Page 115 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 115
. štremfel ■ european neoliberal discourse and slovenian educational space
(2004: p.210) argues that neoliberal governance includes a touch of free-
dom, yet simultaneously also the appeal of its use. Jacobsson (2004) at-
tributes the secret behind it to a special combination of pressure it exerts
and the actors’ initiative and desire for voluntary policy change that it
triggers. What makes neoliberal ideology (and consequently EU neoliber-
al educational governance) influential is the absence of questioning, sur-
render to what is seen as the implacable and irreversible logic of social re-
ality (Bauman, 1999: p. 127).
Europeanization Through the Lens of Discursive
Institutionalism
In theorizing EU influence of national policy, new institutionalist theo-
ries play an important role. The new institutionalisms (older new institu-
tionalism of rational choice, sociological institutionalism, historical in-
stitutionalism, and more recent new institutionalisms, such as discursive
institutionalism and constructivist institutionalism) share the conviction
that the social world and actors’ decision-making cannot be properly ex-
plained without taking into account the role of institutions in constitut-
ing the conditions under which actors make their moves and how they
expect others to behave (Alasuutari, 2015: p. 164). ‘‘The emphasis in the
new institutionalism is on how people actively construct meaning with-
in institutionalized settings through language and other symbolic rep-
resentations’’ (Meyer and Rowan, 2006: p. 6 in Nordin, 2014: p. 111). Yet
there are significant differences between different new institutionalism
approaches as to how they define the relationship between institutions
and behaviour, and how they explain the origins of, and changes within,
institutions (Alasuutari, 2015). Schmidt (2008) argues that the original
versions of the three older new-institutionalisms tend to provide analyti-
cal ground for explaining continuity, but are less useful when we need to
explain change. Discursive institutionalism therefore presents an attempt
to generate more complex understandings on how structural constraints
(particularly norms, values, world views, but also historical path depend-
ence) can interact with discursive and symbolic practices, ideational flow
and the agents abilities to influence the institutions and the course of
change (Schmidt, 2012: p. 708).7 Discourse as defined by Schmidt (2008),
serves as a more generic term that encompasses not only the substantive
content of ideas but also the interactive process by which ideas are con-
veyed to influence the action of policy actors.
7 E.g. Brine (2006) reports that an important argument in these documents is that the low-
skilled population present high risk for knowledge-economy.
113
(2004: p.210) argues that neoliberal governance includes a touch of free-
dom, yet simultaneously also the appeal of its use. Jacobsson (2004) at-
tributes the secret behind it to a special combination of pressure it exerts
and the actors’ initiative and desire for voluntary policy change that it
triggers. What makes neoliberal ideology (and consequently EU neoliber-
al educational governance) influential is the absence of questioning, sur-
render to what is seen as the implacable and irreversible logic of social re-
ality (Bauman, 1999: p. 127).
Europeanization Through the Lens of Discursive
Institutionalism
In theorizing EU influence of national policy, new institutionalist theo-
ries play an important role. The new institutionalisms (older new institu-
tionalism of rational choice, sociological institutionalism, historical in-
stitutionalism, and more recent new institutionalisms, such as discursive
institutionalism and constructivist institutionalism) share the conviction
that the social world and actors’ decision-making cannot be properly ex-
plained without taking into account the role of institutions in constitut-
ing the conditions under which actors make their moves and how they
expect others to behave (Alasuutari, 2015: p. 164). ‘‘The emphasis in the
new institutionalism is on how people actively construct meaning with-
in institutionalized settings through language and other symbolic rep-
resentations’’ (Meyer and Rowan, 2006: p. 6 in Nordin, 2014: p. 111). Yet
there are significant differences between different new institutionalism
approaches as to how they define the relationship between institutions
and behaviour, and how they explain the origins of, and changes within,
institutions (Alasuutari, 2015). Schmidt (2008) argues that the original
versions of the three older new-institutionalisms tend to provide analyti-
cal ground for explaining continuity, but are less useful when we need to
explain change. Discursive institutionalism therefore presents an attempt
to generate more complex understandings on how structural constraints
(particularly norms, values, world views, but also historical path depend-
ence) can interact with discursive and symbolic practices, ideational flow
and the agents abilities to influence the institutions and the course of
change (Schmidt, 2012: p. 708).7 Discourse as defined by Schmidt (2008),
serves as a more generic term that encompasses not only the substantive
content of ideas but also the interactive process by which ideas are con-
veyed to influence the action of policy actors.
7 E.g. Brine (2006) reports that an important argument in these documents is that the low-
skilled population present high risk for knowledge-economy.
113
