Much critique focuses on the discourse’s normalization of specific subjectivities which support a neoliberal and global corporate capitalist agenda. “It has long been accepted that lifelong education or learning is as much an object of policy as it is a description of educational provision throughout a person’s lifetime” (Griffen, 2008, p. 261). Edwards (2006) complains that research into LLL does not adequately address how the discourse orders social phenomena: how it does “symbolic work” creating subjectivities. Instead, through the disciplines that engage in the research (e.g. psychology, sociology, economics, political science) research is unreflective of its own positionality and assumptions and it invents certain types of subjectivities. For example, the perpetually unemployed, the low-skilled worker, the un-adaptive worker are subjectivities created by the discourse. These subjectivities are imbued with values constructed in the neoliberal corporate capitalist culture, but accepted as legitimate and universal. Brine (2006) speaks specifically of the EU discourse when he explains that although the documents are otherwise conceptually lax, they set up very clear and value-laden binaries (e.g. high and low skilled workers).
What are the characteristics of the learner as constructed by the second generation discourse? I identify three general and inter-related identity categories pervasive in the discourse. The first is that of the human resource. The neoliberal discourse sees the future as ever changing, unpredictable, and a threat should its changes not be adapted to (Fejes, 2008). Thus, learners are constructed as resource ever responsive to these change. Self-reliance is resignified to mean adapting to labour market changes (Wain, 2007). Learners are commodified learning organisms (Bagnall, 2001, Simons and Masschelein, 2008; Wain, 2008). As human resources, the emphasis is primarily on the resources and humans are valued accordingly. Edwards & Usher (as quoted in Bagall, 2000, p. 22) speak of the “general commodification of persons whereby individual value, self-esteem and self-worth are measured by individual economic potential and contribution”. Learning itself becomes capital to manage (Simons and Masschelein, 2008). The learner is a subject to be drawn upon in research and “is positioned to be worked upon and through by policy” (Edwards, 2006, p. 76). The discourse dis-embeds, disembodies and decontextualizes the learner (Edwards, 2006).
The second (but related) identity is that of the entrepreneur: the flexible, adaptable, innovative self-capitalizing individual (Edwards, 2008). Du Gay (1996, p. 181 quoted in Edwards, 2008b) suggests that the entrepreneur has become an “ontological priority.” Assuming that people are largely motivated by self-interest (Rizvi, 2007) the discourse positions the learner as a future-oriented (Olssen AND Peterssen, 2008) and accepts that learning is a force for repositioning oneself in society (Simons and Masschelein, p. 2008). Freedom is re-signified as taking personal responsibility for one’s own employability and value in the labour market (Wain, 2007). It is telling, perhaps, that we refer to the availability of jobs as the labour market. By referring to it as a market, we accept the commodification of labour. Furthermore, it positions the problems and solutions in the labour characteristics and not in the availability jobs. The competition in the international corporate substructure core that is assumed to be the driving force behind the change to which labour must adapt, is transplanted to the individual worker. The drive to compete is assumed to motivate the worker as it does corporations. The competitive entrepreneur is accepting a market-valuation of his or her human worth. The discourse has enabled a shift from the social citizen to the entrepreneur of the self. In accepting this subjectivity, one accepts the risks and responsibilities of planning one’s own development, and diagnosing one’s own needs and those of the labour market (Simons and Masschelein, 2008).
The third identity constructed in the discourse is that of the consumer. Rose (1998) explained that the subject is formulated in line with values of enterprise and consumerism. The consumer seeks autonomy, takes individual responsibility for his or her destiny and perhaps most importantly, finds meaning in life via personal choices and earthly fulfillment (Edwards, 2008b). Jarvis (2008b) argues that LLL in the dominant discourse is a coin with two sides: individuals are sculpted to learn to be employable and to learn to be consumers. Each of these identities mutually enables the other, and each supports neoliberal ideology and interests of global capitalist enterprise. Messages (most obviously but not exclusively from media, and including more than blatant advertising) bombard the citizenry and normalize a high consumption lifestyle. The good life is constructed as one of material possessions and conspicuous experiences. The desire created by consumerism encourages capitalization of the self with an aim toward more lucrative employment. Thus, the consumer is one who is motivated to engage in LLL to increase his or her value on the market of labour in order to live a more consumptive lifestyle: a self-perpetuating loop which contributes to the profitability of corporations. Some see the danger in this as relating to a limited and fabricated sense of autonomy and personal interest. People are pressured to engage in LLL in order to pursue their own interests, but only if those interests align with the interests of neoliberalism and global capitalism. Bauman (1988, p. 76-77) is concerned that a narrow focus on consumerism as definitive of the good life threatens rights and democracy: “…the pressures, however are not experienced as oppression: ....they surrender their demand promised nothing but joy; …who needs rights?” (Jarvis, 2008b, p. 102)
In summary, the dominant discourse only sees and only supports certain inter-related identities: That of the human resource, the entrepreneur and the consumer. Other identities are invisible, and thus, not considered in policy discussions. Sultana explains that there is little reference to low-skilled workers or low-skill jobs. There is also little mention of those who are less educable or less motivated by neoliberal values. It is assumed that all can learn, given the right environment and sufficient pressure or encouragement to motivate them (Sultana). The right sort of person has certain characteristics. He or she is dehumanized, decontextualized machine (Wain, 2008) that is flexible, empowered, productive, and collaborative and is fashioned through signifiers for global capitalism (Usher and Edwards, 2007) . Hendrick van der Zee (1996) warns: ….an inhuman highly technocratic society lies ahead” (p. 164 as quoted in Wain, 2008).
Tomorrow's post will examine governmentality and the control of populations at a distance.
No comments:
Post a Comment