The Ideological Continuity and Invisibility of Education: A Theoretical Reading in the Context of Neoliberal Globalization
Eğitimin İdeolojik Sürekliliği ve Görünmezleşmesi: Neoliberal Küreselleşme Bağlamında Bir Kuramsal Okuma
Within the context of the modern nation-state, education has functioned as a central ideological apparatus through which social integration, political legitimacy, and citizenship are produced and reproduced. In the era of neoliberal globalization, however, educational policies are increasingly reconfigured around technical and managerial rationalities, performance, accountability, and human capital discourses. This transformation is often interpreted as a weakening of education’s political character or as a decline in its ideological function. By contrast, this study conceptualizes this process not as the disappearance of ideology, but as a historically continuous reorganization of its mode of operation. In this regard, the notion of ideological invisibility is employed to examine how the ideological function of education is reproduced not only through explicit political discourses, but also through technical policy instruments, managerial rationalities, and assessment regimes. The study argues that, under neoliberal globalization, education continues to play a central role in the reproduction of social order, while simultaneously rendering its ideological function less visible. In doing so, it offers a theoretical contribution to the literature on globalization, education, and ideology by foregrounding the rearticulation of ideology within technical and managerial forms of governance.
Modern ulus-devlet bağlamında eğitim, toplumsal bütünleşmenin, siyasal meşruiyetin ve yurttaşlık bilincinin üretildiği merkezi bir ideolojik alan olarak işlev görmüştür. Neoliberal küreselleşme sürecinde ise eğitim politikaları giderek teknik ve yönetsel rasyonalite, performans, hesap verebilirlik ve insan sermayesi söylemleri çerçevesinde yeniden yapılandırılmaktadır. Bu dönüşüm sıklıkla eğitimin siyasal niteliğinin zayıfladığı ya da ideolojik işlevini yitirdiği şeklinde yorumlanmaktadır. Ancak çalışma, söz konusu süreci ideolojinin ortadan kalkması olarak değil, ideolojik işleyişin tarihsel süreklilik içinde yeniden örgütlenmesi olarak kavramsallaştırmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, ideolojik görünmezleşme kavramı aracılığıyla, eğitimin ideolojik işlevinin açık siyasal söylemlerin yanında, teknik politika araçları, yönetsel rasyonaliteler ve ölçme-değerlendirme mekanizmaları aracılığıyla nasıl yeniden üretildiğini tartışmaktadır. Çalışma, eğitimin neoliberal küreselleşme koşullarında da toplumsal düzenin yeniden üretiminde merkezi bir rol oynamaya devam ettiğini ileri sürmektedir. Bu doğrultuda; küreselleşme, eğitim ve ideoloji literatürüne, ideolojinin teknik ve yönetsel rasyonaliteler içindeki yeniden üretimini görünür kılan kuramsal bir katkı sunmaktadır
Akbulut, Ö. Ö. (2007). Küreselleşme ulus-devlet ve kamu yönetimi, TODAİE Yayını, Ankara.
Akbulut, Ö.Ö. (2013). Küresel kapitalizm ve devlet, Toplum ve Hekim Dergisi, (28) 3, 165-171.
Akbulut, Ö.Ö. (2014). Kapitalizm ve uluslaşma, Amme İdaresi Dergisi, (47)3, 19-42.
Althusser, L. (2003). İdeoloji ve devletin ideolojik aygıtları, (A. Tümertekin, Çev.), İthaki Yayınları.
Antunes, F. (2006). Globalisation and europeification of education policies: Routes, processes and metamorphoses. European Educational Research Journal, 5(1), 38-55. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.1.38.
Apple, M. W. (2004). Ideology and curriculum (3rd ed.). Routledge.
Ball, S. J. (2012). Global education inc.: New policy networks and the neo-liberal imaginary. Routledge.
Bell, L., & Stevenson, H. (2006). Education policy: Process, themes and impact. Routledge.
Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books.
Dağ, S. (2010). Küresel dönemde uluslaşma-eğitim ilişkisinin ideolojik konumu ve Türkiye'ye yansımaları, Yüksek Lisans Tezi, TODAİE.
Dağ, S. (2025). Okul yönetiminde yapay zekâ ve uygulama alanları, T. Atmaca ve S. Dağ (Ed.), Eğitimde yapay zekâ ve uygulama alanları içinde (ss. 16-35) Vizetek Yayınları.
Durkheim, É. (1977). Education and sociology. Free Press.
Franch, S. (2020). Global citizenship education: A new ‘moral pedagogy’ for the 21st century? European Educational Research Journal, 19(6), 506-524. https://doi.org/10.1177/1474904120929103
Gellner, E. (1999). Milliyetçiliğe bakmak. (S. Coşar ve S. Özertürk-Nalan, Çev.). İletişim Yayınları.
Hobsbawm, E. J. (1992). Nations and nationalism since 1780: Programme, myth, reality (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Holloway, J. (1994) Global capital and the national state, Capital and Class, Spring, (52): 23-49.
Holmes, W., Bialik, M., & Fadel, C. (2019). Artificial intelligence in education: Promises and implications for teaching and learning. Center for Curriculum Redesign.
https://curriculumredesign.org/wp-content/uploads/AI-in-Education-Promises-and-Implications.pdf.
Laursen, P. F. (2006). Ideological power in education. European Educational Research Journal, 5(3-4), 276-284. https://doi.org/10.2304/eerj.2006.5.3.276.
Luckin, R., Holmes, W., Griffiths, M., & Forcier, L. B. (2016). Intelligence unleashed: An argument for AI in education. Pearson Education.
Marginson, S. (2016). The worldwide trend to high participation higher education: Dynamics of social stratification in inclusive systems. Higher Education, 72(4), 413-434.
Olssen, M., & Peters, M. A. (2005). Neoliberalism, higher education and the knowledge economy: From the free market to knowledge capitalism. Journal of Education Policy, 20(3), 313-345. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680930500108718.
Panda, R. (2024). Artificial intelligence in educational systems: From early computational tools to contemporary AI-enhanced learning environments. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 8(5), 3756-3760. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.5.0824.2213.
Rizvi, F., & Lingard, B. (2010). Globalizing education policy. Routledge.
Sahlberg, P. (2021). Finnish lessons 3.0: What can the world learn from educational change in Finland? Teachers College Press.
Sellar, S., & Lingard, B. (2014). The OECD and global governance in education. Journal of Education Policy, 29(6), 710–725. https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.850717.
Smith, A. D. (2002). Küresel çağda milletler ve milliyetçilik. (D. Kömürcü, Çev.), Everest Yayınları.
Srnicek, N. (2017). Platform capitalism. Polity Press.
Tröhler, D. (2020). Nation-state, education and the fabrication of national-minded citizens (Introduction). Croatian Journal of Education, 22 (2), 11-27, https://doi.org/10.15516/cje.v22i0.4129.
Verger, A., Novelli, M., & Altinyelken, H. K. (2012). Global education policy and international development: New agendas, issues and policies. Bloomsbury.
Wallerstein, I. (2003). Liberalizmden sonra, (E. Öz, Çev.). Metis Yayınları.
Wood, E. M. (1996), Modernity, postmodernity or capitalism, Monthly Review, 48 (3), 21-39.
Wood, E. M. (1999) Unhappy families: Global capitalism in a world of nation- states, Monthly Review, 51(3): 1-13.
Wood, E. M. (2003). Empire of capital. Verso.
Ylimaki, R. M., & Wilmers, A. (2021). Historical perspectives and contemporary challenges to education (Bildung) and citizenry in the modern nation state: Comparative perspectives on Germany and the USA. European Educational Research Journal, 20(3), 257-277. https://doi.org/10.1177/14749041211004659.

Copyright (c) 2026 Journal of Management and Educational Sciences
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Downloads
Article Information
- Article Type Articles
- Submitted March 25, 2026
- Published March 25, 2026
- Issue Vol. 5 No. 1 (2026): JMEDUSCI
- Section Articles
