Crises in Education, Crises of Education
Glenn Rikowski,
Visiting
Scholar, Department of Education, Anglia Ruskin University, UK
A paper prepared for the Philosophy of Education
Seminars at the University of London Institute of Education 2014-15 Programme,
22nd October 2014.
INTRODUCTION
The capitalist crisis of 2007-09
cast a grim shadow over social existence in developed Western nations. The
fallout from the banking crash of September 2008 post-Lehman cascaded over
welfare, health, social services and education provision in the form of
austerity measures, the drive to cut sovereign debt levels, the erosion of
workers’ living standards and vicious service cuts and taxes aimed at the poor
and disadvantaged (e.g. the bedroom tax in the UK).
On the back of
this maelstrom, the Journal of Education
Policy (JEP) celebrated its 25th anniversary by running a
special issue on ‘Education, Capitalism and the Global Crisis’ in 2010[1].
The JEP is to be congratulated on unveiling articles addressing relationships
between the crisis of 2007-09 and education: it was unusual for a mainstream
education journal to dedicate a whole issue to this topic. However, with the
possible exception of Clarke and Newman’s (2010) contribution[2]
it could be concluded that little progress has been made in understanding
relations between capitalist crises and education since Madan Sarup’s classic Education, State and Crisis: A Marxist
Perspective of 1982. Furthermore, there seemed to be a coy elision
regarding the constitution of crisis within
or of education itself. The crisis of
2007-09 was basically ‘economic’ in nature, it appears, with various spill-over
effects for education: e.g. cuts in expenditure, deepening educational
inequalities and rationing of access to higher education (Jones, 2010). Thus:
education crisis was derivative of, and consequential upon, economic crisis.
Furthermore, the economy, or the ‘economic’ system (for structuralists) is the
starting point for analysis of education crisis.
The
notion that an ‘education crisis’ can only ever be derivative of a capitalist
economic one begs the question as to whether all crises can only ever be basically economic in nature; only
‘economic’ crises fundamentally put either the whole capitalist economy and
society at risk, or, are the foundation for crises in other parts of the social
system but still basically ‘economic’ in nature; thereby generating spectres of
reductionism, economic determinism and crude renditions of historical
materialism. On the other hand, references to ‘crisis’ litter media reports and
academic outputs in relation to all kinds of topics – and there is nearly
always some kind of ‘education crisis’ foregrounded by the print media. In
terms of everyday usage the concept appears to have extensive legitimacy,
though Gamble notes that ‘the term crisis [is] being thrown around fairly
indiscriminately in everyday discourse’ (2009, p.7).[3]
It should be
borne in mind that the concept of crisis can be traced back to the writings of
Hippocrates (c. 460 – c. 370 B.C.) in ancient Greece, where it was used in
relation to medicine, specifically indicating the turning point in the course
of a disease or medical condition. In such writings as Epidemics, Book 1, Hippocrates used the concept of crisis to denote
the point (the turning point) at
which a patient either began to make a recovery from illness, or the disease
won out and death resulted (Hippocrates, 1983). Furthermore, reading the
ground-breaking work on crisis by Janet Roitman (2011 and 2014), which built on
the classic text on the topic by Reinhart Koselleck (1988), indicated that an
exploration of the concept of crisis beyond the economic sphere could be a
worthwhile project. Maybe there could be essentially ‘education crises’ after
all, and with this in view, this paper is structured into three parts, as
follows.
Part 1 begins
with a rudimentary outline of the concept of crisis. Madan Sarup’s (1982)
classical theory of education crisis is then explored, coupled with some
evidence showing that Sarup’s approach still has relevance for today (with
contemporary examples drawn from the United States, Australia and England). It
is demonstrated how contemporary accounts of the 2007-09 economic crisis could
supplement and deepen Sarup’s account, whilst also avoiding the issue of the possibility of definitive education
crises. This is followed by a brief outline and review of some work by Vincent
Carpentier (2003, 2006a-b and 2009), which, although manifesting more
sophistication (and much better data) as compared with Sarup’s classic work,
nevertheless falls prey to subsuming education crises under economic
developments. In the same context, David Blacker’s work on The Falling Rate of Learning and the Neoliberal Endgame (2013) is
examined. This is an attempt to apply Marx’s notion of the tendency of the rate
of profit to fall (TRPF) (via the work of Kliman, 2012) to developments in
education in the United
States (primarily). Blacker stamps the TRPF
on contemporary education and thereby develops an original account of education
crisis. Yet nevertheless, his rendering of education crisis is still derivative
of economic crisis. Blacker also fails to pin down what a falling rate of learning actually is. He prefers to focus on a fall
in the mass of learning and the
elimination of learning, instead. These developments rest on economic, but also
environmental, crisis. This first part of the paper ends with a brief critique
of Crisis Fundamentalism: the notion that real, bona fide crises can only be economic ones. This is what the
concept of crisis in education is
concerned with.
Part
2 takes another tack: a different starting
point, an alternative methodological approach. Rather than viewing
education crises as flowing from economic ones, it explores the concept of
education and what it is to be an ‘educated person’, and then seeks out
possibilities for education crises within educational phenomena, institutions,
processes and ethics. Such crises are crises of education, it is argued. The work of R.S. Peters (via Robin
Barrow, 2011) is the focus here. There is an attempt to work through what an
‘education crisis’ might be on the basis of Barrow’s rendition of what he
(Barrow) takes to be the four key components of Peters’ conception of the
educated person. The discussion of some of the consequences of this approach is
deepened through bringing the work of Janet Roitman (2011, 2014) to the
keyboard. Rather than providing a history of the concept of crisis, as in
Koselleck (1988), or providing a new (and improved) concept of crisis, Roitman
shows the various ways in which the concept has been, and can be, put to work. Hence, Roitman’s approach
to crisis is ‘put to work’ on R.S. Peters’ work on the educated person, pace Barrow. The last base in Part 2
examines the notion of ‘education for its own sake’ and what I call ‘island
pedagogy’, flowing from the work of Furedi (2004a and 2009) and his followers.
The argument here is that this approach to education crisis falls either into
an ethics of blame or conjures up an education Colossus; a kind of Nietzschean
figure with a monumental drive to learn and teach, unsullied by material
interests and motivations. This approach is also basically idealist,
transhistorical and sociologically naïve. It is also the flipside of Crisis
Fundamentalism (education crises derive from economic ones – crises in education): quintessentially
education crises can only arise
within the educational sphere itself – leading to a kind of Educational Crisis
Idealism (crises of education).
The Conclusion
argues that we need to think about crisis in relation to education and economy
in a new way: such crises are not essentially ‘education’ or ‘economic’ in
nature. An anti- (rather than post-) structuralist perspective rooted in class
struggle is advanced as a way forward, and neither Crisis Fundamentalism
(crises in education) nor Educational
Crisis Idealism (crises of education)
will do. It also discusses the question of whether, and why, exploring the
issue of crisis and education is a worthwhile pursuit for critical educators
and theorists and for those who wish to move beyond capitalist education and
society.
The whole paper can be downloaded at Academia: http://www.academia.edu/8953489/Crises_in_Education_Crises_of_Education
Glenn Rikowski at
Academia: http://independent.academia.edu/GlennRikowski
[1]
Journal of
Education Policy, Vol.25 No.6,
November, edited by Stephen Ball, Meg Maguire and Ivor Goodson. A book based on
this special 25th Anniversary was produced by the same three
editors, also called Education,
Capitalism and the Global Crisis, in 2012 (Ball et al, 2012) – but with some additional articles.
[2]
Clarke and Newman (2010) explore the notion that
crises are ‘socially constructed’ and the roles discourse and social power play
in these constructions.
[3]
See also: ‘Crisis is much overused in everyday
discourse. 24-hour news lives by manufacturing crisis. Most of them are
entirely ephemeral. Any event that is in any way out of the ordinary or where
there appears to be conflict and the outcome is uncertain becomes labelled a
crisis’ (Gamble, 2010, p.704).
No comments:
Post a Comment