FAQ's References
[1] AMAT’s objects are:
“to establish and maintain a comprehensive health and welfare service related to the human reproductive process and its control (whether by means of contraception, sterilization, abortion or otherwise) and to that end to establish, provide and maintain hospitals and clinics and surgical, medical, pharmaceutical, counselling and welfare services
to arrange and conduct lectures meetings and classes and to publish and disseminate literature and to do all other things to educate the public in the facts of human reproduction and the human reproductive process and of all matters concerning reproductive health and well-being physical and social” (AMAT Trust Deed).
[2] Hansmann, H. (1980). ‘The role of nonprofit enterprise’, in Oster, Sharon, (Ed.) (1994) Management of Non-Profit Organisations, Sydney: Dartmouth, 59. Le Grand, J. & L. Robinson. (1984). Privatisation and the Welfare State. London: Allen & Unwin, p.6. Smith S., & Lipsky, M. (1993) Non Profits for Hire: The Welfare State in the Age of Contracting, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, p. 37.
[3] Peters M. & Roberts, P. (1998). ‘Introduction’ in M. Peters and P. Roberts (Eds.). Virtual Technologies and Tertiary Education. Palmerston North: Dunmore Press, p. 29.
[4] For a sample of this discourse, see: A Prospectus for the Western Virtual University (1996). http://www.westgov.org/ smart/vu/wvuprorp.html. Bell, D. (1976). The Coming of the Post-Industrial Society: A Venture in Social Forecasting. Basic Books. (1973 original edition). Block, F. (1990). Post Industrial Possibilities: A Critique of Economic Discourse. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Borgman, A. (1984). Technology and the Character of Contemporary Life: A Philosophical Inquiry. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Borgman, A. (1993). Crossing the Postmodern Divide, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Castells, M. (1989). The Informational City: Information Technology, Economic Restructuring and the Urban- Regional Process. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers. Fitzsimons, P. (1998). Electronic networks and education in the postmodern condition, in Peters, M., and Roberts, P. (Eds.) Virtual Technologies in Tertiary Education. Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press, pp. 196-211. Gee, J and Lankshear, C. (1994). ‘The New Work Order: Critical Language Awareness and ‘Fast Capitalist’ Texts’. In: Discourse: Studies in the cultural Politics of Education, 16 1: 5-20. Ministry of Education. (1994b). Education for the 21st Century. Wellington: New Zealand. Information Infrastructure Advisory Council. (1995) Common Ground: Fundamental Principles for the National Information Infrastructures. First Report (Http://stargate.con-ed.howard.e…chives/common ground.html#access). Peters, M. (Ed). (1995). Education and the Postmodern Condition. Westport, Connecticut: Bergin and Harvey. (Forword by J-F Lyotard.). Poster, M. (1994). ‘A Second Media Age?’ Hinkson, J, G Sharp and D White (eds). ARENA Journal North Carlton, Australia: Arena Printing and Publishing, 3: 49-92. Lanham, R. (1993). The Electronic Word: Democracy, Technology and the Arts. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Masuda, Y. (1981). The Information Society as Post-Industrial Society. Washington: World Future Society. Poster, M. (1990). The Mode of Information: Poststructuralism and Social Context. Cambridge, U.K: Polity Press. Postman, N. (1993). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology. New York: Vintage Books. Reich, Robert. (1992). The Work of Nations: Preparing Ourselves for 21st Century Capitalism. New York: Vintage Books. Rosenau, P-M. (1992). Post-Modernism And The Social Sciences: Insights, Inroads, And Intrusions. Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press. Touraine, A. (1995). Critique of Modernity. Trans. D. Macey. Oxford: Blackwell. Vattimo, G. (1992). The Transparent Society. Cambridge: Polity Press. (Trans. David Webb). Weedon, C. (1987). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. London: Blackwell. Zuboff, S. (1989). In The Age of the Smart Machine: The Future of Work and Power. USA: Basic Books. Harvey, D. (1989) The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of Cultural Change, Cambridge: Blackwell.
[5] See the literature on cybernetic organisms e.g., Gray, C. (1995). (Ed.). The Cyborg Handbook. New York: Routledge. See also Wilkie, T. (1993). Perilous Knowledge: The Human Genome Project and its Implications. London: Faber and Faber.
[6] “Poster (1993) argues that these matters and the restraints or enhancements upon them can govern with striking force the shape that societies take. For him technicist approaches do not approach the heart of the matter, “the configuration of information exchange”, or as he calls it “the wrapping of language”. He argues that the configuration of language is an analytically autonomous realm of experience especially with the rapidly changing modes of electronic communication that not only alter but restructure networks of social relations and constitute subjects in very different ways to the personally autonomous agent of the second stage and any representational view of language. Changes in the wrapping of language then alter the way meanings are derived, restructure social relations, constitute the subject in different ways, and alter the relations between subject and the world”. [Peters, M.A., Marshall, J. and Fitzsimons, P. (1999) ‘Postmodernism and the New Theology of the Curriculum’. In: Lankshear, C., Peters, M.A., Alba, A., and Gonzales, E. Curriculum in the Postmodern Condition, New York, Peter Lang].
[7] Neoliberalism is a form of power relations. It constructs the notion of the minimalist state through the legal, institutional and cultural conditions that will enable the artificial competitive game of entrepreneurial conduct to be played to the best effect. Entrepreneurial conduct requires neoliberalism to promote enterprise culture where there is a “generalisation of an enterprise form to all forms of conduct and the promotion of enterprise culture through invented forms” [Burchell, G. (1993). ‘Liberal Government and Techniques of Self’. Economy and Society. Special Issue: Liberalism, Neo -liberalism and Governmentality, 22, 3: p. 276].
[8] Peters M. & Roberts, P. (1998). ibid, p. 24.
[9] These practices are alive and well in New Zealand. See e.g., Murphy, L. (1996). ‘Zoo likely to go to trust, not private’. Wellington: The Dominion. Murphy reports “The Wellington City Council is considering a charitable trust to oversee its zoo. The Council could then distance itself from it, but still retain some control”. See also Wolch, J. (1990) The Shadow State: Government and the Voluntary Sector in Transition, New York: The Foundation Center.
[10] Bolger, J. (1995a) Investing In Our Future: Towards 2010: Companion document to the 1995 Budget Policy Statement, Wellington: New Zealand Government. Bolger, J. (1995b). Strategic Result Areas for the Public Sector 1994-1997, Parliament Buildings, Wellington: New Zealand Government.
[11] Bolger 1995b, Ibid p.3.
[12] “Yet it is also the place where our sense of ourselves, our subjectivity, is constructed. The assumption that subjectivity is constructed implies that it is not innate, not genetically determined, but socially produced. Subjectivity is produced in a whole range of discursive practices – economic, social, and political – the meanings of which are a constant site of struggle over power. Language is not the expression of unique individuality: it constructs the individual’s subjectivity in ways which are socially specific… subjectivity is neither unified nor fixed. Unlike humanism, which implies a conscious knowing, unified, rational subject, postmodernism theories ouf subjectivity as a site of disunity and conflict, are central to the process of political change and to preserving the status quo” [Weedon, Chris. (1987). Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. London: Blackwell. P. 21)]
[13] Interpretation is the philosophical method employed to make sense of a ‘text’ (i.e., in the broadest sense, what we read, e.g., printed materials, film, art, computers, practices etc). Technically, the method is called hermeneutics and has been documented as far back as the Bible.
[14] Foucault, M. (1977). Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews And Other Writings 1972-1977. (Trans. C. Gordon, L. Marshall, J. Mepham, K. Soper). Great Britain: The Harvester Press.
[15] Sassons, S. (1996). Losing Control?: Sovereignty in the age of Globalization. New York: Columbia University Press.
[16] Holton, 1998: 9-10.
[17] Sassons, ibid p.1
[18] The Adoption (Intercountry) Act 1997
[19] Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Vol. 1, (Oxford: Blackwell Publishers).
[20] Bowen, R. (1999) Visionaries flourish in knowledge revolution, New Zealand Herald, February 12, C2.
[21] Thurow, L. (1996). The Future of Capitalism: How Today’s Economic Forces Will Shape Tomorrow’s World. Sydney: Allen & Unwin, p.68.
[22] Sassons, ibid, p. 17
[23] The new ways are complex, hybrid, non-linear, reflexive, and heterogeneous. It is a new mode of production of information as opposed to commodities. It crosses disciplinary boundaries in that it contributes theoretical structures, research methods, and modes of practice that are not located on current disciplinary or interdisciplinary frameworks. One of its effects is to replace or reform established institutions, practices, and policies. Problem contexts are transient and problem solvers mobile. Emerging out of wider societal and cognitive pressures, knowledge is dynamic. There is continuous mutual stimulation between various nodes in a dense worldwide communication network. As a result, new configurations are continuously generated.
[24] Lyotard, J-F. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. (Theory and History of Literature, 10). Minnesota: University of Minnesota Press.
[25] Lyotard, ibid p. xxiii. See also Foray, D. & Lundvall, B. (1996) The knowledge-based economy: From the economics of knowledge to the learning economy, in: Employment and Growth in the Knowledge-based Economy OECD Documents Paris: Oecd. Peters, M. (1995). ‘Education and the Postmodern Condition: Revisiting J-F Lyotard’. Journal of Philosophy of Education. The Journal of the Philosophy of Education Society of Great Britiain, 29,3: 387-400. Peters, M. (Ed). (1995). Education and the Postmodern Condition. (Forword by J-F Lyotard). Westport, Connecticut: Bergin and Harvey.
[26] Lyotard, ibid p. 3.
[27] Ibid p. 4
[28] ibid, p.6
[29] ibid p.7
[30] Feenberg, A. (1991). Critical Theory of Technology , New York: Oxford University Press. See also Ellul, J. (1984). The Technological Society. (Trans. J. Wilkinson), New York; Vintage Books.
[31] Heidegger, M. (1977). The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays. (Trans. with Intro. W. Lovitt). New York: Harper & Row, p. 4.
[32] McLuhan, M. (1964). Understanding Media. New York: McGraw Hill, p.46.
[33] For an account of an electronic system that wills its own development independent of human agency i.e., its will to will — see Fitzsimons, P. (1998). Electronic networks and education in the postmodern condition, in Peters, M. and P. Roberts (Eds.) Virtual Technologies in Tertiary Education. Palmerston North: The Dunmore Press, pp. 196-211.
[34] Nietzsche, F. (1968) The Will to Power. (Trans. W. Kaufmann and R. J. Hollingdale) Ed. W. Kaufmann. Random House: New York.
[35] This has been in place since 1993.
