. 

As such, ‘politics’ in this thesis takes the definition of: 

*The desire to campaign based on systemic critique beyond just the needs of the student body, which includes elements of class struggle by understanding power dynamics and broadens its view beyond the gilded halls of academia.*

Whereas the ‘a-politics’ takes the definition of:

*The desire to campaign based on the sectional interests of the student body, with a focus on tinkering in isolation with select policy aspects of the State, and this as such distancing itself from class analysis and is blind to power dynamics.*

The ‘political’ and the ‘a-political’ can be conceived of as a spectrum of decreasing and increasing intensities, which changes from handbook to handbook, from year to year, from decade to decade. At its most abstracted topological dimension, this motion is one of narrowing, enclosing, centralising, rather than expanding, liberating, decentralising, both structurally and discursively, in order to shut off lines of flights rather than shoot them outwards. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that once such a process kicks off, it forms path-dependent, autopoietic, self-reinforcing cycles which drive it further in the same direction. The moment that a compromise with Capital is normalized, it opens up the door to further compromise, and the process repeats, and when it comes to the institutionalization of student unions, this is a result of the functionalist spill-over effect. Originally invented as a concept for analysing the expansion of the European Union, a spillover is a dynamic process *“where cooperation in one field necessitates cooperation in another”*, a self-perpetuating process insofar as *“cooperation in one policy area would take cooperation in other related neighboring policy areas as a prerequisite, and a new political agenda will be generated and must be fulfilled properly so as to realize the original planned cooperation”* (Wen, 2015: 65). In this sense, it is impossible to conceive of the student union as being unique from year to year, based on the election of sabbatical officers, as a decision taken in the preceding year towards interdependence with the authorities will, in turn, encourage further interdependence as a logical sequence of decisions in the subsequent year. As such, the power of the subjective override towards radicalism is not all-powerful either; it will be pushed back against by processes which seek to assert their determinism, representing a core tension to be discussed within this thesis. 

### 3.5 Student body and the student unions in service of the State

![](https://aontachtmedia.ie/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-efb91c10-c9a1-476b-a5d0-b94a523e8453.jpeg)

Panopticon

By the late 2010s, as (Dolhinow, 2017; Dolhinow, 2020a; Dolhinow, 2020b) remarks, autonomous student organizing, is ‘enclosed’ by this machinic process towards ‘commodified dissent’, leading it to lose a transgressive quality described as the ‘you know what’. Something is off with the picture. The language of radical politics is co-opted by the university and their servants in the student union, which is then diffused to the student body from above (Ibid.). While the student union may still lay claim to oppositional politics, this is fundamentally done from the discourse of the master, within the limits of capitalistic thinking, neutering it. The frame of reference is that the students deserve certain rights as a result of their status as consumers, rather than from their status as a human, militant or (future) members of the working class and so on. Universities *“are not against social justice, just the opposite, they are increasingly excited about the concept. Administrations work tirelessly to package social justice experiences for students that can be quantified, recorded, and marketed to employers and prospective students”* (Dolhinow, 2017: 20). There ensues a reversal of the order between the student body and the student union, as it is now over-determined by the line of power of the State, which it can no longer resist, and it begins to emanate from itself the dominant discourse, and so, the scene is topsy-turvy, the *“true is a moment of the false”* (Debord, 1967). This can also be considered as an expulsion of radical politics from the dominant institutions, and the ‘student-as-militant’ subjectivity, in the pursuit of removing it from the line of power, and isolating it. Such an undertaking ensures, from the perspective of the State, that the line of power cannot be readily seized, and turned inside-out, directed back at the State. By asserting a dominant framing for what leadership is, the ‘empowered’, ‘socially conscious’ and ‘social justice’ student, radical politics is defanged, substituted for by subjectivities cozy with the prevailing authorities, under the umbrella of ‘student experience’, which is also, in turn, the ‘student-as-consumer’ identity. As the student union submits to the the dominant framing, not having merely expunged its interior of radical politics but outright accepting capitalist mannerisms, it now joins the university and the State to build a central panopticon (Foucault, 1975), which monitors, suppresses and filters expression on campus, forming part of the overall control mechanism by way of social pressure. How does this progress throughout the decades? 

## Self-representation in the TCDSU: a historical perspective

In this section I will investigate how the above-mentioned structural and semiotic change has progressed throughout the decades. I will use empirical data based on journals and student handbooks of the TCDSU from the 1960s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s, providing a detailed historical perspective of the development of the student union at Trinity College Dublin.

### 4.1 ‘May 68 At Trinity College Dublin 

![](https://aontachtmedia.ie/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-683bd33d-aef7-4a6f-ab7a-c50401b61d20.jpeg)

Trinity Internationalist Student Manifesto 1968

 In the 1960s, access to education was widening, especially with the influx of Catholic middle-class (Walsh, 2018: 253-254) students into Irish universities, as well as through financial schemes for members of the working-class to afford higher-level education (Walsh, 2018: 299). It was an era of changing social norms, interrogation of the authorities and even questioning the capitalist mode of production, in line with the rest of the world, as students and Irish society began to think critically about the world. (Walsh, 2018: 302) remarks that the *“decline of deference to traditional authorities during this period was particularly notable among students and came as a rude shock to a generation of university administrators who had come to maturity in early post-independence Ireland*” and that the *“numerous policy changes from the mid 1950s and the erosion of religious and cultural influences which were central to traditionalist understandings of higher education opened up new lines of critique against established authorities and institutions”* (Walsh, 2018: 306). 

It comes as no surprise that Trinity, in this decade, endured a stormy time. The “Long Sixties” peaked in the 1968 uprisings, which clearly seeped into the halls of the university. By January 1968, it was clear from the student press that the radical students were mounting a struggle against the leadership of the Student Representative Council (SRC), the university, and the State. The Republican society on campus was complaining of increased political repression by Special branches at the Congress of the Union of Students in Ireland (Trinity News Vol. XV, No. 8; p.1), while the College authorities were being increasingly criticised as not listening to the student voice (Trinity News Vol. XV, No. 8; p.4; Trinity News Vol. XVI, No. 1; p.4), and calls for student power made by various left-wing organisations, including by the SRC being forced to issue a manifesto after intense debate (Trinity news Vol XV, No. 10\. , p.1). The zeitgeist seemed to be one of increasing radicalism, which, while starting with the Maoist Internationalists, soon resulted in a spring of left-wing activism, including the Organisation for Academic Freedom and even a branch of the England-based Radical Students’ Alliance was rumoured to have been formed on campus. “An atmosphere of student consciousness is evolving in Trinity. The appearance of several groups forthrightly critical of the University, and often politically orientated” was noted as a “a new trend in Ireland” (Trinity news Vol XV, No. 13\. , p.2). As part of this, the Internationalists and associated social forces directly challenged the SRC, calling it the ‘most undemocratic body in the College’ which ‘represents nobody’ (Internationalist Manifesto, 1968). The difference of opinion centered around tactics and strategies, rather than policies necessarily. The SRC expressed the view that the radicals do not have the ‘support’ of the students and that ‘diplomatic’ approaches are necessary (Trinity news Vol XV, No. 13\. , p.2). When the SRC refused to take direct action in support of its manifesto, this was slammed as ‘squeamish’, and radicals threatened to set up new organisations, formed out of a possible split of the radical faction of the SRC alongside ‘Fabian, Labour and Republican’ elements (Trinity News Vol. XV, No. 11; p.1). The upsurge was so intense that students even attempted to use the Catholic Church for the aim of left-wing politics (Trinity News Vol XVI, No.2; p.4). This struggle for the contested terrain of student representation was so fierce that it resulted in physical confrontations, legal actions and hot-headed exchanges in the student press. In fact, the President of the SRC was involved in the physical altercation, on the side of the anti-communists and even attempted to bring legal action against the Internationalists before eventually being forced to drop the case by the SRC (Trinity News Vol. XV, No. 11; p.1). The university also sought to clamp down on dissent, aided by the State, and tried to forbid the Republicans and the Internationalists from attending housing marches and protests against the Vietnam war, which only added fuel to the fire (Trinity News Vol XV, No.15; p.1). The SRC, paralysed by its internal factionalism between radicals and moderates (Trinity News, Vol. XV, No. 16; p.8)., did not comment on the matter. Meanwhile, the Internationalists launched their own newspaper (Trinity News Vol XV, No.15; p.6), while asserting that Trinity News was a ‘fascist’ publication and refusing to comment further. What this shows is that the political terrain was hotly contested on multiple fronts. 

By ‘May 1968, the atmosphere had become politically charged, as is seen in the pages of the student papers, and a storm was about to break out. Radical students protested against the visit of Enoch Powell on campus amidst reports from campuses around the world of rising militancy (Trinity News Vol. XV, No. 16; p.7-p.8). As events further intensified, the Internationalists were evicted from their rooms by university management and their posters forbidden from appearing on campus, but despite this, concessions had to be made for student representation (Trinity News Vol. XVI, No. 1; p.1; p.5; Walsh, 2018: 304). However, (Šiljak, 2024)’s research highlights the flashpoint of ‘May 1968 for Trinity, which was when students protested the visit of the Belgian King and Queen, led by the Internationalists. (Walsh, 2018: 303) concurs, that *“a small protest by the Internationalists in Trinity against a visit by King Baudouin of the Belgians on 15 May 1968 led to some heavy handed policing and a sensationalised commentary on the student protest by the Evening Herald. The apparent combination of ‘police brutality and on top of that, misrepresentation in the press’ immediately provoked a series of mass meetings and demonstrations in Trinity, including a march by 1000 students to Independent Newspapers offices in Middle Abbey St., as well as Pearse St. Garda station”*. The presence of anti-imperialist politics on campus would later feed into the anti-apartheid movement of the 1970s and 1980s with regards to South Africa. As was common in the 1960s, they were opposed by conservative forces on campus, who collaborated with university management and the State forces, the Gardaí, in suppressing student radicalism. In the case of the visit of the Belgian imperialists, reactionaries attempted to wrestle a banner from the hands of radicals with the help of Gardaí, leading to legal trouble (Trinity News Vol. XVI, No. 1; p.7). As (Šiljak, 2024) also demonstrates, the discourse was played out in the student and non-student press, as well as in the various student associations and the SRC. The line of power exhibits a visibility here, rather than being concealed, as it is split between the radical and conservative students, one group opposed to the university and the State, the other co-operating with it. In addition, the political terrain was still contested between the radical and moderate forces on top of the conservative opposition, as the SRC *“opted strategically to take the lead on the mass protest, not least to sideline the Internationalists”* (Walsh, 2018: 303-304) by funneling the energy of dissent into peaceful, orderly and respectable forms of protest. All in all, broadly speaking, the radicals wanted reform to the SRC, as it merely “reflects the status quo” and is unable “take stands which are seen as necessary by progressive student opinion”, while the moderates wanted to keep it as is (Trinity News Vol XVI, No.4; p.1). While the opposing camps agreed on the need to change, they diverged on whether they wanted ‘confrontation’ or ‘co-operation’ (Trinity News Vol XVI, No.5; p.5), not so different to the political contestation within contemporary student unions, mapping onto the ‘student-as-militant’ and prefiguring the ‘student-as-consumer’ respectively. These opposing views would come to struggle for the years to come within and outside the SRC. It was in these circumstances, and only in 1974 that the SRC transitioned into the TCDSU (MacNamee, 2018), as a victory for the radical wing of the student body, a loss for the conservative section. It can be said, as such, that the presence of a ‘red base’ on campus continued to hold strong throughout these years (Barnett, 1969). The radical base of students were using the student union to further their political aims and the methods of the 1960s were to be employed for the radicals’ future confrontations with the moderates within it. 

### 4.2 The 1980s: A Battle For The Student Union

In the 1980s, Trinity was a vibrant center for radical politics, struggling against mass unemployment, recession and austerity imposed by successive governments. As (Conlon, 2016: 19-27) highlights, this was a time of widening access to education, as students from various backgrounds were filtering into the university, including members of the working class, who did not hesitate to bring their politics with them, owing to the difficult circumstances they found themselves in. Similarly, (Walsh, 2018: 300) notes that the “massification” and “diversification” of higher-level education started in this decade. At the same time, (Walsh, 2018: 329) remarks that the *“fiscal contraction in the early 1980s imposed severe financial constraints on higher education institutions, particularly in terms of recurrent spending”.* Activists, composed of anarchists, Workers’ Party, Communist Party and Labour Party members, used the mechanisms of the student union for militant mobilization and attempted to wrestle control from the hands of moderates by running for elections (Flood, 2009). This makes the student union a site of struggle for the production of the student as a subject.

At the time the union in TCD had a functioning mass democratic form of decision making through Assemblies. These were mass meetings that any students could attend, speak and vote at and were at that time the highest decision making body of the union \[...\] the ultra democratic nature of the assembly meant that even the right within the student body was forced to turn up and attempt to argue its case. (Flood: Ibid.)

Throughout this decade, (Flood: Ibid.) demonstrates that militant action, such as occupations, disruptions and protests were commonplace, alongside attempts to establish student-worker solidarity. The Assembly, the supreme decision making body of the TCDSU above Council can be conceived of as providing the impetus for radicalism within the organisation during these years, as it is what translated the radical’s worldview into organisational backing, hashed out in open debate with the student body. As (Flood: Ibid.) remarks, however, *“over time in TCD the assembly structures seems to have fallen into complete disuse”*, a process propelled by the *“liberal and social democratic faction on campus”* who introduced a referenda provision into the Constitution, which *“greatly weakened the mobilizing potential of the assemblies by moving the highest form of decision making from an often raucous mass meeting that could fire people up to the relative isolation of polling stations scattered across campus”*. The structural change is noteworthy for its mirroring of neoliberal capitalism, which, by individualizing the processes of democracy, atomizing it, contributed to the entrenchment of reactionary forces within the student union by shifting away from the *council-form*. In other words, this establishes a distance between student and student, preventing the formation of collective subjectivities, shutting out a form of democratic input into the student union, replacing it with a ‘mile wide and inch deep’ form of engagement (NUS Charity, 2011). If the student union is a terrain where there are corresponding leftwards and rightwards pulls, the decline of the Assembly definitively indicates a shift towards the latter rather than the former, a narrowing of the structure, which, at the same time, is a narrowing of the political horizon of possibilities. In fact, as will be noted from the analysis of the handbooks, the Assembly, which had hitherto been a mass assembly, was slowly eroded over the years, before eventually being abolished. This is also evidenced by the fact that the Assembly, throughout the decades, begins to feature later and later in the handbook on average in terms of its discursive marginalisation. At the same time, it is structurally displaced, as its barrier to engagement, the mechanism to call it, is slowly upped. The quora of attendance is increased and the minimum number of signatures necessary to call it likewise. Its position as the highest decision-making body of the student union was, eventually, replaced by referendum by 1993; this is also the point of a minor textual shift, when the term “vote” starts to appear before “speak”, indicating a change in subjectivity-production towards surface-level interaction in the place of deep political engagement. This represents a prioritization of the ‘mile-wide-inch-deep’ (NUS Charity, 2011) manner of student engagement, which samples the student body at an arms’ length, rather than producing subjectivity collectively at a heated back-and-forth meeting. After this, some time passed, and the Assembly was abolished by 2006, and hence, following referendum, the organisation’s highest decision-making body became Council, a filtered forum, composed of class representatives. There is thus an overall shift away from the subjectivities produced by the immediacy of the Assembly towards the data-aggregation, the mediated ‘relative isolation’ as it was put, of the referendum, and of the filtered Council, and this can be demonstrated both as a structural shift and a discursive shift co-interacting; in turn, as the cycle of the process takes shape, the subjectivities tend towards the representative function of the union, in a discursive sense, which further reproduces a centralizing drive within it structurally, and so on and so forth, leading to a narrowing motion within the student union (see Annex I for a detailed, tabular overview of the development of the status of the Assembly). It will be shown that this process follows the university’s transformation as demanded by the State, to align with the labour market, and corresponds to the rise of neoliberal frameworks of governance. 

#### 4.2.1 Trinity between a leftward and rightward pull

The line of power emerging in opposition to the State, arising from the community efforts of the students in Dublin but in its geospatial dimension reaching all the way across the world to the Soviet Union, clearly had an impact which pushed the student union towards radical politics. Opposed to this line of power stood the State, the Catholic Church and the universities, and struggles were fought on this terrain based on flashpoint issues, for instance over the question of LGBT+ rights, apartheid in South Africa (Conlon, 2016: 81-160), or on the economic determinant of fee increases, cuts to grants and lack of student facilities (Flood, 2009) and a wide variety of other causes which need no enumeration for the purposes of this thesis. Rather, what is crucial, is that, as recognized by the Trinity branch of the Labour Party in the 1989 handbook (p.90), Trinity was the battlefield between a leftwards pull, and a rightwards pull, a divide which was prevalent at the university but was non-existent in mainstream politics. In this sense, the student body can be conceived of as an island of radicalism, no doubt passed down from the history of ‘May 68, threatened by reactionary forces. This battle would be fought on the terrain of the student union, and thus, having explored the structural background of the matter, it is now time to correlate it with the discursive aspect. When examining the handbooks, the message of the sabbatical officers, the general introduction of the student union and the description of its structure is considered as the key data, without distinction from one to the other, as it all blends into the common totality of its self-presentation, it is the visible outcome of whatever social forces are pressuring the organisation leftwards and rightwards. 

#### 4.2.2 The 1984 handbook

The 1984 handbook, the earliest available for examination, is a testament to this. The student, at the outset, is interpellated towards autonomy, called upon to ‘assert your own opinions’ (p.2), before employing confrontational language, directly naming the State as the cause of student suffering through a “series” of “cutbacks in public expenditure”. This pits the student union in opposition to the State. The notion of ‘propaganda’ coming from politicians exhibits a high degree of politically-charged rhetoric, as well as the naming of ‘financial policies’, which is not just a matter of the State as it is, but also a matter of its past, facilitated by “past and present” governments. Notably, it is clear that this handbook is written for the student by the student. It speaks directly to the student, even employing a slur, and attempts to rally them to militancy against those who ‘don’t give a damn about young people’ is the aim of the text. Furthermore, the naming of the ‘College hierarchy’ who chose ‘not to challenge this state of affairs but in their silence and acquiescence help perpetuate it’ demonstrates a critique of the structure of the university and its connection to the State. It is furthermore recognized (p.8) that the ‘the system of government in College is totally undemocratic just like all other universities and colleges in the country’, marking a systemic critique of centralised, top-down and bureaucratic structures. Having already excluded the State from its discourse, this proceeds to effectuate a distancing between the university and the student union. The service provision aspect of the student union is ordained in the last position. On another page, it is also clear that the student union will not shy away from tackling political topics, such as protesting the visit of Ronald Reagan to Ireland in June 1984 (p.4). There is, also, a theory of change expressed by the student union (p.7) using a three-level escalation method to defend students rights, which speaks both to the student body as a call to get involved, as well as a threat to the authorities. Should ‘representation’ and ‘lobbying’ fail, it suggests ‘direct action’, which is necessary because ‘of the contempt the government and college authorities have shown for democracy and the rights of young people’. Auxiliary to the student union, the ‘Trinity Community Action’ group (p.10), composed of ‘students who are angry at the injustice of Irish society’ rejects ‘liberal charity’ in favour of ‘major social change’. A systemic picture of oppression is painted, from the university to the State, which the student union rejects, expels from its discourse, and calls on students to equally resist. 

#### 4.2.3 The 1985 handbook

The handbooks proceed *mutatis mutandi* in subsequent years with minor changes, as they are copied from the preceding year, and modified as the student union sees fit. The 1985 handbook describes the student union as a ‘defence organisation’, by which it is implied that there is an encroaching authority, which is rejected by the student body (p.2). Politicians, who are said to be “very fond about quoting facts and statistics” as long as it aligns with their views, are mocked. It also calls upon students to question the views that their lecturers hold, speaks of what rights a student has when arrested and offers a historical situatedness of the student condition as it relates to fees, grants and legal rights. There is no sign of shying away from the controversial topics of the day, including the ‘Dunnes Stores dispute’, ‘the strip searching in Armagh Prison’, and the ‘Nicky Kelly campaign’, to name a few (p.5). The need to engage in ‘militant action’ as well as the ‘undemocratic’ nature of the university (p.9) is reaffirmed. This is all positioned *contra* the institutional powers of the university and the State through mass politics, as key issues “were only won by active participation of a large number of students”. It is, however, not just the students who are faced with an ‘undemocratic’ system, but the workers, who ‘have no representatives on any of the college committees or governing board’ (p.10). The history of student-worker solidarity is undoubtedly a radical socialist tradition whose torch is here carried by the student union without reservation. (Conlon, 2016: 45) states that there is a ‘natural affinity’ between students and workers, as they seek to strengthen their ties so as to propel stronger collective action once united. The ‘Trinity Community Action’ group (p. 16) demonstrates a class-conscious understanding of Irish society, proclaiming that ‘education system \[...\] clearly discriminates against lower income families who cannot afford the one thousand pound fees’, a system which the university ‘seems intent’ on legitimizing. 

### 4.3 The 1990s: Thermidor strikes

As the years pass, the the Soviet Union, the Eastern Bloc and Yugoslavia march towards collapse; neoliberalism was cast as the ‘end of history’ (Fukuyama, 1992), enjoying dominance over the countries of the world (Parenti, 1997); that the Celtic Tiger swept across Ireland (Kitchin et al., 2012), ushering in a free-market capitalist euphoria which undoubtedly left its mark on the student union. (Walsh, 2018: 329) notes that the *“following the dramatic upsurge in Ireland’s economic fortunes during the 1990s”*, the higher-education sector was pressured to *“achieve commercialisation through closer linkages with industry”* and that the *“expansion of enrolments, coupled with dramatically increased levels of public investment, stimulated greater central oversight focusing on accountability, quality assurance and value for money”*. In addition, *"Keynesian economics was displaced as the dominant discourse of the OECD states by neo-liberalism, adopted enthusiastically in the 1980s by the Thatcher government in the UK and the Reagan administration in the USA, which promoted a resurgence of free market economics enforced by a powerful state”* (Walsh, 2018: 330). It is explained by (Walsh, 2018: 345), that in this period, *“egalitarian priorities in meeting social demand and widening participation in higher education co-existed with an increased emphasis on international competitiveness and engagement with business”*. By 1989, under the leadership of future Labour Party leader Ivana Bacik, there were minor changes in wording which indicates the shifting zeitgeist. The government and the College are both named as adverse to the student body, namely by effectuating cutbacks and wasting money on capital projects rather than funding student facilities respectively (p.6). This ‘ultimately reduces the value of our degrees’. It is here visible that there is a narrowing of the critique towards, what seems like, a proto-consumerist attitude by the student union. In addition, while earlier handbooks had indicated that representation proceeds to lobbying and then onto direct action, this now stands reordered (p.7). It is stated that representation is followed by campaigning (a subset of which still includes, within the paragraph, ‘direct action’), but the last item is an advertisement of services. The status of the political has started to recede, ever so slightly, as the status of service comes to the fore. The Board structure of the College is now described as ‘archaic and a strongly traditional structure’, but nevertheless, the student union can defend ‘our rights at Board’. College is still a ‘bureaucracy’, however, this is not noted as a structural critique, being situated more as an information on various administrative officers and their respective roles (p.12). There is still advocacy on contested political issues, such as on abortion rights, which was a key focus of the student union in this year, and around this time. The ‘Community Action’ group no longer names the object of its critique as liberalism, but still asserts that ‘we are more than charity orientated’ (p.76).

#### 4.3.1 The 1990 handbook

In 1990, the handbook seems compelled to assert that the student union ‘only ideology’, is the ‘struggle for equal access to education’ (p.4). In other words, it is declaring its retreat to defence of access to education as a narrower, more sectional interest, as a non-ideological organisation. This is important, as in denial, there is an admission. It is precisely the moment that the student union declares itself non-ideological that it can be considered that its representative function is emphasized over its activist outlook, marking a further retreat from the political. There is, consequently, also a narrowing of the target of opposition, which now becomes not the College or the State, shifting away from naming these targets in a direct manner, but rather, the ‘injustices of our system of education’. This is a subtle transition away from systemic critique towards a narrow focus on education, heralding the swing of the pendulum rightwards. This is correlated also with a significant infusion of cash into student services (p.15). In other words, as faith in the ability to pursue political change fades, the function of the student union becomes integrated with the university, and the State, with a laser-focus on service provision. However, it also discourages students from signing up to the student union for the purposes of enriching their CV, which is a relevant marker for this study, as it communicates the organisation’s degree of integration into the labour market (p.4). The description of the student union follows the 1989 handbook, with the tripartite progression of representation, campaigning (including ‘direct action’) and services (p.6). There is a marked lack of discussion of the political or otherwise issues facing students overall in the handbook, and if present, they are discussed from the perspective of service-provision, rather than systemic critique. The Trinity Student Community Action group (p.36) has considerably shifted rhetoric, focusing on planning community events, while also campaigning, and shies away from mentioning charity at all, and indeed, any critiques thereof. There is, in other words, a continuous motion of narrowing the liberatory discourses of the previous years, as the State’s apparatus of capture encroaches on the university, and then, on the student union. 

#### 4.3.2 The 1993 handbook

All that said, this is nothing compared to the 1993 handbook, which, emerging from the threshold of this shift, now rapidly swings rightwards. ‘If those who run College were really committed to making Trinity a world class institution’, it reads, ‘then they would realise that quality control is vital, and that this can only be achieved by seeking the views of the consumers, namely the students, and acting on those opinions’ (p.3). It is explained that students deserve to receive ‘best quality service possible for our money’ (p.17). This is a moment of euphoria for the student union, which now, having shed its old skin, proudly proclaims its birth anew, basking in jouissance, as transformed, an ecstatic *becoming*, a parade of victory for Capital, hence its forcefulness of presentation, as if it was designed to disavow and bury and scold the naive old world in favour of the promised capitalist paradise. While the university and the State is attacked for various issues such as fees, overcrowding and lack of student facilities, having kept its oppositional stance, this is done using the identity of the ‘student-as-consumer’, in other words, the entirety of the student union has been subsumed by the discourse of the State. This is made plainly clear by the following sentence: ‘If a service that you pay for is sub-standard, you complain’ (p.3). ‘Your Union should not be about stopping wars in the Gulf’, it is proclaimed in the manner of the well-endowed scornful reactionary, but ‘should be about tackling the issues that affect us as students’. The apoliticism, which has hitherto been concealed, merely hinted at, comes out in full force. It is no longer possible to carry out oppositional actions, as the entire discourse is conducted on the terms of the master, as a co-conspirator of Capital, narrowly focused on the efficient allocation of money towards the benefit of students. While student issues are recognized, the interpellation of the student as a consumer, and practically articulating each issue through the prism of value for money, including the disaffiliation from the Union of Students in Ireland in 1991 which is ‘cost\[ing\] in excess of £20,000p.a’, prices in the student canteen which are a ‘raw deal’, access to education which is merely a matter of ‘scholarships and greater financial assistance’ (p.6), and the student ‘paying through the nose’ for library access (p.25), acts as a roadblock to radical politics, or in fact, to any political thinking at all, a generalized foreclosure of the political. ‘We, as students, should be satisfied with nothing less than the best quality service possible for our money’, which is not taking place as ‘standards’ are under threat from government cutbacks and the university’s failure to ration resources, despite ‘paying through the nose’ for access to education (p.17). This is also the moment where ‘direct action’ is no longer explicitly named, but replaced with euphemistic wording. The student union should be ‘willing to talk, and negotiate, when possible, but take action where necessary’. In fact, it is declared that the primary aim of the student union this year is that the ‘SU income is not wasted, but used to improve services’. It is also noteworthy that by this point, a new officer is introduced, called the "Entertainments and Services Officer” (p.10), which will undoubtedly further drive the institutionalization of the student union. The self-understanding drifts sharply towards individualism, stressing that the student union can assist students with casework, while providing services (p.12), and the second-person pronoun, rather than collective pronouns, dominates the text. The students are encouraged to participate because ‘your money partly funds the student union, so make sure it is well spent by getting involved’. This interpellation is designed, if unconsciously, to crush the student as a collective subject of political action, by reducing them to atomized administrative cases, deserving of services on a transactional basis, but lacking in social agency, which is a totalizing submission to the neoliberal world order. Finally, the ‘Student Action Group’ no longer exists as part of this handbook. 

With this communication, there is both an adoption of the State’s dominant discourse and the expulsion of alternative oppositional discourse, a masterstroke paralysing all thought and action all at once, a double motion, a sudden movement into the line of power, which assures that the student union will now feast, draw its lifeblood from the authorities for legitimacy, resources and securing piecemeal concessions for its constituents, never quite recovering from this shift. The irreversibility of this process lies in its normalization, which entrenches itself within the student union, as it now perceives itself a partner to the university and the State, to whom it must serve, on a silver platter, the complaints of the student body, for a swift resolution, a redistribution of the necessary resources. While successive student unions shift back leftwards, it is never quite the same as it used to be, indicating the seriousness of this ideological shift. In fact, it precisely speaks to the allure of neoliberal capitalism as an ideology that the ‘student-as-consumer’ identity, in future handbooks, becomes unnamed, conceals itself, remains in the hinterland, as it is de facto accepted as the sole possible method of conceptualizing the student body as a subject. The strength of this ideology is that it no longer needs to proclaim itself, rather it casts itself as the only possible logic of social reality (Bauman, 1999: 127), and so, having been consciously expressed at one point, it now becomes unconsciously accepted by the student union, transitioning from an assertion of its own validity towards the quiet exclusion of alternative modes of thinking. There is, as a result, the continued advocacy for various issues, but it overwhelmingly presents itself as a matter of representation, lobbying and services, solely focused on complaints of the student body with regards to distribution of resources, especially honing in on amenities, facilities and recreational spaces, at the same time also effectuating a depoliticizing motion. This beckons the arrival of a new signifier, ‘student life’, which considers ‘student issues’ and advocates for the ‘student experience’ in terms of ‘quality control’. 

#### 4.3.3 The 1994 handbook

As far as the 1994 handbook presents itself, it is clearly borne as a whiplash to the outright reactionary sentiments presented the preceding year, and marks perhaps the last, if somewhat feeble, manifestation of resistance, neither forceful nor effective as a fightback. ‘There is only one library seat to every four Students, seats are scarce in some lectures and tutorials, and the recreational facilities are pitiful \[...\] the grants system Is inadequate, the summer work scheme for Students is an insult, fees are higher here than in any other European country' and it is the role of the student union, it reads, to ‘articulate these concerns, (among others), to the College and the government’ (p.4). The use of ‘insult’ is fairly powerful language in comparison to the preceding year’s handbook. However, its assertion that students must be dealt a ‘fair hand’ through the ‘articulation of concerns’ is evocative of a machine, in which there is an allocation of resources, and the student union plugs into it, sends the necessary adjustments, and reshapes outcomes through reformist politics. In society, a fair hand is dealt at the table, precisely by stakeholder representation, in other words a seat at the table, whereby negotiations take place, by the student union, the university and the State. However, in addition to ‘lobbying’, taking ‘direct successful action’ through the student body’s ‘collective strength’ is also noted, as well as a desire to not just be ‘an extension of College offices’ (p.5). There is also no mention of ‘quality control’ in this handbook, which, on the balance of probabilities, was a conscious decision. Students are afforded the ‘least say in how’ the university is run, and, in addition, Che Guevara features as a photo, as ‘our hero’ for the student union (p.11). This can be considered a signifier which pushes against the preceding year’s messaging, or somewhat an act of recuperation (Debord, 1967), rather than true affinity with radical politics, considering the overall tendency of the handbook, insofar as it is an attempted sublation of both tendencies which result in a half-radical, half-moderate failed synthesis. Notably, this is also the point where the ‘accuracy’ of student representation is first noted as a solution for ‘influence’ on the university boards, and so, the ‘student opinion’ has to be ‘canvassed’ (p.11). Notably, this is not a political solution, based on mass participation, leading to pressure on the authorities. Rather, it is a one-dimensional, flattened, ‘mile-wide and inch-deep’ (NUS Charity, 2011) approach to sample the student body, transformed into administrative objects of surveys, presentations and reports. It signals an acceptance of the position of the student union as an integrated part of the university and State machinery. As the student population is fundamentally transient, they perhaps cannot be blamed for failing to notice just how much the discourse of the student union has shifted from the prior decade. The basis of comparison is conducted on a yearly basis, as in, for instance, this handbook would present itself as a radical shift to the preceding one, but the overall trajectory has substantially shifted to moderate politics. 

The whiplash, however, does not persist for long. The consumerist language does not feature prominently, but nor does feigned radicalism, and there arises as a result of the aforementioned sublation, the synthesis now standing completed, a *de facto* acceptance of the neoliberal worldview by way of narrow milquetoast discourses on advocacy for ‘student issues’ in subsequent handbooks, an all-encompassing shift to representation, casework, events, services and the occasional protest and even direct action which is merely ‘planned press management’ rather than ‘any real attempt to show affinity with radical political action’ (Conlon, 2016: 5). There is no more systemic critique as the locus of focus is now heavily on the side of representation. By drifting towards representation, there is a corresponding drift away from activism, and a corresponding understanding of the ‘student-as-consumer’ rather than the ‘student-as-militant’, even if this is not explicitly stated. This sleight of hand by sabbatical officers consists in the overprioritization of representation, which, logically, excludes politics. Representation is with the consent of *all* students, whereas politics can only be conducted with the consent of *some* students, and so, in this way, there is a sly cover-up of the Left-Right divide on campus, and therefore conceals class antagonism, a drift into apoliticism. The student union no longer proclaims whether it is leftwards or rightwards, but denies the existence of such a positionality by deferring to the positionality of the student body in its entirety. It is the case that representation has featured prominently in all handbooks since 1984, but it, being submerged in a political overtone, indicated that there is an inseparability of the process; whereas here, it takes on a sinister meaning, an individualistic tendency, or a faux-collectivist tendency which excludes the political, by way of excluding a politicised context in connection to the word, which, in the 1980s, was part-and-parcel of the student union. In other words, the discourse of politics has been wholly excluded from the handbook, while focusing on specific issues that students face; it is not merely about what is *said*,** but what is *not said*. 

#### 4.3.4 The 1995 handbook

According to the 1995 handbook, the student union has ‘power’, only if ‘we united and voice our opinion together’ (p.4). This is to ‘represent YOUR views, protect YOUR vital rights and to provide VITAL SERVICES’. With this curt introduction focused on the representative aspect of the student union, the handbook proceeds to advertise the student life, calling for participation in various social mixers. The student union now proudly advertises that it has ‘activities’ lined up for students, to ‘celebrate’ the student union’s 21st birthday, which will include ‘info, debates and speakers’, and will culminate in the ‘Birthday Bash’. The student union as an event organiser has now become the standard and it is clear that considerable effort is exerted to communicate this to the student body in the handbook. As far as oppositional politics is contained in the messaging, the student union fights for ‘standards’ for ‘quality in education’ which are threatened by ‘government cutbacks and College’s failure’, and hence student participation is called for to ensure it is representative, insofar as it must ‘concentrate on issues which directly affect students’ (p.28). There is a lot of discourse around ‘quality control’ and the need for the government to ‘get its act together’ (p.29). It is noteworthy that there is a section dedicated to explaining the issues with the State’s abolition of fees, underlining that they have been abolished in theory not in practice, but the discourse is then centered around ‘quality assurance’ (p.29). Once again, there is a narrowing of the political field of possibility, and the student union is merely presented as a cog in the quality assurance machine, rather than systemic critique. 

#### 4.3.5 The 1996 handbook

By the 1996 handbook, this self-understanding stabilizes. The student union exists to prevent ‘adverse effects’ on the ‘quality of student life’, provides ‘commercial services’ and ‘negotiates’ with the university for student amenities (p.1). It is also important to ensure ‘communication’ so that student issues can be sent to the ‘authorities internally or externally and to provide the services that you require’. The sabbatical officers possess ‘expertise’ which is at the service of students. The discussion around the free fees initiative is now conceived of as a matter of service provision by providing the relevant information to students (p.80), and does not feature in the handbook as a detailed political exposition of the situation at hand. The image of thought is clear. The student union receives complaints, processes them, triages them, and in conjunction with the university and the State, seeks to resolve them within systemic limits. This is, ever since the 1993 handbook, to a lesser or greater degree, all presented in one or more of the following corporate language drawn from the Key Performance Indicator (KPI) concept, as in, asserting measurability, basking in so-called rationality, the entrenchment of administrative logic: standards, services, events, quality, value for money, accuracy, negotiation and so on and so forth, and this paradigm shift, sadly, has deeply entrenched itself in the student union, proceeding *mutatis mutandi*. This is a replication of the logic of the authorities, be it the university or the State, rather than the confrontation thereof. As (Walsh, 2018: 330) remarks, the organisational paradigm of ‘new public management’, based on neoliberal theory, stressed *“strong performance management and monitoring systems to enforce formalised accountability rather than professional self-regulation; assertive, empowered management, rather than collegial approaches to decision-making and employment of market mechanisms within areas traditionally associated with the ‘public realm’”*. At the same time, there was a *“notable policy shift in the late twentieth century was a gradual ‘intensification’ of state intervention in university education”* which sought *“mainly to reposition university offerings to meet labour market demands more effectively”* (Walsh, 2018: 346). It is visible, as such, that as the university is captured by the State and Capital, the needs of the labour market, the student union is captured by the university and as such by the State and Capital, and the labour market, as a continuous line of power cuts across these institutions. It is not the case that each word, borne out of corporate influence, appears with certainty in each handbook, but the thematics broadly mirror the neoliberal worldview, to the exclusion of even the recognition of the existence of the student as the political subject of militant politics, the tone having substantially shifted to the degree of unrecognizability when compared with the 1980s. 

#### 4.3.6 The 1997 handbook

The 1997 handbook reaffirms that the student union will be doing everything in its power to create ‘a sense of belonging and make your first few weeks as exciting as possible’, while listing a plethora of activities, events and entertainments made available to students (p.5). The situation around the free fees initiative is once again merged with service-provision and information distribution to the student body, only mentioned later in the handbook (p.64-65). As a marker for what counts as political by this point, the bar having been lowered so much, the reader might be amused to find the claim that previous student unions have ‘been dominated by political animals keen to realise their own political ambitions’, stressing that the ‘priority is to ensure that your voice is always heard’. It is precisely therein that the difference is visible: while the student union in the past might have painted a systemic picture of the injustice of Irish society, this has now receded, activism substituted for by representation, which boils down to ‘listening’ to the student body, which is the substitution of the political for the apolitical, an absolutizing lack of ideological impetus in the eternal listening for the beating heart of the student voice, employing the tools of the doctor, the stethoscope of surveys, reports, pollings and so on, which, by itself, reduces the subjectivity of the student to the cog of the university and State machine. This represents a total expulsion of the militant political subject from the handbooks and its substitution by the consumerist political subject. ‘Student needs are often ignored by the government’, it reads, ‘and even by College authorities’, and so, the student union ‘needs the support and participation of its members’. Undoubtedly, the student union claims itself to stand in opposition to the university and the State, but it is precisely the standpoint from which this is made which neuters it towards a merely representative role, rather than activist role, from the ‘student-as-consumer’ rather than from the ‘student-as-militant’ positionality. 

### 4.4 The 2000s: The Battle Resumes?

As (Flood, 2009) notes, the 1990s was a Thermidorian epoch for the radical student movement. There was a “long quiet period up to the CFE \[Campaign For Free Education\] struggle of a few years back which was led by UCD \[University College Dublin\] activists” (Ibid). This campaign fought against *“fees and for equal access to education for all, regardless of economic or social background”* (Corcoran, 2002). It was founded in a milieu of increasing student fees and cuts to student grants as successive governments kept imposing austerity measures (Ibid.). (Walsh, 2018: 387) notes, in the 2000s with the rise of globalisation and internationalisation, a *“new phase in the transformation of the Irish higher education system emerged”* which was *“characterised by sustained national and international pressures on HEIs to prioritise economic objectives; more fine-grained intervention by state agencies at institutional and programme levels; more intensive commercialisation and a decline in public resourcing of HE”* which involved a managerialist agenda, the centralisation of power and reduced democratic processes within the universities. In this decade, there was a growing student fightback to this destructive neo-liberal creep, which included involvement in student unions to hold them accountable to the student body, a *“slow process of once again legitimising student mobilisation and direct action as a tactic within the student movement”* (Campaign For Free Education, 2003). The “starting point for this process in UCD began with the passing of a motion calling for a demonstration for a better grant at student council in 2002”, as *“put forward by a coalition of independent socialists, Socialist Youth and members of what is now Socialist Alternative”* (Ibid.). In other words, there was an oppositional line of power, spreading on campuses as various CFE branches sprung up, which aimed to mobilize the student body and, to a lesser degree, intervene in the politics of student unions, introducing radical politics into the milieu of the student movement and thereby exerting an overall influence. The view was taken, no doubt, that while student unions can be used for resources, legitimacy and support, they, due to the long process of institutionalization they had undergone, are no longer able to carry the torch of militancy as organisations, and that the student movement must instead rely on grassroots formations to plug the gap. Radical students had *“shattered all illusions in \[the student union\] at that point”*, no matter whether they were dominated by outright reactionaries or liberal leadership, outlining a detailed theory of co-optation, institutionalization and State capture which they witnessed first hand (Ibid.), and which aligns with the views expressed in this thesis. Despite this, they successfully elected CFE activists to positions within the UCD Students’ Union in 2003 (Ibid.). As such, the process of radical upsurge can, and does, intersect with the student unions. Whether this was successful, in terms of redirecting the student union to radical politics, is debatable, at least at Trinity, which seemed, with one exception, not to be a locus of militancy during this period. As these judgements are solely based on the handbooks presented, it does not present a complete view of student politics during this time. Rather, this is more so an exploration of whether the student union itself was fundamentally transformed during this upsurge, or whether it remained within the systemic limits set by the university and the State, in other words, whether the process of the 1990s is, as has been claimed, irreversible for it represents a path-dependent self-reinforcing autopoiesis of institutionalization. 

#### 4.4.1 The 2000 handbook

In this sense, the handbook from 2000 can be considered the exception which proves the rule, under the leadership of future Social Democrats TD Rory Hearne. The student union pits the ‘students and the low paid’, those who ‘created’ the economic miracle of the Celtic Tiger against the ‘greedy landlords’ who ‘cream off massive profits’ and ‘millionaires’ who receive tax breaks (p.5). The alliance of the students and workers is therefore called for by the student union for the first time since 1985\. The State and its ‘politicians’ aim to use ‘racist’ rhetoric to distract from the ‘disgraceful’ levels of homelessness, rents which are ‘spiralling’, while cutting social welfare and refusing to increase the ‘miserly grants’. As a solution, the ‘great tradition of student protest’ in the style of ‘France in 1968’ and the student union in the ‘early 80s’, is proposed. Students ‘gave their lives in the fight for freedom and democracy in Indonesia in 1998’, helping overthrow a brutal dictatorship, which serves as proof of the internationalist worldview of the student union. This is a ‘tradition’ which the ‘student union aims to continue’. In other words, this is a systemic critique which broadens beyond the narrow focus on ‘student issues’ and is imbued with radical political rhetoric which targets the State. This is done by reaching back into history, discarding the idea that the student is a consumer which was prevalent in the 1990s and substituting it for the student as a militant who seeks to radically transform society as was the accepted norm in the 1980s. This is made explicit, as a shunning of the student-as-consumer identity, and the celebration of the student-as-militant identity, through selectively highlighting aforementioned key dates in history, a cathartic re-birth of radical politics is asserted, disavowing the moderate politics of yesterday. There is a complete disavowal of rightwards apoliticism as it is clear that the student union has sharply shifted leftwards. There is an entire section dedicated to the student union as a ‘fighting’ organisation (p.10; p.11; p.12). The university is described, in its leadership, as being composed of ‘bigwigs’ and named ‘sinister figures’, and the institution itself is a ‘greedy landlord’ and a corporation (‘Trinity Inc’), while a decent education is a ‘human right’. There is no consumerist rhetoric. Rather, the university itself is identified as a site for the reproduction of corporate logic, alongside the State, which separates it from the student union. There are a slew of criticisms directed against the university, including that it now serves as a ‘conference center and tourist attraction’, focused on ‘profit’, and pays workers ‘miserly wages’. The handbook is directed towards the student body in its tonality as well, mocking the state of affairs through sarcasm, especially through the metaphor of the student body being caged in a ‘zoo’ while tourists peer at them ‘through their lens’. The State is also mocked for its ‘lovely grant’, while students have ‘had enough’ of the government in power, and are ready to ‘mobilize’ and will not ‘let up’. Accordingly, the ‘representative’ aspect of the student union is devalued, while ‘activism’ takes precedence. The sabbatical officers are ‘only 5’ individuals who sit on committees as representatives, and therefore do not possess real power, which lies elsewhere. In fact, the ‘active’ participation of the student body is needed in order to ‘force’ the university to ‘provide you with an education you deserve’ through the use of ‘direct action’, for which a number of examples are listed. As opposed to earlier rhetoric surrounding the ‘accuracy’ of the ‘student voice’, this language serves an ideological education in power relations, mass politics and people power to the student body. It is asking for participation in a manner which is different to what had come before, the politics of force rather than the a-politics of partnership. This motion of broadening, liberating, decentralizing is also mirrored in the self-presentation of the student union later on, where it explicitly names itself as having been ‘egoistic’ and ‘cliquish’ in the past, and sets itself the aim of ‘opening up’ (p.32). However, this handbook is also the first instance in which the class representative role is advertised in terms of a benefit to the student’s CV, although this is a relatively minor slight in face of the overall approach (p.55), unlike the 1990 guidebook, which specifically discouraged this practice, indicating integration into the labour market, which is a consumerist conception. There are also other slight traces of consumerism, such as on (p.65), where it is stated that the lecturers are ‘paid’ to ‘teach you’, and therefore should help struggling students. Overall, this handbook is not so different from what a student would receive in the 1980s, as it delights in exposing the injustices of the system as a whole. However, this is more of a dead cat’s bounce than anything, as this is the last time, within the handbooks studied, that the student union presents itself as a fighting organisation for students, in alliance with workers, as the rest of the material does not substantially diverge from what was seen in the 1990s. 

#### 4.4.2 The 2002 handbook

As far as the 2002 handbook is concerned, there is nothing substantially different to what was to be found in their 1990s counterparts, as it is, *mutatis mutandi*, a copy of the approach taken in that decade. The *raison d’etre* of the student once, it is stated, is to ‘represent your views, protect your rights and provide the services that maximise the college experience’ (p.19). There is, as is commonplace, no systemic critique, political content and ideological angle which would serve as a catalyst for radical student mobilization, rather the ‘student life’, which encompasses the ‘student experience’ or the ‘College experience’ signifiers, dominates the text. It begins with an offering of various pieces of advice for the student, reassuring them to not be ‘daunted’, informing them, from the position of the wise paternalist, that life does not ‘hand things on a silver platter’, and encouraging them to explore ‘half open doors’ to unearth ‘realms of opportunities’, amongst other platitudes, words which really, could have been spoken by any university administrator during orientation week. The student union will also provide ‘music gigs’. The class representative structure is mainly advertised not as a political role, but as a way to ‘make friends’ and ‘mix’ with other students, while noting that it offers a way to ‘influence how the College and the union operate’. If students struggle, however, the casework officers are at their service. At the same time, the horizon of campaigns is narrowed, highlighting only two particular cases, one involving student facilities and the other concerning student fees, without a broader examination of systemic structures. The student union notes that it strives to ‘win for you’ with regards to ‘facilities, services and standards you deserve’, in order to make the university more ‘student-focused’ (p.20). It notes, as examples, ‘resisting price increases in the college catering outlets and campus accommodation’. There is a section dedicated to a student fee increase put in place by the State since July 2002, but this does not call on students to mobilize towards militant action, or in fact, offer any plausible theory of change, apart from a few platitudes on the importance of ‘unity’ (p.21) . It is, put simply, not addressed to students. The student union will work with the ‘students’ unions in other colleges’ so as to put ‘pressure’ on the government, while it pats itself on the back for having made ‘headway’ with the media, that is securing interviews on Irish news channels. The author of this section, who is not named, notes that he ‘whole-heartedly welcomes any extension of the maintenance grant’, which was announced by the State to the tune of 5%. It reads like a communication directed towards student unions, the university and the State, rather than towards the student body, which dents its credibility as a critique. It is, to be clear, not the case that there is no oppositional politics within this handbook, but that its positionality is made from a centralising perspective, from the student union offices looking down upon the student body, rather than directly addressing them and rallying them to action. 

This is the a-politics of partnership, not the politics of force, a shift rightwards, away from leftwards, the corresponding shift towards representation, away from activism, and the corresponding shift towards the ‘student-as-consumer’, away from the ‘student-as-militant’, should it be laid out on the spectrum, and therefore a march towards the university, a march towards the State. It is visible when there is such a reactionary shift, by mere virtue of the text being copy-pasted from the usual template, hence its *mutatis mutandi* nature not solely being a matter of thematic content, but, in fact, the literal replication of sentences; a deviation thereof is the telltale sign of the radical line of flight. 

#### 4.4.3 The 2003 handbook

There is, similarly, as such, nothing special about the 2003 handbook. It does not possess a distinct militant political subject, rather it represents the consumerist political subject. After listing platitudes about the student life, it emphasizes the representative function of the student union. The student is ‘congratulated’ for being a member of the organisation, as they now have access to ‘a range of services at your disposal and you are being represented on a local and national level’ (p.4). The purpose of the student union is to represent its members ‘on college committees and to outside organisations’, enter into ‘negotiations’ with the university to build student facilities, and so as to make it ‘more student friendly’. It is, however, noted that ‘direct action’ may be employed. The student union will make sure that the student is ‘treated fairly’ by the university and the State (p.6), by pushing ‘for the facilities, services and standards you need and deserve’, making the environment more ‘student-friendly’, the same wording as in the 2002 handbook. This is, as seen with previous material, a narrow, sectional and representative definition of the student union which forecloses the horizon of political possibility, stresses the services aspect, focuses on facilities and seat-at-the-table negotiations for solely student issues. Nothing demonstrates this better than the reaction of the student union to its victory with regards to the July 2002 student fee increases (p.10). These were withdrawn by the State, which proves that the student movement is not ‘totally apathetic and still has considerable political influence’. ‘With the fees debate put to bed for now’, it reads, ‘I believe the time has come for the Students’ Union to concentrate on issues closer to home’, and hence, the focus should be on ‘negotiation rather than activism’. This encapsulates the poverty of the sectionalism inherent in the representative approach, as precisely in the moment when the student movement amasses social forces, when it could seek links with its natural allies in the workers’ movement, when it could broaden its aims to challenge the ruling political parties, if not the system of neoliberalism, and ultimately capitalism as a whole, in essence to broaden its demands through systemic critique, the student union swoops in to shut it down, to limit it, to enclose it within feeble reformist, apolitical parameters. It is precisely in this that lies the betrayal of the politics of student partnership, akin to trade union social partnership, who, upon negotiating with the State, and securing their cut of the cake, dare not venture outside the boundaries of their narrowed sectional interests, and its essence becomes a quid pro quo rather than principled politics and their attached subjectivities. 

#### 4.4.4 The 2004 handbook

As far as the 2004 handbook presents the student union, it similarly begins with the listing of platitudes about the student life, and expounds that the rationale for the organisation is “students working together for students” (p.26). The university is the best in terms of academics but can “lag behind” in other areas, which the student union exists to resolve through the “promotion” of students rights and interests, “cos if we don’t do it ourselves you can bet no one else will”. As to the issues tackled by the student union, the introduction here limits itself to particular cases of student facilities. The introduction of the “cos” in an otherwise sanitised discourse alludes to the attempt made by the student union to appear as a grassroots formation to the student body. The text further stresses that the student union provides “top-quality entertainment for its members”, a “multitude of Union services” and a newly-opened shop. However, later on, forming the sole semblance of politics, the threat of university “privatization” is mentioned, “alongside the American lines”, due to government cutbacks, which is to be resisted. The theme of communication (p.27) is stressed, but is limited, only reiterating that it is “as I'm sure you've heard a thousand times before, a two way thing”, and asking students to indicate whether they liked or disliked an article in the student union newspaper, particular events or campaigns organised. The representative aspect is stressed, as students are asked to tell sabbatical officers “what you think” and whether they are doing a “good job”, indicating the *tabula rasa* approach of previous years, rather than starting from an ideological conception of the world. There is also the casework role, and sitting on committees where student interests will be advocated for, and it is stressed that the student union officers are approachable should any issues arise (p.28). There is a redesigned and rewritten section dedicated to explaining what the student union does (p.32). It stresses the importance of representation, by way of rhetorical questions based on hypothetical scenarios of adverse decisions affecting students. “As anyone who watches wildlife programmes can tell you, there is strength in numbers, “ it reads, and, together, “we have the power to say "Enough is enough". The student union’s activities cover “lobbying for more computers to campaigning for better food in college catering outlets or resisting cuts in library opening hours” on the local level, by sitting on “more College committees than you can shake a stick at”, while on the national level in collaboration with other student unions, the task is to “continue to push for increased funding”. “Campaigning”, it reads, “don’t necessarily mean hundreds of people throning the streets”, but can be as simple as “informing people of their rights against a landlord, raising awareness about safe sex, or writing letters to TDs or decision makers in Trinity” (p.32;p.33). It also feels compelled to ascertain its own respectability, as if watched by the grown-up authorities, by stating that campaigning “is not about causing trouble for the sake of it”, thereby, implicitly, accepting the myth of the student activist troublemaker, and fetishistically disavowing itself from the archetype. This is overall a moderate conception of campaigns, designed to appeal to the sensibilities of respectability, and differs from the radical approach as was seen in the handbook from 2000\. While students are asked to participate in campaigns, they are asked to participate within these systemic limits. However, it is noteworthy that this student union mentions alliance with workers, but limits itself to academics in a sectional manner, specifically insofar as “teachers’ pay and conditions must be addressed” (p.33), while also euphemistically referring to direct action by stating that the authorities must be “pushed”, asserting this to happen “gently or otherwise”. The word “student-friendly” also does not feature in this handbook in the same context as seen in the preceding years. Overall, this handbook also exhibits the depoliticised, representative and sectional advocacy of student interests, without making broader systemic critique; while aspects of the system may very well be critiqued, this is carried out without worldview-based political critique, if ever so slightly shifted leftwards. 

#### 4.4.5 The 2005 handbook

As to the 2005 handbook, the student union’s introduction wholly decomposes any trace of the political. It opens with a plea to the student body that the organisation “wants to help you”, and in fact, “needs to help you”, because “it’s what we do best damnit” (p.18). The student is a palliative care patient at this point. The tone of this statement is slightly paternalizing, looking down upon the student body as a mass that needs to be helped, and in no way does it convey any sense of political agency; the student union is presented as an organisation for service provision, which, as helpful as it is, does not constitute a form of political programme. The aim of the student union is to “To represent YOUR views To protect YOUR rights To provide vital services to YOU”, which can only be accomplished through “YOUR participation”, as the “influence and strength of a united and opinionated student body is enormous”. While this assertion is forcefully mode, there is then no mention of campaigning, nevermind anything to do with politics, even less a trace of ideological self-understanding. The text immediately shifts to the “loads of the banter and the hi-jinx laid on for you” and a description of particular events organised for the student body. It then focuses on the need for “increased communication”, which seems to be an oft-repeated keyword in handbooks during this decade, alongside its “two-way” nature. The section on explaining what the student union does is repeated almost down to the word from the previous handbook, and as such, it continues to assert the need for sectional campaigns (p.19). The student union is looking to expand “range and quality of the services on offer” (p.22). All in all, through the introduction, weight is put on the casework and events, rather than the campaigning officers, and so, this changes the nature of the student union’s discourse, as first encountered by the student body; the introduction of the student union sabbatical officers, in this document, is also relegated to later pages which by itself de-emphasizes politics, but even these introductions are heavily weighted against the political. The student union wants to ‘ensure that the College ride goes as smoothly as possible’, through the strength of ‘15,000 students pulling together to achieve the common goal of helping students in every possible way’, helping ‘you at every stage of your academic career, keep you in good health, having as many nights out as possible, while keeping you informed and representing your interests’ and a providing a ‘wide range of services’ (p.26). The organisation calls for ‘involvement’ as a key word. As far as a theory of change is present in this handbook, there is a single sentence which asserts that ‘one boot kicking a government Minister up the arse will hardly make a mark yet 15,000 kicks are a lot harder to ignore’. 

#### 4.4.6 The 2006 handbook

The observed pattern holds for future handbooks as well, and working back, it seems that the student union is on a path towards gutting its entire political infrastructure, with minimal mention of even sectional campaigning. The 2006 handbook is a *mutatis mutandi* replication, with a generalised, non-political introduction with the same wording as the preceding year, except with slight changes, such as the palliative care patient language being removed (p.23). The student union’s aims for the year are noted as “working to improve the SU website”, in line with the communication mania of the preceding year’s, and a plan “jimmy up the Class Representative structure”. What follows contains no traces of politics, focusing on casework, facilities, services, events and representation, as well as the usual cliches about student life (p.24). The student union functions to “represent your views, protect your rights and provide the services that make college life run much smoother”. Specifically, it is “here to represent you”, including by making the university more “student-focused”, and it is determined to make national demands “heard” at the “general election” (p.25). In other words, the student union will put forward no political demands, but will lobby parties in pursuit of its sectional interests, as mandated by its representative nature. This is the only instance in the handbook where the student union could, if examined with favourable lens, be seen as being a fighting organisation, and even under such conditions, it has still limited itself to the apoliticism of sectional advocacy. It is only these few paragraphs which make vague reference to the student union fighting on a local and national level, and the handbook represents a rightwards deviation as the section on campaigning which was introduced in its 2004 counterpart has now been removed. This is, in fact, a watershed moment, as there is, at this point, nothing which could truly point to a distinct militant political subject in the handbook, but is laden with the consumerist political subject. This move cannot possibly be more damaging, leaving the student union, in fact, without an exposition of the most basic issues facing students, such as fees, or a general theory of change, which, up until this point, have at least been mentioned under this now-abolished section, being left merely with vague references to widening access to education, financial supports and diversity. 

#### 4.4.7 The 2007 handbook

This is apoliticism in its phase of consolidation, stabilized, entrenched within the organisation, which allows it to further atrophy the muscles of mass politics, the student body. It so proceeds. The 2007 handbook contains a generalised introduction focusing on the services, events and casework provided to students, stressing that the student union is here to “support and represent you”, noting that it is also able to “lobby the government”, all so that “college life is better, safer and generally better craic for its members” (p.3). Later on, it lists off happy-go-lucky platitudes about student life, speaks of “negotiation”, with one shy mention of “direct action”, noting planned improvements to student facilities, and the ways in which the student union conducts its representative functions at committees, takes on casework, provides “vital services” and events, all in order to make the university “student-friendly”, so much so that “you may never feel the need to leave campus ever again!” (p.4). It is particularly illuminating to compare the introductory pages of the 1984 handbook and the 2007 handbook in this respect (see Annex II). While there is a photo designed to make the student union team look approachable in terms of service provision (p.5), there is, as with the previous year’s handbook, no section dedicated to campaigning, continuing the pattern. These handbooks are *mutatis mutandi* copies of the template, with nothing of particular note, nothing which would catalyse the student body to mobilize against the university and the State, the tonality being the student union transmitting feedback, and in the process, securing piecemeal concessions. 

## Conclusions

In this thesis, I have shown that as the decades progress, the locus of the student union’s activities becomes limited, its purview narrowed, resulting in less and less fire in its belly. The student union transforms its character, tailing the university’s transformation, the impetus for which is handed down by the State, as it seeks an alignment of interests with the labour market and acts according to neo-liberal frameworks of governance. The discursive theme of the student union, supported by structural changes, shifts from militancy to consumerism; from the politics of force to the a-politics of partnership; from activism to representation; and in doing so, narrows itself, depoliticising, integrating itself with the university and the State in terms of service provision, accepting the logic of Capital, becoming a mere system of triaging complaints, the cog which hands them to the authorities for timely resolution and advancement of sectional interests. This, for the student, who is fundamentally transient, is akin to the frog boiling in the pot, a minor shift rightwards, a minor shift away from leftwards, being near-impossible tell apart from year to year, unless it is examined across the decades as was done in this thesis. As such, I have proved the hypothesis that neoliberal capture effectuated by the State, at the behest of Capital, impacts the university and the student union by dissolving the independent values of both into the hegemonic image of the ruling mode of production, as supported by the empirical evidence herein presented.

## Annex I - Historical development of the definition of the Assembly

| Year | Status of the Assembly                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
| ---- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
| 1984 | “The Assembly is a meeting open to all students (often held in Ed. Burke Theatre) at which motions and proposals are discussed and voted upon. It meets at least once a term (usually twice or three times). It is the supreme policy-making body of the Union.“ (p.5)                                                                                                                                                                         |
| 1985 | “The Assembly is a meeting open to all students (often held in Ed. Burke Theatre) at which motions and pro­posals are discussed and voted upon. It meets at least once a term (usually twice or three times). It is the supreme policy-making body of the Union.“ (p.6)                                                                                                                                                                        |
| 1989 | “The Assembly is the supreme policy-making body of theUnion, this is a general meeting whichall students may attend, held on Thursdays at 1 pm In the Ed. Burke, about 3times every term and called by theExecutive. Any student may submit amotion 4 days in advance, and anystudents may speak for or against. Themotion then goes to a vote, and itpassed becomes union policy for 5years unless reversed by a subsequentAssemblies.” (p.7) |
| 1990 | “The Assembly is the supreme policy-making body of theUnion, this is a general meetingwhich all students attend, held onThursdays at 1pm in the Ed. Burke,about 3 times every term and calledby the Executive. Any student maysubmit a motion 4 days in advance,and any student may speak, for oragainst. The motion then goes to avote, and it passed becomes unionpolicy for 5 years unless reversed bya subsequent Assembly.“ (p.8)         |
| 1993 | “Assembly is the next highest policy making body of the Union \[after referendum\]. It is an open meeting which all students are encour­aged to come along to and vote. Any student can submit a motion and any student can speak for or against a motion.” (p.16)                                                                                                                                                                             |
| 1994 | “Assembly is the next highest policy making body of the Union. It is an open meeting which all students are encouraged to come along to and vote. Any student can submit a motion and any student can speak for oragainst a motion. These can be called at any time when a motion(s) and 100 Trinity students' signatures are submitted.” (p.7)                                                                                                |
| 1995 | “Assembly is the next highest policy makingbody of the Union, it is an open meetingwhich all students are encouraged to comealong to and vote. Any student can submit amotion and any student can speak for oragainst a motion. These can be called at any time when a motion(s) and 100 Trinitystudents’ signatures are submitted.“ (p.2)                                                                                                     |
| 1996 | “Assembly is the next highest policymaking body of the Union. It is an openmeeting which all students are encouraged to come along to and vote. Any student cansubmit a motion and any student can speak for or against a motion. These can be called at any time when a motion with 100 Trinitystudents’ signatures are submitted.“ (p.2)                                                                                                     |
| 1997 | “Assembly is the next highest policy making body of the Union. It is an open meeting to which all students are encouraged to come along and vote. Any student can submit a motion and any student can speak for or against the motion. These can be called at any time when a motion with 100 Trinity students' signatures is submitted.“ (p.7)                                                                                                |
| 2000 | “Assembly is the next highest policy making body of the Union. It is an open meeting to which all students are encouraged to come along and vote. Any student can submit a motion and any student can speak for or against the motion. These can becalled at any time when a motion with 100 Trinity students' signatures is submitted.” (p.20)                                                                                                |
| 2002 | “Assembly is the second highest policy making body of the Union after a referendum. It is an open meeting to which all students are encouraged to come along and vote. Any student can submit a motion and any student can speak for or againstthe motion. These can be called at any time when a motion with enough Trinity students' signatures is submitted.” (p.25)                                                                        |
| 2003 | “Assembly is the second highest policy making body of the Union after a referendum. It is an open meeting to which all students are encouraged to come along and vote. Any student can submit a motion and any student can speak for or againstthe motion. These can be called at any time when a motion with enough Trinity students' signatures is submitted.“ (p.17)                                                                        |
| 2004 | “The next highest policy making body of the Union after a referendum is an assembly. It is an open meeting to which allstudents are encouraged to come along and vote. Any student can submit a motion and any student can speak for or againstthe motion. These can be called at any time when 175 signatures are submitted, although there needs to be a turnoutof 3.5% of the student body for it to be valid.” (p.94)                      |
| 2005 | “The next highest policy making body of the Union after a referendum is an assembly. It is an open meeting to which all students are encouraged to come along andvote. Any student can submit a motion and any student can speak for or against the motion. These can be called at any time when 175 signatures are submitted, although there needs to be a turnout of 3.5% of the student body for it to be valid.” (p.31)                    |
| 2006 | The Assembly has been abolished.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |
| 2007 | The Assembly has been abolished.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               |

## Annex II - Historical comparison between the 1984 and the 2007 handbook

![](https://aontachtmedia.ie/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-d4f40c24-b469-45ec-8f6f-eb2f12def68a.png)

1984

![](https://aontachtmedia.ie/content/images/2026/09/data-src-image-1e0f43b9-cf76-4856-b358-44d5f00d4d41.png)

2007

## References

Anarchist Communist Group. (2018, July 28). The trouble with student unions. Freedom News. [https://freedomnews.org.uk/2018/07/28/the-trouble-with-student-unions/](https://freedomnews.org.uk/2018/07/28/the-trouble-with-student-unions/?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Althusser, L. (1962). Contradiction and overdetermination. In *Marxists.org*. [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/1962/overdetermination.htm?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Aydın‐Düzgit, S. (2017). *Critical discourse analysis* (pp. 1–8). https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118783665.ieicc0205

Barnett, A. (1969). A Revolutionary student movement. *New Left Review*, *1*(53), 43–53\. https://doi.org/10.64590/io7

Bauman, Z. (1999). *In search of politics*. Polity.

Boggs, C. (1976). *Gramsci’s Marxism*. Pluto Press.

Bondy, A. S. (2025). Workers for democracy? Trade unions and the struggle against democratic backsliding. *Democratization*, 1–25\. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2025.2507359

Bourdieu, P., & Wacquant, L. J. D. (1992). *An invitation to reflexive sociology*. University Of Chicago Press.

Boyle, K. A. (2024). The discursive power of trade union leadership: Framing identity fields for public persuasion. *Work, Employment and Society*, *39*(3), 681–702\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170241279778](https://doi.org/10.1177/09500170241279778?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Brooks, R. (2021). Students as consumers? The perspectives of students” union leaders across Europe. *Higher Education Quarterly*, *76*(3). https://doi.org/10.1111/hequ.12332

Brooks, R., Byford, K., & Sela, K. (2014). The changing role of students’ unions within contemporary higher education. *Journal of Education Policy*, *30*(2), 165–181\. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2014.924562

Brooks, R., Byford, K., & Sela, K. (2015). Students’ unions, consumerism and the neo-liberal university. *British Journal of Sociology of Education*, *37*(8), 1211–1228\. https://doi.org/10.1080/01425692.2015.1042150

Campaign For Free Education. (2003, March). *Beyond Protest To Resistance- the CFE So Far*. Indymedia.Ie. https://www.indymedia.ie/article/34860?search\_text=ppp&comment\_order=desc#comment12981

Colectivo Situaciones. (2003, September). *On the Researcher-Militant* (S. Touza, Ed.). Transversal Texts. https://transversal.at/transversal/0406/colectivo-situaciones/en

Conlon, S. (2016, May). *The Irish student movement as an agent of social change: a case study analysis of the role students played in the liberalisation of sex and sexuality in public policy.* Dublin City University. https://doras.dcu.ie/21375/1/Steve\_Conlon\_Final\_Submitted\_Thesis.pdf

Corcoran, J. (2002, October). *New militancy on campuses | an phoblacht*. Anphoblacht.Com. https://www.anphoblacht.com/contents/9311

Debord, G. (1967). Society of the spectacle. In *Marxists.org*. [https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/debord/society.htm?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Deleuze, G. (1979, February). *A thousand plateaus v: The state apparatus and war-machines II, lecture 03, 20 november 1979 - Gilles Deleuze | the deleuze seminars*. Gilles Deleuze | The Deleuze Seminars. https://deleuze.cla.purdue.edu/lecture/lecture-03-10/

Deleuze, G. (1986). Foucault, lecture 12, 28 January 1986 . In *Gilles Deleuze | The Deleuze Seminars*. https://deleuze.cla.purdue.edu/lecture/lecture-12/

Deleuze, G. (1990). Postscript on the Societies of Control. In *The Anarchist Library*. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/gilles-deleuze-postscript-on-the-societies-of-control

Deleuze, G., Guattari, F., & Massumi, B. (2005). *A thousand plateaus*. University Of Minnesota Press. https://files.libcom.org/files/A%20Thousand%20Plateaus.pdf (Original work published 1980)

Deleuze, G., & Guattari, F. (2009). *Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophrenia*. Penguin Books. (Original work published 1972)

Dickinson, J., & Day, M. (2018, September 5). *David versus goliath: The past, present and future of students’ unions in the UK - Hepi*. HEPI. https://www.hepi.ac.uk/reports/david-versus-goliath-past-present-future-students-unions-uk/

Dolhinow, R. (2017). Activism on the corporate campus it just doesn’t have that you know what anymore . *Australian Universities” Review*, *59*(2). https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1157054.pdf

Dolhinow, R. (2020). Commodified dissent: The future of student activism? In *www.societyandspace.org*. [https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/commodified-dissent-the-future-of-student-activism](https://www.societyandspace.org/articles/commodified-dissent-the-future-of-student-activism?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Dolhinow, R. (2020b). We don’t need your permission: The era of non-affiliated student activism. *Radical Teacher*, *118*. https://doi.org/10.5195/rt.2020.700

Flood, A. (2009). *Dublin student activism at the end of the 1980’s – anarchist writers*. Pageabode.Com. https://anarchism.pageabode.com/dublin-student-activism-at-the-end-of-the-1980s/index.html

Foucault, M. (1972). *The archaeology of knowledge and the discourse on language*. Pantheon Books. (Original work published 1969)

Foucault, M. (1975). *Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison*. Pantheon Books.

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In *Michel Foucault, Info.* Michel Foucault, Info. https://foucault.info/documents/foucault.power/

Fukuyama, F. (1992). *The end of history and the last man*. Penguin.

Harvey, D. (2007). *A brief history of neoliberalism*. OUP Oxford.

Jacobs, K., & Malpas, J. (2022). C.W. Mills’ notion of the ‘social milieu’ and its relevance for contemporary society. *Thesis Eleven*, *172*(1), 166–181\. [https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136221133211](https://doi.org/10.1177/07255136221133211?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Kitchin, R., O’Callaghan, C., Boyle, M., Gleeson, J., & Keaveney, K. (2012). Placing neoliberalism: The rise and fall of Ireland’s celtic tiger. Environment and Planning A: Economy and Space, 44(6), 1302–1326\. [https://doi.org/10.1068/a44349](https://doi.org/10.1068/a44349?ref=aontachtmedia.ie) 

Lazzarato, M., & O’Neill, M. (2006). The machine. In *transversal texts*. [https://transversal.at/transversal/1106/lazzarato/en](https://transversal.at/transversal/1106/lazzarato/en?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Loyal, S. (2017). Bourdieu’s theory of the state. In Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-58350-5

Jonathan, J., & Hoque, Z. (2025). How business‐like Operations shape Student Union values and accountability: Accounts of publicness and privateness discourse in universities. *Financial Accountability &Amp; Management*. https://doi.org/10.1111/faam.12428

Laberge, J.-S. (2024). Transversality, or how not to reproduce the organisations you fight. *Deleuze and Guattari Studies*, *18*(1), 98–119\. https://doi.org/10.3366/dlgs.2024.0544

Laclau, E., & Mouffe, C. (1989). *Hegemony & socialist strategy towards a radical democratic politics*. London Verso Publ.

Lenin, V. (1918). *The State and Revolution*. Www.Marxists.Org. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm

Lukács, G. (1923). History & Class Consciousness. In *Marxists.org*. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lukacs/works/history/

Lukács, G. (2001). *Tailism and the Dialectic* (E. Leslie, Ed.). Platypus1917\. [https://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/readings/lukacs\_tailismdialecticclassconsciousness.pdf](https://platypus1917.org/wp-content/uploads/readings/lukacs%5Ftailismdialecticclassconsciousness.pdf?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

MacNamee, D. (2018). *TCDSU presidents through the decades*. University Times. https://universitytimes.ie/2018/02/tcdsu-presidents-through-the-decades/

Molnárfi, L. (2023). Photo-Ops and Goodie Bags: Co-Optation of Student Unions . *Social & Political Review (Trinity College Dublin)*, *33*(1), 92–107\. [https://trinityspr.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2023-spr-vol.-xxxiii.pdf](https://trinityspr.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/2023-spr-vol.-xxxiii.pdf?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Mulderrig, J. (2024). Critical policy discourse analysis in higher education. *Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Education*. https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.1702

NUS Charity. (2011). *The Values Crossroads*. National Union of Students. https://drive.google.com/file/d/1usa\_WMXmuz-bXIIH9c5rr8HW5x9cWB\_\_/view?usp=sharing

Parenti, M. (1997). *Blackshirts and reds: Rational Fascism and the overthrow of Communism*. City Lights Books.

Raaper, R. (2018). Students’ unions and consumerist policy discourses in English higher education. *Critical Studies in Education*, *61*(2), 245–261\. [https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1417877](https://doi.org/10.1080/17508487.2017.1417877?ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Sabri, D. (2011). What’s wrong with ‘the student experience?’ *Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education*, *32*(5), 657–667\. https://doi.org/10.1080/01596306.2011.620750

Samila, F. (2024). Critical Discourse Analysis of the Representation of Trade Unions in the UK Parliamentary Debate. *Malmö University Publications*. https://mau.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1869918&dswid=8163

Selznick, P. (1949). *TVA and the Grass Roots*. University of California Press. https://dn720204.ca.archive.org/0/items/tvandgrassrootss00selzrich/tvandgrassrootss00selzrich.pdf

Sibertin-Blanc, G. (2016). *State and politics : Deleuze and Guattari on Marx* (A. Hodges, Trans.). Semiotext(E), Cambridge, Mass.

Trinity College Dublin Students’ Union. (2026). *16 Handbooks*. Google Drive. [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SuQJzZfmq7aShfRkL\_3ctLwY1-iXM0d2?usp=sharing](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1SuQJzZfmq7aShfRkL%5F3ctLwY1-iXM0d2?usp=sharing&ref=aontachtmedia.ie)

Trinity News Archive. (n.d.). *Trinity News Archive*. Trinitynewsarchive.Ie. Retrieved August 7, 2026, from https://www.trinitynewsarchive.ie/

Šiljak, H. (2024). *Amandla Ngawethu: Trinity’s Boycott of Apartheid South Africa*.

Walsh, J. (2018). Higher education in Ireland, 1922–2016\. Palgrave Macmillan.

Wen, P. (2015, January 28). *Crises and opportunities : Strengthened European Union Economic Governance after the 2008 financial crisis*. Universiteitleiden.Nl. https://scholarlypublications.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/31618