Page 130 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 130
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
of consumption’ (Ritzer, 2010) align themselves with any other provider
of consumer experiences, where the ‘production’ of academic life has all
been taken care of. In such a discourse, students are not necessarily con-
ceptualized as empowered consumers either (Brooks, 2017) but trapped
instead within an ‘iron cage’, even before they set foot in the workplace.
Yet, despite a distorted picture that neoliberal HE policy discourse may
portray, a postdigital understanding of ‘the student experience’ could yet
offer helpful insights into possible routes of resistance.
Introduction
The ‘student-as-consumer’ approach in HE policy has been critically ex-
amined by a multitude of authors in the last two decades (Driscoll and
Wicks, 1998; Clarke, Newman, Smith, Vidler, and Westmarland, 2007;
Molesworth, Nixon, and Scullion, 2009; Brooks, 2017; Bunce, Baird and
Jones, 2017; Peters, Jandrić and Hayes, 2018; Hayes, 2018a; Hayes, forth-
coming, 2019). Students were described as ‘customers’ in Higher Education
in the Learning Society (Dearing 1997) and since then, higher education
institutions (HEIs) ‘have increasingly had to operate under forces of mar-
ketisation which demand competitiveness, efficiency and consumer sat-
isfaction’ (Bunce, Baird and Jones, 2017: p. 1958). To place these develop-
ments within a broader context of ‘neoliberalism’, authors have suggested
that this manifests as ‘a specific economic discourse or philosophy which
has become dominant and effective in world economic relations as a con-
sequence of super-power sponsorship’ (Olssen and Peters, 2005: p. 314).
Whilst at an economic level, neoliberalism is linked to globalization, ‘it
is a particular element of globalization, in that it constitutes the form
through which domestic and global economic relations are structured’.
(Olssen and Peters, 2005: p. 314). It should therefore be understood as ‘a
politically imposed discourse’ (Olssen and Peters, 2005: p. 314).
The rhetoric that accompanies neoliberalism in HE tends to com-
prise ‘common sense’ but powerful forms of reasoning. It has been de-
scribed by some as the language of ‘new capitalism’, which is character-
ized ‘by a ‘restructuring’ of the relations between the economic, political
and social (Jessop, 2000; Fairclough, 2000; Simpson and Mayr, 2010).
This term is helpful in the word ‘new’ because it demonstrates that signif-
icant changes have taken place in our language, in order to accommodate
new corporate policies within UK HEIs (Hayes, 2019 forthcoming). This
means that alternative values can become hushed, along with other ways
of organising academic labour (Couldry, 2010: p. 12). Indeed, a neoliberal
agenda in HEIs has been supported for some time now by commodified
forms of language referred to as buzz phrases (Mautner, 2005; Feek, 2010;
128
of consumption’ (Ritzer, 2010) align themselves with any other provider
of consumer experiences, where the ‘production’ of academic life has all
been taken care of. In such a discourse, students are not necessarily con-
ceptualized as empowered consumers either (Brooks, 2017) but trapped
instead within an ‘iron cage’, even before they set foot in the workplace.
Yet, despite a distorted picture that neoliberal HE policy discourse may
portray, a postdigital understanding of ‘the student experience’ could yet
offer helpful insights into possible routes of resistance.
Introduction
The ‘student-as-consumer’ approach in HE policy has been critically ex-
amined by a multitude of authors in the last two decades (Driscoll and
Wicks, 1998; Clarke, Newman, Smith, Vidler, and Westmarland, 2007;
Molesworth, Nixon, and Scullion, 2009; Brooks, 2017; Bunce, Baird and
Jones, 2017; Peters, Jandrić and Hayes, 2018; Hayes, 2018a; Hayes, forth-
coming, 2019). Students were described as ‘customers’ in Higher Education
in the Learning Society (Dearing 1997) and since then, higher education
institutions (HEIs) ‘have increasingly had to operate under forces of mar-
ketisation which demand competitiveness, efficiency and consumer sat-
isfaction’ (Bunce, Baird and Jones, 2017: p. 1958). To place these develop-
ments within a broader context of ‘neoliberalism’, authors have suggested
that this manifests as ‘a specific economic discourse or philosophy which
has become dominant and effective in world economic relations as a con-
sequence of super-power sponsorship’ (Olssen and Peters, 2005: p. 314).
Whilst at an economic level, neoliberalism is linked to globalization, ‘it
is a particular element of globalization, in that it constitutes the form
through which domestic and global economic relations are structured’.
(Olssen and Peters, 2005: p. 314). It should therefore be understood as ‘a
politically imposed discourse’ (Olssen and Peters, 2005: p. 314).
The rhetoric that accompanies neoliberalism in HE tends to com-
prise ‘common sense’ but powerful forms of reasoning. It has been de-
scribed by some as the language of ‘new capitalism’, which is character-
ized ‘by a ‘restructuring’ of the relations between the economic, political
and social (Jessop, 2000; Fairclough, 2000; Simpson and Mayr, 2010).
This term is helpful in the word ‘new’ because it demonstrates that signif-
icant changes have taken place in our language, in order to accommodate
new corporate policies within UK HEIs (Hayes, 2019 forthcoming). This
means that alternative values can become hushed, along with other ways
of organising academic labour (Couldry, 2010: p. 12). Indeed, a neoliberal
agenda in HEIs has been supported for some time now by commodified
forms of language referred to as buzz phrases (Mautner, 2005; Feek, 2010;
128
