Decoding Ideologies: A Gramscian Guide to Reading Ideologies in MOOCs and Beyond

Abstract

The chapter begins by positioning MOOCs through the lens of Marxist political economy and its relationship with the broader platform economy movement in higher education. The analysis touches on the tensions between MOOCs’ market-driven nature and their association with the open access and educational commons movements, suggesting these platforms reinforce rather than resolve educational inequities. The chapter then delves into the landscape of ideology critique, and despite not deeply engaging with these broader and deeper debates within Marx’s political economy, the chapter provides an insightful critique of the ideological implications of MOOCs within contemporary capitalist structures. It then turns its attention to the historical evolution of ideology, focusing on a Gramscian understanding, where ideologies are perceived not simply as belief structures but as formidable instruments of social control. This unique perspective will be a compass for potential student researchers and academics, equipping them with the methodology needed for an ideology critique complemented by ideographs. By examining neoliberalism through this lens, the chapter offers insights into how such ideologies can secure consent, a phenomenon Gramsci eloquently termed ‘common sense’. This theoretical backdrop is critical in understanding the art of exposing a website’s ideological interests beyond what is presented on its surface. Here, Gramsci’s theoretical framing of hegemony highlights how neoliberalism has become so normalised that individuals view it as being in their best interest. The chapter culminates by setting forth preconditions for MOOCs to contribute to what Gramsci identified as a ‘historic bloc’—a sweeping hegemonic force that shapes societal values, beliefs, and structures.

Marx’s Political Economy and Commodification

It is worth briefly mentioning how MOOCs relate to the ideas behind Marxist political economy and how they relate to contemporary critiques of educational products within the platform economy. Once established, these will offer a lens to understand current open access and educational commons movements. Through the prism of Marxist political economy, the evolution of MOOCs can be understood not merely as an educational innovation but as a reflection of broader economic forces that shape the commodification, alienation, accumulation, and division of labour and value of education. This shift aligns with the capitalist drive to find new markets and stimulate new demands, ultimately extracting more value for the goal of greater profit. MOOCs’ production relies on the intellectual and creative labour of academics, learning designers, and administrative staff. From a Marxist perspective, the actual value of MOOCs is rooted in this labour. This results in the commodification of labour and the commodification of the products of such labour (i.e., education) (Marx cited in Filho, 2001) and does so through exploitation.

Exploitation of Labour

Online courses allow for content to be produced once and distributed endlessly. Such a process may lead to the exploitation of academic labour. Rather than being distributed equitably, MOOC providers often harvest the surplus value created by these workers, echoing Marxist critiques of labour exploitation or what David Harvey calls the accumulation by dispossession (Harvey, 2018). In such markets, the value generated by academics is frequently dispossessed by the capital owners (i.e., MOOC providers), be they private educational companies or universities influenced by market dynamics. The rate of technological development further exacerbates such dispossession and exploitation. Marx highlighted four key factors influencing the degree to which workers are exploited (Howard et al., 1988). These include the rate of surplus value, which is the ratio of surplus value to variable capital; the level of advancement in technology; the intensity or effort that workers put into their labour; and the duration of the workday.

Capital Accumulation by Dispossession

The degree of exploitation increases with higher rates of surplus value, greater labour intensity, and longer working hours, and as technological development progresses in MOOCs, this leads to a reduced need for labour input (academics) (Marx cited in Howard et al., 1988). Here, capital finds itself in a problem; it must continue to find and discover new forms and methods of capital accumulation or increase the rate of exploitation (Cogoy, 1987). Capital accumulation, a central tenet of Marxist thought, is quite noticeable in the operational models of MOOC providers. These platforms, often in collaboration with esteemed educational institutions (i.e., Stanford, Harvard, etc.), harness MOOCs as instruments for capital growth. They employ a spectrum of revenue-generating strategies, from the sale of certifications to the provision of premium services or licensing agreements with other universities to funnel students into paid degree programs. This capital growth approach underlines the expansion and structuring of MOOCs, highlighting the capitalist undercurrents that often dictate the course of educational offerings.

The Contradictions of Capital and Crisis

Marx theorises that capitalism is fraught with inherent contradictions that can lead to systemic crises resulting from the contradictions between labour and capital (McLaren, 2005). Within MOOCs, a salient contradiction emerges between the goal of universal educational access and MOOC providers’ for-profit motives. Evidenced within the digital divide, the promise of universal access lies only with those with adequate technological means and digital literacy to partake in MOOCs, becoming a noticeable contradiction in the circulation and exchange of knowledge with the capitalist production of knowledge (McLaren, 2005).

Finally, the industrialised model upon which MOOCs operate can create a sense of alienation among learners and educators by means of surveillance and data exploitation (Andrejevic, 2011). For Marx, alienation refers to the estrangement of people from aspects of their human nature due to being systematically commodified, exploited, and dominated by capitalist modes of production (Comninel, 2019). MOOCs’ mass production model may leave learners isolated and detached from more interactive or at least more intimate traditional face-to-face learning environments. Educators, too, can experience alienation, finding themselves distanced from their labour. Once produced, commodified, and standardised, educators may become alienated and disconnected between the essence of teaching and the creative process of knowledge construction.

The Platform Economy

In the current milieu of the digital data-driven economy, MOOCs are emblematic of the profound transformations from the rise of digital platforms. These transformations can be articulated through several interlinked phenomena such as the datafication, monopolisation, precarisation, centralisation and socialisation of production driven by the commodification and exploitation of labour and fruits of such labour. Ernest Mandel’s profound insights into the economics of late capitalism help to put Marx’s earlier work within the context of current technological and educational developments (Mandel, 1975). Mandel depicts that the capitalist systems are constantly in flux. These are often marked by technological revolutions, shifts in labour dynamics, and the precarious balance between economic growth and stagnation (Mandel, 1975). MOOCs, in essence, resemble the late capitalist phase that Mandel described, where the expansion of the digital marketplace into education reflects the creation of new forms of alienation and exploitation.

There is also the aspect of datafication and monetisation within the platform economy, whereby platforms accumulate vast amounts of data on student behaviour, preferences, and engagement patterns for further commodification and profit accumulation in late-stage capitalism. On the surface, these MOOC platforms point out that such accumulation of data serves to better refine and tailor course offerings in an effort to enhance greater personalisation and improve learning outcomes. However, from a Marxist standpoint, such enthusiasms would be tempered with critical debate on the implications of such datafication—notably, the privacy concerns and the commodification of data exchange of personal information. Cohen (2008) makes similar claims using a Marxist political economy lens through the valorisation of surveillance and data from Facebook (Cohen, 2008). In this view, users are not just learners but also unwitting products. Whereby their data is being monetised to create a new commodity from the traces of the digital breadcrumbs student, leave behind when interacting with their MOOC platform.

The Tendencies of Monopolisation

The platform economy exhibits a natural gravitation towards monopolisation. According to Marx, this process occurs as capitalists seek to increase their capital by absorbing competitors, leading to fewer, larger companies dominating industries (Anyon, 2011). Platforms that successfully leverage network effects can achieve economies of scale that place them at an advantage, often creating barriers for new MOOC providers to join suit. Within the realm of MOOCs, this trend has led to a small number of large providers dominating the market, influencing not only the cost and accessibility of education but also the variety of available courses (i.e., from the humanities and social sciences). Such a concentration of power also affects the bargaining power of those academics who created the content, skewing the educational landscape towards the interests of the few rather than the needs of the many (Noble, 1998).

The Precarisation of Labour

One of the most pronounced effects of the platform economy is the disruption of traditional employment relationships. For Marx, the separation of labour from the means of production through the forces of production left the working class precarious. In modern times, the precarisation of labour has been catalysed by neoliberalism intertwined with the loss of workers’ rights and stagnation of wages (Munck, 2013). For MOOCs, this disruption is evidenced by the casualisation of academic labour. Educators may find themselves not as employees but as freelancers or contractors to those MOOC platforms with greater losses of working rights. These educators may continue to face contingent working conditions that offer decreased job security. This precarity reflects the broader gig economy, where workers rather than employers increasingly bear the risks of their labour (Kezar et al., 2019; Swidler, 2022). This ties into Robert Brenner’s analysis of how capitalist enterprises continually seek new areas for capital investment and growth, often at the expense of public goods, services, and those extracting value (Brenner, 1982). For Brenner, such contradictions and tensions can be seen between the mission of universal access and the realities of market-driven MOOCs.

The Centralisation and Socialisation of Production

Karl Marx’s concept of the socialisation of production is also important to touch on. It explains how productive activities in a society become increasingly interdependent, involving a collective workforce operating systematically and coherently acting in the best interests of the capitalist. Marx suggested that, as capitalism develops, the means of production becomes more concentrated and centralised, requiring the coordinated efforts of many workers to be exploited for the profit of a few (Butola, 2019). By extension, MOOCs facilitate a centralisation of content production, allowing educators from across the globe to contribute to a single platform. This centralisation echoes the Marxist notion of the socialisation of production, where the collective effort is idealised in creating and disseminating knowledge. However, despite the social nature of this production, the profits and control often remain tightly held by the platform owners. This discrepancy highlights a fundamental contradiction within the platform economy, which presents as the disparity between the collective effort in content creation and the private accumulation by dispossession of the resulting capital (Harvey, 2005).

The Open Access Movement

Guided by Marx’s political economy framework through the lens of the platform economy, the attention now shifts to how these factors have influenced the open access movement, which represents a shift towards inclusivity and collective ownership of education globally. Nevertheless, their intersection with the market-driven MOOC platforms presents a series of tensions and paradoxes. For instance, at the heart of the open access movement is the noble aspiration to make educational resources universally available, a vision that MOOCs ostensibly support by offering free or low-cost courses. This model is advertised as a means to democratise education, enabling learners from all walks of life to access knowledge that institutions once had behind closed doors. Nevertheless, from a Marxist critique, ‘free’ access is often a veneer, disguising its capitalist tendencies to acquire more capital. At the same time, certification and advanced content are gated behind such financial barriers. This stratified system of knowledge access potentially reinforces the inequalities that open access aims to dismantle by commodifying knowledge and selling it to those who can afford it.

Collective Ownership and the Division of Labour

The educational commons movement extends the principles of open access into the realm of collective ownership, suggesting that knowledge should not be the province of the individual but rather a shared cultural resource (Means et al., 2017). However, a contradiction emerges when the platforms hosting these educational resources are privately owned and profit-driven. The communal ethos of shared knowledge grates against the reality of privately held platforms that often prioritise financial returns over the collective good, raising questions about who truly ‘owns’ the knowledge and to what end it is being used. The need for financial sustainability can create tension between the open access ethos and the imperative to generate revenue. For example, one of the few open access MOOCs—edX, was recently bought by 2U, which has now turned the company into a for-profit private entity (Inside Higher Ed, 2021). For those MOOCs who have always been private, their tensions are realised when specific educational resources are provided for free. In contrast, others are monetised to support the platform, thus partially eroding the foundation of true open access.

Furthermore, the role of MOOCs in the division of labour could be scrutinised from an Althusserian (i.e., Louis Althusser) perspective. The production of MOOCs often involves the labour of academics and other educational workers whose intellectual work becomes a commodity sold to and by the platform. In this scenario, the academic labour that produces MOOCs may be exploited. Althusser views that a particular apparatus must function in the capitalist relations of production (Althusser, 2006). He called this phenomenon the Ideological State Apparatus, a term used to explain the maintenance of power through institutional coercion (law, police) or institutional consent (i.e., media, education) (Althusser, 2006). By extension, MOOCs could be part of the superstructure within the apparatus that reflects and reinforces the economic base of capitalism through the platform economy.

Intellectual Property Rights vs Educational Commons

The ethos of the open access and educational commons movements often clashes with established norms around intellectual property rights. These movements champion more liberal licensing arrangements that permit the free exchange and alteration of educational materials, challenging the conventional proprietary model. MOOC platforms, operating within the logic of the platform economy, may find themselves at odds with this philosophy, imposing restrictions on the use and distribution of their content to protect intellectual property and maintain revenue streams. This highlights an ongoing conflict and contradiction between the principles of open education and the capitalist imperatives that often underpin the operation of these platforms (Karakilic, 2019). In synthesising these considerations, Marx’s political economy framework helps situate and contextualise current forces evident in MOOCs held within a complex junction between the goals of the educational commons movements and the for-profit motives of MOOCs within the platform economy. This positioning necessitates a nuanced understanding of the challenges and contradictions inherent in MOOCs and offers a broader theoretical underpinning in framing the following ideology critique.

A Conceptual Framing for Critique

Embarking on the exploration of the term’ ideology’ begins with an appreciation of its origins. French Enlightenment philosopher de Tracy first coined the term’ ideology’ to support the liberalist attempt to limit the role of government (Hart, 2002, p. 1). However, Karl Marx strongly opposed de Tracy’s characterisation of ideology for its sympathies and apologies for capitalism. This research aligns with Marx’s claims by rejecting the notion that liberal democracy is a form of real democracy. Instead, the struggle for democracy is, in effect, a struggle against neoliberal capitalism (Wood, 1995). Marx was the first to critique the term and even called de Tracy a “fischblütige Bourgeoisdoktrinär - a fish-blooded bourgeois doctrinaire” (Hart, 2002, p. 2). Perhaps lost in translation, his anger is still evident, although the insult may not be as offensive today as it was at the time.

What Is Ideology?

The term ideology is multifaceted, widely debated, and ever-changing. McLellan (1995, p. 1) recognised it is “the most elusive concept in the whole of social science”. However, a common theme Eagleton (1991) found was how it was intertwined with the concept of power. In agreeance with Eagleton and Crotty (1998), for example, insist, “To study ideology is to study the ways in which meaning (or significance) serves to sustain relations of domination” (p. 18). Geertz (1973) paints a vivid picture of it as “a mask and a weapon, a symptom and a remedy” (p. 38). These nuanced explanations align with the understanding of ideology as a form of social domination. To offer insight into the various working definitions related to ideology, Eagleton (1991, p. 2) provides a brief outline of some uses of the term in circulation within the ideology literature:

• a. the process of production of meanings, signs and values in social life;

• b. a body of ideas characteristic of a particular social group or class;

• c. ideas, which help to legitimate a dominant political power;

• d. false ideas that help to legitimate a dominant political power;

• e. systematically distorted communications;

• f. offering a position for a subject;

• g. forms of thought motivated by social interests;

• h. identity thinking;

• i. socially necessary illusions;

• j. the conjuncture of discourse and power;

• k. the medium in which conscious social actors make sense of their world;

• l. an action-oriented set of beliefs;

• m. the confusion of linguistics and phenomenal reality;

• n. semiotic closure;

• o. the indispensable medium in which individuals live out their relations to a social structure and

• p. the process whereby social life is converted to a natural reality.

Eagleton’s list illustrates that ideology, as a term, is quite contested and complex. For this reason, Stuart Hall’s account of ideology will serve as a helpful working guide:

By ideology, I mean the frameworks, the languages, the concepts, categories, imagery of thought, and the systems of representation - which different classes and social groups deploy in order to make sense of, define, figure out and render intelligible the way society works. The problem of ideology, therefore, concerns the ways in which ideas of different kinds grip the minds of masses, and thereby become a ‘material force’. (Hall, 1997, p. 26)

In this context, ideology refers to socio-cultural ideas and practices that represent and uphold positions of social dominance and political power. Hall’s account allows us to see the coming together of various ideologies as projects of power and dominance, using neoliberalism as an example. As David Harvey (2005) puts it, neoliberalism is a “political project to re-establish the conditions for capital accumulation and to restore the power of economic elites” (p. 27). In other words, neoliberalism as a project employs ideology as a strategic weapon in its pursuit. Education in general, and MOOCs in particular, are battlegrounds of class struggle conducted silently and consensually. Torres (2013), borrowing from Gramsci, refers to this ideological dominance over social thinking and the practices it sustains as a neoliberal historical bloc. For Torres (2013), neoliberalism is not merely an ideological agenda but a pursuit of an entirely new civilisation, whereby capital becomes both the means and the end for education and society. Drawing from these insights, it becomes evident that the intricate relationship ideology has with power allows it to simultaneously sculpt and frame society. In this context, capital serves not only as the guiding force but also the ultimate goal, acting as both the compass and the destination.

Defining Neoliberalism: A Double-Edged Sword

Amid the extensive scholarship surrounding the socio-political critique of neoliberalism (see: Apple, 2000; Bourdieu, 2003; Giroux, 2002, 2004, 2005; Hill, 2008, 2010, 2011; Hill & Kumar, 2008; Levidow, 2002; Torres, 2002); this analysis narrows its lens to uncover the subtle imprints of neoliberal discourse within four prominent MOOC websites. However, to achieve this, it is imperative to first understand what neoliberalism is, both descriptively and normatively. Olssen and Peters (2005) descriptively frame neoliberalism as having these four features: a self-interested individual, free market economics, a commitment to laissez-faire, and a dedication to free trade (p. 314). The deeper normative interpretations see it as an apparatus that orchestrates the transfer of wealth from the many to an elite minority. In other words, it is a mechanism that facilitates the dispossession of wealth through capital. Harvey (2005) coins this phenomenon as “accumulation by dispossession” (p. 166). In his view, neoliberalism constitutes a political endeavour by the global elite, entailing the flow of wealth from the masses into the hands of the privileged through processes like financialisation, privatisation, and the deliberate instigation of artificial crises.

Neoliberalism in Practice: Contradictions and Concealments

Neoliberalism has a persistent focus on the self-responsible and self-interested individual. While classical liberals share many values with neoliberals, such as constitutionalism, meritocracy, freedom of religion, and free trade (Donohue, 2003). Neoliberalism distinguishes itself by seeking to curtail government intervention even further, assuming that the role of the ‘invisible hand’ of the market, to function without interference. It assumes this provides the best outcome for all individuals. However, in reality, neoliberalism is practised and implemented by neoliberal governments, contradicting the belief in limited government. Harvey (2005) recognises the “genius of neoliberal theory to provide a benevolent mask full of wonderful-sounding words like freedom, liberty, choice, and rights, to hide the grim realities of the restoration or reconstitution of naked class power” (p. 127). This research sets out to examine the use of such benign words in the context of these four case studies in the following chapters.

In this next section, readers are invited to explore the profound insights offered by the prison writings of Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1971). During his time in prison under the fascist rule of Mussolini in Italy from 1926 to 1937, Gramsci theorised how particular ideologies of his time became so powerful. His writings unearthed the machinations that led certain ideologies of his era to attain dominance. Gramsci’s concepts derived from his lived experiences of persecution during his time in incarceration and the political and personal struggles he fought as the leader of the Italian Communist Party before his imprisonment (Cox, 1983). Arguably, the most well-known aspect of his work was the theoretical development of ‘common sense’ and ‘cultural hegemony’.

Gramsci’s Concept of ‘Common Sense’

In Gramsci’s lexicon, ‘common sense’ had a different interpretation from that of contemporary English today as something that is obviously self-evident or rational. For Gramsci, common sense was the “philosophy of the non-philosophers” (Nun & Cartier, 1986, p. 218): the domain of uncritical interpretation. Though, Gramsci did not see common sense as universal. Neither did he see it reflecting a single viewpoint to which all individuals were easily convinced (Nun & Cartier, 1986). Instead, common sense indicated how the subaltern (i.e., working class) variously interpreted ideologies with opposing or compatible common sense(s) co-occurring. Rupert (2003) appropriately illustrates that this can manifest as complementary ‘common senses’, where an individual might identify with a ‘mainstream’ culture while belonging to a smaller social subculture. Still, the various complementary and conflicting levels of common senses leave the subaltern (i.e., Gramsci’s terminology for the working-class masses) fragmented and disorganised. Such fragmentation serves the ruling classes’ interests to deliberately promote uncoordinated strategies to keep the masses spontaneous and instinctual in their ideologies (Rupert, 2003). Common vernacular such as, “theres nothing I can do to change the system” leaves minimal room for even ‘reactionary groups’ to provoke change.

Gramsci (1971, p. 630) observed that individuals often find themselves confined by their norms and worldviews through a dialectical relationship between thought and action. These norms keep the working class intellectually subordinated through instinctual ‘common senses’. In essence, Gramsci (1971, p. 632) contended that conformist mainstream ideologies, or ‘common senses’, become deeply entrenched in a society’s myths, traditions, and religion, rendering them impervious to social change. The effect of these ‘common senses’ leaves the working class bewildered, fragmented, and uncritically spontaneous. One might be excused to think of this as a pre-programmed auto-pilot. Yet, Gramsci argued that individuals build their own ideological prison when they assume and accept that the elite’s interests coincide with those of everyone. The ruling class’s interests collectively formulate the world’s various ‘common senses’. Gramsci noticed that for real change to occur, it had to be driven by the working class and not by a small group of academic intellectuals (myself included). He believed anyone could be a philosopher, whereby everyone has the capacity to see contradictions, confinements, and inconsistencies in the making of common sense.

The Rise of Organic Intellectuals and Counter-Hegemony

One example of how one becomes a philosopher is through mass-scale movements such as “Occupy Wall Street”, which saw people across many countries protesting against capitalist rule. The Black Lives Matter movement serves as another example of the masses facing against racial discrimination. The point here is that the notion of common sense is central to developing a counter-hegemonic campaign. For Gramsci, this required a ‘philosophy of praxis’: a practical philosophy developed by the subaltern’s own ‘organic intellectuals’ that would foster the subaltern’s own self-aware ‘good sense’. The end goal was to encourage the emergence of organic intellectuals. Organic intellectuals speak, feel, and share the experiences and interests of the working class. These intellectuals achieved this by reflecting the lived experiences and cultural conditions of working-class interests as universal interests. Gramsci believed that developing organic working-class intellectuals could challenge and disrupt the ideological domination of the ruling class. Freire (1970) exemplifies an organic intellectual who championed the interests of the working class and led the critical pedagogy movement in the 1970s. His work aimed at critiquing the dominant educational narratives that students come to the class as ‘empty vessels’ ready for knowledge to be dispensed into them. Rather, the purpose of education for Freire (1970) was to raise the critical consciousness of students to understand hegemonic systems of oppression, most notably stated in his book ‘Pedagogy of the Oppressed’. Gramsci and Freire both envisioned a transformative education system where the working class, armed with critical consciousness and led by organic intellectuals, could unshackle themselves from the chains of hegemonic oppression and reshape the societal narratives written by the elite. However, to do so, Gramsci (1971) provided insight into ‘hegemony’ as a starting point to the unshackling, whereby the ruling class’s worldview is seen as the only reasonable reality.

Hegemony and Legitimisation of Ideology

As an ideology gains consensus by the masses, it becomes legitimised as the only possible worldview. Thus, society comes to develop particular “common sense” interpretation(s) of the world. Over time, certain ideologies become more dominant and privileged than others and, as a result, become hegemonic. Gramsci (1971) proposed that individuals are not forced to hold certain beliefs but rather are consensual actors in legitimising the ruling classes’ ideologies. For example, as the state forces a particular ideology through the police and the law, civil society provides a framework of consent enacted through institutions, i.e., education, media, and culture. Once naturalised, the ideology becomes so ingrained that it instils particular common senses in individuals as if they portray things as “how things are” (Brooker, 1999, p. 39). Understanding the distinctive yet reinforcing roles of the state and civil society allows one to see the interplay between institutional repression and ideological manipulation. In other words, hegemony is achieved (but never wholly) through both coercion and consent.

Applying Gramsci to MOOCs: A Dynamic Battleground

Gramsci’s insights are utilised in this book to bring these concepts into the conception of MOOCs. Crucially, hegemony is not a static state of ideological manipulation. Instead, it indicates a continual process of shaping, limiting, redefining, and perpetuating the dominant classes’ ideas. In this way, MOOCs can be expected to be a site of ideological struggle. This study explores the common-sense understandings of MOOCs by scrutinising the rhetorical slogans, or what Harvey (2005) calls “wonderful sounding words” (p. 127), on four MOOC websites. Education is a contested arena, embroiled in an ideological battle over meaning, where ideologies constantly compete for dominance. Gramsci (1971) refers to this as a cultural war of position. The end goal is to offer counter-hegemonic narratives to MOOCs to counterbalance the dominant discourses of progression within them. For Gramsci, the war of position is a struggle and remains non-absolute. Hegemony is never guaranteed. Other hegemonies are always possible. There is always the possibility that common sense can be cut from its ideological moorings to give freedom and legitimacy to ‘good sense’. Education is an integral part of the struggle for this freedom and legitimacy.

Common sense and hegemony share a significant intersection, where conformity of the masses compels them to believe the ruling class’s ideas are in their best interest (Gramsci, 1971, p. 326). Conformity transpires when traditional conceptions of the world are borrowed from another group without any critical thought. Hence, it allows certain beliefs to become so universal that they become naturalised and become a part of an individual’s common sense of the world. Once naturalised, individuals in any social order become conditioned to normalising these ideologies. Over time, these common senses are rarely questioned and ultimately become “hegemonic”.

The Analytical Parameters

Gramsci offers a set of social conditions that provide the basis for inferring the manifestation of hegemony. These conditions are now applied in the context of MOOCs and neoliberal hegemony. These conditions serve as a yardstick not necessarily to demystify the workings of hegemony within MOOCs but rather to discern the push and pull of hegemonic and counter-hegemonic forces manifesting through MOOCs. The first is that there must be an existing ruling class (“the elite”) who aim to sustain and extend a set of social relations (power) that ultimately work in their favour. These “elites” must also have access and control of the means of production in an effort to extract value from it. For example, the elite in MOOCs include the many venture capitalists and corporations who have invested hundreds of millions in sponsoring the movement. The second condition is the marginalisation of viable alternatives—relegated to the periphery as exemplified by c-MOOCs, the pioneers of the term, which rarely receive media or scholarly attention. The third condition is that it must foster consent, whereby a set of common senses must be so infused that the working class see no disjunction between themselves and the ruling class, erasing any perceived dichotomies between the masses and the elite. Given these points, the final condition is to develop a set of subjectivities whereby social relations can be legitimised (Gramsci cited in Torres, 2013, p. 98). In the case of the current research, determinations can be made on whether the discourses of MOOCs have become so normalised that individuals see MOOCs as no different or even better than the existing academy. The case studies will be examined in light of the hegemonic parameters outlined above, with the findings presented in Chapter 9.

Introduction to Historical Blocs and Gramsci’s Theories

On a broader historical scale, Gramsci (1971) employed the term’ historical bloc’ to describe the alignment of different class interests and actors over time. A historic bloc is a hegemonic force that becomes so powerful that it pervades the very logic of society, ushering a new common sense in the world or what Torres (2013) calls a new civilising project. A historic bloc cannot develop merely through the coercive and consensual mechanisms of state and civil society. It must also include the ethical, intellectual, and moral alignments between various classes and social forces. Doing so with such omnipotence that it recalibrates the social logic by conferring legitimacy from such alignment.

Torres (2013) argues that a new neoliberal historic bloc has already emerged. Based upon seventeen different interpretations of neoliberal common sense, Torres (2013) discusses how neoliberalism has pervaded every facet of contemporary education. Others, such as Adam (2019), argue that the historic bloc presents itself as digital neocolonialism in the service of neoliberalism. In line with Gramscian thought, however, MOOCs must also involve the alignment of state and non-state actors if it is to be considered part of a broader historical bloc. For example, such a historic bloc may involve aligning universities, governments, corporations, and international bodies in favour of MOOCs. The current research will apply the social conditions of hegemony and historic bloc to determine whether MOOCs resemble a new ethical-moral material force within education. The end goal is to offer space for counter-hegemonic sites of struggle to be realised.

The Role of Knowledge in Hegemony

The other contribution Gramsci’s (1971) work has made to this inquiry is his consideration that knowledge is socially constructed, politically motivated, and historically situated. The current study uses his theories to examine how MOOCs sustain the interests of a new neoliberal historic bloc. It questions and highlights the contested war of position surrounding education. Within the context of MOOCs and neoliberal hegemony, it can be posited that a new historical bloc is emerging in which venture capitalists, corporations, and neoliberal governments collaborate to sustain and extend a particular set of social relations that serve their interests. Through the financial backing and rhetorical framing of MOOCs, this bloc has successfully marginalised alternative educational frameworks, notably c-MOOCs, thereby monopolising the discourse surrounding online education. The analysis herein elucidates how this historical bloc leverages the common-sense understanding of education to instil hegemonic neoliberal values.

It is within these dimensions that the intricate and often invisible mechanics of ideology manifest, not merely as a set of ideas but as a pervasive tool for social domination. This analytical frame has been used to dissect the four prominent MOOC platforms, offering a disquieting revelation of the subliminal imprints of neoliberalism. Just as Gramsci illuminated how ideology works through ‘common senses’ to maintain the status quo, this analysis exposes how MOOCs, veiled in the buzzwords of empowerment and accessibility in reality, facilitate the extension of neoliberal principles. These platforms operate not as neutral pedagogical spaces but as highly politicised realms, wherein the very language and architecture are complicit in the entrenchment of a particular kind of market rationality.

Gramsci’s concept of hegemony and Harvey’s idea of ‘accumulation by dispossession’ find a complex, modern interplay in the online space of MOOCs. The study advances Gramsci’s war of position into online learning, revealing the pedagogical landscape as a contested arena embroiled in cultural and ideological warfare over education. Within this war, the emerging historical bloc will be evaluated using MOOCs to examine if and how the consensual power of ‘common sense’ fosters a naturalised set of social relations, thereby advancing its hegemonic agenda of commercialising education. It is within these intricate dynamics that the future of education is currently being negotiated and where new forms of resistance must be articulated. As the subsequent chapters will illustrate, while hegemony is formidably pervasive, it is never complete, and the scope for counter-hegemonic narratives to emerge remains a compelling field of investigation. Therefore, this study not only demystifies the veiled workings of neoliberal ideologies within MOOCs but also lays the groundwork for future research aimed at fostering counter-narratives that can challenge the extant power dynamics in digital education. In doing so, the subsequent chapter explains the conceptual framework employed and discusses how fellow social researchers can adapt and utilise this methodology for their digital artefacts. Ultimately, it discusses the methodology (ideology critique), scope (case studies), the method (ideological criticism) and the techniques (ideographs) it employs.