If it was the professor's intended goal to write a book that fails to communicate (in any viable manner) her philosophical thesis/argument...she has succeeded admirably. This book is a jumble of semi-nonsensical postmodern-esque obscurantism - w/ a smattering of Gadamer's moderate philosophical hermeneutics thrown in for no seemingly discernible purpose.Montaigne afforded authors three chances to communicate their message - if they failed after the third read, he would retire the book. Admittedly, I'm not as generous with my time or patience as was Montaigne!The author's interpretation of and differentiation between "discipline" and "control" (Late Capitalism?) is THE difference upon which the entire "zombie" thesis (lack of thinking/over-thinking/no-thinking) apparently hinges. In relation to these ideas, the author references both Deleuze and Foucault, but one wonders how much Foucault the author has actually read, specifically regarding the idea of the fragmentation or dissolution of human "subjectivity"?One reviewer of this book seemed confused, asking in a serious manner, "What is this book actually about?" Truly, I can't answer that question with any sense of confidence. If the book was interesting and well-written, I was considering her text on Jane Austen - (The Jane Austen Rules, 2014). However, after my unpleasant experience with Zombie University, I won't be purchasing that Austen book.James M. MagriniFormer: Philosophy & Ethics/College of Dupage