2.3 Neoliberalism’s effect on Education

The key concepts of neoliberalism have affected global education in many ways.

Viewing education policy through the unidimensional lens of neoliberalism creates the need to find efficiency, best practices, and a continual effort to standardize education processes. On a global scale, when this neoliberalist view becomes the driving force behind change, education systems begin to converge and look the same, favoring standardization and competition. Education systems, even at the local level, tend to institute standardized tests, national achievement benchmarks, global education indices, and so on. This neoliberalist view ignores historically suppressed or marginalized communities and their knowledge systems, and consequently delegitimizes them on a global scale. It also has the effect of disengagement with, and devaluing, diversity or hybrid and multicultural representations of knowledge.

Neoliberalist influence may also be seen in movements to develop an open market for schools by creating private schools or voucher systems (often referred to as school choice). This is frequently accomplished by making government educational funding portable–that is, allowing students to take government funds provided for education and use them to attend the school of their choice. Neoliberalists put forward that this approach to education creates a free market economy around education and will spur innovation and success in schools. Critics argue that this turns education into a commodity. While the idea of allowing educational choice sounds attractive, in practice this approach has led to significant loss of funding for public schools, funneling money towards private or for-profit schools. This emphasis on individualism favored by neoliberalists creates market competition for funding in education.

Furthermore, the neoliberal approach pressures the poorest students and schools in society to find their own solutions for structural social challenges imposed upon them. Thus, the successful (or rich, advantaged) schools are rewarded. One result is that money is siphoned away from weak and low-performing schools (primarily attended by low- and middle-income children) and towards wealthy, high-performing schools. This creates a vicious cycle of winners and losers in the educational landscape. The neoliberal approach to education is so deeply established idea of how the world works that it becomes a taken-for-granted assumption, or truth-claim: that there is the only way to maximize resources or be successful. This has been a trend for international monetary systems (like the world bank) as well as for donor countries who help fund and support education systems around the world. In the new millenium, however, neoliberalism has been questioned, causing many organizations to rethink their lending practices; however, neoliberalism is a very powerful set of entrenched values, and continues to be used.

2.4   Globalization Through the Lens of World Systems

Another discourse around globalization, also focusing primarily on economic issues, is world systems theory. Unlike the market-driven, laissez faire neoliberalist view of globalization, which largely ignores existing power dynamics between nations, world systems takes into consideration the unequal relationship between the Global North and the Global South. The theory was developed most extensively by Immanuel Wallerstein in the 1970’a. Scholars using this theory reject the idea that globalization creates a common playing field of equal opportunities. Instead, they argue that globalization further empowers those already made powerful through historical and socio-political maneuvering.

In the world systems approach, the world is divided into regions: the core (rich and developed countries like the U. S. and Western Europe), the semi-periphery (semi-industrialized countries like Brazil and India), and the periphery (poor, often unstable and dependent countries, like much of Latin America and Africa). Unlike neoliberalists, who advocate that everyone can succeed through the mechanism of open markets, world system theorists argue there are inevitable winners and losers in the global economy. It is within a core nation’s interest to maintain dominance at the expense of semi- and peripheral nations. Power is concentrated in the core nations who control an unfair trade and investment system and often dictate the terms of economic relationships.

World systems developed out of the earlier dependency theory which became popular in the 1960s and 1970s. Dependency theorists argued that the world is starkly divided between the haves and have-nots. The core nations of the Global North intentionally caused peripheral nations to remain underdeveloped, keeping them in a state of dependency. This relationship of exploitation and dependency occurred historically through slavery and colonialism. World systems modified dependency theory by introducing the concept of the upward and downward economic mobility of nations. This system of dominance and dependency continues today through the Global North’s dominance of the international trading system, the practices of transnational companies, and the reliance on Western aid–which is sometimes referred to as neo-colonialism.

2.5   World Systems Theory Effect on Education

World Systems is still primarily an economic view of the world, with an attention to how power changes and controls the relationship between economies. In this, neo-marxist analysis of a global class system, scholars are interested in questioning the whole project of modernization as being essentially an unequal, exploitative one. In their view, there is a direct consequence of core countries using the resources, labour and knowledge capital of the periphery countries: education is in the service of the global economy, and as this global economic system expands, the required labour force is supplied by knowledge and skill coming from the semi-periphery and periphery countries as they seek to join the global economy. In the same way, cultural and economic dominance from the core means that education policy is also dictated by a particular group of countries. For example: western colonial education systems rooted in past power hierarchies would continue to operate in former colonial states, preventing or at least suppressing other kinds of education systems. World system theorists see this as neo-colonial ways of deploying education, where local elites take on the ed system, keeping colonial power structure intact even without de facto colonial rulers.

The World System theory allows for a sociological analysis of a class and capitalist analysis of education on a global scale. As such, it becomes an important theory because it also questions the whole project of development and global education policy that comes out of the push to modernize. To understand this, we will have to understand the education-development connection, which we do later as a separate section.

2.6 Globalization Through the Lens of World Culture

So far we have explored theories that examine globalization primarily as a set of economic processes. For example, globalization occurs through trade, the opening of markets, and the availability of goods and services across national borders. World culture goes beyond the economic explanations used by neoliberalism and world systems in order to provide a more complete picture of globalization. World culture theory takes into consideration other factors, beyond economics, that influence social behavior such as politics, social justice, conflicts, social media, migration, and more. As a theory, world culture is somewhat difficult to pin down, because it is still evolving.

World culture developed from 18th century western Enlightenment ideals, such as individual dignity and personal freedom, equality, and the use of scientific advancement to improve the human condition. The Enlightenment was also called the Age of Reason; the flowering of scientific exploration bred a culture of rationality. Rationality combined with Enlightenment ideals led to concepts such as global citizenship, universal human rights, education for all, international law, and global fair trade. At the same time there was an emphasis on economic development through the modes of capitalist production and distribution leading to the growth of wealth of individuals and nations. Progress was framed as modernization. The potent mix of capitalism, the push to modernization, and Enlightenment ideals drove western civilization’s expansion across the globe. There is a tension, however, between Enlightenment ideals, capitalism, and progress through modernization.

Western civilization’s expansion had many consequences, among them the rise of events that affected the entire world. For example, wars between nations became global wars, organizations developed with international focus rather than national, and laws and standards were developed that were intended to apply to everyone. We went from the United States’ national Declaration of Independence to the international Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

World culture frames globalization as a process that changes social behaviour and creates a metaculture that transcends local context. The process of globalization cultivates principles (ideologies, philosophies, meaning, values) that go beyond those that come from a local context within local histories. Culture is not bound by the norms and practices of localities alone, as they once may have been. This world culture comes from an awareness of, and response to, a connected global society where the world is perceived as one single space, although containing a multiplicity of forms, representations, identities and practices. This theory echoes Roland Robertson, introduced in chapter one, who described globalization as, “Both…the compression of the world and the intensification of consciousness of the world as a whole.” [Cite: see global culture, nationalism, globalization and modernity, M. Fatherstone, 2002]. World culture theorists argue that no matter what local culture you come from, you are still exposed to and impacted by a larger, overarching world culture.

Globalization leads to changes in ontology (ways of being) as well as epistemology (ways of learning) on both local and global levels. How you live or behave in the world is different and how you might learn is different because of global contexts. For example, people recycle their local trash, motivated by their understanding of global environmental degradation. The context, or reference points for social behaviour is now beyond borders, and is the outcome of forces that bring individuals and communities in contact with each other. Thus, world culture, as an interpretation of globalization, focuses on the way in which people become conscious of, and find meaning in an interdependent world. Keep in mind, however, that this meta, or overarching culture, not only affects local culture but is itself affected by local cultures.

The Concept of Convergence

A tenant of world culture is the concept of convergence. Metaculture encourages the growth of collective consciousness — our awareness of and connection to each other. This leads to the spreading of common values and a gradual homogenization of language, policy, standards, methods, and more. Convergence describes the growing similarities and commonalities of certain aspects of human interaction and activity. An example of this is the homogenization of language in the global sphere: an engineer in New Delhi will likely use English when he communicates with his counterpart in Vietnam. Thus, the English language is becoming even more of a global, mainstream language. At the same time, English itself is changing to serve a global purpose. In another example, doctors from various parts of the world working to solve a global epidemic develop standardized systems of care, as well as more efficient ways to communicate with one another. This is a homogenization of methods (or actions).

There has been much debate about world culture’s process of convergence. There is an understandable fear that local culture is usurped or destroyed by a more pervasive overarching metaculture. This has led to a backlash and attempts to preserve, protect and isolate cultural practices against influences of globalization. Featherstone (2002), however, describes convergence as the development of a truly shared culture rather than the dominance of one culture over another. He argues, while convergence leads to common forms of expression, it is debatable whether this leads to common ways of thinking. We will examine this issue later and in more depth. Let us proceed now to discuss world culture theory’s effect on education in global perspective.

2.7 World Culture Theory Effect on Education

World culture is one of the dominant theories by which to understand the continuing interconnectedness of the world, and education in global perspective.

Firstly, the theory is of particular interest to global education scholars because it brings a multidisciplinary approach to globalization, and examines how education is thought about, constructed and implemented within the larger influences of globalization in regions around the world.

Secondly, the underlying narrative of world culture is that science can be deployed in the uplifting of human dignity, improving the quality of life for all people, everywhere, that all humans are equally deserving of this upliftment. Flowing from these Enlightenment values, the world came together (through the League of Nations, after WWII) in 1945 to articulate the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Within this sweeping declaration, two fundamental human rights were embraced: 1) the right to education and 2) the right to development. Governments the world over took these to be imperatives that became development goals and frameworks for expanding their numbers of educated citizens. Indeed, education was seen as the primary and critical base required for a nation to accelerate socioeconomic development on the way to becoming modern societies and political players on the global stage. The idea of progress and justice is deeply entrenched in education : education for all enables society to progress. Justice is also served when the benefits of a modern society is distributed to its citizens equitably, so that all enjoy those advantages towards further personal fulfillment.

Perhaps we take the right to education for granted, but in fact, the declaration of universal human rights was a fundamental shift in the way education was managed in a pre-war environment. In many regions of the world, education was a privilege earned by birth, merit or status, not a clear right given to all. For example, in colonized nations, education was deployed in the use of empire building and citizens were educated on the basis of how well they could serve this (empire building) purpose. In a more extreme view, Eugenics also played a role in planned, genetic selection of who should receive the benefits, and could add to the prosperity of a nation; and therefore who was ‘worthy’ of quality education.

Thirdly, global education experts (such as comparative education scholars, international development professionals etc.,) identify world culture as having given rise to ‘carriers’ of the message of progress and justice. According to them, there are 4 carriers of world culture in the global environment of education:

• The global discourse of education
• International organizations
• Global education professionals (global epistemic-or learning, scholarly- communities such as professors, researchers, consultants of education on a global scale)
• Major international conferences, contracts between nations and global declarations, treaties or pacts (such as The Millennium Development Goals and the Education for All conference)

These carriers form the bedrock from which global education policy is constructed and conducted, putting an educated citizenry as central to social progress and justice, a globally desirable requirement.

Global Educators also pay attention to the idea of convergence or isomorphism that is part of world culture outcomes. Isomorphism has special consequences for education studies. Iso (the same) morphism (to change, to take shape or form) refers to the process of convergence by which the representation and meaning of something begins to look similar and have similar patterns, have increasingly similar reference points, and use the same language across many different contexts. This has many implications for global and local education policies and for education standards. For example, a certain standard of achievement, success or progress may be adhered to when policies are written to improve a country’s education system. This may prove problematic if the meaning of progress is rooted in the wrong context or is deployed for the wrong audience. We will explore this further in upcoming chapters.As we all come together, engage with one another and form patterns of relationships, we begin to develop common, standardized ways of communication and shared value systems. For example, the diverse, regional meanings of human rights converge, through global discussion and the concern for action, to create a more standardized or universally accepted meaning (of human rights in this case) that then can be used to develop plans of action or policy.

Scholars (such as C. Chabott (2003) and others- cite please) point out that world culture exists because of a global narrative that gained prominence because of the spread of colonial, conquering powers originating from Europe. Thus, world culture is arguably largely a foil for western enlightenment values and not necessarily the combination of many, diverse cultures connecting on an equal footing.