Some of the critique of knowledge and the workplace overlaps with critiques of the second generation’s vision of learning and education. But there are some additional concerns. The first concern is that learning is positioned as lifelong and life-wide now by necessity and not by choice. As far back as 1969, Drucker insisted that in a knowledge-based economy, “school and life can no longer be separate” (p. 24). Bagnall (2000) claims that learning is no longer seen as initial preparation for life, but rather a continual necessity. We never reach the state of mastery, but rather remain in a continual state of apprenticeship (Rikowski, 1999; Usher and Edwards, 2007). When learning is positioned as both the problem and the solution, individuals must become cognitively aware of their ever-present and ever-changing deficits and accept that there is no choice but to address those deficits with continual learning (Simons and Masschelein, 2008). Popkewitz (2008) sees LLL as a reflection of unfinished cosmopolitanism of constant change in which “the only thing that is not a choice is making choices” (p. 75). According to Popkewitz, LLL is a cultural thesis which links the individual to the solutions for the good of the collective. The collective, however, isn’t humanity in general, but rather the nation, according to Popkewitz. LLL becomes a necessity as a part of citizenship. I would argue that the collective could also be seen in the current discourse as the region (such as the EU), the industry, or the corporation for which an individual works. LLL is then a necessity as a part of corporate or regional citizenship as well.
Jarvis (2008) explains that learning is being channelled into specific directions by the substructures and the culture of global corporate capitalism. Learning is embedded in culture and in practice, subject to the norms and dominant meanings, situated in socio-cultural understanding. We must therefore understand learning and LLL as a part of the dominant culture and practices of neoliberal global capitalism (Usher and Edwards, 2007).
[T]he concept of LLL and the Learning society are social constructions biased to reflect those aspects of global capitalism that are seen to be essential to its perpetuation…the forms of learning to which we are exposed in everyday life…are indoctrinating and the type of society that we call a learning society is actually quite totalitarian. (Jarvis, 2008b, p. 109)
According to Rivera (2008) the WB sees a narrow role for LLL: economic growth and poverty reduction. It strikes me that these two objectives are not differentiated. If economic growth is accompanied by a siphoning of most of the additional wealth to go into fewer and fewer hands, poverty may not be reduced. It may, in fact, grow. The dominant discourse “…constructs learning entirely in the service of its contribution to the consumerist, economically centred culture of advanced capitalist production, consumption and exchange” (Bagnall, 2001, p. 46) (Wain, 2008).
A great deal of the education of adults in the West at the start of the 21st century can only be described as an extension of global capitalism and learning is something demanded by the system, and as such it has no independent ideology—it merely reflects the demands of global capitalism. (Jarvis, 2008b, p. 186)
Margison (1997, p. 21) put it this way:
Overwhelmingly the product of economic determinism within a postmodern cultural context…[LLL is] framed or determined by considerations of cost and benefit as measured through the economy. …the value of education and learning are reduced to –calculated and constructed as—assessments of their contribution and cost to individual, local, national, regional or global economic well-being. (quoted in Bagnall, 2000)
Learning is narrowly defined as a process for obtaining a private possession—a commodity contributing to competition, capitalism and consumerism (Bagnall, 2000, 2001; Biesta, 2006; Wain, 2008). It is not seen as social (Sultana). It is not seen as a choice, a right and a public good (Bagnall, 2000; Usher and Edwards, 2007). It is not seen as embedded in contextual and personal factors (Usher and Edwards, 2007). And, it is not seen as part of larger fallible systems and structures. Instead, it is over-emphasized as the only problem and the only solution, thereby promoting a narrow vision of social reality (Ed, 2006). The WB “is bureaucratically adopting one answer to situations that demand more than one model” (Rivera, 2008, p. 282).
Alternative and more inclusive visions of LLL are possible. For example, Yeaxlee (1929) and Lindeman (1926) offer a more comprehensive understanding of education as a continuing aspect of a person’s everyday life…not just a preparation for an unknown future (Ouane, 2008). Boreham (2006, p. 131) describes work process knowledge as “an alternative way of conceptualizing work-related knowledge that is needed which integrates the tacit with the codified and the [know] how with the [know] that”.
Jarvis (2008) sees the learner as a whole person who carries all their experiences with them, and disjuncture (experiences which are inconsistent with the learner’s current world view) as the stimulus for learning. Learning as a process that happens when one chooses not to ignore disjuncture, but to engage in thought, reflection, emotional response, and action, thereby making meaning of the experience and incorporating the new experience into their being, or biography. Jarvis’ definition of LLL is:
...the combination of processes throughout a lifetime whereby the whole person--body (genetic, physical and biological) and mind (knowledge, skills, attitudes, values, emotions, beliefs and senses) ---experiences social situations, the perceived content of which is then transformed cognitively, emotively or practically (or through any combination) and integrated into the individual person's biography resulting in a continually changing (or more experienced) person. (p. 4)
Usher and Edwards (2007) describe an alternative vision more in terms of how it differs from that of the dominant discourse. They claim that the dominant discourse is concerned with
· people versus structures;
· promotion of learning instead of provision;
· transfer of knowledge rather than its production;
· managing learning over managing teaching;
· flexibility versus rigidity;
· breaking barriers to learning instead of considering the ways in which it is creating barriers.
I would add that the dominant discourse is also concerned with breadth more than it is with depth: quantity more than quality. People are being encouraged to learn a wider variety of things superficially (e.g. skills that will become out-dated) instead of becoming masters who understand one area and all its nuances more intimately. The dichotomy that Usher and Edwards set up troubles me to a degree, however. I think it a mistake to discount the value of considering promotion, people, transfer et cetera, of LLL. A truly holistic vision of LLL would allow for all of these things.
No comments:
Post a Comment