Content area
Full text
ABSTRACT This article is a critique of the broad ensembie which we identify as 'learning discourse' and its pervasive ideological content which determines learning as a 'good thing for all'. We consider how the signifier 'learning' works as a nodal point which constitutes (legitimizes and sustains), yet glosses over, antagonistic and contradictory organizational and social practices. With our critique we endeavour to go beyond a simple rebuke or rebuttal. We, rather, point out the problematic nature of the truths engendered in 'making the social' and constituting the promise of a learning society whose ambit encompasses learning in general, the learning organization and the political economy of the 'knowledge economy1. By doing so we expose the political character of the learning discourse which, we argue, works as the surface of intelligibility pro-posing the reality of work, self-hood, citizenship and society. We antagonize its 'no alternative'trope by questioning the equivalence it creates between social inclusion, competitiveness, employability, empowerment and personal development. Our critique makes explicit how it is possible, and why it is important, to be 'against learning'.
KEYWORDS critique * discourse * knowledge * learning * organizational learning * politics
In this article we seek to advance two propositions. The first is that organizational learning is inseparable from, but is a key term within, a wider 'learning discourse'. The second is that this learning discourse is itself an element within the articulation of a problematic 'politics of truth'. There can be little doubt that learning has become a vogue term. In the field of work organizations, concepts of Organizational learning' (Argyris & Schon, 1978; Schon, 1983) and the 'learning organization' (Senge, 1990) have become increasingly prevalent (Easterby-Smith, 1997) and, arguably, influential. Of course, the managerial and organizational literature is well known for its faddism (Abrahamson, 1996; Kieser, 1997), and one might choose to regard learning as just one more example. In particular, the 'learning organization' has been seen as a fashion, fad, buzzword or hype (e.g. Born & Nollen, 1993; Eccles & Nohria, 1992; Caravan, 1997; Hawkins, 1994; Jackson, 2000; Mastenbroek, 1996; Scarbrough & Swan, 2001). Faddishness, of course, implies an ephemeral popularity or, perhaps, that the content of the idea is not new. However, something more significant seems to be occurring. For learning is...