A Response to Jackie Chan’s View on Chinese People Need to be Governed

Final paper for the course AH5005.001 Radical Philosophy Seminar: Maxine Greene, Spring 2009. (course instructor: John Baldacchino)

The speech Jackie Chan gave recently in a business forum held in the Hainan province of China sparked uproar in the Chinese speaking society[1]. It immediate became the central attraction of the media. The following is an extract from one of the news releases:

“(Jackie Chan), the 55-year-old star of the "Rush Hour" action comedies caused a huge uproar after he told a business forum[2] on Saturday that it may not be good for authoritarian China to become a free society."I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan said Saturday, adding freedoms in his native Hong Kong and Taiwan made those societies "chaotic." Taiwan, which split from China in 1949, is democratic and Hong Kong, a former British colony now ruled by China, enjoys some free elections. "I'm gradually beginning to feel that we Chinese need to be controlled. If we're not being controlled, we'll just do what we want," he said. "Sure, we've got 5,000 years of history, but our new country has just been around for 60 years and the reforms for 30 years. It's hard to compare us with other countries," Chan said, referring to China's communist rule and capitalist-style reforms under the communist regime. "But I feel that in the 10 years after Hong Kong's return to Chinese rule, I can gradually see, I'm not sure if it's good to have freedom or not," Chan continued. Hong Kong and Taiwanese legislators lashed out at the comments, with some accusing Chan of insulting the Chinese race.” (The Washington Times)[3]

What was not included in most of the reports was that Chan elaborated his point with the ban of chewing gum in Singapore as the realization of a better society with straight enforcement of rules and regulations. He also pointed out that there are enormous immoral deeds occurring within Mainland China today that need to be put into justice. Chan believes that Chinese people should be governed (a more appropriate translation than the term “controlled” used in the above article), as freedom of speech, of culture, and of human right are now being abused in Chinese society. He, however, is optimistic about an open and better China in the future under the current communist government.

The issue was later termed as the “Jackie Chan Incident” by the media, politicians, scholars and netizens from Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Mainland China. In response to Chan’s speech about Taiwan is politically chaotic, the mayor of Taichung city also friend of Chan told the Taiwanese media, “… Firstly, we should listen to what Chan has to say with an open mind and determine if it is right or wrong and whether any improvement is needed on our part. Secondly, to recognize if what Chan said is slandering, if yes, then we will definitely pursue the matter further. …”[4] Of course, some legislators from Hong Kong and Taiwan said otherwise. The authority from Mainland, on the other hand, shows no response to the issue, thus far. Chan refused to further explain himself; his entourage, however, expressed Chan’s speech was interpreted out of context.

Regardless the motif behind Chan’s speech, the “Jackie Chan Incident” actually opened up the Pandora Box of Chinese society. Many seek this as a chance to make themselves heard by calling for a boycott of Chan’s up coming concert in Beijing and his new featuring film Shinjuku Incident; to strip Chan’s role as ambassador of the Deaf Olympic Games to be held in Taipei this year; to remove his role as Hong Kong’s tourism ambassador and the list goes on. Indeed, all backlashes against Chan are nothing of meaningless yells of nonsensical. However, they, at the same time, exposed people’s ignorance to critical thinking and the important of contextualizing the issue. Chan’s concern of the constant rising desecration of ethical and moral norms, the general ignorant to the essence of democracy and freedom within the Chinese society was somehow lost in translation through the lenses and reinterpretation of the media. The terms freedom, democracy, and Chinese Communist Government became forever contradictive triplet that trickle impulsive and mindless responses. The term govern is instantly implicated with negative denotation, as absence of freedom.

In response to the uproar stirred up by the Jackie Chan Incident, some Chinese commented that Chan, as a celebrity figure, should not be making political statement; some said he picked a wrong place on earth to express his view; some pointed out that he was just being himself, saying things without considering its consequences[5]. Nonetheless, Chan’s view of Chinese people should not be indulged with freedom and ought to be governed by rules and regulations (otherwise the society will turn into chaos) is in itself problematic. Firstly, his obscured application of the word freedom discredited his view to a discursive argument. Chan commented on the social dilemma in Mainland China and at the same time making a sweeping remark that both Taiwan and Hong Kong are also very chaotic. When was asked at the end of the business forum what did he meant by both Hong Kong and Taiwan are chaotic, Chan responded that he was referring to the political situation in both places. Apparently he was making a comment on freedom of a two different affairs: social dilemma on one hand and political democracy on the other. Secondly, his opinion of people needs to be governed subjected human being to rules and regulations. Undeniably a society without rules and regulations would have a high risk of falling into chaos if this society exists at all; however, the implementation of rules and regulations does not mean lack of freedom and should not be perceived as suppression and alienation, as most of his backlashers alleged. Rules and regulations can be common codes of conduct that every member of the society follows with mutual consent. As Greene (1988) stated, “Human beings, unlike the cattle, must choose what they will do and be. We are not governed by our instincts or totally dominated by our keepers. Rather, we are free, and our freedom puts us under an imperative of decision and action. (p. 46)” To majority of the people, Chan’s speech insinuated his eager to illuminate the shepherd then voicing his concerns about the social dilemma in China today.

The question is why a comment by Jackie Chan, a sole movie celebrity, could cause uproar in the Chinese speaking society? Chan’s social status actually transcended his role as a celebrity. He is well respected by the Chinese society and is always being treated as the big/elder brother Chan. In Chinese patriarchal system, elder brother plays a role as the father among the siblings and as the head of the family during the absent of the father. He inherited an unchallengeable authority second to the father within the family. Chan, who said “Chinese need to be governed,” was in fact being interpreted as a gesture to please the father, i.e. the leaders of the Chinese government, in the expenses of the freedom of the younger siblings. Foreseeing the lost of freedom that they have not bestowed, some younger siblings realized the need to voice their unpleasantness and attempt to sabotage the elder brother; to make their voice heard within as well as outside the family.

Nonetheless, the incident unveiled a general misconception of freedom among majority of the Chinese people, including Jackie Chan himself. For Chan to say, “Chinese has too much freedom and this cause social chaos.” can be interpreted as Chinese people know less about freedom and their wrong doings had indeed stained the chastity of freedom and therefore they have to be governed, as Chan manifested; or it can be Chan himself knows less about freedom and the motif of his speech is questionable. Perhaps, freedom is perceived by Chan as a mandated consent given by the father but could be taken away if infringement occurs. Chinese people today are like children who cross the line therefore are deserved to be grounded. Chan’s manifestation of mandated freedom can be perceived as a form of slavery as indicated by Greene (1988),

“Freedom of mind and the opportunity to realize certain potentialities are conceivable under slavery. Within predetermined limits, enslaved persons have been known to believe they can exert their wills and achieve much of what they desire. It may even be that they can do so much of what they choose to do within these limits that they do not perceive them as obstacles.” (p. 65)

It is a mental instead of physical enslavement. Chan, however, does not see this as enslavement but an appropriate procedure in fostering a harmonious society. There always needed someone to ensure the smooth running of daily affairs and the government, being the one who govern, has the rightful mandate for it. What Chan proposed was social harmony overrules individual freedom, a Chinese heritage of the Confucianism thought. His notion of govern, as he sees it, is a positive control (with instrumental reasoning) for the betterment of the people. Individual freedom is therefore should be given circumstantially. As one of the Chinese celebrities who stood up to condemn the Tiananmen Square Incident of 1989 two decades ago, Chan is now being condemned of betraying his stand for a democratic China. Nevertheless, his speech should not be mindlessly interpreted as a sole betrayal of democratic China or a cunning trick to declare his loyalty to the current Chinese government for personal gains. Due to the social dilemma in China today, perhaps his view could offer an alternative possibility for Chinese to realize a different kind of democracy. China has a prolong history of a top down political structure with the “wise monarch” on top of the hierarchy. Although Mainland Chinese were emancipated and a new China was established fifty years ago, historical events like the Great Leap in the fifties, the Cultural Revolution in the sixties, and the Tiananmen Square Incident in the eighties, to name a few, had proven over and over again that Chinese people are still circling within their internalized political ideology. Mao and Deng were and still being treated the “wise monarch” that governed the nation but of a different flag. After the Cultural Revolution of the Great Proletariat, China might be able to survive yet another political revolution but rational voices would prefer to have a gradual evolvement both socially and politically from an authoritarian state to a free nation, a transition period.

Perhaps, “Freedom” has become an untarnishable icon of worship that Chinese people fail to look at it with a clear mind. True freedom should be a freedom of conditions, a positive freedom. People are born with the freedom to make choices but of moral and ethical conscience. Not of selfish instinct. The proposition to Chan’s social dilemma and political chaos is conceivably rested on the realization of positive freedom: conditional freedom with intrinsic and extrinsic governing. Greene (1988) stated,

“The invention of cultures was seen as a break with natural selection. Capable of thinking and
choosing, capable of communicating and transmitting valued ways of life, men and women could direct the course of future evolution. No longer subject to the repetitive patterns laid down by instinct, they could be educated to pose questions, to pursue meanings, to effect changes, to extend control. Making more and more connections in their own experience, reflecting on their shared lives, taking heed of the consequences of the actions they performed, they would become aware of more and more alternatives, more and more experiential possibilities; and this meant an increased likelihood of achieving freedom. The capacity for achieving it, however, had to be continually nurtured, informed, and communally sustained.” (p. 42-43)

With the proliferation of freedom worshipping these days, Greene’s view on achieving freedom deserves serious reflections by human race as a totality. Through education, individual learns to interact with the communal dialectically, forming an interconnected whole to foster alternative possibilities, she believes human race would then be possible of freedom. Instead of self (individual) and others (communal), the relation between individual and communal in Chinese culture, however, is perceived as two inter-reacted selves, like yin and yang but of unequal weightage. The former is termed as the small self whereas the latter the big self. The interaction between the two is well illustrated in the Chinese idiom, “牺牲小我， 完成大我,” which can be directly translated as “sacrifice (the) small(er) self to complete (the) big(ger) self” or “one is expected to give up individuality for the sake of the communal (family/community/nation).” Individual is at the very bottom of the social hierarchy and is expected to forego personal interests for the communal. Individual identity is as such defined by the communal. Without the communal, individual does not exist. It is clear to make sense of Jackie Chan’s mandated freedom from this perspective. However, instead of saying “Chinese people have too much freedom,” Chan should address the question “What is the essence of freedom and how should Chinese people actualize a society of freedom?” Instead of proposing “Chinese people are to be controlled or governed,” Chan should apprehend that it is Chinese people who are to realize within themselves a sense of self-governing and this self-governing would be the key to help them to eventually arrive at the state of intrinsic and extrinsic freedom. (2375 words)

Reference

Greene, M. (1988). The dialectic of freedom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Lee, Min (2009). Spokesman: Jackie Chan comments out of context. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/21/spokesman-jackie-chan-comments-out-of-context/
Zhongtian News (2009) Jackie Chan’s speech sparked uproar, Hu Zhi Qiang: No need to make a big fuss 成龍談話惹議 胡志強：不用太計較. Retrieved April 22, 2009 from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_YwB78iZws

Footnotes:
[1] Chinese speaking society here is referring to those of the Mainland China, Taiwan, Hong Kong and Macau, and to some extends, it encompasses Singapore and the Oversea Chinese communities around the world as well.
[2] What Foreman referring to was the speech Jackie Chan given on freedom during a panel discussion at the Boao Forum, an annual gathering of state officials, scholars and businessmen that is organized by the Chinese government, on China’s southern island-province of Hainan.
[3] This new release was written by the Associated Press writer Bill Foreman in Guangzhou on April 23, 2009.
[4]成龍談話惹議 胡志強：不用太計較 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g_YwB78iZws
[5] The remarks were broadcasted on Zhongtian News, one of the cable channel run by the Chinese Television Network Inc.. CTN， a pro-Kuomintang (国民党 Nationalist Party) organization in Taiwan， was founded by a Hong Kong businessman in 1994,

Intellectual Equality in the Context of the Island Nation

Final paper for AH5005.001 Radical Philosophy Seminar: Jacques Ranciere (course instructor: John Baldacchino)

The essay is my personal impression of intellectual equality in the context of Singapore as an island state.

Anecdotes[1]

“Drill practice is a very effective method to forge bonding among the students.” The teacher-in-charge of the scout troop told the art teacher who was also a scout leader. The scouts met up to polish their marching skills systematically every Saturday for a period of three months. As predicted, the troop marched better after each practice. Eventually, their moves were unmistakably uniform under the command. Together with other uniform groups, the troop performed a marvelous marching on the day of the National Day Parade in front of the whole school. The principal was pleased. Teachers and the rest of the students stopped making fun of the scouts as drill idiot anymore. The scouts were very proud to be a member of the troop.

***

As the level coordinator, the American colleague of the art teacher told the department in the art departmental meeting, “Instead of showing examples, we should go through the theories with the students. They are to explore on their own an individual interpretation of the design elements and principles we talk about in class.”

At the end of the semester, the American teacher together with the department head dominated the group marking session. All his students excelled in the final art project because they were all able to interpret the design elements and principles on their own astonishingly well. Students under other teachers, somehow, didn’t perform as well. The American teachers commented his students, “Initially, they didn’t get what I was telling them but eventually they all get it. We have to be patient with the students.” His classes top the overall performance in the whole level.

Many years later, one of the students told the art teacher during one of the casual talks, “You know, it’s very easy to get good grade under the American teacher. He used his picture to explain art theories to us but we all did’t have a clue what he was talking about. Then, one day, he praised the sketches done by one of this guy in class and we all know then what he was looking for. So, we all do the similar stuff and he was very happy. So, we get very high marks in the final exam.”

***

Due to the opening up of national educational policies, the school where the art teacher worked planned to introduce to the students a new track to their high school education: the International Baccalaureate Diploma Program (IBDP). Only the highly qualified students are eligible to be chosen for the new track. All teachers involved in the IBDP were to go for training. Experienced IB teachers from the local international schools were invited to share their teaching experience and pedagogy. Socratic questioning was introduced to the teachers in the sharing and everyone in the school was very excited and to a certain degree hesitated to embrace the new idea.
The American art teacher and the art department head told all the art teachers in school regarding this new direction, “That’s what we have been doing all along. I told the principal and the rest of the school that we are the most prepared department for the IBDP.”

***

A student asked the art teacher upon the completion of his final art project, “Now that I am done with my project. I am wondering if you have the solutions to all the problems I encountered along the way but refrained from telling me.”

“Well, sort of.”

“But you can’t tell me the answer. I have to search for it myself.”

“True. There are many ways to solve a problem and each leads to very different outcomes. I can only give you advice based on what you have done.”

“How do you know if the way I choose would work? You verify my process based on what you have seen from the past?”

The conversation continued.

The art teacher used to believe that he was giving his students the freedom to work and the full ownership to their art projects. At the end of the two years, most of his students found their own languages and could carry on decent artistic conversations. However, the art teacher realized later that there is a constant resonant of his own voice in his students. He had somehow reprogrammed his students through the many discussions and reaffirmations through out the whole process.

***

On Intellectual Equality

When the priority of education is reduced to mere rigid assessments and academic performance, the essence of education would inevitably be sacrificed. Students see school as an open door prison where they can never escape. They are trained to master the skills of regurgitation to survive their never ending terms, willingly; they are to memorize knowledge that they might not need later in life; they are being inculcated to follow civic instructions through curriculum imbedded beneath the endless academic and non-academic activities. Once they are seasoned by the system, they realize that it is not that bad an idea after all. School life is equivalent to incubation for the students where they can be programmed with needed skills in order to survive outside later. When they finally broke out of their cocoons, they can immediately execute their assigned social duties with no delay. Human society is like the kingdom of ants and bees. Human beings are a mere screw that ensures the smooth running of the state apparatus.

“There is no need to search for one’s identity. What we need to do is to look for one out there.” One of the architectural students form the National University of Singapore responded to a questionnaire on identity searching[2]. His or hers implication was to fit in. Social duty defines a person. You are what your occupation is. The student elaborate that the space and duty one occupies defines the very person. In other words, one can have multiple identities at the same time pending on one’s social role at the specific moment; a person can be father, son, subordinate, supervisor … all together on a single being.

Years after Ranciere denounced the Socratic Method as a threat to universal teaching[3], a group of teachers in Singapore leaped with joy and the other with fear when they were provided with an alternative pedagogy other than the Old Master’s. The former believes they finally see the light to break away from the Old Master; the latter see this as a threat to their own practice, their adaptability to change is put on stake.

“… And we understand why stultification is all the more profound, the more subtle, the less perceptible, the coincidence. This is why the Socratic Method, apparently so close to universal teaching, represents the most formidable form of stultification. The Socratic method of interrogation that pretends to lead the student to his own knowledge is in fact the method of a riding …” (Ranciere, 2007, p. 59)

None of them saw the problem imbedded within the Socratic Method as Ranciere. If Ranciere is right, does it mean the teachers from Singapore are stultified? Ranciere also stated every human being posses the property of intelligence hence there ought to be intellectual equality. Perhaps, social and cultural milieus indeed determine the very vantage point of a person even though Ranciere himself thinks otherwise. The education system in Singapore developed its vision and mission based on western canon but with local political considerations in mind. It is a hybridization tailored for the need of the island state. Within its milieu, the nation of Singapore shaped an education system from an instrumentalist rational. It is this very system that contributed to the endurance and prosperity of the nation. Between security and freedom, most Singaporean would put their votes on the former.

Education is, in fact, more than mere information transmission. Twelve years of mandatory education is to nurture good citizens. Ones who know the possibility of alternatives but still choose the available options out of personal will as they believe there is nothing more suitable out there. Ones who need not worrying about global financial crisis as the government already has things taken care of and they could enjoy their holiday trips overseas and without worrying about losing their job after the trip. Ones who have no doubt that there are still possibility of purchasing new vehicle to parade their social status even though the roads are getting more congested each day and the COC[4] is forever high. Ones who subscribe to the notion of creativity within predetermined boundaries as they believe to be able to create under restriction is more challenging. Ones who are proud to announce to the world that they choose to stay because there is no place like home: a meritocratic society.

No one has relationship to the truth if he is not on his own orbit (Ranciere, 2007). Perhaps only Singaporean would know what is best for them and to obtain the best means endurance and sacrificing. Some things can wait. Humans are born with equal intelligence, indeed, but extrinsic factors determine where this person belongs. Students would say, “I know, I have to endure all the nonsense: study to excel in examinations, report to National Service, get a well pay job so I can have a better life … I am okay.”

What stated above are not uniquely a Singaporean phenomenon. There are traces of similarities in the education systems around the world. Ranciere celebrated Joseph Jacotot’s triumphant over stultification in his book The Ignorant Schoolmaster ten years ago, the world education systems still remain much the same with the Old Master running the machine. Perhaps change needs time. It will definitely be a long lasting linger before dawn arrives, if it ever comes.

(1728 words)

Reference:

Ranciere, J. (2007). The ignorant schoolmaster: Five lessons in intellectual emancipation (K. Ross, Trans.). Stanford: Stanford University Press. (Original work publishes 1991)

Footnotes:

[1] These are selected stories of personal account as an art teacher in Singapore from 1997 to 2006.
[2] The research was done in the spring of 2007.
[3] Universal teaching – to learn something and to relate to it all the rest by this principle: all men have equal intelligence. (Ranciere, 2007, p.18)
[4] COC=Car Ownership Certification. Base on the type of vehicle, the buyer needs to pay an extra S$20,000 to S$30,000 for a new car in order to certify his/her ownership of the car. The amount to pay for the COC is also varies each month. In another words, it is a system the Singapore government implements to control the number of new vehicle being released each month.

On Deschooling Society and Hegemony

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)