Paper at AERA 2013, Symposium ” Neoliberal Education and Political Subjectivity” Economic and Political Subjectivities in Public Discourses on Education
Eva Reimers, Linköping University
Project ions based on hist orical relat ionships (bearing in mind t he
uncert aint ies of fut ure project ions) suggest t hat if all O ECD count ries could boost t heir average PI SA scores by 25 point s over t he next t wo decades, t he aggregat e gain of O ECD G D P would be USD 115 t rillion over t he lifetime of t he generat ion born in 20 10 …Bringing all countries up t o t he O ECD ’s best performing educat ion syst em in PI SA, Finland, would result in gains in t he order of USD 260 t rillion. I t is t he qualit y of learning out comes, not t he lengt h of schooling, which makes t he difference. (O ECD , 20 12b, p. 90)
Efficient invest ment in human capit al t hrough educat ion and t raining syst ems is an essent ial component of Europe's st rat egy to deliver t h e high levels of sust ainable, knowledge-based growt h and jobs that lie at t he heart of t he Lisbon st rat egy, at t he same t ime as promot ing personal fulfilment , social cohesion and act ive cit izenship (European Union, 20 0 9, p. 1)
A qualit y educat ion t hroughout life is t he birt hright of every woman, man and child. I n t urn, educat ion, part icularly t hat of girls and women, aids progress across all-development goals.(UN ESCO , 20 11, p. 5)
Mult ilat eral organizat ions, in t he form of economic cooperat ion, polit ical cooperat ion, or cooperat ion aiming at fost ering peace and human right s, at t ribut e considerable int erest and funding int o t he field of educat ion. T heir impact on policies, public discourses, and research is considerable. I t is t herefore import ant to critically explore how t hese organizat ions
conceive of educat ion, and what t his makes way for. T he cit at ions above point to educat ion as a means t o fost er economic growt h and progress, but also t o educat ion as a human right t hat increases opport unit ies for t he learning subject s. T his evinces simult aneous
art iculat ions of “compet ing paradigms” in educat ional mult ilateralism (Chan, 20 07).
right s discourse, and discourses on cult ural ident it y. She found t he lat ter in document s from t he W orld Social Forum. T his is not a formal mult ilat eral organizat ion, and t herefore not included in t he dat a for t his paper. T he salience of different discursive frames and rat ionales in t he mult ilat eral educat ional discourse t hat t he cit at ions evinces, have consequences for how to make sense of educat ion in bot h a global and local perspect ive. W hat sort of educat ion, who t he educat ion is for, and what t he expect ed out comes are. I n t his paper I will t herefore raise quest ions concerning t he possible subject ivit ies t hat emerge from how t he organizat ions formulat e object ives, aims, and means in t he field of educat ion.
O ECD , EU and UN ESCO are mult ilat eral organizat ions act ing on a global educat ional arena, sett ing t he agenda for educat ional policies, and forming educat ional discourses. T his agenda can be seen as bot h a result of and what has brought about , t he power and salience of not ions and expressions such as know ledge economy, human capital, know ledge capital, human resources, et c., i.e. a way of making sense of educat ion as int rinsic t o economic development (Robert son, 200 5). T his knowledge economy discourse, and by discourse I do not refer only t o language but also t o pract ices and mat erialit ies, fuses not ions and pract ices of economy wit h t hose of educat ion.
I n t he past years t here has been a global movement of educat ional reforms dominat ed by neoliberal ideas (Ball, 200 6; 20 12; Buras & Apple, 20 0 5; Lindblad &
Popkewit z, 20 04). I n order t o explore if and how some of t he most dominant mult ilat eral organizat ions cont ribute t o t hese reforms and the shift s in how educat ion is dominant ly perceived, t his paper focus on (global) discourses on educat ion in t hree mult ilat eral
organizat ions. T he aim is t o employ public discourses, in t he form of policy document s from O ECD , EU and UN ESCO in order t o explore how economic and political subject ivit ies simult aneously emerge and are obfuscat ed in global discourses on educat ion. By using t he
simple question “W hy Education?” as point of departure I explore how education is const it ut ed in t he document s and what sort of subject ivit ies t hat are presumed and t hus const it ut ed in and by t hese document s.
Perspectives and theoretical framework
T he paper draws on post st ruct ural perspect ives on t ext s and discourses (Laclau & Mouffe, 1985). T he post st ruct ural perspect ive point s t o a non-foundat ional and non-int ent ional approach. Consequent ly, t he t ext s are not regarded as reflect ions of ideologies or specific aims. T he focus of t he st udy is t herefore not to ident ify int ent ions or object ives, but t o invest igat e how subject ivit ies and educat ion are const it ut ed in t he t ext . T his is furt her emphasized by viewing t he t ext s from a post humanist perspect ive which shift s t he focus from regarding t ext s as human product s t o an approach where t hey are seen as product ive mat erialit ies (Barad, 200 7; D eleuze & G uat t ari, 20 0 4), i.e., a shift of interest from how t hey have been made and what t heir int ent ions are to what t hey make way for.
Anot her point of departure are Fairclough’s not ions of “int erdiscursivit y” and
“medialization of politics” which point to how discourses are repeated in different contexts, drawing on each ot her, and hereby bot h affirming and displacing each ot her, and t o how polit ics is present ed and made int elligible in public media (Fairclough, 1995; 20 0 0). I am fully aware of the differences between Fairclough’s view of discourse as ideology and a product of human int erest s and int ent ions, and t he nonfoundat ional concept io n of
discourse t hat signify discourse t heory. N onet heless, I have not so far been convinced about a definit e opposit ion or incompat ibilit y between discourse analysis as a met hodology, and post ruct uralist and posthumanist t heories. I find post humanist concepts such as
t errit oralisat ion, ret errit orialisat ion, and molar lines working in a very similar way as concept s such as art iculat ions, discursive format ions, t ext ualit y, int ert ext ualit y, discourses
and hegemony. I find t hat t hese met hodological and t heoret ical perspect ives makes it possible to “map” or deconstruct intersections and “pluggings” of different practices, art iculat ions and/or materialisat ions as open and undecided assemblages/discursive format ions, and explore how t hese assemblages/discursive format ions make possible and obfuscat e differing possibilit ies in t erms of t he aims of educat ion and subject posit ions of t hose who are t o be educat ed. T he difference bet ween using a post st ruct ural perspect ive and adhering t o a more st rict crit ical discourse analysis is apparent in relat ion to a previous st udy by Robert son (200 5) where she used crit ical discourse analysis for analyses of
document s from t he W orld Bank, O ECD and the UK government. T he aim of her st udy was t o ascert ain t he ideological underpinning of t he document s, whereas t he object ive of t he present st udy is t o explore what t he art iculat ions of educat ion make way for.
I n invest igat ing const itut ions of subject ivit y in discourses on educat ion I am also indebted to Biestas’ analytical concepts of education as encompassing qualification, socializat ion and subject ificat ion (Biesta, 20 10). T hese are useful in t he analysis of how educat ion is const it ut ed and what t hese const itut ions ent ail in relat ion t o knowledge and subject ivit y. D rawing on post st ruct uralist and post humanist t heory, and informed by t he philosophy by Biest a, t he paper is based on a not ion of educat ion as on t he one hand pract ices, and on t he other hand as polit ics. T he lat t er make me ask t he quest ion about what subject ivit ies emerge from t he not ion of educat ion t hat is const itut ed in t he t ext s.
Method
T he conclusions and argument s are based on discourse analysis of mult ilat eral policy-document s. I n line wit h crit ical discourse analysis, I have ident ified art iculat ions of cent ral concepts. The ambition has been to “map” intertextual articulations, that is how
(de/re)t errit orialisat ions const it ut e differing concept s of what educat ions is and can accomplish. T he aim of t he analysis is t o explore what economic and polit ical subject posit ions are made possible in t hese differing set s of dat a. T he focus is thus on t he document s as product ive, rat her t han as product s.
Data
T he dat a consist s of O ECD , EU and UN ESCO document s. T he choice of document s from t hese organizat ions is informed by an int erested in how educat ion and the subject ivit y of t hose subject ed t o educat ion are art iculat ed on a mult ilat eral global arena which are likely (or not) t o have consequences for policymakers and individuals in different part s of t he world.
T he cooperat ion in t he EU has t wo main and int ert wined object ives. O ne is economic cooperat ion to ensure cont inuous economic growt h, and t he ot her is polit ical cooperat ion in order to secure peace in Europe. T he EU form common educat ional policies for Europe, influence nat ional educat ional reforms, as well as fund educat ional project s wit hin and out side t he EU. T he aim of EU document s on educat ion is t o use educat ion in order t o make Europe more compat ible on a global market (European Union, 20 0 9). EU educat ional init iat ives have been – and are – influent ial in inst igat ing policy changes. O ne example is t he mainst reaming of higher educat ion in t he Bologna process.
T he object ive of O ECD is “t o promot e policies t hat will improve t he economic and social well-being of people around t he world” (UN ESCO , 20 13a). OECD is influent ial on t he global educat ional arena not t he least because of t he Program for I nt ernat ional St udy
Assessment (PI SA), which is launched and monit ored by t he O ECD . Like t he EU, O ECD is not an expert organizat ion on educat ion. I t s’ object ive is to sust ain economic growt h (Bank, 20 12). As we all know, PI SA is repeat edly referred t o by policymakers and
media-represent at ions of educat ion in different countries. T he out comes of this global ranking is given import ance in national and int ernat ional educat ion policies by t he neoliberal st ress on comparison and competit ion where besides PI SA, rankings from t he I nt ernat ional
Associat ion for t he Evaluat ion of Educat ional Achievement ; T I MMS and PI RLS, inst igat e and are used as argument s for educat ional reforms. T hese int ernat ional ranking syst ems, how t hey are used t o support neoliberal reforms, and t he effect s of t hese reforms have been subject ed t o severe crit ique by educat ional scholars (see e.g., Ball, 200 6; G iroux, 20 0 3; H art ley, 200 8; H ursh & H enderson, 20 11; Lundahl, 20 02; Schuet ze, 200 6) .
D iffering from t he EU and O ECD , which bot h are organizat ions for economic cooperat ion, t he mission of UN ESCO “… is to cont ribut e t o t he building of peace, t he eradicat ion of povert y, sust ainable development and int ercult ural dialogue t hrough educat ion, t he sciences, cult ure, communicat ion and informat ion ”. (UN ESCO , 20 13a). UN ESCO is import ant on t he global educat ional arena by publishing global report s on educat ion, and running educat ional project s in different part s of t he world in cooperat ion not only wit h government s, but also wit h N G O s and companies. Like the EU and O ECD , UN ESCO is an influential agent in global educat ion, not t he least in t he developing count ries. T he t hree organizat ions produce an immense quant it y of document s and
webpages on educat ion. Considering t hat educat ion oft en is regarded as a nat ional task and endeavor t his is int erest ing in it self. For t his st udy I have chosen document s where t he organizat ions present their work and t heir aims.
I have from t he EU analyzed t he document Education T oday 2020 – ET 20 20 –
(European Union, 20 09), where t he commission present s it s educat ional st rat egy t o make the EU into “a world leading knowledge-economy” (European Union, 2009, p. 2) . The O ECD document s I have analyzed are t he lat est annual report “Educat ion at a Glance 20 12”
(O ECD , 20 12a) and t he lat est O ECD report s on educat ion “Educat ion T oday 20 13” (O ECD , 20 12b). T he latt er is a summary report of O ECD work produced in t he recent years. Concerning UN ESCO I have looked at the webpage for t he direct orat e of educat ion (UN ESCO , 2013a) and t he brochure where t he work and goals of t he direct orat e is
present ed (UN ESCO , 20 11). I regard t hese different mult ilat eral document s as int ervent ions in educat ional polit ics and policies.
T he int ended readers of these document s consist of at least four cat egories. T his is salient in t he O ECD document Educat ion at a G lance;
Education at a Glance addresses t he needs of a range of users, from
government s seeking to learn policy lessons t o academics requiring dat a for fuEVA9846EVArt her analysis t o t he general public want ing t o monitor how its country’s schools are progressing in producing world-class students. (O ECD , 20 12a, p. 3)
T he cat egory of officials, such as policymakers and polit icians on nat ional levels, are addressed in t heir capacit y t o influence t he organizat ion and content of nat ional educat ion. T his is reflect ed in recommendat ions on what is needed in order t o improve educat ion. A second cat egory is academics as us. T he int ent ion here is t o present dat a for furt her research, i.e., t o set t he agenda for research on educat ion. A t hird cat egory, which is not salient in t he quote above, consist s of donors and represent at ives of members of t he organizat ions. T his is especially t he case wit h t he UN ESCO document s. I n addit ion, because t he document s are published on t he internet and t hereby made widely accessible, t hey are also aimed at “the public” in a broad sense. T his means t hat t hey on t he one hand can be seen as t ools to set t he public agenda on educat ion and on t he other as means t o st rengt hen t he t ransparency of t he organizat ions.
Education and/as economy Retextualizations of central concepts and ideas
T here are apparent similarit ies bet ween how t he object ives of educat ion are const ruct ed in t hese document s. O ne is how t hey all const it ute educat ion as a tool for prosperit y and a bet t er fut ure. All t hree organizat ions also st ress t he need for lifelong learning as a process t hat begins wit h Early Childhood Educat ion and cont inues t hrough t he whole life course. T he t erminology of st rat egic or overarching goals is also st rikingly similar. T he EU st rat egic objectives “lifelong learning”, “improving quality and efficiency”, “promoting equity, social cohesion and active citizenship”, “enhancing creativity and innovat ion” (European Union, 20 0 9), are repeat ed in the O ECD , and UN ESCO document s wit h ident ical or similar wordings, const it ut ing a common global discourse of educat ion.
Furt hermore, t hey all const ruct , and t ake for grant ed, t hat educat ion should be arranged, monit ored, assessed and financed by public means, by t he government s in t he different count ries. H ereby t hey assert compulsory educat ion as a part of a welfare societ y. UN ESCO stat es t hat t heir mission is t o “help count ries t o develop inclusive, holist ic and balanced education systems from early childhood to the adult years” (UN ESCO, 2011, p. 16). Alt hough UN ESCO recount s cooperat ion wit h N G O s and t he privat e sect or
(UN ESCO , 2013b), t he responsibilit y for educat ion is at t ribut ed t o count ries. T his is also t he case for O ECD (O ECD , 20 12b, p. 11-13) and t he EU, which asks “member st at es” to adhere t o a common framework for “nat ional educat ion” (European Union, 20 09).
Similarit ies between t he document s are by no means surprising. T here is a
considerable overlapping of t he const it uency of these organizat ions. Most of t he member st at es of t he EU also are members of t he O ECD and UN ESCO . Furt hermore, t hey have a
hist ory of cooperat ion on educat ional mat t ers, not t he least between t he EU and O ECD . I n addit ion, t here is a fluct uat ion of st aff between t he organizat ions (Schuet ze, 20 06, p. 296). Education as inv estment and/or human right
But t here are also differences. T here is a cont rast bet ween t he O ECD -document s and t he EU-document s on t he one hand, and t he UN ESCO document s on t he ot her (cf. Schuet ze, 20 0 6, p. 295). T he aim of educat ion is in t he former dominant ly formulat ed wit hin t he framework of an economic discourse. T he lat t er point s t o educat ion as a means to elevat e povert y, fost er democracy, and st rengt hen individuals and subordinat ed social groups (not t he least women) (cf. Robert son, 20 0 5). Alt hough t he t hree organizat ions all emphasize what educat ion can do for t he nat ions or count ries (UN ESCO ), member st at es (EU), or economies (O ECD ), O ECD and EU st ress educat ion as a prerequisit e for economic
progress, while UN ESCO emphasize elevat ing povert y, fost er democracy, and empowering individuals and subordinat ed cat egories. O ECD and EU hereby dominant ly const it ut e subjecs in relat ion to an economic market focusing on how learners can cont ribut e t o a growing economy, whereas UN ESCO const it utes polit ical subject s who can cont ribut e t o societ y bot h by polit ical int ervent ions and economic development . T he difference of emphasis is salient in how O ECD and EU use t he t erm “growt h” for t he economic benefit s of educat ion, in cont rast t o UN ESCO which uses t he t erm “development ”.
Education as economic resource
Educat ion is in t he document s subordinat e t o the economy, and hereby made into a t ool in t he int erest s of global capit alism. T he heading for t he edit orial of Education at a Glance reads “Investing in people, skills and education for inclusive growth and jobs”(OECD, 2012a, p. 13). T his is repeated in ET 20 20 which is described as a subdocument to “Europe 20 20”, t he EUs strategy for “smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth over the coming decade”
(European Union, 20 09, p. 1). I n account ing for t he indicat ors of t he situat ion of educat ion in the OECD member “economies” it is stated:
T he indicat ors provide informat ion on t he human and financial resources invest ed in educat ion, how educat ion and learning syst ems operat e and evolve, and t he ret urns t o educat ional investment s.(O ECD , 20 12a, p. 17) People labeled “human resources” are placed in juxt aposit ion wit h “financial
resources”, and both forms of “resources” are “invested”, and because they are “investments” the investors can expect “returns”. This is a reiteration of the human capital and knowledge economy t heory which expect great yields from invest ment s in educat ion (cf. Schuet ze, 20 0 6), and which can be seen as a recont exualizat ion of an economic discourse t o an educat ional discourse, or as Fairclough once t ermed it “a colonizat ion” of educat ion by t he economy (Fairclough, 1993) . T he overarching rat ional for t he O ECD is consequent ly const ruct ed as monit oring and st eering educat ion t hrough t he PI SA, PI AAC, and T ALI S syst ems and global report s and evaluat ions of educat ional out comes, in order t o produce subject s t hat bot h serve and are served by t he int erest s of a global economic market. T he economic benefit s of educat ion are in Education at a Glance not only or primarily const ruct ed as benefits for “the economies”. The document strongly stresses the economic benefits of educat ion for individuals. I t st at es t hat t hose wit h longer educat ion cope bet t er in a sit uat ion of economic recession. T his argument is support ed by figures of unemployment : “For all OECD countries together, the unemployment rate in 2010 was roughly one-third less for men wit h higher educat ion t han for men wit h upper secondary educat ion; for women wit h higher educat ion, it was t wo-fift hs less.” (O ECD , 20 12a, p. 13). T he document t hen goes on t o present figures t hat not only show t hat t hose wit h higher educat ion are more likely t o find jobs even in bad t imes, t he jobs t hey get are also bett er paid.
The gaps in earnings between people with higher education and those with lower levels of education not only remained substantial during the global recession, but grew even wider. In 2008, a man with higher education could expect to earn 58% more than his counterpart with no more than an upper secondary education, on average across OECD countries. By 2010, this premium increased to 67%. Similarly, in 2008, women with higher education had an average earnings premium of 54% compared to their upper secondary-educated peers. By 2010, this premium grew to 59%. (OECD, 2012a, p. 13)
T he cit at ion makes individual economic int erest s int o a major argument for higher educat ion. T his is furt her st ressed by figures in dollars on t he economic gain of a t ert iary degree. For men it is st at ed t o be, on average in t he 28 O ECD count ries, USD 388 300 and for women USD 250 700 (O ECD , 20 12a, p. 162). I n addit ion t o individual economic benefit s educat ion is also claimed t o bring about bet t er healt h and a longer life expect ancy (O ECD , 20 12a, p. 20 2). T he account s of individual economic benefit s are followed by rendit ions of how societ y benefit s from t he higher t ax ret urns t hat t he high earnings induce, and a relat ion bet ween high educat ion and low demands for social welfare, which is an addit ional gain from t he perspect ive of societ y. T he constit ut ion of learners as predominant ly
economic subject s is consequent ly dominant and st rong in t his document , and so is t he const it ut ion of societ y as predominant ly an economic inst it ut ion or entit y.
T he O ECD economy discourse of educat ion is reit erat ed in t he ET 2020 . As mentioned earlier, the overall objective for a common strategy for education is to “make Europe int o a world-leading knowledge economy” (European Union, 20 0 9, p. 1) . T his emphasis on t he economy is however slight ly mit igat ed by also bringing forward ot her values, such as “the personal, social and professional fulfillment of all citizens”, and “…democratic values, social cohesion, active citizenship, and intercultural dialogue”
educat ion, and as valuable for individuals not only in economic t erms. The lat t er posit ions educat ion as an asset for t he nat ion st ate, in t hat it brings about social cohesion, i.e., brings about loyal and act ive cit izens. T here is a t ension bet ween economic and personal benefit s also in t he formulat ions concerning lifelong learning. ET 20 20 st at es
T he challenges posed by demographic change and t he regular need t o updat e and develop skills in line wit h changing economic and social circumst ances call for a lifelong approach t o learning and for educat ion and t raining syst ems which are more responsive t o change and more open t o t he wider world” and …the establishment of more flexible learning pathways…. enhancing people's employabilit y and adaptabilit y, (European Union, 200 9, p. 3).
T hese are formulat ions t hat make way for subject s t hat are willing, in their own and society’s interest to learn new things, start over, move on, and to adapt. Although this could be seen as mainly in t he int erest of t he economy, it is simult aneously made int o t he in t erest of t he individual. T his reasoning presumes t hat t echnological innovat ions, market
fluct uat ions, recession, and changes on t he labor market are result s of a nat ural force, rat her t han consequences of economic and polit ical decisions and act ivit ies. T he economy is hereby const it ut ed as foundat ional.
A taken for granted neoliberal discourse on economy and education
Mundy claims t hat t he economic discourse of the O ECD document s on educat ion is bet t er described as “a social and institutionally embedded liberalism” rather than as neo-liberal (Mundy, 1999, p. 28). She st at es t hat differing from t he neo-liberal educat ional discourse t here is no emphasize on market solut ions t o educat ional insufficiencies. Alt hough I agree t hat t he neoliberal educat ional discourse might not be is explicit in t he document s, it is implicit ly t aken for grant ed. Alt hough t he emphasis on educat ion as intert wined wit h
economy in t he O ECD and EU document s can be seen as a reiterat ion of a general
capit alist market economy rat her t han a neoliberal ideology, t here are formulat ions, not t he least in t he O ECD document s, indicat ing t hat t he neoliberal educat ional reforms in some cases are t aken for grant ed or promoted. T his is not only evident by t he promot ion of t he PI SA syst em as a means t o assess qualit y in educat ion, but also in some of t he policy direct ions in Education T oday 2013 st at ing; “D evelop skills for effectiv e school leadership (my it alics) and make it an at t ract ive profession”; “I ncrease job differentiation (my it alics) bet ween new and experienced teachers t o improve effectiv eness” (my italics); “Manage school choice (my it alics) t o avoid segregation and increased inequit ies”; “T arget low performance (my it alics) regardless of background”; Make better links between educational research, policy and practice” (OECD, 2012b, p. 12-13). These formulations repeat expressions and notions common in t he neoliberal educat ional discourse. T hey refer t o t he management ideology, t he st ress on compet it ion and excellence, school choice, different iat ion and pract ices based on research and evidence. I find t he reference to school choice of special int erest , because alt hough it can be seen as an implicit crit ique of segregat ing effect s of school choice, t he suggest ion is not t o abolish t hese reforms, but to manage t hem.
Social goals, education and politics
I n document s from t he t hree organizat ions t here are simult aneous art iculat ions of a
discourse of educat ion as a t ool to achieve prosperit y and economic growt h and as a t ool t o enhance democracy and creat e social just ice. T hese discourses inform and are often
int ert wined wit h each ot her. For example following t he rendit ion of societ al and economic benefit s of t ert iary degrees t he O ECD document Education at a G lance, moves on t o non-monetary benefit s such as longer life expect ancy, increased vot ing rat es, and more
art iculat ion of vot ing rat es t oget her wit h t olerance can be seen as constit ut ions of learners as polit ical subject s, although t he polit ical subject ivit y is limit ed to aspect s t hat fost er social cohesion and loyalt y to t he polit ical syst em of the nat ion st ate. T he polit ical subject ivit y t hus becomes, just like educat ion, subordinat ed t o t he economy which benefit s from social st abilit y.
Social goals are also subordinat ed economic goals. Education T oday 2013 st at es: “OECD analysis has shown that there need be no contradiction between equity and efficiency, and indeed has underlined how damaging t o economic as well as social goals is t he phenomenon of exclusion and widespread under-achievement “(O ECD , 20 12b, p. 10 0). T his subordinat ion of the social t o t he economy is also salient in t he argument s for
invest ment s in Early Childhood Educat ion: “St rengt hening equit y in educat ion is cost beneficial, and invest ing in early years yields high ret urns, since it makes it possible t o reap t he benefit s and reinforce equit y effort s made at subsequent educat ion levels” (O ECD , 20 12b, p. 10 1). T his is in cont rast t o t he UN ESCO document s where educat ion for all is represent ed as a right , regardless of economic benefit s.
D iffering from most proponent s of neoliberal educat ional agendas, t he O ECD and EU bot h st ress educat ion as a means t o achieve social cohesion, which is const it ut ed as import ant bot h for t he economy and t he nat ion st at es. ET 2020 assert s t hat :
Educat ion and t raining syst ems should aim t o ensure t hat all learners — including t hose from disadvantaged backgrounds, t hose wit h special needs and migrant s — complet e t heir educat ion, including, where appropriate, t hrough second-chance educat ion and t he provision of more personalised learning.(European Union, 20 0 9, p. 4)
D espit e t he above recognit ion of marginalized cat egories, t he emphasis is not on t he right s and needs of t hese persons but on t he t hreat t o social cohesion that marginalizat ion ent ails. Educat ion, rat her t han economic redist ribut ion is const it ut ed as a means to
overcome t his marginalizat ion. T his is evident in t he following cit at ion:
O ECD analysis has shown t hat t here need be no cont radict ion bet ween equit y and efficiency, and indeed has underlined how damaging t o economic as well as social goals is t he phenomenon of exclusion and widespread under-achievement. (O ECD , 20 12b, p. 100 )
I t is consequent ly in t he int erest of t he economy t hat social t ensions and dist ressed is t o be avoided. T his makes ambit ions such as equal educat ion for all int o economic goals rat her t han social or polit ical goals.
T he O ECD and EU document s do not address aspect s of educat ion t hat are related t o social circumst ances and t he polit ics of nat ions. Educat ion as a means t o increase
individual life chances and induce “social benefit s” is in Education at a Glance const ruct ed as isolat ed from social backgrounds and t he prerequisit es t his ent ails (O ECD , 20 12a, p. 202). I n const it ut ing t he lengt h and level of educat ion as t he sole det erminate of wage level, life expect ancy, willingness t o vote and a general support ive at t it ude t o societ y, t here is a problemat ic mix up of causes and effect s. T he claimed benefit s of educat ion could just as well be at t ribut ed to t he social background of those who are most likely t o receive a t ert iary degree as t o t he degree in it self. T his is furt her enforced by t he avoidance of class in
descript ions of an increasingly segregat ed societ y. T he solut ion for increasing
unemployment is inst ead present ed as more educat ion, in t his case, not t ert iary educat ion but vocat ional and non-formal educat ion (O ECD , 20 12a, p. 15). T he recession and
of market capit alism, but as a managerial problem where educat ion is brought forward as a solut ion t o bot h societ al and individual problems. T he divide bet ween t hose earlier
ment ioned wit h jobs and high wages and t hose who are unemployed or work for low pay in unskilled jobs, is not addressed. D iffering from how O ECD and EU const it ut e t he relat ion bet ween educat ion and economic and social benefit s, UN ESCO const it ut e lack of
educat ion, and in t his case referring t o literacy and primary educat ion, in t erms of povert y and gender, st at ing
But a number of obst acles, including povert y, st ill keep 67 million children of primary-school age out of school, 53 per cent of whom are girls and almost 43 per cent of whom are in sub-Saharan Africa. Enrolment rates are slowing and being eroded by dropout , part icularly in count ries affect ed by armed conflict where over 40 per cent of out -of-school children live. G ender disparit ies cont inue t o hamper progress in educat ion. Around 17 per cent of t he world’s adult s – 793 million people, of whom t wo t hirds are women – st ill lack basic lit eracy skills. (UN ESCO , 20 11, p. 6)
T his const it ut es prerequisit es and out comes of educat ion as dependent on social and polit ical fact ors. Learning out comes are not seen as solely inducing economic benefit s, but also as dependent on economic and polit ical prerequisit es. Peace, wealth, gender equalit y, political stability, and social equality are constituted more as prerequisites for “education for all”, rather than as effects of “education for all”. This is further enhanced by the two
priorit ies t hat are present ed in t he document ; Africa and G ender. H owever, t he UN ESCO document also recount s several project s where educat ion is employed as a t ool to combat povert y, reach peace, and acquire st abilit y in t he wake of disast ers. Elevat ion of povert y is
t hus made sense of as simult aneously a prerequisit e for and an effect of educat ion (see eg., UN ESCO , 20 11, p. 14).
Concluding discussion
T he neoliberal presumpt ion of compet it ion and different iat ion as t he engine for bot h individual and social development means t hat despit e all t he benefit s t hat educat ion is assert ed t o induce; it will never bring about social equalit y. A paradox in t he argument at ion, especially in t he O ECD document s, is t hat t he call for more t ert iary educat ion, based on higher earnings for t hose wit h exams, does not take into account t hat t his effect is likely t o decrease when more and more people get t his educat ion. T his is part ly addressed in
Education at a Glance which st at es t hat it is t he overall wage dispersion that drives much of the returns for both the individual and the public sector, and that “a compressed wage st ruct ure will t ypically generat e lower ret urns t o higher educat ion”(O ECD , 20 12a, p. 171). T his evinces a cont radict ion in t he argument for a general increase in t ert iary educat ion. I n order for t he argument for increased earnings t o work t here need t o be big wage differences and limit ed access t o higher educat ion. T hese t wo precondit ions are however never
explicit ly st at ed or argued for. I nst ead t he document put forward an increase in higher educat ion as a means to economic benefit s for bot h individuals and societ y in general. T his demonst rat es t hat alt hough t here are art iculat ions t hat st ress t he need for more equit y, t he whole argument presumes, and t hereby affirms, a societ y signified by considerable inequalit y and wage differences. This makes t he demand to use educat ion as a tool t o count eract segregat ion and marginalizat ion rat her hollow.
An import ant quest ion in relat ion to t he t heme of t his conference is if t he const ruct ion of educat ion and subject ivit y in t hese document s offer any promise of
t he document s and work of t he UN ESCO is direct ly connect ed t his quest ion. Alt hough there is an apparent assumption that “education for all” will result in economic progress, t his is in t he UN ESCO document s expressed by t he t erm “development ” in cont rast to t he term “economic growth” employed in OECD and EU documents. This signals not only differing point s of depart ure for t he expect ed economic progress, but also differing views on why t he progress is import ant . I n t he case of O ECD and EU it is a matt er of ensuring a cont inuous economic growt h. I n t he case of UN ESCO it is a mat t er of elevat ing people from a life in povert y. This is however hampered by t he reit erat ions of t he economic discourse on educat ion t oget her wit h t he right s discourse, and t he st riking absence of polit ical analysis of lack of educat ion and gender inequalit ies in t he developing count ries. T he human right s discourse is consequent ly put in t he front wit hout compromising t he neo-liberal core assumpt ions (cf. Chan, 20 07). Furt hermore, UN ESCO is a large mult ilat eral organization with an ambitious program to reach the goal “Education for all”. H owever, the programs are short of funding (see cf. W at son, 1999), and one way t o find money for
educat ion project s in developing count ries is t o cooperat e wit h N G O s and donors from t he privat e sect or. T his can, as described by Mart insson (t his session) and Ball (20 12) undermine t he ambit ion t o use educat ion as a means for nat ional and individual empowerment. I n a critical review of UN ESCO’s work on education Mundy maintained that UN ESCO is st rongly influenced by a neoliberal approach t o social reforms (Mundy, 20 07). T his is impossible t o verify or refut e in a limit ed st udy such as t he present , but t he reit erat ion of t he economic discourse of educat ion t hat is found also in t he UN ESCO document s, point t o a subversion of t he right s discourse on educat ion.
T he not ion of educat ion and t he possible subject ivit ies t hat emerge from t he document s are dominant ly const it ut ed as economic. Educat ion is const it ut ed as a commodit y wit hin a knowledge economy. T he learners or st udent s t hat are subject ed t o
different educat ional int ervent ions are primarily const it ut ed as economic subject s, bot h in t he sense t hat t hey are mot ivat ed by personal economic int erest s and that t hey are supposed to be assets for “the economy”. The analysis hereby evinces that there is little room for the subject ivat ion t hat Biest a describes as a desirable out come of educat ion in a societ y
signified by diversit y and pluralism (Biest a, 20 10 ). O ne reason for t his is t hat it is not
diversit y and pluralism that is depict ed as significant for t he world in which t he st udent s are supposed t o part icipat e, but rat her t echnological innovat ion, globalism, and economic growt h. T he economic discourse on educat ion hereby gives lit t le room for recognit ion of t he need t o fost er not only loyal cit izens, but also polit ical subject s. Alt hough t here are openings for the political in formulations such as “active citizenship” and “tolerance”, the absence of recognit ion of conflict , st ruggle, and differing int erest s limits t he out comes of educat ion t o qualificat ion and socializat ion (cf. Biest a, 20 0 9; Mouffe, 20 0 5). T he
subject ivit ies made possible can t hereby be described as loyal and obedient rat her t han polit ical subject s.
T he economic rat ionale in t he O ECD and EU document s cannot be a means t o oblit erat e povert y. T his rat ionale is based on t he implicit precondit ion of compet it ion bet ween nat ions and individuals. N ot all countries can have t he highest scores on PI SA. N ot all count ries can stay ahead in t he race for economic growt h. N ot all cit izens can have t ert iary educat ion and reap economic benefit s from t he exams. Competit ion needs losers in order for t here t o be winners. T his is salient in t he argument s for t he economic benefit s of t ert iary exams which presume a socially and economically segregat ed societ y (world).
Educat ion is a powerful polit ical tool t hat can be used for different purposes. T he neoliberal forces (desires) are st rong. I don’t t otally deny t hat educat ion t hat const it ut es economic subject ivit ies might count eract povert y, especially not on an individual level, but I
want t o pose a warning t hat it by subordinat ing everyt hing t o t he economy might simult aneously abolish polit ics, act ive cit izenship and vigorous democracy. Educat ion focused at const it ut ing polit ical subject ivit ies would have bet t er prospect s t o abolish povert y – alt hough in a different manner – and simult aneously st rengt hen democracy and cit izenship part icipat ion.
References
Ball, S. J. (200 6). Education policy and social class : T he selected w orks of Stephen J. Ball. London ; N ew York: Rout ledge.
Ball, S. J. (20 12). Global education inc. N ew York, N Y: Rout ledge.
Bank, V. (20 12). O n O ECD policies and t he pitfalls in economy-driven educat ion: T he case of G ermany. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 44(2), 193-210 .
Barad, K. M. (200 7). M eeting the univ erse halfw ay: Quantum physics and the entanglement of matter and meaning. D urham, N .C. ; London: D uke Universit y Press.
Biest a, G . (200 9). G ood educat ion in an age of measurement : O n t he need t o reconnect wit h t he quest ion of purpose in educat ion. Educationial A ssessment, Ev aluation and A ccountability, 21(1), 33-46.
Biest a, G . (20 10 ). Good education in an age of measurement : Ethics, politics, democracy. Boulder, Colo.: Paradigm Publishers.
Buras, K. L., & Apple, M. W . (200 5). School choice, neoliberal promises, and unpromising evidence. Educational Policy, 19(3), 550 -564.
Chan, J. (20 07). Bet ween efficiency, capabilit y and recognit ion: Competing epist emes in global governance reforms. Comparativ e Education, 43(3), 359-376.
D eleuze, G., & G uat t ari, F. (20 04). A thousand plateaus: Capitalism and schizophrenia [Mille plat eaux]. London: Cont inuum.
Council Conclusions of may 20 0 9 on a St rat egic Framework for European Cooperat ion in Educat ion and T raining ('ET 2020'), C 119, (2009).
Fairclough, N . (1993). Crit ical discourse analysis and t he market izat ion of public discourse: T he universit ies. Discourse & Society, 4(2), 133-168.
Fairclough, N . (1995). M edia discourse. London: Edward Arnold.
Fairclough, N . (200 0). N ew labour, new language?. N ew York: Rout ledge.
G iroux, H . A. (20 03). Selling out higher educat ion. Policy Futures in Education, 1(1), 179-20 0 .
H art ley, D . (200 8). Educat ion, market s and t he pedagogy of personalisat ion. British Journal of Educational Studies, 56(4), 365-381.
H ursh, D . W ., & H enderson, J. A. (20 11). Contest ing global neoliberalism and creat ing alt ernat ive fut ures. Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, 32(2), 171-185.
Lindblad, S., & Popkewit z, T . S. (20 0 4). Educational restructuring : I nternational perspectiv es on trav eling policies. G reenwich, Conn.: I nformat ion Age Pub.
Lundahl, L. (20 02). Sweden: D ecent ralizat ion, deregulat ion, quasi-market s - and t hen what ? Journal of Education Policy, 17(6), 687-697.
Mouffe, C. (200 5). On the political. London: Rout ledge.
Mundy, K. (1999). Educat ional mult ilateralism in a changing world order: Unesco and t he limit s of t he possible. I nternational Journal of Educational Dev elopment, 19(1), 27-52.
Mundy, K. (20 0 7). G lobal governance, educat ional change. Comparativ e Education, 43(3), 339-357.
O ECD . (20 12a). Education at a glance 2012: OECD indicators. O ECD Publishing.
O ECD . (20 12b). Education today 2013: T he OECD perspectiv e. Paris: O rganisat ion for Economic Co-operat ion and D evelopment O ECD .
Robert son, S. L. (200 5). Re‐imagining and rescripting the future of education: Global knowledge economy discourses and t he challenge t o educat ion syst ems. Comparativ e Education, 41(2), 151-170 .
Schuet ze, H . G . (20 0 6). I nt ernat ional concept s and agendas of lifelong learning. Compare: A Journal of Comparativ e Education, 36(3), 289-30 6.
UN ESCO . (2013a). A bout us. Ret rieved March 22, 20 13, from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/about-us/who-we-are/introducing-unesco/
UN ESCO . (2013b). Partners. Ret rieved March 22, 20 13, from
http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/partners/
W at son, K. (1999). Unesco's vision for educat ion in t he t went y-first cent ury: W here is t he moral high ground? I nternational Journal of Educational Dev elopment, 19(1), 7-16.
