23/5/22, 7:38 The rebranding of neoliberalism

EDUCATIONAL PHILOSOPHY AND THEORY

2020, AHEAD-OF-PRINT, 1-5

https://doi.org/10.1080/00131857.2020.1823212

The rebranding of neoliberalism

Writing more than a century apart, the French political scientist Alexis de Tocqueville and the British
historian of ideas Isaiah Berlin pointed to an interesting phenomenon that seems to dominate several of our
contemporary discussions. In Book II of Democracy in America Alexis de Tocqueville emphasized
eloquently that ‘[a]n abstract word is like a box with a false bottom: you can put in any ideas you please and
take them out again without anyone being the wiser’ (de Tocqueville, 2000, p. 553). In a similar vein, Isaiah
Berlin’s essay ‘Two Concepts of Liberty’ points to a vexing problem plaguing the idea of liberty, ‘[l]ike
happiness and goodness, like nature and reality, the meaning of this term is so porous that there is little
interpretation that it seems able to resist’ (Berlin, 2002, p. 181).
A number of concepts and ideas from our contemporary discussions might qualify to fill the problematic
position referred to by the two luminaries. Yet, one of them fits this observation particularly well. Scattered
throughout the social sciences and the humanities, neoliberalism has been a staple in disciplines as diverse
as political philosophy, critical neoliberalism studies, applied linguistics, critical sociology, migration
studies, anthropology, geography and urban studies, social work, feminist studies, eldercare, security studies,
education. In fact, the study of neoliberalism, as John O’Connor emphasizes eloquently, has become a sort
of ‘cottage industry’ (O'Connor 2010, p. 691).
Yet, its pervasive character and the accompanying phenomenon of conceptual inflation ultimately results
in a reduced analytic value of the notion of neoliberalism. This ‘conceptual malfunction’ associated with the
(mis)use of the term neoliberalism has actually resulted in a conceptual inflation as the notion of
neoliberalism is ‘neither intellectually precise nor politically useful’ (Dunn, 2017, p. 1). Moreover, the
confusing character of the notion of neoliberalism associated with the lack of a clear definition points also to
an important shift in understanding neoliberalism not as a static phenomenon but primarily as a process. In
fact, the phenomenon of neoliberalization is best characterized as a process of constant transformation,
evolution, remodeling, adaptation, renewal, progression and ‘development’.
This is proven by neoliberalism’s most distinctive ‘developmental stages’ represented also by its many
slogans, metaphors, buzzwords and other thought-terminating clichés [not to mention bureaucratic jargon].
In fact, the ‘first-wave’ neoliberalism associated with free-market fundamentalism evangelized by Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan in the 1970s and 1980s has been advanced under the banner of privatization
and deregulation. In contrast, following the ‘end of history’ thesis propagated by Francis Fukuyama and the
advent of Bill Clinton administration in the US and Tony Blair’s ‘Third way’ in the UK, the ‘second-wave’
neoliberalism aimed to bridge the gap between social democracy on the one hand and the neoliberal
rationality characterized by both divination and faith in market forces on the other by somehow blending the
two. The ‘second-wave’ neoliberalism is best depicted as a hybrid bringing together the progressive agenda
of social democracy with a neoliberal vocabulary, e.g. individual responsibility and accountability.
Moreover, the ‘end of history’ parable representing the post-1989 ideological vacuum following the fall
of the Berlin wall helped to establish the illusion of a possible cohabitation between the market mentality [at
least as it is understood by neoliberalism] with progressive and emancipatory ideas associated with social
democracy. Both stages of neoliberalism’s evolution have been characterized by the strategy of
marketization that had a negative transformative influence on social spheres previously thought to be outside
of its realm of application and influence.
Interestingly enough, the current phase of neoliberalism departs considerably from the previous two
‘developmental stages’ explicated above. The current ‘third-wave’ neoliberalism – not to be conflated with

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/00131857.2020.1823212?needAccess=true 1/5
23/5/22, 7:38 The rebranding of neoliberalism

the ‘Third Way’ associated with the previous phase of neoliberalism – marks an important shift in the
process of neoliberalization and the reinvention of neoliberalism itself. The current ‘developmental stage’ of
the neoliberal ‘evolution’ represents a prima facie departure from the two previous stages as its archipelago
of concepts and ideas allegedly moves away from a free-market fundamentalist rhetoric the previous two
phases have been replete with.
This ‘neoliberal shift’ results in a turn to ideas broadly associated with an egalitarian ethos, e.g. equality,
justice, well-being, fairness, equality of opportunity etc. In fact, for more than a decade now major global
intergovernmental [neoliberal] institutions have propagated a form of ‘progressive neoliberalism’ (Fraser &
Brenner, 2017; Raschke, 2019). As Rune Møller Stahl emphasizes, ‘[t]he annual summit of the World
Economic Forum in Davos is now discussing inequality and political instability every year, and even
traditional bastions of neoliberal orthodoxy such as the IMF or OECD have started to warn against
inequality […]’ (Stahl, 2019, p. 334).
To an ill-informed [or naïve] reader, the adoption of the egalitarian vocabulary might sound like a [long-
awaited] ‘conversion’ from free-market fundamentalism associated with the ‘mainstream’ neoliberal ethos
and its ‘rationality’ to a more progressive and sustainable worldview. In contrast, anyone seriously
researching the phenomenon of neoliberalism has been far less optimistic. As Nancy Fraser pointed out how
a progressive project [in her case feminism] got somehow ‘hijacked’ by neoliberalism: ‘[a] movement that
started out as a critique of capitalist exploitation ended up contributing key ideas to its latest neoliberal
phase’ (Fraser, 2013). The constant transformation, evolution, remodeling, adaptation, renewal, progression
and ‘development’ of neoliberalism is the very essence of what the process of neoliberalization is all about.
One of the most important mechanisms associated with this shift of emphasis in neoliberalism’s rhetoric
has been the re-semanticisation of the egalitarian and progressive vocabulary which strips it of its historical
legacy and emancipatory potential. The indirect indication that this neoliberal ‘semantic shift’ (Mangez &
Vanden Broeck, 2020, p. 1) is actually underway is proven by the gravitational orbit of concepts and ideas of
fairness, equality, well-being, equality of opportunity and justice echoing Firth’s principle of co-occurrence
[‘You shall know a word by the company it keeps’] (Firth, 1957). The direct indication of this seismic
semantic shift in the vocabulary of neoliberalism has had important implications also for how we come to
consume, ‘digest’ and ultimately make sense of the global authoritarian pushback against democracy and
human rights composed of anti-democratic and neoliberal tendencies including hate speech, fake news,
populism, conflicting diversity [e.g. racism] and other phenomena headed under the banner of ‘uncivil
society’.
This recurrent reinvention of the neoliberal ‘order of reason’ (Brown, 2015) sketched above has actually
had an important implication for the notion of neoliberalism itself: it has become a ‘sliding signifier’ (Ball,
2020). Interestingly enough, two distinct interpretations can be associated with the vagueness, imprecision
and conceptual confusion neoliberalism is characterized with, i.e. [i] the optimistic and [ii] the pessimistic
interpretation. The first interpretation maintains that neoliberalism is so complex a phenomenon that no
genealogy, ideational analysis or conceptual cartography could fully cover many of its contours. Any
undertaking aiming to make sense of this complex phenomenon is therefore most likely to fail or to unravel
only a part of it.
The second interpretation views this conceptual confusion as a calculated move to either deliberately
divert the attention or to transfer the responsibility. Two examples can help to illustrate this twofold
scenario. On the one hand, the strategy of diverting the attention has been an important finding arising out of
critical terrorism studies. In fact, the absence of a fixed definition of both radicalization, violent extremism
and terrorism itself has been an integral part of the ‘War on Terror’. As Stephen Nathanson emphasizes,
‘[c]larity is not everyone’s goal, however, because confusion can be politically useful’ (Nathanson, 2010, p.
20). On the other hand, the strategy of transferring responsibility has been a key insight arising out of

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/00131857.2020.1823212?needAccess=true 2/5
23/5/22, 7:38 The rebranding of neoliberalism

clinical governance research. As Michael Loughlin argues, ‘[t]he lack of clarity allows policy-makers to
shift responsibility for the problems of the health service onto the workforce, who are required to interpret
the deliberately vague and platitudinous statements of management in order to implement the policy’
(Loughlin, 2002, p. 229). These two strategies therefore represent a viable path to examine further the
phenomenon of neoliberalism. Interestingly enough, the intersection of language and politics that enables us
to track the ‘evolution’ of neoliberalism has become an important research trajectory in critical
neoliberalism studies. As Matthew Eagleton-Pierce emphasizes,

[t]he language of neoliberalism both constructs and expresses a particular vision of economics, politics and
everyday life. Some find this vision to be appealing, but many others find the contents and implications of
neoliberalism to be alarming. Despite the popularity of these concepts, they often remain confusing, the product
of contested histories, meanings and practices (Eagleton-Pierce 2016).

In particular, the neoliberal ethos and its rationality has had an important impact in different disciplinary
approaches who gravitate towards education.

Neoliberalism and education

For over two decades now, neoliberalism has been at the forefront of discussions not only in the economy,
business and finance but has gradually infiltrated our vocabulary in a number of areas as diverse as
governance studies, human geography, criminology, health care, jurisprudence, identity politics, urban
policy, education etc. Its economistic language associated with the promotion of effectiveness and efficiency
combined with indicators and other empirical data claimed to have established a ‘culture of objectivity’. As
Christopher W. Chun points out,

[n]eoliberal policies and practices have attempted to remake our everyday lives so that every aspect is minutely
measured, assessed and evaluated as ‘outputs’, in accordance with manufacturing-based standards of production,
and defined as ‘best practices’, which is another term adopted from corporate culture now widely used in
education. (Chun, 2016, p. 558).

In fact, education has been at the very centre of the neoliberal public policy agenda as it allegedly
represents one of the main indicators of future economic growth and individual well-being. Education, as
Stephen Ball accentuates, has become ‘a crucial factor in ensuring economic productivity and
competitiveness in the context of ‘informational capitalism’ (Ball, 2008, p. 1). Its – for many scholars
distopian – 'vision' of education as an investment is based on a [deterministic] assumption that ‘better
educational outcomes are a strong predictor of economic growth’ (OECD, 2010, p. 3). Pupils’ achievements
are said to represent an indicator of the 'future talent pools' (OECD, 2012, p. 26) and should therefore be a
valid indicator of one’s future [economic] success. This assumption of the translatability of learning
achievements in economic performance – most visible in studies discussing international large-scale student
assessments, e.g. PISA etc. – has brought to the forefront of both media and political attention the various
aspects of teaching and learning. International large-scale assessment surveys and quantitative data in
general have helped to establish an intricate relationship between science, numbers and politics (Prutsch,
2019) leading to both ‘dataism’ (Beer, 2016) and ‘datafication’ (Williamson et al., 2020).
While the analysis of the neoliberal agenda in education is well documented, the examination of the
language of neoliberalism in education has been at the fringes of scholarly interest. In particular, the
expansion of the neoliberal vocabulary with egalitarian ideas such as fairness, justice and disadvantage,
well-being etc. has received [at best] only limited attention.
At the same time, the neoliberal vocabulary in education also started to incorporate concepts previously
outside its gravitational orbit, e.g. fairness, justice, equality of opportunity, gender equality, well-being etc.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/00131857.2020.1823212?needAccess=true 3/5
23/5/22, 7:38 The rebranding of neoliberalism

This shift of emphasis in the use and application of language and ideas firmly grounded in some of the well-
known slogans (and other buzzwords) has had a transformative influence on our way of thinking about
public policy in general (e.g. the ‘Aspiration nation’ buzzword propagated by the former UK Prime Minister
David Cameron).
Yet, this shift of emphasis from concepts and ideas that are part of neoliberalism’s ‘standard’ rhetoric,
e.g. effectiveness, mobility, deregulation, privatization, efficiency, commodification, flexibility,
competitiveness, financialization, entrepreneurship marketization, consumerism, accountability,
performance, etc. to concepts and ideas that are part of the egalitarian vocabulary, not only put large-scale
assessments and quantitative data as its main product at the very centre of education policy-making but –
perhaps equally important – has had a profound effect on education in general. This semantic shift has gone
hand in hand with a more central place in global neoliberal governmentality.

Neoliberalism with a human face

This neoliberalisation of education is best represented by an instrumental understanding of education, a
distorted conception of fairness, ‘adjunctification’ in higher education, anti-intellectualism and a
reductionist way of using quantitative data has been extended further with an important supplement. In fact,
the neoliberalisation of education has not been carried out exclusively through the logic of economization,
i.e. by advancing a market-based ‘sensitivity’ to education but with the reappropriation of the egalitarian
vocabulary and the re-semanticization of ideas and concepts previously thought to be outside of its
gravitational orbit. This reappropriation of the progressive and emancipatory rhetoric has led to the
corporatisation of issues previously thought to be outside of the neoliberal purview, e.g. development,
gender equality, fairness. This ‘new neoliberalism’ marks a turning point in the understanding of
neoliberalism as a process.
This ‘diagnosis’ has important implications for research on neoliberalism as it reveals an important new
characteristic of the process of neoliberalisation. As Pierre Dardot and Christian Laval pointed out in the
English translation of their book The New Way of the World, ‘[t]o get the character of neo-liberalism wrong,
to ignore its history, and miss its profound social and subjective springs, was to condemn oneself to
blindness and impotence in the face of the developments that soon ensued’ (Dardot & Laval 2014, p. iv).
Most importantly perhaps, in contrast to its negative public and academic image associated with the
uncompromising free-market fundamentalism and its overall corrosive effect, neoliberalism moved in the
direction of actually rebranding itself. This remaking of neoliberalism might best be labeled as
‘neoliberalism with a human face’. There is therefore ample room for further research of these [and other]
issues associated with the study of neoliberalism in education and neoliberalism in general.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes on contributor
Mitja Sardoč (PhD) is senior research associate at the Educational Research Institute in Ljubljana (Slovenia) where he is
member of the ‘Educational Research’ research program. He is author of scholarly articles and editor of a number of
journal special issues on citizenship education, multiculturalism, toleration, radicalization and violent extremism,
neoliberalism, equality of opportunity and patriotism. He is Managing Editor of Theory and Research in Education
[http://tre.sagepub.com/], Editor-in-chief of The Handbook of Patriotism [http://refworks.springer.com/Patriotism]
published by Springer and Editor-in-chief of The Palgrave Handbook of Toleration to be published by Palgrave
Macmillan.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/00131857.2020.1823212?needAccess=true 4/5
23/5/22, 7:38 The rebranding of neoliberalism

Mitja Sardoč
Centre for the Philosophy of Education, Educational Research Institute
Ljubljana, Slovenia
[email protected]

References
Ball, S. J. (2008). The education debate. The Policy Press. Crossref.
Ball, S. J. (2020). Philanthrophy and the changing typology of global education: The economization of the moral. In: L.
Patil & M. Avelar (Eds.), New philanthrophy and the disruption of global education (pp. 20–24). NORRAG.
Beer, D. (2016). Metric power. Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref.
Berlin, I. (2002). Two concepts of liberty. In: H. Hardy (ed.), Isaiah Berlin: Liberty (pp. 166–217). Oxford University
Press.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism's stealth revolution. MIT Press. Crossref.
Chun, C. W. (2016). Exploring neoliberal language, discourses and identities. In: S. Preece (ed.), The Routledge
handbook of language and identity (pp. 558–571). Routledge.
O'Connor, J. (2010). Marxism and the three movements of neoliberalism. Critical Sociology, 36(5), 691–715. Crossref.
Dardot, P., & Laval, C. (2014). The new way of the world: On neoliberal society. Verso Trade.
Dunn, B. (2017). Against neoliberalism as a concept. Capital & Class, 41(3), 435–454. Crossref.
Eagleton-Pierce, M. (2016). Neoliberalism: The key concepts. Routledge. Crossref.
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory, 1930-1955. In Studies in linguistic analysis (pp. 1–32). Basil
Blackwel.
Fraser, N. (2013). How feminism became capitalism’s handmaiden – and how to reclaim it, The Guardian (October 14,
2013). https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/oct/14/feminism-capitalist-handmaiden-neoliberal
Fraser, N., & Brenner, J. (2017). What is progressive neoliberalism?: A debate. Dissent, 64(2), 130–140. Crossref.
Loughlin, M. (2002). On the buzzword approach to policy formation. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 8(2),
229–242. Crossref. PubMed.
Mangez, E., & Vanden Broeck, P. (2020). The history of the future and the shifting forms of education. Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 52(6), 676–687. Crossref.
Nathanson, S. (2010). Terrorism and the ethics of war. Cambridge University Press. Crossref.
OECD. (2010). PISA 2009 Results: Overcoming social background (equity in learning opportunities and outcomes).
OECD.
OECD. (2012). PISA 2012 Results: Excellence through equity. OECD.
Patil, L. & Avelar, M. (eds.). (2020). New philanthrophy and the disruption of global education. NORRAG.
Prutsch, M. J. (ed.). (2019). Science, numbers and politics. Palgrave Macmillan. Crossref.
Raschke, C. (2019). Neoliberalism and political theology. Edinburgh University Press.
Stahl, R. M. (2019). Ruling the interregnum: Politics and ideology in nonhegemonic times. Politics & Society, 47(3),
333–360. Crossref.
de Tocqueville, A. (2000). Democracy in America. University of Chicago Press. Crossref.
Williamson, B., Bayne, S., & Shay, S. (2020). The datafication of teaching in Higher Education: critical issues and
perspectives. Teaching in Higher Education, 25(4), 351–365. Crossref.

Contact Mitja Sardoč [email protected] Educational Research Institute, Gerbiceva 62, Ljubljana 1000, Slovenia.
© 2020 Philosophy of Education Society of Australasia

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epub/10.1080/00131857.2020.1823212?needAccess=true 5/5