Neoliberalism, globalisation, democracy

“Neoliberalism, globalisation, democracy: challenges for education.” Olssen, M., Globalisation, Societies, and Education (2004), Vol. 2, No. 2, pp. 231-274.

The Article

Many questions concerning globalization have arisen from the literature in international studies and concerns have begun to be noted with the challenges of globalization for education. Olssen (2004) offers discussion of the challenges of globalization, detailing the global trends as they are driven by neoliberal economic policies. The article begins by asserting that neoliberalism as a facet of globalization is an obstacle to democracy where it “reduces social regulation and actively frustrates policy initiatives in a number of areas,” including for small-scale producers, policy to protect jobs and wages, programs to stabilize communities, direct employment policy, environmental, educational and health care policies (p. 231). Redefining and clarifying the idea of the “welfare state,” the author provides literature review to support the argument that there is still the need for state regulation in the context of globalization, maintaining deregulation is a challenge to under-represented groups, democracy, social justice and education in general.

Olssen (2004) defines globalization and neoliberal trends as they have been initiated from transitions in the global economy – for example, the replacement of the international forum GATT (The General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs) with the World Trade Organization (WTO) – as well as changes from Keynesian economics to the neoliberal (neoclassical) economics. The author details the challenges and consequences of these transitions for the global economy where “at the level of governance, globalisation is complex and fragmented, at the cultural level we can also agree that globalisation is having a marked effect” (Olssen 2004, p. 239). Following, the article defines separate globalizing trends, one as it leads to increased interconnectedness between countries and the second context which “requires a great deal of state power to drive it” (Olssen 2004, p. 241). The research continues to iterate the implications of the defining trends with the changes in global economies – noting the challenges for state structures and recognizing that not all the trends challenge governance – and approaches contextual solutions for neoliberal globalization based upon the need for a developed cosmopolitan democracy.

The article offers definition of cosmopolitan democracy as conceptualized in correlating literatures, focusing on the work of Jayasuriya, who develops the concept from the writings of Habermas, Foucault and Kantian republican state government for the international context of governance. Olssen (2004) discusses agreeable points with Kant’s original formulation of the concept of cosmopolitan democracy for governing structures, but suggests that “while the cosmopolitan ideal expresses some important insights, the approach needs serious modification” (p. 245). The author then suggests the concept of “demarchy,” defined by cited literatures as a form of governance organized along functional instead of territorial lines, an idea to provide a “specific practical means by which democracy can be extended and organized at the level of regional and global politics” (Olssen 2004, p. 247). The author continues with a discussion of the literature on demarchy, then asserts the necessity of the concept in order to support democracy at multiple levels, and to ensure respect for human rights and social justice with regional and globalizing trends.  From cosmopolitan democracy and demarchy, the article iterates the need for a comprehensive discourse for democracy given the "thin communities" of social justice, based upon ideas such as a "cognitive" developmental approach to achieve international cooperation.

Olssen (2004) contrasts Kantian international politics to that of Groitus and Pufendorf, maintaining a “comprehensive discourse of democracy becomes the best answer to the Hobbesian problem of order,” in facing the challenges of providing “(1) safety and security; (2) freedom and autonomy; (3) inclusion; (4) fairness and justice; and (5) equality of resources and capabilities” (p. 250). The article also emphasizes the need for institutions committed to ideas such as conflict resolution and similarly expands knowledge on community, liberty and justice where they are critical to international cooperation. Here, Olssen (2004) notes the challenges for education, maintaining education is itself a critical mechanism for deepening democracy and need be recognized as the “third estate between the free market and the autocratic hand of regulation and management” (p. 263). The author then defines a multicultural view of democracy and the learning of democracy through education. The article concludes by iterating focus on critical issues such as concerns for equality, the role of the state, the development of civil society, and purpose for education with neoliberal globalization in an interconnected world.

Reflection

This article has been a touchstone for much of my research. In fact, the author’s work in general has been an inspiration to my work. Honestly though, the specific article has not been entirely useful in terms of content, but does affirm numerous ideas and perspectives that I have myself been working on over the years. The article is a little lengthy and overwhelmingly theory-laden – not exactly a casual read; it attempts to accomplish so much that it is almost impossible to reflect upon with brevity. It is also a tricky perspective for theory development in many respects. The detail on the political economy is relevant and informative, but the emphasis on the challenges of globalization as it advocates the need for education with the international trends is most engaging to me.  The idea that the purpose of education is to help “construct a socially established normative culture that provides security and builds the capacities for democracy,” (Olssen 2004, p. 363) could not be more agreeable to me. Really, the author does little to develop this point and spends much time on the concept of cosmopolitan democracy, iterating the challenges of globalization for social justice, human rights and equity for the periphery of international politics. The challenge for education is real, where the paradox is that education is itself the critical mechanism to promote awareness and provide solutions.

My approach to these issues in the context of globalization very much mirrors that of the author. Nonetheless, with a shared critique of Kant, my research has taken a different path.  Rather than cosmopolitanism and demarchy (though they do prove to be important concepts), my research has focused on systems theory, educational and organizational psychology in correlation with political theory as the evolution of a Kantian philosophy from the classical assumptions of science. Our different approaches with shared belief in the need for solutions to conventional theory clearly correlate. However, the article is too theory-laden and rather boring - yawn - which, in my opinion does little for solutions to the challenges of globalization. Certainly, I do not fault the author for this as the theory development that the article approaches is not at all an easy task.

Nevertheless, the article has been influential as I recognize that it provides the foundations to explain complicated issues that relate with my own attempts at theory development (and it does seem to me that interdisciplinary study with the organizational sciences, learning theory, systems theory and particularly the philosophy of science offers more promising directions). Systems theory in the tradition of Bertalanffy supports many ideas in the research, including multicultural democracy and education for democracy.  The author's work in both the area of education and political theory has assured me in my own work.  Olssen's (2004) research does provide relevant content to develop contemporary political science and international relations theory, which remains defunct by classical assumptions.  However, I think I am more optimistic as well as comprehensively aware the complexities at multiple levels (but he is the established and published scholar and I evidently am not – so he is cool and I am not. Really, we would probably disagree on our agreements, agree on our disagreements). The article is tricky in a postmodern sort of way, but represents critical directions I believe globalization studies need undertake.

Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes

“Aesthetic activities and aesthetic attitudes: Influences on education, background and personality on interest and involvement in the arts.” I.C. McManus and A. Furnham, British Journal of Psychology (2006), No. 97, pp. 555-587.

The Article

The authors offer statistical analysis of aesthetic activities, attitudes and personality. McManus and Furnham (2006) note there have been very few studies on aesthetic appreciation of the arts: “one of the surprising things is how little they have been investigated by psychology and the behavioral sciences” (pp. 555-556).  Detailing summaries of those studies that have investigated the arts and artistic personalities – including on the relationship between psychopathology and artists – with the exception of the work of Pierre Bourdieu in the late 1960s and other research, there is limited research on the appreciation of art by those that appreciate it. There is relevant literature on “the relationship between the individual difference variable of sensation-seeking and various measure of interest in art,” which nonetheless fails to understand the aesthetic attitudes of those that engage in aesthetic activities (McManus & Furman 2006, p. 556). Thus, the authors approach survey research on aesthetic attitudes and activities according to the five variables commonly understood as the underlying factors of personality, which are extroversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability and openness to experience (to which they add a fifth variable of masculinity due to the recent interest in the relationship between it and the arts in some schools of psychology).

After additional review of the studies that have researched the relationship between the arts and personality, McManus and Furham (2006) detail their method (as part of a laboratory class assignment where students were asked to find participants to complete the survey). The questionnaire used contained attitude questions and questions on demographics, education and social background, then questions on aesthetic attitudes and a brief measure of personality dimensions (adapted to include questions related to masculinity, as done by previous research studies). They provide information on the participants, statistical analysis and the results from 1,199 participants (89.3% of which had provided completed survey information for the study). The authors detail the descriptive statistics from the data collected on 17 activities from a 7-point scale, then discuss the correlations with personality for both aesthetic activities and attitudes, with attitudes operationally defined as anti-art, aesthetic inclusively, emotion and understanding, aesthetic relativism, aesthetic quality, and aesthetic attitude. Data analysis is done through a structural equation modeling. The models are defined by activities based on personality, education and demography, and then aesthetic attitudes followed by an overall comparison and measure of active vs. passive involvement in the arts.

Major findings of the research suggest that there is a wide range of participation in the specific activities where aesthetic activities and attitudes are “likely to be continually interacting over a period of time,” and individuals involved in one form of activity tend to be actively involved in another (McManus & Furham 2006, pp. 577-578). The findings also suggest that overall educational level has little effect on aesthetic activities, that a science education “has a large, direct negative effect on aesthetic activities, but it also has indirect effects due to those with a science education having less art education” (McManus & Furham 2006, p. 578). The authors further discuss the direct effects of a science education on artistic activity and attitudes, then address the fact that personality in general has a large effect on aesthetic activities (also noting the relationship with regards to masculinity). The authors conclude that the relationship between personality, aesthetic activities and attitudes is deserving of further work, particularly in relation to openness to experience, maintaining that longitudinal studies are necessary to understand the complexities of the causal pathways between personality and aesthetic interests.

Reflection

The article is one that immediately piqued my interests because it approached the arts through a technical science, and did so in the name of aesthetics and a positive attitude toward the arts (rather than investigating the pathology of artists, for example, etc.). The conclusions suggesting that there is no link between neurosis and artistic activity and aesthetic appreciation – despite the conventional view of the artist as neurotic – was re-assuring as I thought to myself “well that’s a good thing” in a joking sort of way. My background is not personality, nor can I profess high-level knowledge of statistics, but the article was accessible and engaged an interest to investigate the area of personality psychology.  Even more so, structural modeling interests me. As a graduate student with primarily a background in qualitative and theory-based research, I have begun statistics classes with limited knowledge of quantitative research (but with advanced knowledge of learning theory in correlation with the philosophy of science). Structural modeling begins to answer my many questions pondering what if, but, and, then how . . . when studying statistics. The discussion of causality and the difficulties of determining causal relationships are particularly relevant in this respect, wherewith analysis of aesthetic activities and attitudes – I think simply made the article quite aesthetic itself.

Any technical paper that references Tolstoy also unquestionably deserves to be on a favorite reading list. Noting Tolstoy’s belief that it is a mistake to think only in terms of the appreciation of “high art,” where the research encourages a broad definition of the arts is certainly respectable. As in quoting Tolstoy, “all human life is filled with works of art of every kind” (as cited in McManus & Furham 2006, p. 577). Needless to say, the inclusion of masculinity as a variable for personality was head-scratching to me, not because I question the authors’ intent (without exhausting an analysis of their use of the variable) but because I question the possible misinterpretations and misreading of the use of the variable. It seems the authors’ intent and research findings do prevent misunderstandings, but it is an aspect of the research worth reflecting upon further, given that “most artists throughout history have tended to be males, a difference only slightly diminished in the 20th and 21st centuries” (McManus & Furham 2006, p. 579). Nonetheless and overall, I was pleased and inspired to find such constructive creativity between art and science.  At the same time, it gave me better perspective on both personality and statistics.

Introduction
Having come across a very interesting article in the British Journal of Psychology, it occurred to me that I should make a list of my favorite scholarly journal articles (however odd it may seem to have such a list of literatures).  Then, it occurred to me that it would be an even better idea to create a blog where I would offer review of articles read along with reflections.  Certainly, people will wonder if there could be anything else for me to do with my time.  Nonetheless, as a casual project I anticipate doing exactly this in my spare time, beginning with the article that piqued my interest today.