Search

As it emerged in the late twentieth century, Empire promised a new era of global cooperation and stability through a seamless integration of late capitalism and neoliberal technocracy. Premised as an end to history itself, all that was left to accomplish was to tinker at the margins, stimulate corporate enterprise, embrace financialization and technological innovation, and encourage liberal rights and inclusion. As we enter the third decade of the twenty-first century, the narrative fictions sustaining Empire have broadly collapsed at the level of symbolic identification and belief. Empire has entered into a period of global emergency and mutation. Engaging with Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's work, this paper considers what might emerge when we read education into the circuitry of Empire's decay. First, we locate Empire within foundational tensions in modernity, using Kantian philosophy and colonialism as examples, to foreground the idea of education as immanent to historical processes of creativity, resistance, and innovation. Second, we highlight dead-end responses, from space colonization to neo-fascism, as representations of how modes of education circulate to stabilize and contain Empire's crises, specifically in relation to capitalism, nationalism, and identity. Lastly, the paper develops a political ontology of education "after" Empire.

This paper examines how elite transnational policy and research organizations are framing emergent technologies as a hypermodern risk. It outlines how innovations in artificial intelligence and machine learning are feeding into global policy imaginaries and responses oriented to education and skills as adaption and minimization of potential disruption flowing from unpredictable workforce transitions. Drawing on research reports by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, World Economic Forum, and McKinsey, the paper suggests that this emphasis on risk and uncertainty represents a shift in elite policy discourse. The paper discusses how automated uncertainty is feeding into educational policy trajectories that seek to mitigate disruption through digital learning and work synergies via agile learners of risk. The cognitive structuring of these policy trajectories reflects a closed ideological loop deflecting analysis from political economy and alternative policy futures within hypermodern capitalism.

Despite proliferating attention within the social sciences toward the sources and consequences of climate change and environmental crises, educational sociologists have been slow to confront ecological questions. This omission may seem surprising given the prominence of global perspectives within the field. However, we argue, such a focus is emblematic of the discipline's sociocentrism and anthropocentrism. Against such a reified sense of the field's conceptual and analytic purview, this paper reads ecology into educational sociology, with the aim of theorizing a 'geo-logic' basis for future scholarship. If critical sociology of education is to maintain its relevance in the Anthropocene, the discipline must attend to ecological problematics. Building on three recent contributions to socio-ecological thought, we explain the necessity of an ecological attunement in critical sociology of education. To serve this call, we offer a theoretical revision of key disciplinary commitments, clearing new pathways for educational sociologists to do this crucial work.

This essay examines speculative narratives reflective of Silicon Valley and corporate technology culture that project creative scenarios and sociotechnical futures for cities and citizens, whereby learning and creativity become global imperatives to defer future risk within a new digital urbanism. Taking inspiration from Fredric Jameson's transhistorical dialectics, Alexander J. Means assembles a cognitive map of emerging sociotechnical projections of urbanity and education through three frames -- solutionism, collaborationism, and techno-realism -- linking each to specific conceptualizations of creativity and learning. Means argues that these projections are subsumed within an ontology of the present, and they therefore fail to index the complexities that drive historical and technological change, particularly the deep structure of power and conflict immanent to late capitalism as a world-historical system. Such an ontology is ultimately rooted in imaginative displacement, a futurism without futurity, where time is rendered a static feedback loop of present systems and processes.

This paper examines how transformations in political economy and digital technology point toward potential post-neoliberal futures. Outlining the contours of a crisis of neoliberal hegemony, the authors explore how technological developments have contributed to political economic dynamics of market failure and oligarchic capture, resulting in new forms of digital precarity. As evidence, the paper examines a specific post-neoliberal discourse called neoreactionism (NRx), which has developed out of the distinct culture of Silicon Valley. NRx represents a specific vision for resolving conflicts inherent to neoliberalism by intensifying oligarchic capture and the acceleration of technology. While NRx is a techno-authoritarian discourse that exists largely outside of mainstream academic discussions, it is indicative of how transformations in late capitalism are fueling the rise of anti-democratic consciousness and identification. In response, the authors conclude with suggestions for developing post-neoliberal approaches to educational studies that are able to challenge these troubling reactionary trends.

Platform learning harnesses the operating capabilities and logics of digital platforms such as Uber and Amazon to imagine synergies between on-demand labor and on-demand learning, transforming living into learning, and learning into labor. This paper seeks to make three original contributions to critical analysis of platform learning. First, as an analytical foundation, it brings together two distinct strands of scholarship on the evolving relationship between learning and late capitalism, and the digitalization of education policy and governance, synthesizing them in relation to questions concerning labor and work in the emergent on-demand economy. Second, it draws on these ideas to engage the learning and work projections of two strategic forecasting organizations, Institute for the Future and Knowledge Works, as case studies of platform learning. Third, the last section of the paper builds on the sociotechnical projections of these organizations as the basis for a critique of the political economy of platform learning, highlighting four areas requiring further inquiry: (1) value extraction; (2) exploitation of labor; (3) efficacy and inequality; (4) imagination.

Advanced by powerful venture philanthropies, educational technology companies, and the US Department of Education, a growing movement to apply "big data" through "learning analytics" to create "personalized learning" is currently underway in K-12 education in the United States. While scholars have offered various critiques of the corporate school reform agenda, the role of personalized learning technology in the corporatization of public education has not been extensively examined. Through a content analysis of United States Department of Education reports, personalized learning advocacy white papers, and published research monographs, this paper details how big data and adaptive learning systems are functioning to redefine educational policy, teaching, and learning in ways that transfer educational decisions from public school classrooms and teachers to private corporate spaces and authorities. The analysis shows that all three types of documents position education within a reductive set of economic rationalities that emphasize human capital development, the expansion of data-driven instruction and decision-making, and a narrow conception of learning as the acquisition of discrete skills and behavior modification detached from broader social contexts and culturally relevant forms of knowledge and inquiry. The paper concludes by drawing out the contradictions inherent to personalized learning technology and corporatization of schooling. It argues that these contradictions necessitate a broad rethinking of the value and purpose of new educational technology.

This article reflects on emergent (radical-progressive) languages of democracy to consider what common educational institutions might mean today. It explores distinct philosophical and political tensions that cut across these languages in relation to educational organization and pedagogy including--antagonism versus exodus, transcendence versus immanence, pluralism versus multiplicity, democracy versus communism. In contrast to other theorists in education who have tended to privilege certain conceptual positions in these debates to address a wide range of educational issues, the author argues that these tensions should be read selectively and generatively for linking political questions concerning democracy to educational transformation. In conclusion, the article calls for a language of insurrectional democracy that integrates aspects of each approach and where strategic engagements with, and creative lines of flight out of, public institutions and the State play a role in reimagining a common education for a democratic society to come.

This article examines the intersecting logics of human capital and national security underpinning the corporate school reform movement in the United States. Taking a 2012 policy report by the Council on Foreign Relations as an entry point, it suggests that these logics are incoherent not only on their own narrow instrumental terms, but also more importantly in terms of progressive ideals of human and educational flourishing. The article proceeds to draw on discussions within the fields of international relations and critical security studies in order to think through what it might mean to reframe educational policy within the terms of human security rather than human capital and national security. It further explores both the possibilities and distinct limitations of extant human security discourses and policies in relation to global neoliberal governance and biopolitics. The article concludes by advocating for a critical human security framework in educational policy along three conceptual lines: (1) "A Human beyond Human Capital"; (2) "Symbiotic Parallelism"; and (3) "Altersecurity." Ultimately, it suggests that human security for educational flourishing might offer insight into transcending the idea of security altogether.

The article presents the discussion on capitalism and liberal democracy being a holy combination. Topics include Asian histories demonstrating ancient territorial grievances, border disputes, and new security threats as well as interconnected Asian colonial histories and interwoven major ethnic strands; and recent diplomatic systems of ties, trading relationships, and political associations.

As it emerged in the late twentieth century, Empire promised a new era of global cooperation and stability through a seamless integration of late capitalism and neoliberal technocracy. Premised as an end to history itself, all that was left to accomplish was to tinker at the margins, stimulate corporate enterprise, embrace financialization and technological innovation, and encourage liberal rights and inclusion. As we enter the third decade of the twenty-first century, the narrative fictions sustaining Empire have broadly collapsed at the level of symbolic identification and belief. Empire has entered into a period of global emergency and mutation. Engaging with Michael Hardt and Antonio Negri's work, this paper considers what might emerge when we read education into the circuitry of Empire's decay. First, we locate Empire within foundational tensions in modernity, using Kantian philosophy and colonialism as examples, to foreground the idea of education as immanent to historical processes of creativity, resistance, and innovation. Second, we highlight dead-end responses, from space colonization to neo-fascism, as representations of how modes of education circulate to stabilize and contain Empire's crises, specifically in relation to capitalism, nationalism, and identity. Lastly, the paper develops a political ontology of education after Empire. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this wide-ranging conversation, Michael Hardt reflects on recent transformations within Empire. Several unique themes emerge concerning power and pedagogy as they intersect with subjectivity and global crisis. Drawing on the common in conjunction with the tradition of love in education uncovers a different path that attends to today's real political, ecological, and social needs. Finally, a focus on collectivity points to a possible strategy—collective intellectuality—for educators to revise traditional notions of leadership to encourage more ethical, democratic, and sustainable futures. Yet, what this looks like in practice remains for us to imagine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]