Deconstructive Exec.Ed: are these tenets executivezen?

Time to recap over a work-in-progress stipulation of a deconstructive philosophy of executive education (executivezen does intend to elaborate on this somewhat staccato list in the rest of the blog). A deconstructive writing (learning design) and reading (consumption) of an exec.ed text (e.g. events or contexts) includes the following elements:

• learning without a learner is the equivalent of orthodoxy, cannon, knowledge
• there is a metaphysics in education and in exec.ed. Akin to a belief in the absolute of management, of research-led education, of research in general
• a deconstructive approach to studying exec.ed is one vigilant of stepping back into the more doctrinaire metaphysical assumptions (above) that surround exec.ed
• there is a symbolic value of exec.ed which a deconstructive approach reveals
• exec.ed is full of aporia – blindspots
• just as deconstruction welcomes uncertainty, promotes comfort with uncertainty and values the multiple readings of a (educational/learning) text, so too is my approach to writing (designing) exec.ed
• a deconstructive analysis of exec.ed texts reveals the binary opposites that are the mother-tongue of management
• exec.ed is not neutral in the same way that deconstruction is not neutral
• exec.ed should take sides – i.e. openness, difference & movement, rather than closure, identity & stasis.
• there is no final vocabulary for exec.ed
• a deconstructive approach to writing and reading exec.ed texts promotes granular political acts
• all developmental tools can work to realise individual and group political action
• a deconstructive exec.ed text stands for dissent, destabilisation, dissolution and disruption of orthodoxy
• exec.ed is revolutionary (emancipatory)
• invention must take place exec.ed, disrupting institutional norms
• exec.ed is about opening uncloseting aporias
• exec.ed is an experience of the impossible

Invention

According to Derrida (Acts of Literature, 1992) invention is not invention if it does not break with existing institutional procedures. How true this is of innovation and the behavioural & attitudinal inventions from a process of learning! When coupled (in the previous posts) with the overt political functions of exec.ed, invention within and for the subject of education serves to open up the present in order to let the other come: opening, uncloseting, destabilising foreclusionary structures.

Then, exec.ed is an experience of the impossible in that it involves the coming about of something other in the ‘impossible’ above.

Is there a distinction between exec.ed and personal learning? Where personal learning can be changed, added to, is subject to conditions and is modifiable: and where exec.ed is that in the name of which personal learning is modified, added to, is subject to conditions and is modifiable. So that exec.ed is a metaphysical condition of personal learning – um, not sure. But this would mean that exec.ed cannot be experienced other than through personal learning. It is in this way that exec.ed is IMPOSSIBLE.

Is there an unconditional type of exec.ed? That is, does there exist a distinction between contingent or conditional exec.ed and absolute or unconditional exec.ed? Executivezen is not sure if unconditional exec.ed is possible, given that it cannot be experienced other than through personal learning. Maybe, though, this personal learning/exec.ed distinction is untenable. Could this distinction exist in the same way as the distinction between conditional law and unconditional justice? Is the parallel mapping between education and learning?