Page 14 - Šolsko polje, XXIX, 2018, no. 1-2: The Language of Neoliberal Education, ed. Mitja Sardoč
P. 14
šolsko polje, letnik xxix, številka 1–2
of scholars began to focus on what may be loosely called the neoliberal ed-
ucational agenda, highlighting, in various guises and degrees, its dangers
and educational fallacies. Given the purposes of this paper, I cannot sum-
marize the whole range of criticisms against neoliberalism in education or
scrutinize the documents and publications through which the neoliber-
al agenda is delivered worldwide. However, in order to consistently devel-
op my argument a kind of stipulative definition of neoliberalism has to be
given. Thus far, neoliberalism has been mainly understood as:
a) A political and developmental model spanning diverse fields, includ-
ing education and schooling. This model places a strong emphasis
on economy as a natural force producing unpredictable changes and
constant renewal.1 Within this framework, both “individuals” and
“training systems”—as the European Council states—“must adapt
to change”. (European Council, 2000) Education and learning are
thus positioned as needing to constantly chase new developments in
the market economy (Apple, 1995, 2000; Connell, 2013; Hill, 2004).
In Brown’s words, “we are everywhere homo oeconomicus and only
homo oeconomicus.” (Brown, 2015: p. 33)
b) An ideology permeating the social and educational space by which a
peculiar vision of individuals, students, learning and educational in-
stitutions is delivered (Clarke, 2012; Mahiri, 2005; Masschelein and
Simons, 2008, 2013; Power and Whitty, 2010). This ideology plac-
es a strong emphasis on ongoing competition at all levels of educa-
tion and society while weakening a vision of education as a site for
sharing, togetherness and the emergence of newness. As a caveat,
one peculiar characteristic of neoliberal ideology is that it presents
itself, in a sense, as the only game in town. Everything falling outside
the given register of performativity, economic advantage and com-
petition is increasingly regarded as inconsequential, if not senseless
at all. Such a tautological nature of neoliberalism makes criticizing
and challenging its assumptions extremely difficult for, according to
Hursh and Henderson “neoliberal policies” create a severe limitation
of “public discourse”, and “what can be said and thought” within the
1 Emphasis on the overwhelming importance of economy is widespread within critiques
of the neoliberal educational agenda. In this regard, Olssen and Peters argue that under
a neoliberal regime, “education is represented as an input-output system that can be re-
duced to an economic production function.” (Olssen and Peters, 2005: 324) Along similar
lines, David Harvey highlights that neoliberalism “seeks to bring all human action into
the domain of the market.” (Harvey, 2005: 3). For a thoughtful discussion of how and why
standardization works in the neoliberal educational agenda, see Mahiri, 2005: 72–88.
12
of scholars began to focus on what may be loosely called the neoliberal ed-
ucational agenda, highlighting, in various guises and degrees, its dangers
and educational fallacies. Given the purposes of this paper, I cannot sum-
marize the whole range of criticisms against neoliberalism in education or
scrutinize the documents and publications through which the neoliber-
al agenda is delivered worldwide. However, in order to consistently devel-
op my argument a kind of stipulative definition of neoliberalism has to be
given. Thus far, neoliberalism has been mainly understood as:
a) A political and developmental model spanning diverse fields, includ-
ing education and schooling. This model places a strong emphasis
on economy as a natural force producing unpredictable changes and
constant renewal.1 Within this framework, both “individuals” and
“training systems”—as the European Council states—“must adapt
to change”. (European Council, 2000) Education and learning are
thus positioned as needing to constantly chase new developments in
the market economy (Apple, 1995, 2000; Connell, 2013; Hill, 2004).
In Brown’s words, “we are everywhere homo oeconomicus and only
homo oeconomicus.” (Brown, 2015: p. 33)
b) An ideology permeating the social and educational space by which a
peculiar vision of individuals, students, learning and educational in-
stitutions is delivered (Clarke, 2012; Mahiri, 2005; Masschelein and
Simons, 2008, 2013; Power and Whitty, 2010). This ideology plac-
es a strong emphasis on ongoing competition at all levels of educa-
tion and society while weakening a vision of education as a site for
sharing, togetherness and the emergence of newness. As a caveat,
one peculiar characteristic of neoliberal ideology is that it presents
itself, in a sense, as the only game in town. Everything falling outside
the given register of performativity, economic advantage and com-
petition is increasingly regarded as inconsequential, if not senseless
at all. Such a tautological nature of neoliberalism makes criticizing
and challenging its assumptions extremely difficult for, according to
Hursh and Henderson “neoliberal policies” create a severe limitation
of “public discourse”, and “what can be said and thought” within the
1 Emphasis on the overwhelming importance of economy is widespread within critiques
of the neoliberal educational agenda. In this regard, Olssen and Peters argue that under
a neoliberal regime, “education is represented as an input-output system that can be re-
duced to an economic production function.” (Olssen and Peters, 2005: 324) Along similar
lines, David Harvey highlights that neoliberalism “seeks to bring all human action into
the domain of the market.” (Harvey, 2005: 3). For a thoughtful discussion of how and why
standardization works in the neoliberal educational agenda, see Mahiri, 2005: 72–88.
12
