Page 114 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 114
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
discourse implies that action has to be taken urgently and immediately
and that there is no option other than to act. According to Nordin (2014),
it is especially evident in the EU documents from 2005 onwards, when
EU realised its progress towards realizing Lisbon goals was very limited
and from 2008 onwards, when global economic crisis emerged.6 The result
shows that this normative discourse is becoming an important and pow-
erful instrument of the EU seeking public legitimacy for extensive (EU
and national) reforms (Robertson, 2008; Nordin, 2014: p. 109).
Governance of Knowledge
As evident from the discussion above in all presented forms of governance
– governance of goals, comparisons and problems/crisis, apparently objec-
tive expert data play a key role. Apple (2001: p. 413) points out the essen-
tial advantage of the neoliberal discourse is in its efforts for political strat-
egies to become neutral. When public policies and policy instruments
are considered to be neutral, they turn into technical solutions to policy
problems and are thus in lesser need of critical assessment or of being dis-
cussed by a wide circle of actors (Cort, 2010). With apparent neutrality
(and the resulting emphasised role of experts and the expert knowledge),
the EU neoliberal educational governance steers the member states to-
wards achieving political (economic oriented) goals. The neoliberal shift
towards economic goals is not only a shift in terms of the content of edu-
cation, but also encompasses the entire ideology on how to steer society.
The neoliberal ideology as a means of steering society in the early
stages of reinforcement of mutual cooperation in the field of education,
was not only appealing for the EU because of the changes in the aim of ed-
ucation towards economic objectives (e.g. Holford and Mohorčič Špolar,
2012), but has also proven highly suitable when the EU was entering a sen-
sitive policy field, where the member states had previously not been will-
ing to relinquish their political power. It seems that it was only neutrali-
ty of the neoliberal discourse that was able to persuade them into a more
committed mutual cooperation. Although cooperation between member
states in the field of education remains non-mandatory, the new mode of
EU (neoliberal) governance instruments contain a number of drivers that
steer member states towards acting in the agreed-upon direction. Haahr
6 Schmidt (2008) recognizes the contribution of similar approaches – ideational institu-
tionalism (Hay, 2001); constructivist institutionalism (Hay, 2006) and strategic construc-
tivism (Jabko, 2006) – to this understanding. She justifies the added value of discursive
institutionalism in terms of its focus on understanding discourse as interactive process.
Since the main aim of this article is to explain the interactive process of translating neo-
liberal discourse from the EU to the national level, the article uses particularly discursive
institutionalism as theoretical background.
112
discourse implies that action has to be taken urgently and immediately
and that there is no option other than to act. According to Nordin (2014),
it is especially evident in the EU documents from 2005 onwards, when
EU realised its progress towards realizing Lisbon goals was very limited
and from 2008 onwards, when global economic crisis emerged.6 The result
shows that this normative discourse is becoming an important and pow-
erful instrument of the EU seeking public legitimacy for extensive (EU
and national) reforms (Robertson, 2008; Nordin, 2014: p. 109).
Governance of Knowledge
As evident from the discussion above in all presented forms of governance
– governance of goals, comparisons and problems/crisis, apparently objec-
tive expert data play a key role. Apple (2001: p. 413) points out the essen-
tial advantage of the neoliberal discourse is in its efforts for political strat-
egies to become neutral. When public policies and policy instruments
are considered to be neutral, they turn into technical solutions to policy
problems and are thus in lesser need of critical assessment or of being dis-
cussed by a wide circle of actors (Cort, 2010). With apparent neutrality
(and the resulting emphasised role of experts and the expert knowledge),
the EU neoliberal educational governance steers the member states to-
wards achieving political (economic oriented) goals. The neoliberal shift
towards economic goals is not only a shift in terms of the content of edu-
cation, but also encompasses the entire ideology on how to steer society.
The neoliberal ideology as a means of steering society in the early
stages of reinforcement of mutual cooperation in the field of education,
was not only appealing for the EU because of the changes in the aim of ed-
ucation towards economic objectives (e.g. Holford and Mohorčič Špolar,
2012), but has also proven highly suitable when the EU was entering a sen-
sitive policy field, where the member states had previously not been will-
ing to relinquish their political power. It seems that it was only neutrali-
ty of the neoliberal discourse that was able to persuade them into a more
committed mutual cooperation. Although cooperation between member
states in the field of education remains non-mandatory, the new mode of
EU (neoliberal) governance instruments contain a number of drivers that
steer member states towards acting in the agreed-upon direction. Haahr
6 Schmidt (2008) recognizes the contribution of similar approaches – ideational institu-
tionalism (Hay, 2001); constructivist institutionalism (Hay, 2006) and strategic construc-
tivism (Jabko, 2006) – to this understanding. She justifies the added value of discursive
institutionalism in terms of its focus on understanding discourse as interactive process.
Since the main aim of this article is to explain the interactive process of translating neo-
liberal discourse from the EU to the national level, the article uses particularly discursive
institutionalism as theoretical background.
112
