Capital as power and the corporatisation of education

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractBuilding on the definition of critical education residing in the crossroads of cultural politics and political economy, this theoretical article offers an inquiry into the intersection between critical education research and the central ritual of contemporary capitalism -capitalisation. This article outlines four current approaches in education research literature to the corporatisation of education. This article argues that the approaches must rely implicitly on one of the two major theories of capitalism: modern neoclassical economics or Marxist political economy, even when the approaches are built on cultural and sociological arguments. Without an explicit engagement with the concept of capital and capitalisation, the approaches risk appearing theoretically weak and reliant on moral assumptions. In this sense, critical education literature would be strengthened by engagement with international political economy (IPE) literature. This article proposes to redress this lacuna in the literature by mobilising Jonathan Nitzan's and Shimson Bichler's theory of capital as power to better understand the corporatisation of education.

The reproduction of inequality in Turkey: Power distribution in a primary class*

“…A teacher is equipped with the power of knowledge in direct instructions (Durkheim, 1956) and the power of the state/ideology in the hidden curriculum (Apple & King, 1981). The classrooms seem to be stages of power performances (Teo & Osborne, 2014;Harjunen, 2012;Doerr, 2009), creating inequalities among students (Tualaulelei, 2021;Kivisto, 2018;Sedden, 2001;Bernstein, 2001;Bourdieu & Passeron, 1983).…”

Teaching and Resistance at a Neo-Liberalised University: A Teacher’s Critical Reflection and Calling for Praxis Actors in the Post-Modern Professional Age

“…Neo-liberalism, also known as Thatcherism, is a national policy that was initiated at the time when the former UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the former US President Ronald Reagan came to power (Cahill & Konings, 2017). Based on neo-classical economic theory, it aimed to promote free market competition in public spheres and government departments, for example transportation and education, in order to improve on the so-called stifled and ineffective welfare state (Cahill & Konings, 2017;Kivisto, 2018). Neo-liberalism is based on the assumption that market compensation and the competition is meritocratic.…”

“…Neo-liberalism is based on the assumption that market compensation and the competition is meritocratic. Therefore, the market could be a screening filter to reward the efficacious and punish the poorly performing departments (Kivisto, 2018). Against this backdrop, schools and universities were incorporated and had to compete with each other to win market position (Giroux, 2002;Quinn & Bates, 2017).…”