1 Accessing knowledge in the university of the future: lessons from Australia Leesa Wheelahan University of Melbourne Introduction Durkheim argued that theoretical knowledge is society’s ‘sacred’ knowledge – the knowledge that it uses to think about itself. Universities have, since medieval times, been a key site for mediating access to the sacred, but do they continue to do so in mass and near universal, stratified systems of higher education? This is a key question for the university of the 21 st century. At stake is the question of democratic access to ‘society’s conversation’. This chapter argues that social justice requires access for all to the sacred, yet the stratification of higher education systems means that the access mediated by universities to this knowledge is not equal. Many (mainly wealthy) countries are approaching universal systems of higher education. ‘Universal access for all’ brings with it the promise of realising the meritocracy in which all have the opportunity to achieve according to their ability rather than their social class. However, unless such access is accompanied by a theory of knowledge, universal higher education becomes a key mechanism for reproducing social disadvantage, albeit in a less visible form. With the advent of universal systems, the formation of ‘consciousness, identity and desire’ (Bernstein 2000) is no longer be mediated by mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion from higher education, but by the type of higher education that students have access to. The chapter relates these arguments to an examination of higher education in Australia. The first section of this chapter is a Durkheimian argument about the nature of knowledge, its sacredness, and its role in society and in constructing autonomous individuals. The next section critically appraises Trow’s extraordinary, prescient, and enduring analysis in which he distinguishes between elite, mass and universal higher education systems to explore the way they mediate access to different types of knowledge, while later rejecting his conclusion that such structuring is necessary and good. This is followed by a discussion of vocationalism in Australian universities and then an exploration of the way in which the stratification of higher education distributes different forms of access to consciousness, identity and desire. The following section discusses the reasons why there has been a retreat from knowledge in higher education curriculum, and this is followed by an argument about why it is necessary to have a theory of knowledge to underpin curriculum. The final section considers the way in which a theory of knowledge can be used to support more democratic access to knowledge in the university of the 21 st century, and thus to society’s conversation, even in more vocationalised higher education programs. A Durkheimian analysis of knowledge Durkheim (2001) argued that all societies distinguish between two forms of knowledge – the sacred and profane. Esoteric or abstract theoretical knowledge is sacred knowledge because it has its origins in religion, whereas profane knowledge is knowledge of the profane, everyday world. The distinction between sacred and profane knowledge, or theoretical and everyday knowledge, is universal and each is necessary for the existence of society. Knowledge of, and life in, the profane, everyday world is necessary for society to materially reproduce itself.