A Narrow Vision of Knowledge

Narrow Vision of Knowledge

Proponents of the second generation discourse are critiqued for having tunnel vision. Focusing on a portion of reality, they make invisible that which is not in their normalizing vision. For instance, a narrow conceptualization of knowledge is front-staged, and other forms are either back-grounded or eliminated from the discourse.  They are discoursed out of existence. Although knowledge is positioned as a mechanism to learn to handle the future (Olssen &Peterssen, 2008),  Jarvis (2008) argues that some of the knowledge lost in the neoliberal global capitalist language of LLL is precisely the kinds of knowledge that are needed for societies to thrive.

Some authors suggest that codified, high-status credentials and scientific and technological knowledge is privileged over other forms of knowledge (Edwards, 2006; Usher and Edwards, 2007)

The dominant world view of knowledge and learning has been that bequeathed by the enlightenment myth.  Most significantly, this powerfully inscribed a technical-rational coding or mode of understanding and acting in the world.  Knowledge became unreflexively fashioned as a matter of theorization…[and] would enable the discovery of the ‘true’ nature of things…(Usher and Edwards, 2997, p. 4).

Others (e.g. Boreham, 2006) explain that it is the tacit “know how” that is most prized. Self-knowledge which will encourage LLL is also prized, as are innovation and creativity.  In each case, however, knowledge is only valued if it can be conceptualized as a resource for competitive advantage.  Everything else ceases to be considered knowledge. Knowledge is more and has more value than the subset of knowledge that is useful for competitive advantage.  But in the second generation discourse, knowledge is primarily a commodity.

Knowledge has itself become a sign, a commodity, a product in tis own right that can be purchased and compounded for its own economic or cultural value—capital which can confer competitive advantage and/or status… (Usher and Edwards, 2007, p. 32)

Drucker (1969) may have been the first to popularize the notion of knowledge as capital and the “crucial means of production” (p. xi) (Simons and Masschelein, 2008). Now, it “becomes coded precisely by its capacity to be commodified with a marketable value; knowledge as intellectual property” (Usher and Edwards, 2007, p. 132).

As corporations are increasingly influencing curricula (Jarvis, 2008), knowledge is commodified in a certain way. Science and technology are valorized because they lead to new commodities, efficiency and profit (Jarvis, 2008). Empirical pragmatic utility is increasingly used to evaluate the value, and even the truth of knowledge. This enables a shift from relevant knowledge from experts to learner-subjects who are knowledge producers responding to a need to know about an unknown and unpredictable future (Olssen &Peterssen, 2008). But largely, it is the future of the organization that is targeted.

The implication for the concept of LLL is reductive, referring primarily to work-oriented education (Rivera, 2008, p. 282).

Several authors (Bagnall, 2000; Biesta, 2006; Olssen, 2008; Rivera, 2008) suggest that knowledge is increasingly linked to “learning for earning” (Biesta, 2006, p. 174) where one learns new knowledge in order to be productive and remain employable. Rivera (2008, p. 5) argues that the WB’s vision for LLL in its ESSU (2005) includes having “…more adults obtain skills and gainful employment.” Olssen (2008) suggests that knowledge itself is less important than skills and information…the latter are short-lived and never saturated.  One collects competencies and turns them in when they expire, allowing one to be prepared for the next job. Rivera (2008, p. 32 describes that LLL is to be tied to labour market strategies which “…identify and develop those skills that are most demanded in the global economy, while learning how to learn—rather than occupation-specific skills” (p. 32).

It should be noted that the drive for employability is not necessarily to ensure that workers benefit from better jobs, but rather that jobs benefit from better workers. The EC (1997) ) pointed out the need for a more flexible workforce to be more competitive and to meet the changing needs of the global capitalist economy. (Boreham, 2007). It’s FRP4 and FRP 5 projects view the primary function of LLL as “…to guarantee the availability of suitable human resources necessary for the reproduction and accumulation of capital in a knowledge based economy” (Sultana, p. 59). The  OECD’s (1989) Education and the Economic in a Changing Society  stressed the importance of adopting a human resources perspective for LLL (Rubenson, 2008). The WB (2003, p. xvii) sees LLL as “…crucial to preparing workers to compete in the global economy” (Rivera, 2008).

Workers do not necessarily compete in the global economy.  International corporations do. One might suggest that where the WB is positioning workers as more competitive, suggesting personal benefit, what is really happening is that workers are contributing to the competitive position of their employer in a global economy. Furthermore, increasing the employability of the overall labour market does not necessarily decrease unemployment nor result in better jobs for those employed. It might have an effect on the overall competitiveness and profits of organizations. It may also translate into an education inflation scenario where higher credentials are required for jobs that do not necessarily need more skills or knowledge. A significant number of people with bachelor degrees are working in service industry and other jobs that do not require a higher education.

Individuals are not necessarily advancing with their advancing knowledge because the structural considerations of employment are not being addressed. Instead, individuals are expected to adapt to never ending and rapid change.  “The new citizen is required to engage in ceaseless work of training and retraining, enhancement of credentials and preparation for a life of ceaseless job-seeking: life is to become a continuous economic capitalization of the self” (Rose, 1999, p. 161, as quoted in Edwards, 2008b). One might question if ceaseless up-skilling is sustainable. 

Tomorrow's post will look at the discourse's narrow vision of work and the labour market.