“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.
