Tomas Wedin

17 Pages·2013·1.29 MB·English

 lir.journal.3(13) 
 Tomas Wedin, »Ideological continuity and discursive
changes in the Swedish educational system«
 abstract  
In this article I present a reading of the relationship between
discourse and ideology. With two curricula for the Swedish
upper secondary school as my empirical basis, I suggest that
the rather conspicuous differences between the curriculum of
1970 and that of 2011 ought to be considered as manifestations
of discursive but not ideological changes. In the concluding
remarks, I argue that the way in which the term discourse has
come to be used has contributed to this. As a way forward, I
contend that the Rawlsian framework, given the social-liberal
values which it is supposed to reflect, provide us with political
tools to map the most pertinent flaws in the curriculum of 2011.
 Tomas Wedin is a PhD student, financed by the Centre for
Educational Studies, at the Department of Literature, History
of Ideas, and Religion, at the University of Gothenburg. He is
writing his PhD thesis on the reforms of the Swedish school
system in the 1990s.
 Keywords: ideology, Weltanschauung, discourse, cur-
ricula, liberalism
 http://lir.gu.se/LIRJ

lir.j.3(13)  49
 tomas  Wedin  
 ideological continuity and discursive  
changes in the sWedish educational system   
  
  In On Ideology Louis Althusser distinguishes between a
number of Ideological State Apparatuses that, beside the
repressive apparatus, contribute to the reproduction of the
dominant ideology. Amongst these, he emphasizes the school
system in particular, claiming that this apparatus has
replaced the church in later-modern capitalist society as the
dominant institution of ideological reproduction.1 Apart from
the school, there is no state-controlled institution that is
comparable in its influence over subjects. A plausible
explanation is the close bond between the capitalist system
and the educational system. Ever since the dawn of capitalism,
the system has depended on skilled workers, engineers,
bookkeepers, etc.; with the structural reshaping of the
Swedish economy from a principally industrial one to a
service economy, this relationship has further deepened.
In the present article I shall make no further use of
Althusser’s theory of ideology. Instead, I shall present a read-
ing of the relationship between discourse and ideology by way
of analyzing the educational system. In examining two Swedish
curricula for the non-compulsory school, one from 1970 and
one from 2011, I claim that whilst the political discourse has
changed (substantially), the dominant ideology has remained
relatively firm.2 The dramatic political changes that have taken
place since 1970 and the very different discourses formed in
the two curricula ought thus to be considered as underlying
discursive changes.
The theoretical framework through which I will pursue this
investigation is Habermas’s theory of science and technology
as ideology. Notwithstanding the substantial economic-politi-
cal changes that have taken place in Sweden during the current
period, my contention is that these and their concomitant
discursive changes ought to be considered changes within the
same scientistic-technological ideology. The ideological cri-
tique presented share central claims with the critique directed
against our post-political predicament, offered for example by
Chantal Mouffe. In the conclusion, I relate my negative critique
of the curricula to her position and contrast both with the
rationalist position represented by Habermas and Rawls.
lir.j.3(13)  50
  discourse and ideology   
t
o
m
  technology and science as ideology a
s

Habermas’s conception is distinct from the classical Marxian W
e
definition in its emphasis on how ideology and productive d
i
n
forces have merged to such a degree that the scientistic-tech- .

»
nocratic core of late capitalism has become an ideology itself.3 i
d
This reading contrasts with bourgeois ideology, which justifies e
o
laissez-faire capitalism through the idea of a free exchange of l
o
g
equivalents on the market.4 In contrast to this »bourgeois i
c
ideology of justice«, which is constituted by a content of cer- a
l

tain normative ideas such as responsibility-based individual- c
o
n
ism and the related idea of the free market and the axiomatic t
i
definition of liberty as non-intervention, Habermas’s theory n
u
i
defines ideology as a Weltanschauung of late capitalist t
y

society.5 a
n
The point of departure for Habermas is Max Weber’s theory d

d
of rationalization, in particular Weber’s emphasis on the in- i
s
creasing use of purposive-rational action (zweckrationale c
u
r
Handeln) in capitalist societies.6 Habermas suggests that a s
i
consequence of the continuous extension of areas in society to ve

be subjected to the criteria of purposive-rational action is the c
h
increasing influence of a second order purposive-rational a
n
g
action, in the form of planning of establishments, improve- e
s
ments and an expansion of systems of purposive-rational  
i
n
action.  
t
h
The rationalization process underway in industrialized e

societies since the nineteenth century was not the value-neu- s
w
tral transformation that Weber presented it as. It was, rather, e
d
i
an organizational re-formation through which technical ra- s
h
tionality became an implicit political force. Essentially inter-  e
d
est-driven issues were detached from a social context and u
c
transposed onto a »neutral« and rational ground. The rationali- a
t
i
zation process was not only a mental and organizational trans- o
n
formation but also a process in which an unacknowledged a
l

political domination took place. Given the constitutive role that s
y
s
purposive-rational action plays in this process, we ought to t
e
consider this Weberian idea as a form of the exercise of control. m
«
The interests of particular groups or individuals are not im-
posed »after« the new technologies have been applied; rather,
they are intertwined with the development and implementation
of technologies. Technology as a »pure« phenomenon is an
illusion; it will always form part of a historical-political pro-
ject. Under the veneer of rationalization, this new and ever
increasing form of domination expands smoothly, contrasting
sharply with the earlier, more obvious forms in which domina-
tion has appeared. The aim of subordinating nature and im-
proving living standards for everyone motivates the constant
increase of productivity. Rather than being a subsystem under
lir.j.3(13)  51
an overarching societal structure, the striving for scientific and
t
technical improvement and the growth of productive forces has o
m
become an implicitly dominant goal in itself.7 a
s

As a consequence of the dislocation of the content of ration- W
e
ality, rationality loses its anterior force as a critical standard d
i
n
and is degraded into an intra-systemic standard. When mo- .

»
nopolized by the scientistic-technological ideology, critique i
d
against the system as such has no place. The ideology of late e
o
capitalism need not bother justifying the system with refer- l
o
g
ence to any normative regulation. Instead, technical solutions i
c
are offered that keep normative-practical questions depoliti- a
l

cized. The ideological core of this colonialism is the »elimina- c
o
n
tion of the distinction between the practical and the technical«; t
i
in other words, all fundamentally practical questions are n
u
i
treated as if they were technical issues.8 t
y

It is in this sense that Weltanschauung ought to be under- a
n
stood. While the various dominant ideologies, such as ordolib- d

d
eralism, trickle-down liberalism, social democracy, etc., i
s
articulate different assumptions and paths, most do so within c
u
r
the confines of an instrumentalist reasoning subordinated the s
i
overarching aim of the colonial power, i.e. the axiom of techni- ve

cal development. The essential difference between these differ- c
h
ent forms of »liberalisms«, promoted as explicit ideologies of a
n
g
content on the one hand, and in the sense of Weltanschauung e
s
on the other, is the unambiguous direct normative claims of the  
i
n
former and the implicitness of the latter. Ideology as  
t
h
Weltanshauung ought to be understood as the horizon in e

which influential ideologies as content are framed. s
w
e
d
i
  discourse and its relation to ideology s
h
Given that my aim is to suggest a relationship between dis-  e
d
course and ideology, I have no interest in developing the con- u
c
cept of discourse, but rather to present it in a common a
t
i
sense-fashion that captures the core constituents of the con- o
n
cept. In doing so I shall make use of Stuart Hall’s definition of a
l

discourse as a set of »ready-made and pre-constituted ‘experi- s
y
s
encings’ displayed and arranged through language«.9 Thus, a t
e
discourse can be thought of as a productive framework within m
«
which our ability to act, speak and think become limited. This
way of defining discourse is naturally disputable, but it is
undisputable that this way of defining discourse, grosso modo,
is common in »discourse analysis« today.
Defined in this way, discourse stands in a relatively autono-
mous relationship to the scientistic-technological ideology
sketched above. The major difference between the two concepts
is, consequently, their different extensions. Whilst a discourse is
always identifiable and local, such as school political discours-
es, ideology as Weltanschauung extends widely, forming the
horizon. One clear example of their different character can be
lir.j.3(13)  52
made by comparing the free-trade discourse and the discourses
t
that derive from the dependency-school (e.g. the world-system o
m
theory) with the underlying scientistic-technocratic ideology. a
s

The two discourses make different claims about how countries W
e
with a relatively low GDP/capita can develop economically, i.e. d
i
n
claims about one distinct and restricted question. Neither, .

»
however, contrast with the omnipresent and implicit immediate- i
d
ness that characterize the scientistic-technological theory. e
o
However, while most discourses within an ideology (such as l
o
g
the free-trade) are supportive of it, we can also expect to find i
c
discourses that are not conducive to the dominant ideology.10 a
l

This applies to a discourse’s relation to ideology as content; c
o
n
whereas we can expect most influential discourses to be com- t
i
patible with the dominant ideology as content (such as the n
u
i
currently dominant economistic liberalism), others are not. t
y

However, due to the inflation of the term discourse, it has in a
n
practice come to be used synonymously with ideology. This is, I d

d
believe, an unfortunate development. As I shall argue, there are i
s
good reasons for keeping the two clearly separated. c
u
r
s
i
  From spearhead into the Future to   ve

entrepreneurship: the curricula   c
h
The curriculum for the Swedish upper secondary school a
n
g
(Läroplan för gymnasieskolan) came into force in July 1971.11 e
s
The major changes were the replacement of the different types  
i
n
of secondary school with one overarching upper secondary,  
t
h
though with varying lengths of attendance (between two and e

four years) and the elimination of the upper secondary school s
w
qualification: the studentexamen. These reforms were part of e
d
i
the post-war attempt of the Social Democratic Party to create a s
h
more uniform school system, also manifested in the earlier  e
d
reform of the primary school system. u
c
A new reformed curriculum for the upper secondary school a
t
i
entered into force in 1994. The preceding governmental report o
n
was named »School for formation« (»Skola för bildning«). With a
l

this, the term formation was reactivated in an educational- s
y
s
administrative context. In parallel with the new curriculum, a t
e
number of school reforms were carried out. Those affecting the m
«
school system most deeply were the introduction of a voucher-
based school choice system, the replacement of equality with
equivalence as a guiding principle, and the transfer of princi-
pal responsibility for the school from the state to the munici-
palities. There was political consensus over these changes,
with central decisions taken both by the center-right govern-
ment between 1991–1994 and the social democrat governments
before and after that period. A new center-right government
took charge in 2006 (and was re-elected in 2010) with the pro-
claimed intention to create a »knowledge-school«. The curricu-
lum of 2011 is a product of this intention.
lir.j.3(13)  53
  the school as a spearhead into the future:  
t
the 1970 curriculum o
m
The first two paragraphs of the curriculum quote the national a
s

school law, reminding the reader that all school education in W
e
Sweden aims at »transmitting knowledge to the pupils and at d
i
n
developing their capacities… and at becoming competent and .

»
responsible citizens«.12 In the next paragraph we are informed i
d
that those who are engaged in the school system should »pro- e
o
mote [the pupils’] personal development in order to become l
o
g
free, independent and harmonious persons«.13 Closely related i
c
to this injunction is that schools prepare pupils for »living and a
l

being active in cooperation with others and for preparing c
o
n
themselves for their role as active members of tomorrow’s t
i
society, which to a larger extent than today’s society will de- n
u
i
mand co-operation and solidarity between people«.14 t
y

This support of the pupils is not, however, without limits. a
n
Under the headline »the pupil at the centre«, we are reminded d

d
that the school handles individuals with different »personalities« i
s
and »endowment types« (begåvningstyper).15 We are reminded of c
u
r
the constraints limiting efforts within the school system to assist s
i
the individual in her/his development. At the end of the day there ve

are different pupils with different endowment types, and these c
h
differences must be taken into consideration. Nowhere does the a
n
g
document problematize the idea of »endowment types«. The idea e
s
is an essentialist one, in which the abilities of each pupil are  
i
n
considered inflexible when entering upper secondary school.  
t
h
Under the heading »individual development«, we are in- e

formed of the importance of a continuous stimulation of the s
w
interest in studying and »desire to work«.16 Continuous stimu- e
d
i
lation requires a »strong interest in the pupils from the side of s
h
the school and an individual adaptation of the teaching to the  e
d
disposition and abilities of the individual pupil«.17 The afore- u
c
mentioned assumption is repeated: the development of the a
t
i
individual is central, but one must not forget that we are deal- o
n
ing with different personality types that put clear constraints a
l

on the potential of each individual. s
y
s
The critical distance vis-à-vis the prevalent order is further t
e
underlined when we are presented with the reasons for having m
«
a historical perspective on school. With the example of the
relations on the labor market, which – we are reminded – ought
to be debated in school, we are given an argument for a histori-
cal perspective on society. Such an approach, it is assumed,
will enable the pupils to discern between states of affairs that
they wish to keep, and those that they wish to change (my
italics).18 Yet another formulation bearing witness of this focus
towards the future is the statement that the school »ought not
respond to the needs of the actual society, but that the school
becomes a positive force in the societal development«.19 The
school shall serve as a spearhead into the future.
lir.j.3(13)  54
The idea of the school as an institution guiding the society
t
into the future, as well as the idea of individual development, o
m
ought to be considered within the constraints that the labor a
s

market and society exercise. These constraints are clearly W
e
expressed when the period following high school is discussed; d
i
n
students either immediately take up a vocational career or .

»
continue studies at a higher level. The school has a responsibil- i
d
ity to give students the special preparation they need and wish, e
o
but it is not a task for the school to enable every individual to l
o
g
fulfill her or his interests. Each individual preference must be i
c
weighed against the demands from society and the labor mar- a
l

ket.20 In order to prepare the pupils for working life, it is impor- c
o
n
tant that in their schoolwork they engage in tasks that they are t
i
likely to face when entering the labor market. The utility-based n
u
i
interest of adapting the educational system to the needs of the t
y

labor market is explicitly stated. As in the question concerning a
n
individual development, the »open-future« idea must be read d

d
within the clear constraints formed by the putative biological i
s
lottery as well as the demands of the (prevalent) society and c
u
r
the labor market. s
i
A final noteworthy part of this text is the attention it directs ve

towards the inner desires (viljeliv) of individuals. We are told c
h
that »a major part of a human life is dedicated to work, and for a
n
g
the pupils the school is a work place. It is there that their need e
s
for activity can be captured and, with their own co-operation,  
i
n
canalized in a fashion that creates working joy«.21 But the work  
t
h
in school should also create citizens who are willing and able e

to make active contributions to society in general and be active s
w
and engaged in different activities in their spare time.22 Taken e
d
i
together with formulations such as the assumption of a future s
h
in which cooperation will be intensified, the contours of a more  e
d
communitarian societal ideal is prominent. u
c
The ideals expressed in the curriculum of 1970 points in a
t
i
various directions which, considered separately, would be o
n
difficult to analyze fruitfully. This is where discourse as an a
l

analytical concept becomes useful. Considered in the light of s
y
s
other demands, the contours emerge of a fundamentally com- t
e
munitarian discourse, where stable progress is emphasized m
«
along with an ability to adapt to whatever the labor market
needs in order to »keep the wheels moving«. Whilst the develop-
ment of the individual is underlined repeatedly, this desidera-
tum should not be confused with the school as an arena where
the interest of the pupils rule; each individual is not only
confined to her own limitations (as nature, alas, does not
disperse her riches equally among children), but also to what
society needs from her.
lir.j.3(13)  55
  entrepreneurship, flexibility and knowledge:  
t
the 2011 curriculum o
m
The first sentence of the 2011 curriculum is an affirmation that a
s

public education in Sweden rests on democratic principles and W
e
that »education within the school system aims at pupils ac- d
i
n
quiring and developing knowledge and values«.23 The main task .

»
for the school is to »convey knowledge and create the precondi- i
d
tions for the student to acquire and develop knowledge«.24 e
o
Under the heading »The aim of the school«, we are informed l
o
g
that pupils, through their studies, shall obtain a basis upon i
c
which they can construct their life-long learning. This is neces- a
l

sary due to »changes in the labor market, new technology, c
o
n
internationalization, etc.«25 This statement is followed by an t
i
admonishment that pupils be enabled to develop their ability n
u
i
to take initiative and responsibility, which in turn is followed t
y

by the demand that the school: a
n
d

d
 … shall contribute to the pupils’ development of know- i
s
ledge and attitudes which are conducive to entrepreneur- c
u
r
ship, enterprise-orientation and an innovative thinking. s
i
The opportunities for pupils to start and run enterprises ve

are hereby enhanced. Entrepreneurial skills are valuable c
h
for professional life, social life and continued studies.26 a
n
g
e
s
This extract indicates a substantially new attitude both vis-à-  
i
n
vis knowledge and in its normative attitudes. It is underlined  
t
h
that the school cannot transmit all knowledge on its own. It is e

essential that it create the best conceivable »conditions for the s
w
formation (bildning), thinking, and knowledge-development of e
d
i
the pupils«.27 Pupils must be aware that new knowledge and s
h
understanding are preconditions for personal development, in  e
d
order to lay the basis for a »positive attitude towards u
c
learning«.28 a
t
i
Yet another concept indicating the centrality of knowledge is o
n
the reactivation of the concept of formation, which experienced a
l

a renaissance in the school administrative context in 1992 s
y
s
through the official report School for education (SOU 1992:94, t
e
Skola för bildning). In the light of the explicit exhortation to m
«
inculcate the value of entrepreneurship throughout the educa-
tional system, the ways in which the concepts of bildning and
life-long learning are interpreted seem rather confined.29 The
idea of life-long learning was first promoted in the UNESCO-
report Learning to be, published four decades ago in 1973,
where problems such as the division of society into classes,
alienation from work etc. were discussed alongside increased
competition and other economic and technical issues.30 The
concept then disappeared, only to appear again at the end of
the 1980s. This time, however, it came coupled with familiar
terms such as competitiveness, flexibility, human capital, etc.
lir.j.3(13)  56
Since then, lifelong learning has seldom been omitted in official
t
documents concerning educational strategies.31 o
m
The historical background to the renaissance of the term a
s

bildning in a school administrative context is related to the W
e
vehement – but not always equally nuanced – advocacy of d
i
n
»knowledge« in Sweden (as well as in other countries) during .

»
the 1980s.32 Bildning entered the Swedish language through the i
d
German noun Bildung, which harbors two meanings that can e
o
be coupled with two different, but related verbs. On the one l
o
g
hand there is the sense of abbilden, according to which depic- i
c
tion, following the idea of the Imago Dei, is the central aim. The a
l

other way of interpreting Bildung is the verb bilden. The cen- c
o
n
tral idea here is that in the process of Bildung, the individual t
i
engages in the »formation« of something not an a priori given. n
u
i
This clear distinction between the two readings of Bildung t
y

have, however, been questioned on the grounds that they are a
n
notoriously hard to separate.33 d

d
Keeping to the traditional distinction, we can identify clear i
s
marks of abbilden in the educational goal of furthering our c
u
r
cultural heritage. The bilden aspect can be discerned in the s
i
goal to inculcate flexibility and the openness to umbilden or ve

re-form oneself, expressed in, for example the striving to pro- c
h
mote life-long learning.34 With life-long learning and entrepre- a
n
g
neurship as aims within education, bildning turns into an e
s
appeal to the individual to be a moldable production factor,  
i
n
incessantly prepared to adapt to the demands of technological  
t
h
development. e

The emphasis on entrepreneurship, rather than the more s
w
neutral term creativity, strengthens this interpretation. Given e
d
i
the discursive frame in which the term is embedded, there are s
h
good reasons to believe that entrepreneurship ought to be read  e
d
as productive creativity. This way of reading Bildung is quite u
c
far from most of the various roots from which it developed, but a
t
i
it is nevertheless – in a rather counterintuitive fashion – clearly o
n
related to the idea of creating something not given beforehand. a
l

Under the heading »The development of each school«, the s
y
s
2011 curriculum hints at the motivations of some of the central t
e
tenets in the actual educational system. It is desirable, we are m
«
told, that the school strive to form »flexible solutions« in order
to enable smooth relationships between the different educa-
tional levels as well as with the labor market.35 The pedagogical
guidance of the board of the school as well as the professional
responsibility of the teachers is important for the qualitative
development of the school, which is necessary in order to reach
the national goals. But in order to make sure that the different
schools actually are developing, it is required that the different
schools are regularly evaluated. Justifications are presented
for the voucher system applied (»flexible solutions«) as well as
for the need for central evaluations. Discursively, this fits
lir.j.3(13)  57
closely with the general emphasis on preparing the pupils for a
t
»complex reality« where the ability to acquire and »use« new o
m
knowledge is essential – in other words to be flexible.36 a
s

The curriculum of 2011 is an unusually explicit official W
e
document. With entrepreneurship as a guiding concept to be d
i
n
impregnated in the educational system, little is left to the .

»
imagination concerning the aims of the recent reforms. In the i
d
document, the contours of a positivist approach to knowledge e
o
appear, in which flexibility and life-long learning, coupled with l
o
g
the overarching goal of inculcating an entrepreneurial attitude, i
c
are key ideas. a
l

c
o
n
  ideological continuity and discursive   t
i
changes: some notes on the current    n
u
i
situation        t
y

The two curricula are indicative of the depth of the societal a
n
changes Sweden has undergone since 1970. The social demo- d

d
cratic post-war vision, where productivity, wealth redistribu- i
s
tion and counter cyclical economic policy danced together to c
u
r
the melody of Keynesianism, had come to an end. As a conse- s
i
quence, Sweden was increasingly becoming the scene of an- ve

tagonistic political positions. Critique of the state came from c
h
the left, who pointed out the continuing reproduction of class a
n
g
society in the educational system and preference given to the e
s
needs of the labor market.37 From the right, a reaction slowly  
i
n
but steadily took shape during the 1970s.  
t
h
When the curriculum of 1970 was written, the oil crisis as e

well as the dissolution of the Bretton Woods both lay in the s
w
future. The complex and rather contradictory curriculum e
d
i
presented in 1970 ought to be understood in view of the »re- s
h
cord years« that followed the Second World War. The upper  e
d
secondary system, it was claimed, ought to strive to »develop« u
c
society, without ever losing control of the pupils. Change was a
t
i
encouraged, but always within the confines of the labor market o
n
and the needs of society. These desiderata had not been in a
l

conflict during the post-war years, but with increased competi- s
y
s
tion from new, recently industrialized states, technical changes t
e
and drastically rising oil prices, the rules changed. m
«
When the 2011 curriculum was formulated, the preconditions
for economic growth had changed substantially. Closely related
to these changes are the information revolution and the con-
comitant restructuring of the Swedish economy into a service
economy. Furthermore, from the end of the 1980s onwards, new
economic ideas such as public choice and the closely associ-
ated concept of new public management gained influence and
substantially changed the political climate. Indicative of this
was the surprisingly conspicuous labor market orientation in
the 2011 curriculum. When these ideas started to transform
into political practices on a large scale with the election of a
lir.j.3(13)  58