Jarvis explains that scholars have had high hopes for the learning society, expecting that it would lead to
- a more democratic society
- a more ideal society
- a more just society
(as defined by individual authors)
This chapter aims to do a critical analysis of LLL and the learning society in its current social context and show that modernity has not succeeded.
Jarvis contrasts LLL as it is presented in two different policy documents:
| EU Policy Document (2001) | UNESCO “Delors” Report (1996) |
| Four aims for LLL: · Employability · Active citizenship · Social inclusion · Personal Fulfillment | Four Pillars of Learning: · Learning to do · Learning to be · Learning to work · Learning to live together |
Jarvis claims that by reflecting on the differences between the aims, we can see that the EU is interested in individualism whereas UNESCO is concerned with the whole society. Personally, I don't see that distinction in just these aims.
This chapter will analyse the components of contemporary LLL and the Learning Society. But first, Jarvis separates two strands of LLL.
- provided by the state or industry or private institutions
- periodic post-compulsory
2. "Human Learning" (ouch! problematic name, I would say)
- other learning
HUMAN LEARNING
1. Informal LLL
- Our first learning, even pre-consciously, is learned informally and through relationships.
- Jarvis repeats his prior arguments that learning is a moral activity, rooted in relationships and related to an ethic of concern for the other.
- He seems to imply that informal LLL is non-cognitive and primarily sensual, but he doesn't actually say this. He does say that non-cognitive, sensual learning is essential to human development.
- Occurring in a GC culture, learning will likely reflect the values of a GC culture.
- As free thinkers, we may reject some of those values
- more organized/institutionalized, but outside of formal schooling
- could be experiential learning, learning from the media, or the hidden curriculum in formal schooling
- much of it is non-reflective learning (passive acceptance)
- some of the messages achieved through non-formal LLL (namely advertising) reflect questionable morality.
- Jarvis points out that the lack of morality in advertising does not imply the same problems with all non-formal LLL
- Schools exist to prepare students for adulthood.
- This implies that they exist FOR children and all of society.
- GC culture is permeating schools and threatening this focus.
- Jarvis suggests that the decline in standards and that this implies that the market has not improved education. (Although he doesn't say it, Jarvis seems to be suggesting causality here: that the market has harmed education. Correlation is not cause.)
- He claims that education should be held to a different moral standard than advertising with regard to intentions of the teacher, techniques, content and the relationship to the truth
- He does not say that schools are failing to be different than advertising in these ways, but he does review some concerns he's presented regarding the hidden curriculum and commercial organizations' partnerships with schools.
- He bemoans the reduction in liberal adult education and other forms of formal learning.
- He notes that the content of formal LLL may not be addressing all the Pillars of Learning in the Delors Report:
Citizenship education, human relationships and ecological education do not play significant roles in the practice of much formal lifelong learning. (p. 155).
RECURRENT EDUCATION
..if education is so essential to human growth and development at one level and to career development at the other, then these functions have moral significance. (p. 155).
- Jarvis critiques recurrent education for favouring the privileged.
- The market implies that those who can afford to pay for LLL are worth more than those who cannot.
- The provision of recurrent education market is one of competition (based on efficiency)
- He critiques provision for focusing on content that will lead to profit instead of enrichment.
- Jarvis accepts that it is economically unfeasible for a state to fund recurrent education for all.
- For those who engage for work related reasons, many (according to a study by Coffield [2000]) feel that their participation is not an opportunity but an obligation (refer to my use of the word "responsitunity" in a previous blog)
...opportunities for lifelong learning were viewed by many of the participants in their study as a threat or an obligation imposed by employers rather than a promise... (p. 156).
THE LEARNING SOCIETY
In the learning society in a GC culture,
It is as if the higher ideals of education have been overtaken by the lower values of the market and the concept of the learning society...might be being used to hide the reality of the place of education in global capitalist society (p. 157)
Jarvis contrasts 2 contemporary learning societies:
The first, is the learning society of GC culture, where people learn to be compliant and flexible and accept the values of GC culture including the commodification of education.
The other is reflected in "Europeanisation" which is "almost the complete antithesis" of the previous learning society. In Europeanisation, people are learning to live together as a group, and not as individuals out for their own personal ends.
Jarvis wonders if we may be experiencing a swing from sensate culture (see Sorokin: a culture validated by the senses) to a more ideationalGC culture. Jarvis reflects on some of the ways in which "people are beginning to become the ends rather than the means" (p. 158) and Jarvis sees these as harbingers of significant change.
He concludes with a brief summary and the thought that the learning society as we now know it is a product of contemporary GC culture and its questionable values and suggests this is why some scholars are looking hopefully to the future where our learning society will be one more rooted in values that support the entire human condition and all of humanity.
Tomorrows summary will be on Chapter 8:
Democracy and the Learning Society
The aim of the chapter is to examine the ideas of democracy. He will conclude that in its 'pure' form, democracy cannot be realised as one might expect. He will be critical of its practicality and highlight Rawls' concerns for liberal democracy.
T
Jarvis accepts that it is economically unfeasible for a state to fund recurrent education for all.
ReplyDeleteMy first thought on reading this was that states that fund large groups of people whose job is to kill other people might not find it so hard to fund education. A bit of hunting shows developed nation spending between $500 and $2000 per person per year on deadweight loss organizations.
Cutting Canada's military budget by half would provide $2500 for every person every five years, which would easily provide a term of university education for them. Just sayin'.
I like how you call a spade a spade: refering to the 'deadweight loss' industries.
ReplyDeleteIt is true. It will anger some people, but sometimes the truth angers people. And I am not going to argue for or against military spending cuts. I could likely argue for both. But it is fair to point out that the military is not an economic organization.
Dr. Shauna Butterwick once said in a class that whenever someone says "we don't have the money" (in this case for education), you have to challenge that. You have to remind them that, no, the fact of the matter is that you have CHOSEN to spend money here and not there. We have chosen, for right or wrong, to spend money on a variety of things instead of education. A question to ask is "Why? What values and assumptions and pressures went into that decision?"