Post-structuralism and post-Marxism: methods for research on change in higher

teaching staff), such as ‘democracy’, took on a different meaning according to the ideology of those who used them, so that the words acquired a ‘fluid’ meaning. This variance derived from the language through which meaning was expressed, the educational culture, the history, and the new political and social reality. In Chapter Five, their arguments and proposals for change are examined in detail.

Resistance therefore can be seen as a discursive struggle between conflicting groups who struggle for the dominance of their own interests. The social and political debate about change in Greek higher education displayed intense and particular historical and politico-national characteristics. This has been realised by certain universities who support the European orientation of higher education, while others insist that Greek universities should maintain their traditional national character. These characteristics were expressed through the particular discourses of those who attempted to dominate or those who resisted change.

This thesis aims to examine, in depth, the social struggles as well as the language of those groups who accepted or resisted the neoliberal policies (government, opposing political parties, students, teaching staff), in order to identify the differences that were expressed regarding change in Greek higher education.

3.3. Post-structuralism and post-Marxism: methods for research on change in higher education.

Critical Discourse Analysis and Discourse Theory, which are used in this study, belong to post- structuralist and neo-Marxist theoretical frameworks. Structuralism is the starting point for the study of discourse in relation to social sciences. The basic principle of structuralism is the impact of the social structure on social institutions. An example of this influence is, for Saussure (1976), that language acquires meaning from the social context in which it is used. This means that signs are expressions of the ‘collective consciousness’. So, although individuals are free to select the signifier, they follow the rules of the linguistic community to which they belong. The signifier, although to all appearances freely chosen with respect to the idea that it represents, is fixed and not free with respect to the linguistic community that uses it (Saussure, 1974).

Post-structuralists reject this perspective and suggest that language expresses meanings, which are fluid and changing. They do not accept that there is a solid or fixed meaning, but hold that there are differences in meanings according to the receiver. In particular, post-structuralist theories reject the idea of universal truth and objective knowledge, and assert that truth is always partial, and knowledge is always produced from the experiences and intentions of

context in which discourse is produced, such as according to the political, ideological, cultural, and economic determinants of communication (Pennycook, 1994), or the interests of a social and political class (MacLure, 2003). However, post-structuralists have been criticized for their insistence on the examination of the ideological elements of discourse and being unable to provide an objective analysis of discourse.

Neo-Marxist theorists, such as Laclau and Mouffe, move in a different direction to the economic determinism of Marx, claiming that the ideologies which are expressed through discourse influence social systems (Peters, 2001). They provide post-structuralist and neo-marxist perspectives of the subject by introducing the concept of ‘articulation’ in discourse, and by examining discourse as a social and political practice. They explain how hegemony is accomplished by social forces through the process of articulation (Chouliaraki and Fairclough, 1999), thus the process of articulation occurs in a place of conflict, power, and resistance (Laclau and Mouffe, 2001). Articulation is defined as, ‘[…] any practice establishing a relation among elements such that their identity is modified as a result of the articulatory practice’ (Laclau and Mouffe, 2001, p. 105).

Hence, hegemonic practices aim, through the process of articulation, to partially fix the meaning of social identities. So, discourse is characterized by the absence of a fixed centre, which fails to invoke a complete closure. In contrast to the Marxist approach, neo-Marxist theorists such as Fairclough (1992), are based on sociological and philosophical theory that perceive society in a dialectical relationship with discourse, and through this, they examine the unequal distribution of power in society. So, social structures, according to post-structuralist and neo-Marxist theories, are ambiguous, incomplete, and contingent systems of meaning and discourses that constitute symbolic systems and social orders (Howarth, Norval and Stavrakakis, 2000).

This explains why post-structuralist theories have influenced organisational theory and many elements have been adopted in the study and application of modern management. One view of the supporters of critical and post-structuralist approaches to management is that language has important implications for management and organisational effectiveness. Instead of a fixed and unitary knowledge of the world, post-structuralist approaches to language emphasise multiple realities, contradiction, and subjectivity (Burnes, 2009; Collins, 1998). Burnes (2009, p. 172) argues that ‘in some organisations, there does not appear to be a settled and generally agreed view of reality; rather, what we see are competing interpretations put forward by competing groups and individuals.’

Changes at the global level influence all organisations and, as a result, new knowledge and new meanings are expressed through language and constitute new discourses (MacLure, 2003).

However, the resistance of groups or individuals may hinder change through different interests. For this reason, it is important for managers to understand the different meanings that individuals give to change (Hassart, 1999), and how discourse influences the relations of power to different groups in organisations (Burnes, 2009).

The above perspective corresponds with the subject of this research. Universities, as noted in Chapter Two, are complex organisations that are in a dialectical relationship with the social and political environment. The latest attempts at reform (Laws 3549/2007 and 3696/2008) confirmed the intense influence of discourses on Greek higher education. For example, discourses about change in Greek higher education include the actions or practices of the government, opposition parties, students, and teaching staff, as well as the concepts or meanings about the negative and positive consequences of the new economy and entrepreneurship on universities. For example, autonomy, democracy, the market, and public education are used by the various groups (the government, the opposition political parties, students, and teaching staff) in different ways to argue for their particular cases. The approach to these concepts implies different forms of management. This is explained further in the analysis in Chapters Five and Six. Further, change in universities is hindered by competing interest groups, who express different ideologies.

In order to study this resistance to change in Greek higher education, Critical Discourse Analysis has been utilised and, in particular, the methodological tool of the DHA, which can provide a full analysis of the problem: the language used by the key actors in the Greek universities (teaching staff and students) and outside of it within the Greek parliament (politicians); the relationship between texts, genres, and discourses; the social and institutional frames; and the broader socio-political and historical context to which discursive practices are related (Reisigl and Wodak, 2009). Also of interest are the kinds of constructs that were employed in the discourse of the different actors for or against change, and the meanings that were given to them. So, the structures of meanings (empty signifiers and nodal points, myth and the social imaginary, universality and particularity) put forward by Laclau and Mouffe (1985) can contribute to the study of the perceptions and meanings found in the discourse of the various actors who struggle over change in Greek higher education. Finally, the combination of these two approaches will be used as a means of triangulation for analysing the data. In the next sections, the main discourse theories are presented critically, and the reasons for which I chose CDA and DHA to examine the reasons for resistance to change in Greek higher education.