Desktop version

Home arrow Management arrow Management Education: Fragments of an Emancipatory Theory

From Schooling to Management Training to Professionalism

Once a reflection of the cultural-social conditions of the surrounding lifeworld, even the parent-child relationship in a private home can no longer remain untouched by Managerialism. The ideological conditions that penetrate private homes are managerial authoritarianism and domination. Today’s global reach of Managerialism enters private homes and leads to increases in the climate of domination. Rampant consumerism and authoritarian relationships between parents and children, relentlessly enforced by corporate mass media and authoritarian schooling, is set to intensify. Children—from their infancy onward—will increasingly internalise patterns of communicated paternal authority as well as the authoritarian patterns of consumerist ideologies.

These forms of authoritarian ideologies can be presented in all their clarity. Many pathologies associated with rampant consumerism have shown to highlight objective conditions capable of generating inhuman circumstances that are driven by consumerism.10 At home, where innocent parent-child relationships no longer exist, 24/7 access to advertising via TV and internet is willingly granted. Meanwhile, at school, the authoritarianism of school management “pre-directs” a climate of indifference and oppression that is set against mutual and equal recognition and human freedom. These battles define and shape the lifeworld of the twenty-first century. The lifeworld can no longer provide the sociocultural context of humanisation. Even when children are brought up in an atmosphere of mutual and equal recognition that seeks to resist authoritarianism, consumerism, and domination, these children will have to experience that their inquisitive potential is frustrated by the system of schooling and consumerism.11 Yet—during their youth and perhaps even into adulthood—some might still manage to take the path of authentic rebellion against these rather overwhelming and relentlessly enforced structures of domination.12 They might resist drifting into total indifference, alienated from reality, humanity, and their friends, acquiring authority and ideology that are used to “shape”—manipulate—them in order to “fit into” a destructive and anti-humanist management system. But they need to realise that while to an ever-increasing level the home atmosphere is being colonised by external forces, these relationships will continue in schools, colleges, and universities.13 The structure of domination aims to create a seamless trajectory of “home^schooling^working^death” inside which children and students soon discover that in order to achieve even minor—petit bourgeois—levels of personal and often monetary satisfaction, they must adapt to the guidelines and instructions that have been set from above “for” them. The key aspect of these teachings is not to think but to accept the imperatives of domination.

Internalising parental domination and authority through rigid relationships is emphasised through schooling.14 It entices young people to seek individual solutions (personal advancement) to collective problems. One avenue generously opened to them is to become so-called professionals because of a hallucinogenic belief that professionalism will protect them. They are confined to repeating the rigid pattern of domination that has been instilled into them through years, if not decades of deliberately engineered “miseducation”. The phenomenon of domination through education for hallucinogenic professionalism remains linked to their class position as sellers of labour. This is ideologically labelled as labour market participation, job seeking, and career advancement in an attempt to convert a simple profession into a full-fledged ideology: professionalism.15

Perhaps this explains why so many professionals adhere to managerial action, submitting themselves to the managerial reporting upwards and directing downwards culture of miscommunication. Their much acclaimed “specialty” brings them into contact with “like-minded”, for example, domesticated students and professionals. Among their cohort and filled with the right ideology in the right setup of authoritarian training regimes, they develop the appropriate corps de esprit inside which they can foster the unshakeable conviction that it is their mission to accumulate professional knowledge and managerial techniques. Some of these young professionals might even start to see themselves as the “promoters” of a more human society. But their teaching programmes directed towards what is euphemistically labelled “professional conduct” is no more than prescribed knowledge used by training theorists of professionalism to dominate their thinking. Their own objectives, their own convictions, and their own preoccupations become those of Managerialism. Their highly individualistic and decidedly competitive outlook even renders them incapable of forming human relationships while being trained. They feel that they no longer need to engage and listen to other students as they are perceived as competitors for good marks first and job positions later. Increasingly, they are convinced that they have talent and that they are “the smartest people in the room”.16 Modern management training programmes even teach them how to “cast off’ inhumanity and intellectual laziness as individual development. For many managerial professionals so well trained in the ideology of Managerialism, it appears ridiculous and meaningless to even consider the necessity of respecting “views from an emancipated lifeworld”. They are deeply engaged in incorporating Managerialism’s latest fashion of “CSR” and “sustainability” into their managerial speeches.

These professionals have even been convinced that they are the true representatives of the “lifeworld” as their textbooks and management training programmes frequently and consistently rehearse the ideology that the business world represents “real life” and that only management can provide “real-life perspectives”. This is done to set themselves not apart but “above” the human lifeworld and virtually all others. To even regard others as equal appears absurd and bizarre to them. The idea that one should necessarily consult other students is made to appear as ridiculous as the concept of humanisation. They see the willingness of other students to engage in collaborative work as weakness in the competition game, suspecting them of using anything to their own advantage. Such suspicions are encouraged under the prevailing “zero-sum” ideology of “you win—I lose” that defines much of Managerialism. Perhaps at higher levels of ideological achievement, their ignorance has been made so absolute that they reject almost anything except receiving the professional teachings of Managerialism. This is presented to them by authoritative business school instructors who have shown ideological compliance to Managerialism and—therefore—have been rewarded with professorships.17 But notwithstanding the best ideological efforts, their system never achieves total colonisation.

Despite these management training programmes and all the persuasive ideology Managerialism can muster, there are still moments when those to be trained in the affairs of Managerialism recognise that they have been invaded by ideological “other-directed” concepts. When they realise that they were set up to be dominated, in one way or another, they reject the ideological colonisation through management training to which they might earlier have adapted themselves. Perhaps these are the moments when they become true professionals who no longer need to justify the alien ideology of Managerialism by viewing virtually all non-managers as inferior. They can move from the vertical relationships of domination towards horizontal relationships of mutual and equal recognition. But as well-indented professionals, they can no longer use the methods of ideological colonisation which, whether

  • • reformist and well meaning (CMS, sustainability, etc.) or
  • • premeditated and calculated (Managerialism as deliberate ideology)

will always be an expression of interest in domination: “soft” domination for “better management” (CMS) or “hard” domination under Managerialism. Eventually many might be able to discover that following either one or both always highlights the structural violence inherent in Managerialism’s supposedly “educational” act.18 Those who will make these discoveries will also face difficult alternatives. On the one hand, they will feel the need to reject the ideological colonisation mustered by the forces of Managerialism. On the other hand, they must also realise that—hidden and not so hidden—there still are patterns of domination that have been so entrenched within them that resistance to ideological colonisation might trigger not so much a straightforward threat to their own identities but a need to move from authoritarianism to emancipation.

Rejecting the colonisation of Managerialism also means ending the “dominated-dominator” duality as well as the abandonment of all managerial ideologies that are carefully nourished by Managerialism as a template for the ideological colonisation of students in management training programmes. It is for this very reason that emancipatory education ceases to act “over-and-for” students to become “inside-and-with” them—not as foreigners and objects to be trained but with these students as critical and self-reflective participants in communicative action. This might be a challenging if not somewhat traumatic process as many, quite instinctively, might tend to post-rationalise various managerially infused fears through a string of avoidance measures and temporary evasions.

As the seminal masterpiece “Disciplined Minds” has shown, such “fears” may not just exist in workers but perhaps even more so in professionals who often carry more ideological petit-bourgeois baggage than workers do.19 Under Managerialism, many of the latter have been—quite successfully—prevented from discovering for themselves the ideologically colonising characteristics of Managerialism. They are also told that their actions and decision-making do not represent forms of dehumanisation, often formulated as “means-ends” ideologies such as cost benefit, long-term benefits, and so on. Participants in emancipatory education, on the contrary, especially when being enabled to decode real managerial situations, might ask the coordinator of a session in a somewhat infuriated way:

“Where do you think all this will take us?”

Emancipatory education and coordinators of communicative action are not seeking to “take” students anywhere. Instead, it may be the force of an argument linked to the critical examination of a concrete managerial situation that enables students to critically reflect on what is being done to them. They might begin to realise that if their own critical analysis of managerial situations as such can reach even deeper, they may have to start to either divest themselves from Managerialism or—in the negative case—reaffirm Managerialism and therefore domination. Rejecting the cloning powers of Managerialism—precisely at such a crucial moment during the process of communicative action—can be a big step towards self-awareness. On the downward trajectory, and set against emancipation, meanwhile, any ideological reaffirmation of Managerialism will depend on a successive camouflaging of the colonising forces that come with Managerialism. For Managerialism, the only way out of this quagmire is further ideological camouflaging. In this case, the camouflaging powers of Managerialism will have to rely on using the hallucination of a MUnchausen-like trick to pull Managerialism on its own hair out of the self-made swamp.20 Only ideology can accomplish this.

A very similar form of retreat occurs when people are “grounded down” by managerial situations enforcing domination and when being domesticated by paternalistic management. In management training programmes, groups of managerial students are often presented with managerially coded situations that show a particular operational problem. As an example, in one case someone asks:

“I have seen this problem in other corporations ... but why isn’t it occurring here?”


To which the instructor replies:


“Because we are a well managed corporation and so this problem can’t happen here.”

Beyond doubt the instructor, and many of the managerial students who agree with her/him, are retreating from the actual problem in this example. While acknowledging the problem that might be threatening Managerialism, the instructor quickly camouflages this problem by relying on Managerialism—“we are a well managed corporation”. For a person trapped in the ideological belief system of Managerialism and conditioned by a culture that enhances the ideological colonisation directed towards career achievements and personal success, to recognise any managerial situation as being a “managerial” problem presents an unfavourable situation; hence, the ideological avoidance through the reference to “a well managed corporation”. This can lead to “impression management”.21 Admitting reality is simply seen as a hindrance to one’s own career possibilities and organisational success.

The above case shows how success-oriented management professionals comply with the determining forces of an ideology that managers as well as many “non-managerial staff” have internalised and consciously or unconsciously enhance. These internalised ideologies are based on the colonising powers of Managerialism in which managerial events are incorporated so that they not just “make sense” but perpetuate the hegemonic ideology of Managerialism.22 It is the ideological framework as established by Managerialism, taught in business schools through management training programmes, and daily rehearsed in managerial regimes that determines the correct ideological interpretation of new facts.

In many cases of management training, the ideology of the dominant group—management—hinders students’ realisation and understanding of such problems. Undeterred by staggering and plainly obvious levels of corporate mismanagement, the prevailing ideology tells management students to either shift the blame to someone else or make sure that the buck does not stop with them. In any case, virtually nobody acts for themselves as an active and communicative human subject when following the ideology of Managerialism. Instead, one finds that in management training programmes hardly anyone sees themselves as a critical theoretician. There are even occasions in management training where students themselves are made to become the cause of domination.

Perhaps being forced to confront the far-reaching ideological powers of Managerialism most directly remains one of the bleakest issues of emancipatory education. This stage demands very serious levels of personal astuteness as well as a certain level of courage from emancipatory educators because it involves a fight against domination as ideologically supported by Managerialism and a fight against the internalised forms of domination displayed by many students. Converting these inhuman tendencies into human emancipation demands to not fall back into the irrationalities and ideologies supportive of domination. In general, many professional people in management—perhaps as in any other discipline—have been “determined from above” through the prevailing culture of domination and its adjacent stabilising ideologies. This has also constituted many as somewhat dual human beings:

  • • On the one hand, people—consciously or unconsciously—have been made to accept the imperatives of domination under Managerialism.
  • • On the other hand, many are still carriers of the very human drive towards humanisation and homo faber’s internal forces that reject domination.

For those who have experienced more severe regimes of miseducation, these double fights might even be worse. The solution can never be found in a total rejection of professional people. These professionals—managerial as well as others—remain necessary, perhaps even for new forms of organisational existence in a post-managerial world. But since many of them were trained and conditioned to be “afraid of human freedom” and might be somewhat reluctant to engage in communicative action that leads to humanising action set against managerial regimes and Managerialism, the truth might be very challenging. Inevitably, some are less misguided than others by the seemingly overwhelming ideological powers of Managerialism. But it is those humanising powers that emancipatory education seeks to reclaim.

The educational reclaiming ofthose powers requires that emancipatory educators progress from communicative action towards cultural-organisational emancipation. At this point, emancipatory education moves beyond its role of removing the obstacles that are put in place by those who wish to cement Managerialism. In this process, emancipatory education assumes a new and even more courageous position. It issues clear invitations to all who wish to participate, not just to engage in communicative action but to engage in a substantial reconstruction of the managerial regime in a process that ends the regime while moving towards a democracy-based form of educational institutions as well as work organisations.23 In this sense, “cultural emancipation” is a necessary continuation of communicative action which must be carried out before complete emancipation can be established.

With this task, emancipation reaches beyond management training programmes and managerial regimes while taking on the totality of Managerialism to eventually reconstruct society. It includes virtually all human activities inside and outside the lifeworld. They become objects and, more importantly, subjects of remoulding action. But neither managerial regimes nor society can be reconstructed in a “mechanistic” or “managerial” fashion.24 It demands a broader perspective. Organisational (management) as well as societal (lifeworld) cultures can be culturally recreated through emancipatory education. In this process, communicative action remains a fundamental instrument of the reconstruction.

Emancipation can never establish a new emancipatory “regime” as emancipation and communicative action include everyone equally— regardless of social status. Consequently, educational efforts towards shaping critical consciousness can never be restricted to technical, managerial, and scientific training for intended and, at times, invented specialists. Instead, such newly emancipated workplaces, as an example, become qualitatively distinct from older managerial regimes that have been ideologically shaped by Managerialism. Emancipatory organisations can never be an attribute of management and technology in the same way as these were attributes “in” and “by” the previous organisations shaped by domination. As a consequence, the education of people in emancipated organisations must also be different. Technical, post-managerial, and scientific education needs to be superseded by humanistic education serving permanent emancipation and humanisation.

From this point of view, emancipatory education for people in any occupation requires an understanding of emancipatory culture that might still retain some remnants of a past in which domination provided one of the core organisational principles. These have to go through an emancipatory transformation in order to support the new organisations. Simultaneously, older and newly created occupations become instruments of a transforming culture that is no longer based on domination but directed towards a culture based on mutual and equal recognition. As such, emancipation deepens critical consciousness in the creative practices of new organisations and societies. With this, people might even begin to realise why some remnants of older organisational forms may need to transfer into the new organisational models. Overall, many will be able to free themselves more rapidly of spectres of domination as well as authoritarian schooling and hierarchically ordered managerial organisations. Nonetheless, these new emancipatory structures can never be hindered by the edification of older structures. This is a problem that has—historically—often constituted a serious problem for nearly all forms of emancipation from domination, reaching back to the Paris Commune of 1871.25

Today’s organisations and societies continue to be colonised through the ideological remnants of those furthering domination and in the future they may retain some of the powers to invade emancipatory organisation and societies. Some of these colonisations can be particularly severe because these forms of ideological domination are no longer carried out by the known and identifiable dominant elite but instead by anonymous ideologies such as Managerialism that convert the unsuspecting into ideological carriers. People who—consciously or unconsciously—seek to further domination might have adapted some of the qualities and persona of humanisation, pretending to have gone through the basic steps of critical thinking. As “dual beings” (furthering domination while working for humanity) they also accept and continue to accept the ideological imperatives of older regimes. While their power may have moved from corporate management to the new organisation, they still repress moves towards the true humanisation of their work organisation and society. In turn, their newly acquired organisational power not only indicates the existence of domination but also signifies a reactivation of reactionary ideologies. This occurs whenever an emancipated organisation lacks detecting mechanisms to ascertain such reactionary moves and when newly developed human freedom remains unguarded, thereby creating special circumstances that permit the rise of the hydra—Лершга Y8pa—of domination.

For all the above reasons, the essential triage of emancipatory education—mutual and equal recognition, communicative action, and ideal speech—must be enhanced through “cultural” action. This has to be a long-lasting process of emancipation from damaging ideologies, not just in managerial-organisational but also in cultural aspects. In virtually all stages of such an emancipatory process, very serious, reflective, and sincere efforts in creating a lasting emancipatory consciousness remain imperative. This provides the necessary processes by which human beings—through true communicative action and emancipatory praxis— can leave behind domination and their previously assigned status of being objects—human resources, educational customers, and so on—to assume the status of self-reflective subjects.

Finally, cultural emancipation also develops a practice of what might be called “permanent ideal speech” as a continuing process of communicative action. Communicative action does not and can never end with the transition from domination to emancipation. Unlike the classical way of domination found in authoritarian “leader-to-people” dialogues, communicative action consolidates the participation of all people in the process of change. In this way, people continue critical-communicative activities while emancipation will more easily be able to defend itself against bureaucratic tendencies, re-emerging forms of old ideologies, and even against new forms of hidden domination. It will secure the lifeworld against new colonisation often found under headings such as the following:

  • • Economic necessities: neo-liberalism as a hegemony
  • • Political necessities: parliamentarianism as a media spectacle
  • • Social necessities: class, education, living arrangements, communities
  • • Cultural necessities: corporate mass media, internet, newspapers
  • • Organisational necessities: management, corporations, Managerialism

Many of these necessities appear at the same time and are mutually reinforcing. They are “invaders of the lifeworld” in organisations and societies defined by domination and may be found in modern organisations, economies and in societies, in public health institutions, and educational facilities. The ideological colonisation of the lifeworld that serves the aim of safeguarding domination always involves an insular and quite often one-dimensional view of organisational and societal reality. It follows a deterministic and rather static perception of the lifeworld and of managerial organisations in which terms such as “organisational change” and “change management” indicate variations in managerial regimes inside an otherwise static managerial regime. As the philosopher Adorno once noted, they remain mere “variations of a theme”26 while cementing domination and the eternity of consumer capitalism. Externally, they always signify the imposition of Managerialism onto to lifeworld. Managerialism almost necessarily implies the superiority of the invading ideology and managerial practice as well as the inferiority of those lifeworlds to be colonised. As a consequence, there is a strong prevalence of leadership in management studies and a certain regularity of leadership programmes in management training. Along with this comes the ideological imposition of managerial values (efficiency, hierarchical order, command and control, cost benefit, zero sum, rational choice, prisoner dilemma, etc.) by Managerialism. Some of these “values” are

• the profit value, shareholder value, profit maximisation, the growth imperative, competition, aggression, amorality, hierarchy, control, quantification, linearity, segmentation, exploitation, ephemerality (existing beyond time and space), opposing nature, and homogenisation (global consumer “culture”).

The cultural-ideological colonisation by Managerialism also indicates that the ultimate locality of decisions rests no longer with a physical coloniser but with the anonymity of the colonising force of Managerialism. If Francisco Pizarro (1471-1541) was the face of early colonialism and Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902) the face of imperialism, modern corporate globalisation has become faceless. But once the power of decision-making is depersonalised and located externally rather than resting with those who should be the ones who decide, the latter only have the illusion of decision-making as this power now rests with Managerialism. This might explain why emancipation can hardly exist under Managerialism as domination and emancipation remain mutually exclusive—there can never be “a bit of both”. It is either humanity or inhumanity, Managerialism or self-organisation, and profit-driven corporations or alternative forms of production based on mutual and equal recognition. Kant’s famous categorical imperative sums this up:

“Act in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never merely as a means to an end, but always at the same time as an end.”

Kant only offers a strict “either/or” option: either you treat people as an “end in-themselves” or you treat them as a means—as a human resource or object to be trained. In order to move from management training to emancipation, a holistic educational-philosophical movement dedicated to emancipatory, human inquisitiveness, and creativity remains necessary. Meanwhile, biological developments in nature—for example, the cycle of “soil^seeds^-plants^soil”—may also be applied to human beings. This shows that human beings have always been transformational. But unlike nature, in education such transformations are not mechanistic but developmental.

Transformation occurs in seeds that under favourable conditions germinate and sprout. This is not necessarily always developmental. In much the same way, transformations of animals are not always developmental. To the overwhelming degree, these transformations are determined by the species to which they belong. And they occur in a time that does not belong to them. With human beings meanwhile things are different. Time, for example, belongs to them. Unlike animals, human beings remain the only living entity that developed from primitive apes to the tool-making upright walking human being of homo faber with an acute awareness of time.

As historical and even autobiographical human beings, we live with an awareness of ourselves within time. Our transformation and development have always occurred in our own awareness of time—they have never occurred outside of it. Yet, people are still submitted to concrete conditions of domination in which they are made to feel like alienated beings inside which time is made to appear as having stopped, at times expressed as “there has always been capitalism”, for example. In other occasions, time, history, epochs, and personal genealogies have been made to appear as existing independent of time and capitalism.27 This occurs, for example, when people are deprived of governing their “own time”, when their time is externally governed by others—for example, capitalism, the Taylorist “clock-time”, trainers, business school time tables—and when people are no longer self-directed but “other directed”. Under these forces, human beings become “beings for others”—for example, through authoritarian parents or domination as experienced at school (teachers with authority) and in workplaces with bosses.28 These forms of domination establish a false version of “being oneself” as they make one depend on someone else. As a consequence, human beings are deprived of being able to develop authentically—for themselves and in their own time.

Deprived of their “own time” and decision-making powers that have been deliberately relocated away from them to those furthering domination, many all too easily fall in line. They are made to follow prescriptions, display expected behaviours, attitudes, and ideologies that parrot those furthering domination. Yet, as pressure often creates counterpressure, those furthering domination will always encounter those who seek human emancipation. And many of those seeking emancipation will only begin to develop resistance to domination

  • • when they experience the pathological forces of domination,
  • • when being almost defeated by their colonisers,
  • • when contradictions emerge in the seemingly all-inclusive ideological armament of Managerialism, and
  • • when people see that those who “only want what is good for you!” have been weaving an ideological net in which they believe to have caught those who are to be colonised.

Only when people realise this and work towards overcoming it will they become human beings for themselves. If one considers workplaces, management training, and even society as a form, time, and space of being human, it remains quite obvious that these places can develop space, time, and forms that allow human beings to “be for themselves”.

By remaining somewhat dualistic places, they will remain colonised by Managerialism while also showing resistance to colonisation. Under Managerialism, many of these places will remain static entities asphyxiated within the current status quo. In that way, Managerialism seeks to prevent them from developing into emancipatory spaces because they remain governed by external forces. The political, economic, and cultural decisionmaking power of these places has been relocated outside of themselves and replaced—or better displaced—into the realm of Managerialism as the all-governing colonising entity. In its finality, Managerialism determines the destiny of virtually all institutions. Transformation and human development are rendered obsolete while competition and consumerism become eternal values. Society is asphyxiated except in those areas where Managerialism depends on some levels of advancement. As much as change management and organisational restructuring is conducted for the sake of change and restructuring and to further managerial power and Managerialism, as much have these changes and restructurings become cyclical “treadmill” changes—one walks but never gets anywhere. This is not development; it is change in the interest of Managerialism.

Just as it remains imperative not to perceive corporate globalisation as anything different from its historical predecessors of colonisation and imperialism, it also remains essential not to confuse managerial and corporate modernisation with human development. To an overwhelming degree, corporate modernisation can have a positive effect on certain groups such as, for example, the business elites that are foremost located in OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) countries. For the foreseeable future, many societies will remain merely “to-be-modernised” with no or only some development. Globally, the rich appear to become even richer while leaving the poor behind. This trend will continue with many societies being forced or enticed to delegate their decision-making powers to countries and agencies outside of those considered to be non-OECD. This will be the deliberate and predesigned “fate” of many societies as long as Managerialism advances its global reach. Perhaps the “Gini Coefficient” still remains one of the best predictors when judging if societies are developing or being confined to poverty. To make a prediction, one must move beyond much rehearsed criteria such as the gross domestic product, income, and so on. In many ways, these statistics express the ideologies of the global elite rather than the true state of affairs and they might even indicate that29

statistics are like bikinis what they reveal is suggestive but what they conceal is vital.

Perhaps the single most basic and perhaps even “truth approximating” criteria of human development set against corporate-managerial advancement is the question of “being for oneself”. One of the principal contradictions in many societies remains the relationship of dependency between society and the business elites of the “global rich” together with their global institutions that underwrite dependency and global domination. Once these contradictions have been superseded, perhaps humanising transformation can take effect. Meanwhile, true development does not come from minuscule handouts but from “being for oneself”.30

For many reasons, the paternalistic, philanthropic, aid-giving, and often purely reformist remedies engineered by the elites often remain no more than ideological bandages for financial imperialism that has been ideologically reframed as globalisation while simultaneously eliminating its predecessors, imperialism and colonialism, from the memory. Some of the so-called reforms that come with financial domination are flanked by the ideological fig leaf of aid-giving. Rejecting these reforms may be rather frightening while it could also cause minor panic among the more reactionary members of the ruling business elites in both the developing and in the developed countries. Yet, financial domination paralleled by reformist aid-giving is not designed to resolve the inherent contradictions of corporate globalisation. Flanked by a substantial arsenal of ideological instruments as broadcasted by corporate mass media, the global reformist solutions of the business elites often occur in response to demands arising from emancipatory pressures of those deemed depending, dependable, and quite often dispensable. As a consequence, globalisation may not be much more than a new way of preserving global hegemony. It is as if the global business elites are saying:

Let’s have some measured reforms and aid programmes before people may carry out real emancipation.

In order to achieve their goal to maintain global domination, business elites have no options other than to further the global conquest of Managerialism, the manipulation of people by all available means, as well as economic and cultural—and at times military—invasion and ideological colonisation of the dependent societies. In this colonisation process, elite business and political leaders present themselves as “honest brokers” for the education of the young—girls in particular—in the so-called developing countries. What remains hidden is what comes along with corporate globalisation and the pretended reformist “betterment” of mankind, namely what Edward Said sees as “Orientalism” and, more precisely, as cultural and ideological colonisation in “Culture and Imperialism”.31

Set against capital’s ideological colonisation and the fate of being other directed and externally dominated is the idea of emancipatory education inside educational institutions that further “being for oneself” rather than any other externally devised and implemented ideology. In this process, it remains essential to briefly sketch out how emancipatory educational groups can be formed. Usually such groups are made up of people who in one way or another tend to belong to social strata of either the “to-be-dominated” or dominators, for example, management. At a certain point in their lives, some have realised the pathologies of domination and have abandoned the ideology of Managerialism and often even their “position of institutional power” inside the managerial hierarchy. Some have even left their managerial class behind to join those working towards emancipation. In some cases, the move to emancipation may be the result from a structured intellectual analysis of the contradictory and pathological realities of the managerial, economic, social, cultural, global, legal, and so on affairs. In other cases, moving from the managerially induced vertical (boss) misrecognition to a horizontal human recognition represents simply an act of mutual and equal recognition, from control and competition to humanisation with a true commitment to people.32 This move always requires communicating with those seeking emancipation and practising communicative action directed towards ending domination. In many cases, this also means resisting the colonisation of the lifeworld by life-alienating ideologies such as the invented “market-, business-, and economic-imperatives”, Managerialism, as well as neo-liberalism, as the next chapter will show.

< Prev   CONTENTS   Source   Next >

Related topics