Theoretical foundation of Educational …wktsang/edm7206/handout/20… · Web viewi. Offshoring: It refers to instances where a multi-national company moves or expands some of its

EDM 9206The Foundations of EAP

Lecture 8The Contextual Foundation of EAP: Institution, System, and Lifeworld

A. The Context of EAP: Putting EAP in Context1. Recapitulation: Putting EAP in Perspective

a. To plan, act and lead knowledgablyb. To plan, act and lead rationallyc. To plan, act and lead reasonablyd. To plan, act and lead coercivelye. To plan, act and lead legitimately

2. To lead with perspectives is only half of the enterprise of EAP. Leadership is not operating in socio-historical vacuum. It must take the socio-historical contexts, in which it is embedded, into consideration. These contexts include organization, institution, systems (i.e. the market and state), and the lifeworld.

3. The institutional context: a. By institution, it refers to any social interactions and human

relationships, which bear the characteristics of regularity, continuity and persistence within a particular human society.

b. Educational system is by definition a social institution across different societies and various epochs. Accordingly, EAP studies must be carried out within the context of institution.

4. The contexts of the market and the state: a. It has been commonly conceived by modern social scientists that two of

the most prominent social institutions in modern society re the capitalist market and the modern state.

b. Modern educational systems have been encroached by both the state and the capitalist market since the modern era when the Church in Europe lost its grasp on education. Accordingly, the triangular relationship between education, the state and market has been one of the core subject matters in social sciences.

5. Habermas’ dichotomy between the system and the lifeworldAccording to Habermas’ conception modern society can be construed as a four-division structure, i.e. a. The fundamental dichotomy between the system and the lifeworld b. The system dimension can further differentiated into two media-steered

subsystemsi. Money-steered economic systemii. Power-steered administrative system

c. The Lifeworld dimension can also be differentiated into i. Private sphereii. Public sphere

d. The relationships between education and these four divisions in modern society have been well researched in the various field in social scientists, including of course EAP studies.

W.K. TsangPolicy Studies in Education 1

(I)The Institutional Context

B. Conception of Institution: The Formal Contextual Foundation of EAP1. Douglass C. North stipulates that “institutions are rules of the game in a

society or more formally, are the humanly devised constraint that shape human interaction. In consequence they structure incentives in human exchange, whether political, social or economic.” (North, 1990, p. 3)

2. Elinor Ostrom writes, “Broadly defined, institutions are the prescriptions that humans use to organize all forms of repetitive and structured interactions including those within families, neighborhoods, markets, firms, sports leagues, churches, private associations, and government at all scales. Individuals interacting within rule-structured situations face choices regarding the actions and strategies they take, leading to consequences for themselves and for others." (Ostrom, 2005, P.3)

2. James March and Johan Olsen’s defines that “An institution is a relatively enduring collection of rules and organized practices, embedded in structures of meaning and resources that are relatively invariant in the face of turnover of individuals and relatively resilient to the idiosyncratic preferences and expectations of individuals and changing external circumstances.” (March and Olsen, 2006, p.3) According, in institutionsa. “There are constitutive rules and practices prescribing appropriate

behavior for specific actors in specific situations.b. There are structures of meaning, embedded in identities and

belongings: common purposes and accounts that give direction and meaning to behavior, and explain, justify and legitimate behavioral codes.

c. There are structures of resources that create capabilities for action.” (ibid, my numbering)

3. John Campbell’s states that “Institutions …consist of formal and informal rules, monitoring and enforcing mechanisms, and systems of meaning that define the context within which individuals, corporations, labor unions, nation-states and other organizations operate and interact with each other. Institutions are settlements born from struggle and bargaining. They reflect the resources and power of those who made them and, in turn, affect the distribution of resources and power in society. Once created, institutions are powerful external forces that help determine how people make sense of their world and act in it. They channel and regulate conflict and thus ensure stability in society.” (Campbell, 2004, p. 1)

4. Richard Scott defines that “Institutions consist of cognitive, normative, and regulative structures and activities that provide stability and meaning to social behavior. Institutions are transported by various carries ── cultures, structures, and routines ── and they operate at multiple levels of jurisdiction.” (Scott, 1995, p.33)

5. Peter Berger and Thomas Luckmann indicate that “institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typiifcation of habitualized actions by types of actors. Put differently, any such typification is an institution. What must be stressed is the reciprocity of institutional typifications and the typicality of not only the actions but the actors in institution. The typifications of habitualized actions that constitute institutions are always shared ones. They are available to all members of the particular social group in question,


and the institution itself typifies individual actors as well as individual actions.” (1966, p. 72)

C. Academic Origins of New Institutionalism1. One of initiative of the new institutionalist perspective is the reaction to

prevailing perspectives in political sciences in the 1960s. One is the “old institutionalism”, which focuses their studies of the political institutions on formal-legal structure of the government, e.g. the legislative, executive and juridical structures. The other is the political behavior approach, which applies the behaviorism in psychology and concentrate o analyzing the political behaviors of individual political actors, such as voters. In reaction to them, new institutionalism focuses on the political meanings, symbols and cultures that constitute the regularity and durability underwriting the political institution and its structures.

2. Another initiative of the new institutionalist perspective is the reaction to the methodological individualism found in economics, which manifest in theories of rational choice and preference. In reaction to these, new institutionalism put its emphasis on meanings and cultures, i.e. the logic of appropriateness, underlying human behaviors and choice. Hence, the new institutionalism reinstates the methodological collectivism (or more specifically methodological institutionalism) in economics by accounting for economic actions with social units such as firms, classes, status groups, ethnic groups, nation, and so on rather than individuals’ preferences and choices.

3. In sociology, the rise of new institutionalism is mainly in reaction to the legal-rational system model prevailing in organization studies and the structural-functionalism dominating the marco-sociological studies, such as development studies. Based on the social phenomenological perspective made popular by Berger and Luckmann in their work The Social Construction of Reality (1967), new institutionalists emphasize the informal structure of organization and the subjective elements underlying patterned actions and enduring practices.

D. The Perspectives in New Institutionalism: 1. Peter Hall and R.C.R. Taylor have distinguished three perspectives in new

institutionalism in political science: a. Historical Institutionalism:

i. This perspective tends to see enduring human behavior-patterns as outcomes evolve from specific historical and socio-economic contexts. Hence “historical institutionalists tend to view have a view of institutional development that emphasizes path dependence and unintended consequences.” (P. 938)

ii. “Historical institutionalists define institution the formal or informal procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the organizational structure of the polity or political economy. They can range from the rules of a conventional order or the standard operating procedures of a bureaucracy to the conventional governing trade union behaviour or bank-firm relations.” (P. 938)

iii. “In this perspective, the individual is seen as an entity deeply embedded in a world of institutions, composed of symbols, scripts and routines, which provide the filters for interpretation, of both the situation and oneself, out of which a course of action is constructed.


Not only do institutions provide strategically-useful information, they also affect the very identities, self-images and preferences of the actions.” (p. 939)\

b. Rational-choice institutionalism: i. “The rational choice institutionalists in political science drew fruitful

analytical tools from the ‘new economics of organization’, which emphasizes the importance of property rights, rent-seeking, and transactions costs, to the operation and development of institutions. Especially influential was Willamson’s argument that the particular organizational form can be explained as the result of an effort to reduce the transaction cost of undertaking the same activity without such as institutions.” (P. 943)

ii. Rational-choice institutionalists “posit that the relevant actors have a fixed set of preferences or tastes, …behave entirely instrumentally so to maximize the attainment of these preferences and do so in a highly strategic manner that presumes extensive calculation.” (Pp. 944-945)

iii. Rational-choice institutionalist tend to see politics as a series of collective action dilemmas. The latter can be defined as instances when individuals acting to maximizing the attainment of their own preferences are likely to produce an outcome that is collectively suboptimal. …Typically, what prevents the actors from taking a collectively-superior course of action is absence of institutional arrangements that would guarantee complementary behaviour by others. Classic examples includes the ‘prisoner’s dilemma’ and the ‘tragedy of the commons’ and the political situations present a varieties of such problems. (P. 945)

c. Sociological institutionalism: i. "The sociological institutionalists tend to define institutions …not just

formal rules, procedures or norms, but the symbol systems, cognitive scripts, and moral templates that provide the 'frames of meaning' guiding human action." (p. 948) Accordingly, they "argue that many of the institutional forms and procedures used by organizations were not adopted simply because they were most efficient for the tasks at hand. …Instead, they argued that many forms and procedures should be seen as culturally-specific practices, akin to the myths and ceremonies derived by many societies." (p. 947)

ii. To some sociologists of new institutionalism, individual actions are construed as role performances or prescriptive norms of behavior attached in particular institutional contexts. "In this view, individuals who have been socialized into particular institutional roles internalize the norms associated with these roles, and in this way institutions are said to affect behaviour." (P. 948) Furthermore, some sociological institutionalists "emphasize the way in which institutions influence behaviour by providing the cognitive scripts, categories and models that are indispensable for action, not least because without them the world and the behaviour of others cannot be interpreted. Institutions influence behaviour not simply by specifying what one should do but also by specifying what one can imagine oneself in a given context." (p. 948)

iii. One of the distinctive features of the sociological institutionalism is the explanation it offered for the endurance of institutional practices.


Instead of accounting them for rational-choices out of game situations or traditional "dependent paths" inherited from the past, sociologists in new institutionalism strive to reveal the legitimate bases from which reciprocal practices among social actors derived and consensual arrangements among reasonable agents endure.

2. Normative Institutionalism: More recently, B. Guy Peters (2005) argue that “the root of the new institutionalism” is founded in what called “normative institutionalism”. a. Peters suggests that one of the basis of the endurance, resilience, and

persistence of patterned actions found among a definite group of people, i.e. the institution, is the sense of appropriateness, righteousness, legitimation, and duty and calling, which are planted deeply in sense and minds of the designated group of persons. He argues that it is this “principle of appropriateness” (March, 1989) which motivate persons in particular roles in the respective institutions to perform the prescribed duties against all odds even in views of scarifying their own lives, such as firemen, civil soldiers, etc. It is this deep sense of moral appropriateness which lends an institution its endurance, resilience and persistence across space and time.

b. This perspective of new institutionalism can be founded in the conceptions of institution among numbers of prominent advocates of new institutionalism. For example, Peters to March and Olsen’s path-breaking article in 1984 and their conception of “the principle of appropriateness” (as in dichotomy with the principle of consequence in rational-choice institutionalism), which lay the bases of the perspective in political science.

c. Furthermore, we may trace the foundation of normative institutionalism back to Berger and Luckmann (1966) conception of legitimation. Accroding to Berger and Luckmann’s conceptualization, legitimation is “best described as a ’second-order’ objectivation of meaning.” (1967, p. 110) That is, if meanings are externalized, objectivated and typified through continuous human interactions and practices in the first place, they further need the “second” round of meaning-endowing efforts in order to formally institutionalized within a given society. i. Berger and Luckmann have divided the process of legitimation into

two subprocesses. Legitimation is a “process of ‘ecplaining’ and justifiying’.” (1967, p. 111) - Explanation of cognitive validity: “Legitimation ‘explains’ the

institutional order by ascribing cognitive validity to its objectivated meaning. …It always implies ‘knowledge’. ” (1967, p. 111)

- Justification of normative dignity: “Legitimation justifies the institutional order by given normative dignity to its practical imperatives. ….Legitimation is …a matter of ‘value’.” (1967, p. 111)

ii. Berger and Luckmann further differentiate that there are four levels of legitimation:- Incipient level of legitimation: It refers to the “linguistic objectivations

of human experiences.” (1967, p. 111) That is a given institutional order is assigned with a sets of names and vocabularies to provide it with cognitive as well as normative forms of objectivations. For examples, the system of vocabularies a culture ascribed to the kinship institution has not only provided various kinship


relationships with cognitive validity but also lend them normative justifications of ‘what can be done and what not’.

- ‘Theoretical’ level of legitimation: This level of legitimation “contains theoretical propositions in a rudimentary form. Here may be found various explanatory schemes relating sets of objective meaning. These schemes are highly pragmatic, directly related to concrete actions. Proverbs, moral maxims and wise sayings are common on this level.” (1967, p.112)

- Formal-knowledge level of legitimation: It contains established systems of knowledge and groups of specialized personnel who are entrusted with the authorities to use, produce, transmit and disseminate the designated sets of knowledge. The process entails the formal systems of education as well as those of the professions and scientists in modern society.

- Cultural level of legitimation: It refers to the process in which various provinces of meanings are integrated into what Berger and Luckmann called “the symbolic universe”. “The symbolic universe is conceived of as the matrix of all socially objectivated and subjectively real meanings. the entire historic society and the entire biography of the individual are seen as events taking place within this universe. …On this level of legitimation, the reflective integration of discrete institutional processes reaches its ultimate fulfillment. A whole world is created.” (1967, p. 114) Living and acting in this universe, individuals take the respective knowledge and norms as natural, given and ‘taken-for-granted’ similar to the air they breath within the physical universe.

3. John Campbell has further made two categorizations of perspectives in new institutionalism


Source: Campbell 2004, P. 11.


Source: Campbell and Pedersen, 2001, P. 10.


E. Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Effects: Why Institutions Endure? 1. Categorization of orders: March and Olsen account for the enduring patterns of

human practices by signifying the following institutional orders. (March and Olsen, 1984)a. Symbolic orders: They refer to the patterns and ordering of productions,

circulations and consumptions of meanings, ideas, concepts, symbols, rituals, ceremonies, stories and drama in social life.

b. Normative orders: They refer to the organizations and practices of rights, duties, obligations, roles, rules, norms and regulations in social life.

c. Endogenous orders: They signify the internal mechanism and processes, which affect things like the power distribution, distribution, the distribution of preferences, or the management of control” within an institutions.

d. Historical orders: They refer to the essential concept of “the efficiency of historical processes” in new institutionalism. By efficiency of historical efficiency, it refers to the way in which history moves quickly and inexorably to a unique outcome, normally in some sense an optimum.” (March and Olsen, 1984, p. 743) Accordingly, the internal order of an institution will be constrained by the particular period in history and its condition of optimum within which the institution operates.

2. The conception of institutional elementsRichard Scott suggests that “institution are viewed as made up of three component elements” (1994, p.56) or as he later called three pillars (1995)a. The regulative pillar: The effect or order of institutions is accounted for by ways

of emphasizing the prominence of explicit regulative processes prevailing in institutions. They consist of “rule-setting, monitoring, and sanctioning activities” undertaken in institutions. Hence, the institutional effects, i.e. the institutional order, depend on “the capacity to establish rules, inspect or review others’ conformity to them, and as necessary, manipulate sanctions ──rewards or punishments── in an attempt to influence future behavior.” (Scotts, 1995, p. 35)

b. The normative pillar: Theorists emphasize the normative pillar in accounting for institutional effects by focusing on the “prescriptive, evaluative, and obligatory dimensions” of social life. “Normative systems include both values and norms. Values are conceptions of the preferred or the desirable together with the construction of the standards to which existing structures or behavior can be compared and assessed. Norms specify how things should be done; they define legitimate means to pursue value ends.” (p. 37)

c. The cognitive pillar: The institutional effects can also be accounted for by emphasizing cognitive elements in institutions, which refer to “the rules that constitute the nature of reality and the frames through which meaning is made.” (p. 40) Constitutive rules have been identified as the foremost cognitive elements in this perspective. By constitutive rules, it refers “rules involve the creation of categories and the construction of typifications: processes by which ‘concrete and subjectively unique experiences… are ongoingly subsumed under general orders of meaning that are both objectively and subjectively real.” (p.41)

1

Pang & TsangFoundation of EAP

3. Levels of institutional analysis: “Institutional arrangements (i.e. elements) can be found at a variety of levels in social system – in societies, in organizational fields, in individual organizations, and in primary and small groups” (Rowan & Miskel, 1999, p. 359; Scott, 1995, p. 55-60) a. System level – The conception of Institutional environment

i. Institutional environment: “Institutional environments are, by definition, those characterized by the elaboration of rules and requirements to which individual organizations must conform if they are to receive support and legitimacy” (Scott and Meyer, 1991, p.123)

ii. Two of the most prominent institutional environments in modern society are the nation-state and market, both of which share one of the most salient features of modernity, namely, rationality.

b. Sector level – The conception of organizational fieldsi. Organizational field: It refers to “a community of organizations that partakes

of a common meanings system and whose participants interact more frequently and fatefully with one another than with actors outside of the field.” Hence, “fields are defined in terms of shared cognitive or normative frameworks or a common regulative system.” (Scott, 1995, p. 56)

ii. Isomorphism: Organizations in an a organization field tends to become homogenous in terms of cognitive, normative and regulative aspects of the organizations. The concept best captures this process is isomorphism. “Isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions.” (DiMaggio and Powell, 19991, p. 66)

iii. Two of the forces at work in modern society are efficiency and legitimacy. The former is more likely to be related to the competitiveness of the market, while the latter to the state.

c. Organization level – The formal structure of the organizationi. To comply with the isomorphic constraints of the organizational field and

institutional environment, individual organizations have to structure themselves in regulative, normative and cognitive aspects to meet with the institutional elements of the filed and environment.

2


ii. As a result, two of the ideal typeal types of formal structure of the organizations have constituted in modern society, the firm and the bureaucracy of government agencies.

d. Human interaction level – “reciprocal typifications and interpretations of habitualized actions”i. Members of an individual organization, organizational field, or institutional

environment will share many commonalities in meanings, interpretations, and typifications, i.e. common cognitive elements.

ii. They will institutionalize common languages, interacting and communicating patterns, and routines in practices.

iii. They will also institute common “logic of appropriateness and normative elements.

iv. Their inactions are also subjected to the regulative elements of the institution in which they find themselves.

e. Individual level - Internalization and Identityi. In reaction to rational choice theory, new institutionalism perceives

individuals not simply as actors governed by rational calculus of preferences and self-interest, i.e. logic of consequences (James, 1994, p.3) but as agent having internalized set of norms, values and rules and their agency is governed by the logic of appropriateness of particular institutional settings.

ii. When individuals and organizations fulfill identities, they follow rules or procedures that they see as appropriate to the situation in which they find themselves. Neither preference as they are normally conceived nor expectations of future consequences enter directly into the calculus.” (March, 1994, p. 57)

3


4


4. Paul Pierson’s conception of path dependence and positive feedbackPaul Pierson summarizes the thesis of path dependence suggested by institutionalists to account for the durability of institutional effects.a. Path dependence indicates that “once a country or region has started down a

track, the costs of reversal are very high. There will be other choice points, but the entrenchments of certain institutional arrangements obstruct an easy reversal of the initial choice. Perhaps the better metaphor is a tree, rather than a path. From the same trunk, there are many different branches and smaller branches. Although it is possible to turn around or to clamber from one to the other ─ and essential if the chosen branch dies ─ the branch on which a climber begins is the one she tends to follow. (Levi, 1997; quoted in Pierson, 2004, p. 20)

b. Simply put, path dependence refers “to social possesses that exhibit positive feedback and thus generate branching patterns of historical development.” (ibid, p.21)

c. Accounting for path dependence (ibid, p. 24)i. Large set-up or fixed cost: “When setup or fixed costs are high, individuals

and organizations have a strong incentive identify and stick with a single option.”

ii. Learning effects: “Knowledge gained in the operation of complex systems also leads to higher returns from continuing use.”

iii. Coordination effects: “These occur when the benefits an individual receives from a particular activity increase as other adopt the option. If technologies embody positive network externalities, a given technology will become more attractive as more people use it. Coordination effects are especially significant when a technology has to be compatible with an infrastructure (e.g. software with hardware, automobiles with an infrastructure of roads, repair facilities and fueling stations).”

iv. Adaptive expectations: “It derives from the self-fulfilling character of expectations. Projections about future aggregate use pattern lead individuals to adapt their actions in way that help to make those expectations come true.”

5. The concept of isomorphism: New institutionalism at organizational filed levela. Conception of isomorphism: New institutionalists stipulate that organizations in

modern rational institutional environment and/or organizational field tend to develop similar structures, procedures and practices (organizational elements in Meyer & Rowan's terminology). They term this process of homogenization of organization isomorphism. "Isomorphism is a constraining process that forces one unit in a population to resemble other units that face the same set of environmental conditions." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p.66)

b. Distinction between competitive and institutional isomorphism: DiMaggio & Powell (1991) and Meyer & Rowan (1991) have made similar distinctions between competitive and institutional isomorphism.i. By competitive isomorphism, it refers to the process of homogenization of

organizations taken place in "those field which free and open competition exists." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p.66) Organizations in these fields usually possess "clearly defined technologies to produce outputs" and therefore those "outputs can be easily evaluated" (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 54) As a result, development of common organizational elements, i.e.

5


isomorphism, can be attained through market competition, competitive niche, standardized output performance and organizational efficiency. (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 66)

ii. By institutional isomorphism, it refers to the process of homogenization of organizations invoked in the context of "collective organized society" (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 49) in which institutional environment of modern bureaucratic states have replaced market mechanism to act as institutional rules of the field. As a result, in institutional organizations, the development of common organizational elements can not be attain by market competition and internal efficiency, instead "they incorporate elements which are legitimated externally" and "they employ external or ceremonial assessment criteria to define the value of structural elements." (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 49) "For example, American schools have evolved from producing rather specific training that was evaluate according to strict criteria of efficiency to producing ambiguously defined services that are evaluated according to criteria of certification." (Meyer & Rowan, 1991, p. 55)

c. Mechanism of institutional isomorphismDiMaggio & Powell identify three mechanism through which institutional isomorphism are achieved, maintained or changed. The thesis can be taken as analysis apparatus to study how schools, as institutional organization, adopt to education policy changes.i. Coercive isomorphism: "Coercive isomorphism results from both formal and

informal pressures exerted on organizations by other organizations upon which they are dependent and by cultural expectations in the society within which organizations function. Such pressures may be felt as force, as persuasion, or as invitations to join in collusion." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 67)Organizational restructures undertaken by HK schools in response to Quality-Assurance Inspection, School Self Evaluation, External School Review, Senior-Secondary Curriculum reform, School-based Management and Incorporated Management Committee, etc. may be analyze in light of the concept of coercive isomorphism.

ii. Mimetic isomorphism: Apart from coercive authority, "uncertainty is also a powerful force that encourages imitation. When organizational technologies are poorly understood, when goals are ambiguous, or when the environment creates symbolic uncertainty, organizations may model themselves on other organization." (DiMaggio & Powell, 1991, p. 69) Confronted by collective puzzlement in policy implementation, such as those initiated by Senior-Secondary curriculum reform or more specifically the teaching of Liberal Studies, or School-Self Evaluation, most HK schools could only imitate, model or simply copy from other schools.

iii. Normative isomorphism: Instead of compliance with modern institutional environments of competitive market or bureaucratic-rational state, isomorphism may take the form of professionalization. Organizations and their operations, which are predominately identified with a profession, such as hospitals with doctors and schools with teachers, can incorporate cognitive, normative and regulative bases of that profession into their organizations and apply them as criteria in assessing the performance as

6


well and legitimation bases of their organization. 6. The concept of social capital: New institutionalism at interpersonal level

a. According to Berger and Luckmann, institution embeds in individuals and groups of individuals in the form of "reciprocal typifications" and "habitualized actions." In recent years sociologists have initiated concepts such as social network and social capital to depict the enduring interpersonal relationship in institutional context. For example Lin conceptualizes that "social capital as …is rooted in social network and social relations, and must be measured relative to its roots. Therefore social capital can be defined as resources embedded in a social structure which are accessed and/or mobilized in purposive action." (Lin, 2001, p.12)

b. Homophily: Lin further specifies that one of the structural foundations of social capital is the principle of homophily. "The principle of homophily, also known as the like-me hypothesis, is that social interactions tend to take place among individuals with similar lifestyles and socioeconomic characteristics." (Lin, 2001a, p. 39) Lin's the principle of homophily basically echoes Berger and Luckmann's indication that identity as the basis of "reciprocal typification of habitualized action" in institutional setting.

c. Portes and Sensenbrenner (1998) have specified four sources from which enduring interpersonal co-operations, i.e. social capitals, are constituted.i. Value introjection: It refers to "moral character" and "value imperatives"

individuals learned in the process of socialization. (Portes and Sensenbrenner, 1998, p. 129) This resource is basically in congruent with Beger and Luckmann's conception of internalization in the process of institutionalization at individual level.

ii. Reciprocity transactions: It "consists of an accumulation of 'chits' earned through previous good deeds to others, backed by the norm of reciprocity." In comparison with value introjection, in this type of social capital "individuals are not expected to behave according to a higher group morality but rather to pure selfish end." (p. 130)

iii. Bounded solidarity: It refers to social capitals invoke from "situational circumstances leading to the emergence of principled group-orientated behavior. …Its classic sources are best exemplified by Marx and Engels's analysis of the rise of proletarian consciousness and the transformation of workers into class for themselves." (p. 130)This type of collective sentiments grown out of common (usually socially inferior) situations can also be found in unions, minority groups, etc.

iv. Enforceable trust: It refers of social capitals grown out of community, in which "particularistic rewards and sanctions" are enforceable on its members in the form of collective expectation and trusts. This type of social capitals may manifest in informal institutional settings such as peer group pressures or solidarity within new immigrant communities or in formal institutional setting such as community sanction in professional associations.

F. Conceptual Apparatuses in the Studies of Institutional Change1. Identifying types of institutional changes

a. Categorization of institutional changesi. Evolutionary or incremental changes: It has been signified within the

7


perspective that "Institutions are sticky and prone to inertia and, as a result, change quite gradually." Hence, changes undertaken by institutions have commonly been characterized as evolutionary changes. By evolutionary changes, it refers to "continuous change that proceeds in small, incremental steps along a single path in certain direction." (Campbell, 2004, p. 33)

ii. Revolutionary changes or punctuated equilibrium: Despite the institutional inertia and resistance to change, "some scholars recognize, nonetheless, that relatively rapid and profound institutional change does occur sometimes. They often describe this discontinuous pattern of change as punctuated equilibrium." (Campbell, 2004, p. 34)

iii. Punctuated evolution: Some scholars further specify that "The periods of equilibrium occurring between punctuations are better characterized as evolutionary rather than static." Hence, they prefer to characterize change in institutions as punctuated evolution. That is, there are evolutionary changes in terms of self reflection and social learning within periods of equilibrium and equilibrium may be "punctuated occasionally by crises that involve open struggle over the very core of the institutional status quo and the eventually result in truly fundamental institutional transformation." (p. 34)

b. Identifying the dimensions of changesi. Scott’s conception of three pillars

- Changes in regulative dimension of pillars- Changes in normative dimension of institutions- Changes in cognitive dimension of institutions

ii. Levels of abstraction- World systemic level- Societal level- Discursive level- Organizational level- Interactive level- Individual cognitive level

c. Identifying the time frame: Time frame refers to the duration of time within which institutional changes are set against for investigation.

2. Explaining institutional changesExplaining institutional changes: John Campbell (2004) has stipulated the causal mechanism accounting for institutional changes as followsa. Negative feedbacks and critical junctures on dependence path: As indicated

above the maintaining and sustaining of institutional patterns depends on the continuous feedbacks from the prevailing "dependence path" of the institution. (Pierson, 2004) However, as negative feedbacks from the dependence path appear and subsequently accumulated to a critical point. It may then trigger fundamental changes in institution. (Campbell, 2004, p.65-68)

b. Bricolage: It refers to innovations in combining existing repertoire of institutional principles and practices so as to solve crises or dilemma confronting an institution. (Campbell, 2004, p. 69) According to March and Olsen's conception, bricolage can be categorized intoi. Substantive bricolage: It refers to innovative combination of well-established

technical principles or practices within an institution in order to bring about adjustment or fundamental change.

ii. Symbolic bricolage: It refers to innovative combination of normative and

8


cognitive principles and practices so as to reconcile normative or cognitive conflicts invoked by changes.

c. The role of institutional entrepreneurs or bricoleurs: The conception of institutional entrepreneurs or bricoleurs can specify the agent of change in the causal explanation of institutional changes. The performance entrepreneurs depend basically on two factors, namely their connectivity within the institution and the availability of repertoires to be combined. As Campbell indicates "entrepreneurs with more diverse social, organizational, and institutional connections tends to have more expansive repertoires with which to work. In turn, the broader their repertoire, the more likely they are to create a bricolage that is very creative and revolutionary rather than one that is less creative and evolutionary, (Campbell, 2004, p.75)

e. Diffusion, translation and enactment: i. Changes in punctuated equilibrium may not be invoked by bricoleurs from

within an institution. It may be triggered by input from other institutions. In other words, institutional innovation or changes may diffuse and circulated among institutions. Hence, institutional changes can be copies and learnt.

ii. However, input of changes or innovations from outside will not be copied automatically and totally by a given institution. They must be translated and innovatively combined with existing principles and practice.

iii. Finally, in order for any principles and practice input from without to substantiate within a given institution, they must be internalized cognitively or normatively by members of the institution to become part of their daily routines and practice. In other words, changes have to be enacted by members on daily basis.

f. Normative and cognitive ideas about institutional changesi. In accounting for institutional changes, new institutionalists play particular

attentions to how agents accept (interpret, identify, internalize, enact, etc.) new ideas and in turn make changes in their practices, i.e. agencies.

ii. Typology of ideas about institutional change: Campbell has constructed a framework to classify ideas into paradigms, public sentiments, programs and frames.

iii. Typology of actors and their ideational roles: According to the classification of ideas, Campbell has further differentiated actors within an institution into five

9


10


10

G. Education Policy Changes as Education Institutional Changes1. Policy changes at the level institutional environment: Policy changes can be

conceived as changes in the institutional environments of modern societies. a. The transformation of monarchical state to formal-rational bureaucratic state in

the 18th to 19th centuries have brought fundamental changes to the institutional environment to the educational sector, i.e. organizational field of schooling. As a result, education policy assumed the role of part of the apparatus of modern-state formation. It in turn triggered global education reform which changed schooling into state-controlled, bureaucratic organized, specialized and standardized, universal and compulsory schooling systems. (Boli and Ranirz, 1986; Boli and Meyer, 1985; Meyer and Ramirez, 2000; Ramirz and Boli 1982 & 1987)

b. The recent education reform undertaken by governments in most of the developed countries in the last two decades, can be account for as the another waves of changes in the technological and institutional environments of the rise of network society and information age and subsequent transformations of Keynesian Welfare National State (KWNS) to Schumpterian Workfare Postnation Regime (SWPR) (Campbell and Pederson, 2001; Rowan, 2006; Harvey, 2005)

2. Policy changes at the level of societal sector and organizational field:In response to the changes in institutional environments, different organizational fields, such as those of basic education and/or higher education, have to undertake correspondent changes in their regulative, normative and cognitive elements/pillars.a. The institutionalization of modern education system taken place since the 18th

century in the forms of (i) standardization of examination and certification system; (ii) formalization of curriculum and instructional practices, and (iii) legal-rationalization of school management can all be construed as responses to the institutionalization of the rational imperatives of institutional environments of modern state as well as industrial-capital economy.

b. Recent education reforms in the forms of (i) modularization and flexiblization of curriculum and instructional practice, (ii) deregualtion, devolution, performance-based evaluation of school management, (iii) privatization and liberalization of school place supply can all be understood in the institutional contexts of competition state and global-informational economy.

3. Policy changes at the level of organization:In responses to the changes in institutional environments, societal sectors, and organization fields, individual organizations have to re-institutionalization their regulative, normative and cognitive elements. As a result, isomorphism among organizations, such as schools, began to take shape.a. The school organizations, which take the forms of centralized, bureaucratized,

standardized and publicly funded, can be understood as the result of isomorphic changes in the societal sector or organizational field of education.

b. The school re-structuring reforms, which take the directions of decentralization, de-bureaucratization, and privatization, can also be account for as responses to the isomorphic pressures from the organizational field of education in the network society.

4. Policy changes at the level of human interaction level11


11

The fundamental effects of any policy and institutional changes have to be institutionalized into patterns of human interactions. They will affect the “reciprocal typifications and interpretations of habitualized actions” among members of a given organization and institution.a. Since the 19th century, the “reciprocal typification and interpretation of

habitualized interactions” between role occupants of teachers and students, teachers and school management staffs, teachers and government official have been institutionalized according to the centralized and bureaucratized organizational structure in industrial society.

b. In response to the rise of the network society and network organization in the new millennium, the interaction patterns including its respective cognitive, normative and regulative bases, have to undertake correspondent changes, which can be characterized as compatible, flexible, dispensable, delete-able and even virtual.

Additional References

Lin, Nan (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

North, Douglas C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Portes, Alejandro Portes and Julia Sensenbrenner (1998) “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action. Pp. 127-153. In M. C. Brinton and V. Nee (Eds.) New Institutionalism in Sociology. New York:Russel Sage.

(II)The Context of the Medium-Steering Systems

A. The Institutionalization of Medium-Steered System1. Habermas’ theory of the uncoupling of system and lifeworld

a. “The lifewold concept of society finds its strongest empirical foothold in archaic societies, where structures of linguistically mediated, normatively guided interaction immediately constitute the supporting social structure.” (Habermas, 1987, p. 156) In this simple society, social coordination and integration are attained by linguistically mediated communicative actions and values and norms, which constituted by communicative rationality.

b. As human societies evolved from simple tribal societies to traditional societies, state mechanism first differentiated from linguistically medicated lifeworld and institutionalized into power-steered system. Furthermore, in modern society, economic system also differentiated from lifeworld and institutionalized into money-steered system. (Habermas, 1987, p. 153-4)

c. As system uncoupled from lifeworld, “the irresistible irony of the world-historical process of enlightenment becomes evident: the rationalization of the lifeworld makes possible a heightening of systemic complexity, which becomes so hypertrophied that it unleashed system imperatives that burst the capacity

12


12

of the lifeworld they instrumentalized.” (Habermas, 1987, p. 155)2. Two medium-steered systems in modern society

a. The state: The power-steered administrative systemb. The market: The money-steered economic system

(a)The Modern State & Power-Steered Administrative System

B. The Nature of the State and Power-Steered Administrative System1. Max Weber’s conception of the state

“Today, however, we have to say that a state is a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. Note that ‘territory’ is one of the characteristics of the state. Specifically, at the present time, the right to use physical force is ascribed to other institutions or individuals only to the extent to which the state permits it. The state is consider the sole source of the ‘right’ to use violence.” (Weber, 1948, p.78)

2. Marxist’s conception of the statea. “The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the

common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.” (Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto, 1848)

b. “The state is an organ of class rule, an organ for the oppression of one class by another; it is the creation of ‘order’ which legalizes and perpetuates this oppression by moderating the conflict between the classes.” (Lenin, 1917)

c. Althusser’s Instrumentalist perspectivei. Repressive state apparatusii. Ideological state apparatus

3. Charles Tilly’s conception of the state“An organization which control the population occupying a definite territory is a state insofar as (1) it is differentiated from other organizations operating in the same territory; (2) it is autonomous; (3) it is centralized; and (4) its division are formally coordinated with one another.” (Tilly, 1975, p.70)

4. The constituent features of modern statea. The definitive territoryb. The definitive subjectsc. Monopoly of use of force and sovereign powerd. The establishment of external and internal public authority

5. Charles Tilly’s conception of “Stateness”The level and degree of stateness can be “measured by formal autonomy, differentiation from nongovernmental organizations, centralization, and internal coordination” of a government. (Tilly, 1975, p.34)

C Theories of Formation of the Modern State1. Stein Rokkan’s theory of state formation

a. From primordial peripheral community to central establishmentb. Four trajectories of functional differentiations

i. Economic-technological differentiation and the establishment of CitiesCross-local commercial-industrial organization

ii. Military-administrative differentiation and the establishment of Military

13


13

Organizations for control of external conflict iii. Judicial-legislative differentiation and the establishment of

JudiciaryOrganizations for management of internal conflictiv. Religious-symbolic differentiation and the establishment of ChurchCross-

local script religion

2. Charles Tilly’s theory of state formationCoercion, Capital, and European States, AD 900-1992 (1992)a. Accumulation and concentration of coercion, and the growth and formation of the

stateb. Accumulation and concentration of capital, and the formation and growth of citiesc. Coalition and conflict within the state

i. Class coalition and struggle in the realm of exploitationii. Coalition and struggle between state authority and citizenship in the realm of

dominationd. Coalition and conflict among states: The mechanism of war preparation and

makingi. Dialectic relationship between capital accumulation and warmakingii. Dialectic relationship between coercion accumulation and warmaking

e. Dynamics of geopolitics and inter-state system in Europef. "What accounts for the great variation over time and space in the kinds of states

that have prevailed in Europe since AD 900, and why did European states eventually converge on different variations of the national state? Why were the directions of change so similar and the path so different?" (1992, p.190)

3. Pierre Bourdieu’s theory of state formationa. Definition of the State

i. “Using a variation of Max Weber’s famous formula, that the state is an X (to be determined) which successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical and symbolic violence over a definite territory and over the totality of the corresponding population.” (Bourdieu, 1999, p. 56)

ii. “The state is the culmination of a process of concentration of different species of capital:- capital of physical force or instruments of coercion- economic capital, - cultural &/or information capital, and - symbolic capital.” (p. 57)

b. Project of constitution of physical & fiscal efficacy of the state i. Accumulation of physical capital

- Internal physical capital accumulation: Policing system- External physical capital accumulation: Army (Military) system

ii. Accumulation of economic capital: Constitution of taxation and fiscal systemiii. Project of constitution of symbolic efficacy of the state

- Concentration of informational capital: “The state concentrates, treats, and redistributes information and, most of all, effects a theoretical unification. Taking the vantage point of the Whole, of society in its totality, the state claims responsibility for all operations of totalization (especially thanks to census taking and statistics or national accounting) and of objectivation through cartography (the unitary representation of space from above) or more simply through writing as an instrument of accumulation of knowledge

14


14

(e.g. archive), as well as for all operation of codification as cognitive unification.” (p. 61)

- Concentration of cultural capital: “The state contributes to the unification of the cultural market by unifying all codes, linguistic and juridical, and by effecting a homogenization of all forms of communication, including bureaucratic communication. Through classification systems inscribed in law, through bureaucratic procedures, educational structures and social rituals, the state molds mental structures and imposes common principles of vision and division, forms of thinking that are to the civilized mind. … And it thereby contributes to the construction of what is commonly designated as national identity.” (p. 61)

- Constitution of symbolic capital: + “Symbolic capital is any property (any form of capital whether physical,

economic, cultural or social) when it is perceived by social agents endowed with categories of perception which cause them to know it and to recognize it, to give it value.” (p. 62)

+ Concentration of juridical capital+ Nomination of state nobility

4. Formation of citizenshipa. Reinhard Bendix’s Definition of Citizenship (1977):

i. Individualistic and plebiscitarian membership before the sovereign and nation-wide public authority

ii. Development of citizenship: “the codification of the rights and duties of all adults who are classified as citizens”. (Bendix, 1964, p.90)

b. T.H. Marshall’s Thesis of Citizenship and Social Classi. Development of citizenship as means of abating social class conflictii The trajectory of citizenship development

- Development of civil rights in the 18th century and the constitution of the Court of Justice and the Rule of Law

- Development of the political rights in the 19th century and the constitution of the parliamentary system and the democratic state

- Development of the social rights in the 20th century and the constitution of the social service departments and the welfare state

c. Anthony Gidden’s critique of Marshall’s thesis (1982)i. The nature of the development of citizenship: Evolutionary vs. conflict ii. The directionality of the development of citizenship: Linear vs. dialecticiii. The distinct status of the economic civil rights or industrial rightsiv. David Held’s thesis of environmental rights and feminist rights (1989)

D. Theories of State in Organized Capitalism1. Theory of corporatist states of late comers

Distinction between pluralist and corporatist statesa. “Pluarlism can be defined as a system of interest representation in which the

constituent units are organized into an unspecified number of multiple, voluntary, competitive, nonhierarchically ordered and self-determined (as to type or scope of interest) categories which are not specifically licensed, recognized, subsidized, created or otherwise controlled in leadership selection or interest articulation by the state and which do not exercise a monopoly of representational activities within their respective categories. (Schmitter, 1979,

15


15

p.15)b. “Corporatism can be defined as a system of interest representation in which the

constituent units are organized into a limited number of singular, compulsory, noncompetitive, hierarchically ordered and functional differentiated categories, recognized and licensed (if not created) by the state and granted a deliberate representational monopoly within their respective categories in exchange for observing certain controls on their selection of leaders and articulation of demands and supports. (Schmitter, 1979, p.13)i. Societal corporatism and the welfare stateii. State corporatism and authoritarian-bureaucratic state

- Inclusionary corporatism and the politics of administrative absorption - Exclusionary corporatism

2. Claus Offe’s thesis of welfare state and its contradiction“The concept of the capitalist state describes an institutional form of political power which is guided by the following four functional conditions: a. Private production: Political power is prohibited from organizing material

production according to its own ‘political’ criteria; property, whether in labour power or capital, is private. Hence, it is not political power, but private decisions that determine the concrete use of the means of production.

b. Taxation constraints: Political power depends indirectly - through the mechanism of the taxation system - on the volume of private accumulation. Those who occupy positions of power in a capitalist state are in fact powerless unless the volume of the accumulation process allows them to derive (through taxation) the material resources necessary to promote any political ends.…

c. Accumulation: Since state power depends on a process of accumulation which is beyond its power to organize, every occupant of state power is basically interested in promoting those political conditions most conducive to private accumulation. …The institutional self-interest of the state in accumulation is conditioned by the fact that the state is denied the power to control the flow of those resources which are nevertheless indispensable for the exercise of the state power. Although the agents of the accumulation are not primarily interested in ‘using’ the power of the state, state actors must be interested — for the sake of their own power — in guaranteeing and safeguarding a ‘healthy’ accumulation process.

d. Democratic legitimation: In parliamentary-democratic political regimes, any political group or party can win control over institutional state power only to the extent that it wins sufficient electoral support in general elections. This mechanism plays a key role in disguising the fact that the material resources of state power, and the ways in which these are used, primarily depend upon the voting preferences of the general electorate. In other words, there is a dual determination of the political power of the capitalist state: the institutional form of this state is determined through the rules of democratic and representative government, while the material content of the state power is conditioned by the continuous requirements of the accumulation process.” (1982:120-21)

3. Theroy of developmental and authoritarian-bureaucratic states in East Asiaa. Developmental state differs from traditional conception of liberal state, which

assumes the role of ‘night watchman’, in two aspects. First is its strong commitment to national economic development. Second is its readiness and effectiveness in intervening into socio-economic or even political affairs in

16


16

order to attain its goal of national economic development.

b. Authoritarian-Bureaucratic (AB) state“’The concept of bureaucratic polity is distinguishable from other forms of government by the degree to which national decision-making is insulted from social and political forces outside the highest elite echelons of the capital city.’ (Jackson, 1978, p.4) …What makes the beueaucratic polity of Hong Kong distinctive is that, while the bureraucracy reigns surpreme there, it does not rely on military support for survival. Even though theoretically, as a colonial administration, Hong Kong’s bureaucracy is subject to control from the mother country, in practice its exemption from interference from the ‘top’ is almost complete. In essence, it is ‘secluded’ bureaucracy secluded from political and social forces which might threaten to undermine its autonomy.” (Lau, 1981, p.25)

c. Lucian Pye’s conception of the paternalistic authoritarian state (1988)

E. Theories of State in Global-Informational Context1. Philip G. Cerny's conception of the competition state

a. “Globalization as a political phenomenon basically means that the shaping of the playing field of politics is increasing determined not within insulated units, i.e. relatively autonomous and hierarchically organized structures called states; rather, it derives from a complex congeries of multilevel games played on multi-layered institutional playing field, above and across, as well as within, state boundaries.” (Cerny, 1997, p.253)

b. Policy features of competition statei. Erosion of the fiscal (public-financial) basis of welfare state: The emergence

of fiscal crisis of welfare state in the 1970s.ii. Erosion of the political basis of social corporatist state: The emergence of

globally mobile capitalist mode of production and the collapse of the national consensus among unionists-capitalists-statesmen in the 1980.

iii. Erosion of the sovereignty basis of economic nationalism: The rise of international organization, such as World Trade Organization (WTO), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank, European Community (EC), etc. and the restraints on economic policy instruments at national level, such as policy on taxation, public expenditure, exchange rate, foreign investment, etc.

iv. Erosion of the policy discourse from Keynesian economics and in its replacement the formation of the "discourse" of the Monetary and Neo-liberal economics.

2. Neo-Liberalism and the Public sector (DPM) reforma. Deregulation of public sectorsb. Decentralization public administrationc. Privatization public institutionsd. Marketization of public services

3. New Managerial Movement: Public administration reforma. “A system dominated by central government departments, local authorities …,

and based upon the values and practices of public administration … is being replaced by a new set of practices and values, based upon a new language of welfare delivery which emphasizes (1) efficiency and value for money, (2)

17


17

competition and markets, (3) consumerism and customer care.” (Butcher, 1995, quoted in Clark et al., 2000, p. 6; my numbering)

b. The constituents of New Public Management (NPM): “NPM includei. Attention to output and performance rather than inputs;ii. Organizations being viewed as chains of low-trust relationship linked by

contracts or contractual type processes;iii. The separation of purchaser and providers or clients and contractor roles

within formerly integrated processes or organizations;iv. Breaking down large scale organization and using competition to enable

‘exit’ or ‘choice’ by service users; v. Decentralization of budgetary and personal authority to line managers.”

(Clark et al., 2000, p. 6; my numbering)3. Bob Jessop’s thesis of replacement of the Keynesian Welfare National State

(KWNS) by Schumpeterian Workfare Postnational Regime (SWPR)a. The conception of the KWNS

i. Keynesian: It signifies the orientation of economic policies of the state, which aims “to secure full employment in a relatively closed national economy and to do so mainly through demand-side management” (Jessop, 1999, p. 350) such as increase in government expenditure.

ii. Welfare: It signifies the orientation of social policies of the state, which aims to facilitate the process of reproduction of labor power for capitalistic economy. They mainly take the forms of provision of social wages, such as education and training, housing, medical services, other forms of social welfare.

iii. National: It indicates the scale of provision of economic and social policies is confined “within the historically specific (and social constructed) matrix of a national economy, a national state, and a society seen as comprising national citizens.” (ibid)

iv. State: It signifies that statist orientation, which assumes the efficiency of state institutions in supplementing, facilitating, and coordinating economic and social policies within the state boundary.

b. The conception of the SWPRi. Schumpeterian: It signifies the replacement of Keynesian orientation in

economic policy by the Schumpeterian orientation, which aims “to promote permanent innovation and flexibility in relative open economies by intervening on the supply-side and to strengthen as far as possible their structural and/or systemic competitiveness.” (Jessop, 1999, 355) In other words, the goal of securing full employment in economic policy has been overshadowed if not completely replaced by the objective of promoting competitiveness.

ii. Workfare: It indicates that the welfare orientation in social policy has been superseded by the policy orientation, which focuses on subordinating the logic of social policies to that of economic policies, submitting the demand of social welfare to the demands of labour market flexibility, the imperative of workplace, and the strive for structural or systemic competitiveness.

iii. Postnational: It signifies the withering of the sovereignty of nation-state over economic and social policies within its national territory. It also indicates the prominence of international agencies, such as the IMF, World Bank, OECD etc, in determining economic and social policies at national

18


18

level.iv. Regime: It indicates that phenomenon of “hollowing out” of the state, which

has been undertaken in capitalist states in the past three decades. It also implies the proliferation of non-governmental or even private agencies in the sector of public-policy provisions. As a result, the cohesive and coercive capitalist states have given way to the governance of policy networks.

4. The Emergence of the network statea. Manuel Castells in his book Communication Power (2009) re-conceptualizes

the modern state as network state. In his own words, he suggests“We witness the transformation of the sovereign nation-state is that emerged throughout the modern age into a new form of state – which I conceptualized as the network state. The emerging network state is characterized by shared sovereignty and responsibility between different states and levels of government; flexibility of governance procedures; and greater diversity of times and spaces in the relationship between governments and citizens compared to the preceding nation-state.” (Castells, 2009, P. 40)

b. As a result, “the network state faces coordination problem, with three of aspects, organizational, technical, and political. i. Organizational: Agencies invested in protecting their turf, and their

privileged commanding position vis-à-vis their societies, cannot have the same structure, reward systems, and operational principles as agencies whose fundamental role is to find synergy with their agencies.

ii. Technical: Protocols of communication do not work. The induction of computer networking often disorganizes the participating agencies rather than connecting them.”

iii. Political: The coordination strategy is not horizontal between agencies, it is also vertical in two directions: networking with their political oversees, thus losing their bureaucratic autonomy; and networking with their citizen constituencies, thus being obliged to increase their accountability.” (Castells, 2009, P. 41)

19


19

(b)The Capitalistic Market and the Money-Steered Economic System

F. The Nature of the Money-Steered Economic System: Capitalism1. The structural foundation of capitalism

a. Capitalism is “a term denoting a mode of production in which capital in its various forms is the principal means of production. ...Whatever the form, it is the private ownership of capital in the hands a class－the class of capitalists to the exclusion of the mass of the population－which is a central feature of capitalism as a mode of production.” (Desai, 1983, p.64) Other essential features of capitalism as a mode of production include: (ibid)i. Production for sale rather than own use by numerous producers.ii. A market of labor where labour power is bought and sold, the mode of

exchange being money wages for a period of time or for a specific task.iii. Predominant if not universal mediation of exchange by the use of money.iv. The capitalist or his managerial agent control the production (labour)

process. v. Competition between capitals.

b. Commdification of production: i. Commodity is the form products take when this prodcution is organized

through exchange.” (Foley, 1983, p. 86) Accordingly, “commodity ... has tow powers: first, it can satisfy some human want, that is, it has been what Adam Smith calls use value; second, it has the power to command other commodities in exchange, a power of exchangeability that Marx calls value (or more commonly called exchange value).” (ibid)

ii. Commodification therefore refers to the phenomenon in which production are organized primarily for producing product of exchange values rather than use values, More specifically, it is the salability rather than utility which is the primary concern of the capitalists.

c. Abstraction of labor: In capitalist labor market, labor power is monetarized into commodity. As a result, labor power, which is supposed to be “concrete actions and cooperative relationship” generated from lifeworld, has been transformed into “abstract performances” complying to the imperatives of money-steered system. (Habermas, 1987, p. 335)

d. Reification of labor: Under the imperatives of money-steered system, labor power is instrumentalized as “things” and dispensable objects. These imperatives are by definition totally indifferent to the working and living being, from which labor power is to be generated and abstracted. They are also completely indifferent to the lifeworld of the waged laborers. (Habermas, 1987, p. 335) More generally, Georg Lukás takes the phenomenon of reification as the “essence of commodity structure”. “Its basis is that a relation between people takes on the character of a thing and thus acquires a ‘phantom objectivity’, an autonomy that seems so strictly rational and all-embracing as to control every trace of its fundamental nature: the relation between people.” (Lukás, 1971, p. 83; quoted in Petrović, 1983, p. 412) Accordingly, “a man’s activity becomes estranged from himself, it turns into a commodity which, subject to the non-human objectivity to the natural law of society, must go its own way

20


20

independently of man just any consumer article. (Lukás, 1973, p. 87; quoted in Petrović, 1983, p. 412) Finally, “just as the capitalist system continuously produces and reproduces itself economically on higher level, the structure of reification progressively sinks more deeply, more fatefully and more definitely into the consciousness of man.” (Lukás, 1973, p. 93; quoted in Petrović, 1983, p. 412

e. Alienation of labor: i. Alienation is “In Marx ‘s sense an action through which (or a state in which)

a person, a group, an institution, or society become alien(1) to the result or products of its own activity (and to the activity itself),

and/or (2) to the nature in which it lives, and/or(3) to other human beings, and－in addition and through any or all of

(1)to(3) －also(4) to itself (to its own historically created human possibilities).” (Petrović,

1983, p. 9) “The criticism of alienation was not an end in itself for Marx. His aim was to pave the way for a radical revolution and for the realization of communism understood as ‘the re-integration of man, his return to himself, the suppression of man’s self-alienation’ as ‘the positive abolition of property, of human self alienation, and thus the real appropriation of human nature through and for man.’” (Petrović, 1983, p. 12)

ii. Among academic sociologists, the concept of alienation has been construed as a sense of ‘estrangement’ (Ollman, 1976, p.132) or ‘feeling of indifference (Giddens, 1989, p. 487). It has been operationalized by Melvin Seeman as a measure composes of five dimensions, namely, senses of (1) powerlessness, (2) meaninglessness, (3) normlessness, (4) isolation, and (5) self-estrangement. (Seeman, 1959; 1975)

2. The labor process or the process of proletarianization in Capitalisma. Definition of the labor process

“The labor process, when it is the process by which the capitalist consumes labor-power, exhibits two characteristic phenomena. First, the worker works under the control of the capitalist to whom his labor belongs; the capitalist takes good care that the work is done in a proper manner, and the means of production are applied directly to the purpose, so that the raw material is not wasted, and the instruments of labor are spared, i.e. only worn to the extent necessitated by their use in the work. Secondly, the product is the property of the capitalist and not that of the worker, its immediate producer.” (Marx, 1976, 291-92)

b. Form of control over labor processi. Physical or simple controlii. Bureaucratic control

- Rationalization of division of labor and delegation of authority- Formalization of procedures and standards- Bureaucratization of responsible autonomy

iii. Technical control: Fordism- Fragmentation of work- Deskilling of work- Intensification of work

21


21

- Monopoly over knowledge and information of the labor processiv. Informational-global control: Neo-Fordism

- Informational-network monitor and control- Flexible division of labor and multi-functional workers- Involvement of workers and emphasis on multi-functional specialization

and teamwork: Quality circles- Total Quality Control (TQC) model: Assumption of five zeros (zero defect

in the parts, zero mischief in the machines, zero inventory, zero delay, and zero paperwork)

3. Institutional foundation of capitalism ― Property rights and right of ownershipa. Exclusivity of ownership: Right to use

i. Totality of use domainii. Sovereignty of decision

b. Transferability of ownership: Right to transferc. Entitlement of revenue generated from property

4. Ontological foundation of Capitalisma. C.B. Macpherson’s conception of Possessive individualism

“Man, the individual, is seen as absolute natural proprietor of his own capacities, owing nothing to society for them. Man’s essence is freedom to use his capacities in search of satisfaction. This freedom is limited properly only by some principle of utility or utilitarian natural law which forbids harming others. Freedom therefore is restricted to, and comes to be identified with, domination over things, not domination over men. The clearest form of domination over things is the relation of ownership or possession. Freedom is therefore possession. Everyone is free, for everyone possesses at least his own capacities

b. “Society is seen, not (as it had been) as a system of relations of domination and subordination between men and classes held together by reciprocal rights and duties, but as a lot of free equal individuals related to each other through their possessions, that is, related as owners of their own capacities and what they have produced and accumulated by the use of their capacities. The relation of exchange (the market relation) is seen as the fundamental relation of society.

c. “Political society is seen as relational device for the protection of property, including capacities even life and liberty are considered as possessions, rather than as social rights with correlative duties.”

G. Historical Outline of the Development of Capitalism 1. Mercantile capitalism: 1500-1700

The Structure Transformation of the Public Sphere (Habermas, [1962] 1989)a. Emergence of private sphere of private individuals, private property and private

correspondenceb. Construction capitalist market and “world of letter”, i.e. “publication” of

newspaper, journal, literature, painting etc.c. Construction of early form of public sphere, salon in France, coffee house &

Rotary society in Britain, table & literary societies in Germanyd. Constitution of the civil citizenship: Constitution of the nature rights, i.e. life and

property2. Industrial capitalism, financial capitalism and imperialism: 1800-1940

22


22

3. Organized capitalism and Fordism: 1950-19704. Informational-global capitalism

H. The Crisis of Organized Capitalism and Fordism1. The crisis of Fordistic production process (Tony Smith, 2000)

a. Crisis in factor inputsi. High raw material costs (especially oil)ii. High inventory costsiii. Inflexibility of set-ups of machinery and assembly line

b. Crisis in circulation time and costi. Lengthy delivery times between suppliers and assemblersii. Extended interruptions in production due to the need to retool iii. The length of time required to make decisions with an extensive corporate

bureaucracyiv. The time required to correct quality problemsv. The time demanded to work off previous inventoriesvi. The length of time required to institute innovation, due to separation of

design engineers and production personnelc. Crisis in capital / labor relation

i. Mounting unproductive expenses connected with supervison of the workforce

ii. Worker resistance at the point of production in overt and indirect form (strike and absenteerism, respectively)

iii. Wage increases not match by productivity advances due to collective bargaining through unionism

iv. Quality control stemming from the separation of quality control to a separate department

d. Crisis in capital / consumer relationi. Inability to respond promptly to shifts in consumer demandsii. The mass production of standardized products prevented from producing

customized or customer-designed products e. Italian and Japanese initiations to the crisis of Fordism

i. The third Italy modelii. Toyotism

- The Just-In-Time (JIT) model- Total Quality Control (TQC) model: Assumption of five zeros (zero defect

in the parts, zero mischief in the machines, zero inventory, zero delay, and zero paperwork)

- Involvement of workers and emphasis on multi-functional specialization and teamwork: Quality circles

2. Crisis of organized capitalism (Claus Offe, 1984)a. Structural contradictions on economic level:

i. State policies of recommodification by design "tax away" capital and "hire away" labor from the commodification process in the capitalistic mode of production

ii. State policies of recommodification in effect check the freedom of capital in investment as well as in operation

iii. State policies of recommodification in effect threaten the profitability of the

23


23

capital

b. Structural contradictions on political level: Paradoxically the capital and labor that fall within the state-recommodification purview are "no longer subject to the commodity form" because they are now operating in accordance with political rather than economic imperative.

d. Structural contradictions on ideological level: State policies of recommodification threaten "the normative and moral 'infrastructure' of capitalist society", i.e. possessive individualism.

e. The fiscal crisis of the welfare state and oil crisisf. The coming of the global capitalism and the erosion of the nationalistic

capitalism

I. Transnational Corporation and Transnational Practice 1. By Transnational Corporation (TNC), it refers to “a firm which has the power to

coordinate and control operations in more than one country, even if it does not own them.” (Ducken, 2007, P. 292) It is a firm “with the capacity to work as a unit in real time on a planetary scale.” (Castells, 1996, P. 92)

2. Historical development of TNCa. TNC in the form of trading companies across the globe since the 16th century,

e.g. the East India Company and the Hudson’s Bay Company.b. TNC in the form of manufacturing companies across the world since the 20th

century.c. TNC in the informational and network enterprise since 1980s.

i. Offshoring: It refers to instances where a multi-national company moves or expands some of its operations and jobs to overseas locations, In other words, it is the movement of jobs and/or operations to ‘foreign’ locations, however, all of this movement takes place internally within a single company’s structure.”

ii. Outsourcing: It “refers to instances where a company decides to buy goods and services, once performed in-house, from a supplier outside of the firm.

3. By Transnational Practice (TNP), it refers to the phenomenon grown out of the expansion of TNCs and with it “the rise of new communities and the formation of new social identity and the relations that cannot be defined through the traditional reference point of nation-states.” (Robinson, 2007, P. 136) Accordingly, “transnational practices refer to the effects of what people do when they are acting within special institutional contexts that across state borders. Transnational practices create globalizing process. …Globalizing process are abstract concepts, but the transnational practices that create them refer directly to agents and agencies do and derive meaning from the institutional settings in which they occur, and because of which they have determinate effects.” (Sklair, 2002, P. 84) Accordingly, Sklair specifies that there are three spheres of TNPs, namelya. Economic TNPs, b. Political TNPs, and c. Cultural TNPs.

K. The Nature of the Informational-Global Capitalism1. Constituents of Informational-Global Capitalism

a. Constitution of global division of labor

24


24

i. Producers of high value, based on informational laborii. Producers of high volume, based on low-cost laboriii. Producers of raw materials, based on natural endowmentiv. Redundant producer

b. Constitution of global production network: Microelectronic and computer as examplesi. R&D, innovation, and prototype fabrication in “Technopolis”ii. Skilled fabrication in branch plants in newly industrializing areas in core

countriesiii. Semi-skilled, large-scale assembly and testing work in offshore newly

industrialized countriesiv. Customization of device and aftersales maintenance and support in regional

centers throughout the globec. Constitution of global finance network: Capital and information flows around the

globe via hubs and nodes, i.e. international financial centers d. Constitution of global distribution of consumer goods and services, via global

metropolisf. The constitution of the Informational-global capitalism:

“It is informational because the productivity and competitiveness of units or agents in this economy (be it firms, regions, or nations) fundamentally depend upon their capacity to generate, process, and apply efficiently knowledge-based information. It is global because the core activities of production, consumption, and circulation, as well as their components (capital, labor, raw materials, management, information, technology, markets) are organized on a global scale either directly or through network of linkages between economic agents.” (Castells, 1996, p. 66) “It is an economy is an economic system “based on the capacity of IT to be able to work as a unit in real time on a planetary scale.” (Castells, 1996, p.92)

2. The consequence of the rise of informational-global capitalisma. Polarization of classes

i. Polarization between globally mobile capitalists and locally pit-downed proletariat

ii. Polarization between mobile “core labor force” of information-global economy made up of information-based managers and “symbolic analysts” and “disposable labor force” that can be automated and/or hired/fired/offshored

b. Thesis of deskilling: i. For core labor force, the deskilling thesis does not applied, but workers in

the core labor force must constantly reskill or “reprogram” oneself to survive the competitions in global-informational capitalism

ii. For the disposable labor force, the deskilling thesis does applied. However, they do not only experiencing deskilling but also skill and job obsolescence

c. Intensified structural coercion and exploitation thesisd. Intensified competitions among capitalists

25


25

26


26

Additional References

Desesai, M. (1983) “Capitalism.” Pp.64-67. In T. Bottomore (Ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Reference.

Foley, D. (1983) “Commodity.” Pp.86-87. In T. Bottomore (Ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Reference.

Petrović, G. (1983) “Reification.” Pp.411-413. In T. Bottomore (Ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Reference.

Petrović, G. (1983) “Alienation.” Pp.9-15. In T. Bottomore (Ed.) A Dictionary of Marxist Thought. Oxford: Blackwell Reference.

Ollman, B. (1976) Alienation: Marx’s conception of man in capitalist society. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Giddens, A. (1989) Sociology. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Seeman, M. (1959) “On the meaning of Alienation.” American Sociological Review 24 ( 6): 783-791.

Seeman, M. (1975) “Alienation Studies.” Annual Review of Sociology 1: 91-123.

Weber, M. (1946) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology, edited by .H. Gerth and C.W. Mills. London: Routledge.

Tilly, Charles (1992) Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD990-1992. Cambridge: Blackwell.

Tilly, Charles (1975) “Reflections on the History of European Sate-making.” In C. Tilly (Ed.) The Formation of National States. Princinton: Princeton University Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre (1999) “Rethinking the State: Genesis and Structure of the Bureaucratic Field.” Pp.53-75. In G. Steinmetz (Ed.). State/Culture: State-Formation after the Cultural Turn. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.

Giddens A. (1982) “Class Divison, Class Conflict and Citizenship Rights.” In A. Giddens. Profile and Critiques in Social Sciences. London: Macmillan.

Held, D. (1989) “Citizenship and Autonomy.” Pp. 162-184. In D. Held and J.B. Thompson (Eds.) Social Theory of Modern Societies: Anthony Giddens and his Critics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bendix, R. (1977) Nation-Building and Citizenship. New Enlarged Edition. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Sklair, Leslie (2002) Globalization: Capitalism and Its Alternatives, 3rd Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Sklair, Leslie (2001) The Transnational Capitalist Class. Oxford: Blackwell.

27


27

(III)The Lifeworld Context:

The Public and Private Spheres

A. The Concept of the Lifeworld 1. The meaning of the lifeworld

a. “The lifeworld as represented by a culturally transmitted and linguistically organized stock of interpretive patterns” (Habermas, 1981, p. 124)

b. “The structure of the lifeworld lay down the forms of the intersubjectivity of possible understanding. ...The lifeworld is so to speak, the transcendental site which speaker and hearer meet, where they can reciprocally raise claims that their utterances fit the world (objective, social, or subjective), and where they can criticize and confirm those validity claims, settle their disagreements, and arrive at agreements.” (Habermas, 1981, p. 126)

c. In short, we may construe “the lifeworld as the horizon and background of communicative action.” (1981, p. 454)

2. Functions of the lifeworlda. “Under the functional aspect of mutual understanding, communicative action

serves to transmit and renew cultural knowledge; under the aspect of coordinating action, it serves social integration and the establishment of solidarity; finally, under the aspect of socialization, communicative action serves the formation of personal identities.” (1981, p.137)

b. “The symbolic structures of the lifeworld are reproduced by way of the continuation of valid knowledge, stabilization of group solidarity, and socialization of responsible actors. ….Corresponding to these processes of cultural reproduction, social integration, and socialization are the structural components of the lifewolrd: culture, society, and personality.” (1981, p. 137-8)

c. “I use the term culture for the stock of knowledge from which participants in communication supply themselves with interpretation as they come to an understanding about something in the world.

d. “I use the term society for the legitimate orders through which participants regulate their memberships in social groups and thereby secure solidarity.

e. “By personality, I understand the competences that make a subject capable of speaking and acting, that put him in a position to take part in process of reaching understanding and their by to assert his own identity.” (1981, p.138)

B. Institutionalization and Legitimation of the Lifeworld1. To understand the concept of lifeworld, which has been characterized so far as the

stable and persistent horizon of meanings shared by individuals within a communicative community, we must ask how it is possible to constitute and structurate individuals’ subjectivities into such a regular and reliable social orders. Berger and Luckmann’s conception of institutionalization and legitimation provide insightful answers to this vital question.

2. Institutionalization: “Institutionalization occurs whenever there is a reciprocal typiifcation of habitualized actions by types of actors. Put differently, any such typification is an institution. What must be stressed is the reciprocity of institutional

28


28

typifications and the typicality of not only the actions but the actors in institution. The typifications of habitualized actions that constitute institutions are always shared ones. They are available to all members of the particular social group in question, and the institution itself typifies individual actors as well as individual actions.” (1966, p. 72)

3. The reciprocal typification of habitualized actions constituted within an institution implies the following structural features of an institution:a. Historicity: "Reciprocal typifications of actions are built up in the course of a

shared history. They cannot be created instantaneously. Institutions always have a history, of which they are the products. It is impossible to understand an institution adequately without an understanding of the historical process in which it was produced." (Berger and Luckmann, 1967, p.72) This structural feature of historicity in the process of institutionalization implies that lifeworld is constituted through time-sharing communicative practices and at the same time accumulated and “sedimented” through time.

b. Social control: "Institutions …, by the very fact of their existence, control human conduct by setting up predefinied patterns of conduct, which channel it in one direction as against the many other directions that would theoretically be possible. …These mechanism (the sum of which constitute what is generally called a system of social control do …exist in many institutions and in all the agglomerations of institutions that we call societies. …To say that a segment of human activity has been institutionalized is already to say that this segment of human activity has been subsumed under social control." (p. 72-73) The social-control feature of institutionalization indicates that lifeworld is possible by means of rules and regulations which emerged and sedimented from communicative practices.

c. Socialization: As a set of reciprocal typifications of habitualized actions has achieved its historicity, i.e. proven its social efficacy through time and has further been backed up by social control mechanism, it can be said that this set of intersubjectivity has been externalized and objectivated. However to complete the cycle of institutionalization, this intersubjectivity must in turn be internalized into the subjectivity of the new members of a culture. It is by means of socialization, acculturation, education, or even indoctrination that new members will acquire the "common-sense knowledge" necessary to be able to become fully functional members of a culture.

4. Berger and Luckmann have formulated the conception of dialectical relations between man and society. In their own words, “It is important to emphasize that the relationship between man, the producer, and the social world, his product, is and remains a dialectical one. That is, man (not, of course, in isolation but in his collectivities) and his social world interest with each other. The product acts back upon the producer. Externalization and objectivation are moments in a continuing dialectical process. The third moment in this process …is internalization (by which the objectivated social world is retrojected into consciousness in the course of socialization)…. It is …possible… to see the fundamental relationship of these three dialectical moments in social reality. Each of them corresponds to an essential characterization of the social world.a. Society is a human product. (Externalization)b. Society is an objective reality. (Objectivation)c. Man is a social product. (Socialization)” (Berger and Luckmann, 1967, Pp.78-79;

29


29

original emphases and my numbering) 5. Legitimation: “Legitimation as a process is best described as a ‘second-order’

objectivation of meaning. Legitimation produces new meanings that serve to integrate the meanings already attached to disparate institutional processes. The function of legitimation is to make objectively available and subjectively plausible the ‘first-order’ objectivation that have been institutionalized.” (p. 110) In short, legitimation is to integrate (make available and plausible) the ‘first-order’ meanings into more stable and persistent ‘second-order’ meaning.

6. Two levels of integration: The availability and plausibility of the totality of the institutional order can be approached at two levels

a. Horizontal integration: “A ‘horizontal’ order of integration and plausibility, relating the total institutional order to several partial individuals participating in it in several roles, or to several partial institutional processes, in which a single individual may participate at any given time.” (p. 110)

b. Vertical integration: “The individual biography, in its several, successive, institutionally predefined phases, must be endowed with meaning that makes the whole subjectively plausible. A ‘vertical’ level within the life span of single individuals must, therefore, be added to the ‘horizontal’ level of integration and subjective plausibility of the institutional order.” (Pp. 110-111)Vertical integration can also be approached beyond the time horizontal of a single at biography or life span, that is, integration in the form of transmitting institutional orders from one generation to another. In other words, horizontal integration implies “the unity of history and biography.” (p. 111)

7. Two sub-processes of legitimation: Berger and Luckmann suggest that the legitimation process of a given totality of institutional orders can be divided into two processes:a. Explanation: “Legitimation ‘explains’ the institutional order by ascribing

cognitive validity to its objectivated meanings.” (p. 1111) b. Justification: “Legitimation ‘justifies’ the institutional order by given a normative

dignity to its practical imperatives.” (p. 111)“It is important to understand that legitimation has a cognitive as well as a normative elements. …Legitimation is not just a matter of ‘values. It is always implies ‘knowledge’ as well. …Legitimation not only tells the individual why he should perform one action and not another; it also tells him why things are what they are. In other words, ‘knowledge’ procedes ‘value’ in the legitimation of institutions.” (P. 111)

8. Levels of legitimation: The legitimation process may manifest itself in several forms:a. Incipient legitimation: It refers to the “system of linguistic objectivations”

generated from the legitimation process. They may take the form of vocabularies indicating the cognitive validity of a given institutional order. They may also appear as categories justifying the normative dignity of the lifeworld.

b. “Theoretical propositions”: They indicate the rudimentary propositions in use in the lifeworld. They may take the form of “various explanatory schemes relating sets of objective meanings. These schemes are highly pragmatic, directly related to concrete action.” (p. 112) As for normative justification, they may appear as “proverbs, moral maxims and wise saying” (p. 112)

c. Body of knowledge: Legitimation can appear as explicit systems of knowledge rendering cognitive validity and/or normative dignity to a totality of institutional

30


30

orders. This level of legitimation “provide fairly comprehensive frames of reference for the respective sectors of institutionalized conduct. Because of their complexity and differentiateion, they are frequently entrusted to specialized personnel who transmit them through formalized initiation procedures.” (p.112)

d. Symbolic universes (i.e. cultural level): They refer to “bodies of theoretical tradition that integrate different provinces of meaning and encompass the institutional order in a symbolic totality.” (p. 113) “Symbolic universe is conceived of as the matrix of all socially objectivated and subjectively real meanings, the entire historic society and the entire biography of the individual are seen as events taking place within this universe.” (p.114)“The crystallization of symbolic universes follows the …processes of objectivation, sedimentation and accumulation of knowledge. That is, symbolic universes are social products with history. If one is to understand their meaning, one has to understand the history of their production.” (p. 115)

C. The Constitution of the Public SphereStructural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Society (Habermas, 1962/1989)1. The Conception of Public Sphere

a. The public sphere as a social and subsequently institutionalized realm was formed by “privatized individuals coming together to form the public also reflected critically and in public on what they had read (painted, written, etc.), thus contributing to the process of enlightenment which they together promoted.” (Habermas, 1989/1962, p. 51)

b. The world of letter: “They formed the public sphere of a rational-critical debate in the world of letter within which the subjectivity originating in the interiority of the conjugal family, by communicating with itself, attained clarity about itself.” (ibid)

c. Public debate: “The bourgeois public’s critical public debate took place in principle without regard to all preexisting social and political rank and in accord with universal rules.” (Habermas, 1989/1962, p. 54) The public opinion resulting from the debate were supposed to be “born of the power of the better argument.” (ibid)

2. The development of public sphere in Europea. 15th to 17th centuries:

i. Emergence of private sphere of private individuals in - Exchanges of private property and the constitution and expansion of

market- Exchange of private correspondence and the constitution of the “world of

letter”, i.e. “publication” of newspaper, journal, literature, painting etc.ii. Construction of early forms of public sphere, salon in France, coffee house

& Rotary society in Britain, table & literary societies in Germanyiii. Constitution of the civil citizenship and natural rights, i.e. life, property and

liberty b. 18th century:

i. Private individuals came out from their private realm, such as conjugal families, to form the “public” and to engage in critical and rational debate on public and political issues

31


31

ii. Through critical and rational public debate, voluntas was transformed into ratio that “in the public competition of private arguments came into being as the consensus about what was practically necessary in interest of all.” (p.83)

iii. Struggle over political rights between the “public” and the authoritarian monarchy

iv. Constitution of political citizenship: Formation of civic army and establishment of universal franchise

c. 19th century: The institutionalization of democratic political realm in public sphere

d. 21st century:The institutionalization of the globally communication network as a open, free, egalitarian, meritocratic, and democratic public sphere

D. The State, Market and Public Sphere: Western European Experiences in 20 th century1. The Social Formation of the Liberal Capitalism

a. The constitution of steering mechanism of market system of commodity and social labor

b. De-politicalization of relation of production c. Anonymization of class dominationd. The ideology of “the exchange of equivalents”

2. The Coming of the Organized Capitalisma. State intervention of capitalist production process

i. Provision of the prerequisites of production, e.g. system of civil law ii. Provision of market-complementing adaptation, e.g. central banking & other

financial servicesiii. Provision of market-placement actions, i.e. Improving investment

environment and accumulation dynamics, e.g. educating and training of labor force, sponsoring scientific and technological development

iv. Compensating dysfunctional consequences of accumulation process, e.g. Accommodating externality of the production process, resolving antagonism or even conflict in relation of production

b. Mutual infiltration of systems and lifeworld (public and private spheres)i. State intervenes in the form of providing service that hitherto had been left

to private hand, most notably the introduction of compulsory education ii. State intervention also took the form of providing protection, compensation

and subsidies to the economically weaker social groups, e.g. wage laborers, tenants, consumers, etc

iii. The process of deprivatization of private sphere grew.- Family lost its functions of upbringing and education, protection, care

and guidance- “The world of work and occupation” was deprivatized by means of state

mediation between employers and employees, or more specifically between employer associations and trade unions, in terms of working conditions, wage level, employment rights, etc.

c. Constitution of social citizenship: The establishment of social rights and economic civil rights can be perceived as the positive outcome of democratic dynamics of the public sphere in combating the capitalistic dynamics of the market sphere

32


32

3. The beginning of the degradation of the “public”a. Rational & critical citizens relegate to clients of the welfare state, consumers of

welfare service, audience of mass mediab. From culture-debating public to culture-consuming public

i. Commodification of culture and the growth of cultural industryii. Public sphere was fissioned into intellectual minority or even stars and the

consumers of the mass mediac. Transformation of the political function of the public sphere

i. The public was release of the task of rational and critical debate on public issue. The task was left to the politicians. They relegate to the role of recipients of political propaganda.

ii. The commerialization of mass media and the emergence of the trade of public relation gave rise to the business of public-opinion engineering and public-consent manufacturing

iii. The principle of “publicity” gave way to principle of manufactured and staged publicity

iv. Critical and rational public debate repress to periodic, manipulated and limited voter choice

E. Crises in Organized Capitalism (Habermas, 1973; and Offe, 1984 & 85)

Point of Origin Output Crisis Input CrisisEconomic System Economic Crisis - -Political System Rationality Crisis Legitimation CrisisLifeworld (Socio-cultural system)

Motivation Crisis - -

1. Economic Crisis: In capitalism crisis derives from inadequate input is most atypical. The crisis is most likely elicited by under consumption of output. As a result, it causes a breakdown the commodification process.

2. Rational Crisis: a. Rational crisis is the output crisis of the state in late/organized capitalism. It

refers to the failure of the administrative output of the state, i.e. policies and planning, in reconciling and fulfilling the imperative received from the economic system.

b. The crisis is derived from the fundamental contradiction between i. the administrative steering imperative of the state, which takes the form of

planning and management and its steering medium is administrative power, and

ii. the economic steering imperative of the market, which takes the spontaneous or even anarchistic competition and its steering medium is money

c. Clause Offe also points out that there is also a fundamental contradiction within the state’s intervening outputi. The intervening output of the state usually takes the form of

recomodification, e.g. - promoting the employability of the unemployed labor

- promoting the saleablity of the manufactured goods and services, as well as capital

33


33

- subsidizing capital, industrial sector, labor sector whish are unable to survive in commodity form

ii. These recommodification measures also bring about the decommodifcation consequences- Taxing capital as well as labor away from the economic system- Creating large “unproductive” sector- Eroding the ideological foundation of capitalism, i.e. possessive

individualism3. Legitimation Crisis:

a. Legitimation crisis is the input crisis of the state. It indicates the state fails to mobilize and maintain the requisite level of mass loyalty from the socio-cultural system

b. The crisis is derived fromi. The transportation of economic crisis into the state, or more specifically into

the public budget, which gave rise the fiscal crisisii. The rationality crisis of the state manifest in the form of failure of the

steering/planning/administration mechanism to resolve the crisis taken over from the economic system

iii. As the result, the state experiences a massive withdrawal of loyalty, i.e. a legitimation deficit.

c. To compensate the legitimation deficit, the state has to step into yet another “foreign environment”, i.e. the socio-cultural system, and try to projects o f launch projects of loyalty manufacturing, consciousness manipulation and consensus staging

d. However the administrative steering imperatives of the state are in fundamental contradiction with the imperatives of the lifeworld/civil society/socio-cultural system, which works on spontaneous, nature-like, hermeneutic reproduction logic. The end result of state intervention into the lifeworld is what Habermas later characterized as the “colonization of the lifeworld”, i.e. the intersubjectivity of the lifeworld are fragmented by the consciousness-manipulation projects of the state as well as the commodification process of the cultural industry

4. Motivation Crisisa. Motivation crisis is output crisis of the socio-cultural system. It signifies that its

outputs, which are usually in the forms of values and meanings, have become dysfunctional for the both the administrative system/state and the economic system. More specifically, the socio-culture system is unable to reproduce the “privatism” necessary for the action-motivating meanings, which both the administrative and economic systems need.

b. Motivational output of socio-cultural system to the administrative system can be characterized as “civil privatism”. It denotes “an interest in the steering and maintenance performances of the administrative system but little participation in the legitimizing process…Civil privatism thus corresponds to the structures of depoliticized public realm.” (1973, p.75) “If elites are to be powerful and make authoritative decisions, then the involvement, activity, and influence of the oridinary man must be limited. The ordinary citizen must turn power over to elites and let them rules. …Thus the democratic citizen is call on to pursue contradictory goals, he must be active, yet passive; involved, yet not too invoved; influential, yet deferential.” (Almond & Verba, 1965; quoted in

34


34

Habermas, 1973, p. 77)c. Motivational output of socio-cultural system to the economic system can be

characterized as “familial-vocational privatism”. “It consists in a family orientation with developed interests in consumption and leisure on the one hand, and in a career orientation suitable to status competition on the other. This privatism thus corresponds to the structures of educational and occupational systems that are regulated by competition through achievement.” (1973, p.75)

d. The erosion of privatism are mainly due toi. Dismantle of pre-bourgeois traditional normative system, e.g. religious

belief, by the process of rationalization and secularizationii. Undermining of bourgeois achievement ideology by

- Disenchanting the principle of “exchange of equivalent”- Disenchanting the belief of educational justice- Replacement of intrinsic motivation by extrinsic motivation- The constitution of the welfare class

iii. Erosion of the ideology of possessive individualism

F. Colonization of the Lifeworld by Medium-steered Systems (Habermas, 1981, Pp. 332-373)

1. Habermas’ thesis of welfare-state compromisea. Refutation of Austro-Marxist such as Otto Bauer or Karl Renner’s thesis of

class compromise, Habermas argues for the thesis of welfare-state compromise in late capitalism

b. With reference to Clause Offe’s thesis of social policy of the state in organized capitalism (Offe, 1984), Habermas suggests that “the welfare state compromise alters the conditions of the four existing relations between system (economy and state) and lifeworld (private and public sphere), around which the roles of the employee and the consumer, the client of public bureaucracies and the citizen of the state, crystallize.” (p. 349) As a result, they bring about two significant effects on the class conflict in late capitalismi. “Pacification of the sphere of social labor” (p.351) and its “deliberating

proletarian features” (p. p.349)- Normalization of the inequality of the roles of employees in the

occupational system of late capitalism by means of growing structural differentiation of employments; providing monetary rewards; legally guaranteed securities; etc.

- Passing off the role of employee and its deliberating if not revolutionary features of the proletarian to the role of consumers in the mass consumption society. As a result, the social integration function of the lifeworld is no longer achieved around the roles of employees and social labor nor on the basis of class solidarity. In their replacement is social integration around the role of consumers and on the basis of mass consumption of ever-changing fashionable commodities.

ii. Neutralization of the sphere of citizen and its liberating features and potentials- Degradation of communicative rationality of public debate to

instrumental rationality of full-time politicians and their spin doctors; and their project of publicity, public-opinion engineering and public-consent

35


35

manufacturing. - Passing off the role of citizens of the public sphere to the role of clients

of welfare services of the public bureaucracies. As a result, political participations and actions of citizen based on communicative rationality are replaced by politics of welfare clients based on seduction and trade-off between votes and material gains handed down from public bureaucracies.

2. Reification of the communicative actions and the lifeworld: a. Habermas suggests that Marx’s thesis of reification of social labor between the

lifeworld and the money-steering system can be extended within “the four-existing relations between system (economy and state) and lifeworld (private and public spheres), around which the roles of the employee and the consumer, the client of bureaucracies and the citizen of the state crystallize.” (1981, p.349)

b. Invaded by the power- and money-steering mechanisms of the late capitalism and welfare state, the communicative action and rationality embedded in the lifeworld of modern society have been reified. Their features and potentials of meaning generating, consensus bridging, culture renewing, and liberating have partially if not totally been stripped of and replaced by power- and money-steering projects and engineering.

3. Structural differentiation of the lifeworld:a. The replacement of mythical and religious worldview by the spheres of

cognitive-instrumental, moral-practice, and aesthetic-expressive rationalities has structurally differentiated or even “fragmented” the totality of worldview in lifeworld and its communicative rationality.

b. The dialectics of worldviews of the bourgeois project of enlightenment and modernity: Under the banner of bourgeois ideals since the French Revolution, the emancipatory project of modernity has been advocated by opponents of the bourgeois ideals. However, Habermas underlines that in accompany with the progressive features, the bourgeois project of modernity has also spawned a broad spectrum of popular worldviews ranging “from anarchism, communism, and socialism, through syndicalist, radical democratic, and conservative-revolutionary orientations, to fascism and National Socialism.” (1981, p.353)

4. In conclusion, “in place of ‘false consciousness’ we today have a ‘fragmented consciousness’ that blocks enlightenment by mechanism of reification. It is only with this the conditions of colonization of the lifeworld are met. When stripped of their ideological veil, the imperatives of autonomous subsystems make their way into the lifeworld from the outside－like colonial masters coming into a tribal society－and force a process of assimilation upon it.”(Habermas, 1981, p. 355)

G. Allocating Education within the Context of the State, Market, Public and Private Spheres1. Education Development Trajectory in Europe

a. Education as private business within the conjugal familiesb. Education as activities within the public sphere as individual families came

together to form “Public Schools” in England and in US in the 15 centuryc. Education as state project, in a form of universal and even compulsory

education, as project of state-building, nation-building, economic development, 36


36

and social equalization from 19th century to the 1970sd. Education as part of the public sector reform project taking the form of

derelgulation, marketization, and privatization in the 1980se. Development of modern schooling system as process of colonization of the

power-steered system and then the money-steered system into the lifeworld2. Functional Imperatives of Education in modern society

a. Contradictory Socialization Functions in Different Spherei. Within the state sphere, educational as means of socializing national identity

and sense of citizen duty, i.e. obligation to pay tax, to serve military service if need be, to abide to law, etc.

ii. Within the market sphere, education as means of socializing labor with adequate level of productivity and willingness and predisposition to be commodified/employable in the production sphere. (However, in the consumption sphere, education also serves as means of socializing against the culture of consumerism, i.e. hedonism, immediate gratification, nihilism, etc.

iii.Within the public sphere, education as means of socializing citizens to participate in rational and critical debates and action on public issues.

iv.Within the private sphere, education as means of socializing caring, affective, intimate individuals pursuing self realization, actualization and infinitzation.

v. In conclusion, modern education is confronted by on the one hand the imperatives of the medium-steered systems (i.e. economy and state), and on the other the task of inculcating and enhancing the culture, social bases, and personality of communicative rationality, which is the fundamental basis of the constitution and operation of the lifeworld.

b. Contradictory Selection Function in Different Spherei. Within the state sphere, education selection is operating in accordance with

the criteria of governability and capacity of enhancing the functioning of the power-steering apparatuses of the state.

ii. Within the market sphere, education selection is operating in accordance on the basis of employability, productivity, salability of social labor in the money-steering system

iii.Within the public sphere, education selection is operating on the basis of universalistic, egalitarian and/or meritocratic principles.

iv.Within the private sphere, education selection is operating on the basis of particularistic, individualistic and ethnocentric principle

37


37

Documents

Theoretical foundation of Educational …wktsang/edm7206/handout/20… · Web viewi. Offshoring: It refers to instances where a multi-national company moves or expands some of its