|
Nick Stevenson
© Nick Stevenson 2008
Public forms of understanding are currently being overhauled by a neo-liberal assault on democratic forms of public space. However many of these transformations are in the early stages, contradictory, uncertain and full of potential for more critical forms of intervention. Here I shall argue that neo-liberal understandings of the knowledge society, the transformation of education and the rise of popular programming in respect of an explicitly entrepreneurial culture are all interlinked. This is a potentially powerful coalition where neo-liberalism is concerned not merely with structural features but just as importantly with a remaking of cultural practices and understandings. This project should move any debate beyond oppositions between political economy and more cultural understandings as neo-liberalism is as much about institutional transformation as the understanding of our sense of self and civic identities. In particular I want to emphasise the arrival of a new form of popular entrepreneurialism connected to these transformations that seeks to drive out more democratic and civic expressions. The Left needs to expose this mostly soulless culture while pointing to democratic alternatives, remembering that the market just as much as politics can talk a utopian and transformative language.
Historically the idea of social democracy was a particular educated project. The writing of John Dewey, Raymond Williams and Richard Hoggart all argued that whereas capitalism needed labouring bodies, democratic forms of participation required the long term educated development of the self. The desire 'to better' the self was linked into the desire of working people to become more than simply people who engaged in physical labour. The argument here was that democratic forms of participation required forms of critical understanding, literacy and sociability that were in excess of the forms of symbolic expression required for work. The need to 'educate' the working-class then was as much about self-fulfilment as it was a political aim to allow people to express themselves in a mass democracy. This particular project has run its course. The new knowledge economy now requires a mass working population who can engage in symbolic, emotional and computer literate labour. This has seen the introduction of an educational agenda that seeks to drive up standards, publicise league tables and transform education along more overtly entrepreneurial lines. The important element to grasp here is this is not purely instrumental, but has utopian and transformative elements within it. The aim is not simply to deliver the skills required for the global market place but to produce new identities and subjectivities. Neo-liberalism then is a profoundly educative project that aims to produce flexible, consuming and above all enterprising people. The new knowledge economy is connected to a political project that seeks to 'make over' the cultural realm.
If the knowledge economy requires educated labour then recent transformations within universities and schools are connected to this agenda. If universities in the past were elitist institutions that sought to preserve elite knowledge and tastes, then they too are in the process of transformation. Universities have become business-orientated corporations that aim to become players in the global market. They have incorporated new approaches and disciplines at the same time that they have expanded and adopted increasingly business orientated practices. In the new informational society the expansion of higher education and educational attainment is intimately connected to levels of economic development. Yet increasing levels of student debt, occupational stress and of course expanding class sizes have fuelled this expansion.
Even more significant has been the academies programme aiming to remodel secondary level education. This strategy has met with fierce opposition amongst local groups of parents, in the teaching unions and in sections of the labour movement. The academies programme is an explicit attempt to both undermine local forms of democracy by removing schools from public control and to hand the education of young people over to private interests thereby explicitly promoting an entrepreneurial culture. There are currently plans to open 200 academies by 2010 and these secondary level schools will be allowed exemption from the national curriculum and pay scales, select up to 10% of their intake and are being explicitly targeted for increased funding. The school's ethos, management and educational structure are all directly controlled by the schools sponsor. Local authorities who are normally key players in questions of school governance are by-passed so entrepreneurial sponsors can refashion the culture of schooling. The sponsors have so far been drawn from a small pool of maverick businessmen, religious organisations and to a lesser extent universities. Of the current list of 46 academies 25 have business and enterprise as their specialism (Beckett 2007: 157). For example, Bexley Business Academy opened by then Prime Minister Tony Blair has its own stock exchange and devotes one day a week to the study of business and enterprise. Notably in class terms the academies move the debate about vocational training onto another level.
Finally connected to neoliberal versions of the knowledge society and the marketisation of the economy is the arrival of what I call the entrepreneurial spectacle. This is the development of a form of popular programming that seeks to explicitly promote the new enterprise culture. The connection between these programmes, education and entrepreneurialism has been made by Gordon Brown. In an Observer article Brown (2008) talked of the 'global skills race' and 'extended education opportunities for all' if we are not to lose jobs to the China and India. Brown argues there is no global ceiling to the amount of employment that can be created in the 'opportunity revolution'. If in a hierarchically organised industrial society there could only be so many jobs at the top, then this is no longer the case in the new knowledge economy where global competitiveness is determined by levels of education. To achieve this Brown argues that the Labour government needs to redouble their efforts to banish failing schools, expand the academies programme, demand more from teachers, and in his favourite phrase 'unlock the talents of all of the people'. Jonathan Freedland (2008) Guardian columnist dubbed Brown's speech 'the X factor doctrine' after a popular television talent show. Freedland reported how Brown was known to enjoy the show which he suggested represented a symbolic expression of meritocratic principles. Brown is reported to have said in a BBC Radio 5 interview '[These shows] are saying to people 'Look, if you've got talent you don't have to know someone. You can just apply and we'll have a look at what you're like'. This was in part a change in strategy by Brown as he had previously sought to argue that people were more interested in joining book groups than in the superficial culture of celebrity.
Popular prime time television shows like 'X factor' and others like 'The Apprentice' and 'The Dragons Den' are questioning the boundaries between politics, education and entertainment. The development of interactive web sites and voting by text (in the case of the 'X factor') has created new possibilities for audience engagement in the culture of the spectacle. The knowledge society, technological development, commodification and the development of a new enterprise culture have helped produce new forms of popular entertainment. These features are important in the rebranding of capitalism as 'cool'. If 'X factor' is based upon a televised spectacle to become a popular recording artist, 'The Apprentice' and 'Dragon's Den' have more overtly entrepreneurial ends in mind. However what all three shows share apart from large audience ratings is the competition to prove yourself to gain the top prize. The 'X Factor' currently advertises itself through the strap line 'Do you have what it takes?' If the 'X factor' contestants compete for a lucrative recording contract, then 'The Apprentice' promises a 'six figure salary' and 'The Dragon's Den' substantial investment in a business project. To achieve this 'goal' the contestants have to endure a substantial amount of humiliation, failure and the threat of exclusion along the way. Alan Sugar in the first episode of the 2008 series of 'The Apprentice' tells the contestants that 'this is a business boot camp. Mary Poppins I am not'. Further, much of the new entrepreneurial culture seeks to emphasise 'rags to riches stories'. If the viewers of 'X factor' are invited to watch mostly working-class young people compete for the dream prize, then 'The Apprentice' continually reminds the viewers of Sugar's 'humble origins' while the judges on the 'Dragon's Den' have seemingly been chosen due to their 'modest' backgrounds despite later becoming multi-millionaire's. While the construction of the entrepreneurial spectacle can of course be read against the grain (not to be underestimated is the pleasure of watching some of the more inflated ego's of the contestants become punctured) we also need to be careful about underestimating their appeal or effects.
In terms of the ties between education, enterprise culture and the media Peter Jones offers an interesting example of the potential instability of these connections. Jones not only intends to run his own academy school, but has also launched a book, television series, interactive web site and CD all branded Tycoon. Jones's interactive web site is full of quizzes and handy hints (like 'there is no such thing as failure only feedback') to help members of the audience realise their dreams (www.tycoon.com). Notably Jones's version of cool capitalism urges people to be imaginative, focus upon 'success' and of course to be positive and stay focused. Contestants, readers and viewers are invited to 'make over' the self to produce more overtly entrepreneurial attitudes and dispositions. As Elliott and Lemert (2006) argue the new language of market control and value increasingly focuses individuals on the need to accumulate possessions and look after 'number 1'. The culture of hyper-individualism evident in the entrepreneurial spectacle then can be crudely translated into more emotional terms that fears dependence and more relational needs. The culture of marketised self-improvement then cancels wider concerns with the needs of others or more civic responsibilities. However Peter Jones's own venture was to prove to be less than successful as after only two episodes and a considerable amount of publicity the television company ITV pulled and rescheduled the show after poor ratings.
If in the 1960s there was a widespread fear that individuals were being reduced to the cogs of a gigantic machine, the emphasis by radical educators was placed upon individual freedom, criticism and happiness. Critical educators sought to emphasise the need to break away from authoritarian schooling to the rights of the individual to follow their own unique creative path. Without seeking to deny the need of individuals to be able to creatively follow their own interests and passions, perhaps in the midst of a consumerist society what is required is somewhat different. If the idea of education as a form of authoritarian training is still with us, I don't think the ethical question of 'how are we to live?' can be adequately answered by simply emphasising autonomy. If the 1960s feared rigid conformity, then our society is more explicitly concerned with the production of mobile and flexible people in the face of uncertainty. The fragmentation of human lives, the gradually disappearing social state and the need to be constantly on the move now shapes the dominant ethos of our society. The disappearance of old style communities of obligation and the rapid individualisation of society has meant that like consumerism this is a world that emphasises constant change. If education in the past argued that to transform yourself was a slow process that involved the accumulation of knowledge before moving onto the next stage, today what is promised by consumer culture is instant transformation. In our short-term and disposable society there need to be spaces where the young can discuss what it means to live a good and meaningful life and the kinds of people that they wish to become. Such conversations will need to emphasise democratic values and civic virtues and the possibility of less consumer orientated lifestyles. Here I think there is a sense of needing to learn from the new enterprise culture that talks the language of possibility and transformation. Here a new educated politics is required that wins back the capacity to dream of other ways of being and recapture the language of hope.
Nick Stevenson is a Reader in Cultural Sociology and is currently working on the link between education and citizenship.
Bibliography
Beckett, F. (2007) The
Great City Academy Fraud, London, Continuum Books. Brown, G. (2008) 'We'll
use our schools to break down class barriers', Observer newspaper www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/10/gordonbrown.education
(visited 13.02.2008).
Elliott, A. and Lemert, C. (2006) The New Individualism: The Emotional Costs
of Globalization, London, Routledge.
Freedland, J. (2008) 'Inspired by talent shows, Brown gets the X Factor',
The Guardian newspaper, Wednesday Feburary 13 2008 www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/feb/13/television.gordonbrown
(visited 13.02.2008) .
Subscribe to Soundings a journal of politics and culture
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |