Today, I try to bring it all together and propose a possible direction.
If LLL discourse represents and responds to an imaginary or simulacra of globalization and reality, then surely other conceptualizations are possible. Rubenson (2004) described a third orientation developing after 2000 in response to a growing acknowledgement of the dangers of a strong economistic orientation to LLL. Rubenson calls this the soft economistic orientation. Whereas the first generation emphasized the role of civil society, and the second generation posited a strong role for the market, downplaying the state and almost neglecting civil society, the third generation is still rooted in market-objectives but it allows for more of a role for the state and civil society (NF, 2008).
A triadic nature of this kind is common in discussing conceptualizations of LLL. Above, we consider the role of the state, the market and civil society. Schuetze (2008) spoke of three models of LLL: emancipatory, human capital, and mixed. Aspin (2007) speaks of personal, vocational and political learning. Biesta (2006) discusses economic, personal and democratic dimensions (N&F, 2008). Bagnall (2000) explores three programmatic purposes of LLL: personal development; citizenship and democratic participation; and adaptive.
As the conflicting dominant and academic discourses reveal, LLL is an elusive and contested concept (Biesta, 2006; Rubenson, 2004; Wain, 2008). It is a “slippery signifier” and “semiotic banner behind which a range of differing groups and interests can happily march” (Usher and Edwards, 2007, p. 44). Whether discussing the goals or nature of, or the responsibility for LLL, stakeholders struggle to assert their own perspectives over others. Some might call this a battle to be chief hegemon. But Biesta (2006) reminds us that LLL is a multi-dimensional and composite concept. Differences in the discourses are simply shifts in priorities and foci among the possible.
It is for this reason this paper has avoided a more than cursory definition of LLL. To questions of the nature, goals and responsibilities in LLL, here are many answers. Is it for upskilling or reskilling? Problems solving or soft-skills? Transferable skills or learning skills? It is about creativity, motivation, or capacities. Are we promoting competencies, codified or tacit knowledge; know-how or know-that? Should learners learn to adapt, learn certain values and attributes, or learn to be a particular type of person? What is LLL for and how should it be done? Is it concerned with work skills in work, learned within the organization and industry or outside of it? Is it for changing jobs, changing industries, or changing effectiveness? Is it for advancement or maintenance of one’s economic and social position? Is it for personal competitive advantage, job security, corporate/national advantage, or is learning valuable for its own sake.
Yes.
Condemning the dominant discourse “has become something of a growth industry among scholars” (Rubenson, 2004, p. 32). Bagnall (2000, p. 32) argues that we are living in “…the luxury of the prevailing corrosive cynicism which is the product of our profound disillusionment with the inhumanity of all great and influential ideologies of recent history”. But I refer back to Schuetze’s (2008) comparison of LLL to a chameleon which changes with context; to Fejes’ (2008) contention that the aims of learning change with issues and narratives; and to Griff (2008)’s position that LLL is a strategy. Different agents at different time, under different contexts and for different purposes will see LLL and use LLL in different ways for their differing objectives. LLL is a means to an end. I suggest that critical scholars who condemn the discourse for its vision of LLL are analogous to someone who uses a knife for ceremonial purposes condemning someone for using a knife to cut up a steak. It is fair to critique the ends and it is fair to critique a dominance of discourse that could essentially eliminate the consideration of LLL as a tool for other means. But the conceptualizations of the goals and nature of the tool are a product of its contexts. I refer back to Bagnall (2000) who described the second generation LLL discourse as a construction of economic determinism and unavoidably reflective of it. The first generation discourse was a construction of humanistic and emancipatory ideology and unavoidably reflective of it. Dewey (1966) argued that education doesn’t have aims: people do (Wain, 2007).
Wain (2008, p. 396) argued that LLL “LLL is a key phenomenon of the post modern woeld just as mass schooling was of the modern world, and that today’s philosophers of education need to work with and within that reality; that the appropriate response to the dominant discourse in LLLL is not to criticize and then ignore it but to engage with it”. Instead of accepting that those with economistic objectives have an economistic view of LLL and use it for economistic purposes, scholarly critique strikes me as unnecessarily antagonistic. “Rhetorical strategies at play in academic debate can tend toward a polarization of positions rather than a subtle exploration and teasing out of the various issues within a complex layered, and sometimes unfamiliar landscape. The language game of the academy encourages an adversarial stance” (Usher and Edwards, 2007, p. 50).
Scholarly critique reminds me of someone shouting: “Help! They’ve hijacked the LLL train!” Humanistic scholars see the potential that LLL has for personal growth, democracy, political participation, social inclusion, and emancipation and are offended that economists might redirect that train to other more narrowly defined means. But there is more than one train. And we can design new trains with different characteristics to go where we want them to go. I suggest that it is not inappropriate for economists see and use LLL in ways that support their interests. However, I do share a concern over the possibility that we may become deaf to the broader aims and value of LLL. If the economist train blows its whistle too loudly, we might not hear the boarding call for the trains taking us to other destinations.
Jarvis (2008) reminded us that Utopias serve the purpose of allowing us to envision something better and pointing us in that direction. Both the first and second generation LLL discourses are utopian and each hopes to direct us toward something better. Where they differ is in their definition of the good life. In the first generation, the good life is defined in humanistic terms. In the second generation, it is defined by economic prosperity in general, economic growth more specifically, and competitive advantage even more specifically. As utopian visions they are analogous to travel brochures: They give us a vision of some place we might like to go.
Humanistic scholars have been largely criticizing the brochure. I suggest that it would be more valuable to accept the brochure as representing one valid desired destination, and to examine it for ways in which it can be integrated into an integrated travel package of different destinations for different objectives. Scholars should focus on how to develop a more integrated approach that includes the objectives of the economistic orientation.
Wain (2007) suggested that in the White Paper, the economic focus overshadowed social and political concerns, and that this may be a key reason why the EU’s common constitution was not ratified in 2005. He proposed that member countries were looking for a more integrated approach in LLL and in other things. Bagnall (2000) called for a vision that focuses on the public and the private as well as on long-term sustainability. There have been steps in the direction of a more integrated conceptualization. I refer back to Rubenson’s description of a soft economistic orientation to LLL developing since 2000. I also refer back to the critique that the second generation discourse positioned social issues as addendums to economic development, and the argument that economic development often comes at the expense of humanistic enterprise. Rubenson (2004, p. 33 ) argues that the Memorandum on Lifelong Learning from the European Union (Brussels, 30.10.2000) “departs from the assumption that contemporary social and economic changes are interrelated” and addresses them separately, claiming that although social issues are not the automatic effect of economic prosperity, it is indeed possible to achieve both. To achieve both, an integrated approach is needed.
As suggested earlier, scholars need to address the question of how to achieve this integrated approach. Although many suggest that current approaches are not integrated and that the imaginary of the world and LLL have been colonized by a neoliberal corporate capitalist perspective, I have found little evidence of scholars exploring ways in which to change this situation. One noteworthy exception is Aspin and Chapman (2007) who suggest a pragmatic approach to LLL. They suggest that we identify the problems that LLL might address and appreciate that these problems are all related through the three inter-related goals of LLL (personal, political, economic). Only by openly exploring the ways in which these problems and goals intersect can we develop an integrated perspective that might lead to integrated approaches.
One question to ask is “Who is positioned to undertake such integrated explorations?” One might also ask “How can these explorations lead to actionable solutions?” I don’t propose to have a simple or adequate answer. What I suggest here is that we recast our gaze and ask the questions.
With respect to the former question, scholars are positioned to undertake such explorations, even if their explorations have been inadequate so far. There has been substantial critique, and critique is valuable. I suggest it is now time to advance to a less antagonistic agenda: one accepts differing objectives and aims to understand ways in which they articulate and complement each other. By doing this, we might be better equipped to better answer the second question.
A humanistic scholar may find it difficult to allow his or her humanistic objectives to share the podium with other objectives while engaged in such explorations, just as it may be difficult for an economist to not privilege his or her perspectives. I do not suspect that many would suggest that economists undertake such explorations. So, it may be challenging for academic scholars to conceive of an integrated orientation. Specifically referring to scholars in education, Jarvis (2008b, p. 186) complains that “education has in many cases either been colonized by the substructure or it has sold out to it”. Any stakeholder with a primary interest and orientation may have difficulty formulating an integrated understanding of LLL. I suggest that there may be a role for the state in this process, since (ideally) the state represents the interests of the collective and has an interest in the personal, political and economic objectives of LLL.
Jarvis (2008, p. 101?) explains that LLL is an ethical domain. LLL is never neutral and the moral implications of LLL must be “…placed on the political and economic table not shoved in the cupboard”. Historically, when the church lost the power to regulate morality during the move from mercantile to industrial capitalism, the state assumed much of the responsibility. He also argues that the state is now losing some of its power to govern to the substructure: a force with little interest in morality. Even if true, this does not mean that the state has lost the responsibility to address ethical concerns and should therefore be involved in facilitating the development of an integrated perspective of LLL. It should ensure a broad and integrated understanding of LLL is perpetuated and that LLL does not only become the handmaiden of neoliberal global corporate capitalist interests. LLL is a public good, and the public (as represented by the state and by civil society) must play a role in understanding it and directing policy and practice. Neoliberal governmentality has constructed the role of the state as the enabler and not an active intervener in LLL. But the state needs to challenge that notion and become aware of its responsibilities (Fejes, 2008). Jarvis refers to the role of the state as a “cushioning” (p. 101) force protecting the people from the unrestrained forces of global corporate capitalism. I would suggest a language that is more suggestive of facilitating constructive dialogue between different perspectives. In this regard the state can act as of a mediator. I am reminded of the term from MacIntyre (1990, as presented by Vokey, 2011), “community of constrained disagreement”, which suggests to me a constructive engagement of diverse ideas. I am also reminded of Aristotle’s reference of an educated mind as one that can entertain an idea without accepting it. Economistic and humanistic perspectives should begin to entertain each other’s ideas and engage them. The state has a role in facilitating that. The two sides of the conflict do not speak the same language and it is difficult for them to appreciate what the other presents. MacIntyre (as explained by Vokey) suggested that translation is not how to overcome incommensurate languages which lead to incommensurate understandings. Each party must learn to speak the language of the other party. By doing so, each will begin to understand the perspective of the other. This is the only route to truly integrated understanding of LLL, and the state has a role in facilitating that discussion.
I do not suggest that this is an easy or simple endeavour. I point here in a utopian direction. In order for the discussion to be constructive, each “side” has to agree to work toward an integrated approach, and as is true for most negotiations, this will involve some risk and some loss of privilege. Each may refuse to learn the language of the other and claim that it contains assumptions that run counter to fundamental beliefs. But to have any chance of reaching common ground, the sides need to have a mediator and facilitator. The state is best positioned to make this attempt.
Additionally, the state has power and resources to develop programs and policies. In that way, the state also has a role in activating policy and practices that enact the integrated conceptualization of LLL as it is evolves.
Before concluding, I acknowledge one particular issue that remains even should this utopian vision of nation states activating an integrated conceptualization of LLL be realized. The suggestions I make are not particularly useful in impoverished countries of the “majority world” (see Mayo) that have been left in the dust of fast global corporate capitalism. This is not to say that the state does not have a role, however, the situation is contextually very different and I will not explore that issue in any depth here. I will provisionally suggest, however, that nation states in the developed world may have some opportunities available to them in developing LLL in their own countries that may affect lives in the under-developed world.
Tomorrow I will make a very brief post in which I summarize what I have said in the last few weeks.
No comments:
Post a Comment