Marginalizing the Social

Yesterday I discussed the critique that the dominant discourse is driven by economic rationality and determinism.  Today I present the criticism that it marginalizes or ignores social issues.

Although “apologists” of the dominant discourse present it “…to the public eye as educationally progressive, ethical and liberating…” Bagnall (2000, p. 23) argues that the documents are actually only superficially expressive of such humanistic orientations and lack commitment to these concerns. He accuses them of being misguided at best and fraudulent at worst. A market rationality means that social and political issues are either ignored or assumed to be addressed as a consequence of economic prosperity (Wain, 2007). Wain (2008) explains that social inclusion and citizenship are written into the documents as though they were nominally as important as economic prosperity, but they are often attached to economic concerns as though they were benefits of prosperity.  Biesta (2006) refers to social and political objectives as “wider benefits” of learning, suggesting that they are supplemental to the economic benefits already assumed. Similarly, Rizvi (2007) suggests that social cohesion is framed as something not necessarily a good unto itself, but rather as a prerequisite for productivity.  Emancipation also becomes a condition for competitive advantage when it is resignified as taking personal responsibility for one’s own occupational fit (Wain, 2007).  Sultana  looked specifically at the EU’s FRP 4 and FRP 5 projects which deal with LLL and explain that while emancipatory and hermeneutic language make their way into the projects, economic technocratic rationality is clearly dominant.  Simons and Masschelein (2008) illustrate that social relations are recoded in terms of investment and assets. Where social and political issues are included in the dominant discourse, they are often positioned in relation to economic development, either as an added bonus or as a prerequisite condition.

Solely as a handmaiden of neoliberal global capitalist ideology, LLL may be an unsustainable model.  Sultana (2008, p. 58) claims that the EU’s FRP 4 and FRP 5 projects focused on LLL are “…marked by contradictions that are difficult to resolve, as they attempt to serve fundamentally irreconcilable humanistic, emancipatory and technocratic interests.”  Not only does a global capitalist paradigm not support values outside of its paradigm that are necessary for social stability (e.g. health, family, community, happiness, the environment), it can also be argued that it also does not adequately live up to the only value within its paradigm: economics. Poverty is persistent.  Wealth is being concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.  At least a billion people live on less than a dollar a day. (Jarvis, 2008b). Jarvis argues that global capitalism has a tendency to exacerbate the gap between the rich and the poor, and as such, is a threat to democracy.  When that gap reaches a critical level, Jarvis fears that rebellion by violent means will result.  If neoliberal capitalism is a threat to democracy and LLL is fashioned solely in the service of that force, emphasising the individual interests over that of the collective and creating consumerist apathy, any form of democracy that survives will be that which serves economic but not social issues. 

Tomorrow I will post a description of the criticism that the dominant discourse takes projects a view of knowledge that is too narrowly limited.