The last posting summarized the UNESCO or first generation discourse on lifelong learning and described it as humanitarian. Before summarizing the academic critique of the current dominant discourse in lifelong learning, today's posting will give a very brief introduction to the second generation discourse on lifelong learning. This will set us up nicely to explore the criticisms that have been leveled against this discourse, which I will begin to post in 2 days.
What has been described as the second generation conceptualization of LLL (Rubenson, 2008) does not represent a static or united discourse. However, there are common themes that have developed since the 1980s within the discourses in the World Bank (WB), OECD and the European Union (EU), and these themes differ from those of the humanistic orientation. Some would argue that the WB’s constructions have come to represent the dominant view (e.g. See Jarvis, 2008b ) which includes “taken for granted rules of ideas” (Rubenson, 2008, p?). If we envision conceptualizations of LLL as positioned along a continuum, we might place the first generation humanistic orientation at one end of the continuum, and a strong economistic (Rubenson, 200?) orientation on the opposite end. One would not be able to place the positions of the WB, OECD, and the EU in any one specific point along that continuum. Each document from each organization during any time might be interpreted differently by different readers. However, a trend emerged in the 1980s and 1990s among these three organizations to project conceptualizations that have been interpreted as much more strongly economistic. Criticisms of the dominant discourse often presents it as though it eschewed a united and static vision. Although this is not the case, there are trends which are more strongly or more weakly evident in different documents at different times, and it is at those trends that I understand the critique of the dominant discourse to be leveled.
During the 1980s and 1990s, many places in the world were becoming more economically polarized and wealth inequality was growing. Human capital theory was gaining prominence and education was increasingly seen as the route to economic prosperity. Concomitantly, growing neoliberal political orientations emphasized the free-market’s role in directing LLL (Cruikshank, 2008). Neo-liberal economic organizations such as the WB looked increasingly at education as a solution to economic problems, and in the process, they were ascribing meaning to LLL (Rizvi, 2007). The OECD and EU similarly looked to education for solutions. Rapid social and economic changes were seen as a product of changes in technology. Thus, improvements or expansion of education was not only seen as a way to deal with these changes but also expected to enhance innovation and productivity. Education was increasingly seen as a factor in production (Rubenson, 2004). Increasingly discourse was redirected from traditional progressive ideologies toward a prevailing epistemology revolving around economic concerns (Bagnall, 2000).
At this point, I wish to highlight general themes/shifts that emerge in the post-1980s dominant discourse as it is represented by the WB, EU and OECD. This is done to introduce the dominant discourse and not to critique it. Thus, the introduction will be brief. More detail will be presented in the summary of the critiques of the discourse.
One shift refocused the discourse toward learning instead of education. In its publication Educational Sector Statistics Update (ESSU), the WB (2005) claims a “…need for learning throughout the life cycle, based on learning needs rather than age, and aim to replace information-based teacher-directed methods with learning that develops the ability to create, apply, analyze and synthesize knowledge” (p. 59, as quoted in Rivera, 2008). Critics of the dominant discourse address the implications of this shift.
The second generation also includes a vocational shift which aims to increase the overall employability of the labour market. LLL is seen as a way for workers to regain some of the control over their own futures that they have lost due to globalization [this term is taken here to suggest an increasingly globalized free-market economy and mobility of human and other resource capital] (Seager, 2007 as referenced in Jarvis, 2008b). Individual employability and qualifications, and the collective employability and productivity of the labour force are areas of concern (Barr Griffen, 2007; Usher & Edwards, 2007; Wain, 2007). Critics raise concerns about this shift.
Finally, there is a neoliberal shift toward a market-driven approach to economic and social policy. With faith in the efficiency of the free market, the transactional language and rationality of the market is adopted in matters of social and public policy such as education. The WB, for instance, assumes that “…the unrestricted market and competition can bring prosperity to developing nations” (Hyslop-Margison & Sears, 2006, p. 74 as quoted in Jarvis, 2008). LLL, driven by and addressing market interests, is positioned to address economic concerns directly, and to address social concerns directly and indirectly through the prosperity that it promises. Documents from the OECD, EU and even the WB all reference social issues that will be addressed by a market-driven vision of LLL. Expansion and improvements in education and learning throughout the lifespan are presented as mechanisms for personal empowerment, social inclusion, cohesion and democracy. Some critics (e.g. Bagnall, 2000) argue that attention to social issues in these discourses is nothing more than comforting surface dressing.
In two days I will be posting an introduction to the academic crtitical response to this second generation.
No comments:
Post a Comment