This is a paper that I wrote as the final assignment for AH 5003.001 Radical Philosophy and Education in the Summer of 2008. (course instructor: John baldacchino)
Even though it was written in the 1960s, I find Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society still hold very refreshing views on the whole notion of schooling and education. As a person who was brought up with the belief of schooling is the sole way out to a better life and who has been within the school system for more than thirty years, reading Deschooling Society is a tremendous challenge to me. It is challenging as to deconstruct the sacred belief in schooling that has been engraved into my sense, piece by piece, through out the last four decades is equivalent to an impossible mission. However, once attempt to understand his views away from the preconceived judgmental perspectives; I realized it is not difficult to comprehend and to go beyond Illich’s criticism on the institutionalization of education. His proposition for decentralization of education, or deinstitutionalization of values, as he put it, becomes extremely fascinating. Fascinating as it is, the establishment of the current schooling system has unfortunately lead to a no turning back evolvement in the social structure and its reciprocal relation with the economical systems has transformed the institution into a gigantic hegemonic dinosaur that marginalized Illich’s endeavor of deschooling the society into a mere myth.
Illich’s explicit reasoning of his stance on deinstitutionalization of values and his proposed replacements for the institutionalized education are indeed mind-capturing. However, thirty five years after the manifestation, his theory still remained mainly in printed form; his proposed solutions have turn into yet another utopian dream. Now, the development of human society has arrived to an epoch some termed as the Post-Industrial era, what Illich foresaw in the development of human society has unfortunately come true. Education institutions are playing the role as an agent for intellectual certification. The ranking of institutions has become the index for education. College education has reduced mainly to a vocational training ground. Schools are run like factories or manufacturing agents that produce parts for the consumption of the social machine. The institutionalized values have become the guides for school curricula and such institutionalization had, at the same time, commoditized every single aspect of human activities. Nothing is in-expendable in the world of commodity. Human beings had turned into powerless social parts that consume and at a greater account being consumed by the merciless social-economical structure.
The invulnerable system of schooling demonstrates its supremacy through the universal agreement on obligatory education. Such universality has programmed children, through out their growing phase, into machines that act and react according to formulas preconditioned by hegemony. With such engraved memories, children are unlikely to see un-programmed alternatives even when they arrive to adulthood and therefore human beings are incapable of escaping, both physically and mentally. Even if there are some who are capable of realizing the existence of alternatives, they, however, had submerged too long and too deep within the social-economical structure that they have no other choices but to remain within the system. On the other hand, some might be able to escape physically from a current system to another and to think that they have arrived to a desired alternative. They, however, realize later that the situation is not much better than the previous one. The fact is they are like the Monkey King who can never escape the control of the Buddha[1]. No matter where they are, they are still remaining within the territory of hegemony.
Nonetheless, most people believe that the philosophy behind obligatory education is in fact an act of nobility in providing children with equal opportunity and uninterrupted environment for intellectual and physical growth. However, according to Illich, such practice ritualized the whole notion of education. He revealed that the institutionalization, measurement, and packaging of values, and the whole idea of self-perpetuating progress in learning are in fact myths. Schooling has turn into a ritual game and the new world religion (Illich, 1970). Schooling system is indeed a ritual game and its inevitable coalition with the economical systems has rewritten the rules and the outcomes of the game. The irony is such reciprocality is actually fertilized, stimulated and energized by human activities. Through human activities, they empower each other and they transform each other into a unified omnipresent hegemony. When Illich was writing his idea of “Learning Webs”(Illich, 1970, p. 74), he failed to see the inevitable progression of education system toward a vocational oriented locus. Instead of for the enrichment of oneself, education became a social action that is solely for downloading the maximum amount of data onto students within the shortest time so they are able to cope with the forever renewing and upgrading job market of the computer age. Institutionalized schooling system is the best to offer such solution. Learning is for vocational security. Despite his warning, the development of the ritual game has gone much farther and spread much broader with its unavoidable union with the economical systems; its impact on humanity has passed a point of no return. As unwillingly to see as he is, Illich will have to accept the fact that “Schooling” has turn into the synonym of “Education”; “Education” is for the service of the “Economical Systems”. Unfortunately, “Efforts to find a balance in the global milieu depend on the deinstitutionalization of values.” (Illich, 1970, p. 114) became a sole murmur that might eventually be swallowed up by the inexorable institutionalization of values. Illich’s propositions might have ironically turned into myths on their own accounts in the era of computerization and globalization.
Entrapped within a pre-constructed superhighway in the middle of a never ending horizon, human beings have no choice but to follow the track down the road to survive? Perhaps Illich had diagnosed the illness but he might have prescript an inappropriate remedy and failed the treatment. Or, perhaps, we had already passed the point of no return even long before Illich published his book. The coming of industrial age, the booming of townships and the institutionalization of education had already orientated the direction and outlined the blueprint for an epoch of globalization in favor of universality. It is a universality that emerged from the dualistic past but was forced to embrace multiplicity which, ironically, is still remained within an institutionalized value system. Illich’s realization might have missed the time and his effort insignificant to turn the progression around. No human can turn history around and that is a fact.
To elaborate on the historicity(?) of social-economical progression, the communist doctrine is able to provide us with an excellent example. Even though Marx and Engel predicted the coming of a proletariat heaven, the fall of communist states in the eighties has proven the impracticality of their manifestation. The ruptures of human orchestrated revolution, even though sprinted out of a politically and scientifically sound hypothesis of that particular era, actually created an epoch of illusion. Leaving the essence of humanity outside the perimeter, the communist doctrine has no alternative but eventually to face their destiny. Marx and Engel have a very concrete picture in their agenda, “Organization of the proletariat on a class basis; overthrow of the supremacy of the bourgeois; conquest of political power by the proletariat.” (Marx and Engels, 1948) With such vision, communists successfully obtained their power from the aristocrats and the bourgeois through ruptures of revolutions, a sacred and unchallengeable mind game of the intellectuals from the last century. They, however, with such definite vision for a proletariat future, failed to evolve and adapt in the process of social-economical evolution. Their rival, the Capital (a social power), on the other hand, without a prophesized end, changes and evolves according to the discursive human activities and eventually out stayed the communist ideology and it is still evolving. The communist failed to see humans of different class, be it the aristocrats, the bourgeois or the proletariat, are all the pivotal atoms of the social-economical structure. It is not the ideology but the human behavior that stimulates the activation and the consistent running and evolving of the social mechanism. Elimination of the bourgeois from the social-economical structure offers no solution to the problem of class struggle. Class struggle is still exists but just taken up a different form within the social-economical structure itself.
Illich’s idea of “deinstitutionalization of values” is actually carried similar problems. He offered a scientifically sensible methodology of confrontation and a definite vision that emerged from his own era to counteract the institutionalization of values, i.e. schooling. He, however, underestimated the ever-strengthening and evolving power of his rival’s just as the communists do their enemy, Capital (a social power). Same as Capital, institutionalization of values is hegemony in another form. The elimination of school system and teachers (the agents) will not solve the problem. Schooling system is here to stay. If the agents are removed by force, as class struggle, the schooling system will take up another form in existence as the development of social-economical structure demand for such system. It is a very simple theory of demand and supply. I believe Illich he himself has realized that. He however, in favor of the idea of cutting down the financial support for such institutions and, at the same time, proposed an education of another kind, i.e. the “Four-Networks[2]”, to counteract an education in favor of the institutionalization of values. On this note, is Illich’s proposition of counteraction totally irrelevant in contemporary society?
“The planning of new educational institutions ought not to begin with the administrative goals of a principal or president, or with the teaching goals of a professional educator, or with the learning goals of any hypothetical class of people. It must not start with the question, “What should someone learn?” but with the question, “What kinds of things and people might learner want to be in contact with in order to learn?”” (Illich, 1970, p. 77-78)
Obviously, Illich foresees a more discursive and learner centered approach in education by ostracizing the agents (the administrators and the professional educators) of the hegemony. It is discursive as there are no more theories and persons to administrate and control the orientation of education. Learners can take studying toward which ever directions he/she desires. Words like “headmaster’, “teacher”, “student” and all schooling related terminology will be outdated as they do not exist anymore. However, with the establishment of current education system, what Illich put forth is a very dangerous mission as it would jeopardize the whole social-economical structure. Everyone on Earth knows that the use of petroleum created much complication and many strategies have been proposed to solve the problem but petroleum still stays and it continues to have tremendous impact on our daily life. To have it removed from our life style is equivalent to an end of human civilization. Scientific inventions will end up in the junkyards and we will have to relearn how to live like our forefather before the Industrial Revolution. The same goes to the current education system. To deconstruct the system means the increment of unemployment, the fall of validation system, and, perhaps, the coming of an era of chaos. Without compulsory education, most children will have to join the work force earlier. They, like people of the past, will have to take up apprenticeship for job prospect. Education becomes a luxury for the fortunate few. It is the second coming of the Dark Age in Humanity.
Perhaps, to re-constructing, instead of de-constructing, the education system is a better option. Antonio Gramsci’s vision on “organic intellectuals” can best explain the idea. Gramsci saw the dilemma in the communist doctrine and he proposed an alternative solution for the problem of class struggle. He believes in recruiting the organic intellectuals, i.e. those who emerged as the leading figures from a particular class, to be on his side. With the combine effort between the communists and the organic intellectuals, they will be able to break free from the control of hegemony. The differences in class mentality and the problem of class struggle will hence be resolved. Even though Gramsci’s ultimate vision is still to emancipate the proletariats, his methodology actually offers a better prospect in re-constructing the education system emerged from a practice that is emphasizing too much on the institutionalization of values. To turn the “hegemonic agents” (administrators and professional educators) into innovators and advocators of a learner centered education within the institution itself, instead of solely a counteraction as Illich has proposed, would be able to generate changes within the education system and thus to provide more diversified options for the learners.
If the institutionalization of values is being view as an act of hegemony, then, is there a need to deinstitutionalize values? The answer is a positive one as the institutionalization of values would stereo-typed and marginalized all other alternatives but the official ones and it will eventually suffocate the possibility of growth. On the other hand, the answer is also a negative one as we should not view the institutionalization of value as a threat and as an unchangeable end of a process. As hegemony itself is a forever changing and evolving force that is determined by human acts and yet it is also free from the control of human beings. It is an undeniable fact that the appearance of the communist doctrine on the stage of history stimulated radical changes; its impact on the social-economical structure is an influential one. The confrontation between capitalism and communism from the last century did not end with a proletariat heaven as the communism has prophesized; nor it arrive at a capitalist paradise. What we have today is but a hybrid of the two that emerged from a century long evolvement. Such dialectical process is a slow and long, and a never ending event.
Hegemony is an abstract yet organic phenomenon. It evolves and forever mutating according to the interactions between the human race. The coming of an era of computerization and globalization of social-economical system has announced the inappropriateness of Illich’s discursive approach as the main player in education. To have everyone going on their own way, to have the freedom of doing whatever they desire will definitely turn the world into a state of anarchism. However, it does not mean that Illich’s theory is useless to function as a counteracting force to the current education system that is emphasizing tremendously on the institutionalization of values. Illich’s confrontation (a human activity) might eventually force the mechanism of hegemony to re-orientate its direction toward a compromised equilibrium.
(2405 words)
Reference:
Blaisdell, B. (Ed.) (2003). The Communist manifesto and other revolutionary writings. New York: Dover Publications.
Gramsci, A. ( ). Selected from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. (Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith, Trans.) New York: International Publishers (Original work published ….)
Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York: Harper and Row.
Footnotes:
[1] Story from the Chinese novel 西游记(Journey to the West).
[2] Illich’s “Four Networks”: 1. Reference service to educational objects, 2. Skill exchange, 3. Peers-matching, and 4. Reference services to educators-at-large. (Illich, 1970, p. 78-79)
Even though it was written in the 1960s, I find Ivan Illich’s Deschooling Society still hold very refreshing views on the whole notion of schooling and education. As a person who was brought up with the belief of schooling is the sole way out to a better life and who has been within the school system for more than thirty years, reading Deschooling Society is a tremendous challenge to me. It is challenging as to deconstruct the sacred belief in schooling that has been engraved into my sense, piece by piece, through out the last four decades is equivalent to an impossible mission. However, once attempt to understand his views away from the preconceived judgmental perspectives; I realized it is not difficult to comprehend and to go beyond Illich’s criticism on the institutionalization of education. His proposition for decentralization of education, or deinstitutionalization of values, as he put it, becomes extremely fascinating. Fascinating as it is, the establishment of the current schooling system has unfortunately lead to a no turning back evolvement in the social structure and its reciprocal relation with the economical systems has transformed the institution into a gigantic hegemonic dinosaur that marginalized Illich’s endeavor of deschooling the society into a mere myth.
Illich’s explicit reasoning of his stance on deinstitutionalization of values and his proposed replacements for the institutionalized education are indeed mind-capturing. However, thirty five years after the manifestation, his theory still remained mainly in printed form; his proposed solutions have turn into yet another utopian dream. Now, the development of human society has arrived to an epoch some termed as the Post-Industrial era, what Illich foresaw in the development of human society has unfortunately come true. Education institutions are playing the role as an agent for intellectual certification. The ranking of institutions has become the index for education. College education has reduced mainly to a vocational training ground. Schools are run like factories or manufacturing agents that produce parts for the consumption of the social machine. The institutionalized values have become the guides for school curricula and such institutionalization had, at the same time, commoditized every single aspect of human activities. Nothing is in-expendable in the world of commodity. Human beings had turned into powerless social parts that consume and at a greater account being consumed by the merciless social-economical structure.
The invulnerable system of schooling demonstrates its supremacy through the universal agreement on obligatory education. Such universality has programmed children, through out their growing phase, into machines that act and react according to formulas preconditioned by hegemony. With such engraved memories, children are unlikely to see un-programmed alternatives even when they arrive to adulthood and therefore human beings are incapable of escaping, both physically and mentally. Even if there are some who are capable of realizing the existence of alternatives, they, however, had submerged too long and too deep within the social-economical structure that they have no other choices but to remain within the system. On the other hand, some might be able to escape physically from a current system to another and to think that they have arrived to a desired alternative. They, however, realize later that the situation is not much better than the previous one. The fact is they are like the Monkey King who can never escape the control of the Buddha[1]. No matter where they are, they are still remaining within the territory of hegemony.
Nonetheless, most people believe that the philosophy behind obligatory education is in fact an act of nobility in providing children with equal opportunity and uninterrupted environment for intellectual and physical growth. However, according to Illich, such practice ritualized the whole notion of education. He revealed that the institutionalization, measurement, and packaging of values, and the whole idea of self-perpetuating progress in learning are in fact myths. Schooling has turn into a ritual game and the new world religion (Illich, 1970). Schooling system is indeed a ritual game and its inevitable coalition with the economical systems has rewritten the rules and the outcomes of the game. The irony is such reciprocality is actually fertilized, stimulated and energized by human activities. Through human activities, they empower each other and they transform each other into a unified omnipresent hegemony. When Illich was writing his idea of “Learning Webs”(Illich, 1970, p. 74), he failed to see the inevitable progression of education system toward a vocational oriented locus. Instead of for the enrichment of oneself, education became a social action that is solely for downloading the maximum amount of data onto students within the shortest time so they are able to cope with the forever renewing and upgrading job market of the computer age. Institutionalized schooling system is the best to offer such solution. Learning is for vocational security. Despite his warning, the development of the ritual game has gone much farther and spread much broader with its unavoidable union with the economical systems; its impact on humanity has passed a point of no return. As unwillingly to see as he is, Illich will have to accept the fact that “Schooling” has turn into the synonym of “Education”; “Education” is for the service of the “Economical Systems”. Unfortunately, “Efforts to find a balance in the global milieu depend on the deinstitutionalization of values.” (Illich, 1970, p. 114) became a sole murmur that might eventually be swallowed up by the inexorable institutionalization of values. Illich’s propositions might have ironically turned into myths on their own accounts in the era of computerization and globalization.
Entrapped within a pre-constructed superhighway in the middle of a never ending horizon, human beings have no choice but to follow the track down the road to survive? Perhaps Illich had diagnosed the illness but he might have prescript an inappropriate remedy and failed the treatment. Or, perhaps, we had already passed the point of no return even long before Illich published his book. The coming of industrial age, the booming of townships and the institutionalization of education had already orientated the direction and outlined the blueprint for an epoch of globalization in favor of universality. It is a universality that emerged from the dualistic past but was forced to embrace multiplicity which, ironically, is still remained within an institutionalized value system. Illich’s realization might have missed the time and his effort insignificant to turn the progression around. No human can turn history around and that is a fact.
To elaborate on the historicity(?) of social-economical progression, the communist doctrine is able to provide us with an excellent example. Even though Marx and Engel predicted the coming of a proletariat heaven, the fall of communist states in the eighties has proven the impracticality of their manifestation. The ruptures of human orchestrated revolution, even though sprinted out of a politically and scientifically sound hypothesis of that particular era, actually created an epoch of illusion. Leaving the essence of humanity outside the perimeter, the communist doctrine has no alternative but eventually to face their destiny. Marx and Engel have a very concrete picture in their agenda, “Organization of the proletariat on a class basis; overthrow of the supremacy of the bourgeois; conquest of political power by the proletariat.” (Marx and Engels, 1948) With such vision, communists successfully obtained their power from the aristocrats and the bourgeois through ruptures of revolutions, a sacred and unchallengeable mind game of the intellectuals from the last century. They, however, with such definite vision for a proletariat future, failed to evolve and adapt in the process of social-economical evolution. Their rival, the Capital (a social power), on the other hand, without a prophesized end, changes and evolves according to the discursive human activities and eventually out stayed the communist ideology and it is still evolving. The communist failed to see humans of different class, be it the aristocrats, the bourgeois or the proletariat, are all the pivotal atoms of the social-economical structure. It is not the ideology but the human behavior that stimulates the activation and the consistent running and evolving of the social mechanism. Elimination of the bourgeois from the social-economical structure offers no solution to the problem of class struggle. Class struggle is still exists but just taken up a different form within the social-economical structure itself.
Illich’s idea of “deinstitutionalization of values” is actually carried similar problems. He offered a scientifically sensible methodology of confrontation and a definite vision that emerged from his own era to counteract the institutionalization of values, i.e. schooling. He, however, underestimated the ever-strengthening and evolving power of his rival’s just as the communists do their enemy, Capital (a social power). Same as Capital, institutionalization of values is hegemony in another form. The elimination of school system and teachers (the agents) will not solve the problem. Schooling system is here to stay. If the agents are removed by force, as class struggle, the schooling system will take up another form in existence as the development of social-economical structure demand for such system. It is a very simple theory of demand and supply. I believe Illich he himself has realized that. He however, in favor of the idea of cutting down the financial support for such institutions and, at the same time, proposed an education of another kind, i.e. the “Four-Networks[2]”, to counteract an education in favor of the institutionalization of values. On this note, is Illich’s proposition of counteraction totally irrelevant in contemporary society?
“The planning of new educational institutions ought not to begin with the administrative goals of a principal or president, or with the teaching goals of a professional educator, or with the learning goals of any hypothetical class of people. It must not start with the question, “What should someone learn?” but with the question, “What kinds of things and people might learner want to be in contact with in order to learn?”” (Illich, 1970, p. 77-78)
Obviously, Illich foresees a more discursive and learner centered approach in education by ostracizing the agents (the administrators and the professional educators) of the hegemony. It is discursive as there are no more theories and persons to administrate and control the orientation of education. Learners can take studying toward which ever directions he/she desires. Words like “headmaster’, “teacher”, “student” and all schooling related terminology will be outdated as they do not exist anymore. However, with the establishment of current education system, what Illich put forth is a very dangerous mission as it would jeopardize the whole social-economical structure. Everyone on Earth knows that the use of petroleum created much complication and many strategies have been proposed to solve the problem but petroleum still stays and it continues to have tremendous impact on our daily life. To have it removed from our life style is equivalent to an end of human civilization. Scientific inventions will end up in the junkyards and we will have to relearn how to live like our forefather before the Industrial Revolution. The same goes to the current education system. To deconstruct the system means the increment of unemployment, the fall of validation system, and, perhaps, the coming of an era of chaos. Without compulsory education, most children will have to join the work force earlier. They, like people of the past, will have to take up apprenticeship for job prospect. Education becomes a luxury for the fortunate few. It is the second coming of the Dark Age in Humanity.
Perhaps, to re-constructing, instead of de-constructing, the education system is a better option. Antonio Gramsci’s vision on “organic intellectuals” can best explain the idea. Gramsci saw the dilemma in the communist doctrine and he proposed an alternative solution for the problem of class struggle. He believes in recruiting the organic intellectuals, i.e. those who emerged as the leading figures from a particular class, to be on his side. With the combine effort between the communists and the organic intellectuals, they will be able to break free from the control of hegemony. The differences in class mentality and the problem of class struggle will hence be resolved. Even though Gramsci’s ultimate vision is still to emancipate the proletariats, his methodology actually offers a better prospect in re-constructing the education system emerged from a practice that is emphasizing too much on the institutionalization of values. To turn the “hegemonic agents” (administrators and professional educators) into innovators and advocators of a learner centered education within the institution itself, instead of solely a counteraction as Illich has proposed, would be able to generate changes within the education system and thus to provide more diversified options for the learners.
If the institutionalization of values is being view as an act of hegemony, then, is there a need to deinstitutionalize values? The answer is a positive one as the institutionalization of values would stereo-typed and marginalized all other alternatives but the official ones and it will eventually suffocate the possibility of growth. On the other hand, the answer is also a negative one as we should not view the institutionalization of value as a threat and as an unchangeable end of a process. As hegemony itself is a forever changing and evolving force that is determined by human acts and yet it is also free from the control of human beings. It is an undeniable fact that the appearance of the communist doctrine on the stage of history stimulated radical changes; its impact on the social-economical structure is an influential one. The confrontation between capitalism and communism from the last century did not end with a proletariat heaven as the communism has prophesized; nor it arrive at a capitalist paradise. What we have today is but a hybrid of the two that emerged from a century long evolvement. Such dialectical process is a slow and long, and a never ending event.
Hegemony is an abstract yet organic phenomenon. It evolves and forever mutating according to the interactions between the human race. The coming of an era of computerization and globalization of social-economical system has announced the inappropriateness of Illich’s discursive approach as the main player in education. To have everyone going on their own way, to have the freedom of doing whatever they desire will definitely turn the world into a state of anarchism. However, it does not mean that Illich’s theory is useless to function as a counteracting force to the current education system that is emphasizing tremendously on the institutionalization of values. Illich’s confrontation (a human activity) might eventually force the mechanism of hegemony to re-orientate its direction toward a compromised equilibrium.
(2405 words)
Reference:
Blaisdell, B. (Ed.) (2003). The Communist manifesto and other revolutionary writings. New York: Dover Publications.
Gramsci, A. ( ). Selected from the prison notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. (Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith, Trans.) New York: International Publishers (Original work published ….)
Illich, I. (1970). Deschooling society. New York: Harper and Row.
Footnotes:
[1] Story from the Chinese novel 西游记(Journey to the West).
[2] Illich’s “Four Networks”: 1. Reference service to educational objects, 2. Skill exchange, 3. Peers-matching, and 4. Reference services to educators-at-large. (Illich, 1970, p. 78-79)
No comments:
Post a Comment