After reading the second chapter entitled:
Global and local lifelong learning policies in the knowledge economy
I decided that I'd rather read and summarize the 3rd Chapter:
The Spirit and Values of Modernity
What could be better on a Christmas Eve than to talk about values, eh? *grin*
The second chapter mostly summarized the response of different institutions (various countries, NGO's, and international political agencies such as the World Bank) to the status of the sub-structures in terms of LLL.
ok
ok
I'll summarize a little bit even though there really isn't much new to anyone who has read much about LLL:
1. LLL, as institutions and practices, is influenced strongly in one direction by global forces, specifically the technological sub-structure, and to varying degrees in other directions by "modifying forces" which can be grass roots pressures, national policies, international discourses and the like.
2. The World Bank's policies/discourse/recommendations are highly neo-liberal and strongly support the interests of the sub-structure. It assumes "only the unrestricted market and competition can bring prosperity to developing nations." (From Hyslop-Margison and Sears, 2006, p. 74)
3. UNESCO takes a far more humanistic perspective on LLL consistently embracing goals of personal development, fulfillment, active citizenship, health, democracy, social cohesion etc.
4. The EU and the OECD are a little more in the middle; with the OECD sitting closer to the WB.
5. The UK and USA have embraced a more neo-liberal stance than have Scandinavian countries in their social policies.
Upon reflecting on the neo-liberal position that only unrestricted markets can lead to economic development (which is suggested, somehow to lead to all sorts of social goods such as social cohesion and crime reduction) of the recent publication in Forbes Magazine of the top 400 wealthiest people in North America. When Forbes first started this list less than 30 years ago, only 4 people on the list were billionaires. Now everyone of the 400 are billionaires. I heard (although I do not recall the reference) that a Forbes spokes person said that this is evidence of how well the economy is doing. I couldn't help but wonder how 400 people out of many millions being obscenely rich is any evidence of a healthy economy.
The conclusion of the chapter states that LLL is never neutral: it always occurs within socio-economic and political contexts. Jarvis also claims that it is a moral process, but the morality is often downplayed. He ends with a quote from Habermas (2006, p. 167) in which he asks us to imagine what would happen if the G-7 were to assume social responsibility according to Rawls' notion of social justice: where the greatest benefit is given to the least advantaged. He notes that this has been a preoccupation with religions, but in our secular society, in order for us to address inequity "...this problem must first be placed on the political and economic table, not shoved in the cupboard of morality..."
The suggestion is that in a secular world, morality be damned unless it can show political or economic advantage.
How is that for a cheery thought on Christmas eve?
The next chapter
The Spirit and Values of Modernity
sounds fitting for Christmas, don't you think?
or
would that dampen the spirits of everyone who just spent 3 months' salary on presents that will be obsolete by next Christmas?
Go ahead. Say it! Carrie took her Grinch pills!
I won't go into great detail. I'll give mostly the conclusions and those interested can look up the arguments themselves.
First, modernity includes our present state of post- or late-modernity since the developments that happened after the industrial revolution are on-going.
In this chapter, Jarvis shows some of the changes that have occurred through modernity, and highlight what the values of the sub-structure (and effectively, the super-structure) are.
The first value Jarvis explores is valorization and faith in scientific and technological knowledge above others. Since sci/tech knowledge led to new discoveries and new commodities, and because the sub-structure could promote and make profit from these commodities and create need for them, sci/tech gained ascendancy over other forms of knowledge.
A brief pause here while I address "other forms of knowledge." For scholars in particular disciplines, that phrase is not problematic, and the "other forms" are understood as possible ways of understanding the world that are valid. For others, particularly given that we are subsumed by a culture of sci/tech rationality (and hey, before you say it, I have a degree in Chemistry) it seems self-evident that sci/tech knowledge is really the only knowledge that there is. Even if it wasn't the ONLY knowledge, surely it's the only one that counts, right? Well, it took me quite a time to climb that hill myself, so in a brief tangent on a blog, I can't do more than show you that there is indeed, a top to that hill and something is up there! Let me be inadequately brief and ask you to allow for other valid forms of knowledge. Inadequately, I'll suggest "emotional intelligence" as an example, just to create some possibility in the minds of the disbeliever that there are other forms of knowledge. Also, I will suggest that the very fact that some cannot think of other forms of knowledge without a lot of help and effort is evidence of how deeply we are enveloped by the values of modernity.
Jarvis describes that according to the values of modernity, knowledge is accepted as true if
a) it can be legitimated by rational argument,
b) it can be demonstrated by empirical facts, or
c) it can be shown to "work" (pragmatic)
With regard to LLL
This, and a few other arguments, lead Jarvis to conclude that sci/tech knowledge isn't really enough. It has flaws. There is room for other ways of thinking about and engaging with knowledge.
The second value of modernity discussed by Jarvis is the pair of Individualism and Freedom.
His description of individualism (and of freedom also) is intentionally circuitous. He shows how we are individuals and then how we are not, how we are individuals, and how individualism is unachievable. he does this for freedom as well. The conclusion is that a focus and a belief in the individual as a free and autonomous agent is problematic. What we really have is the freedom to be controlled. Education is to educate people "...in the art of being free in a socially acceptable way and to regulate it in ways that make it useful to society." (p. 78).
Neo-liberalism is very focused on the individuals choice however. It depends on it. Interestingly, I thought, in spite of this belief in individual freedom and action, LLL is often promoted as a responsibility of the individual for the betterment of society. The goal, particularly according to organizations such as the WB and New Labour in Britain and the USA, of LLL is for the benefit of the society. Neo-liberalism relies on the individual and yet focuses on the benefit of something supra-individual (and what that is, is a topic for another day!)
The third value is rationality and pragmatism, and is not unlinked to the first value of sci/tech knowledge. Again, his discussion goes around in what I found to be confusing loops, but that may be my inadequacies as a reader. The point again is that, just like the first two values, rationality/pragmatism is ambiguous, internally inconsistent, and lacking.
I was interested in his quote from Simmel (1971, p. 85) in which he points out that the market has created anonymity of interests and results in "...unmerciful matter-of-factness; and the intellectually calculating economic egoism of both parties need not fear any deflection because of the imponderables of personal relationships."
In his conclusions, Jarvis explains that LLL has a major role to play in the development of individuality and rationality, but that learning is being channelled in specific directions by the sub-structure.
Gee, that was fun! *grin*
Tomorrow, I will summarize the 4th chapter entitled:
Capitalism and Society
You might want to wait until AFTER your Christmas egg-nog to read it though....
in fact
why don't you put it off until boxing day!
No comments:
Post a Comment