Prolegomenon to interorganisational relationships involving the administration of education

Human history is marked by progressive stages of dominant human interrelation patterns. Marx examined these patterns and believed that history could be understood as a variation on a Fichtian science of material dialectics where a thesis would meet its antithesis, and a new synthesis would emerge from the violent struggle found at their intersection. This dissertation takes a slightly different perspective, concentrating on the contemporary stage of dominant human interrelation patterns, their origin, and consequences from an educational organisation perspective. This is an emerging discussion of the foundational and philosophical structures of interorganisational relationships involving educational administration. Beginning with a discussion of the origins and development of contemporary relational structures writ large—in terms of social, political, and economic antecedents—I show how their convergence around a dual falsehood has produced a self-perpetuating dominance in the modern era. The dual falsehood is manifest in the conflation of science and technology, and social Darwinist assumptions of human nature. Misunderstanding the nature of this dual falsehood, proponents of post-modernity are exposed as providing an anaemic or counterproductive response to the problems of modernity. I explore the particular problems of modernity faced by education as a general area of study and practice, and educational administration more specifically. The root of these problems is demonstrated in a misalignment of (a) dominant relational structures falsely self-declaring their basis in science, and (b) education as a genuine scientific pursuit (as defined herein). I further explore psychopathologies of relationships when negotiated in terms of such false self-declared and contextually dominant beliefs. The implications of psychopathological relationship negotiations are discussed for educational administration and strategies are explored for educational leadership and advocacy. Two stages of correction for the dominant issues described herein are posited on behalf of educational organisations. Stage one advocates the construction of a singular definition of pedagogy for public consumption. Stage two articulates areas of responsibility for various intraorganisational elements within education. The purpose of stage two is to disseminate widespread propaganda based upon Habermas’ (1970) communicative competence to eradicate dysfunctional communication that perpetuates the dominance of modern and post-modern relational structures. Furthermore, stage two advocates the adoption of Mouffe’s agonistic position for interorganisational relations between education and non-education entities. Stages are to be evaluated in terms of an adaptation upon Giddens’ (1979) analysis of sedimented practices of educational administration within the context of the Mouffian (2005) political