| Foucault and Lifelong Learning |
| Sigrid Nolda | 17.04.2009 | Book reviews [en] [de] | ||||||
|
Review of: Fejes, Andreas/Nicoll, Katherine (Eds.): Foucault and Lifelong Learning. Governing the subject (Routledge) London/New York 2008, 218 pages, $47.95, ISBN 978-0-415-42403-5
Educational science first adopted the works of Michel Foucault primarily in relation to school and focused around his earlier works on the topic of “surveillance and punishment”. The concept of governmentality stemming from Foucault’s later works was consequently expanded, resulting in a new perspective suited to the consideration and analysis of lifelong learning beyond educational policy announcements. Although this perspective is still not so widespread in the German-speaking world (Hermann J. Forneck and Daniel Wrana are the most prominent commentators), it seems to have penetrated the international English-language literature on adult education to a greater degree. “Foucault and Lifelong Learning”, published by Andreas Fejes of Linköping University in Sweden and Katherine Nicoll of the University of Stirling in Scotland, contains contributions from an internationally attended colloquium held in February 2006, at which, incidentally, no German researchers were present. The general consensus underlying all the contributions sees lifelong learning as a multifaceted discourse which represents knowledge on a particular subject area at a particular moment in history. Not only does discourse establish differences in opinion and grant significance, it also constructs individual subjectivity. In the case of lifelong learning (as it is currently being propagated in the Lisbon Strategy), individuals are formed as active learners responsible for their own future. In central stage is the question of power. Here it is the question of how the idea of lifelong learning is disseminated and what power relations in individuals’ everyday lives are encouraged in this way. The perception of knowledge and power inspired by Foucault rules out the claim to sole rights just as it rules out the assumption that scientific writing is separate from discursive power relations. In this sense the contributions do not so much offer a new theory as alternative ways of interpreting existing discourse on lifelong learning. Thus denominational methods, as presented in educational discussions and journals for example, are seen as a means to imposed self-regulation and therefore as effects of power. From this perspective, educational policy demands, such as for mobility and flexibility, appear as neoliberal technologies that benefit the bearers of economic power. However, Foucault-inspired thinking is not simply critical of power, but also observes the various two-way power relations between politics and economics, politics and individuals and between individuals themselves. In this way, the interplay between internal and external influences is carved out, as are the ambivalences of an entrepreneurial and self-motivated learning disposition. In this regard the authors of the contributions are all in full agreement. As a consequence, the governmentality concept is referred to once more, but hardly discussed as such, let alone criticized. Instead the concept is applied in several different contexts: in education policy documents, lesson and discussion ideas and even constructs such as motivation. The chosen examples from Sweden, the United Kingdom and Australia can be applied relatively easily to other national contexts. The publication thus demonstrates the wide-ranging and diverse possible uses of the chosen approach, the most impressive of which are related to discipline through e-learning (contribution from Katherine Nicoll) and to the academic paper on lifelong learning (Nicky Solomon on the example of her own publications). Overall the publication is appropriate for gaining practice in a perspective which protects against both self-righteous exposures and uncritical acceptance of official euphemisms. It is still questionable however, whether this view can be embraced by means of Foucaultist concepts alone. |
||||||
| Details: | ||||||
|
||||||
