Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87-98 ISSN : 2147-3501 (Print) 2148-9688 (Online) DOI: 10.15340/2147350112831

Research Article Globalization, Governmentality, and Education Policy in Angola: A Discourse Approach

Nicolas Nkiawete Manuel1* 1 Washington State University, Pullman, USA

Abstract: In the wake of globalization, there are a number of studies calling for the need to stretch educational policy field beyond the nation state (Ball, 1997; Lingard, Rawolle & Taylor, 2005). Governmentality as suggested by Foucault (1991) is a powerful tool for analysis of the link between the new forms of government and the impact of discourse of globalization and the ideology of neoliberalism on education policy. Few studies have investigated the relationship between local education policy- making and governmentality in post-colonial spaces (see Fimyar, 2008; Tikly, 2003; Rizvi, 2005; Rizvi, Lingard & Lavia, 2006). Foucault’s notion of governmentality and economic policy may be seen in sub- Saharan Africa (Clapham, 1996). This essay focuses a new Foucauldian discussion on governmentality and education policy in Angola. Previous to this essay, most Foucauldian scholars have discussed governmentality and education policy on other areas of the world (Ball, 1990; McCarthy & Dimitriadis, 2000; Pennycook, 2000, 2008; also see Besley & Peters, 2007; Larner, 2000, for governmentality and neoliberalism). While Foucault applied the concept of governmentality to a Western liberal type of government, I argue that in the context of globalization and neoliberal policy, post-colonial governments have increasingly appropriated the discourses of globalization, neoliberalism, and good governance (UNESCO, 1999). Therefore, the aim of this paper is to problematize, interrogate, and contextualize local education policy-making, donors funding of education, the discourses of globalization and neoliberalism, and how these influence educational policy-making in Angola.

Keywords: Governmentality, neoliberalism, discourse, education policy, non-governmental organizations

*Nicolas Nkiawete Manuel, Washington State University, PO Box 641067, Pullman, WA 99164-1067, USA Email: [email protected]

1. Introduction For some scholars, globalization is a homogenization of culture or the continuity of the Western and American imperialism (Phillipson, 1992); while for others, globalization does not necessarily imply homogenization, given that “different societies appropriate the materials of modernity differently” (Appadurai, 1991, p. 17). In respect to the link between globalization and education, Rizvi (2005), for example, argues that “to understand the relationship between globalization and education, we need to avoid the universalistic impulse at the core of many conceptions of globalization” (p. 6). In other words, Rizvi suggests that globalization is a very complex set of relations in which the outside forces exert influence to the local; such influence evolves in dialogic relationship marked by struggles, conflict and discontinuities. This essay is focused onhow such complexities may affect education policy in Angola. First, the literature on education policy is discussed as it relates to conceptualizations of globalization and neoliberalism. Second, the rationale for approaching education policy through the lenses of governmentality is noted. Third, how globalization has affected the practices of government in post-colonial spaces is mapped in relation to multiple narratives and interpretations for the competing discourses that shape and influence education policy in Angola. The role discuss of grassroots movements and non- governmental organizations (NGOs) — the double role that they play as humanitarian brokers

Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 87 and agents of neo (il) liberal marketization of education. This essay accomplishes this by analyzing the competing discourses and practices in education policy debate, and how the neoliberal technologies of governmentality shape educational policy discursive field, and resonate with different social histories in order to create multiple narrative and interpretations (Cho, 2005). In the wake of globalization, there are a number of studies calling for the need to stretch educational policy field beyond the nation state (Ball, 1997; Lingard, Rawolle & Taylor, 2005). In a different way this paper responds to such calls. Drawing from (Fimyar, 2008; Rizvi, 2005; Rizvi, Lingard & Lavia, 2006), I argue that in post-colonial spaces few studies have investigated the relationship between local education policy-making, and governmentality. While Foucault applied the concept of governmentality to Western liberal types of government, it is argued that in the context of globalization and neoliberal policy, post-colonial governments have increasingly adopted the discourses of globalization and neoliberalism, while politically maintaining the nationalist ideologies and tactics. In this paper, I use the Foucauldian concept of governmentality to argue that educational policy-making in Angola is one of government’s technologies of power through which disciplinary power is deployed for effective control and surveillance of knowledge production and its circulation. In other words, while the influence exerted by globalization and neoliberalism is undeniable, education policymaking continues to reflect the new patterns of governmentality. Apple (1996) argues that “too often important questions surrounding the state and social formation are simply evacuated and the difficult problem of simultaneously thinking about the specificity of different practices and the forms of articulated unity they constitute is assumed out of existence as if nothing existed in structured ways” ( p. 268). While it is often argued that with the advent of globalization governments have partially lost their power of control (Green, 1997), the government of Angola (GoA) continues to exercise a powerful control not only over educational policy-making, but also over social policy in general. In Angola, an important mechanism of control of education policy has been the maintenance of centralized curriculum and policy decision making. For example, in a press release in the government’s newspaper, Feijo (2010) defends the need to maintain a centralized curriculum based on the Portuguese only ideology. National curriculum determines what counts as knowledge and who has the legitimacy of transmitting such knowledge (Apple, 1993). Lemke (2004) observes that the analytic of governmentality illuminates how the often evoked retreat of the national government on the welfare state and educational policy is in fact the prolongation of government. In other words, neoliberalism is not the end of state control of education policy; rather this change should be understood in the context of emerging network society with the transformations that structure and restructure societal power relationships, albeit in unequal power dynamics, and able and disable access to economic and cultural capital required to function in the global era. The power of discourse as Olssen et al., (2004) argue is that it:

Enables us to conceptualize and comprehend the relations between the individual policy text and the wider relations of the social structure and political system. If policy is a discourse of the state, it is by its very nature political and must be understood as part and parcel of the political structure of society and as a form of political action (p. 71).

This characterization of discourse implies that discourse not only produces material consequences, but also the subjectification of those involved in discursive practices (Jagger, 2004). Foucauldian discourse perspectives investigate the production of discourse formations that are linked to the different power mechanisms and institutional technologies of domination (Foucault, 1972, 1977). Education policy and cultural policy in Angola constitute and instrumentalize the technologies of the government—Governmentality. Using a discourse approach (Foucault, 1972, 1991; Sutherland, 2005), this paper interrogates the “systems of meaning reflected in policy-making, and how social problems and solutions are defined, that is, who defines them and on whose behalf” (Stein, 2004, p. 1). After more than twenty years since the independence of Angola from Portugal, the government decided to implement a language education policy in a country that has more than 10 African languages (Lewis, Simon & Fennig, 2014). The language policy is currently designed to include only six languages in the school system. This change in education policy is an indication of change in governmentality as a result not only of the global transformations and neo-liberalism, but also a change in political rationality of the government to better control, and exercise its power. Put another way, in practice, language and routines of policy-making take shape as cultural manifestations that not only shape , but also “promote ways of seeing

88 Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 individuals and provide tools for organizing their lives” (Stein, 2004, p. 1). Policies are not only about power and knowledge. Ball (1993) argues that policies are a “restructuring, redistribution and disruption of power relations, so that different people can and cannot do different things” (p. 13). At the micro-level, policies provide teachers with the language and discourses to signify the perceived problems and establish limits of how to speak and who can speak.

2. Conceptual Framework In this paper, Foucauldian discourse analysis does not claim to be a total exhaustive analysis of language; “it is another way of attacking verbal performances, of dissociating their complexity, of isolating the terms that are entangled in its web, and of locating the various regularities that they obey” (Foucault, 1972, p. 108), that is, the order of discourses and its historical formation. Such discourses aim to establish regimes of truth and disciplinary mechanisms of control and surveillance. Foucauldian discourse theory provides the tools and the “window on otherwise concealed or unquestioned aspects of policy formation and implementation” (Foucault, 1972, p. 108). This paper contextualizes local education policy-making, donors funding of education, the discourses of globalization and neoliberalism, and the role of government in educational policy- making. Governmentality as suggested by Foucault (1991) is a powerful tool for analysis of the link between “the forms of government and rationalities or modes of thoughts (about governing) which justify, legitimize and make exercise of government deem rational” (Fimyar, 2008, p. 4). There is a plethora of studies that specifically draw on Foucault’s notion of governmentality. For example, governmentality and economic policy in sub-Saharan Africa (Clapham, 1996), governmentality and education policy research (Ball, 1990; McCarthy & Dimitriadis, 2000; Tikly, 2003, Olssen et al., 2004) and governmentality and neoliberalism (Besley & Peters, 2007; Larner, 2000), but in sub-Saharan Africa particularly there are scarce studies that use Foucault’s concept of governmentality to examine the forms of governments, their relationship to education policy and its outcomes. I concur with Ball (1997) that the role of state power in education policy research has been underestimated. If examined in historical perspective, it is true that previous forms of globalization have undoubtedly left their marks not only on African education, but also on the religion and social formation. However, it should be borne in mind that, in the context of modern society, globalization involves reflexivity on the part of the growing worldwide elite as well as popular consciousness of global interconnectedness (Tikly, 2003). Globalization is also a site of struggle and contestation in which the state, citizens and social movements resist, negotiate, and manage meaningful experiences. In other words, while I am cognizant that the ideology of globalization as “historically specific, which serves a set of particular interests on behalf of powerful social forces, namely transnational corporate and financial elites” (Rizvi, 2005, p. 4), I contend that the impact of globalization in education policy cannot be understood out of historical context of the nation state and governance. I argue that the appropriation of discourses of globalization and the neoliberal ideologies by the state covertly serve as a mechanism of political manipulation to reinforce the disciplinary power of the state that regulates:

The embracing mechanism of development of production, the increased wealth, higher juridical and moral value placed on property relations, stricter methods of surveillance, a tighter partitioning of the population, more efficient techniques of locating and obtaining information. The shift in illegal practices is correlative with an extension and a refinement punitive practice. (Foucault, 1995, p. 77)

It is often argued that within the context of globalization governments have partially lost their power of control. Yet, in Angola the government continues to exercise a powerful control not only over educational policy-making, but also over social policy in general (Green, 1997). It is important to stress that control is even so forcibly manifest in the order of discourse established through language- in- education policy texts, statements and cultural policies. The critique of new order under capitalism emphasizes deterritorialization (Appadurai, 1991) and the fragmentation of the power of the nation state (Hardt & Negri, 2000). It has been argued that the new configuration and features of education policy is the result of new forms of governing under the influence of neo-liberal policies of free market. Lemke (2004) for example, drawing on Foucault contends that “neo-liberal governmentality shows that the so called retreat of the state is in fact the prolongation of government; neoliberalism is not the end but a transformation of politics that restructures the power relations in society” (p. 59). The power of discourse as Olssen et al., (2004) argue is that it:

Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 89 Enables us to conceptualize and comprehend the relations between the individual policy text and the wider relations of the social structure and political system. If policy is a discourse of the state, it is by its very nature political and must be understood as part and parcel of the political structure of society and as a form of political action. (p. 71)

The quote above echoes Pennycook’s (2000) words about the relevance of problematizing language policy-making. He alerts that “we need to be cautious in discussions of language policy that we do not fall into the trap of dealing with questions of language as if they were nothing but neutral media of conveyance of knowledge and culture” (Pennycook, 2000, p, 63). In this sense, language policy and use has ideological and material consequences. Language as an object of analysis in prescriptive and normative linguistics, arguably, serves authoritarian purposes. It is through the diffusion of scientific discourses that social institutions institutionalize knowledge that aim at establishing regimes of truth. Regarding the influence of language in enforcing social integration and covering imposition of monoglossic linguistic practices, Bakhtin (1981) rightly observes that “unitary language gives expression to forces working toward concrete verbal and ideological unification and centralization, which develop in vital connection with the processes of sociopolitical and cultural centralization” (p. 271). This view is consistent with Foucault’s notion of “ritualization of word” and “fixing of roles of speakers”, a process whereby discourses on language learning promote differentiation— what languages and knowledge are deemed acceptable. Foucault used the concept of governmentality as “a way of understanding the relationship of power and knowledge” (Stensaker & Harvey, 2011, p. 45). Government for Foucault is a form of activity that not only structures discursive fields, but also attempts to shape and manage the conduct of persons in social institutions. Such government, however, is not limited to the organization of state members, or even state, but rather permeates the entire society through technologies of power. Foucault (1977) draws our attention not only to “pluralized forms of government but also its complexity and its techniques. Foucault’s model of policy analysis is a potent tool for approaching education policy both at the meso level (initiation, production, and annunciation) and micro level (classrooms, pedagogy, and curriculum). Policy texts, as Doherty (2008) puts it, operate to constitute positions, make productive citizens, regulate, moralize and govern citizens. Such policy texts are also indelibly marked by hidden conceptions of government, the task of governing and its associated technologies of power that operate under the guise of discourses of free market, choice and sustainable development. This view is consistent with Foucault’s understanding of government. For Foucault the activity of governing is possible only “through the development, harnessing, incorporation and active employment of discourse” (Doherty, 2008, p. 195). In this sense, neoliberalism is likened, not to ideology in a sense of “false consciousness” (Althusser, 1971), but as a “form of governmentality with an emphasis on the question of how power is exercised” (Peters & Besley, 2007, p. 139). In other words, a Foucauldian approach to policy research views globalization as a set of complex relations of power that are exercised through global discursive practices, and instantiated via government’s education policy documents, legislation, and statements.

3. Globalization, Discourses of Governance and Neo [i] liberalism In contrast to traditional and universalistic definitions of globalization (Rizvi, 2005), in this paper globalization is understood as a dynamic and contradictory process mediated by socio-economic, political, and cultural interests with unpredictable consequences. Although literature on globalization, neoliberalism and education is exhaustive, studies that problematize and explore governance and how it affects education policy-making and implementation in Angola are scarce. In the context of Angolan education, researchers have primarily focused on the problematic of social and historical governance of educational institutions in post-independence era (de Carvalho, Kajibanga & Heimer, 2003), but have not investigated the recent educational developments in the context of neoliberalism and globalization, and the interplay between discourses of governance and the new forms of educational governance and policy-making. In fact, one cannot understand how education policy is enacted in the context of globalization and neoliberalism without mapping the underlying discourses — how such discourses are appropriated, recontextualized, resisted or implemented (Wodak, 2011) by the different local actors and agents involved in the policy creation (Johnson, 2012, 2013). In Sub-Saharan Africa, as Banya (2010) notes, neoliberalism is not the end of the power of the nation state; rather it is the introduction of new forms of regulation and control which defines new forms of liberalism;

90 Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 that is [il] liberalism characterized not only by privatization of education and commoditization of knowledge, but also by what Fimyar (2008) calls the “illiberal forms of power” (p. 11). As will become apparent illiberal forms of policy-making that prevail in most African nations, specifically in Angola are often characterized by opposing and conflicting views of education policy that, on the one hand, calls for measures to mitigate the far-reaching effects of globalization and English as a global language and promote the use English in the mass media on the other. Such forms of governmentality are characterized by a continuum between the guised forms (neo) illiberal governmentality on the one hand, and under the guide of complete obedience to law and authority and the pragmatic ways in which individuals attempt to negotiate and construct meaningful educational experiences, on the other. To put it differently, the fact that debates on education matters do only involve the people whom policies affect directly partially is of paramount importance. Although at the discursive level there is much rhetoric reflected in the slogans such as ‘think globally and act locally’ and the tropes such as emancipation and good governance, beyond the discursive troubled waters, teachers and communities are often ignored in education policy discussions. This raises a question of who benefits from the exclusion of powerful stakeholders such as parents and teachers. In classical neoliberalism “the state seeks to create an individual who is an enterprising and competitive entrepreneur” (Banya, 2010, p. 15), in neoliberal governmentality in most sub- Saharan nations and in Angola in particular place-based education governance and delegation of powers is replaced by centralized and “hierarchical forms of authoritatively structured relation, which erode, and seek to prohibit an autonomous space from emerging” (Banya, 2010, p. 15). Contrary to most critique that assume neoliberalism and globalization processes as leading to homogenous cultural , economic and political outcomes (Rust & Jacob, 2005), in the context of neoliberal governmentality education policy remains a terrain of struggle and contestation with the nation state itself, the elites and the new forms of governance characterized by the proliferation of NGOs. It would not be contradictory to say that school plays a large role in the globalization agenda. What seems problematic in the discourses of education reform, nonetheless, is the romanticizing discourse that defend that, in view of the force of globalization the nation state has been consumed by the market and that “government is constrained to narrowly defined functions, such as supervision, licensing” (Rust & Jacob, 2005 p. 236). Although reasonable, such an argument is not only reductionist, but also serves to obscure the complex and dynamics relationships of power emerging within a state sanctioned education policy-making. Moreover, neo-illiberal education policy masks the state’s failure to create spaces for re-imagining education policy-making aligned with the current economic and socio-cultural transformations; and it also prevents the building of democratic education system capable of tackling the problem of social inequality in education. In fact, most arguments on globalization center around economic concerns while, curtailing the accounts of “conflict, resource use and the authority of the African state” (Power, 2003. p. 53). This is relevant because education policies and the discourses that underlie them are not only about education but also who has the power to access resources, and who determines what counts as language and knowledge for education. Neoliberalism is not only as an ideology, but also a discourse that tends to force local governments to adopt the verbose of the market, efficiency, and that forms of governance that are influenced by discourses of good governance, collaboration, decentralization; it is significant to note that despite the appropriation of discourses of globalization, at the practical level policy- making and education reform reflect the new form of governance—governmentality. While maintaining control on policy and access to education and resources the government delegates power to NGOs in order to exonerate itself from the responsibility of providing basic services to the population. Interestingly, however, the reconfiguration of globalization agendas at the local level is much more complex than the homo-economicus argument would suggest (Green, 1997). People have become aware that within grassroots movements they can gain autonomy and strengthen their political positions in the society. For example, even when they are excluded in policy debates, parents and communities respond to and negotiate the social and economic discourses on globalization in different ways. In Angola, for example, some parents see privatization of education as an opportunity for many children who would otherwise not have access to education. Parallel to grassroots movements we see coalition groups and organizations such as Fundo Lwini advocating for and promoting women emancipation and participation in governance. The initiative aims to articulate local advances and undermine the enacting of mechanisms of control and power (Prakash & Steva, 2008). It is also true that grassroots may involve both local communities and the elites, albeit in the conditions of unequal power relations. Yet, it is crucial to question the nature

Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 91 and objectives of these movements— who participate in these activities and whose voices are left out of dialogue (Cho, 2005). Although the discussion of economic policy is beyond the scope of this paper, it is nonetheless noteworthy that in most sub-Saharan Africa, specifically in Angola, education policy and education reforms in particular are connected to problems of governance and domestic mismanagement of economic resources (See, Banya, 2005; Clap ham, 1996; Power, 2003). Critiques of neoliberalism and globalization often throw the ball to international agencies such as IMF and the World Bank to justify the state of affairs in most African countries. The central argument has been that these institutions impose social policies that reinforce the dependency of developing countries on donors and that this hinders them from developing inclusive and effective education policies. It is often argued that structural adjustment policies (SAP) are the chief culprit of poor education policies in Africa and that the fate of most African countries is often decided elsewhere in New York, Washington, London (Ferguson & Gupta, 2002). Although such policies accrue a negative impact for African higher education in particular (Assie-Lumumba, 2006; Atuahene, 2011, Banya, 2005; Brock-Utne, 1995; Marginson & Rhoades, 2002, Teferra, 2008), the way arguments are framed in most post-colonial literature is not only reductionist, but also downplays the tensions, struggle, and the power that traverse the negotiation of such policies and the role that governments play in the process. Although the negative contribution of foreign development investments (FDI), specifically the structural adjustment policies of the World Bank (World Bank, 1988) to the development of African education is indelible, evidence suggests that education policy in Africa has failed to cater for the education needs of the overwhelming majority because of exclusionary policy-making practices that prevail in most African nations. Policy design and implementation remain the province of both the African elites and the Western Donor institutions (Mbaku, 2008). In effect, it is reductionist to attribute the failure of education policies and its negative effects solely to neoliberal transnational influences. Mirroring Jones and Alexiadou, (2001), Fimyar (2008) argues that travelling policy discourse are appropriated by national elites for the purpose of attracting aid, while at the national level education policies and practices remain unchanged . In other words, the influence travelling policies should not be seen as marking some sort of closure. Even the implementation of travelling policies are context bound — they are normally (re)contextualized, negotiated, and sometimes resisted or implemented. This captures Ferguson & Gupta’s (2002) critique about discourses that defend the idea that delegation of services to quasi-autonomous non-governmental organization decreases the power and control of the nation state. According to them such a shift rather indicates “a new modality of government, which works creating mechanisms that work by themselves” (p. 989), and encourages the illusion of self-governance with individuals who are increasingly subject to state’s technologies of domination through policies and governmental rationality (Gordon, 1991), that determine the discursive field of knowledge and regimes of truth (Foucault, 1977). Of course the presence of non-governmental organizations in important areas of social and community services is not without contractions and caveats. Moreover, such organization can in most cases be characterized as transnational or multinational, that is, as “an integral part of transnational apparatus of governmentality” (Ferguson & Gupta, 2002, p. 994). While NGOs are part of transnational corporate neoliberalism at the operational level they are part of local technologies of illiberal governmentality. In other words, at the local level such organizations are in harmony with the government’s legislation and operate for the interest of local governments. A good example, of such transnational apparatus is the Norwegian international NGO, Development Aid from People to People (ADPP) which since 1996 has an agreement with the ministry of education to establish 16 teacher education schools in the country (ADPP, 2009). According to the ADPP 2009 annual report, schools for teachers of the future has trained about 2,592 teachers, most of whom are directly employed by the ministry of education. The power of NGOs in the context of an African nation state is justified, as Idohosa (2008) put it:

By discourses of meeting local needs, one involving partnerships, and because there appears to the decentralization of economic and civic decision-making it can be good in both the intrinsic moral sense and in the consequentialist sense of providing efficiently and effectively what other, namely the government, forms of organization cannot (p. 83).

From the above quote it is clear that discourses that champion the fragmentation of the power of the nation state, are couched in language that aims not only to vindicate the power of

92 Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 the market as policy, but also to legitimize the laissez-faire form of illiberal governmentality‒ in which education is seen as a priority and a sine qua non condition for competing in the new global markets. Idohosa (2008) provides a compelling account of operations of NGO’s in Kenya. According to him the proliferation of NGOs makes it “easier for state authorities to pass on problems and discharge themselves of responsibility for their actions, or inactions and to as it were pass the buck to others, while diminishing the authority and presence of the state” (p. 84). In other words, NGOs as education policy-makers are constituents of the micro-physics of power of the nation state. Banya (1993) reported the role of NGOs in education policy in Sierra Leone and comments that NGOs operate and intervene in education policy often with the blessings of the political government. Again, this does not undermine the moral and humanitarian role that NGO’s such as ADDP play in the development of more just and egalitarian education in Angola. It is significant to acknowledge NGOs such ADPP, for example, provide training to thousands of young men and women who would otherwise be deprived of education. Neoliberalism has had an impact on current events within the Angolan educational system. The skyrocketing proliferation of private for-profit educational institutions both at the secondary and higher education levels is a striking example. But this does mean that globalizing processes do involve all nations in a homogenizing manner (Rust & Jacob, 2005). Evidence suggests that in most sub-Saharan countries education policy remains under the nationalistic and ideological influence of the nation state (Banya, 2005, 2010; Green, 1994; Zajda, 2010). Nonetheless, problematic is the appropriation of discourses and language of parental free choice, meritocracy while these forms of “neo- illiberal governmentality” (Tikly, 2003, pp. 163-166), do not provide choices. The only choice that appears to be available is the access to private and quality education for children from elite upbringing, the minority middle class intelligentsia, and public education for children of poor families and women. Although hypothetically one would say that the emergence of private institutions may have helped to boost access to education, the question remains, to what extent can for profit educational institutions help the poor and women to access quality education? The government’s appropriation of discourses of globalization, good governance and the rhetoric of democracy, and its use in official discourse is, in Foucault’s terms a mechanism of power which not only regulates, but also produces different kinds of subjects within the nation state. In the next section, I attempt to explore and speculate on possible answers to this question by highlighting the role of the government in education policy-making, and the interplay of factors that affect education policy in Angola.

4. Governmentality and Education Policy: Implications Foucault (1991) addressed the problem of government, that is, “how to govern oneself, how to be governed, how to govern others, by whom the people will accept being governed, how to become the best possible governor” (p. 87), in the context of sixteenth century. Problems of government and governance, however, remain central to the post-modern nation state. Government as Foucault understood it is the “the conduct of conduct, that is, meaning to say, a form of activity aiming to shape, guide or affect the conduct of some person or persons” (Gordon, 1991, p. 2). This characterization of government means the rationalization of ways of knowing and being. In other words, the art of government or rationality of government means “a way or systems of thinking about the nature of practice of government (who can govern, what governing is, what or who is governed)” (Gordon, 1991, p.3). In this sense, education policy is seen as a statement of government intentions. It is directed towards a particular problem that needs solution. Such solutions is sought through the use of guiding principles that privilege certain ways of structuring knowledge such as reason or seeking expert knowledge (Peters & Besley, 2008). Foucault understood that policy as a form of government rationality can only be “possible through the development, harnessing, incorporation, and active employment of discourse” (Peters & Besley, 2008, p. 195). Thus, the idea of governmentality as elaborated by Foucault (1991) provides policy analyst promising ways of looking at policy discourses and practices. Foucault’s notion of governmentality provides the tools for analyzing education policy as an object of government rationalization that aims at controlling and inducing behaviors which have material consequences. In this view, the discourses that are embedded in policy texts not only situate individuals in different subject positions, but also serve as an instrument that regulate, manage the conduct and practices of the citizens (Peters & Besley, 2008). Governmentality is an important prism that not only sheds light on the functioning of government, it also examines the process of governing as “deliberate purposeful techniques and activity directed at the subject, the society or some consciously categorized subdivisions of the social body” ( Peters & Besley,

Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 93 2008, p. 196). Foucault’s analysis of the modern liberal society provides insights for the analysis of the current trends of neoliberal nation state policy making which is, as Peters & Besley (2008) put it, “characterized in one respect through the agenda, and importantly the non-agenda of the state. This changing of forms of governing, that is, illiberal governmentality provides and forms a propitious context for examining education policy both as a discourse and an expression of government rationality or governmentality. The idea of agenda and non-agenda presupposes education policy as “any course of action (or inaction) relating to the selection of goals, the definition of values or the allocation of resources” (Olssen, Codd & O’Neil, 2004, p. 71). Thus, I am sympathetic with the view of policy- making as a complex process characterized by conflicts and contradictions among competing discourses, hegemonies, and economic interests. Put another way, policy making is a terrain of struggles and contestation whereby meaning is fought for, even among the elites. In this respect, Thompson (1990) notes that in order to understand the significance of policy texts in the process of educational reform it is necessary to examine the socio-historical conditions within which policies are created, received, interpreted, and implemented and the interests and practices they sustain. In fact, political action over education policy is formulated and interpreted at the level of the state and at the micro-level of the schools and classrooms where in the “ final analysis , either set aside, implemented or imposed, discussed, debated, resisted, re-created or adopted” (Olssen et al., 2004, p. 72). In a similar fashion, Peters & Besley (2008) state that policy as a terrain of struggle “ assures contestation, conflict, differing interests and competing views, reflecting asymmetries in power, representation and voice, a political milieu fractured by divisions of class, race and gender” (p. 198). This view is consistent with Foucault’s conceptualization of the art of government, that is, governmentality. Foucault (1991) argues that in order to understand the functioning of liberal society and its relations one must understand the art of government, that is, its “tactics of governmentality” (p. 103). He goes on saying that “the problems of governmentality and the techniques of government have become the only political issue, the only real space for political struggle and contestation” (Ibid). In other words, Foucault acknowledges that governing is also about self-government, that is, the techniques of self, but such techniques of self are also “ integrated into the structures of coercion and domination” (Lemke, 2004, p. 52). The analytic of education policy in the context of illiberal governmentality must, in my point of view, transcend the reductionist views and binaries present in traditional critique of neoliberalism and its impact on education policy. For example, discourses of triumph of globalization and capitalism, over the state (Lemke, 2004) are among the dominant discourses within the critique of neoliberalism. While reasonable such critique not only overlooks the role of government in shaping education policy, but also how the appropriation of discourses of neoliberalism by politicians, elites and practitioners functions as politics of truth, “producing new forms of knowledge, inventing new notions and concepts that contribute to the government of new domains of regulation and intervention” (Lemke, 2004,p. 56). The co-option of language of neoliberalism and globalization has become one important strategy among politicians in Angola to justify policy formulations and implementation. Let me flesh out one good example of how government’s appropriation of discourses of governance, neoliberalism and globalization is conflictual and problematic. In October 2010 during the IV Meeting for Protection and Revitalization of African Languages held at the Northern Province of Uige one of the government officials declared that given the negative impact and the socio-economic transformations fueled by globalization, it is imperative to create mechanisms that can protect and preserve the cultural values that identify Angola as a free and independent nation (Bule, 2010). Interestingly, in September 2011 at a ceremony of launch of English learning radio, and the signing of agreement between the British Government (British Council) and Angolan ministry of education held at the British embassy in Luanda, Angola, another governmental official declared that the launch of the English learning radio program was an important step within the contexts of the global socioeconomic and political transformations (N. N. Manuel, personal communication, September, 2011). The presidential decree 15/11 of 2011 urges the need to counter the negative effects of globalization on local languages and culture. The decree recommends the regular use of African languages in the promotion of economic and social programs (GoA, 2011). Interestingly enough, while there are radio and television broadcasting programs in African languages, which mainly replicate the news from the central broadcasting programs, there is no radio program that aims at promoting the learning of African languages. This use of institutional illiberal mechanisms is the process through which some languages are promoted to officialdom and medium of instruction, while other languages are simply stigmatized and marginalized (Ricento, 2012). The above institutional provision and remarks reveal the ambivalent position of the official

94 Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 discourse on language policy and language education in Angola. What is interesting in analyzing the above statements is the fact that these discourses are being recruited in the context whereby the government is promoting the use of African languages in education for the first time since independence. This sets an unprecedented conflict of interest between the promotion of African languages on the one hand and the projection of the country into the global era through English as global language on the other. The opposing views also capture the idea that education policy and language policies in Sub-Saharan Africa are trapped in the dilemma involving the ideology of vernacularization— the promotion of African languages as a medium of instruction and the ideology of development (Kamwangamalu, 2010), that co-opts the discourses of marketization that continue to reinforce the colonial relations of labor and production in most developing countries. The conflictual appropriation of discourses of globalization and neoliberal governance reveals not only the tensions that underlie the transformations in practices of government in Angola, but also demonstrate that even when multiple authorities serve as education policy agents the practices of government serve to shape conducts, adjust socio-economic activities (Dean, 1999) and establish regimes of truth that legitimate the order of discourse and social practices. Foucauldian discourse analytic framework is particularly illuminating in the context of global social changes that shape and influence education policies and give rise to new forms of governments, that is, “governmentality” (Foucault, 1991). This view echoes Pennycook’s (2000) words about the relevance of problematizing policy-making. She alerts that “ we need to be cautious in discussions of language policy that we do not fall into the trap of dealing with questions of language as if they were nothing but neutral media of conveyance of knowledge and culture” (Pennycook, 2000, p, 63). In this sense, education policy has material and ideological consequences. Pennycook is suggesting that rather than concentrating only on issues of language as a medium of instruction, or on the benefits that may accrue from the use of one language or another, policy analysis should go beyond. Policy analysis should establish and reveal, as Foucault (1972) puts it “ the relations between discursive formations and the non-discursive domain, that is, the relations of power that are created through institutions, political events, economic practices and processes” ( p. 162). Discourse shapes human subjectivities and cultural practices. Discourses are practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak, and such objectification always accrues to material consequences. “Of course, discourses arenot about objects; they do not identify objects, they constitute them and in the practice of doing so conceal their own invention” (Foucault, 1977, p. 49). Drawing on Foucault, Ball (1993) insists that discourses are practice that regulate not only what can be “said, thought, but also about who can speak, when, when, where and with what authority” (p. 14). In Angola, language education policies promote discourse of cultural diversity. The new policy state the rights of every citizen to be able to access social institutions, including education in their language, while at the same time maintaining Portuguese as the only official language. However, the basic education law 13/01 reads: Portuguese is the language of instruction in schools (Basic Education Law. art. 1, my translation). In maintaining Portuguese as the only official language, the government is vesting authority to speakers who have mastery of Portuguese while keeping others at the margins. Thus, this paper aligns with the post-structuralist policy analysis that pays attention not only to the practices of government, but also to “the politics of organization, not only to the actors of politics, but also politics of actors, in other words, the semantic struggles and discursive constructions which define who counts as an actor” (Gottweis, 2003, p. 254) in a particular policy and discursive field. Government understood in this way serves not only as a technology of power and discipline, but also concerns itself with rationalization and expert knowledge. This legitimation of expert and scientific knowledge has several policy implications. It is through the expert knowledge that certain orders of discourses that influence policy-making are established and justified. Knowledge production as a site of power is often underestimated in most policy analytic frameworks. In this respect, Gottwies (2003) rightly states that “the legitimacy of policymaking relies often on technical and scientific arguments, power becomes intertwined with knowledge” (p. 256). The legitimacy of scientific and expert knowledge serves as a ground on which policymakers and practitioners interpret, validate the policy options, and dismiss interpretations from other social stakeholders mainly those who these policies affect. In this view, in carrying a poststructuralist policy analysis with the analytic of government examines not only the practices of government, but also the different discursive fields, the technologies, tactics and knowledge. Despite the emphasis that I make on the role that the state continues to play in shaping education policymaking in Angola, it is significant to note here that, I am not necessarily portraying the model of “Hobbesian state” (Gottweis, 2003, p. 256) in which the repressive modes of exercise is the norm. In other words, even with the influence of globalization and neoliberalism the policy

Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 95 formation and discursive field is increasingly a terrain fraught with tensions and struggles. Furthermore, with the emerging society of networks, grassroots movements, and depending on the types of interaction and the role that local governments accord to these NGO’s and transnational corporations, it is difficult to envision a homogenizing global policy field. Inthis vein, Burchell (1993) notes that neoliberalism differs from earlier forms of liberalism. He charges that even under the common sense view that markets regulate and dictate the actual social and economic life in modern society “they do not regard the market as an already existing quasi-natural reality situated in a land of economic reserve in a space marked off, secured and supervised by the state” (Besley & Peters, 2007, p. 141). In this sense, transnational interests and markets exist only under certain political legal and institutional conditions that local government create to further their interests and maintain the political and administrative mechanisms of the nation state. Thus, in Angola the socioeconomic and political transformations that shape and give directions to education policy are part of a new form of governmentality, that is, illiberal governmentality. In this respect, the multiple agencies and authorities, which operate on policy field in local communities act as what Foucault calls the microphysics of power that while serving local governments also pursue their own agendas characterized by transnational capital accumulation and directed towards marketization and profit. It is important to note that such marketization of education benefits both transnational companies and the government local elites. In effect, the recruitment of discourses of globalization and neoliberalism in official discourses serves to reinforce the power of technologies of self, while at the same time maintaining a covert governmentalization of the state and nationalism to justify the centralization of education policy decisions pertinent to curriculum, standards and even language education policies.

5. Concluding Thoughts In conclusion, appropriation of discourses of globalization and governance within the context of Angolan education policy obscures the practices of government and serves to legitimize the actions and inactions of the government, and so as to exonerate them from the responsibility promote equity in education. The appropriation of discourses of globalization and neoliberalism in Angolan education policy-making serve to reinforce the illusion of self-empowerment while the stark reality reveals a highly hierarchized society in which education for all remains a mirage. This paper contributes to the literature on education policy and governmentality in Africa (and Angola in particular). The paper also sheds light on how the technologies of government have shifted within the context of education policy-making in Angola. The foregoing paper also demonstrates that education policy-making and the practices of government are sites of struggles and contestation in which multiple actors and competing interests and ideologies intervene. The paper challenges the views that tend to emphasize the absolute power of the markets, while downplaying the participation of the nation state in the production of education policy and neo- illiberal governmentality. Understanding education policy in this manner provides a promising way to problematize and question government practices which in the words of Dean (1999) reflects the creation of more reflexive and democratic government. The new forms of governmentality and practices of government—illiberal governmentality can only be understood in the context of historical, socioeconomic, and political transformations characteristic of the postmodern society.

References ADPP (2009). The International Humana People to People: Annual report 2009. Retrieved from www. humanaorg/...document/77ADPP_Angola_Report_English Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimension of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. Apple, M. (1996). Power, meaning and identity: critical sociology of education in the United States. British Journal of Sociology of education, 17, pp. 125-144. Apple, M. W. (1993). The politics of official knowledge; Does a national curriculum make sense? Teachers College Record, 95(2), 222-241. Astiz, F., Wiseman, A., & Baker, D. (2002). Slouching towards decentralization: consequences of globaliztion for curricular control in national education systems. Comparative Education Review, 46(1), 66-88. Retrieved October 29, 2008, from htt://www.jstor.org/stable/3542022

96 Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 Ball, S. J. (1993). What is policy? texts, trajectories and toolboxes. Discourse: the Australian journal of educational studies, 13(2), 10-17. Ball, S. J. (1997). Policy sociology and critical social research: a personal review of recent education policy and policy research. British Educational Research Journal, 23(3), 257-274. Retrieved August 31, 2012, from htt://www.jstor.org/stable/1502044 Banya, K. (1993). Illiteracy, colonial legacy and education: The case of modern Sierra Leone. Comparative Education, 29(2), 159-170. Banya, K. (2005).Globalization and higher education policy changes. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalization, education and policy research: global pedagogies and policies (pp. 147-164), Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Springer Banya, K. (2010). Globalization, education and social justice. Comparative Education and Policy Research, 10, 15-31. Banya, K. (2010).Globalization, social justice, and education in Africa: Neoliberalism, Knowledge capitalism in Sub-saharan Africa. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalization, education and social justice (pp. 15- 31), Dordrecht: The Netherlands & New York: Springer Science+ Business Media B.V Berthelemy, J. (2005). Globalization and challenges for education in least developed countries. In M. S. Sorondo, E. Malinvaud., & P. Lena (Eds.), Globalization and education (pp. 166- 189), Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Bloom, D. (2005). Education in a globalized world. In M. S. Sorondo, E. Malinvaud., & P. Lena (Eds.), Globalization and education (pp. 59- 78), Berlin & New York: Walter de Gruyter. Bordieu, P. (1979). Symbolic violence. Critique of Anthropology 13, 77-85 Bordieu, P. (1991). Language and Symbolic power (G. Raymond & M. Adamson, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press Bule, J. (2010, October 20). Conflito levou à diversidade das linguas nacionais no país [The conflict brought the diversity of national languages into the country]. Retrieved from htt://jornaldeangola. sapo.ao/20/0/conflito_levou_a_diversity_das_linguas_nacionais_no_pais. Burchell, G., Gordon, C., & Miller, P. (1991). (Eds.). The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality : with two lectures by and an interview with Michel Foucault. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Clapham, C. (1996). Governmentality and economic policy in Sub-Saharan Africa. Third World Quarterly, 17(4), 809-824. Codd, J. (1988). The construction and deconstruction of educational policy documents. Journal of Education Policy, 3(3), 235-247. Crossley, M., & Tikly, L. (2004). Postcolonial perspectives and comparative and international research in education: a critical introduction. Comparative Education, 40(2), 147-156. Retrieved September 19, 2012, from htt://www.jstor.org/stable/4134646 Feijó, A. (2010, February 03). Uma palavra sobre as línguas angolanas [A word about the Angolan languages]. Retrieved form http://jornaldeangola.sapo.ao/19/0/uma_palavra_sobre_as_linguas- angolanas. Ferguson, J., & Gupta, A. (2002). Spatializing states: toward an ethnography of neoliberal governmentality. American Ethnologist, 29(4), 981-1002. Foucault, M. (1972). The archaeology of knowledge; and, the discourse on language. New York: Pantheon Books. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: the birth of the prison (2nd Vintage Books ed.). New York: Vintage Books. Foucault, M. (1991) Politics and the study of discourse. In G. Burchel, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality with two lectures by and interview with Michel Foucault (pp.53- 72), Hemel Hempstad: The University of Chicago Press. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchel, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality with two lectures by and interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 87-104), Hemel Hempstad: The University of Chicago Press. Gordon, C. (1991). Governmental rationality: an introduction. In G. Burchel, C. Gordon, & P. Miller (Eds.), The Foucault effect: studies in governmentality with two lectures by and interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 1-51), Hemel Hempstad: The University of Chicago Press House-Soremekun, B., & Falola (2011). (Eds.). Globalization and sustainable development in Africa. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Idahosa, P.L (2008). The norms of displacement: NGOs, globalization and the state in Africa. In G. K. Kieh (Ed.), Africa and the new globalization (pp. 69-95), Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Company.

Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98 97 Johnson, D.C. (2012). Positioning the language policy arbiter: governmentality and footing in the school district of Philadelphia. In J. W. Tollefosn (Ed.). Language policies in education: critical issues (2nd ed , pp. 116-136). New York & London: Routledge. Johnson, D.C. (2013). Language policy. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmilla Kamwangamalu, N. M. (2010). Vernacularization, globalization, and language economics in non-English speaking countries in Africa. Language Problems and Language Planning, 34(1), 1-23. Larner, W. (2000). Neo-liberlaism: policy, ideology, governmentality. Studies in Political Economy, 63, 5-25. Lemke, T. (2004). Foucault, governmentality, and critique. Journal of Economics, Culture & Society, 14(3), 49-64. Lemke, T. (2007). An indigestible meal? Foucault, governmentality and state theory. Scandinavian Journal of Social Theory, 8(2), 43-64. Lewis, M. P., Simons, G. F., & Fennig, C. D. (Eds.). (2013). Ethnologue: Languages of the World, (Seventeenth edition). Dallas, TX: SIL International. Retrieved November, 26, 2013 from htt://www.ethnologue. com. Mbaku, J. M. (2008). The African debt crisis and the new globalization. In G. K. Kieh (Ed.), Africa and the new globalization (pp. 29-50),Hampshire, England: Ashgate Publishing Company. McCarty, C., & Dimitriadis, G. (2000). Governmentality and the sociology od education: media, educational policy and the politics of resentment. British Journal of Sociology of Education, 21(2), 169-185. Olssen, M., & Codd, J. A. (2004). Education policy globalization, citizenship and democracy. London: Sage. Peters, M & Besley, T (2008). Why Foucault ? New directions in educational research. New York: Peter Lang Publishing Power, M. (2003). Re-imagining postcolonial Africa: a commentary on Michael Watts’ development and governmentality. Singapore Journal of Tropical Geography, 24(1), 49-60. Ricento, T. (2012). Political economy and English as a global language. Critical Multilingualism Studies, 1(1), 31-56. Rizvi, F. (2005). Proceeding from AERA, 2005: postcolonial SIG AGM invited talk. University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. Rizvi, F., Lingard, B., & Lavia, J. (2006). Postcolonialism and education: negotiating a contested terrain. Pedagogy, Culture & Society, 14(3), 249-262. Rust, V. D., & Jacob, J. W. (2005). Globalization and educational policy shifts. In J. Zajda (Ed.), International handbook on globalization, education and policy research: global pedagogies and policies (pp. 235-252), Dordrecht: The Netherlands: Springer. Stensaker, B., & Harvey, L. (2011). Accountability in higher education: global perspective on trust and power. New York: Routledge. Taylor, S. (2004). Researching educational policy and change in new times: using critical discourse analysis. Journal of Education Policy, 19(4), 433-451. Tikly, L. (2003). Governmentality and the study of education policy in South Africa. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), 161-174. UNESCO (1999). Globalization and educational reform: what planners need to know. Place de Fontenoy, Paris: Martin Carnoy Zajda, J. (2010). Globalization, social and cultural change and education reforms. In J. Zajda (Ed.), Globalization, Ideology and education policy reforms (pp. xiii-xvii). Dordrecht, Heidelberg, London & New York: Springer.

98 Educational Policies and Current Practices 2015; 1(2): 87–98