Politicising Executive Education

Derrida’s response to Rorty, taken from Deconstruction and Pragmatism (page 77 to 88, translated from French by Simon Critchley) concerning the politicising qualities of deconstruction speaks of the potential of a deconstructive reading & writing of exec.ed. promising a political acuity hitherto dormant.

“To move on to a question that Rorty raised in discussion concerning the weakening of the political left in the United States, this would demand a great deal of analysis and perhaps Rorty is right in seeing such a weakening. But even if Rorty is right, my hope, as a man of the left, is that certain elements of deconstruction will have served or-because the struggle continues, particularly in the United States-will serve to politicize or repoliticize the left with regard to positions which are not simply academic. I hope – and if I can continue to contribute a little to this I will be very content – that the political left in universities in the United States, France and elsewhere, will gain politically by employing deconstruction. To a certain extent, and in an unequal way, this is a movement that is already under way.”

I feel confident that I’m not trying to philosophise my way into a political relevance for exec.ed.

Destabilising exec.ed

Ok, so what is this destabilising? And what possible benefit does this anarchic sounding practice have for executive education? Firstly, before you can destabilise you have to acknowledge that which is stable, why it is stable and what stability means. Not only that, you have to have a reason for questioning the stability of your chosen cannon, orthodoxy and acepted knowledge (in my case, executive education) if your (political) actions are not to be deemed as gratuitous epistemic vandalism. My understanding of Derrida is that his deconstructive acts do not simply rubbish the texts he examines, just for the sake of it. Very often he sides with the author (Husserl, Rousseau, Heidegger) he is deconstructing and his intentions are to aid in the intent of the text – his revealing of metaphysical ambiguities hidden within texts is a constructive (not destructive) action.

How this works for me is as follows: I acknowledge that which is stable in the field of executive education as the interconnected belief systems present in the community of followers (suppliers and consumers) of our non-workbased, institutionalised educational practices. I identify these namely as the validity of a (higher) educational institutions as sites for executive education; the validity of subject matter experts within those institutions and their authorial status; as the belief in research-led educational practice; as the belief in existing modes of global techno-capitalism; as belief in the orthodoxy of educational practice; this list could go on (as will my explaination of belief). I acknowledge that this stability has grown up around the neccessity of these educational institutions to establish credentials sufficient to garner trust from their consumers, sponsors and stakeholders; also around the ideology that surrounds higher educational and into which consumers invest without question. This stability has led to an “economy of the same” as Derrida, in ‘Writing and Difference’, calls it.

Why then would you wish to destabilise the ‘text’ that is executive education, given the perfectly understandable conditions of its evolution above? For me this is about being dissatisfied with the status quo, yearning for a better way of being in the world, ceasing from evil, doing only good and doing good for others. Some aspects of global techno-capitalism are, at best, not effective and at worst, wrong. Maybe – so my thinking goes – what stands as part-palliative care for the illness of global techno-capitalism is better management, leadership and business education. Here is my motive for destabilising the exec.ed texts. As such I don’t count this as epistemic vandalism but as constructive betrayal.

Deconstructive Exec.Ed: are these tenets Tobes?

Time to recap over a work-in-progress stipulation of a deconstructive philosophy of executive education (I do intend to elaborate on this somewhat staccato list in the rest of the blog, not to mention what this list actually means). A deconstructive writing (learning design) and reading (consumption) of an exec.ed text (e.g. events or contexts) includes the following elements:

* learning without a learner is the equivalent of orthodoxy, cannon, knowledge

* there is a metaphysics in education and in exec.ed. Akin to a belief in the absolute of management, of research-led education, of research in general

* a deconstructive approach to studying exec.ed is one vigilant of stepping back into the more doctrinaire metaphysical assumptions (above) that surround exec.ed

* there is a symbolic value of exec.ed which a deconstructive approach reveals

* exec.ed is full of aporia – blindspots

* just as deconstruction welcomes uncertainty, promotes comfort with uncertainty and values the multiple readings of a (educational/learning) text, so too is my approach to writing (designing) exec.ed

* a deconstructivist approach to writing and reading exec.ed texts exposes authorial intentions to alternative (mis)understandings, i.e. exposes the learning designers intent (or curricular intent or SME intent) to alternative understandings.

* a deconstructive analysis of exec.ed texts reveals the binary opposites that are the mother-tongue of management

* exec.ed is not neutral in the same way that deconstruction is not neutral

* exec.ed should take sides – i.e. openness, difference & movement, rather than closure, identity & stasis.

* there is no final vocabulary for exec.ed

* a deconstructive approach to writing and reading exec.ed texts promotes granular political acts

* all developmental tools can work to realise individual and group political action

* a deconstructive exec.ed text stands for dissent, destabilisation, dissolution and disruption of orthodoxy

* exec.ed is revolutionary (emancipatory)

* invention must take place in exec.ed, disrupting institutional norms

* exec.ed is about opening uncloseting aporias

* exec.ed is an experience of the impossible

Invention

According to Derrida (Acts of Literature, 1992) invention is not invention if it does not break with existing institutional procedures. How true this is of innovation and the behavioural & attitudinal inventions from a process of learning! When coupled (in the previous posts) with the overt political functions of exec.ed, invention within and for the subject of education serves to open up the present in order to let the other come: opening, uncloseting, destabilising foreclusionary structures.

Then, exec.ed is an experience of the impossible in that it involves the coming about of something other in the ‘impossible’ above.

Is there a distinction between exec.ed and personal learning? Where personal learning can be changed, added to, is subject to conditions and is modifiable: and where exec.ed is that in the name of which personal learning is modified, added to, is subject to conditions and is modifiable. So that exec.ed is a metaphysical condition of personal learning – um, not sure. But this would mean that exec.ed cannot be experienced other than through personal learning. It is in this way that exec.ed is IMPOSSIBLE.

Is there an unconditional type of exec.ed? That is, does there exist a distinction between contingent or conditional exec.ed and absolute or unconditional exec.ed? I’m not sure if unconditional exec.ed is possible, given that it cannot be experienced other than through personal learning. Maybe, though, this personal learning/exec.ed distinction is untenable. Could this distinction exist in the same way as the distinction between conditional law and unconditional justice? Is the parallel mapping between education and learning?

Exec.Ed and Politics

Philosophy is a political activity. What are the hierarchical oppositions in exec.ed?

Manager – non-managed; leader - subordinate, follower, managed, led; experienced – novice; educated – uneducated; orthodox – heterodox; consistent – contingent; developed – under-developed; authorised – unauthorised; powerful – weak; connected – unconnected; buck-stop – buck-pass; legitimacy – illegitimacy.

Deconstruction is not neutral, it intervenes. Exec.ed is not neutral, it intervenes. A deconstructive intervention against the above hierarchical oppositions is deconstructive exec.ed. Firstly, overturn the bipolarity: reveal that the secondary is in the primary. Secondly, create a new concept that is tertiary to the oppositions.

The following is a close reading of the text edited by Reynolds & Roffe called ‘Understanding Derrida’ (2004, p.28). What is a secondary in exec.ed? What counts as the creation of a new concept for exec.ed that overturns the hierarchical opposition in exec.ed and leaves us with an open-ended series of related characteristics or themes? Managing, e.g. managing to be managed?

Openness against closure, difference against identity, perpetual movement against stasis. Now, siding with this hierarchy IS political. Can secure metaphysical foundations be provided for exec.ed? Does exec.ed have a final vocabulary? Are providers of exec.ed (those that are either internal or external to the corporation) politically neutral? No: in the same way that deconstruction is not neutral. Executive education should take political sides with openness, difference and movement and not closure, identity and stasis. Exec.ed is NOT NEUTRAL.

So if exec.ed is political, what does one do? What can one do inside an institution or corporation? How free are we? What granular political acts can you countenance? How far can you go? Surely, exec.ed, in the guise of self-reflection, coaching, on-the-job mentoring, self-study, surely all of these activities allow us to examine how (whether?) our newly found political strength and determinations are put into practice.

Question: is this dissentful, anarchistic, disruptive and destabilising? Is a challenging of the currently accepted ways of doing things disruptive? You bet! Exec.ed in not ‘inherently’ anything, so is it always context dependent? Exec.ed is a revolutionary gesture – defeating the project-oriented economy of the same.

Dasein, Zen & Deconstruction

The following is a close reading of the text edited by Reynolds & Roffe called ‘Understanding Derrida’ (2004).

(p.17) Dasein – so would Derrida be sceptical of Zen? A craving for origins. Buddhism is against metaphysics after all. Zen recognises, aknowledges its aporias, its blind spots engendered by logocentric discourse. For the senior (project) leaders need to be very comfortable with uncertainty, incoherence and instability. Hence, for the certain high-level events, the intention to subvert blind adherence to orthodoxy. Don’t cling to anyone as having the answer, at least not just the classroom : use your network; rhizomation. There is not sanctioned order of priority; or is there? I guess the company comes first.

The Metaphysics of Executive Education

The following is a close reading of the text edited by Reynolds & Roffe called ‘Understanding Derrida’ (2004).

(p.14) Is technical refinement of authentic primordial experience necessarily impoverished? It’s not a case of jacking in Western metaphysical thinking within executive education (exec.ed) – it should be revealed and closely engaged.

Question: what is Western metaphysical thinking in exec.ed? Or, what is the role of metaphysics in exec.ed? Maybe, the ‘ultimate nature of management’ or the ‘reality of leadership or management’ or transcendent knowledge or truth about management & leadership’? Possibly belief in the endeavors of business schools – plainly, the belief in b-schools; belief in research-led education; belief in education or higher education; belief that learning outside the workplace is a good thing.

So, does it progress in a series from belief to doctrine, where doctrine is an unquestioned belief? Doctrine maintains a vigilant critical awareness of the tendency to slip into more doctrinaire forms of metaphysical thought. This is relatively simply to apply to exec.ed, namely working with the client to raise their/our awareness of the symbols they attach to exec.ed.

Metaphysics of exec.ed and corresponding deconstructive attitude: the value of the symbol attached to exec.ed (symbolic value): that can be put to good use, making sure it is recognised by the client and participants. Weaving the symbolic value into the client’s broader development portfolio: that can leader to complimentarity where these beliefs can also be challenged. These ‘management beliefs’ are a given – there is no beyond management.

Derrida, Deconstruction, Management Education

The following is a close reading of the text edited by Reynolds & Roffe callled ‘Understanding Derrida’ (2004).

(p.10) The writer could be dead whey they are read. So the situation of the writer is the same as that of the reader. The subject matter expert could be dead when a consumer reads their work.

Absence: the teacher and the learner, the writer and the reader. But the writer is not the equivalent of the teacher. There are several bipolarities here: writer v reader, teacher v learner, giver v receiver, listener v responder, self v other.

Aside from these dualities being open to the deconstructive criticism the former set are more closely akin to a transmissive approach to teaching/learning. But if both self and other can be absent, what then? Can the self and other be made to cater for the respective absences?: if the writer can be absent and the reader absent whta is left? The writing seems to be left, but the learning isn’t. Can there be learning without a learner?

Yes: knowledge, canon, orthodoxy, etc., is learning isn’t it? It is the iterability of these canon that allows them to be continually useful. So is learning for every possible learner in general? Yes, it must be iterable if not useable. But is iterability usability or utility? Is the logical space of learning is not private? What I learn may well be private: is it the case that learning can only count as learning if it can be (re)iterable?: and isn’t reiteration, there, application? So maybe iterability is application, or, utility after all.

Business School Edification

Surely it is the business of business schools to wean its consumers off notions of certainty and totally founded knowledeges? If, as the view I holds asserts, there is no extra-linguistic certainty, no foundation external to the “conversations” (as Zabala says) that form knowledge, then education becomes ‘edification’, a self-improvement.

 If I’m searching for a nexus with which to anchor further study then ‘representation’ seems to be it: as in Rorty’s distrust of the modern notion that to know is to represent accurately. There are no “permenant, neutral frameworks of inquiry” (Rorty’s Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, 1979) and so the whole edifice of epistemology in modern analytic philosophy is built on shifting sands. True assertions are only true by virtue of social context; in which case ‘conversation’ is the ultimate context in which knowledge is to be understood; distinct from getting the facts right, education is about exposure to and aptitude in discourse. This is what Rorty calls “edifying discourse”

The Absolute in Executive Education

Terry Eagleton suggests (in his short piece Marx, part of The Great Philosophers series, 1997, p19) that Marx was “profoundly hostile to such metaphysics” [as duty, morality, religious sanctions & the Absolute Idea]. It makes me wonder about whether executive education holds something of that same absolute idea that was so anathema, not only to Marx, but to the a roll-call of ‘anti-philosophers’ such as Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Adorno, Benjamin, Wittgenstein, Derrida & Rorty. Members of that same list of honour, says Santiago Zabala (in his introduction to Rorty & Vattimo’s Future of Religion, 2005, p4), view objectivity more as a question of a poststructuralist tinted “intersubjective linguistic consensus between human beings and not some sort of accurate representation of something that transcends the human sphere”. I’m equating here the Absolute Idea to objectivity: but I think what is expected of business school oriented executive education by its consumers is – mildly – adherence to this absolute, to objective truth and – strongly – to proclaim and justify such a truth through its research practices. As for my evidence for this tendency (ahem), this is the subject of future study.