This article looks at practices of social practices of suzhi (quality) in education reform in China as a way to argue that neoliberal policy does not necessarily make for neoliberal subjects. He is arguing against scholars who look only at 'text' of government (ie.: policy) to talk about neoliberal subjects, without actually looking at the practice of subjectification.
Specifically, Kipnis is looking at "educating for 'quality'" in Chinese schools. Where quality is seen as something that justifies power, but is otherwise loosely-defined. Suzhi is used as justification for neoliberal reforms in education, emphasizing individual entrepreneurship and creativity. This is seen as a path to creating a "Chinese Bill Gates." On the other hand, authoritarian education, the 'opposite' of neoliberalism, is still important, if only for the maintenance of loyalty to the CCP. Kipnis examines this contradiction between neoliberal and authoritarian educational practice.
Good definitions of a lot of terms:
Subjectification:According to Rabinow, Subjectification is "the interrelation among scientific modes of classifying people, the dividing practices of governments, and the means by which human beings objectify and act upon themselves". Subjectification = Scientific classification + dividing practices of government + self-objectification and -action.
Governmentality: working through subjectification to create self-disciplining subjects.
Neoliberalism governs by 'responsibilitizing' subject/citizens, although they believe they are rejecting government
Kipnis finds three interesting subjectivities created by the Chinese educational system:
1. filial subjects
2. homeroom subjects
3. dropout subjects
In the first (filial students) teachers emphasize student's duty to their parents, who sacrificed so much so that the students could study. Students see their duty not to the state, but to their families. In the second, neoliberal desire to treat all students equally backfires by making them rely on each other, fostering a sense of community. Dropouts disparage the authoritarian exam system, so in some ways this is the most neoliberal subject position.
One current that runs beneath the article that I think would be interesting to draw out more is the idea of neoliberal policy being 'Western' versus 'traditional' Chinese authoritarian educational practice, as well as other comparisons between the 'West' and 'China'. For example, dropouts believe in their individual ability to succeed outside of the authoritarian university system, seeming to be the most 'neoliberal' of subjects, but their ideologies reflect a classic Chinese character - the 'man of action' who is opposed to the 'book-stupid' intellectuals. The importance of teaching 'filiality' calls back to classic values as well. 'Authoritarianism' and 'neoliberalism' are not the whole product of CCP and 'the West'
No comments:
Post a Comment