The ideology of lifelong learning has become an unquestionable truth which most scholars say is governed by the hegemonic discourse of economy (e.g. Olssen 2008; Fejes & Dahlstedt 2013; Kinnari 2020a). Indeed, economic emphasis is globally recognised today as intrinsic to the politics of lifelong learning (Kinnari 2020a; 2020b; Larson & Cort 2022). Further, the current entrepreneurial ethos of lifelong learning encourages individuals to become best versions of themselves to maximise human capital (Kinnari 2020a).

The present era of capitalism can be referred as ‘cognitive capitalism’. Cognitive capitalism is regarded as ‘the next phase’ for Fordist and Taylorist forms of capitalism where the productivity of the labour was related to different factors than in present capitalism. In cognitive capitalism, human resources are employees’ main assets in becoming competitive and productive (Vercellone 2005). In cognitive capitalism, lifelong learning and continuous self-development are assumed to be necessities for organisations and individuals pursuing success.  In this frame, competences, potentials and personal attributes of individuals are perceived as sources of economic added value. (European Union 2018; OECD 2021.) Since a subject who constantly aims at optimizing themselves is seen to benefit not only the individual but the whole economy, people need to be guided to understand themselves as assets and to behave accordingly.

In our study, we are interested in how the norms and ideals that define current working life, continuous self-development and lifelong learning are represented in media discourse. We analyse guidelines for work and self-development represented in two main broadcasters in Finland, Helsingin Sanomat and YLE. We ask, what kinds of obligations for self-development are mediated in the descriptions of working life, how are people guided to work on themselves, and how does expert knowledge legitimise these obligations, and within them, ‘truth’ on working life and an ideal employee. In addition, we are interested in the addressed target group as well as in marginalised groups and discourses. The study is part of the research project ‘Living on the edge – lifelong learning, governmentality, and neurotic citizen’, in which unintended, even perverse, consequences of lifelong learning policy are researched.

Our theoretical approach lays on the analytics of governmentality (Foucault 1991; 2009; Dean 1999/2010; Miller & Rose 2008). According to Michel Foucault, governmentality comprises three factors: knowledge, power and truth. Every society has its ‘régime of truth, its “general politics” of truth’ (Foucault 1980, p. 131). For example, media discourses concerning lifelong learning include conceptions of humanity and society. The mechanisms and instances within these discourses establish true and false statements. Techniques and procedures legitimise the acquisition of truth, and those who have attained legitimate status are obligated to say what counts as true (Foucault,1980). Accordingly, we acknowledge the hegemonic policy discourse of lifelong learning to be guiding and framing thinking and behavior in various cultural and social fields, including work. We perceive the obligations for continuous self-development to be part of policy and government of lifelong learning, also illustrating the manifestation of a culture that emphasizes entrepreneurial mindset and individual responsibility of citizens.

The research material for the study consists of media texts which represent expert knowledge on demands of working life and well-being at work. The analysed texts (n=86) have been published in Finnish media in 2018-2021. We approach media as a mediator of cultural meanings, participating in (re-)producing the discourse on lifelong learning. Drawing on Foucauldian critical discourse analysis (e.g. Hook 2001; Jäger & Maier 2016), we analyse the experts’ reasoning on demands of working life and self-development as part of the hegemonic policy discourse on lifelong learning. Accrodingly, we acknowledge expert knowledge to be intertwined with power since it legitimises ‘facts’ and ‘truth’ about current work and defines how people should think and behave to become better employees. We understand the tips suggested in the articles as guidelines for individuals to work on themselves. These guidelines lean on certain ‘truths’ and assumptions about society and produce a specific model of subjectivity for individuals to pursue. We read the media data from the perspective of Foucauldian analytics of government paying attention to subjectivation (Foucault 1986). Foucault proposed that ethical analysis (as the free relationship to the self) could be examined through four dimensions: ethical substance, mode of subjectivation, ethical work, and telos of the moral subject. For Foucault, ethical substance means the manners that the individual must embody within certain specific moral contexts. In the context of lifelong learning and self-development, we seek the ethical substance of the conception of human upon which lifelong learning is based and analyse why lifelong learning is regarded as important. Foucault defined mode of subjectivation as the ways in which the individual understands their relationship to the rules and recognises their obligation to implement these rules. In the context of lifelong learning and self-development, we analyse what kind of competence is important for the individual and society, and what obligations is the lifelong learner required to assume. For Foucault, ethical work signifies the means by which we transform ourselves into ethical subjects. In this article, we analyse the practices by which the individual should modify their behaviour. Finally, Foucault’s concept of the telos of the moral subject refers to a certain mode of being that is characteristic of the ethical subject. In the context of lifelong learning, we analyse what is the goal of lifelong learning and self-development and mode of the lifelong learner.

Based on preliminary analysis, we argue that the discourse produced by experts leans on productivity as ethical substance. Productivity thus appears as fundamental justification for continuous self-development and for taking care of one’s working ability. To internalise the ideal of productivity, employees should understand the importance of self-management and taking care of wellbeing at work. This is how mode of subjectivation gets materialised in the expert discourse that represent obligations for a good employee. For ethical work, experts’ tips offer plenty of self-techniques from sports, nutrition and sleep to mindfulness, therapy and going to the nature. In the descriptions of these practices, the perspective of recovering is emphasized – optimal recovering is needed to optimize one’s productivity. With the suggested practices individuals may shape their own behavior and deficiencies and thus become better employees. In the discourse, the ontological understanding of pursued world and being, telos of the moral subject, comes back to work-centered reasoning of human life. The analysis shows how the tips offered by experts, most typically by researchers, work psychologists and doctors, create contradictory pressure by guiding employees to optimise their productivity by emphasizing bodily and mental wellbeing, self-compassion and recovering. The analysed articles can be described apparently critical since they do notice hard demands and pressures of working life but do not question them. Instead, growing pressures at work are assumed inevitable and stabile rather than socially constructed. This communicates how even unreasonable demands should be tolerated rather than challenged. In this context, the continuous learner appears as ’ability-capital-machine’ who is constantly in need of maintenance. We argue that the hegemonic discourse of lifelong learning ignores diversity. The study reveals demands and pressures (re-)produced in the discursive practices, which might be harmful and excluding to some groups and individuals.

Dean, M. (1999/2010). Governmentality: Power and Rule in Modern Society. London: Sage. European Union. (2018). Council recommendation on key competences for lifelong learning. Fejes, A., & Dahlstedt, M. (2013). The confession society. Foucault, confession and practices of lifelong learning. London: Routledge. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and Power. In C. Gordon (Ed.) Power/Knowledge. Selected interviews and other writings 1972–1977 (pp. 109–134). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Foucault, M. (1986). The history of sexuality, Vol. 2: The use of pleasure. New York: Random House. Foucault, M. (1991). Governmentality. In G. Burchell, C. Gordon, & P. Miller The Foucault effect. Studies in governmentality. With two lectures and an interview with Michel Foucault (pp. 87–105). London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Foucault, M. (2009). Security, territory, population. Lectures at the Collége de France, 1977–78. (G. Burchell trans.). London: Palgrave. Hook. D. (2001.) Discourse, knowledge, materiality, history. Theory & psychology 11 (4), 521–547. Jäger, S. & Maier, F. (2016). Analysing discourses and dispositives: a Foucauldian approach to theory and methodology. In Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.) Methods of Critical Discourse Studies. Los Angeles: Sage, 109–136. Kinnari, H. (2020a). Elinikäinen oppiminen ihmistä määrittämässä. Genealoginen analyysi EU:n, OECD:n ja UNESCOn politiikasta. Jyväskylä: Suomen kasvatustieteellinen seura. Akateeminen väitöskirja. Monografia. [Lifelong learning constructing the conception of human. Genealogical analysis of EU, OECD and UNESCO policies. Jyväskylä: Finnish Education Research Association. Academic dissertation. Monograph. 520 pages.] Kinnari, H. (2020b). Elinikäisestä kasvajasta kykypääomakoneeksi. Elinikäinen oppiminen yrittäjämäisen talouden aikakaudella. Aikuiskasvatus, 40 (4), 305-319. [Lifelong learner as an ability-capital machine – Lifelong learning for the generation of entrepreneurial economy] Larson, A. & Cort, P. (2022) Qualification, socialisation and/or subjectification – three international organisations’ prioritisation of the purposes of adult education and learning from the 1970s to the 2010s. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 41(1), 91–106, DOI: 10.1080/02601370.2022.2030422 Miller, P., & Rose, N. (2008). Governing the present: Administering economic, social and personal life. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press. OECD (2021). OECD Skills Outlook 2021. Learning for Life. Paris: OECD. Olssen, M. (2008). Understanding the mechanisms of neoliberal control. Lifelong learning, flexibility and knowledge capitalism. In: Fejes A and Nicoll K (eds) Foucault and lifelong learning. Governing the subject (pp. 34–47). London: Routledge. Vercellone, C. (2005). The hypothesis of cognitive capitalism. London, Birkbeck College and SOAS, United Kingdom. halshs-00273641