In the Dentist's Chair
In the Dentist's Chair: A Response to Richard Hatcher's Critique of Habituation of the Nation - Part Two
Glenn Rikowski School of Education, University of Northampton
On the ‘Logic of Capital’
Hatcher noted that a ‘logic of capital’ argument was employed in my Habituation paper to explain the process of ‘habituation’ prior to a substantial business takeover of schools. Yet I did not employ the term ‘logic of capital’ there, nor did I use it in my web log article on the White Paper either (i.e. Rikowski, 2005c). This is a concoction by Hatcher that represents an argument that I supposedly used. Hatcher then links this attributed argument to my apparent reductionism and economic determinism in my analysis of the White Paper.
The term ‘logic of capital’ suggests that the invasion of schools by capital is inexorable, a kind of juggernaut that sweeps all before it in the schools system. Apparently, I had summoned up a social phenomenon in my thinking about the White Paper that is impervious to organised resistance. However, if Hatcher had actually bothered to read my Habituation with any care, or if he was not predisposed to wilfully misinterpreting or rubbishing it then he might have considered the following points:
9. We are constituted as capital (human capital as the social form attained by labour-power in capitalist society)
10. We therefore incorporate the contradictions of capital within our personhoods
11. We are also constituted by and through labour, which is antithetical to capital
12. We are thoroughly at war with ourselves on the basis of our social constitution
13. Because of our dual and contradiction-ridden nature we are ambivalent about processes of capitalisation, such as the business takeover of schools
(Rikowski, 2005b, p.3).
What these propositions indicate is that at the fundamental level of the constitution of person- and self-hood in capitalist society, individuals are riven with contradictions flowing from capital and the labour-capital antagonism. This shows that there is “openness” within the social formation (an Open Marxism) and the struggle between capital and labour is everywhere, even within our souls, our personhoods [11]. There can be no ‘logic of capital’ in the sense that there is an historical process whereby capital totally dominates personal and social development. At the heart of the capitalist system is struggle, class struggle: this is built into capital’s social universe. As Harry Cleaver has put it:
"Capital can never win, totally once and for all. It must tolerate the continued existence of an alien subjectivity which constantly threatens to destroy it" (Cleaver, 1979 in Neary, 1997, p.25).
When I submitted Habituation of the Nation (Rikowski, 2005b) to the MASSES list, a reply was sent to the list by Michael Apple saying that ‘This is nicely written and clear’ (posted 19th October), but not for Hatcher, apparently.
However, I do in fact talk about the ‘logic of capital’ on my web log The Volumizer, but not in the Habituation paper (Rikowski, 2005b) that Hatcher claimed to be critiquing. My discussion on the ‘logic’ of capital took place in Second Time as Farce: From GM Schools to Independent Ones (Rikowski, 2005d) – which was posted to The Volumizer on 9th October 2005, ten days before the Habituation paper was posted. Once again, apart from poor scholarship and subterfuge through lack of referencing, Hatcher also shows disrespect to his readers when he fails to inform them precisely where the specific force of his critique falls on my writings. He is also giving the impression that my Habituation (2005b) is the only paper I have on The Volumizer! Anyway, Hatcher may have had the following in view when he referred to my ‘logic of capital’ argument:
"The notion of totality as applied to capital is a strange one where the totality is never 'total' (and cannot be for reasons I can't go into here). It develops, it 'becomes' as Marx might have said (and also Nietzsche). The totality of life in capital's social universe is not all-embracing: it has its own opposite, labour, as presupposition. It is a social universe of contradiction and change, yet has a 'logic' that can be discerned (where its opposite can be suspended in thought), even if never realised (due to the clash of forces - labour and capital) (Postone, 1996). When we uncover this 'logic' we arrive at pure horror. We must all try to become philosophers of horror, all the better to protect ourselves against the real development of the 'logic' of capital and hence capital's totality" (Rikowski, 2005d, p.3).
It is clear that I am referring to the ‘logic’ of capital in a very specific sense here. However it might be useful here to elaborate on three ways in which the concept might be used, all of which would seem legitimate to me. First, it could be used in the sense that Moishe Postone (1996) uses the term: as indicating the trajectory (a better word in my view), the general direction in which the system is moving. Marx also did this on occasion (principally in the Grundrisse – Marx, 1858). Secondly, it could be used to indicate various tendencies at work in capitalist society (such as the tendency for the rate of profit to fall, but also others such as the capitalisation and commodification of all aspects of social life).
However, I use it in a third sense. I argue that if the antagonism built into capitalist society is suspended in thought (though not in reality, obviously) then we can glimpse what the social universe of capital could become if the forces of labour were weak and capital could indeed dominate the social formation to a much greater degree than today. The result would be social life as horror: relative (though not absolute – that is impossible) suspension of the class relation (which is simultaneously the labour-capital relation), where labour’s struggle against capital is denied, yields capital as horror, life as terror in capitalist society – on a scale we can only begin to imagine. Again, for me, Marx shows something of this in the opening chapters of Capital (1867), even though he does not express it in this way.
For me, as for John Holloway (1994, 2002), Marxism is not just a theory of society but a theory against society. We need visions of the socialist society of the future (Allman, 2001; Rikowski, 2004), but also critiques of all aspects of capitalist social life [12]. Examining capital through the relative suspension of the power of labour indicates what might happen if labour did in fact typically weaken itself by yielding its will to capital on a scale unknown today: if we became capital to a much greater degree [13]. Of course, in reality total subsumption cannot happen – and I indicate this in the quotation above – though Hatcher misleads others by implying that I hold that it is happening. However, the exercise demonstrates clearly that the more capital dominates labour then Marx’s dictum in the Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844 (Marx, 1844) attains greater significance, i.e. that: ‘the goal of the economic system is the unhappiness of society’ (p.26 – original emphasis).
Now that the source of Hatcher’s view that I employ a ‘logic of capital’ argument has been pinned down it is easy to show that the other three aspects of his own argument in the quotation near the end of the previous section fall by the wayside.
Mediation Ignored?
Hatcher says that I fail to show that ‘capital’s social universe is a developing totality’ as a ‘mediated process’ (Hatcher, 2005b, p.2). He does not enlighten readers what he means by this, or on what he means by ‘mediation’. Again, if the original quotation where I set out the argument on the ‘logic of capital’ is examined then Hatcher’s point falls. Perhaps his underhand tactics on not informing readers where this quotation could be found (i.e. in Rikowski, 2005d) was a result of him knowing that he was treading on thin ice.
What I say is that labour is the presupposition of capital’s social universe, though I do not build on that there. Thus, the very existence and expansion of capital are always mediated through labour. Capital cannot create itself, nor can it morph into various forms of itself (money, rent, state and so on) without the creative hands and thought of labour. Elsewhere, through the work of Moishe Postone (1996), I have indicated that creation and metamorphoses of capital are always enacted by labour: as labour, we create and nurture the monster that oppresses us. I have called this the ‘tragedy of labour’:
"[Capital] is not self-generating. It cannot create itself … It is labour (Marx, 1867) that creates value and mediates its various transformations (Postone, 1996), firstly, into capital on the basis of surplus-value, and then the myriad forms of capital springing from surplus-value. Thus, the existence of the substance (value as social energy) that constitutes capital’s social universe depends upon our labour" (Rikowski, 2002a, pp.183-184 – my emphasis).
And:
"There is a tragic element to this. As Moishe Postone (1996) indicates, it is not only the case that labour produces value and surplus value in the labour process – which is the lifeblood of the existence of capital – but labour also mediates all transformations of capital into other forms of itself (e.g. state, money, rent, etc.). The tragedy of labour is that we labour to create a vast, global social structure powered by capital (which depends upon us for its existence) that oppresses us, and limits and constrains human and social possibilities. We work to build our own cages" (Rikowski, 2004, p.567 – my emphasis).
One aspect of the tragedy of labour that I have not touched on so far, but wish to here, is that the building and maintenance of the institutions of society that are implicated in the development of capital can also be viewed as part of the tragedy.
Perhaps ‘institutions’ is what Hatcher has in mind when he talks about ‘mediation’. I don’t know; he never tells us. Maybe he has some neo-Althusserian view about educational institutions having their own ‘logics’ [14], and therefore economic needs and imperatives being filtered through these and other institutions lose some of their potency as causal mechanisms and forces. Anyhow, it is for him to enlighten us rather than me guessing – though I suspect he has some bourgeois sociological notion of mediation in view rather than one based on critical Marxist research. What is clear is that Hatcher’s charge that I have no notion of mediation (by labour) in the development of capital’s social universe cannot be trusted.
The Curse of Reductionism
In my travels within the UK (not having been outside the UK since 1978) over the last ten years or so, in giving papers and presentations, I have often been accused of ‘reductionism’ by non-and anti-Marxists. It is one of their stock responses to my work, even though they rarely explain what they mean by it. Ditto some critics of my written work, and ditto Hatcher (in Hatcher, 2005b). Specifically Hatcher implies that when I talk about ‘capital’s social universe is a developing totality’ because I do not add that it is a mediated process (untrue), therefore I view it as a ‘linear and reductionist economic determinism’ (2005, p.2 – my emphasis). Hatcher curses me with ‘reductionism’.
Having shown that Hatcher’s charge that I view the development of capital social universe as being an unmediated process to be erroneous then his charge that I am a reductionist loses some of its initial force: on his terms. He is the one that poses the mediation/reductionism duality and the subjunctive conditional, i.e. that if I view that development of capital’s social universe without recourse to seeing that this development is a mediated process, then I must be a reductionist. Apart from the fact that he does not show how these two concepts and processes are linked, Hatcher has clearly not understood (or has chosen to avoid for the ‘benefit’ of his attempted destruction of my work) the articles in The Volumizer (Rikowski, 2005b-d) that he has apparently read. Other than making the invalid link with my apparent avoidance of mediation, Hatcher does not say in what sense I am a reductionist. He gives no account of what he means by reductionism; in this respect he follows the non- and anti-Marxists that cast me down as a reductionist. It’s a cheap trick; it leaves me with having to do all the work of explanation and justification; to pick up the pieces.
With so little to go on from Hatcher, perhaps a general statement from me on the Curse of Reductionism might suffice. First of all, how do I view ‘reductionism’? In its most general form, it is the notion that one type or category of social phenomena in reality represents another type or category. The reduction is made when we view the former principally or totally in terms of the latter. Thus, when we talk about leisure, for example, it is possible to reduce it to a discourse about the economy. Leisure phenomena are proxy economic ones. In addition, when causality is incorporated into the reduction then what is being offered is a kind of explanation which is deterministic (the subject of the next section). Thus, weak reductionism is where discourse about leisure is translated into economic discourse. Strong reductionism is where causality and explanation are added: the leisure phenomena are caused and hence explained by the economic ones.
For the last ten years or so I have been working within an outlook on the social totality that not only makes reductionism undesirable but unnecessary. In this view of the social totality (which only makes sense for capitalist society), ‘economic’ and ‘educational’ phenomena (for example) are not separate but are social forms of each other. As I argued in 1995 (revisited as 1996b, pp.7-10), education can be viewed as a form of production (through the social production of labour power). On the other hand, production can be viewed as being ‘educative’, and phenomena such as work-based learning and on-the-job-training are empirical manifestations of this point. Furthermore what Marx saw as the ‘automatic’ social production of labour power in the labour process (the development of skills, work speed and other labour power attributes as we labour) is another way in which production can be ‘educative’ (see Rikowski, 2002a, p.194; and 2002b, p.132). Education and production (or the ‘economy’) are not two separate spheres of social existence. Therefore, to ‘reduce’ one to the other would make no sense. What is needed as the philosophical grounding for grasping the nature of social phenomena in capitalist society where this pertains (i.e. where social phenomena can become social forms of other social phenomena), I have argued (Rikowski, 1996a and 1997), is a philosophy of internal relations. This flows from reading the work of Bertell Ollman (1993 in particular; and more recently Ollman 2003). As social phenomena in capitalist society are internally related and not related to each other as externalities and sharply delineated categories, then a dialectical mode of thought is required to grasp their nature and development as the unity of opposites (Allman, 2001, p.43). Paula Allman has demonstrated this when thinking about relations between ‘economy’ and ‘education’ (see Allman, 2001, pp.42-43 and pp.237-238) [15].
I would maintain that when a philosophy of external relations is followed, either consciously but in mainstream educational thinking more likely as unconsciously, then reductionism becomes more likely. In this view there are separate categories of phenomena, as Allman explains:
"When we understand things as being externally related, we focus on what results when the attributes of one entity interact with those of another entity" (2001, p.42 – original emphasis)
When social phenomena are viewed as being externally related – as being elements within separate and distinct social categories – then an incipient functionalism is one likely result. As ‘education’ and ‘economy’ are fundamentally separate, then it is tempting to view the former as performing various functions for the later. In this way they begin to relate but in a way that involves a reduction: the educational phenomena take on an economic hue. This schizoid approach – educational phenomena are fundamentally separate from economic ones, yet in the process of performing functions for the economy become virtual economic phenomena – is at the heart of Left functionalism in ‘Marxist’ educational theory. As I have argued previously, this is one of the main routes taken by what I call the Old Marxist Educational Theory flowing from Bowles and Gintis (1976) and Willis (1977), and for me one of many reasons why we need to make a new beginning with Marxist educational theory (see Rikowski, 1997). For both Paula Allman (1999, 2001) and I this new beginning involves going back to the writings and thinking of Karl Marx himself.
The Demon of Economic Determinism
Having met Hatcher’s related charges against me in the three previous sections then the charge that I am an ‘economic determinist’ in my analysis of the White Paper is unsustainable – as in Hatcher’s view it is linked with a ‘logic of capital’ and reductionism that make economic determinism the final port of call. Again, ‘economic determinist’ is a form of abuse often thrown by non- and anti-Marxists at Marxist educational theorists. Once more I appear to be on the defensive: I have to show that I am clean on this score too.
Certainly, for me, being labelled an ‘economic determinist’ is a huge insult; if the charge can be sustained then I have failed in my work in Marxist educational theory. For over twenty-five years I have struggled to rescue Marxist educational theory from any form of economic determinism. In Scorched Earth (1997) I critiqued conventional views of the Base/Superstructure Model (B/SM) in order to block Marxist educational theory from becoming a form of economic determinism. My criticisms of Bowles and Gintis’ (1976) work over many years were carried out with the same end in view. On both counts I received much criticism from Marxists working in education. Some accused me of undermining historical materialism and hence leaving Marxism altogether. Whilst others held that I was being too tough on Bowles and Gintis (1976).
For Hatcher’s demon of economic determinism, I have shown that it is possible to use the concept of ‘logic of capital’ without being an economic determinist (as the class antagonism and the social constitution of the human ensure an openness that precludes linear, economic determinism). Secondly, I have indicated that all social processes are mediated by labour, so therefore I would not be claiming anything otherwise for the development of capital’s social universe. Thirdly, I have indicated that in capitalist society the notion of ‘economy’ is not as rigid as Hatcher suggests that I hold it to be. With views such as these I cannot see how I could be an ‘economic determinist’ – even if I wanted to be!
Hatcher never actually provides a single example of how or why I am an economic determinist in my Habituation paper (Rikowski, 2005b), or any of my other papers posted to The Volumizer, nor indeed in relation to any other of my published works. I await his instruction on this matter.
Analysing Concrete: Hatcher the Empiricist
Hatcher agued that what is required in order to understand how processes of capitalist development are mediated is ‘concrete analysis of concrete situations’ (Hatcher, 2005b, p.2). Hatcher, in typical fashion, does not explain what he means by this. I would imagine that he has fieldwork research in view, using the types of methods that would generate rich data. Furthermore, the ‘concrete analysis of concrete situations’ sounds as though he is arguing we should be committed to an entirely empiricist programme of research. It is hard to see where the role of theory, or indeed explanation of any kind could come into this project. Hatcher’s concrete research programme would be like analysing concrete: mapping in micro detail what is going on at a particular point in time within ‘concrete situations’. Much mainstream (and even some not-so-mainstream) educational research is like this today. It is like trying to ‘fix’ social reality into grids through intensive mapping of each (concrete) particle.
The problem is that in capitalist society in general and in the world of New Labour’s schools’ policy in particular, things change, sometimes rapidly; and in New Labour’s world of education policy, very rapidly. Thus, if we share Hatcher’s approach to social and educational research then presumably we metaphorically rip up the concrete and lay some more; incessantly. We attempt to understand the constellation of the latest ‘fix’ through another programme of intensive research. In this way, any notion of dynamics, of the development of the schools system is undercut; this would require more general, abstract and conceptual analyses that act as aids to understanding the concrete. Hatcher does not seem interested in this level of analysis; he prefers to skate on surfaces that keep changing. Politically and theoretically the consequences are unprincipled swings, policy-tracking and an obsession with detail.
Marx, on the other hand, was aware that concrete phenomena are concentrations, results generated by more complex, general and abstract phenomena. Marx notes that:
"The concrete is concrete because it is the concentration of many determinations, hence unity of the diverse. It appears in the process of thinking, therefore, as a process of concentration, as a result, not a point of departure, even though it is the point of departure in reality and hence also the point of departure for observation [Anschauung] and conception" (Marx, 1857, p.101).
In fact, Marx starts out in Capital (1867) from a very real and concrete phenomenon: the commodity. As Derek Sayer (1979) and also Moishe Postone (1996) show, Marx unfolds some of the basic structuring phenomena of capital(ism) through his analysis of the commodity. He moves upwards in this analysis, argues Sayer, from the concrete (commodity) to the abstract and general in the process (1979, p.96). In doing this, Marx enriches our understanding of capital(ism) whilst also locating its contradictions and weaknesses – principal functions of Marxist science [16].
From his critique of my work it appears that Hatcher is stuck in the world of the concrete; an educational researcher in a concrete world. In C. Wright Mills’ terms, Hatcher is an abstract empiricist. On the basis of his writings on the White Paper (i.e. Hatcher, 2005a-d), he has few ideas and no real analysis. On the other hand, he is clearly doing important empirical educational research. At a recent Marxism and Education: Renewing Dialogues VII seminar, he presented an excellent paper on the campaign against Academies (Hatcher and Jones, 2005a) [17].
On My ‘Two Assumptions’
Hatcher tediously goes on to argue that there are two questionable assumptions underlying my argument (in my Habituation paper – Rikowski, 2005b). The first of these is:
"That what he [Glenn] regards as the interests of ‘edubusinesses’ and the interests of capital as a whole coincide" (Hatcher, 2005b, p.2).
In my Habituation (Rikowski, 2005b) paper I do not mention ‘edubusinesses’ whatsoever. So, how can Hatcher possibly reach this conclusion? As well as being another instance of sloppy scholarship, this is just another decoy argument by Hatcher; a petty ploy to cause heartache and stress.
However, what Hatcher does know, or should know, or refuses to acknowledge, is that I have argued explicitly elsewhere (Rikowski, 2001b) that the interests of ‘capital as a whole’ (or capital in general) do not coincide with those of sectors of capital (e.g. edubusinesses). Indeed, Hatcher has approvingly referenced my work on this issue (see Hatcher and Hirtt, 1999; and Hatcher, 2001). In Education for Industry: A Complex Technicism (Rikowski, 2001b), I made it clear that there are categories of capital. Representatives from these categories, when speaking to these categories, express particular and specific (and perhaps conflicting views) regarding what they expect and hope for from state educational services. I certainly do not view the ‘interests’ of ‘edubusinesses’ (sectors of capital) and capital as a whole (capital in general) as coinciding, as Hatcher suggests. Furthermore, I try to avoid (not always successfully) referring to any category of capital as having particular or general ‘interests’, though Hatcher himself seems keen on the term. Rather than the ‘interests’ of sectors of capital I tend to focus on contradictions, tensions, strategies and demands (from key spokespeople). ‘Interests’ cannot be simply read off from sectors of capital as Hatcher presupposes. Hatcher is merely trying to foist his own rickety and flimsy conceptual framework onto me. Furthermore, Hatcher also says that:
"I see no evidence that big capital has lost faith in the state’s ability to provide its future workforce such that it demands that schools be handed over to the private sector" (2005b. p.2).
Yet the Confederation of British Industry (CBI) has indeed such worries (CBI, 2005), and you don’t get any ‘bigger’ representatives of ‘big’ capital in the UK than the CBI. As Digby Jones says in the Foreword to the CBI Report (Jones, 2005, p.3):
"There have been improvements in education standards in recent years, but we still have a long way to go. Our education system is failing too many young people. Some are effectively unemployable when they leave school … [yet] … where the government has intervened directly using the private sector, standards have improved markedly."
The CBI is concerned that standards in state schools are not good enough; so outsourcing educational services in the schools sector is seen as the way forward. But Hatcher misses two other points. First, employers in the UK have never been satisfied with the standards of school leavers (see Rikowski, 2001). Secondly, they never can be so satisfied (logically) as capital’s social drives (including the drive to enhance the quality of labour power) are infinite. The significance of all this is explained in Rikowski (2001b), which Hatcher knows of, has referenced in his own work, but refuses to recognise. In addition, Hatcher argues the state ‘does not act primarily in the interests of ‘edubusinesses’, a growing but still relatively small sector of the economy’ (2005b, p.2) – as if I ever said that it did. Again, Hatcher provides no actual evidence of me saying what he claims I said.
The second assumption is:
"That running state schools can be sufficiently profitable" (Hatcher, 2005b, p.2).
There are two key points here. First, is that Hatcher does not appear to be arguing against the assumption that if companies are running state schools then they cannot be profitable. Secondly he is assuming that there is such a thing as ‘sufficient’ profits. On the first point, Hatcher notes that there are individual schools run by companies (three in Surrey – recognised by Hatcher, 2005b, p.2) and schools in nine local education authorities run by companies (not referred to by Hatcher in 2005b, but researched by the Confederation of British Industry, in CBI, 2005) for profit [18].
On the second point, Hatcher falls into the empiricist trap that when employers organisations or individual representatives of capital call for the need to make ‘sufficient profits’ that there is such a thing. The social drive to create profits is infinite; sufficiency does not come into it. I leave it to Hatcher to define what a ‘sufficient’ profit is. Basically, companies that want to make profits through running educational services want conditions that enable them to make greater profits. If I have ever said something along the lines of ‘companies are not making sufficient profits’ then what I mean is that they want to make more, are unhappy with the level of profits that New Labour currently allows them to make and want New Labour to legislate in various ways so that more profits can be made.
Of course, companies might be reluctant to enter into the schools arena as outsourcers on the basis that they believe that they cannot make enough profits relative to investments elsewhere that might generate higher profits. If representatives of capital believe that they are not allowed to make enough profits out of running schools then they have not been slow in letting New Labour know this. The idea of there being insufficient profits in schools makes sense insofar as employers want to make more profits, but they will never be ultimately satisfied with any level of profits. The state could increase the level of profits relatively swiftly with a new, liberal regulatory framework and lax contracts backed up by selling off vast swathes of schools [19]. But my Habituation paper (Rikowski, 2005b) pointed to the huge political risks involved in that, as, incidentally, did Hatcher’s (2005b) paper: and on that we agree.
There is another odd statement by Hatcher in the section on the profitability of schools. Says Hatcher:
"Glenn’s ‘logic of capital’ argument oddly omits what drives capital – the law of value: profitability. Where would the profit come from? 85% of schools’ budgets in this country are teachers’ salaries, and increasing ‘productivity’ by increasing class size would simply alienate consumer demand" (2005b, p.2).
First, Hatcher confuses and conflates value and profit – a very basic error that he commits elsewhere in his paper. He does not say what he means by the ‘law of value’ either: maybe he does not know what it means. Secondly, in terms of the motivations of representatives of capital (owners, managers etc.) of course they are primarily motivated by profit. At the level of action, in the drive to generate profits they create value; though without value and surplus-value profits would be impossible. Thirdly, Hatcher shoots himself in the foot on the point about teachers’ salaries: if companies running schools actually had real power over teachers’ pay and conditions – as they have been asking for – then greater profits could be made. The insertion of ever more classroom assistants as cheaper forms of labour in classrooms is not irrelevant to this point either. But of course, consumer demand might be alienated; but then if the majority of schools were into cost cutting and there had been a long period of ‘habituation’ (as explained in my original article) then employers and the government might believe they can manage this. Even so, Hatcher and Jones (2005) indicate that ‘the CBI estimates that the share of schools’, expenditure involving the private sector will be around 30 per cent in 2006’ (p.18) – so even Hatcher appears to believe in this article with Ken Jones that there must be enough profits to be gained from schools that would generate this level of interest from companies. Or does he? Perhaps the business folk running these companies are philanthropists, wanting to put money into the system rather than take it out.
Those Most Wonderful Sponsors of Schools
Hatcher is most generous to the sponsors of schools. For him, the key sponsors of schools have so much cash they could not possibly be interested in the money dribble flowing from schools in the state sector – some £60 billion in total for 2007/08 according to the White Paper (Her Majesty’s Government, 2005, p.14). Of these sponsors, Hatcher says that:
"Many are large, often international, companies in banking property, construction and manufacturing making huge profits, far beyond what could conceivably be made from schools. Their motives are quite different [from the smaller ‘edubusinesses’ that are driven by running schools for profit], including philanthropy, demonstrating ‘corporate social responsibility’ and promoting business values" (Hatcher, 2005b, p.3).
It is interesting to note that Hatcher moves here from companies running schools for profit to other companies sponsoring schools. He seems to be saying that at one level there is nothing wrong with either them or the money they give; there is no real threat from them regarding a ‘business takeover of schools’. The profits to be made, in their terms, are peanuts. Neither does Hatcher seem to question the motives of these Great Philanthropists.
But he does note that these folk are interested in ‘promoting business values’, and towards the end of his paper he argues that for New Labour they will suffuse schools with ‘business management methods and business values’ – which can be seen as part of the ‘habituation’ and disarming process I was talking about in my Habituation paper. The attitudes of these sponsors regarding the volume of profits to be made from the schools sector could, of course change: if they were beginning to face economic difficulties, if there was a general and relatively deep recession and/or if New Labour or a future Tory government opened up schools much further to profit-making potential, then their benign attitudes might change: double-quick!
Yet Hatcher believes they are quite cuddly and to be trusted. Confusedly though, towards the end of his paper he argues that these sponsors (as well those seeking to make profits out of schools):
"…all tend to subordinate schools to business and other private interests and need to be vigorously opposed (and on this of course Glenn and I have no disagreement)" (Hatcher, 2005b, pp.3-4).
But Hatcher gives only the vaguest and flimsiest of arguments regarding why we should oppose Those Most Wonderful Sponsors of Schools. If they are as harmless as he had said previously, noble and self-sacrificial even, then what have we to fear? Especially as on his analysis the White Paper is such a damp squib and yields next to nothing to businesses seeking profits in the schools sector.
The Forgotten Past: ‘Two Agendas’ Hatcher
One of the most irritating aspects of Hatcher’s anti-Habituation paper is that he seems to forget or ignore his own past. There was a time when he had argued that for capital there were two agendas regarding schools (Hatcher and Hirst, 1999; and Hatcher, 2001). The first was the business agenda for schools, involving the social production and enhancement of labour power. The second was the business agenda in schools: companies making profits out of running educational services. This oversimplifies things a bit, but Dave Hill has elaborated substantially on this analysis in the last few years (in Hill, 2001, 2004 and 2005a). In his most recent work, Hill (2005a) has used these two business agendas for schools (along with a third one – see Hill, 2005b) in order to understand some of the data he had gathered through a research project sponsored by the International Labour Organisation. Yet Hatcher seems to want to downgrade, or even deny the second of these agendas. This is made sharper in another paper (Hatcher, 2005a) which he wrote a day before the one under critique here. Hatcher argued that:
"Trusts are non-profit bodies with charitable status. The Trust policy [of the White Paper] is not about private companies running schools for profit. (In any case, there wouldn’t be enough profit to make it worthwhile even if it were allowed)" (Hatcher, 2005a, p.2).
He repeats the point about insufficient profits in a later paper (Hatcher, 2005c, p.2). Apart from the fact that Hatcher seems to forget Education Act 2002 once more (where schools can set up companies independently of Trusts) he seems here to be downgrading his second agenda. Strangely, in his ‘Blair’s Swedish Model’ paper (Hatcher, 2005d) he notes that:
"There are two possible models of for-profit privatisation of state schooling: one is state schools contracted out to be run for profit by private companies; the other is the state funding of for-profit private schools either directly or through vouchers allocated to parents" (p.1).
He notes that both operate in the USA ‘but in almost all countries of western Europe neither model is permitted’ (Ibid.). Apart from the fact that I would not agree that there can be ‘only two’ models of for-profit privatisation (showing a lack of imagination on Hatcher’s part), here he seems to be admitting that there can be ways in which companies can make money from state schools. Hatcher seems to be all over the place on the issue of whether businesses can make profits (sufficient or otherwise) out of state schools. Given his empiricism, and with conflicting empirical evidence, it is perhaps no surprise that his focus on ‘concrete analysis of concrete situations’ makes him flit around in his ‘analyses’ like a butterfly perturbed.
Perhaps Hatcher is facing some sort of personal re-branding dilemma, here. Personal branding can be defined in the following way:
"A personal brand is a clear idea and expectation that comes to mind when others think of you. It is the powerful way that you communicate and demonstrate what you stand for: your vision, values, skills, passions and attributes. It is what people see of you: what you project to others; and it is their perception of you. It is not the whole of you. It is not about creating or moulding yourself into someone you think you should be. It is not about being arrogant or egotistical. It is authentic and true to who you are" (Winder, 2006, p.22).
Maybe he wants to distance himself from people like me on the issue of the business takeover of schools. But crikey! Some awkward facts keep holding him back!
Conclusion: In the Dentist’s Chair
"A sense of academic vagueness was already making itself felt, a state of affairs very foreign to those of us who were used to precise arrangements, with ‘all ends tied up’" (Matthew Finch, Dentist in the Chair, 1960, p.6).
When I was a kid my Granddad used to give me some of his Nuttalls Mintoes, traditional, hard-boiled sweets made in Doncaster by Tate & Lyle that were real tooth-rotters and tooth-breakers. My Mum used to tell him not to give me them, but he would always sneak me some. By the time I was three I was having teeth extracted. My visits to the dentist were very frequent up to when I was around thirteen. I hated going, and I resisted dental treatment: I was a terrible dental patient. The various dentists that I had invariably said something like “Don’t worry: this won’t hurt”, but for me they always seemed rather economical with the truth.
For me, Hatcher’s attitude towards the White Paper reminds me of being in the dentist’s chair all those years ago. For Hatcher, there is nothing much to worry about regarding the business takeover of schools; the Trusts are to be run by upstanding charities and religious organisations, and not allowed to make profits; the new independent schools will be non-fee paying; and anyhow, businesses can’t really make much profit out of state schools – so no need to worry. In addition, these sponsors, well: philanthropists, noble do-gooders exercising corporate responsibility. No worries there, then, either.
Over the last eight years, Ruth Rikowski (on public libraries – see for example, Rikowski, R. 2005a-c) and myself (on state schools) have been charting the business takeover of these services, mainly in relation to England – though Ruth has covered other national contexts much more thoroughly (in Rikowski, R. 2005c) than I have. In both the libraries and schools contexts we have both been called scaremongers, conspiracy theorists and worse. Yet we still firmly believe that there are real dangers regarding the business takeover of these public services. Coming from the Left, papers such as Hatcher’s (2005b) seem to indicate to people that there is indeed not much to worry about. This is in sharp contrast to those such as Alasdair Smith (2005), who for me strikes the right tone. Smith agues that ‘if the White Paper is not politically defeated it will lay the ground for yet further extension of privatization’, and:
"So we must be clear that the White Paper is about extending privatization and undermining democratic and accountable state education" (Smith, 2005, p.1).
For me, Hatcher (in 2005b) seems to equivocate on this issue, to send out confusing and mixed messages.
There is no doubt that over the last ten years Richard Hatcher has produced much-needed research, critique and generally incisive comment on school/business relations. He is a leading figure in the European Social Forum education group and one of the leading educational Left researchers and thinkers in the UK today. His current work with Ken Jones on parents’ activist groups in the Academies campaign is very significant (as related in Hatcher and Jones, 2005a). Thus, his anti-Habituation paper (Hatcher, 2005b) came something as a surprise to me, especially as it was an unprovoked attack which not only put my interpretation of the White Paper in question, but also my work more generally on Marxist educational theory was put on the chopping block. Perhaps Hatcher’s (2005b) paper was a mere aberration. But whatever his motives, there is no doubt in my mind that if the analysis of that paper were to be taken seriously then it would theoretically and politically disarm the educational Left in the UK. Perhaps, though, his paper was primarily or only ever meant to be an attack on me, and not to be taken as representative of his general position. This would make more sense.
On the other hand, the two of us have started to generate further debate on the White Paper, and this is all to the good. In that spirit, but only in that spirit, I welcome his critique of my work.
There is also an important point to be made, which the educational Left often seem to neglect to make, it seems to me. This is in connection with the need for solidarity on the educational Left. I have informed several people on the educational Left that I am writing this paper – responding to and critiquing Hatcher’s work. The general response has not been as I would have expected and hoped for. Instead, some people have tried to discourage me from writing the paper at all, arguing that it will cause divisions amongst Left educators. However, Hatcher started this divisive approach – not me, and nothing that have I heard or read from him since has indicated to me that he now wants to return to any form of ‘left solidarity’ with me – in the way in which these people want me to now treat Hatcher. By which I mean, that he has not, for example, acknowledged my development of Marxist educational theory over many years. Thus, if I had not replied, the ‘battle’ would probably have continued in some other form or medium anyway.
But now I have laid out the arguments and what divides us clearly on the table, thus enabling us, in the long-run, to be able to move forward together in some ways, I feel. I also think that it will help to prove the value of Marxist analysis for education, especially in the long term.
Another fundamental point is that the Left, as indeed, everyone ideally, should be able to respect each others’ position. And one would expect a better response from the Left in this regard, compared to other groups – not a worse response, that de-generates into unscholarly work. Hatcher’s lack of referencing in his (2005b) paper, and his refusal to give readers any indication where my papers that he critiques can be found, indicates disrespect for his readers – not just for me. Thus, hopefully, here I will also draw peoples’ attention to the fact that this matter, this lack of respect for each other, needs to be addressed on the educational Left. On my web log, The Volumizer, I try to make sure that even small articles are adequately referenced and that readers can find relevant documents.
Writing this paper has also clarified a few points for me, and in a few places I have developed or refined my ideas. That too, for me, has to be good, and so writing this paper has not been a wholly negative experience. I look forward to further debate on the White Paper and the role of Marxist educational theory in critical education policy analysis.
Glenn Rikowski
31st December 2005, London, UK
© Copyright, Glenn Rikowski
Acknowledgments: I would like to thank Dave Hill and Malcolm Richardson for reading this paper. Of course, all responsibility, especially for the harsher criticisms of Hatcher, but also for the final outcome, remains mine.
Disclaimer: The views and ideas expressed in this article are those solely of Dr. Glenn Rikowski, and in no way are they connected with or representative of the School of Education, University of Northampton, UK. The University of Northampton has no responsibility for the content, form or tone of this article. This responsibility rests entirely upon Dr. Glenn Rikowski.
Notes:
[1] This version, including the Preface, can be found at the MASSES e-list: http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/MarxSIG/message/524 Habituation with Preface
[2] I use the Word version here. The various versions posted to lists have slightly different pagination – though there’s not much to choose between them. If folks want the exact version I am using here, please contact: Rikowskigr@aol.com and I shall send it by email attachment.
[3] In relation to a slap-dash critique of her own work by Professor Charles Oppenheim of Loughborough University, Ruth Rikowski adds: “It seems that the inequalities that exist in society know no boundaries at all. So, not only do those at the higher echelons of society have more status, power and money (such as Oppenheim) but they also do not need to be so accurate and precise in their arguments or even reference so much apparently” (Rikowski, R. 2005a, section 7).
[4] And just because the White Paper says that the envisioned schools system in England is ‘not-for-profit’ then must we actually believe it? This point is to be taken up later.
[5] See Blair (2005b, p.1).
[6] Neill joined in the debate between Hatcher and I, and argued that in the US “…it is far easier to combat privatization than the main issue, which is schooling ever more intensely reduced to preparation of humans to be ready to sell their labor power. The latter cannot even be addressed outside of small circles such as this, while the debate over privatization rages quite openly”.
[7] That there are distinctions between value, surplus-value and profit is something Hatcher fails to recognise, and I shall return to this issue.
[8] Actually, Hatcher conflates the ‘law of value’ with profitability here (i.e. Hatcher, 2005b, p.2): an instance of his general inability to see the differences between value, surplus-value and profit in this paper.
[9] This point is discussed further in Rikowski (2000). Unfortunately, some of the mathematical symbols do not translate very well into the html version of the paper presented there. The original, with the mathematical symbols intact, can be obtained from me at Rikowskigr@aol.com
[10] I owe this point to Malcolm Richardson (2005), though I have developed it in a particular way which Malcolm might not necessarily agree with.
[11] For more on this see Rikowski (2002b and 2003a).
[12] In Rikowski (2004) I examined how the three moments of critique, addressing human needs and realms of freedom might interrelate.
[13] My Education, Capital and the Transhuman (Rikowski, 2002b) was partly informed by this outlook. Horror was indeed the result, with capitalist education coming out particularly badly as one of the processes nurturing capital’s possession of the ‘human’.
[14] Similar to Dan Finn (1979 and 1987). See my critique of Finn in Rikowski (2001b).
[15] Indeed, Paula Allman has developed these points on the need for dialectical thinking on education/economy relations much further and deeper than I or anyone else has.
[16] For more on this see Rikowski (2001c).
[17] This is very important research on how activists (parents, education activists and trade unionists) are resisting New Labour’s Academies programme, with special reference to the anti-Academy campaigns in Islington. I invited Hatcher to speak at MERD VII, which was on 26th October – the day after the White Paper came out, and also a day after I spoke on BBC Radio 4’s ‘The World Tonight’ programme on the White Paper. The paper at the centre of this critique (Hatcher, 2005b) appeared a week later – on the 5th November; interestingly, a few days before an important job interview at Roehampton University (9th November) that might have changed my life for the better.
[18] The CBI Report (2005) was a huge embarrassment for the liberal educational Left in the UK. It appeared to show that educational attainment in nine private sector-outsourced local education authorities ‘improved more than the average performance of all the LEAs in England’ (p.4). To my knowledge, there has been no comment or critique of this report from the liberal educational Left.
[19] A number of methods or models introduced by the state could generate greater profit-making opportunities for companies. This is implicitly acknowledged by Hatcher when he discusses the ‘Swedish model’ (Hatcher, 2005d).
References on next page - click below