Whose markets, whose knowledge

Apple, M. W. (2007). Whose markets, whose knowledge? In A. R. Sadovnik (Ed.), Sociology of education: A critical reader (p. 177-193). New York: Routledge.

Introduction

A leading critical educational theorist, Michael Apple is recognized for his affluent scholarly works which center on education and power, cultural politics, and curriculum theory and research. Following Apple’s previous studies on the New Right, this article critiques the current rightward educational reform efforts, analyzes neoliberalism, neoconservativism, authoritarian populism, and the professional and managerial new middle class that dominate the social field of power surrounding educational policy and practice, and reveals the complexities and imbalances in this field of power.

Purpose of Study

The conservative modernization movement in recent years has put egalitarian norms and values under attack. The simplistic interpretation of what’s happening to education from the perspective of economic elites does not present a holistic view of the major tensions surrounding education as it moves in conservative directions. In an effort to provide a conflict perspective on the struggles over curriculum and educational policies in the United States, this study addresses the following questions:

1. How have neoconservatives and neoliberals dominated public discourse over the past two decades?
2. What are the roles of authoritarian populists and the professional and managerial new middle class in alliance with neoliberals and neoconservatives?
3. How does the above four elements form a New Right hegemonic alliance to influence educational policies?

Social Theory/Methodology

The social theory that lies behind this study is critical theory, which focuses on the origins of social, political and economic oppression and aims to unmask sources of oppression, to promote understanding of causes and consequences of oppression, and to encourage participation in liberation (citation of Dr. Beilke’s handout). This theory well serves the author’s goal as to critique the social, political, and economic inequities brought by the New Right trend in education.

The methodology of this study is critical inquiry with interpretive discourse in particular. Critical inquiry calls current ideology into question, and initiate action, in the cause of social justice. It interrogates commonly held values and assumptions, challenges conventional social structures, and engages in social action, with the spotlight on power relationships within society so as to expose the forces of hegemony and injustice (Crotty, 1998). In critical discourse the beliefs, norms and values that are taken for granted in everyday interaction are “expressly thematised and subjected to critique” (Crotty, 1998, p. 144). This methodology is exactly what we see adopted in this article, as Apple unmasks the false consciousness that attempts to justify the conservative modernization and its oppressive policies through his thoughtful analysis and careful critique.

Findings/Conclusion

In this article, Apple closely examines how the social, political, economic, and cultural movements of “the rightward turn” have succeeded in forming a “new hegemonic alliance” to influence educational policies in the United States. At the beginning, he discusses what Rightist movements have done and why they have been so successful, along with the identification of the new alliance that contains four major social, political, and ideological elements – neoliberals, neoconservatives, authoritarian populists, and the professional and managerial new middle class. Among them, each element has different and sometimes conflicting interests. However, they come together and form a “broad-based alliance” when “conservative modernization” becomes the suture of the four. One by one, Apple discloses and critiques the central tenets that underlie the four elements.

Neoliberals, proponents of the “economic rationality,” uphold a vision of students as human capital and education as a product. They criticize that not only are schools and other public services failing our children as future workers, but also they are wasting financial economic resources of our society. The solution is centered on “either creating closer linkages between education and the economy or placing school themselves into the market” (p. 179). However, Apple points out that the economic decline is not caused by government or poor people but by mergers and leveraged buyouts manipulated by economic elites. And there is a risk that the neoliberal “economizing” and “depoliticizing” efforts may reproduce traditional hierarchies of class, race, and gender when neoliberals attempt to transform responsibility for decision-making from the public to the private sphere. For example, the voucher and choice programs may end up with the long-term effects that the affluent white families switch to private schools and refuse to pay taxes to support public schools. Therefore, the educational apartheid will be exacerbated consequently.

Neoconservatives, the second major element in the conservative alliance, emphasize on a return to traditional values and “morality,” which neoconservatives refer to as “real knowledge.” With a fear of the “Other” and a sense of cultural pollution, Neoconservatives are determined to enforce traditional curriculum and national standards across the country, making a shift from “licensed autonomy” to “regulated autonomy.” No Child Left Behind, for example, is an outgrowth of the “regulated autonomy” which contributes to the “deskilling of teachers, the intensification of their work, and the loss of autonomy and respect” (p. 185). Apple articulates, however, that this perspective that underpins the mistrust of teachers and the fear of the loss of cultural control is often an “ethnocentric, and even racialized, understanding of the world” (p. 185).

Authoritarian populists, representing the “Christian Right,” are motivated by a desire to integrate religion and God within the school curriculum. Abiding by biblical authority, “Christian morality,” gender roles, and the family, this group rejects any “unorthodox” ideals such as modernism, liberalism, feminism, and humanism. In concert with neoconservativism and in order to take advantage of educational marketization and privatization to create communities of their own belief, authoritarian populists find a place in the conservative alliance. Apple believes that the growing authoritarian populist influence in federal and state educational policies privileges students from religious segments of society over students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Finally, the professional and managerial new middle class is associated with maintaining social and economic inequality by supporting educational policies that are favorable to their class standing within society. The majority members of this class are likely to be mobilized by the right especially when the future of their jobs and children is ensured by the shifts to the latter.
In conclusion, Apple reiterates the complexity of educational policies in the United States. While he admits that the hegemonic alliance is powerful, Apple, with cautious optimism, indicates that many teachers, academics and community activists are still defending emancipatory educational programs, and our educational policies and practices are going in multidimensional directions. All these facts are shedding a light of hope for us to fight against the New Right forces.

Critique

As an abstract of Apple’s studies on the conservative movements in education, this information-rich article is clearly written and well organized. With a straightforward format, it is not hard to read and comprehend.

The key concepts for the four elements that form the new hegemonic alliances are well addressed, not only with the terminologies such as “arithmetical particularism,” “reprivatization,” and “value and sense legitimation,” but also with examples such as voucher and choice plans, No Child Left Behind, The Bell Curve, and Channel One. They are very helpful in terms of making connections between theory and practice. Interestingly, I found that the Chinese communist leader Mao’s description of the new middle class in the 1920s China is somehow similar to Apple’s description of the professional and managerial new middle class. However, given the fact that Apple was deeply influenced by neo-Marxism, I do not feel too surprised to see this coincidence.

A reflection upon the cultures of curriculum (Joseph, Bravmann, Windschitl, Mikel, & Green, 2000) also helps in making connections. For neoliberals, I believe that they have a shared vision with that of the culture of “training for work and survival.” While for neoconservatives, it is “connecting to the canon.” As for this article, there is no doubt that Apple’s endeavor is “confronting the dominant order”- with a language of critique, hope, and possibility which calls for moral discourse.

While I agree with Apple’s in-depth analysis of the conservative modernization in education and his criticism of the New Right’s attempt to shape the landscape of educational policies in the United States, I remain skeptical as he claims that the neoliberals change people’s common sense by simply redefining the key concepts (e.g., democracy) through the strategy of “sense legitimation” (p. 182). (Based on my common sense, I doubt people’s common sense can be shaped only by passive alternation of the meaning key concepts.) It might be more convincing if he can provide more evidence to demonstrate how the neoliberals “change the very meaning of the sense of social need into something that is very different” (p. 182) and show “the extent of acceptance of such transformations of needs and needs discourses” (p. 183).

Although Apple has successfully analyzed and interpreted the causes and consequences of the conservative trend, he does not provide a solution. He does give us some hope at the end of the article. However, “in a time when it is easy to lose sight of what is necessary for an education worthy of its name” (p. 190), who can promise that this hope will not be transformed by the neoliberal strategy of sense legitimation?

References

Crotty, M. (1998). The foundations of social research: Meaning and perspective in the research process. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Joseph, P., Bravmann, S., Windschitl, M., Mikel, E., & Green, N. (2000). Cultures of curriculum. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Citation of Dr. Beilke’s handout.