BERA

Lifelong Learning and the Knowledge Economy: Those That Know and Those That Do Not: The Discourse of the European Union Author(s): Jacky Brine Reviewed work(s): Source: British Educational Research Journal, Vol. 32, No. 5, Gender, Class and 'Race' in Lifelong Learning (Oct., 2006), pp. 649-665 Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. on behalf of BERA Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/30032841 . Accessed: 09/09/2012 13:23
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. and BERA are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British Educational Research Journal.

http://www.jstor.org

British Educational Research Journal Vol. 32, No. 5, October 2006, pp. 649-665

Routledge Taylor& FrancisGroup

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy: those that know and those
that do not-the discourse European Union
Jacky Brine*
University of the West of England, Bristol, UK (Submitted 1 December 2005; resubmitted 1 March 2006; conditionally accepted 1 May 2006; accepted 30 June 2006)

of the

This article is based on a textual analysis of European Commission documents that, from 1993 to 2006, construct the discourses of lifelong learning and the knowledge economy. Exploring an apparent conceptual laxity, it finds absolute consistency in the construction of two categories of learner: the high knowledge-skilled learner (graduate/postgraduate) for the knowledge economy, and the low knowledge-skilled learner located in (or beyond) the knowledge society. The low knowledge-skilled learners are not only those at risk, they are increasingly constructed as the risk. The analysis suggests that the binary classification is initially classed and raced-and only then is it gendered. In contrast, labour market studies of the knowledge economy, providing either gendered or national data, obscure the vital cross-cutting matrix of social class, 'race' and age. The article advocates further studies of lifelong learning practices and labour market data based on finelycrossed analyses of social class, poverty, age and race.

Conceptual

and political

clarity--or

not

To understand the EU discourse of lifelong learning (LLL) we must also seek to understand the concepts of the knowledge-based economy or knowledge society. Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy/society are concepts that, possibly due to the number of separate disciplines contributing to them, lack standard philosophical and analytical distinctions (Peters, 2001). The conceptual laxity of LLL and the apparent interchangeability of knowledge economy and knowledge society are explored throughout this article. However, lack of conceptual clarity is not simply a technical, definitional absence; it frames and
*Faculty of Education, University UK. Email: jacky.brine@uwe.ac.uk of the West of England, Frenchay Campus, Bristol BS16 1QY,

ISSN 0141-1926 (print)/ISSN 1469-3518 (online)/06/050649-17 2006 British Educational Research Association DOI: 10.2307/30000003

650

J. Brine

legitimates our knowledges and our concerns; it excludes as well as contains (Hughes, 2002). Beyond the level of technical definition, however, the charge of conceptual laxity does not hold: it is only apparently, superficially so. Whilst knowledge economy and knowledge society appear interchangeable and fluid, they are used in a thoroughly consistent manner that constructs two distinct lifelong learners, those with high knowledge-skills (graduate/postgraduate) and those without, those with low knowledge-skills. Although the primary classification is based on the degree of knowledgeskill, these learner-subjects are, albeit implicitly, classed, raced and gendered. The concepts of LLL and the knowledge economy/society are found in the policies of the nation state and the European Union and in global organisations such as the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD); the nation state, however, is an active policy maker in all arenas. Theorists of multilevel governance present a complex reading of EU policy making, the role of member state governments and the European Commission, a process in which the distinction between nation state and international politics is blurred (Jachtenfuchs, 2001; Hooghe & Marks, 2001). The nation state is a key actor in the development of EU policies, and at the same time, the Commission impacts on nation state policy. The EU-member state relationship has been described as complex, flexible, postmodern (Aalberts, 2004), and the policy making process as unstable (Edwards & Boreham, 2003). Multilevel governance does not describe a deterministic model of policy, but a complex entanglement of policy making in which we search for the conceptual string. The article is structured through a chronological analysis that takes the Conclusions of the Lisbon Council (Commission of the European Communities [CEC], 2000a) as the pivotal point, for this consolidated the interrelated discourses of economic growth and social cohesion that began in 1993 (CEC, 1993), signalled the importance of the relationship between LLL and the knowledge economy/society and set the policy direction for the subsequent period. The following discursive analysis identifies the concepts of knowledge economy, knowledge society and LLL within EU policy and explores the construction of gendered, classed and raced lifelong learners. Approaching Lisbon: 1993-1999

During these six years the key themes and concepts of the knowledge economy were introduced or strengthened: economic growth, global competitiveness, the technological revolution, the dual labour market and dual society, and of course, lifelong learning. It was a period driven, at the EU level, by the early discussions, and subsequent agreement on enlargement, and by the Commission's concern regarding the persistent high levels of unemployment across the member states. White Paper: Growth, Competitiveness, Employment As with all the documents of this analysis, this key White Paper constructed, and was constructed by, a populist and ahistorical discourse of futurology (Peters, 2001) that

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy 651 hovered like a holographic mirage, presenting both utopian and dystopian images, each used as justification for the policies and direction of the present. The White Paper expressed two main concerns, first that the EU must become globally competitive, especially in the field of information and communication technology; and second that it must address both unemployment and the threat posed by unemployment (reported to be 17 million unemployed and rising) (CEC, 1993, p. 40). Thus, it argued, economic and social progress must go hand in hand: economic growth and political/social stability. Lifelong learning was, in this early text, synonymous with post-compulsory vocational education and training and was clearly linked to the development of 'human resources', the demands of economic growth and 'the employment crisis'. Yet, equally importantly, it was to address concerns related to political and social stability, to the 'threat of the dual society' and the 'tragedy of social exclusion and marginality' (p. 118). The White Paper proclaimed that economic competitiveness and social cohesion would be achieved by increasing and creating new jobs, and by raising levels of education. 'Lifelong education and training', 'the permanent recomposition and redevelopment of knowledge and know-how' (p. 118) was placed at the top of the Commission's list of priorities. Whilst acknowledged as not the sole solution to either the economic or social problem, it was nevertheless 'expected to solve the problems of the competitiveness of business, the employment crisis and the tragedy of social exclusion and marginality' (p. 117). Three types of learner were identified within this White Paper: first, those with high knowledge-skills for higher education and the 'information society', second, the unemployed, low knowledge-skilled, 'disadvantaged' person in 'need of training', and third, the young unemployed person, who, as will be seen below, was located almost exclusively within the low knowledge-skilled category. White Paper: Education and Training This subsequent White Paper (CEC, 1995), linked to the 1996 'Year of Lifelong Learning', focused on learners aged under 25. It made two significant shifts in the discourse of LLL. The concepts of exclusion and societal risk inherent in the threat of the 'dual society' were linked with differing degrees of knowledge and two types of learner: those that know (the high knowledge-skilled) (HKS) and those that do not know (the low knowledge-skilled) (LKS):
There is a risk of a rift in society between those that can interpret and those who can only use; and those who are pushed out of mainstream society and rely upon social support: in other words betweenthose who know and those who do not know. (CEC, 1995, p. 9, emphasis added)

Despite acknowledging the inclusion/exclusion tension within this knowledgedistinction, the White Paper recommended two distinct routes of learning that (re)constructed high and low knowledge-skilled learners: the traditiohal and the modern route. The traditional route was based on formal, recognisable, high-level

652

J. Brine

academic qualifications; the modem route on the accreditation of experiences and competences gained, for instance, through voluntary organisations, self-help, the pursuit of hobbies and workplace learning: learning continuously recorded on a personal skills card. Hence, young learners were located in the existing binary categories. Second, through a focus on both 'new knowledge' and widening participation, LLL was extended to include higher education. Amsterdam and Luxembourg The Treaty of Amsterdam (CEC, 1997a) approved the planned expansion of the European Union to 25 member states. It stressed the 'knowledge economy' and proposed a European Employment Strategy (EES). Uniquely, the Treaty provided a definition of the 'knowledge economy'-one based on information and communication technology, on knowledge construction and transfer. Reiterating the White Paper on Growth (CEC, 1993), it stated that education and training was critical to this 'new' economy and, from within a clear discourse of human resources, added that it should address the needs of both occupational change and unemployment. In the same year as the Amsterdam Treaty, the European Council met in Luxembourg and confirmed the importance of the developing employment strategy. Two linked discursive shifts are identifiable in the Luxembourg Strategy: first, a shift in the understanding of 'disadvantage'. The White Paper on Growth (CEC, 1993) had identified disadvantage within an understanding of social exclusion, a concept of multi-deprivation which recognised that members of certain social groups were more likely than others to experience disadvantage and deprivation across a range of interconnected social and economic fields, including education. The Luxembourg Strategy shifted the discourse of 'disadvantage' to the individual, to individual needs and responsibilities, a (re)construction that contributed to the lifelong learner described more fully below. The second discursive shift was from the White Paper on Growth's aim of employment to a new one of employability: the ability to become employed, rather than, necessarily, the state of employment itself. Thus, individualisation became linked with the concept of employability: a state of constant becoming, of readiness for employment. Exploring this concept of individualisation Beck and Beck-Gemsheim (2002) state:
Insofar as basic rights are internalised and everyone wants to or must be economically active to earn their livelihood, the spiral of individualization destroys the given foundations of social existence. ... The Western type of individualized society tells us to seek
biographical solutions to systemic contradictions. (Beck & Beck-Gernsheim, 2002, p. xxii)

Rather than a positive response to the threat of the dual society, the individualisation of the learner itself threatens society rather than strengthens it. European Employment Strategy (EES) The themes of the White Papers and the decisions of the Luxembourg Council were subsequently consolidated in the Employment Strategy (CEC, 1999a) which,

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy

653

despite the title, focused almost exclusively on unemployment (Brine, 2002). This document further identified the LKS learner, and whilst explicitly gender-free, it nevertheless suggested class and race positions. It linked LLL to people with 'particular difficulties', 'the disabled', 'ethnic minorities' and the ageing population. In line with the EU demand for gender mainstreaming (CEC, 1994), the EES included the cliched 'get-out' clause that 'equal opportunities must be strengthened'. Despite the earlier discourse of the knowledge economy and a common-sense assumption that this would be a key part of this EES, it focused exclusively on the LKS unemployed and potentially excluded learner. Clarity in approaching Lisbon Between 1993 and 1999 LLL was exclusively located in the post-compulsory sector, initially with vocational education and training (VET) and subsequently with higher education. Two learners emerge from the texts: the high knowledge-skilled and the low knowledge-skilled, those that know and those that do not.
We live in a society in which the formation, circulation, and consumption of knowledge are something fundamental. If the accumulation of capital was one of the fundamental traits of our society, the same is true of the accumulation of knowledge. Furthermore, the exercise, production, and accumulation of knowledge cannot be dissociated from the power mechanisms with which they maintain complex relations that must be
analyzed. (Foucault, [1978] 1994, p. 291)

Whilst the clarity of such a binary does not reflect the reality of practice, it does illustrate a construction of one against the other that continues in subsequent policies, and whilst there are no direct references to gender, race or ethnicity, age is a factor, and so, I will argue, is class-and that this classed construction is further gendered and raced. Lisbon and the Lifelong Learning trilogy (2000-2002)

This period began with the Lisbon Strategy and included three LLL papers: Memorandum, Communication and Resolution (CEC, 2000b, 2001, 2002). The Lisbon Strategy The Lisbon Strategy consolidated the previous period's emergent discourses of the employment strategy, the knowledge economy and lifelong learning, and led the way for the further development of all three. The Lisbon Strategy was and is the prime discursive marker, providing the oft-quoted statement of intent:
The Union must become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in the world, capable of sustainable economic growth with more and better jobs and greater social cohesion. (CEC, 2000, p. 3) The Lisbon Strategy never defined the knowledge economy but simply repeatedly stated it as being such, for example, 'Europe had indisputably moved into the

654

J. Brine

knowledge age'. It also introduced the knowledge society, as in 'lifelong learning is necessary for transition to a knowledge based economy and society' (p. 3, emphasis added); LLL was necessary for both. The addition of knowledge society to that of economy was not, as Peters (2001) suggested, accidental, the result of conceptual laxity, for economy and society were not interchangeable; they were consistently used in relation to the two different groups of learners constructed in the pre-Lisbon documents: the knowledge economy only used when referring to people with HKS, knowledge society with learners with LKS. Continuing the distinction made within the White Paper on Education and Training (CEC, 1995), one group, those that know, were included in the (knowledge) economy; the other, those that do not, were not. Two lines of argument are identifiable within the Lisbon Strategy. The first is that of the knowledge economy where, akin to that identified by Coffield (1999), the argument was that the EU must compete in the global market; it must be at the cutting edge of technology. The EU therefore needs its citizens to have high-level knowledge-skills. Technology is constantly changing and the speed of that technological change requires those with high-level knowledge skills to be continually updating them. It is the individual's responsibility to update their skills and this is achieved through graduate or postgraduate study within higher education. Moreover, such technological changes in production continue, as repeatedly predicted in Commission reports of the 1980s (Brine, 1999), to displace the highly gendered skilled occupations, such as secretaries and mechanics; a shift further exacerbated by global outsourcing. The second is that of the knowledge society where the argument began with the expansion from 15 to 25 member states; high unemployment and related social exclusion led to the fear of the 'dual society' described in the White Paper on Growth (CEC, 1993) and this threatened political, social and economic stability. Unemployment is linked with LKS people, who, to increase employability, must improve their knowledge-skills. This leads to the concept of lifelong learning and the demands for, and expectations of, cyclical vocational training: within the knowledge society there is no reference whatsoever to higher education. Despite the crude binary distinction, the clear categorisation illustrates that knowledge 'becomes a tool for positioning individuals on (or excluding them from) the labour market' (Magalhaes & Stoer, 2003, p. 43). Moreover, both learners were, in this document, framed by discourses of individualisation and pathologisation. Commission Memorandum on Lifelong Learning (CEC, 2000b) Within this period dominated by the Lisbon Strategy the lifelong learning trilogy of documents continued not only to develop the concept but also to construct the learner in relation to the knowledge economy/society. The trilogy began with the Commission's consultation document, the Memorandum (CEC, 2000b). Although focused on the knowledge society, the Commission defined it through its relationship with the economy, that is, one 'whose economic basis is the creation

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy 655 and exchange of immaterial goods and services'; moreover, it was defined as a society where 'up-to-date information, knowledge and skills are at a premium' (p. 7). The new shinny technological economy is used as the allure, the hook, for lifelong learning-for both high and low knowledge-skilled learners. Through its construction of the HKS learner and its emphasis on transferable qualifications and widening participation, the Memorandum established its discursive link with the Bologna Declaration (CEC, 1999b). The main focus of the Memorandum was, however, on the construction of the individualised, pathologised, LKS learner who, unlike the HKS learner, had personal identifiable needs: basic skills (numeracy, literacy, information technology), entrepreneurship and social skills. Those who have not been able, for whateverreason,to acquirethe relevantbasic skills thresholdmust be offeredcontinuingopportunities to do so, however oftentheymayhave
failed to succeed to take up what has been offered so far. (CEC, 2000b, p. 11, emphasis

added) This learner, identified as someone below the 'basic skills threshold', is a long way away from the HKS graduate/postgraduate of the knowledge economy. Commission Communication on lifelong learning One year later, following criticisms that the Memorandum had over-stressed the importance of employment and the labour market, the Communication redefined lifelong learning as: All learningactivityundertakenthroughoutlife, with the aim of improvingknowledge, skills and competencies within a personal, civic, social and/or employment-related perspective. (CEC, 2001, p. 9) Yet, despite the shift of employment from the first to the fourth aim, the details of the remainder of the Communication continued to prioritise the relationship between lifelong learning and employability. There are five observations to make of the Communication. First, the Communication introduced the concept of lifewide learning: formal, non-formal and informal. Combined, lifelong and lifewide learning covered absolutely all learning at all times, in all sites. Second, it confirmed and extended the concept of individualisation that began with the Luxembourg Strategy (CEC, 1997b); third, it introduced the notion of quality assurance and the need for guidance and counselling; fourth, it emphasised the need for the recognition and transfer of qualifications (not only in relation to Bologna, those of higher education, but also those of lower-level vocational attainment); and, most significantly, fifth, the knowledge society took precedence over the economy, so much so that even the reference to the key Lisbon statement, quoted above, was changed to read: To become the most competitive and dynamic knowledge-basedsocietyin the world. (p. 3, emphasis added)

656

J. Brine

The shifting discourse of economy-society continued, yet with total consistency in the way each was used in relation to learners: the economy with HKS learners, graduates/postgraduates; the society with LKS learners, especially the unemployed and excluded. No further identification of the HKS graduate/postgraduate learner was given; they were identified only by their positive status, their level of knowledgeskill. This discourse reinforced the Bologna Declaration (CEC, 1999b) and emphasised changes required within the higher education sector. In contrast, the LKS learner, previously defined through a deficit model of needs, was further identified as located in specific social groups: * * * * * * * * * * * people on low incomes disabled people ethnic minorities and immigrants early school leavers lone parents unemployed people parents returning to the labour market workers with low levels of education and training people outside the labour market senior citizens (including older workers) ex-offenders (p. 13).

These implicitly classed, gendered and raced identifications are located within a continued reiteration of the threat of a dual society; a risk seen as lying in the knowledge society, not the economy; there are 'considerable risks and uncertainties associated with the knowledge-based society' (p. 6, emphasis added). The Commission added that this is especially so as there were almost 150 million people in the EU of 15 member states without a basic level of education, and who therefore faced a higher risk of marginalisation. The individualised and pathologised learner was thus simultaneously constructed as 'at risk' and 'the risk'-the 'threat'. Throughout the Communication the themes of change, opportunity and individual choice continued, but significantly, themes of risk, uncertainty and individual responsibility also emerged. The former led to/from Bologna and the reforms of higher education, and constructed an HKS learner for the knowledge economy. The latter was rooted in the fear of a dual society and the EES's concerns regarding unemployment and social exclusion, and constructed an LKS learner located in the knowledge society, with LLL offered as the solution. Council Resolution on lifelong learning The Communication (CEC, 2002) provided the basis for the far briefer Resolution of the Council (Heads of Member States) where it confirmed the policy direction for LLL, its emphasis on the LKS learner, and definitions of lifelong and lifewide learning. The knowledge economy was absent; all references were to the knowledge society. The emphasis was on the LKS learner; the HKS learner reduced to three

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy

657

points: training teachers for lifelong learning; accreditation for widening participation, and the recognition and transferability of qualifications. Reflecting on the Lisbon years Between the years of 2000 and 2002, lifelong learning was defined as encompassing all learning, formal, non-formal and informal, in all contexts, throughout life: from pre-nursery to post-retirement, yet despite this the texts remained exclusively on the post-compulsory sector. Whilst the discursive thread of the knowledge economy continued, it was far less dominant than in the Lisbon Strategy; it was only ever used in conjunction with the HKS learner, graduates/postgraduates, and as discussed below, served primarily as a link to the Bologna process. In contrast, the dominant discourse within the three lifelong learning documents was that of the knowledge society and the LKS learner who, identified implicitly within classed, gendered, raced social groups, continued to be framed by the 'threat of a dual society'. Despite the rhetoric of the bright new knowledge economy, of inclusion, the LKS learner, especially when unemployed, was excluded from the knowledge economy and was constituted as 'the risk'. They are, in Castells' terms, the 'non-valuable people', who are 'sharply divided' from 'the valuable' (1998, p. 161): a divide that mirrors the concept of the feared dual society, and was evoked in the headlines of The Independent (Saturday 4 November 2005): 'Paris on fire: poverty and deprivation blamed for gang attacks' (p. 1), 'Exclusion from rich, white society fuels gangs' attacks on the police' (p. 2), and 'Rioting has spread because people are ignored' (p. 2): the hyperghettoes described by Bauman (2004) as a 'dumping site for the surplus, redundant, unemployable and functionless population' (p. 80). The mirror image of the knowledge economy discourse of hope and promise is one of exclusion, risk and fear. Those most at risk from the new (knowledge) economy are themselves constructed as the threat. Post Lisbon and the Lifelong Learning Resolution 2003-2005

The third stage of this chronology reviewed the 'progress' made in attaining the 'goals' set by Lisbon and the Employment Strategy, and proposed an action programme on lifelong learning. Commission Communication on the Employment Strategy The Communication (CEC, 2004a) reviewed the progress on the Employment Strategy (CEC, 1999a). It made no reference whatsoever to the knowledge economy or society. 'Knowledge' Europe had disappeared-or been erased; whether accidental or intentional, knowledge was absent. Yet, despite this absence, the Communication stressed the need for lifelong learning and, through its proposed Recommendation, identified the learners of greatest concern-those with low knowledge-skills, 'people at a disadvantage, women, young people (particularly school leavers), ethnic minorities, immigrants, the low skilled

658

J. Brine list that echoed that of the earlier Communication (CEC,

and older workers'-a 2001) quoted earlier.

Commission proposal for a Decision to establish an integrated action programme in the field of lifelong learning This document, comprising a Commission Memorandum and a proposal for an integrated Lifelong Learning Action Programme (CEC, 2004b), provided no clear definition of lifelong learning; it had become an 'accepted' term. Through the individual programmes mentioned below, lifelong learning finally covered sectors of learning that included pre-nursery (Comenius), higher education mobility (Erasmus), post-compulsory vocational education and training (Leonardo da Vinci), and post-retirement learning (Grundtvig). The post-compulsory HKS and LKS learners of employable age were finally joined by those of pre-school, school and post-retirement. The explanatory memorandum stated that the proposal was influenced by both the knowledge society and the knowledge-based economy, but again neither was defined. However, in contrast to the earlier lifelong learning documents, more reference was made to the economy than the society. It stated that, in responding 'to the new challenges of the knowledge society and demographic change', it aimed to create 'a competitive and dynamic knowledge-based economy in Europe' (p. 2): the knowledge society seen as a challenge, the knowledge economy an opportunity. Commission staff working paper: progress towards Lisbon objectives in education and training This working paper (CEC, 2005a) assessed the effectiveness of education and training in reaching the objectives of the Lisbon Strategy. The knowledge society dominated, with interest primarily on the LKS learner. Nevertheless, there was a slight resurgence of interest in the early school leaver and in HKS graduates/ postgraduates. The post-Lisbon review Within these post-Lisbon 'review' documents, the knowledge economy, the concept that was critical in the development of LLL, had largely disappeared and been replaced by the knowledge society. Although the proposed action programme reflected the pre-nursery-post-retirement definition of the 2001 Communication, the post-compulsory focus continued to (re)construct the basic binary of low and high knowledge-skilled learners. The analysis of Commission documents shows that although the knowledge economy was held up as the bright beckoning future, as the justification for lifelong learning, within the specific documents of LLL the knowledge economy was frequently obscured, and occasionally erased, by the knowledge society and its almost exclusive focus on the LKS learner. The analysis also shows that whereas the

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy

659

LKS learner was identified in terms of particular social groups with specific basic skill learning needs, the HKS learner was only ever identified as graduate/ postgraduate. In the following section I consider the gendered, classed and raced identities of the two categories of learner. The lifelong learners of the knowledge economy

Despite the very close association of the concept of lifelong learning with the knowledge economy, there is only one lifelong learner who is directly employed in it: the high knowledge-skilled graduate and postgraduate learner, a learner who, in contrast to the low knowledge-skilled learner below, is only ever referred to in terms of educational status, and whose particular learning needs are never identified. The focus here remains quite clearly on the Bologna-directed reforms of higher education with which there are four major connecting points: expansion, blurring sectoral boundaries, the recognition and transfer of qualifications, and the processes of quality assurance and audit. All four are firmly located within a discourse of neoliberalism, and relate, beyond the EU and Bologna, to the World Trade Organisation and the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Moreover, the underpinning concerns of flexibility, transferability and mobility are the consistent driving concepts of the European Union (Brine, 2002). The Amsterdam Treaty (CEC, 1997a) defined the knowledge economy as one based on information and communication technology and on knowledge construction and transfer, and hence reliant on high knowledge-skills. The HKS learner could, according to the EU equality report (CEC, 2005b), just as easily be woman or man, for young women aged 20-24 are achieving degrees of educational attainment at least equal to, and at times greater than, men: 58% of graduates and 41% of PhD graduates are women. This suggests we might expect a fairly even spread of gender within the knowledge economy, but good educational qualifications do not necessarily open the way to good jobs (Walby, 2002). Walby (2005) found only 1.26% of the UK labour force work in the high-tech manufacturing industries (itself a declining figure), and of these only 30% are classed as high knowledge-skilled (graduate or postgraduate). Moreover, this is a highly gendered industry, employing twice as many men as women. A coarse calculation of the statistics suggests that only 10% of the 1.26, that is 0.12% of the working population, are high knowledge-skilled women working in the high-tech manufacturing industries of the UK. The EU gender equality report (CEC, 2005b) based on the 15 states (EU/15) stated that although in 2001 almost 25% of all graduates were in the fields of mathematics, science and technology, only 31% of the 25% were women-that is, just under 8%. Although far more people work in knowledge-intensive industries (41% of the UK labour force, and rising), this wide-ranging labour market classification includes areas of both knowledge reproduction and knowledge creation, and many differing sectors are included within it, many of which are more commonly recognised as services (banks and insurance, real estate, research and development, advertising,

660

J. Brine

water services, air transport, post and telecommunications, sporting activities and legal services) or public sector provision (education, health and social work)-all areas covered by the GATS. There are slightly more women than men in this sector, but many differing occupations are included within it: 42% of people working in knowledge-intensive industries in the EU are high knowledge-skilled, and the remaining 58% include, within, for example, the higher education sector, people who work as porters, cleaners, secretaries and gardeners. This is because the Labour Force Surveys upon which such are based, count, in both industries, all those people who work there, paying no attention to occupational or hierarchical differences or knowledge-skill levels. In 2003, across the EU/15, only 24% of the total labour force was classed as high knowledge-skilled. Furthermore, the knowledge economy (defined through the numbers of people working in such industries) is, within the EU, geographically located primarily in Scandinavian (particularly Sweden) and other northern European states, and in the UK within cities such as London, Manchester, Brighton and Bristol (Cooke, 2005). This analysis, however, continues, as much of EU research, to be defined by member state or city and as such glosses over the deep rifts between affluent and poor neighbourhoods and between differences of social class, ethnicity, disability, age and gender. The argument of the knowledge economy seems somewhat shaky and unsubstantiated; spatially, class-race differentiated, and occupationally and hierarchically gendered. There is a continued gendered pay gap, with women earning an average 16% less than men, a situation that is exacerbated by the gendered picture of part-time work (30.4% women compared with 6.6% men). At the same time men are more than twice as likely to be managers, and nine times more likely to be executives (CEC, 2005b). The report does not provide further analysis by social class or ethnicity, and only occasionally by migrant or citizen status. Within the discourse of the knowledge economy, the higher education sector is central: a major employer within the knowledge-intensive industry (Peters, 2003), it is also the means by which the learner becomes high knowledge-skilled, graduate or postgraduate (Olssen & Peters, 2005). Studies show a persistent occupational, financial and hierarchical gendering within higher education (Morley, 2001; Quinn, 2003), and others have shown equally consistent occupational, financial and hierarchical differentials of class and race are laid on top, or alongside those of gender (Archer et al., 2003). The discursive cloak of a bright new technological future of a knowledge economy appears based on a small percentage of the active labour force that work within it, with broad industry-based figures obscuring gendered, classed and raced occupational, hierarchical and financial differences. The lifelong learners of the knowledge society

The other lifelong learner constructed through these documents is not included in the knowledge economy. Unlike the HKS learner, these LKS learners are defined

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy 661 more specifically as the early school leaver, the young unemployed, older long-term unemployed, those on low incomes, the disabled, those of ethnic minority, immigrant, lone parent, parents returning to the labour market, older workers or ex-offenders-people who, if not already included in Bauman's outcast criminalised 'wasted' population (2004), could easily become so: they exist on the membraned borders between inclusion and exclusion. Whereas some people identified as learners of the knowledge society could be seen in fairly neutral terms, for example, the lone parent or the older long-term unemployed, such references act as shorthand for classed positionings. For example, the lone parent is taken to be a white or black working-class teenage mother, often also an early school leaver, not the postgraduate high-earning businesswoman, or even less likely, man. Although the majority of the 19.8% of early school leavers across the EU of 25 states are boys (CEC, 2005b), studies in Scotland have suggested that they fare better in the labour market than girls, who are 'sidelined' in favour of adult women and better-qualified school leavers (Biggart, 2002). The needs of the LKS learners are described as basic skills, skills to increase inclusion, vocational education, basic social skills and skills to increase entrepreneurship and increase employability. These are learning needs defined by others, topdown, and far removed in intention, if not always in practice, from the ground-up, self-defined learning described by Thompson (2000). Classed and gendered lowskilled job growth areas such as security and personal services (Brown et al., 2001) are increasingly brought into the remit of LLL, and subject to credentialism. These people sit precariously on the margins of the knowledge society and service the HKS. Then there are others who tip, or are tipped, over the edge: the other side of the 'dual society', the threat to the political, social and economic stability of the UnionBauman's 'wasted' population (2004). An account of different labour models cannot be given in this short article; however, gendered analyses can be found in the contributors to Walby (1998), and of the EU labour market in van Doorne-Huiskes et al. (1995). The 40/30/30 model suggested by Hutton (1995) described a highly educated core of professionals in relatively secure employment (the high knowledge-skilled), a second circle of those in temporary, unstable or part-time employment, and an outer rim of people either unemployed or on training schemes. I choose it over the various versions of the binary module because it provides for those who are unemployed and it allows possible fluidity between the tiers. Although the percentages may have changed some, the basic premise of a three-sector fluid labour market is useful in making sense of the lifelong learning/knowledge economy discourse, particularly the position of the LKS vis-a-vis the HKS learner. This 30+30, minimum 60% of insecure or excluded working-age people can be viewed as a continuum where, at the end nearest the relatively secure core of 40%, we find the surplus population, those that move in and out of insecure or temporary employment. These are people targeted by the widening participation agenda, the discourse of accreditation of non-formal and informal learning, and the recognition and transferability of higher-level vocational qualifications. Many of the women and

662

J. Brine

men in this section occupy a dual position, on one hand treated by the labour market as low knowledge-skilled, temporary and insecure, low-paid workers, whilst at the same time participating as widening participation students in higher education, the aspirant HKS learners. Moving out away from the core 40% are those beyond the reaches of higher education, those that service people found at the core. And then, even further away, are Hutton's marginalised fifth of society, those who, for the most part, only ever move between low-paid insecure employment, unemployment and low-skill training programmes-the LKS learner who is repeatedly offered basicskills, low level (National Vocational Qualification [NVQ] 1or 2) training. As shown throughout this article, the discourse of lifelong learning is repeatedly linked with that of the bright beckoning future of the knowledge economy, yet, as predicted in numerous EU reports of the 1980s, the same technological changes that underpin the utopian knowledge economy are those that have led to the technological replacement of numerous workers in both the manufacturing and service industries: the ones leading to large numbers of unemployed and underemployed people, those constructed in EU policies as the 'threat of the dual society'; the ones Bauman argues are abandoned by the social state and left to 'seek individually their own individual solutions to the socially produced troubles' (2004, p. 90). Concluding thoughts

In the first section of this article I considered the textual analysis of EU policy texts from 1993 to 2005. I took the conclusions of the Lisbon Council (CEC, 2000a) as the pivotal point in which the European Council consolidated the policy direction that began with the White Paper on Growth, Competitiveness, Employment (CEC, 1993), strengthened the concept of lifelong learning and the emergent discourse of the knowledge economy/society, and pointed the way for future implementation and development. The analysis showed that the apparent laxity surrounding the concepts of knowledge economy, knowledge society and lifelong learning was primarily definitional; economy and society were used with unflinching consistency to define two distinct 'types' of learner: economy with the high knowledge-skilled learner, and society with the low knowledge-skilled learner. The article also aimed to identify the discourses by which women and men were constructed as gendered, classed and 'raced' learners. As highlighted throughout this article, there are very few references to women, gender, ethnic minorities and immigrants; for the most part the language is gender, class and race free. Explicitly, learners are distinguished from each other primarily by their level of knowledge-skill. The high knowledge-skilled learner is only ever defined as graduate and postgraduate: the high knowledge 'everyman' (sic). However, the low knowledgeskilled is, in contrast, defined, at least occasionally, and certainly implicitly, in terms of social class, gender, ethnicity and citizenship. An indication of the identity of the high knowledge-skilled leaner may be gained by considering the reverse characteristics of the other: a high-income, able-bodied, white, male, British citizen, who is neither an early school leaver nor a lone parent. But this only takes us so far, and

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy

663

thereafter we must turn to the practices of lifelong learning policies and to analyses of the labour market for further understanding. The labour market data referred to above itself provides only crude gendered findings that obscure the vital crosscutting matrix of social class, 'race' and age. The analysis presented in this article suggests that the binary classification of learner into high and low knowledge-skilled is classed and raced; and then it is gendered. Further gendered analyses of the EU discourses of lifelong learning and the knowledge economy/society can only be understood through an engagement with the finer crossed analyses of social class, poverty, age and race. Beneath a cloak of 'inherent goodness', lifelong learning is a discourse of competition, of personal striving, of constant becoming, of inclusion and exclusion, of stratification that continues to (re)construct educational and labour market power relations based on gender, class and race, and on disability, age and migrant/citizen status also.

References
Aalberts, T. E. (2004) The future of sovereignty in multilevel governance Europe-a constructivist reading, Journal of Common Market Studies, 41, 23-46. Archer, L., Hutchings, M. & Ross, A. (2003) Higher education and social class (London, RoutledgeFalmer). Bauman, Z. (2004) Wasted lives: modernityand its outcomes (Cambridge, Polity). Beck, U. & Beck-Gernsheim, E. (2002) Individualization (London, Sage). Biggart, A. (2002) Attainment, gender and minimum-aged school leavers' early routes in the labour market, Journal of Education and Work, 15, 145-162. Brine, J. (1999) Under educating women: globalizing inequality (Buckingham, Open University Press). Brine, J. (2002) The European Social Fund and the EU: flexibility, growth, stability (London, Continuum). Brown, P., Green, A. & Lauder, H. (2001) High skills: globalization, competitiveness and skill formation (Oxford, Oxford University Press). Castells, M. (1998) End of millennium (Oxford, Blackwell). Coffield, F. (1999) Breaking the consensus: lifelong learning as social control, British Educational ResearchJournal, 25, 479-499. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1993) White Paper: Growth, Competitiveness, Employment: the challenges and ways forward into the 21st century (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1994) Council Resolution on the promotion of equal opportunities for women and men through action by the European Structural Funds, Official Journal, C231, 1-2. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1995) White Paper: education and training: teaching and learning: towards the learning society (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1997a) Treaty of Amsterdam, Official Journal, 97, 1-144. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1997b) Special Luxembourg European Council on employment, Bulletin of the European Communities, 97.11, 7-13. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1999a) The 1999 employment guidelines: Council Resolution of 22 February 1999 (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities).

664

J. Brine

Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1999b) The Bologna Declaration on the European space for higher education, a joint declaration of the European ministers of education (Luxembourg, Office for Official Publications of the European Communities). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2000a) Presidency conclusions: Lisbon European Council, 23 and 24 March 2000. Available online at: http://europa.eu.int/council/ off/conc.mar00_en.pdf (accessed 24 April 2000). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2000b) Commission staff working paper: a memorandumon lifelong learning (Brussels, European Commission). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2001) Communication from the Commission: making a European area of lifelong learning a reality (Brussels, European Commission). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2002) Council Resolution of 27 June 2002 on lifelong learning, Official Journal C 163/1 9.7.2002, 1-3. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2004a) Communicationfrom the Commission: strengtheningthe implementationof the European Employment Strategy, including Proposalfor a Council Decision on guidelines for the employment policies of the member states, and a Recommendation for a Council Recommendation on the implementation of member states' employmentpolicies (Brussels, European Commission). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2004b) Proposalfor a Decision establishingan integrated action programmein the field of lifelong learning (Brussels, European Commission). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2005a) Commissionstaff workingpaper:progress towards the Lisbon objectivesin education and training (Brussels, European Commission). Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (2005b) Reportfrom the Commissionon equality between women and men, 2005 (Brussels, European Commission). Cooke, P. (2005) The knowledge economy-reasonable discontents, paper presented to the ESRC seminar series, Knowledgeand Governance,University of the West of England, Bristol, 15 November 2005. Edwards, R. & Boreham, N. (2003) 'The centre cannot hold': complexity and difference in European Union policy towards a learning society, Journal of Education Policy, 18, 407-421. Foucault, M. (1994) Interview conducted by D. Trombadori 1978, first published 1980, in: J. D. Faubion (Ed.) Michel Foucault: essentialworks of Foucault 1954-1984. Volume3: Power (London, Penguin). Hooghe, L. & Marks, G. (2001) Multi-level governance and European integration (Lanham, MD, Rowman & Littlefield). Hughes, C. (2002) Key conceptsin feminist theory and research(London, Sage). Hutton, W. (1995) The state we're in (Chatham, Mackays). Independent, The (2005) Paris on fire: poverty and deprivation blamedfor gang attacks, 4 November 2005, 1-2. Jachtenfuchs, M. (2001) The governance approach to European integration, Journal of Common Market Studies, 39, 245-264. Magalhies, A. M. & Stoer, S. R. (2003) Performance, citizenship and the knowledge society: a new mandate for European education policy, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1, 41-66. Morley, L. (2001) Subjected to review: engendering quality and power in higher education, Journal of Education Policy, 16, 465-478. Olssen, M. & Peters, M. (2005) Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: from the free market to knowledge capitalism, Journal of Education Policy, 20, 313-346. Peters, M. (2001) National education policy constructions of the 'knowledge economy': towards a critique, Journal of Educational Enquiry, 2, 1-22. Peters, M. (2003) Classical political economy and the role of universities in the new knowledge economy, Globalisation, Societies and Education, 1, 153-168. Quinn, J. (2003) Powerful subjects:are women really taking over the university? (Stoke-on-Trent, Trentham Books).

Lifelong learning and the knowledge economy

665

Thompson, J. (2000) Life politics and popular learning, in: J. Field & M. Leicester (Eds) Lifelong learning: education across the lifespan (London, RoutledgeFalmer). van Doorne-Huiskes, A., van Hoof, J. & Roelofs, E. (Eds) (1995) Women and the European labour markets (London, Chapman). Walby, S. (Ed.) (1998) Gender segregationat work (Milton Keynes, Open University Press). Walby, S. (2002) Gender and the new economy: regulation or deregulation? Paper presented to the Economic and Social Research Council seminar, Work, life and time in the new economy, London School of Economics, October 2002. Walby, S. (2005) Gendering life-long learning and the knowledge economy, paper presented to the Economic and Social Research Council seminar, Lifelong learning and gender, University of the West of England, Bristol, January 2005.