Marxism and Education: International Perspectives on Theory and Action 9781351253307, 1351253301

Table of contents :
Cover
Title
Copyright
Contents
Author Biographies
1 Introduction
2 European Education Policy and Critical Education
3 The Schooling of Teachers in England: Rescuing Pedagogy
4 Transformation in the Teaching Profession in Turkey: From Socialist-Idealist Teacher to Exam-Oriented Technician
5 Education, Secularism, and Secular Education in Turkey
6 Assessing the Effects of the Economic Crisis on Public Education in Greece
7 The Endpoint of Expectation From Education, the Starting Point of Struggle: A Critical Approach to White-Collar Unemployment
8 The Position of an Educational Researcher in a Semi-Peripheral Region: Critical Autoethnography of an Academic Subject in Hungary
9 Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy and the Struggle Against Capital Today
10 Considerations on a Marxist Pedagogy of Science
11 “A Picture Held Us Captive. . . .” Marx, Wittgenstein and the “Paradox of Ideology”
12 Empowerment in Education—A New Logic of Emancipation or a New Logic of Power?
13 Marxist Education Against Capitalism in Neoliberal/Neoconservative Times
Name Index
Subject Index

Citation preview

Marxism and Education

Marxism and Education offers contemporary Marxist analyses of recent and current education policy, and develops Marxist-based practices of resistance from a series of national and international perspectives. The first chapters of the book identify and critique pressure points, impacts of, and developments in capitalism and education, as these pertain to education policy, teacher education, and assessment. In the second half of the book, chapter authors develop Marxist praxis, critical education practices, and resistance against the intensification of neoliberalism and authoritarian conservatism. With contributions from leading, globally-recognised Marxist theoreticians, this book addresses the impacts and developments of neoliberal and authoritarian-conservative education policies across the UK, US, Greece, Turkey, Poland, and Hungary. Lotar Rasiński is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Lower Silesia in Wroclaw Poland. Dave Hill is Visiting Professor at the Social Policy Research Centre at Middlesex University, England, and at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, and is Emeritus Professor of Education Research at Anglia Ruskin University, England Kostas Skordoulis is Professor of Epistemology of Science at the Faculty of Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece.

Routledge Studies in Education, Neoliberalism, and Marxism Series editor: Dave Hill Anglia Ruskin University, Chelmsford and Cambridge, England

9 Female Students and Cultures of Violence in Cities Edited by Julia Hall 10 Neoliberal Education Reform Gendered Notions in Global and Local Contexts By Sarah A. Robert 11 Curriculum Epistemicide Towards An Itinerant Curriculum Theory By João M. Paraskeva 12 Alternatives to Privatizing Public Education and Curriculum: Festschrift in Honor of Dale D. Johnson Edited by Daniel Ness & Stephen J. Farenga 13 The Neoliberal Agenda and the Student Debt Crisis in U. S. Higher Education: Voices of Students and Faculty Edited by Nicholas D. Hartlep, Lucille L. T. Eckrich, and Brandon O. Hensley 14 Ethnography of a Neoliberal School: Building Cultures of Success By Garth Stahl 15 Film as a Radical Pedagogical Tool By Deirdre O’Neill 16 Marxism and Education International Perspectives on Theory and Action Edited by Lotar Rasiński, Dave Hill, and Kostas Skordoulis 17 Class Consciousness and Education in Sweden A Marxist Analysis for Revolutionary Strategy in a Social Democracy By Alpesh Maisura For a full list of titles in this series, please visit https://www.routledge.com/ Routledge-Studies-in-Education-Neoliberalism-and-Marxism/book-series/RSEN

Marxism and Education International Perspectives on Theory and Action

Edited by Lotar Rasiński, Dave Hill, and Kostas Skordoulis

First published 2018 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon, OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2018 Taylor & Francis The right of Lotar Rasiński, Dave Hill, and Kostas Skordoulis to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested ISBN: 978-0-815-36900-4 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-351-25332-1 (ebk) Typeset in Times New Roman by Apex CoVantage, LLC

Contents

Author Biographies 1 Introduction

vii 1

DAVE HILL, KOSTAS SKORDOULIS, AND LOTAR RASIŃSKI

2 European Education Policy and Critical Education

9

GEORGE GROLLIOS

3 The Schooling of Teachers in England: Rescuing Pedagogy

20

GAIL EDWARDS

4 Transformation in the Teaching Profession in Turkey: From Socialist-Idealist Teacher to Exam-Oriented Technician

35

AHMET YILDIZ

5 Education, Secularism, and Secular Education in Turkey

49

UNAL OZMEN

6 Assessing the Effects of the Economic Crisis on Public Education in Greece

60

THEOPOULA-POLINA CHRYSOCHOU

7 The Endpoint of Expectation From Education, the Starting Point of Struggle: A Critical Approach to White-Collar Unemployment

77

AYGULEN KAYAHAN KARAKUL

8 The Position of an Educational Researcher in a Semi-Peripheral Region: Critical Autoethnography of an Academic Subject in Hungary GYÖRGY MÉSZÁROS

89

vi

Contents

9 Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy and the Struggle Against Capital Today

101

PETER MCLAREN AND DEREK R. FORD

10 Considerations on a Marxist Pedagogy of Science

117

KOSTAS SKORDOULIS

11 “A Picture Held Us Captive. . . .” Marx, Wittgenstein and the “Paradox of Ideology”

133

LOTAR RASIŃSKI

12 Empowerment in Education—A New Logic of Emancipation or a New Logic of Power?

144

AGNIESZKA DZIEMIANOWICZ-BĄK

13 Marxist Education Against Capitalism in Neoliberal/ Neoconservative Times

160

DAVE HILL

Name Index Subject Index

183 187

Author Biographies

The Editors Lotar Rasiński received his doctoral degree in Philosophy in 2002 at the University of Wroclaw, Poland, where he was also awarded his habilitation in 2013. He is the Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Lower Silesia in Wroclaw, Poland where he is also the Director of the University of Lower Silesia Academic Press. He held post-doctoral fellowships at the New School for Social Research in New York and the University of California at Berkeley. For his latest book, In the Footsteps of Marx and Wittgenstein: Social Criticism without Critical Theory (2012, in Polish), Rasiński received the prestigious Award of the Prime Minister of Poland (2014). As the editor of the series, Library of Contemporary Social Thought at the ULS Academic Press, he has published Polish translations of renowned authors, such as E. Laclau, M. Nussbaum, P. Sloderdijk, U. Beck, and G. Deleuze. In his research and numerous publications he focuses on political philosophy, theory of discourse, social criticism, and Marxist philosophy. His books include Discourse and Power. Exploring Political Agonism (2010, in Polish), Language, Discourse, Society. Linguistic Turn in Social Philosophy (ed., 2009, in Polish) and Ludwig Wittgenstein—Contexts and Confrontations (eds. with P. Dehnel, 2011, in Polish). Dave Hill is Emeritus Professor of Education Research at Anglia Ruskin University, England and Visiting Professor at the Social Policy Research Centre at Middlesex University, London, and at National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. He chief edits the Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, www. jceps.com, a free, online, peer-refereed international journal (also available in print) which has been downloaded more than a million times since he founded it in 2003. He co-founded the Hillcole Group of Radical Left Educators in England and chaired it 1989–2001. He has 25 books published and in-press, and over a hundred chapters and academic articles. Dave is a Marxist academic and political and trade union activist. His academic work focuses on issues of neoliberalism, neoconservatism, capitalism, class, ‘race’, resistance, and socialist/Marxist education/education for equality. Many of his papers are online at www.ieps.org.uk/publications/online-papers-dave-hill/. He is the Director of

viii Author Biographies the Institute for Education Policy Studies (www.ieps.org.uk) which publishes JCEPs and Marxist/radical left books. As a Marxist political activist, he has fought 13 elections at local, national, and European levels and been an elected regional trade union leader. In terms of Direct Action, he has recently been tear-gassed while on Left demonstrations in Ankara and in Athens. He lectures worldwide to academic and socialist activist/trade union groups and co-organises, with Kostas Skordoulis, the annual ICCE conference (International Conference on Critical Education). The Sixth (2016) conference was at Middlesex University, London, in August 2016. The Seventh (2017) conference was 28 June-2 July 2017 at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, website, icce-vii. weebly.com. Kostas Skordoulis is Professor of Epistemology of Science at the Faculty of Education, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece. He has studied Physics at the University of Kent at Canterbury, UK and has a Ph.D. in Quantum Optics from NHRF (Greece). He has worked as a Visiting Researcher at the Universities of Oxford (UK), Jena (Germany) and Groningen (Netherlands) holding Scholarships from DAAD (Germany) and NWO (Netherlands). He has been the Secretary of the Teaching Commission of the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science, Member of the Council of the European Society for History of Science. He is currently an, Effective Member of the International Academy of History of Science. He is co-Editor of Almagest: International Journal for the History of Scientific Ideas (Brepols, Belgium) and member of the Editorial Boards of the journals, Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies (IEPS, UK), International Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences (CG Publishers, USA), Green Theory and Praxis (ICAS, USA), Advances in Historical Studies (SRP, USA) and Science & Education (Springer/2001–15). He is also co-editor of the Newsletter for the History of Science in Southeastern Europe and Editor of the Journal Kritiki: Critical Science & Education. He has published extensively on issues of History of Science, Science Education, and Socio-Scientific Issues with a critical perspective.

The Contributors Polina Chrysochou is a final-year Doctoral researcher (studentship holder) at Anglia Ruskin University, UK, an Associate Fellow of the Higher Education Academy and an Associate Lecturer in the Department of Education. She studied Physics at Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece and gained a Master’s degree in Education from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, Greece, where she has taught as an Academic Tutor and Lab Instructor. She was a visiting scholar in the Department of Philosophy, University of Nantes, France in 2012.

Author Biographies ix She was Co-Convenor of Critical Education and Justice (CEJ) research seminar series, and is Assistant Editor of the Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies (JCEPS) and Member of the Editorial Board of International Book Series, Marxist and Socialist Studies in Education. She is also Member of the Teaching Commission of the Division of History of Science and Technology of the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science and Member of the Hellenic Society of History, Philosophy and Didactics of Science. She has been a member of the organising committee of International and Panhellenic Conferences, presented at various peer-reviewed international conferences and she has been involved in publishing as single author, coauthor and co-editor (book chapters and papers in peer-reviewed journal and conference proceedings). Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk has a background in education and philosophy, which she has studied at University of Wrocław, Poland. She works as a research assistant at Mid-Term Analysis Unit in Educational Research Institute in Warsaw, where she is responsible for analysing Polish education policy (especially policy executed by the local municipalities). She also collaborates as an expert in the field of education with the Ferdinand Lassalle Centre of Social Thought in Wrocław and with the Friedrich Ebert Foundation in Warsaw. She is an author and a co-author of several articles and research reports on social and education related issues. Her research interests include critical pedagogy and sociology of education, education policy and organisation, critical discourse analysis. Currently, she is completing her Ph.D. thesis on radical critique of education in contemporary social thought at the Department of Social and Political Philosophy of the University of Wroclaw. Gail Edwards teaches at Newcastle University, UK. Prior to this, she worked as a teacher and advisory teacher in UK state schools. Her research interests and published work focus on the philosophy of the social sciences and research methodology (especially critical realism); teacher education and pedagogy (especially critical and Vygotskian perspectives); and the sociology and history of education (especially critical and Marxist perspectives). She is a member of the research group Transformative Education for Equity (TrEE) and a member of the editorial board of Journal of Critical Education Policy Studies (www. jceps.com). Derek R. Ford is assistant professor of education studies at DePauw University, Indiana, USA. His research focuses on the relationship between educational theory, modes of production, and political organization. He has written and edited six books, including Communist Study (2016) and Education and the Production of Space (2017). Other publications have appeared in journals such as Cultural Politics, Journal of Curriculum and Pedagogy, and Critical Education. He is an organizer with the Answer Coalition, chair of the education department at The Hampton Institute, and co-coordinator of LiberationSchool.org.

x Author Biographies George Grollios was born in Thessaloniki, Greece. He studied Pedagogy at the Department of Primary Education in Aristotle University of Thessaloniki; he finished his Ph.D. (1995) and, now, he teaches as a Professor in the same Department. Before (1985–99), he had been a teacher in Greek State Education for 14 years. He is author and co-author of five books about (a) the European programmes for education, (b) the scientific activity of Greek teachers, (c) an adult literacy programme based on Paulo Freire’s pedagogy at the “Ulysses School for Immigrants” in Thessaloniki, (d) Paulo Freire’s view on the curriculum and (e) Progressive Education and the curriculum. Also, he is author and co-author of about 60 articles published in Greek and international journals and edited volumes, mainly on Pedagogy and Curriculum. Aygülen Kayahan Karakul is an assistant Professor in Izmir Katip Celebi University, Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences in Turkey She studied mathematics in Hacettepe University, gained her Master of Science degree in Mathematics and she received her doctoral degree in the Education Management and Policy programme in 2012 at Ankara University, Turkey. She worked as a mathematics teacher in the public vocational high schools for three years. She is assistant editor of International Journal of Educational Policies (www. ijep.org), which is one of the supporting journals of the annual International Conferences for Critical Education. She has various articles and book chapters on the unemployment of educated labour, the relations between education and employment, resistance culture of students against neoliberalism, resistance by women workers, critical approach to the concept of quality in education, financing policies of education Peter McLaren is Distinguished Professor in Critical Studies at the College of Educational Studies, Chapman University. He is Professor Emeritus in Urban Education at the University of California, Los Angeles (where he taught for 20 years), and Professor Emeritus in Educational Leadership at Miami University of Ohio (where he taught for eight years). Professor McLaren is known and respected worldwide in the education and social justice community. As a “philosopher of praxis” and social and political activist, he is considered one of the primary architects of what has come to be known as critical pedagogy. An award-winning author and editor, Professor McLaren has published approximately fifty books and hundreds of professional publications on education and social justice. His writings have been translated into over 20 languages. He received his Ph.D. in education from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, Canada. Five of his books—including Life in Schools—have won the Critic’s Choice Award of the American Educational Studies Association. Life in Schools has been named by an international panel as one of the 12 most significant writings by authors in the field of educational theory, policy, and practice. György Mészáros is associate professor at the Faculty of Education and Psychology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, Hungary. He has been teaching in

Author Biographies xi teacher education since 2004. He has been involved in several researches in development projects since he defended his Ph.D. in 2009. He does mainly critical ethnographic research, but his research interests include: critical pedagogy, academic subjectivity, teachers’ professional development, critical epistemology, autoethnography, participatory ethnographic research, and LGBT and gender topics. He is the head of the Anthropology of Education Research Group at his Faculty, and he is a member of the Administrative Council of the Association for Teacher Education in Europe. Beside his academic duties, he is involved in queer leftist activism in Hungary. Ünal Özmen worked as a primary school teacher before serving as a director in the ministry of education agency responsible for preparing syllabuses, textbooks, and miscellaneous educational material. He has worked in the Turkish parliament as a left wing party and parliamentary consultant. He was a member of the editorial board of the first educational critique magazine (Zilve Teneffus). He is still acting as the chief editor of the “Elestirel Pedagoji” magazine and has been a columnist in the nationally published, BirGün newspaper, since 2004. Ahmet Yıldız is a lecturer in the department of Lifelong Learning and Adult Education in Faculty of Educational Sciences at Ankara University. He conducts studies in the areas of Social Movements, Non-Governmental Organisations and Education, Adult Literacy, Adult Education Research, Critical Theory, and Critical Adult Education, Transformation of Teaching Profession, and Effects of Neoliberalism on Education. He is the editor of the following books: Yetişkin Eğitimi/Adult Education (Kalkedon Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2009); Yaşam Boyu Öğrenme/Lifelong Learning (Pegama Yayınevi, Ankara, 2003); Öğretmenlik Mesleğinin Dönüşümü/Transformation of Teaching Profession (Kalkedon Yayınevi, İstanbul, 2013). He is the editor of Eleştirel Pedagoji (Critical Pedagogy) Journal. Also, he is a part of the editorial collective of the Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies

1

Introduction Dave Hill, Kostas Skordoulis, and Lotar Rasiński

We live in such times! ‘There are decades when nothing happens, there are weeks when decades happen’.1 We live in such times. The elections and governments of Trump in the US, Erdogan and the AKP party in Turkey, the successes of the openly Nazi Golden Dawn in Greece, the Law and Justice Party government led by Kaczyński in Poland, Orban and the Fidesz party in Hungary, the votes for UKIP in the UK and for Marine Le Pen in France, the vote for far-right parties in Austria and the Czech Republic in elections in 2017, and the influence of openly Nazi and Fascist in Ukraine,—we live in times of savage neoliberalism and its enforcer, conservative authoritarianism that is xenophobic and racist. We live in these times. And we try to contest them, for example, in Radical Left conferences, publications, mobilisations, political parties and groups, social and community organisation and movements. The current economic, social, and political crisis is manifested more deeply in education on a global scale. The crisis—part of, and resulting from dominant neoliberal and neoconservative politics that are implemented and promoted internationally as ‘the only solution’, under the slogan ‘there is no alternative’ (TINA—have substantially redefined the sociopolitical, economic, pedagogic, and ideological roles of education. Public education is shrinking). It loses its status as a social right. It is projected as a mere commodity for sale while it becomes less democratic, de-theorised, de-critiqued. Understanding the causes of the crisis, the particular forms it takes in different countries and the multiple ways in which it influences education, constitute important questions for all those who do not limit their perspectives to the horizon of neoconservative, neoliberal, and technocratic dogmas. Moreover, the critical education movement has the responsibility to rethink its views and practices in light of the crisis, and in the light of social, political, and educational resistance in different countries—the paths that this crisis opens for challenging and overthrowing capitalist domination worldwide. One such mobilisation, conference, is the annual International Conference on Critical Education, the ICCE Conference, held in Athens at the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (2011, 2012), the University of Ankara (2013), the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki (2014), the University of Lower Silesia in Wroclaw (2015), Middlesex University in London (2016), and the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens (2017). It is a forum for scholars, educators, and social movement, trade union and political activists committed to social

2

Dave Hill, et al

and economic justice. The International Conference on Critical Education (ICCE) regularly brings together between 250 and 400 participants, provides a vibrant and egalitarian, non-elitist platform for scholars, educators, activists, students, and others interested in critical education and in contesting the current neoliberal/ neoconservative/nationalist hegemony, to come together and engage in a free, democratic, non-sectarian and productive dialogue. The 5th ICCE: ‘Analyze, Educate, Organize—Critical Education for Social and Economic Justice’ took place at the University of Lower Silesia in the Polish city of Wroclaw from June 15–18, 2015. It is from contributions at that conference that this book has arisen, arising from and developing on and updating plenary papers given at that conference. The updating is important, living as we are in ‘weeks when decades happen’. In this book, we bring Marxist theoreticians and activists and their analyses from the UK, US, Greece, Turkey, Poland, and Hungary. The volume includes perspectives from the Anglo-Saxon world, from post-Soviet countries, from the European country most hit by neoliberalism (Greece) and from Turkey, whose politics and education policy are exemplified by intensive neoliberalism accompanied by an Islamicising neo-conservatism—and accompanied, since the July 2016 coup attempt, by the dismissal of tens of thousands of socialist, communist, Marxist teachers and academics who had nothing to do with the coup, but were targeted solely because of their Left activism and/or their Kurdish ethnicity. A number of those dismissed from their posts, their passports withdrawn, many facing prosecution and imprisonment, are regular participants in the ICCE conferences. The repressive neoliberal/neoconservative right-wing nationalist anti-minority policies, ideology, and actions of the Erdogan government in Turkey serve as a warning to many countries and populations. It is therefore fitting that the book includes a number of chapters from writers/activists working in the context of Turkey. Methodologically the chapters of this volume are varied, ranging from empirical studies, through political and policy analyses, to theoretical papers, and even a narrative interview. This rich variety of approaches reflects the special interdisciplinary character of the network of scholars and practitioners who regularly meet and work within the community that has formed around the annual International Conference on Critical Education, and the Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies. Similarly to the journal and conferences, the authors of papers that you find here talk across traditional disciplinary boundaries in an effort to find meaningful ways of understanding Marxist thought in the present times. Therefore, in the first half of the book, chapters 2 through 8, you will find empirical case studies that take a critical approach to neoconservative and neoliberal trends in different parts of Europe (Grollios, Edwards, Yildiz, Özmen, Chrysochou, Karakul, Mészáros). The second part of the book, chapters 9 through 13, on the other hand, includes theoretical (and historical) studies that try to find ways of bringing Marxist and critical theory to inspire the analysis of current educational problems (McLaren and Ford, Skordoulis, Rasiński, Dziemianowicz-Bąk, Hill). Because the writers are activists in various arenas such as political parties, trade unions, social movements, as well as in academia, the media and publications, the

Introduction 3 unifying theory behind the chapters in the book is Marxist analysis and theories of resistance. The book represents work by leading Marxist theoreticians, in many cases, globally recognised. This is indeed a state of the art, up to date/contemporary collection. It is widely understood in academia nowadays that Marxism is returning as the most effective theoretical body of ideas providing the most accurate analysis of the current crisis of the capitalist system, a crisis that is not only economic but is also cultural, social, political, ecological and in the last analysis, a crisis that affects all aspects of human life. The theoretical superiority of Marxism is attributed to the superiority of its method i.e. to the philosophy of dialectical materialism. Dialectical materialism provides us with a scientific and comprehensive worldview. It is the method on which Marxism is founded. According to Engels, dialectics was “our best working tool and our sharpest weapon”. And at the same time, it is a guide for action and for our activities for the emancipation of the working class and the toiling masses. Ernest Mandel, in his The Place of Marxism in History2 (Mandel 1986), defends the view that Marx transformed the idealist dialectics of Hegel into materialist dialectics. The basic premises of Materialist Dialectics are as follows: •

•

•

Material reality (nature and society) exists independently of the desires, passions, intentions, and ideas of those who try to interpret it. It is an objective reality, which thought seeks to explain. Naturally, the processes of cognition, of mastering knowledge are themselves objective processes, potential objects of critical scientific examination. Thought can never identify totally with objective reality, if only because the latter is in perpetual transformation and the transformation of reality always precedes in time the progress of thought. But it can get closer and closer to it. Reality is therefore intelligible. Thought can progress (though not necessarily in a linear and permanent manner), and this can be verified concretely and practically, in human history by the consequences (verified predictions, successful applications) that are the practical results of these advances. The ultimate criterion of the veracity of thought is therefore practical. Thought is effective (scientific) insofar as its explanation of the real processes is not only coherent to explain what already exists, but can also be used to predict what does not yet exist, to integrate this prediction into the interpretation of the real process considered as a whole, and to alter and transform reality in line with a pre-established goal. In the last analysis, knowledge is a tool of survival for humankind, a means by which this species can change its place in nature and, thereby, increase its viability.

This general methodology of effective, scientific thought, of thought advancing through successive approximations towards understanding the whole of reality, constitutes an enormous step forward compared with the purely analytical method of fragmentary knowledge.

4

Dave Hill, et al

The method of Marxism requires a critical appropriation of the data produced by the most advanced academic research combined with a critical analysis of the emancipation movement of the working class. Marxism does not believe in innate knowledge. Nor does it behave as the “educator” of the proletariat, or the “judge” of history. It constantly learns from the continuously changing reality. It understands that the educators themselves need to be educated, that only a collective revolutionary praxis, rooted on the one hand in scientific praxis, and on the other in the real praxis of the proletariat, can produce this self-education of the revolutionaries and all toiling humanity. The moment is ripe for such Marxist analyses/proposals, the moment being a crisis of Capitalism (since 2008) with its accompanying austerity, social dislocation and activism and political polarisation to the Left and the Right.

Contents In the first half of this volume, writers from England, Greece, Turkey, and Hungary use Marxist theory to analyse and critique neoliberal and neoconservative education in their different countries. The theories they develop and apply, the critique they make—and resistance proposals they make—while situated within specific national contexts have a wider significance and resonance, beyond the borders from within which they write. It commences with, as Chapter 2 (following this Introduction) European Education Policy and Critical Education, by George Grollios, who analyses the main concepts and directions of European education policy. More specifically, he shows how the historic development of the European Union as an alliance of the dominant capitalist social classes of its members-states has shaped a neoliberal European education policy. This policy imposes particular educational goals and standards on the educational system of each member-state in order to empower the European Union in the economic and political international competition. Grollios suggests that educators in Europe need to be aware of the main concepts and directions of the European education policy if they are serious about building an international community fostering economic, social, and political change towards socialism. Chapter 3, The Schooling of Teachers in England: Rescuing Pedagogy, is by Gail Edwards. She writes that pedagogy is a progressive force for social transformation and, though European countries have had a strong pedagogic tradition historically, the English education system has been overwhelmingly concerned with character formation as part of the reproduction of classed social relations. Pedagogic advance represents a threat to the social order and has been blocked by government legislation, particularly during times of capitalist crisis. In this chapter however, Edwards argues that this is not a full explanation and that pedagogic neglect is further explained by the success of educational movements which pose as progressive but which are in reality profoundly pessimistic. In the context of class struggle, they are a conservative force. The analysis is therefore instructive for critical teacher educators aiming to understand the interplay between ideology,

Introduction 5 class consciousness, and structural forces. The research presented here relates to England, the author having worked as a teacher educator in England for many years. But the analysis has wider relevance. In Chapter 4, Transformation in the Teaching Profession in Turkey: From the Idealist Teacher to the Exam-Oriented Technician, Ahmet Yildiz writes that, as in all other professions, the practices and social status of teaching is shaped by the social, economic, and political conditions of a given era. As a result, each era gives rise to its own unique teacher typology. He argues that it is, therefore, essential to know the historical background of the issue in order to deepen our understanding of the new teacher type imposed by the neoliberal project, to show that this new teacher is not normal-natural or universal, and that a different teaching practice is possible. Yildiz considers the changing teacher typology in Turkey in four traditional political stages. Yildiz is followed, in Chapter 5, Education, Secularism, and Secular Education in a Muslim Community, by Ünal Özmen, who examines the policies against secularism, the basic principle of democracy, developed by the Middle East monarchs, who became annoyed at the “Arab Spring” revolts and became annoyed, especially, at the invasion of Iraq for the purpose of exporting “democracy”. In this context, Turkey’s participation in this process as a model country and the transformation of its schools, which play an important role in building a secular society, are analysed. The purpose of Chapter 6, Assessing the Effects of the Economic Crisis on Public Education: A Preliminary Data Analysis from Greece, by Polina Chrysochou, is to investigate the effects of the economic crisis in Greece on the working lives and experiences of teacher professional communities. Her chapter is based on qualitative research, involving 24 semi-structured focus group interviews and a total of 24 public primary schools in the Attica region and in the city of Volos and its suburbs. The interviews with teachers covered themes such as teaching/learning conditions, school resources, employment issues, household income, effects on students and teachers’ initiatives, collective activity and coping strategies in the face of the current neoliberal crisis and its impacts. Based on interviews with 102 primary teachers of various teaching disciplines, Chrysochou considers their constant referring to changes in the larger social and political environment, such as unemployment, changes in family, poverty, racism, and authoritarian government policies, along with their fears and anxieties of the potential implications of those changes to both the professional/interpersonal relationships within the school and the nature and purpose of public education. In making a preliminary assessment of the situation, Chrysochou explicates the complex, numerous, and significant impacts, affecting not only teachers, but also students and parents. In Chapter 7, The Endpoint of Anticipation from Education and Starting Point of Struggle: The Unemployment of White-Collar Workers, Aygulen Kayahan Karakul critically examines important changes in the vocational structure with advanced capitalism. White-collar workers, that is, educated labour power, are prepared for work in qualified, high-paying jobs that require intellectual effort, with

6

Dave Hill, et al

job security and good working conditions. White-collar, middle-class workers have gained privileges by using their level of education, along with the developing needs of capital, during recent decades of capitalism. But with the huge changes in labour markets under neoliberalism, white-collar workers have lost their privilege and are, in some cases, started to revolt, seeking new conditions. This chapter illuminates the changed nature of working conditions for white-collar workers and questions this new starting point of struggle, acting together with all those oppressed by capitalism. Chapter 8 is by György Mészáros and examines The Position of Educational Researchers in a Semi-Peripheral Region and the Rise of Neoliberal Policies in the Academia: The Case of Hungary from a historical materialist and dialectical perspective. The capitalist modes of production and the wider context of global capitalism determine the position, yet leaving place for agency. Wallerstein’s concept of the world system theory offers a useful framework to identify some specificities of this position in a semi-peripheral region such as Hungary. The chapter focuses particularly on the rise of neoliberal policies influencing the position, role, and life of educational academics. Mészáros claims that neoliberal policy tendencies have entered the academia in Hungary, only recently bringing devastating consequences. Standardisation, high expectations towards researchers, pressure followed by the lack of resources, and economic constrains in higher education have made the situation of academics more and more difficult and exploited. This chapter is based upon policy and documentary analysis combined with autoethnographic self-reflection. The second half of the book, addressing Marxist theory regained, critical education and resistance, brings together scholar activists from the US, UK, Greece, and Poland. It starts with Chapter 9, by Derek Ford—an interview with Peter McLaren, the most well-known proponent of that version of critical education, the Marxist version, called Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy. Chapter 9 is Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy and the Struggle against Capital Today: An Interview with Peter McLaren, interviewed by Derek Ford. The interview revisits some of the distinguishing features of revolutionary critical pedagogy, why this approach is politically and ethically necessary given the current historical juncture, and the need to work out the broad content of what a social universe outside of value production might look like as we fight to transition to a socialist alternative to capitalism. In Chapter 10 by Kostas Skordoulis, Considerations on a Marxist Pedagogy of Science, Skordoulis writes that existing science education curricula, even those advocating the social impacts of science, are inadequate to meet the needs and interests of students faced with the demands, issues, and problems of contemporary life under capitalism, especially in an era of crisis. Skordoulis argues that a much more politicised approach for science education is required, with major emphasis on social critique, empowerment, and political action. Skordoulis suggests that Critical Education as an alternative, currently investigated and developed by a number of radical science educators and critical pedagogues, is largely based on Critical Theory and Freire’s Critical Pedagogy and to a

Introduction 7 lesser extent on Cultural Studies and ‘identity politics’. In this chapter, he studies the perspectives for a renewed Marxist pedagogy of science interpreted within the framework of classical Marxism and more specifically in terms of Bernal’s views developed in the “Social Function of Science” and Zilsel’s theory for “the Social Origin of Modern Science”. Both scholars under study are considered as initiators of Marxist history of Science. So, this chapter first and foremost sets out to reestablish the actuality of Marxist History of Science through its interaction with the currently established field of Science Studies. Analysis of the legacies and works of these scholars of the Marxist tradition shows that intellectual enrichment of and with the modern problematic can form the basis for a Marxist pedagogy of science that can change society and its practices. In Chapter 11 by Lotar Rasiński, ‘A Picture Held Us Captive. . . .’ Marx, Wittgenstein, and the Paradox of Ideology, Rasiński attempts to rethink and reformulate Marx’s concept of ideology from the perspective of Wittgenstein’s critique of language. Rasiński finds the sources of classical formulation of Marx’s concept of ideology in German Ideology, where Marx makes an analogy between ideology and camera obscura. Rasiński calls a paradox of ideology a traditional difficulty related to Marx’s concept of ideology: on the one hand, it denunciates a falsity (“reversion”) of the picture that we see through ideology, and on the other hand, it postulates the idea of a pure (“not reversed”) view of reality which can be seen from the proletariat’s position. He uses Wittgenstein’s concepts of “perspicuous representation” and “aspect change” to demonstrate the possibility of thinking about the critique of ideology that could be free of Marx’s dogmatic assumptions concerning the role of a privileged subject and economic reductionism. In the conclusion Rasiński demonstrates how the critique of ideology can be still useful for critical education. In Chapter 12, Empowerment in Education—a New Logic of Emancipation or a New Logic of Power? Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk discusses the idea of empowerment in education as undoubtedly one of the main interests of critical and progressive educators. She writes that this is usually presented as promoting emancipation through education, but emancipation that comes rather from an individual and collective engagement rather than from an external “liberator” (such as teachers, schools, education, or social system). It puts the emphasis on the internal, subjective roots of empowerment that distinguishes contemporary approach to the emancipatory potential of education from pedagogical ideas of Enlightenment and Modernity (Rousseau, Helvetius, Kant, Schiller), which tended to see emancipation as something that needs to be provided by someone already in power. In the chapter Dziemianowicz-Bąk discusses the category of empowerment as it is seen and used in the field of critical pedagogy and philosophy of education (e.g. Paulo Freire, Jacques Rancière). Then, in order to critically analyse this category, she refers to the Foucauldian and post-Foucauldian perspective: she discusses the post-Foucauldian concept of educationalization (Dapaepe, Smeyers, Simon) seen as a manifestation of governmentality (Foucault, Dean, Miller, Rose)—the form of power that can be identified with the neoliberal

8

Dave Hill, et al

technology of governing through freedom. Educationalization, according to her, describes the tendency to extend the pedagogical ideas, categories, and methods to the non-educational aspects of life, such as economy, politics, civil society, culture, or even personal life. Through the processes of educationalization, originally non-pedagogical problems are being redefined and become educational issues. In the chapter, Dziemianowicz-Bąk indicates how the concept of educationalization may be used to present the idea of empowerment as a concept of power rather than of emancipation. The volume concludes in Chapter 13 with Dave Hill’s Critical Education Policy Proposals, and Proposals for critical Marxist education, Developing a Schooling System for Equality: Marxist Education in Neoliberal and Neoconservative Times. Hill calls for activism within micro-, meso-, and macro-level social and political arenas. The focus, however, of this chapter is on activity within formal education institutions, calling for teachers and education workers (and others) to be “Critical Educators,” Resistors, Marxist activists, within and outside official education. The article asks questions such as ‘What is specifically Marxist’ about proposals regarding Pedagogy, Curriculum, the Organisation of Students, and the Control of Education. The chapter seeks to locate such proposals within Marxist theory and practice. This book is valuable. At a time of economic crisis, when education is under siege by neoliberal capitalism, (neo-) conservatism, and aggressive nationalism, when teachers and academics are being proletarianised, youth criminalised, schools and universities turned into marketised commodities, and when different forms of nationalist and religious fundamentalism are growing, critical education, as a theory and as a movement, is gaining in relevance. International communities of activist critical educators, such as those writers taking part in this book, together with others outside the formal education apparatuses, work to build resistance to these processes and are engaged in fostering social change leading to a more just, equal, and fair society. This book is part of that struggle.

Notes 1 Quotation attributed to Lenin (1918), derived from ‘The Chief Task of Our Day’. Online at www.marxists.org/archive/len . . . 918/mar/11.htm 2 Mandel, E. (1986). The Place of Marxism in History. New York: Humanities Press.

2

European Education Policy and Critical Education George Grollios

1957–73: European Educational Policy During the “Thirty Glorious Years” In the postwar era, the state’s intervention in socioeconomic life had been accepted by the developed capitalist nations of the West. In some countries, such as the US, this political idea was understood as a means for the construction of powerful economic and social structures. In other countries, like Sweden, the same idea was related to the creation of a mixed economy, a meta-capitalist society or even a non-Marxist socialist state. For thirty years after World War II, the idea of progress through state’s intervention, which could improve choices and freedom for individuals and communities, formed the basis of a broad consensus between the dominant and the dominated social classes of the West. The state was considered the most appropriate vehicle for the promotion of welfare. Citizens’ individual interests and particular needs could be achieved within a ‘progress for all’ paradigm, prescribing policies that would protect the weak from the powerful elites. After the defeat of Nazism and Fascism in the 1940s, the powerful state that intervened in the economy represented the principal agent through which the hopes for a better and more just life would be embodied. Rapid economic development would become the critical response to these challenges enabling the possibility of financing a programme of social welfare. Apparently, the concept of welfare state was used in order to express the attempt of economic development through state intervention. The institutions that provided social services were viewed as the best means for social welfare and the nation-state was supposed to work for the progress of the society as a whole. Progress in this respect was strongly associated with an active role of the state in the economy and with appropriate interventions on the part of managerial experts, which would promote justice and effectiveness. Regarding the European educational policy, in order to understand this period, we must keep in mind the difference between education and training because the European Economic Community, based on the Treaty of Rome, could implement only policies concerning training. The central question for European integration was its economic integration. Training was only a supplement to this kind of integration. Nevertheless, some features of European economic integration caused

10

George Grollios

problems concerning education. For example, the free movement of workers in the European Economic Community addressed the problems of their education and their children’s. The European Economic Community responded using a policy of “small steps.” These steps were mainly taken by the European Court of Law, which decided that the construction of a common economic policy meant other policy sectors could be used to enforce economic integration. Educational policy was one of these fields. In other words, the decisions of the European Court of Law slowly but steadily legitimised the need for a European educational policy from 1957 to 1976 (Stamelos and Vasilopoulos, 2004). There are several factors behind this slow progress, both economic and political. The first main factor is that European integration was taking place during the Cold War. The European countries that signed the Treaty of Rome were under the NATO umbrella, and they were not strong enough to challenge the military and political hegemony of the US in enforcing their political unity. The second main factor is that their economies were growing much stronger during the ‘thirty glorious years’ (1945–75) after World War II. The slow progress of the European Economic Community’s educational policy reflected the contradiction between these two factors. However, the economic crisis of the 1970s forced the dominant capitalist social classes of the European countries to confront and solve this contradiction.

1973–92: From the Economic Crisis to the Maastricht Treaty The rise of the New Right that had been developed in the 1970s as a reaction to the ‘waste of public wealth’ was impressive. The new dominant political direction expressed the return to the basic Western bourgeois political values: • • •

Naturalisation of market forces against the bureaucratic madness of state’s expansion and economic intervention, Moral superiority of personal choice against the tyranny of collectivity in the formation of decisions, Need for a powerful state in the name of law and order against the weakness that had been produced by the welfare state’s conception of justice.

During the thirty glorious years of highly rated economic development, political scientists were examining the concepts of welfare, social security, state’s responsibility, full employment, equal opportunities, social mobility through education, bureaucratic structures, technocracy, meritocracy, political stability, and consensus building. In the 1970s, the economic crisis became the central issue that had to be examined and interpreted. Regarding education, neoliberals and neoconservatives in the 1980s promoted strong cuts in education’s funding, the revival of disciplinarian thought and practice that had been challenged in the 1960s, and a closer relation of education with corporations’ needs. In the US, schools were accused of being places of illiteracy, in which moral values were in decline. According to the

European Education Policy 11 neoliberal-neoconservative discourse, the critical issue was the alignment of education with changes in the labour market. For this reason, priority was given to the 3 R’s and to other areas of knowledge, like logistics, business management, and computer science. After the second Reagan presidential election, the schools’ close connection to businesses’ needs was combined with a strong emphasis on conceiving schools as places of cultural production. This strong emphasis referred to the development of a national curriculum and the promotion of the language, the knowledge, and the values that were essential in Western civilization. The neoliberals’ and neoconservatives’ central aim was to fight against (a) the so called ‘cultural crisis’, which was supposedly caused by cultural relativism that did not recognise the superiority of Western tradition’s texts over other texts, (b) the use of students’ experience in the process of teaching, and (c) the idea that unequal relations between social classes, genders, and races play an important role in the formation of dominant culture. They claimed that students’ progress is a personal matter and everyone who cannot succeed in school was solely and entirely responsible for his own failure. Personal responsibility became the ultimate explanation for every social problem, such as unemployment, poverty, divorce, youth pregnancy, and the like. Neoliberals and neoconservatives suggested schools’ accountability and the provision of vouchers so that parents would freely buy educational services. Families were conceived as the alternative power against the bureaucratic function of state education. In Great Britain, the neoliberal and neoconservative reconstruction of education was implemented through (a) the empowerment of parents’ participation in the processes of consuming educational services, (b) the deprivation of local authorities’ control over schools, (c) the enforcement of schools’ competition in the educational services market, and (d) the imposition of a national curriculum with detailed and pre-specified standards. Generally speaking, the analyses of educational policy in the US, Great Britain, and other countries highlight a dramatic shift of educational aims from an emphasis to equality and children’s access to public education to a priority towards ‘educational quality’ and choice in the 1980s. Neoliberal and neoconservative restructuring of education was penetrated by the belief that every change which is founded on market’s functions is the key for the improvement of education’s effectiveness. Moreover, the neoliberal and neoconservative restructuring took advantage of the critique against progressive education, which due to the rationale of initiating education based on children’s interests, was accused of being responsible for the decline in students’ performance. The movement of ‘effective schools’ that dominated the educational studies during the second half of 1970s used the aforementioned critique. A central characteristic of the ‘effective schools’ movement was its focus on researching ‘internal’ schools’ processes, like school culture, teachers’ effectiveness, and schools’ management. The attack against progressive education and the dominance of the ‘effective schools’ movement were important ideological aspects of the neoliberal and neoconservative restructuring of education in the 1980s. The founding of educational aims on market’s functions was necessarily supported by the marginalisation of any dialogue concerned with the social

12

George Grollios

character of education. This kind of dialogue was promoted by some perceptions of progressive education and inevitably by theories that interpreted education through the concept of reproduction (Grollios, 1999). The primary cause of the 1973 economic crisis was the decline in the average rate of profit. Neoliberal-neoconservative restructuring may then be understood primarily as the answer of powerful sectors of capital to the crisis of the 1970s, an expression of their need to respond to the fall in the average rate of profit by expanding in every sector. In the early 1980s, the European Community entered into a process of corrosion so intense that for many years it could not provide solutions to budgetary problems and issues in its agricultural policy. The crisis was sharper than in the US and Japan, resulting in the loss of competitiveness. From 1973 to 1983 the average annual growth rate of the US’s GDP was 1.9 percent, which exceeded that of the nine-member European Community (1.7 percent), while at the same time Japan had reached 3.7 percent. The number of employees decreased in Europe by an average of 0.1 percent annually, while it increased by 0.9 percent in Japan and 1.5 percent in the US. In the same decade, the European Community’s competitiveness in such crucial economic sectors as electric and electronic equipment, automobile industry, industrial equipment, and informatics had been reduced. The European Community faced the dilemma of ‘progress or dissolution’ (Busch, 1992; Roussis, 2012; Sakellaropoulos, 2004). The alliance of the dominant social classes that formed the nucleus of the European Economic Community had to make crucial decisions. One was the strengthening of European integration through the establishment of the first programme of action in the education sector. This program included collaboration in tertiary education, collection of statistical data, improvement of contact between educational institutions, and expansion of foreign language learning (Stamelos and Vasilopoulos, 2004). A year after the European Act of 1986 gave European integration a powerful push, the first generation of European programmes was announced. The implementation of these programmes had a strong importance mainly in the ideological level during the next decade, when it would be obvious that they promoted ideas like “the only knowledge that deserves to be taught is useful knowledge”, “the criterion for the validity of knowledge is the market” and “schools’ aim is the transmission of skills that are required for corporations’ profitability.” In the context of these programmes, teachers and students search for sponsors, they advertise them, and schools are converted to simulations of corporations (Goulas, 2007; Grollios, 1999). The ideology of Europeanism legitimised a political solution that was the ‘vision of 1992’: the vision of a strong capitalist Europe, which was meant to be competitive as the third pole in the world against the US and Soviet Union. Moreover, some decisions of the European Court of Law regarding tertiary education ruptured the academic tradition of European universities, linking them to the impermanent needs of the labour market and strongly emphasising their economic effectiveness. A European guideline produced in 1989 was another crucial point establishing a mechanism among the 12member-states for recognising diplomas pertaining to professional activities (Stamelos and Vasilopoulos, 2004).

European Education Policy 13

1992 and After: European Union and Education Under the Maastricht Treaty, education was distinguished from training and officially recognised as one of the European Union’s policy sectors. Moreover, the European Commission obtained the right to intervene in the members-states’ compulsory education. The signing of the Maastricht Treaty was intensely celebrated, but it was also the starting point for the accumulation of problems and contradictions. The adoption of the Treaty was subject to fierce political debate in Denmark and France, where it was confirmed by a narrow majority. The referenda on admitting Sweden and Finland to the European Union also won by narrow majorities, while in Norway a negative vote prevailed. The lack of effective European institutions of legitimisation was seen as a major cause for the vicious cycle of reproduction of social and economic problems. In terms of foreign policy, the motto for political intervention by the European Union in the international system was that it is an economic giant, a stuttering diplomat, and a political dwarf. The complete ineffectiveness of its policy in the war in Iraq and the civil war in Yugoslavia sharply contrasted with the affirmation of the US’s global political and military domination. At that very juncture, education was a key issue in the European Union. The White Paper of the European Commission that encapsulated the EU education policy in the 1990s argued that the society of the future would be one that invested in intelligence; a society where people would teach and learn, where everyone could build on his own skills; a knowledge society. The ‘three major trends of our time’—globalisation, acceleration of the scientific and technical revolution, and the advent of the information society—increased opportunities for access to information and knowledge, modifying the necessary skills and labour systems. However, at the same time they increased uncertainty for all citizens while creating intolerable exclusion for some. The White Paper urged that education and learning should (a) focus on a broad knowledge base and emphasise flexibility, (b) connect schools and businesses, (c) combat social exclusion, (d) develop proficiency in at least two foreign languages, and (e) treat capital investment and investment in training equally (European Commission, 1995). Scepticism about forecasting future developments has now overshadowed the triumphal tone of the statements that emerged when the Maastricht Treaty was being signed. Of course, the scepticism on the part of the European Commission did not question the neoliberal guidelines. The three major trends appeared to be politically neutral, and social consequences were inevitable. Europe, like the rest of the world, would have to learn to live with them. What was required was a policy mix that would minimise social cohesion and maximise socioeconomic adequacy for the relentless international competition. The central goal was for the European Union to take the lead over its competitors globally. The main guidelines of European educational policy that were founded on the Maastricht Treaty and the White Paper of the European Commission were (a) enforcing students’ mobility and cooperation between educational institutions,

14

George Grollios

(b) connecting educational institutions with the labour market, (c) forming structures of accession and re-accession to the labour market and (d) finding ways to compare members-states’ educational systems and push them to a convergence process. On the basis of these guidelines, in 2000 the European Union created a list of sixteen quality indicators meant to judge the quality of compulsory education. Indicators fall into four areas: (a) achievement (in mathematics, reading, science, foreign languages, learning to learn, ICT, and civics), (b) success and transition (dropout rates, completion of upper secondary education, participation rates in tertiary education), (c) monitoring of school education (parental participation, evaluation, and steering of school education) and (d) resources and structures (educational spending per student, education and training of teachers, participation rates in pre-primary education, number of students per computer). The report on the quality indicators states that they were generated by a representative body of experts, presumably on education evaluation. This suggests ‘technical’ rather than political criteria, but little if any explanation of why these indicators and not others were selected is provided (Dale, 2003). The European Council in Lisbon established the ‘open method of coordination’ to control national educational planning. This method included definition of directional lines, combined with timetables for implementing educational goals; definition of indicators (qualitative and quantitative) and benchmarks that take the best international standards into consideration; specification of European directional lines by member-states; and recurrent examination, evaluation, and re-examination (Zmas, 2007). Soon the aforementioned 16indicators were replaced by five qualitative indicators that had to be reached by 2010: (a) an increase of 90 percent in graduation rates from compulsory education of a generation of students, (b) an increase of up to 15 percent of students graduating in mathematics, science, and technology, (c) an increase of up to 85 percent in graduation rates from the upper sector of compulsory education, (d) a decrease to 20 percent in 15-year-olds’ failure in reading and writing, and (e) an increase of up to 12.5 percent of adults who attend lifelong learning programmes (European Council, 2003). In tertiary education, 15 members-states of the European Union and 14 other European countries, aiming to strengthen the competitiveness of European universities’ diplomas in the international market, agreed on the Bologna Process, which established the 3–5–8 scheme (3 years for a bachelor’s degree, 2 more years for a master’s and 3 more for a Ph.D.). The European Commission published Rethinking Education: Investing in Skills for Better Socio-economic Outcomes. In this text, the Commission argues that in the context of the current economic crisis, a massive increase in international supply of highly skilled workers signals the end of the era of competition between Europe and countries offering low-skilled jobs. Efforts need to concentrate on developing transversal skills, particularly entrepreneurial skills, while the demand for skills related to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics is still high. But the first step is that basic skills be achieved by all, while language learning is important for jobs and needs particular attention (Stamelos and Vasilopoulos, 2004).

European Education Policy 15 As we have elsewhere claimed, In the context of the current economic crisis, the process of European integration has become a process of building a union of states under the leadership of Germany. By imposing the same goals to every member state, the Maastricht Treaty failed to lead to supranational convergence. By erecting into a doctrine disinflationary policy and falling interest rates, alongside the reduction of deficits and public debt, economic and monetary unification implies a nominal, not a real, convergence of economies, given that the exchange rate stability in countries with different economic structures and varying competitiveness leads to real exchange rate variance. For the less internationally competitive sections of capital, the price for sustaining the unity of capital at the European level was austerity with no end in sight. Germany is currently not seeking to strengthen the cohesion of the European Union, but to boost its own economy, slipping into a variation of old nationalism. Essentially, Germany’s ruling class uses the crisis as a vehicle to rearrange the Union’s geometry, and promote more decisively the notion of a multi-speed Europe (it should be remarked that crisis management mechanisms—the EMSF and the EFSF—do not work like the other European Union institutions based on the formal equality of all Member States, but under the rule of those who qualify for the highest credit rating). EU institutions confirm largely prejudged decisions made by the FrancoGerman axis, in which the primary role is played by Germany, which systematically imposes the basic principles of neoliberal orthodoxy. It seeks to ensure that the other Member States comply with its own economic and political choices, promoting the controlled credit rating downgrade of the deficit countries of the European periphery and threatening them with the spectrum of insolvency. Thereby, it presses hard on other EU countries to follow the path forged by its own ruling class, namely, to radically reduce wages and pensions, increase retirement age, degrade education, and advance educational programs of skills acquisition. Alongside the process of transformation of the relations between EU countries as outlined above, democracy in their interior is increasingly waning. This is a general trend affecting the majority of Western European and North American countries during the period of neoliberal-neoconservative restructuring. Key features of this trend, accentuated by the current crisis, include (i) a dramatic reduction of civic participation in both central political processes—party and parliamentary—and those involving the exercise of collective rights (protest marches, strikes); (ii) the exercise of politics by technocrats, communication specialists and managers; (iii) the weakening of the working class as an agent of social transformation leading to loss of rights and gains; (iv) the acceptance of neoliberalism as a one-way street by all the government parties; (v) the loss of the credibility of politics and its conversion into a managerial task; (vi) the substitution of civic commitment to social justice for identity movements and non-governmental organizations;

16

George Grollios and (vii) the degradation of the concept of ‘general interest’ and the spread of corruption. (Kotzias, 2012, 2013; Negreponti-Delivani, 2011; Belandis, 2014 as cited in Grollios, Liambas and Pavlidis, 2015, pp. v–vii)

The Character of European Educational Policy and Marxist Critical Educators Based on the above review, we can understand that the fundamental purpose of European education policy is to promote the interests of Europe’s dominant capitalist social classes, which require a dynamic employee able to meet the harsh demands of global economic competition. The discourse of European texts on education is characterised by a strong promotion of specific objectives inextricably connected to the economy, precisely because the European educational policy serves the aforementioned fundamental purpose. Education turns into a field of skills acquisition with the concurrent loss of its key characteristics as a field of apprehending the natural and social world on the basis of scientific knowledge. European educational policy promotes the formation of educational systems within which two main areas could be identified: general education and training. The kind of general education is determined by training. General education is not an education that harmoniously combines the acquisition of knowledge, values, and skills connected with the sciences that study societies and their culture, on one hand, with the knowledge, values, and skills associated with the sciences that study the natural world, on the other. It is subservient to the needs of training and therefore is bound to emphasise the knowledge, values, and skills associated with the sciences that study the natural world. The priority given by the European Commission to physics, technology, engineering, and mathematics springs from this very submission, resulting in the downgrading of humanistic education and the fields of study that serve it. This priority is directly linked to the dominance of neoliberal doctrines that promote the direct subordination of education to the needs of businesses, resulting in the shrinking of public education; competition between educational institutions; the priority of efficiency versus equality; the emphasis on accountability and the processes of control; the imposition of flexible types of labour on teachers; and the apotheosis of individualistic perspectives whereby everyone is solely responsible for his/her success or failure. These neoliberal doctrines are reproduced by various bodies that dictate European educational policy (mainly the European Committee and the European Council). Each member-state participates in accordance with its economic and political power; in turn, it transfers and implements these doctrines. This process does not signal the end of national educational policies, since all memberstates agree to the selection of a common educational policy. Rather, it means the enforcement of neoliberal educational policies as the only possible policies in the context of tough international competition. These policies are in fact reshaped

European Education Policy 17 to adjust to the existing sociopolitical balance of power for each member-state (Sakellaropoulos, 2004). European educational policy uses popular buzzwords to impose its neoliberal agenda. The main component of this agenda is the emphasis on the economic value of education. Training, assessed and renewable skills, lifelong learning, employability, standards, certification of quality, innovation, productivity, competitiveness, effectiveness, entrepreneurship, accountability, regulation, and efficiency have been established as pivotal contemporary educational terms strongly related to the emphasis on the economic value of education. Moreover, this process includes comparing evaluations, timetables, indicators of progress and benchmarks in the context of an “open method of coordination.” Nowadays, the above do not operate exclusively as tools to describe educational reality. They construct a field of, and they are used for the classification and the restructuring of European educational systems in the direction of strict neoliberal lines. The proposed ‘Euro-university model’ abandons the historical model of European universities of the past, promoting structures that adapt to the labour market’s needs. Such corporatisation of the university is leading to the degradation of systematic basic research and teaching (Mavroudeas, 2005). The university’s corporatisation, combined with a strong increase in student population, gives prominence to a great danger: the formation of two networks. One is ‘centres of excellence’; the other is a massive network of institutions characterised by uncertain quality. This network will produce a great majority of the ‘employable’ who can’t resist the deregulation of the labour market and will not fight for democratic and social rights. Moreover, the ECTS system, the Diploma Supplement, and the expansion of transnational educational programmes, which use a franchising system and e-learning education, give prominence to another danger connected with the aforementioned: the deregulation of public academic systems by means of students who will accumulate large numbers of ECTS unrelated to their field of study (Stamelos and Vasilopoulos, 2004). European educational policy contributes to the transformation of universities into a quasi-market, giving great importance to applied research and knowledge. Voices that denounce the marginalisation of humanistic education in European universities are topical because the search for truth has been replaced by suspenseful efforts for the production and diffusion of useful knowledge and information (Zmas, 2007). Under these conditions, the creation and promotion of a project of Marxist critical educators for education that will challenge European educational policy becomes critical throughout the European Union. Such a project must address the purpose and structure of education, proclaiming the necessity of public preschool education and of a single, public, free, compulsory school for all children up to age 18. Of course, such a claim is linked with an entirely different set of goals from those promoted in the European education policy: the all-around cognitive, emotional, and physical development of children; the development of students’ critical consciousness in the sense of understanding the natural and social world; their conscious work towards sociopolitical transformation.

18

George Grollios

The single, public, free, compulsory school for all children up to age 18 dulls the antithesis between humanitarian and technical education that is connected with the capitalist division of labour and, of course, signifies the abolition of private education. It is a school of a new, high quality of teaching, a centre of popular culture, and a centre of pedagogical research and reflection. Unlike European educational policy, the single, public, free, compulsory school for all children up to age 18 does not give priority to the acquisition of skills, downgrading such fields of study as history, literature, philosophy, sociology, fine arts, and music. It connects humanistic education with basic scientific knowledge of the main areas of production. This horizon of knowledge, values, and skills is approached through teaching founded on themes that are meaningful for students and schools’ communities. Marxist critical educators should speak clearly in favour of the single, public, free, compulsory school for all children up to age 18 that is aligned with a socialist society, a school that combines humanistic and polytechnic education. This school will be structured by relations of comradeship and solidarity. It cannot be confined solely to transmitting knowledge of the fundamental fields of the sciences of nature and technology. In other words, the content of education is structured around students’ basic concepts, ideas, and practices, offering possibilities for discussing crucial matters in a concrete social, political, and cultural context. Of course, the planning of this kind of curriculum cannot be a responsibility of experts, but rather a collective democratic process joined mainly by teachers and students. Moreover, the single, public, free, compulsory school for all children up to age 18 systematically uses students’ collective work and democratic dialogue, in contrast with the traditional approach of merely transmitting knowledge that leads to teachers’ verbalism and students’ passivity. The European Union’s education policy stands in opposition to the great importance of education for the emancipation of humanity, which can be revealed only as a result of the abolition of capitalist and class relations of production. In other words, this policy is diametrically antithetical to an education for people’s fundamental development that is closely associated with the abolition of existing property relations that reproduce workers’ alienation, and with the process, means and results of their labour. The European Union’s education policy is hostile to a change that requires a radical upgrade of workers’ education as a deliberate, methodically organised, systematic and progressive process of acquiring and producing knowledge, capacity-building, and cultivating substantive aspects of personality. Therefore, Marxist critical educators must systematically critique European education policy to open a new road of radical social, political, and educational transformation in the framework of a socialist strategy and a corresponding transition programme. European educational policy does not have a “progressive” character because is not a nationalistic policy or because it uses one kind of rhetoric against racism, as some left supporters of European integration contend. These contentions are constructing a false dichotomy between the European Union and its member-states, veiling the fact that the Union favours the dominant capitalist

European Education Policy 19 social classes and promotes certain reactionary neoliberal policies. Marxist critical educators must know that the dominant social classes of Europe use educational policy as a weapon against any radical and critical approach on education. This knowledge is a basic parameter of their efforts to build an international community fostering economic, social, and political change towards socialism.

References Belandis, D. (2014). I Aristera kai I Exousia: O ‘Dimocratikos Dromos’ gia to Sosialismo [The left and power: The ‘democratic way’ to socialism]. Athens: Topos. Busch, H. (1992). I Evropi meta to 1992. [Europe after 1992]. Athens: Kritiki. Dale, R. (2003). The work of international organizations making national education systems part of the solution rather than part of the problem. In H. Athanasiades and A. Patramanis (eds.), Teachers and European Integration. Athens: Educational Institute INE GSEE, pp. 86–118. European Commission. (1995). White Paper on Education and Training—Teaching and Learning—Towards the Learning Society. COM (95) Final, 29 November 1995. European Council. (2003). Council Conclusions of 5 May 2003 on Reference Levels of European Average Performance in Education and Training (Benchmarks) 2003/C 134/02. Goulas, V. (2007). Evropaiki Ekpedeftiki Politiki. I Agora os Pedagogos [European Educational Policy. Market as Pedagogue]. Athens: Atrapos. Grollios, G. (1999). Ideologia, Pedagogikikikai Ekpedeftiki Politiki. Logos kaipraxi ton Evropaikon Programmatongia tin Ekpedefsi [Ideology, Pedagogy and Educational Policy. Discourse and Practice of European Educational Programs]. Athens: Gutenberg. Grollios, G., Liambas, A., and Pavlidis, P. (2015). Introduction. In G. Grollios, A. Liambas, and P. Pavlidis (eds.), Proceedings of the IV International Conference on Critical Education “Critical Education in the Era of Crisis”, pp. i–xvi. Accessed online10/14/15 at www.eled.auth.gr/. Kotzias, N. (2012). I politiki Sotirias enantia stin Troika. Krisi Kiriarchias kai Dimokratias [The Politics of Salvation against the Troika: A Crisis of Sovereignty and Democracy]. Athens: Livanis. Kotzias, N. (2013). Ellada, Apoikia Chreous. Evropaiki Aftokratoria kai Germaniki Protokathedria [Greece, Colony of Debt: European Empire and German Primacy]. Athens: Patakis. Mavroudeas, S. (2005). Oi Tris Epochestou Panepistimiou. To Panepistimioston Kapitalismo [Three Ages of University. The University in Capitalism]. Athens: Ellinika Grammata. Negreponti-Delivani, M. (2011). Oli I Alitheia gia Chreos kai Elleimata kai pos tha Sothoume [The Whole Truth about Debt and Deficits and how to be Saved]. Thessaloniki: Ianos. Roussis, G. (2012). Apo tin Krisis tin Epanastasi [From Crisis to Revolution]. Athens: Govostis. Sakellaropoulos, S. (2004). O Mythos tis Pagosmiopoiisiskai I Pragmatikotitatou Imperialismou [The Myth of Globalization and the Reality of Imperialism]. Athens: Gutenberg. Stamelos, G. and Vasilopoulos, A. (2004). Evropaiki Ekpedeftiki Politiki [European Educational Policy]. Athens: Metaichmio. Zmas, A. (2007). Pagosmiopoiisikai Ekpedeftiki Politiki [Globalization and Educational Policy]. Athens: Metaichmio.

3

The Schooling of Teachers in England Rescuing Pedagogy Gail Edwards

Introduction: Pedagogy in England During his long and distinguished career, the English educationist Brian Simon stressed the importance of pedagogically skilled teachers for educational and social progress (Simon, 1974, 1981, 1985). Simon linked pedagogy not just to students’ cognitive development but to social transformation and historical change. His analysis built on earlier arguments against mechanical materialism (which supposes that people are mere products of their environment) and against idealism (which supposes that social and personal transformation originates in ideas) to distinguish pedagogy as a much broader concept than teaching. People, Simon insisted, do not develop as the result of a didactic or voluntarist process but rather through goal-directed social labour. What distinguishes human beings from other species is the capacity to learn from conscious reflection upon their world and their impact upon it: Insofar as man transforms his external world, and by changing it changes himself, the whole historical process must be accounted essentially educative. (Simon, 1985, p. 23) Simon’s conclusions derived from his extensive historical research. He noted that pedagogy has been associated with personal and social improvement since ancient times. However, it was the linking of it to science and reason as part of Europe’s modernising Enlightenment ambitions which radically changed how pedagogy was conceived (Simon, 1974). This occurred partly as a result of a new reflexivity which, as Callinicos (2007) notes, emerged from the deliberations of seventeenth- and eighteenth-century citizens as they made sense of a radical rupture with their feudal past during the transition to capitalism. The shift from rule by a medieval oligarchy to a modern democracy, along with rapid industrial and urban expansion, produced new kinds of social unrest and imperialist wars. As empirical knowledge about non-European societies expanded greatly, there arose an entirely novel critique of ‘human nature’ and ‘society’. It dawned that society can take radically different forms in different times and places. This was a new selfawareness: human beings make themselves. Humanity has the capacity to improve

The Schooling of Teachers in England

21

itself and the world. A new consciousness of the capacity for transcendence— the human ability to stand back from and critique tradition, dogmatism, ignorance and superstition—was born. Modern pedagogy developed out of this new reflexivity. The post-Renaissance period of knowledge growth in Europe saw important advances in the human sciences with the publication of John Amos Comenius’s book The Great Didactic (1633/1967) which laid out principles for teaching based on rudimentary psychology. By the nineteenth century, Johann Friedrich Herbart was working on his Science of Education (1908) and Alexander Bain had written Education as a Science (1877). These texts began to sketch an outline of human cognition to inform pedagogy, a scholarship which later spread beyond Europe and which Simon (1981) traces through Froebel, Pestalozzi, Dewey, and Vygotsky. The work of Soviet psychologist Vygotsky in particular has transformed pedagogic understanding. He argued that humans develop through reflection upon labour, mediated via socially-distributed tools (Vygotsky, 1978, 1987). Labour continually transforms the environment, cultural tools, and human consciousness. It is fundamentally educative (Duarte, 2006) and recalls Marx’s aphorism that teaching and learning is revolutionary, dialectical labour within which the ‘educator must be educated’ (Marx, 1845/2002). However in English policy and practice, pedagogic scholarship has been superfluous to devotion to the system. During the nineteenth century, teachers in English monitorial schools were uninfluenced by pedagogic developments in Germany, France, Holland, and Switzerland (Rich, 1972). It was the system that mattered, not “the education of the teachers of the people” (Rich, 1972, p. 1). School teachers were restricted to a civilising role and teaching the ‘3 Rs’ (Partington, 1999). Senior pupils taught juniors, overseen by a supervisory teacher (who themselves lacked an education). And, even today, when the term pedagogy has become more common, it is as if it is synonymous with teaching styles matched to diverse educational ideologies (see for example, Partington, 1999). The assumption is a liberal one, namely that pedagogy is a personal or pragmatic choice amongst many ‘pedagogies’ rather than a human science. Simon (1974, 1999) explained how this state of affairs has come about. The historical record shows how medieval universities and fee-paying public schools were designed to train functionaries of the church and operate as finishing schools for the landed gentry. In the nineteenth century, following widespread secularisation and the introduction of a national education system, this reproductive function continued as a consequence of a class alliance between the aristocracy and the new capitalist bourgeoisie. Elite, fee-paying schools such as Winchester, Westminster, and Eton reproduced the British ruling class—statesmen, civil servants, military leaders, executive directors, bishops, and judges. These schools developed the character traits required of leaders of an imperialist country (MacDonald Fraser, 1977). The other type of institution—the state school— focused upon character formation, but of a kind policy-makers thought suited to the labouring class. The state’s response to capitalist industrialisation initiated the creation of schools which were never designed for pedagogy; rather, they

22

Gail Edwards

were designed to teach the basics required for wage labour and to gentle the masses (Best, 1973; Chitty, 2004; Perkins, 1969). Though records from early nineteenth-century pupil-teacher centres, School Boards, and teacher training colleges show interest in pedagogical scholarship, it is evident that legislation has, for the most part, blocked theoretical advance. Indeed, during the neoliberal period leading up to the current economic crisis, English education policy documents rarely mention theory as policy makers reassert the logic of profit through legislation designed to enforce centralised control whilst at the same time exposing schools to commercial culture and market rationality (Hill, 2007; Wilmott, 2002). Schooling in England has always been—and still is—primarily concerned with reproducing class relations, rather than personal or social transformation (Matthews, 1980). This is not to offer a determinist account of history. In what follows, I argue that such long-standing pedagogic neglect also required the assistance of popular teacher education movements. In this chapter, I examine three of the most influential movements—efficiency, learner-centred, and post-structuralist—and situate them in their social, intellectual, and economic milieu. I suggest that they are incompatible with pedagogic advance because they are, at political root, liberal or sceptical responses to capitalism’s contradictions. They either express the idea that human progress involves reform of capitalism (rather than its overthrow), or are entirely sceptical towards Enlightenment ambitions. I suggest that they are (to borrow a phrase from Callinicos, 2007, p. 218) “historically specific expressions of class interests” which harbour fatalistic views of human capability. They are, in other words, better understood as part of schooling, rather than educating, teachers. Resistance—and the rescue of pedagogy—is possible but requires better understanding of these movements and the transformative alternative. Although I devote the analysis below to England (the context I know best), I believe the argument has wider relevance.

The Schooling of Teachers As we have seen, modern pedagogy grew out of enlightened Western societies seeking validation in science and knowledge rather than traditional authority. However, in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, rather than building upon previous pedagogic developments, the positivist scientific management movement, a business ‘efficiency’ outlook inspired by Frederick Winslow Taylor, had migrated from the factory to the English state-school classroom (Ross, 2010). The Efficiency Movement: Regulation Displaces Pedagogy The efficiency movement applied methods which were assumed to mimic the natural sciences to teaching effectiveness. Closely associated with industrial mass production, the movement rejected the ‘learning-on-the-job’ pupil-teacher model of training, and proposed instead that teachers should be trained in empiricallyestablished standardised techniques. Rather than theorising or illuminating

The Schooling of Teachers in England

23

pedagogy, patterns were identified in the relationship between teaching inputs and achievement outputs, in order to produce statistical, law-like formalisations (Hyland, 1994). The assumption was that discrete behaviours and their products could be measured and techniques disseminated. Pedagogy was irrelevant. Schön (1983) referred to the outlook as ‘technical rationality’ since it assumed a separation of knowing and doing whereby researchers in universities codified professional knowledge and technicians (the teachers) applied it. The endurance of the movement is partly explained by the concurrent popularity of structural-functionalism, a sociological framework rooted in assumptions of scientific detachment and a denial of human agency. The movement has assumed different forms and includes the competency movement of the 1970s and the standards movement imposed by government legislation from the 1990s onwards. Whilst the most recent manifestation lays less claim to scientifically established laws, a crude empiricism nonetheless prevails, repackaged for a ‘knowledge-economy’ whereby the exteriorisation and formalisation of practical knowledge is claimed to contribute to workplace organisational knowledge (see De Vos, Lobet-Maris, Rousseau and Wallemacq, 2002). To understand the efficiency movement’s success we have to understand the contexts in which it has flourished. The functionalist vision of society wherein workers and employers are assumed to have convergent, rather than antagonistic, interests originated in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century when the industrial class was worried by increasing social unrest. Nation-states were having to expand their regulation of production, industrial labour, and social welfare (De Vos et al, 2002). Intellectual legitimacy came from French sociologist Emile Durkheim who insisted that unrestrained economic individualism could not ensure a stable social order. ‘Anomie’, the absence of moral boundaries (rather than capitalism’s contradictions) was leading to social breakdown and the health of capitalist society (when in crisis) must be restored through state regulation. The efficiency movement’s political response to social crisis is to assume the solution lies in reform, rather than overthrow, of the system. Waves of educational reform in England and the UK have effectively displaced pedagogic critique and theoretical advance. This is because the efficiency movement’s reformist roots contradict its espoused commitment to personal liberty. In asserting that teachers and students undergoing education do not shape the world but rather are regulated by external forces (social laws or government policies), it is pessimistic about pedagogy as a motor of progressive change. Indeed, part of the attractiveness of technicism is the sanctuary of ‘impartial’ territory; professionally vulnerable teachers can deliver and assess state-mandated curricula without having to bear moral responsibility for the consequences. However, compliance involves a high level of detachment from material contradictions and risks student and teacher alienation, particularly where curricula suppress critique of the structural disadvantages faced by some communities. There may be a claim to neutrality but in reality the efficiency movement supports a politics which rejects participatory democracy whereby workers are involved in the governance of society. At best, it assumes a narrow, representative variant of democracy. Indeed,

24

Gail Edwards

it was this democratic deficit which provoked an alternative teacher education movement in the middle of the twentieth century, to which I now turn. The Learner-Centred Movement: Individualism Displaces Pedagogy The inspiration for the developmental, learner-centred model of teacher education was a broader philosophical trend in European thought taking hold at the start of the twentieth century. A widespread backlash against positivism expressed antiauthoritarian scepticism towards the notion of disinterested science as the means for Western societies to validate themselves. Wilhelm Dilthey (1883/1976), the German social philosopher, insisted that the natural and human sciences are distinct and that the human sciences should be hermeneutical or interpretive, a position subsequently adopted by several German social scientists, notably Weber (1922/1978) and Husserl (1936/1970). It was argued that only a totalitarian polity could result from the misapplication of the methods of natural science to social questions. The argument was that human cognition is culturally situated and never impartial. This ‘interpretive turn’ influenced teacher educators in England. Steps towards an all-graduate teaching profession began in England in the 1950s as restructuring saw universities take the dominant role in teacher training (Partington, 1999). Critics of (then influential) educationalist R. S. Peters (1969)offered interpretivist epistemological arguments antithetical to the dominant theory-to-practice model of teacher education (Young, 1971). Some found philosophical legitimacy in pragmatism, a revised form of empiricism popular in the US. Pragmatism understands truth as rooted in the consequences of action (Novack, 1975) and in the US, pragmatism inspired what Schön (1983) called the ‘reflective practitioner’ model of professional development. Its influence in England is visible in the ‘teacher-asresearcher’ movement, developed in the 1960s by Stenhouse (1975). However, this interpretive turn shifted focus away from pedagogy towards the learner. Constructivist psychology introduced the idea of the teacher, not as pedagogue, but as facilitator of student-initiated enquiries. Moreover, facilitators needed a learner-centred teacher education which foregrounds what Clandinin and Connelly (1988) call teachers’ ‘meaning-making’. Teachers, it was claimed, learn through action research which starts with a practitioner-initiated problem prompting an individual’s reflection in and upon their practice. Influenced in part by Lewin (1948), the assumption was that change occurs gradually through problem-solving. This reversed the efficiency movement’s top-down authoritarianism by reconceptualising theory as personal, as emerging bottom-up, out of a teacher’s practice and values. Though the term pedagogy underwent a revival, particularly after the publication of Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed (1970), its usage was reframed within interpretivist assumptions. In place of a human science, there were many ‘personal pedagogies’. This appropriation has only undermined pedagogy. Although it can appear liberating to emphasise the personal nature of knowing, the idea of personal pedagogy substitutes an aim to understand the mind-independent world with

The Schooling of Teachers in England

25

the less ambitious aim of understanding personal experience as it (apparently) emerges from the consequences of one’s actions. Even though Dewey (1957), the philosophical inspiration for reflective practice, tried to rescue objectivity by equating it to social agreement or ‘warranted assertability’, pedagogy has been displaced by a concern with ‘what works’ in the experience of teachers. This denial of the possibility of discovering autonomous biological, social, or psychological processes which might place ontological limits on how teaching and learning is understood and practised, has left teachers to act in accord with their socialisation. Transcendence—the capacity to critique existing interpretations of classroom events and move beyond one’s cultural situatedness—is assumed to be impossible. Ultimately this has undermined a progressive agenda by sanctioning stasis; it has rejected the possibility of a mind knowing the world beyond itself and thereby denied itself any foundation for critique. Understanding the learner-centred movement’s popularity requires an examination of the social democratic context within which it flourished. After World War II in England, there was renewed hope that capitalism’s volatility could be managed through Keynesian-inspired welfare reform. The ontological flight from theory was part of a broader liberal impulse to reconcile plural values in a society keen to heal the wounds of war. The economic boom which came out of the mass destruction of capital during postwar renewal made it seem possible. Schön’s (1983) reflective practitioner model endorsed reform through local negotiations— through individuals intersubjectively constructing, not just the means, but also the ends of education. The focus on cultural solutions located the origin of human disempowerment in modernity’s instrumental rationality—in culture—rather than capitalist structural relations. The problem with culturalism, as Sayer (2000) notes, is that meanings run up against structural reality. A constructivist ontology provides no foundation upon which to disagree. Relativism creates a political vacuum, soon filled by structural imperatives. A case in point, as Blake, Smeyers, Smith, and Standish (2000) note, is the contradictory demand for ‘personalised practice’ in a capitalist education system tethered to non-negotiable, normative test scores. The criteria by which inequality is reproduced are defined in advance. This structural reality has practical as well as intellectual consequences for teachers and, within the restricted framework of representative (parliamentary) democracy, it is something over which they exert little political influence. Moreover, in the neoliberal period, we find the rhetoric of personal freedom being used to label people as failures as the rhetoric of meritocracy places fault for low educational outcomes with individuals rather than the system. It is these criticisms which led to another teacher education movement in England which, from the 1990s, argued that teacher learning results less from personal reflection and more from a plurality of competing discourses. The Poststructuralist Movement: Scepticism Displaces Pedagogy Poststructuralism refers to an academic, interdisciplinary movement originating in 1960s France which rejects a representational role for language. The term

26

Gail Edwards

postmodernism refers to a wider cultural movement of which poststructuralism is part. Poststructuralists take the interpretivist insight that human consciousness is culturally situated very seriously. They conclude that rational negotiation between culturally diverse groups is impossible and that knowledge disputes are settled through the exercise of power. The poststructuralist teacher education movement has therefore recommended equipping teachers with the rhetorical capacity to defend their practice (Parker, 1997; Moore, 2004). Their argument is that modernity’s pretensions of transcendence is foolish because the modern world—like the epochs preceding it—is riven with inescapable conflict. Knowledge embodies a Nietzschean ‘will to power’ and Enlightenment notions of knowledge liberating humanity are mistaken because there is not one Truth but rather many truths (Sarup, 1988). Poststructuralists have critiqued reflective teacher education (see Brown and Jones, 2001; Parker, 1997; Moore, 2004). They object that reflective practice implicitly assumes unmediated access to empirical data as a catalyst for cognitive reconstruction. Poststructuralists deny that beliefs arise from the consequences of action because, they reason, persons have no unmediated access to those consequences. There is no ground for pedagogical knowledge. The explanation for change must lie elsewhere. Teachers cannot stand aside from their consciousness to compare their beliefs with reality and thus it must be beliefs (not experience) which change beliefs. The division between the knower and the extra-discursive world to be known is collapsed into ‘discourse’ and the rupture of pedagogic stasis is assumed to occur in clashes within and between circulating discourses. Indeed, in asking upon what ground we should accept the poststructuralist truth claim that ‘there is no Truth’, we must assume there is none. The movement is, in other words, a form of epistemological scepticism. And, since that scepticism is founded upon assertion, it is also a form of dogmatism. However, in order to understand its appeal, we must examine the political and intellectual backdrop to poststructuralism’s rise to academic respectability in the 1990s. English teacher education policy at that time was becoming increasingly prescriptive. The poststructuralist movement appeared liberating; it encouraged ‘pedagogic eclecticism’ and ‘bricolage’. In contrast, the scientific notion of pedagogy appeared symptomatic of a ‘totalising’ impulse or positivist hubris. Teacher educators were encouraged to celebrate plurality rather than seek closure in expert practice. The mood was anti-theoretical and relativist. The pedagogic question seemed to be the educational equivalent of the philosopher Richard Rorty’s objection to the use of universal criteria to judge whether any society is better aligned with human nature than any other. Whilst liberals seek solutions in a pragmatic reconciliation with capitalism, poststructuralist illiberals object there are no contextindependent standards available allowing persons to judge the merit of different ‘truths’ and it is only the rhetorical power of discourse which provokes belief change, rather than correspondence to the way the world is. The historical record shows that this relativist mood has ancient roots. Far from being novel, as Lyotard (1984) suggests, it is a recurring pessimistic response to political upheaval which can be traced back to the Sophists of antiquity. Callinicos

The Schooling of Teachers in England

27

(2007) argues that its twentieth-century expression is a form of widespread political disillusionment in response to the collapse of so-called ‘communist’ states in 1989 and the perceived emergence of capitalism’s triumph, expressed by Fukuyama (1989) as the ‘end of history’. The view is that, whilst Enlightenment science had promised emancipation for humanity, its instrumental rationalism has instead produced world wars, ‘metanarratives’, and totalitarianism. The problem is that this sanctions political and educational conservatism. Celebrating difference renounces the possibility of contesting oppressive education practices. Even critical perspectives seem in danger of collapsing into defeatism. Kincheloe and Steinberg (1997, p. 24), for example, remind us that “critical pedagogy is the term used to describe what emerges when critical theory encounters education.” But, as Callinicos (2007) points out, critical theory emerged from the postwar defeatism of the Frankfurt School. It expressed disenchantment with Enlightenment science and human rationality, and encouraged cultural over structural analysis. Structural analysis gives due priority to the opposing interests of the capitalist and labouring class whereas cultural analysis is more conservative and ultimately hostile towards the possibility of transcendence. The latter views teaching as a practical activity learned through apprenticeship and aimed at acculturating students into ‘inherited cultural traditions’ codified in academic disciplines. The educationist Oakeshott (1962, p. 6) is perhaps the most well-known English proponent of this position; he condemned as rationalists those who are “fortified by a belief in a ‘reason’ common to all mankind.” Pedagogic sceptics like Oakeshott agree with Marx’s assertion that social practices are acquired unconsciously but from this conclude that there is no vantage point for critique. Human knowing is framework-dependent and there can be no view from nowhere. Indeed, Oakeshott’s criticism of socialist education was premised on his assertion that abstract ideals cannot guide society since these derive from concrete activity. The mistake which poststructuralists and conservatives like Oakeshott make however is in overlooking the possibility of critique being an immanent process. In other words, they forget that capitalist society is internally divided along class lines, producing a struggle which generates conflicting experience and consciousness from which critique can and does emerge. Oakeshott’s conservative political philosophy by contrast, like that of the Radical Right, emphasises tradition and distrust of theoretically informed expertise (see Hill, 1989 for a critique of the Right). Though modern political conservatism accepts some aspects of Enlightenment thinking, its roots lie in the English Restoration which supported feudal notions of class rule by birth right. Hence, even though postmodern eclecticism can seem like resistance against experts’ overbearing authority, ‘meta narratives’ and state prescription, it is a type of rebellion available only to those positioned structurally so as to be sheltered from the worst material effects of capitalist crisis. Privileged teachers in English independent fee-paying schools, for example, require no professional qualification and historically, as Partington (1999, p. 23) notes, “The more prestigious the school, the more likely was it that the new teacher was directly recruited after a first degree from Oxford or Cambridge”.

28

Gail Edwards

Beyond Schooling: Teacher Education and the Advance of Pedagogy My argument has been that the undermining of pedagogy in England has been assisted by popular teacher education movements. These have not taken us beyond epistemological incoherencies rooted in empiricism and rationalism. Politically, these align with liberal and sceptical responses to capitalism’s economic and political contradictions. In this section, I draw upon the scholarship of political theorist Karl Marx, who offered an alternative exit from the epistemological and economic crisis through a reformulation of reason and progress along dialectical lines. Indeed, it was Marx’s fundamental insight that, though the natural and human sciences have allowed us to acquire knowledge, we have misunderstood the process by which they do so. As we shall see, if we take a dialectical view, modern pedagogy is not neutral or ahistorical but rather one expression of the normative principles continuing the Enlightenment project. As Suchting’s (1986) scholarship shows, Marx saw that existing answers to the epistemological question fell into difficulty when trying to identify the ground upon which human beings establish knowledge. Marx noted that human perception is unreliable, which crude empiricists merely deny and which rationalists use as justification for concluding that knowing is grounded in reason rather than mind-independent reality. The problem for empiricism is that there is no way to explain how a person can perceive unmediated reality so that they can compare this state of affairs with their own beliefs. (We have seen how the efficiency movement cannot answer critics who point to the distorting influence of human bias.)The problem with rationalism, on the other hand, is that there is no way to assert that anything is incorrect by virtue of the way the world is. (We have seen how teacher education grounded in discourse lacks an ontological foundation.) Indeed, Marx thought that rationalism (and idealist philosophy) mistakes human enquiry for mere ‘scholasticism’. He noted how a priori projects accept closure about what exists in advance of practical action and fail precisely because they imply a desire “to know before we know” which is “just as absurd as the wise resolution of that Scholastic to learn to swim before he ventured into the water” (Hegel, cited in Suchting, 1986, p. 106). Marx’s solution was to understand the knowing-subject and the world-to-beknown (the object) as dialectically and mutually constituted in activity: Humankind’s primary relation to the world is an active one, specifically the relation involved in labour. In transforming the world through labour, two things happen simultaneously. Firstly the object of labour is changed, in accordance with certain human aims, into a new sort of object—a ‘humanised’ object. But, secondly, the subject of labour, the labourer, develops new sensory capacities adequate to the reception of the new objective characteristics thus brought forth. (Suchting, 1986, pp. 12–13)

The Schooling of Teachers in England

29

The transformative properties of labour mean that we cannot characterise Marx’s work as a ‘totalising metanarrative’. Marx understood scientific enquiry as an immanent process whereby method develops in conjunction with empirical results (Suchting, 1986). His insight did not emerge from a ‘view from nowhere’ but rather was triggered by scientific findings. Over the last two centuries there has been increasing evidence for a dialectic of nature (for example, in evolutionary biology, in cosmology, and in complexity theory—see Matthews, 1980). We can therefore understand pedagogy as a form of dialectical, transformative labour. Whilst we can agree with social constructionists that persons are born into social activity not of their own making and from which their consciousness derives, pedagogy is not merely reproductive. Human consciousness emerges out of labour, as a reflection, not of, but upon reality. This is because the socially constructed world acts back, calling forth new responses from the teacher and learner. Pedagogy therefore involves the continual assessment of norms and normative concepts and it is in this (rather than the pragmatist) sense that teachers are researchers. Pedagogy therefore does not equate to simple laws. Whilst theory certainly corresponds to reality, correspondence should not be confused with representation. Correspondence is a matter of theoretical success in activity and is not mere mirroring as assumed by traditional epistemologies. If I lift a box and say that it is a heavy, heaviness does not refer to a property visible or inherent in the box. Heaviness exists as a relation between the box and myself as I deal with it in activity. Vygotsky’s (1987) pedagogic concept of the ‘zone of proximal development’ (ZPD) similarly refers to the relation between a learner’s actual level of development and that achievable with intervention. Concepts like ‘weight’ or ‘ZPD’ do not mirror objects but are helpful theoretical abstractions. Similarly, classroom interactions, educational policies, and employment contracts are relations and forces shaping (but not wholly determining) human judgement and experience in its practical relation to the world. Since these forces and relations are not directly observable, we should be wary of educational movements based entirely upon empirical data. In navigating our relations with the world, we use data as clues to underlying reality. Patterns in our experience must be explained by reference to potential explanatory mechanisms, expressed as theoretical models (as in weight explaining our visible struggle in lifting a box!). The critical realist Bhaskar (1978) identifies three interacting levels of reality: the empirical domain (phenomena available to human perception), the actual domain (events available to perception but not necessarily perceived at any particular moment), and the real domain (causative forces underlying the empirical). Objects in the real domain may provoke empirically observed conflicts which intrude so as to bring into question existing theory about how the world works. Theoretical abstractions refer to real entities as they intrude in human activity—that is, to forces and objects which lie behind the empirically observable patterns they explain (Greenwood, 1994). Theoretical error is noted when empirical phenomena intrude in ways not explainable in terms of an existing theoretical model. Theorising helps teachers explain and transform their

30

Gail Edwards

pedagogy by analysing relations, processes, and tendencies, the actualisation of which is a contingent not determined matter (Matthews, 1980). A teacher may notice, for example, that a particular psychological theory cannot explain certain events perceived by her in the classroom. New theoretical research projects may then emerge aimed at developing better tools of explanation for these phenomena. Theory is thus necessary to the education of teachers and is neither a prescriptive nor an arbitrary tool. Therefore, although pedagogy is goal-directed labour it is dialectically related to scientific labour. Whilst utility always enters in to the selection of problems which science pursues, science’s search for new theory begins only when relations within or between activities based in human needs yield troubling contradictions (Suchting, 1986). This is why, contrary to what is suggested by the reflective practice movement, teaching strategies are not adequate merely because they appear to satisfy instrumental needs. A teacher must be satisfied that their theory of, for example, consciousness, knowledge, society, or education is valid. Teachers’ ‘common sense’ knowledge brought from their own schooling (what Vygotsky would call ‘spontaneous’ concepts) must be brought up against science. For Vygotsky, understanding the world depends upon critical consciousness, which depends upon relating common-sense concepts to scientific concepts. Critical consciousness is “an act of consciousness whose object is the activity of consciousness itself” (Vygotsky, 1987, p. 190). To be educated means to transcend—to be able to think not just with but also about cultural thought-objects and their conditioning effects. The systematised nature of abstract thought allows critical consciousness to develop by helping the learner analyse the supra-empirical relations between their consciousness and their society. Theory is thus never tested against uninterpreted reality but rather against the everyday spontaneous concepts grounded in concrete activity. Where contradictions occur, thinking can be transformed and new relations recognised. This includes relations between oneself and the world which introduce new potentials for acting differently—that is, for transformation. Indeed, Marx’s view of rationality was influenced by Hegel’s insight that such conflict is not “a kind of abnormality” but rather is “the root of all movement and life” (Hegel, cited in Callinicos, 2007, p. 41). This explains documented tensions student teachers feel when negotiating the theory-practice dialectic between university and school (see Fang, 1996). Pedagogically skilled teachers are critical; they stand back from what they are doing and compare it with other ways of achieving the same end and may even consider new ends to pursue. Of course, the direction of change is not determined. The world of relations, tendencies, and processes includes human agency but this does not guarantee agency absolute primacy. The work of critical realist Wilmott (2002) demonstrates this well. Though economic, social, and theoretical systems are constructed by agents, these systems nonetheless, once created, have ontological autonomy from those agents; they constitute forces which are distinct from, and irreducible to, the human agency which created them. Agency and structure are separable domains out of phase with each other over time. Structure pre-exists the actions of the agents who reproduce or transform it but the structure also post-dates the agents’

The Schooling of Teachers in England

31

actions which constructed it. How a particular teacher responds depends on the state of their pedagogic knowledge at the time but also upon extra-individual obligations attached to the structural role they occupy as a teacher. Structural forces do not determine pedagogic action, but they do frame it. External forces are exerted upon teachers regardless of their awareness of them. Failure to meet structural obligations carries penalties independent of their interpretation. Teachers can be required by national policy to accelerate pupils’ test achievements to the detriment of pedagogy (Wilmott, 2002). Failure to do so may incur penalties such as withdrawal of material resources (through job loss, pay cut, or demotion for example). The rescue of pedagogy is therefore no apolitical undertaking. Capitalist societies are distinguished by relations of production which give rise to particular social and legal structures organised around class. Relations to productive forces are antagonistic between those who must sell their labour and those who have control over the means of production, leading to conflict, particularly at times of economic crisis. Different structural locations lead to contestation over the purpose of schooling. A pedagogy which is transformative, and which raises critical and revolutionary consciousness, will incite resistance from those who have vested interest in existing social relations. The case of England illustrates this well. Pedagogy has been a casualty of competing class interests as capitalist profit has clashed with the labouring classes’ search for enlightenment and a new social order (Simon, 1974).

Conclusion In this chapter I have argued firstly, that we should be clear that pedagogy, like any modern science, is not neutral but rather embodies Enlightenment values and principles rooted in a transformative agenda. Secondly, I have suggested that it is important to understand the political backdrop to pedagogic neglect expressed in efficiency, learner-centred, and poststructuralist teacher education. Politically, these are expressions of liberal or sceptical responses to capitalism’s contradictions which either assumes that human emancipation can be achieved through the reform of capitalism rather than its overthrow, or that the scientific ambitions of the Enlightenment have been discredited. I have suggested therefore, that they are conservative and backward ideas for teacher education. Thirdly, I have aimed to show that a reassertion of pedagogy as dialectical, situated historically in the class relations peculiar to capitalism, can continue the transformative expectations captured in the Enlightenment agenda. The dialectical lesson for teacher educators is that, just as students teach their teachers, teachers teach their teacher educators. Theory may be a guide for action but teacher educators must also learn from the class struggle of which their student teachers (and their pupils and communities) are part. Teacher educators cannot impose pedagogic or theoretical agendas any more than political leaders can usher in socialism on behalf of the working class. Of course, this is not to say that concrete struggles alone advance teacher understanding. Many teachers have conflicting and uneven consciousness, particularly in England where the concept of pedagogy has atrophied to the point where it is now synonymous with tips for

32

Gail Edwards

delivering prescribed content and testing for retention. In such a context, the connection between theory and practice is severed and teachers require support to theorise out of their experience by appropriating theoretical tools to their objective class interests. There are opportunities for teacher educators to link theory generated out of past struggles to teachers’ current experience of, for example, industrial disputes and the dehumanisation and commodification of students in their care. Teachers need support to connect their work to the concrete political and economic struggles in which their students are embedded so they can be responsive to the dialectical interplay between their students’ consciousness and wider structural, cultural, and economic forces. Vygotsky distinguished between the ‘spontaneous’ awakening of class antagonisms and self-conscious action informed by systematic generalising about the social order. It is through this process that teachers and students learn about their objective interests and at the same time learn how to struggle together against structural injustice. Thus, the development of pedagogy depends upon teachers’ sociological, political, and educational understanding, as well as the degree to which teachers recognise their own class interests, as they assess the possibilities immanent in their own labour as they work with communities. Moreover, the rescue of pedagogy is neither predictable nor capricious. The possibilities must depend in each situation where capital and labour intersects, occurring not just in classrooms but in events in the wider political sphere. Pedagogy’s transformative agenda is becoming ever more urgent. The neoliberal period is unprecedented in terms of the extent to which educational values have been displaced. Much discourse now reduces education in schools and universities to a matter, not of social transformation, but of creating wealth. The question of whether the pursuit of profit is an end in itself or the means to living well is rarely discussed. Certainly, economic elites see little need for such discussion in their ‘edubusiness’ agenda, and—as their policies stoke resistance—it is left to critical educators to advance pedagogy through activism, research, and critical teacher education.

References Bain, A. (1877). Education as a science I. Popular Science Monthly, 10(February 1877), pp. 418–428. Accessed online 15 May 2015 at http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/ Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_10/February_1877/Education_as_a_Science_I Best, G. (1973). Mid-Victorian Britain 1851–1875. London: Fontana Press. Bhaskar, R. (1978). A Realist Theory of Science. Brighton: Harvester Press. Blake, N., Smeyers, P., Smith, R., and Standish, P. (2000). Education in an Age of Nihilism. London: Routledge Falmer. Brown, T. and Jones, L. (2001). Action Research and Postmodernism. Buckingham: Open University Press. Callinicos, A. (2007). Social Theory: A Historical Introduction, 2nd ed. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chitty, C. (2004). Education Policy in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Clandinin, D. J. and Connelly, F. M. (1988). Studying teachers’ knowledge of classrooms: Collaborative research, ethics and the negotiation of narrative. The Journal of Educational Thought, 22(2A), pp. 269–282.

The Schooling of Teachers in England

33

Comenius, J. A. (1967). The Great Didactic of John Amos Comenius (trans. by M. W. Keating). New York: Russell and Russell. Accessed online 15 May 2015 at: studentzone. roehampton.ac.uk/library/digital-collection/froebel-archive/great-didactic/index.html De Vos, A., Lobet-Maris, C., Rousseau, A., and Wallemacq, A. (2002). Knowledge in question: From Taylorism to knowledge management. Paper presented to the third European Conference on Organizational Knowledge, Learning and Capabilities, Athens 5–6th April 2002. Dewey, J. (1957). Reconstruction in Philosophy: The Definitive Edition. Boston: Beacon Press. Dilthey, W. (1976). Introduction to the human studies: The relationship of the human studies to the sciences. In H. P. Richman (ed.), W. Dilthey: Selected Writings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 247–260. Duarte, N. (2006). Education as mediation between the individual’s everyday life and the historical construction of society and culture by humankind. In P. H. Sawchuck, N. Duarte, and M. Elhammoumi (eds.), Critical Perspectives on Activity: Explorations Across Education, Work and Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 211–237. Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research, 38(1), pp. 47–65. Freire, P. (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Continuum. Fukuyama, F. (1989). The end of history. The National Interest, 16 (Summer), pp. 3–18. Greenwood, J. D. (1994). Realism, Identity and Emotion: Reclaiming Social Psychology. London: Sage. Herbart, J. F. (1908). The Science of Education: Its General Principles Deduced From Its Aim and the Aesthetic Revelation of the World (trans. by M. Henry and E. Felkin). Boston: D. C. Heath and Co, Publishers. Hill, D. (1989). Charge of the Right Brigade: The Radical Right’s Attack on Teacher Education. Brighton: Institute of Education Policy Studies. Hill, D. (2007). Critical teacher education, new labour, and the global project of neoliberal capital. Policy Futures in Education, 5(2), pp. 204–225. Accessed online 16 October 2012 at www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/freetoview.asp?j=pfie&vol=5&issue=2&year=2007 &article=7_Hill_PFIE_5_2_web Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology (trans. by D. Carr). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. Hyland, T. (1994). Competence, Education and NVQs: Dissenting Perspectives. London: Cassell. Kincheloe, J. and Steinberg, S. (1997). Changing Multiculturalism. Bristol, PA: Open University Press, p. 24. Lewin, K. (1948). Resolving Social Conflicts; Selected Papers on Group Dynamics (ed. by G. W. Lewin). New York: Harper & Row. Lyotard, J. (1984). The Postmodern Condition: A Report on Knowledge. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. MacDonald Fraser, G. (ed.). (1977). The World of the Public School. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson. Marx, K. (2002). Theses on Feuerbach (trans. by C. Smith). Accessed online 15 May 2015 at www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/index.htm Matthews, M. R. (1980). The Marxist Theory of Schooling: A Study of Epistemology and Education. Sussex: Harvester Press. Moore, A. (2004). The Good Teacher: Dominant Discourses in Teaching and Teacher Education. Abingdon: Routledge Falmer. Novack, G. (1975). Pragmatism Versus Marxism: An Appraisal of John Dewey’s Philosophy. London: Pathfinder Press. Oakeshott, M. (1962). Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays. London: Methuan.

34

Gail Edwards

Parker, S. (1997). Reflective Teaching in the Postmodern World: A Manifesto for Education in Postmodernity. Buckingham: Open University Press. Partington, G. (1999). Teacher Education in England and Wales. London: Institute for Economic Affairs. Perkins, H. (1969). The Origins of Modern English Society 1780–1880. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Peters, R. S. (1969). What is an educational process? In R. S. Peters (ed.), The Concept of Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, pp. 9–23. Rich, R. W. (1972). The Training of Teachers in England and Wales During the Nineteenth Century. Bath: Cedric Chivers Ltd. Rorty, R. (1998). Truth and Progress: Philosophical Papers Volume 3. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ross, E. W. (2010). Clockwork: Taylorism and its continuing influence on work and schooling. In E. Heilman (ed.), Social Studies and Diversity Teacher Education: What We Do and Why We Do It. New York: Routledge, pp. 33–37. Sarup, M. (1988). Poststructuralism and Postmodernism. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf Press. Sayer, A. (2000). Realism and Social Science. London: Sage. Schön, D. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. London: Temple. Simon, B. (1974). The Two Nations and the Educational Structure 1780–1870: Volume 1 in the Studies in the History of Education Series. London: Lawrence and Wishart. Simon, B. (1981). Why no pedagogy in England? In B. Simon and W. Taylor (eds.), Education in the Eighties: The Central Issues. London: Batsford, pp. 124–144. Simon, B. (1985). Does Education Matter? London: Lawrence and Wishart. Stenhouse, L. (1975). An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Suchting, W. A. (1986). Marx and Philosophy. London: Macmillan. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). The development of scientific concepts in childhood. In R. W. Rieberand and A. S. Carton (eds.), The Collected Works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of General Psychology, Including the Volume Thinking and Speech. New York: Plenum Press, pp. 167–241. Weber, M. (1978). The nature of social activity. In W. C. Runciman (ed.), Weber: Selection in Translation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 7–32. Wilmott, R. (2002). Education Policy and Realist Social Theory: Primary Teachers, Childcentred Philosophy and the New Managerialism. Abingdon: Routledge. Young, M. (1971). Knowledge and Control. London: Collier-Macmillan.

4

Transformation in the Teaching Profession in Turkey From Socialist-Idealist Teacher to Exam-Oriented Technician Ahmet Yildiz

Introduction As in all other professions, the practices and social status of teaching are shaped by the social, economic, and political conditions of a given era. As a result, each era gives rise to its own unique teacher typology. Today in Turkey, the popular teacher typology is the ‘exam-oriented technician’, stripped of all social responsibilities, reduced to preparing students for centralised exams and transmitting content mechanically. This typology is the exact opposite of its predecessor, the ‘idealist-socialist’ teacher, now replaced, disallowed. This current teacher type puts into practice the educational commercialisation policies, and enforce the religious, Islamicising, policies of the AKP—the governing Islamist political party in power for the last 14 years. In this sense, the teacher created by commercialisation and ‘religionising’ policies is both the technician who prepares for the exams and the ‘imam-teacher’. The transformation from the idealist-socialist teacher to the technician has to be contextualised within global neoliberal policies. Indeed, the transformation of the teacher in Turkey happened simultaneously with the objectification of education and its turning into a ‘private’ issue for families/individuals (Keskin, 2012), and with the emphasis of neoliberal politics placed on the need to restructure education and the need for global policies that encourage competition in education. The official documents that have guided education in Turkey openly reflect a neoliberal perspective on education that responds to the direct demands of the market. To illustrate, the latest document to shape the organisational structure of National Education—the law dated 1992 and numbered 3797—was amended in 2011 by the government to revise the basic duty of the Ministry of Education as “to design, implement and update globally competitive curricula that prepare students for the future by equipping them with the knowledge and skills required by the economic system; to offer instructional services within this framework.” As can be understood from this, teaching is among the professions directly affected by neoliberal structural transformations (Yıldız, Ünlü, Alica and Sarpkaya, 2013). To deepen our understanding of the new teacher type imposed by the neoliberal project—to show that this new teacher is not normal/natural or universal, and that a different teaching practice is possible—it is essential to know the historical background of the issue. This article considers the shift in teacher typology

36 Ahmet Yildiz in relation to historical turning points that brought it about. In the belief that the shift/transformation in the image of the teacher runs parallel to modernisation in Turkey, the traditional political stages in Turkish history are used here: the late Ottoman Empire(1808–1922), the Early Republican Era (1923–50), 1950to 1980, and the 1980s onwards. In each of these eras, a different and unique teacher typology emerged. The first was the state-employed ‘master’ teacher, who evolved from a clergyman ‘hodja’ or ‘imam’. The second was ‘the modernising state teacher’, who emerged at the end of the Ottoman Empire but was most influential during the Early Republican Era. The third was ‘the progressive teacher of the people’ or the ‘revolutionary teacher’ prominent from the 1960s to the 1980s. Finally came the ‘exam-oriented technician’,1 born of the neoliberal policies after the 1980s.

The Emergence of the Modern Teacher: From the Clergyman Hodja to the State-Employed Master The first type of teacher emerged in the classical Ottoman era and would give way to a new type influenced by the Westernisation movement. 2 Until this movement, schools were based on religious education. The curriculum was based on religion and the hodja (teacher) was a clergyman; indeed, the meaning of the word ‘hodja’ is ‘Muslim clergyman’. In this era there were no teachers, schools, or education in the modern sense. Until the Ottoman Reformation, education functioned under religious communities and the madrasah (Alkan, 2005). Therefore, the teacher was a clergyman-hodja who imparted religious-moral information and values, and helped Islamic socialisation. The disintegrating traditional social organisation in the mid-nineteenth century—in other words, the development of modern education brought by Westernisation—changed the role of the teacher (hodja). The birth of extensive public education and the civil-servant status for teachers both followed the Ottoman Reformation (Zürcher, 2005). A rationalised and centralised state-school model emerged particularly with the 1869 Education Regulation. With this regulation, the state took responsibility, at least in theory, to educate the entire population of the empire (Fortna, 2005, p. 146). In this process, the ‘hodja’ was replaced by the ‘master teacher’, educated in state teacher-training schools; this was considered an important profession. In addition, the teacher was seen as an agent of civilisation. This marked the beginning of the teacher in the modern sense of the word. During this era, the religious teacher was replaced by one with national legitimacy, expected to impart obedience and loyalty to the “country, nation, laws and state” (Alkan, 2005, p. 76).

The Modernising Teacher of the Republic In 1923 a new nation-state was established on the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. After the declaration of the Republic, a number of fundamental initiatives were made in the direction of Westernisation/modernisation led by the founding members of the new regime.

The Teaching Profession in Turkey 37 The Republic gave birth to a new teacher typology: “the modernising teacher of the Republic.” The formation of this type of teacher was particularly mandated by rural educational problems after the Republic was established. Like other reforms, education had a more limited effect in these rural areas than in the cities, where Kemalists3 “succeeded at expanding the positivistic, secular, and pro-modernity circle” (Zürcher, 2005, p. 282). Therefore, special measures were taken for rural areas (Yıldız, 2006). Village Institutes were established to create idealistic, self-sacrificing, and skilled teachers to transform villages. Twenty-two Village Institutes were set up throughout Turkey to raise literacy rates, teach villagers agriculture and health, and equip them with self-confidence and citizenship skills. Among the most original projects to transform rural Turkey and indeed the entire nation, Village Institutes were sadly short-lived: only eight years. Although they officially lasted from1940–54, their construct and name was changed in 1948 and they lost their main function (Sayılan and Yıldız, 2009). Despite the significance of Village Institutes in modernisation, they do not fully explain the early Republican teacher typology, which resulted from a more extensive modernisation project. Indeed, shortly after the declaration of the Republic, the founding fathers took a number of radical initiatives to ensure Westernisation/ modernisation. In this secular society/secular state project, education had a prominent place in the socialisation of citizen individuals, and therefore in the internalisation of the norms and values of the project (Üstel, 2005, p. 127). While education was always seen as a requirement of ‘modern civilisation’ throughout the history of the Republic—in the same fashion as the late Ottomans, only more radically—it was also used as a basic tool to teach civilisation. Therefore, even though the modern educational system was influenced by international developments, it was mainly shaped during the late capitalisation and modernisation stages. The political and ideological preferences of the intellectual and military circles that built the Republic shaped the educational system. This was particularly so during the founding of the Republic, when two main classes—capitalists and proletariat—had not yet been historically created, (Sayılan and Yıldız, 2009). The Kemalist circle coded the teacher as an effective agent in the transformation of pre-modern social relations and values, as well as in secularisation (Sayılan and Yıldız, 2009). Thus, the ‘Republican teacher’ took on the responsibility of modernising new generations and bringing about social development, and ‘teacher commitment’ was valued (Ünal, 2005). This situation can be clearly seen in the words regarding teachers used by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the founder of the new republic (Ataturkdevrimleri.com, Ataturk’s Quotes about Teachers, 2017),4 in the following quotes: Unless a nation has a cultural army, no matter how brilliant victories it won in the battlefields; those victories’ giving permanent results depends on the existence of the cultural army. Without this second army, the fruitful results of the first army are lost. (1923)

38 Ahmet Yildiz In order to ensure placing the task of teaching in reliable hands in the schools, to procure growing up our youth by superior and respected teachers who assume their duty both as a profession and an ideal, the teaching profession, like other freelance and high professions, should be gradually progressed and probably be put into a well-rewarded, prosperous profession. Teachers, all around the world, are the most self-sacrificing and respectable elements of society. (1923) The military, political, and administrative revolutions that the new Turkey is compressing into a few years are very major and very important. Dear teachers, these revolutions will be supported by your successes in your social and intellectual revolution. You should never forget that the Republic asks you to develop “generations whose ideas are free, conscience is free, and discernment is free.” (1924) Teachers are the only ones who save the nations. A nation which is deprived of the teacher and the trainer does not yet have the ability to be regarded as a nation. It is called an all-mass mass; but not a nation. They are the ones who make a society a true nation. Of course, our nationality is a society deserving the appreciation of the world. But you are the ones who will bring it to the degree of honour that it deserves. The nation, the country and the Republic expect higher service from you. (1925) Teachers should be with public and run to public at every opportunity, and the public should understand that the teacher is much more than someone who only teaches the child the alphabet. (1927) In brief, the teacher typology that emerged with the Republic played a vital role in the construction of a modern society and was responsible for teaching modern values. In other words, the Early Republican Era witnessed an ‘idealistic’ teacher figure who was an effective agent of social transformation towards modernisation/secularisation. This teacher type may be called ‘the modernising teacher of the state/Republic’. The dominance of military-civilian intellectuals of petty bourgeois origin in the power structure of the founding period of the Republic influenced the process of the development of capitalism in Turkey (Timur, 1994). This government sought to pursue a kind of class-based policy in accordance with its traditional ideological tendencies. In this way, it aimed at ensuring the integrity, the creation,

The Teaching Profession in Turkey 39 of national consciousness. However, as Timur (1994) stated, the deadlock was the same: it is impossible to successfully struggle with the ruling classes without relying on, without involving the poor classes. For that reason all the radical reforms carried out in that period were abandoned shortly afterwards.

People’s Progressive Teacher or the Revolutionary Teacher The multi-party period that took place after radical reforms of the founding period came to the fore with the dissolution of the alliance between the military bureaucratic elites and the local bourgeoisie and landlords. The economic integration conjuncture after World War II demanded the liberalisation of a closed economy (Keyder, 1989, p. 57). In this era, the trade bourgeoisie and landlords who prospered with state support and the economic policies of the founding era started to demand more power, encouraged by international conditions. Naturally, it would be unthinkable for the change in the dominant alliance not to be reflected in educational policies. Therefore, there was a ‘shift from one capitalist modernisation model to another’. As the statist policy of the founding years, which aimed to develop a national economy, gave way to free-market policies, there was a break from the early educational policies of creating a modern, secular society that greatly valued enlightenment. Throughout this new era when the economy was liberalised, the capitalist market expanded into rural areas, and urbanisation accelerated, liberal trends in education also emerged (Sayılan and Yıldız, 2009). Starting with the 1960 military coup, Turkey paradoxically had a liberal democratic constitution for the first time (Sayılan and Yıldız, 2009). According to Savran (2010), two developments are essential to define this period: the first is the decisive domain of the capital accumulation of industry, the industrial bourgeoisie becoming the ruling power of the power bloc; the second is working class’ massive entrance to the political scene for the first time in the country’s history. The import-substitution industrialisation strategy, which became widespread in the 1960s, has the feature of being largely dependent on direct investments. The import-substitution policies, which have emerged as an effective industrialisation strategy to prepare for development, have been implemented in most of Latin America and in Turkey, but this new import-substitution industrialisation strategy, which does not deter peripheral countries from being the original goods producers and exporters, is largely dependent on foreign capital and foreign financing (Sönmez, 2005). This implemented accumulation model brought the emergence of a modern working class in Turkey. Over time, the working class acquired a significant ideological and organisational power and shaped the political scene of the 1970s (Özgüden, 2007. The free environment brought by the new constitution enabled civil society to organise in trade unions and cooperatives; at the same time, it provided the masses with informal learning opportunities (Sayılan and Yıldız, 2009). Parallel to these developments, left-wing political socialisation expanded in Turkey, and a new teacher typology appeared. The previous ‘modernising state teacher’ gave way to the ‘people’s progressive teacher’.

40 Ahmet Yildiz The emergence of this new type of teacher, aiming for radical social change, also became evident in the discourse of the well-known teacher figures of the era. The Turkish Teachers’ Syndicate (TTS) stated that “without a fair order, there will not be fair sharing.” Therefore, the teacher’s duty was to “awaken the people” (Baykurt, 1969; cited in Altunya, 2008, p. 127). The main goal of education was to “give people a revolutionary spirit in life,” TTS declared “This requires revolutionary education and revolutionary teachers”5 (Altunya, 2008, p. 128). Another example that reflected the spirit and the teacher typology of the era was the TTS declaration, signed by Deputy President Dursun Akçam: “Our problems are not separate from those of the public. We do not aspire to be the happy teachers of an unhappy nation. We must defend the rights of the oppressed and the poor as well as our own rights” (cited in Akgöl, 1981, p. 48). Both the people’s progressive teacher and its predecessor, the modernising Republican teacher, emphasised the role of the teacher in social transformation and made teachers’ social responsibilities a priority. However, while the former aimed for state-centric social transformation to construct a nation-state, the latter aimed for socialist transformation centred on the pedagogy of the oppressed, which mostly opposed the state in Cold-War conditions. One of the most important events that set the ground for the emergence of this teacher typology was the Cold War. In this period when the process of radical reforms slowed down, anti-communism increased, and the NATO alliance relationships with the US were established against the socialist bloc. Turkey became a scene of the inexorable ideological struggle of the Cold War. Turkey became one of the few countries that engaged with great enthusiasm for the US-led capitalist Western bloc in the Cold War frontline from the beginning and continued this engagement without restraint until the end of the Cold War; moreover, it reproduced the Cold War polarisation not only in the external relations but also within the country (Örnek, 2015).

The Teacher as Exam-Oriented Technician (1980s to Present) In the early 1980s, Turkey abandoned state capitalism, which fell into a deep hegemonic crisis after the1970s, in favour of a new accumulation model, global capitalism. The shift was initiated by new right-wing authorities in the West. In developed capitalist countries such as the US and the UK, the social democratic ruling parties gave way to new right-wing governments. On the other hand, in countries like Turkey that were dependent addendums in the global capitalist system and implemented import-substitution populist distribution policies (an underdeveloped version of the developed Western states), the shift and transition occurred only through violent military coups (Özgüden, 2007). With the neoliberal policies applied after the 1980 military coup, as in the whole world, inequalities in education in Turkey have notably increased and the structural crisis of education has deepened (Ercan, 1998; Sayılan, 2001; Gök, 2004; Sayılan and Yıldız, 2009). Commercialisation and marketization of education for countries such as Turkey, which face problems of providing basic education, have made it

The Teaching Profession in Turkey 41 difficult for large masses of people to attain education, knowledge, and jobs. This transformation also affected the socialist/revolutionary teacher. The 1980 military coup and the neoliberal policies that followed marginalised and devalued the socialist teacher. Most important, a new teacher typology was created. The field of education, which was limited to and reshaped by neoliberal conditions, started to be defined with functions more responsive to market expectations and on a more personal plane (Yıldız, 2012). Thus, teaching came to be a more personal profession in which success or failure became the teacher’s own responsibility (Ertürk, 2010). A neoliberal regime expects schools to compete with one another, as companies do, and to be accountable. That is why teacher competencies are determined and performance is considered measurable(Connell, 2009). The measurement fetish of our day means that centralised exams are given to measure teacher performance. Knowledge, according to this approach, is an object; the consumer should be able to buy maximum information (more tests) for minimum price (cheap teacher labour) and ensure maximum benefit (exam score) (Keskin, 2012). Education equals tests, questions, exams, and scores. Therefore, the teacher is an ordinary technical human force available on the market, and merely a worker who does a job without grasping the totality of education and who ensures that students meet externally set objectives (Özsoy and Ünal, 2010). The new teacher typology has been shaped in accord with this perspective on education. This new teacher is a robotic teacher who does not need to think about how and what to teach; a mechanical transmitter of centralised exam knowledge; a teacher whose value is measured in direct relation to the number of questions her students get right (Keskin, 2012); a company employee whose autonomy has been violated, and whose professional practices are measured by outside accountability mechanisms such as professional standards, performance indicators, and efficiency (Ünal, 2005). (It will not be surprising if, in the near future, schools start to choose an employee of the month.) The teacher is a victim of poor working conditions, such as contract employment, hourly payment, or no employment at all; s/he is placed on a new hierarchy of statuses such as full or part-time employment, or works under new control mechanisms (Ertürk, 2010). Moreover, new teacher is a technician teacher, whose duties are limited to the classroom, thus stripping them of their social duties and respectability, and their efforts are undervalued by the educational technology craze. It should be noted that many of these features that characterise today’s teachers are not specific to Turkey; similar trends can be said for all countries where neoliberal politics are implemented. What is different in Turkey is that, in recent years, in addition to these tendencies, an intense Islamisation wave has directly influenced the teaching profession especially since the Justice and Development Party (AKP)’s came to power (2002). In this sense, it can be said that the recent transformations in the teaching profession are closely related to the nature of the political view represented by the AKP. The AKP’s political line defends the state’s limited role, the process of radical social change, and taking into consideration of family and traditional values.6 In other words, the AKP7 is trying to combine

42 Ahmet Yildiz the preservation of traditional values, including religion, with the process of globalisation (Uzgel, 2009). This political line has caused one of the two legs of the system to become marketisation and the other to be conservatism/religionisation under the conditions of contemporary neoliberal capitalism. In this sense, it will be more correct to say that the term we are going through is not neoliberal but theo-liberal. The AKP has been the actor who has put these politics, that is, the religiosity and the market, into practice in Turkey. At first glance, the AKP’s line which is trying to reconcile the preservation of traditional values, including religion, and the process of globalisation can be seen as paradoxical. However, the AKP has succeeded in constructing them as processes that nourish each other, and are not contradictory to each other. In this sense, it is also necessary to separate the AKP from the past political Islamist parties and movements, as other Islamist formations have been very sceptical about ‘Western values’ and have long opposed them. The AKP, on the other hand, is, on one hand, instituting Islamist initiatives that can be considered as the continuation of the previous Islamic parties, while on the other hand is performing some practices that adopt tendencies in line with global capitalism. Because of this distinguishing feature of the AKP—that is to say, with a perspective consistent with global politics and values—it is possible to define it as a ‘Neo-Islamist’ formation. This political line that the AKP has developed is reflected clearly in the field of education. Indeed, fundamental initiatives which aim at religionising and reconciling of education to meet the needs of the marketplace marked this period. In other words, it is possible to say that the traditional education line which emphasised public responsibility was broken and the content of the education was reduced to two fields, as economic and religion, during the AKP period. So much so that education is treated in an economic and/or religious sense. Education serves as a viable ideological apparatus for governments and constitutes one of the most intervening areas, especially during times of radical political change. When it is addressed in this framework, it is not surprising that the AKP, which has been in power for 14years, also has well-established interventions in the field of education through a market-oriented agenda. Increasing the number of private schools, dissemination of religious high schools, initiatives to eradicate mixed education, religionisation of the curriculum in the name of values education, and the spreading of Qur’an courses8 are only the most naked examples of this religious-Islamicising this intervention.9 As so, it can be understood from these practices that education in the period of the AKP (that is, since 2003) is considered in terms of economic and/or religious meaning; education is presented as activities carried out mostly within the ministry of economy or ministry responsible for religious affairs, rather than education ministry. It is possible to determine this AKP’s Islamist line in accordance with global capitalism—openly or implicitly, at all levels and levels of all educational services in the country. It may be useful to explain this line in education with a few examples. The arrangement of 4 + 4 + 410 is a suitable example that clearly shows both religionisation and marketisation. In the process starting from “Law on Primary Education and Education Law and Amendments to Some Laws” dated March 30, 2012, Law

The Teaching Profession in Turkey 43 number 6287, secondary school parts of religious high schools were opened; in the past there were only religious high schools but now there are also religious secondary schools. The children started school one year early which means children’s age to start schooling was reduced to six years, and the open(distance) education was considered as a part of compulsory education: elective courses such as Holy-Quran and the Prophet’s life were introduced, whereas previously such courses were not part of the school curriculum. Thus, intermittent compulsory education has opened the way to the limitation of girls’ attendance conditions11 to school and their marrying in early ages, and poor and disadvantaged children are increasingly going to vocational high schools or open high schools which supply distance education (Okçabol, 2014). In short, this practice has allowed the creation of cheap and qualified labour stakes for the capital on one hand and on the other hand it allowed religionisation. Today, the secular middle classes are more and more attending private schools, withdrawing their children from public schools because of the intensified religious repressiveness in public schools. Secular education has become a commodity that can be bought. Thus, the state schools in which the children of the social lower classes continue are increasingly homogeneous in terms of social class and the lower classes are easily religionised. The educated middle classes have withdrawn from public schooling. They had constituted the group with the greatest potential for resisting this encirclement in public schools by the forces and policies of the market and reactionism; this has led to the disruption of the basis for the schoolbased struggle for democratic education. This has weakened the forces acting against, opposing, religious repression and marketisation in public education. As it would be expected, the enactment of the religious initiatives leads to new pressures and practices on teachers. In this sense, this type of teacher is the agent of Islamic socialisation as well as being a technician who prepares students for tests in the education system under the intense influence of the centralised standard examinations. In this sense, the type of teacher we can call imam-teacher typology has begun to become prominent. To call teachers ‘Imam-teacher’ is strange in Turkish society because imams and teachers have been perceived as competing professional groups throughout the history of the modern republic. The teacher represents the modernisation of the republic and the imam represents the Islamic-centred tradition. This competitive relationship is not limited to hot political debates; teacher conflict with the imam has been a widespread feature of modern Turkish literature/novel.12 The sociologist Prof Şerif Mardin stated the changing power relationship between the two dramatically in the last period like that: “The imam beat the teacher” (Gazete Vatan, 2008).13 What is to be understood from this statement is the decline of the teacher who represents the modernisation of the republic, that is, the imam is defeating the progressive teacher. With the suppression of progressive teachers, today there is no longer any difference between imams and a significant part of the teachers. So, in this sense there is the imam-teacher model. During the AKP period, various attempts were made to turn the teacher into the imam. At the top of these is the priority given to the appointment of teachers

44 Ahmet Yildiz of religious culture and moral information raised by the Sunni Islam teaching.14 For example, the number of teachers of religious culture and moral information assigned in 2013 was 5184. This was followed by quotas of 5034 English teachers, 324 biology, 362 arts, and 195 music teachers. In the 2012–13 academic year, the inclusion of elective religious courses has increased the need for teachers of religious culture and moral information. The religious culture and moral information teachers who entered the courses in the secondary schools also entered into primary school teaching—religious culture and moral information courses are also taught in the primary school. Therefore, the necessity of educating religion culture and moral information teachers was revealed to be consciously planned by the Ministry of National Education. While the number of science, sports, and art lessons is decreasing in schools today, the number of courses of Religion Culture and Moral Education in a school can be up to ten hours per week.

In Lieu of a Conclusion During the 14 years that the AKP has been in power, it has signed into legislation many radical changes, primarily in education. Thus, under the neoliberal and neoliberal siege, the education system has rapidly become marketable and religionised, as well as promulgating chronic class, race, and gender discrimination (Uysal and Yıldız, 2014). The interventions based on the marketplace and religiousness have been so comprehensive that they can be compared to the years of the foundation of the Republic in which a new educational system has been established. Moreover, it is only in these two periods that education has constituted one of the country’s most important political agendas. However, it should be noted that there are considerable differences between these two periods in terms of the purpose and scope of education: In the years of foundation, enlightenmentstatist-secular aims were found in education whereas in the second period, the current one, there are market-religious aims. The dramatic difference between these two periods has a significant effect on teacher typologies. In this sense, the historical transformation of the teaching profession in the country constitutes a part of the story of Turkey’s modernisation. Indeed, the determination of the enlightened-statist-secular initiatives in the foundation years prepared the social and political conditions for the emergence of the modernising teacher. In the period when the radical reforms paused after World War II and the Cold War winds started to blow in the country, a progressive teacher typology emerged that did not feel state support behind it. After 1980, the applied neoliberal policies and the rising Islamist organisations together with these policies laid the foundation for the formation of a new teacher typology. In this period in which neoliberal and Islamic politics have been blended, the teacher has lost his past splendour and has become technician and his profession has been devalued. Despite the devaluation of the profession, teachers remain the most important actors with the potential to bring down the marketoriented, individualistic, and technicist approach of the neoliberal education

The Teaching Profession in Turkey 45 project. That is why authorities everywhere that implement neoliberal policies see teachers as a risky professional group that needs to be socially deactivated. Indeed, new technologies such as smart boards and tablets are used to devalue, not empower, the teacher. The condescending discourse used by authorities everywhere when talking about teachers—statements like ‘they do not work enough’ or ‘they have too many holidays’—may be attributed to this devaluing of the teacher. Unfortunately, this global assault on teachers seems to have largely succeeded. The neoliberal discourse has been infused into many societies, and many teachers are repositioning themselves in society according to the new technician-teacher typology. However, this new position means teachers lose their professional respectability and autonomy. Unless a critical view and awareness develop and spread, teachers are bound to lose their historical gains, much like all other segments of society that view themselves through the eyes of authorities. However, the loss of teachers harms the whole of society; therefore, to defend what is social, it is vital to defend the teacher.

Notes 1 Here, the word examination refers to centralised standard tests. 2 Similar to many states in the past, Ottomans did not provide the public with education, health, welfare and other services, which were offered and funded by foundations (Karpat, 2002). Indeed, as Gellner states (2008), agriculture-based traditional states were not involved with other activities than tax-collection or ensuring security. 3 The expression Kemalists refers to the founder cadre who built Turkey as a modern nation-state, notably Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. This cadre basically has some principles such as separating religion and state issues, Westernisation, and national independence. 4 www.ataturkdevrimleri.com/yazi-415-ataturk-un-ogretmenler-ile-ilgili-sozleri.html Ataturk’s Quotes about Teachers. 5 Emerging in this era as radical-massive teacher organisations, the Turkish Teachers’ Syndicate (TTS) and the Turkish Teachers Integration and Cooperation Association (TTICA) were the most significant actors of this discourse. The declarations mentioned here are cited from Dr Niyazi Altunya’s work. For more information on teacher organisation in Turkey, see Altunya, N. (2008). Türkiye’de Öğretmen Örgütlenmesi. Ankara: Ürün Publications. 6 With the AKP, the family began to be represented by a ministry for the first time: Ministry of Family and Social Policies. During the previous governments, this unit was a general office affiliated to the Prime Ministry. 7 It should be emphasised that the ground for the rise of the Islamist movements was prepared by the September 12 military regime. The main of the army who seized power in a shaky cloaked civil war condition, with the support of the most advanced representatives of the realistic bourgeoisie, to suppress the working class movement that has given very radical struggles in the 1960s and 1970s, to redefine the rules thoroughly in working relations, to oppress the extraordinarily strengthened socialist left, and to take measures to prevent the youth from getting caught in the left again in the future (Savran, 2014). The army was extremely successful in achieving these goals; it dispatched a heavy blow to the left. At this point, it has provided the whole displeasure of the poor sections of society to flow into the channels of Islamic movements. The military regime made a socio-cultural life an Islamic vaccine on the basis of a doctrine called the Turkish-Islamic Synthesis with a meticulously chosen name, in order to ensure the silence of young workers and students. The implementation of this kind

46 Ahmet Yildiz

8

9

9 10

11

12

13

14

of political line for a decade would make the square ready for the formation of a much stronger Islamic movement than before the coup (Savran, 2014). This climate prepared the ground for the development of the AKP. The Qur’an courses are defined in the form of “32-week courses that help students to memorise the Qur’an and to teach basic religious information in a way that is capable of reading the Qur’an in a proper and duly manner and fulfilling the worship”. These courses, however, aim not to teach the whole population but to teach the religious belief of a certain population by the hands of the state. Moreover, this teaching is directed towards the whole population, which means that it aims for the Islamisation of the whole society. For this reason, Qur’an courses have become one of the important discussion agendas in Turkey. According to the report (2016) prepared by the Independent Social Scientists group, some numerical data that the AKP has realised in the field of education in the last three years are as follows: the number of private schools has increased from five thousands to seven thousands, and the number of private universities has increased from 57 to 76. The number of students in the religious high schools that provide education on the basis of religion increased from 268 to and 164 thousands. 12 years compulsory 900 thousands, while the number of students in the Koran courses increased from 297 thousands to 1 million and 164 thousands. 12 years compulsory education is divided into three parts but it is formed as intermittent, not continuous. So the first four years starting from age 6 is for primary school, the second four years is for secondary school and the last four years is for high school period. Ebru Yiğit, Women’s Secretary of Egitim Sen, announced that 364, 401 girls who graduated from secondary school in 2014 did not enrol in any institution including open school. Bear in mind that the number of girls who did not study during the elementary school age was 600 thousand more than the number of boys in the same situation. Yiğit gave the knowledge that the number of girls who did not continue to train in the last two years increased by 458 thousand compared to the number of students studying in open high schools (Cansu, 2015) There are many important works on this subject. For example, this matter is handled as the problem of Republic, as in Reşat Nuri Güntekin’s ‘Green Night (1928)’ or Halide Edip’s ‘Vurun Kahpeye’ (1926) or Adalet Ağaoğlu’s ‘Living in Death’ (1973) the conflict between the teacher and the religious person, or as in Yakub Kadri’s novel ‘Wild’ (1942) between the Kemalist officer and the religious person; or as in the case of Yasar Kemal’s ‘Tin’ (1955) between the Kemalist governor and religious people. On May 26, 2008, Prof Şerif Mardin participated in a conference titled “Turkey Discussing, Neighbourhood Pressure” organised by the Society for Research and Solution of Social Problems (SORAR). His speech can be summarised as follows: Since 1950, the republican and populist teacher has been left behind in this rivalry. In the competition with the Imam, the teacher couldn’t show good and straight to the society as the old system could do (www.gazetevatan.com/ogretmen-imama-yenildi-180297-gundem/). This situation caused intense debates in the country. The parliamentarians of the opposition frequently expressed this situation. One of them was in 2008. The event reflected in the media was like that: CHP Yalova deputy Muharrem İnce asked why the appointment of physics teachers was not made in the meetings of the Assembly General Assembly. “As a physics teacher, I would like to say here the number of physics teachers in the six years of the Republic of Turkey, within six years, when the AKP government came today from November 2002. This number is 266, the number in six years. Within this period, the number of teachers of religion culture and ethics is 7,395. Why? . . . Number of philosophy teachers taken in the last six years is 773. Why?” he asked. (www.ogretmenlersitesi.com/gundem/ chp-yalova-milletvekili-muharrem-ince-neden-fizik-ogretmeni-atamasi-yapilmadigini-sordu-h1342.html).

The Teaching Profession in Turkey 47

References Akgöl, H. (1981). The Teacher’s Union of Turkey 1965–1971 [Türkiye Öğretmenler Sendikası: 1965–1971]. A. U. Education Faculty, Unpublished Master’s Thesis [A. Ü. Eğitim Fakültesi Yayımlanmamış Yüksek Lisans Tezi]. Alkan, M. Ö. (2005). Education in the modernization and nationalism process from empire to republic [İmparatorluk’tan Cumhuriyet’e Modernleşme ve Ulusçuluk Sürecinde Eğitim]. In K. Karpat (ed.), Ottoman Background and Today’s Turkey [Osmanlı Geçmişi ve Bugünün Türkiye’si]. İstanbul: Bilgi Üniversitesi Yayınları, pp. 73–242. Altunya, N. (2008). Teacher Organization in Turkey [Türkiye’de Öğretmen Örgütlenmesi]. Ankara: Ürün yayınevi. Baykurt, F. (1969). What Should the Teachers Do Today? [Öğretmenler Bugün Ne Yapmalı?]. Opening Speech of TOS and TODMF Second Ordinary General Assembly [TÖS ve TÖDMF İkinci Olağan Genel Kurulu Açış Konuşması], 7 July 1969. Cansu, B. (2015). With 4 + 4 + 4 thousands of girls have left their school [! 4+4+4 ile binlerce kız çocuğu okulu bıraktı!]. Birgün Gazetesi, 30 September 2015. Connell, R. (October 2009). Good teachers on dangerous ground: Towards a new view of teacher quality and professionalism. Critical Studies Education, 50(3), pp. 213–229. Online at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17508480902998421 Ercan, F. (1998). Restructuring of the education system in the 1980s: Globalization and neo-liberal education policies [1980’lerde Eğitim Sistemin in Yeniden Yapılanması: Küreselleşme ve Neo Liberal Eğitim Politikaları], in Fatma Gök (Ed.). 75 Yılda Eğitim [Education Through 75 Years]. İstanbul: T. İş Bankası Yay, pp. 23–38. Ertürk, E. (2010). The transformation of teaching profession in Turkey [Türkiye’de Öğretmenlik Mesleğinin Dönüşümü]. In A. Buğra (ed.), Labor Views From Class to Class Outside the Factory [Sınıftan Sınıfa Fabrika Dışında Çalışma Manzaraları]. İstanbul: İletişim Yayınevi. Fortna, C. B. (2005). Imperial Classroom, Islam, the State and Education in the Late Ottoman Empire [Mekteb-i Hümayun, Osmanlı İmparatorluğunun Son Döneminde İslam, Devlet ve Eğitim] (ed. by P. Siral). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları. Gazete Vatan (2008.) Öğretmen İmama Yenildi, Gazete Vatan 26 May. Online at www. gazetevatan.com/ogretmen-imama-yenildi-180297-gundem/. Gellner, E. (2008). Nations and Nationalism [Uluslar ve Ulusçuluk] (ed. By B. Ersanlı and G. G. Özdoğan). İstanbul: Hil Yayınları. Giroux, H. A. (2012). Education and the Crisis of Public Values. New York: Peter Lang Publishing. Gök, F. (2004). Privatization of Education [Eğitimin Özelleştirilmesi]. In N. Balkan and Sungur (eds.), Destruction of Neoliberalism: Economy, Society and Gender in Turkey [Neoliberalizmin Tahribatı: Türkiye’de Ekonomi, Toplum ve Cinsiyet]. İstanbul: Metis Yayınları, pp. 94–110. Karpat, K. (2002). Ottoman Modernization [Osmanlı Modernleşmesi] (ed. By A. Z. Durukan and K. Durukan). Ankara: İmge Kitabevi. Keskin, D. (2012). Unending Exams Unlived Lives: Paradigm Shift in Education [Bitmeyen Sınavlar Yaşanmayan Hayatlar: Eğitimde Paradigma Değişimi]. Ankara: Dipnot Yayınları. Keyder, Ç. (1989). State and Classes in Turkey [Türkiye’de Devlet ve Sınıflar]. İstanbul: İletişim Yay. Örnek, C. (2015). Turkey’s Cold War Thought Life: Anticommunism and American Influence. [Türkiye’nin Soğuk Savaş Düşünce Hayatı: Antikomünizm ve Amerikan Etkisi]. İstanbul: Can yayınları. Okçabol, R. (2014). Eğitimin Piyasalaştırılması [Marketisation of Education] Ankara: Eğitim-iş Kültür yayınları. Özgüden, M. (2007). The Ideology of Civil Society in Turkey: A Study on the New Right, the Left Liberalism and Political Islam [Türkiye’de Sivil Toplum İdeolojisi: Yeni Sağ,

48 Ahmet Yildiz Sol Liberalizm ve Siyasal İslamcılık üzerine Bir İnceleme]. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Ankara Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü [Ankara University Institute of Social Sciences]. Özsoy, S. and Ünal, I. (2010). Educational sciences and teacher training in Turkey: A story of a parting of the ways [Türkiye’de Eğitim Bilimleri ve Öğretmen Yetiştirme: Bir Yol Ayrımı Öyküsü]. In I. Ünal and S. Özsoy (eds.), Towards a Philosophy of Educational Sciences [Eğitim Bilimleri Felsefesine Doğru]. Ankara: Tan Kitabevi Yayınları. Savran, S. (2010). Class Struggles in Turkey [Türkiye’de Sınıf Mücadeleleri]. İstanbul: Yordam Kitap. Savran, S. (2014). Islamism, the AKP, the Civil War of the Bourgeoisie [İslamcılık, AKP, Burjuvazinin İç Savaşı]. In N. Balkan, E. Balkan, and A. Öncü (eds.), Neoliberalism, the Rise of Islamic Capital, and the AKP [Neoliberalizm, İslamcı Sermayenin Yükselişi ve AKP]. İstanbul: Yordam Yayınevi. Sayılan, F. (2001).”Paradigm Changed: Globalization and Lifelong Education”, Gift to Cevat Geray [“Paradigma Değişirken: Küreselleşme ve Yaşam Boyu Eğitim,” Cevat Geray’a Armağan]. Ankara: Mülkiyeliler Birliği Yayını, pp. 609–624. Sayılan, F. and Yıldız, A. (2009). Historical and political context of adult literacy in Turkey. The International Journal of Lifelong Education, 28(6), pp. 735–749. Sönmez, S. (2005). Transformation in the World’s Economy [Dünya Ekonomisinde Dönüşüm], 2. baskı. Ankara: İmge kitabevi. Timur, T. (1994). Turkish Revolution and Its Aftermath [Türk Devrimi ve Sonrası]. Ankara: İmge Yayınevi. Ünal, L. I. (2005). Neoliberal transformation of teacher image [Öğretmen İmgesinde Neoliberal Dönüşüm]. Eğitim, Bilim, Toplum Dergisi. Cilt 3, Sayı 11. Üstel, F. (2005). In Pursuit of Acceptable Citizen: Citizenship Education in Turkey From Second Constitutional Period to Today [Makbul Vatandaşın Peşinde. İkinci Meşrutiyet’ten Bugüne Türkiye’de Vatandaş Eğitimi]. İstanbul: İletişim Yay. Uysal, M. and Yıldız, M. (2014). Introduction. In M. Uysal and A. Yıldız (eds.), Critical Education Papers [Sunuş. Eleştirel Eğitim Yazıları]. Ankara: Siyasal Yayınevi, pp. 9–16. Uzgel, İ. (2009). AKP book: A balance-sheet of a transformation [AKP Kitabı: Bir Dönüşümün Bilançosu]. In İ. Uzgel and B. Duru (eds.),”AKP: New Actor of Neoliberal Transformation” [“AKP: Neoliberal Dönüşümün Yeni Aktörü”]. Ankara: Phoenix Yayınları. Yıldız, A. (2006). Adult Literacy in Turkey: A Critical Approach to Adult Literacy Education [Türkiye’de Yetişkin Okuryazarlığı: Yetişkin Okuma-Yazma Eğitimine Eleştirel Bir Yaklaşım]. Unpublished Ph.D. Thesis [Yayımlanmamış Doktora Tezi]. Ankara University Institute of Educational Sciences [Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Enstitüsü]. Yıldız, A. (2012). Transformation of adult education in Turkey: From public education to life-long learning. In K. İnal and G. Akkaymak (ed.), Neoliberal Transformation of Education in Turkey. New York and London: Palgrave Macmillan. Yıldız, A., Ünlü, D., Alica, Z., Sarpkaya, D. (2013). Remembering Mahmut Hoca in a Neoliberal Age: “I am not a tradesman but a teacher.” Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies Volume 11, Number 3 (July 13) ISSN 1740-274. Zürcher, E. J. (2005). Turkey: A Modern History [Modernleşen Türkiye’nin Tarihi] (ed. by Y. S. Gönen). İstanbul: İletişim Yayınları.

5

Education, Secularism, and Secular Education in Turkey Unal Ozmen

Introduction The main problem of education that intellectuals are trying to overcome in the West appears to be an objection to restructuring a public right for the market, to meet market needs. Education’s coming under the control of market gives rise to control of information, information sources, and certificate centres (schools, course centres) by the rich. The market executes its control over education by the pricing effort largely on the basis of its reference. In this way, while on one hand rich people aggravate interpersonal competition and encourage poor people to purchase the valid certificates, on the other the poor are completely deprived of the opportunity to create policy against the systems that function against them. Although this struggle is the whole world’s problem, it continues with the purpose of fighting off this capital attack—in other words, in economic dimension and in the nature of a class in developed Western countries. However, in a different part of the world, especially Muslim countries, education gains importance as an area of struggle between pro-modernists and antimodernists. For example, in no developed Western country are ‘secular’, ‘scientific’, ‘democratic’, and ‘education in mother tongue’ used in a single slogan, while “Secular, Scientific, Democratic Education in Mother Tongue” is the slogan of democratic education struggle in Turkey. Although we have added ‘and Free’ to this slogan after ‘democratic’, this has not attracted much attention for now. In contrast with the West, we continue our struggle on other fronts, in a field we can call cultural. This slogan is unique to Turkey; the values to which these concepts refer are not worth fighting for, as they do not have the chance to be earned. Until the 1980s, educational demands were generally expressed under the headings of getting an education and the desire to be illuminated. Major slogans of that period were ‘education for people’, ‘education for production’, ‘in-service training’, ‘education for all’, ‘a school for every village’, and ‘no to imperialist education’. ‘Secular, scientific, and contemporary education’ started replacing the others in the 1970s. The course of the slogans shows Turkey is making an effort to compensate for the losses it incurred on the path to modernisation. Although Muslim countries including Egypt, Tunisia, and Jordan have covered considerable ground in the path to modernisation, neoliberal education of Western

50

Unal Ozmen

origin, which problematises information and makes room for religion in education, was used against these illumination efforts in their countries by Islamist politicians in the Muslim countries where they are imposed. Unfortunately, intellectuals in Muslim countries, who prefer citizenship to community and have to execute their struggle in different frontiers, are more disadvantaged than ever in the face of this Western support. The dilemma is that modernisation, which in Muslim countries means Western culture, is suppressed, again by the West. Nevertheless, the point reached exceeded the purpose of Western power groups at an uncontrollable level. Today, education in Turkey, a Muslim country that has been under the hegemony of radical Islamist politicians, is under attack from religion rather than the market, as is the case in the other Muslim countries. The market in Muslim countries is perceived as a collection of free areas in the secular sense. The reason is that religion, which was placed under state supervision to limit its intervention in public life, is used as a tool of pressure in the hands of the state beyond being neighbourhood and community culture. We can take a step further and assert that even in Turkey, which has a considerably capitalist infrastructure, the market cannot control religion, and this superstructure institution can intervene in the infrastructure. Big capital, with its local people and foreigners, endeavours to retrain the Sunni sect of Islam, which it has made an instrument to control the masses. Islamist party power is a force that disrupts the stability of the world, not just Turkey. However, the West’s problem with Islamists does not rise from the same concerns as intellectuals of Muslim countries. Capitalism will always want to use neoliberal capitalism, the will of religions to create tension, providing suitable conditions, the resolution to fight critical thinking, and its success in transforming public rights to ‘aid’, earning the people’s gratitude. To sustain their existence, religions also need state-guaranteed priorities. As long as the reciprocal need between religions and states continues, their relationship will also go on. Considered separately from orthodox Muslim countries, Turkey now shares their destiny, and that inhibits modernisation movements in these countries by supporting such Islamic organisations as the Taliban, al-Qaeda, the Islamic State, and Boko Haram. In this sense, the analysis to be conducted on Turkey will also enable us to understand the educational problems Muslim countries face. It is especially useful to state and know that the Turkish attitude summarised here is not the people’s general political preference, although a large majority opt for conservative parties. Favour for the religious is related to the fact that a group that constitutes no more than 15 percent and that longs for a state governed by sharia law and Islamist politicians, designated by cult unions, has come to power and monopolised political power with the support of international capital. In the occupation of Iraq and the restructuring of the Middle East by the Western coalition under US leadership, the right political ally should have been an internal power competent to speak on behalf of the masses who were to be transformed. As a matter of fact, Islamists were brought to power in return for assuming this role. Local capital groups and an important part of the population did not deprive this movement of their support with the desire to benefit from the opportunities of cooperation established with the US, the European Union, and

Secularism, and Secular Education in Turkey 51 financial institutions under their supervision (the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, the World Trade Organisation, and others). Although some interpret the fact that the West tended toward policies that prefer benefitting from sectarian differences with regard to the Middle East along with the civil war in Syria, nothing is going to change. Turkey’s Islamists will be able to continue their power (even if they cannot form a government) in some other way by drawing strength from the fact that the balance elements (jurisdiction, professional organisations, unions, leftist parties, and media), which lost their ability to intervene in the system, have been pushed aside.

The Adventure of Secular Education in Turkey Modern education was introduced to Turkey in the nineteenth century, the Ottoman Empire’s last. Modern education, which started with engineering to have war technology as well as medicine to heal diseases that cannot be healed with prayer, did not have such purposes as making individuals into citizens or democratising society. The reason is that the system itself was not modern, but feudal. Upon establishment of the republic in 1923, Turkey pursued a secular educational policy. In those years, Turkey consisted of villages where an agricultural economy predominated. The fact that the influence of US spread to other countries as a result of World War II caused the subcontractor candidate trade bourgeoisie to emerge with ‘democratic’ political demands. Unfortunately, bourgeois administration had to eliminate ‘revolutionist’ soldiers, civil bureaucrats, and their intellectual partners from whom it would take power. Religious peasants and non-removed religious structures, which emerged as electors with the facilities of democracy, became allies of the bourgeoisie in this fight in return for delivery from their old roles. In the elections of 1950, the Turkish bourgeoisie came to power with a marvellous result. This election is remembered as the elimination of founding elements of the republic and the success of the opposition. Religion lessons, which had been completely excluded from curriculum in 1939, returned to schools in 1951; schools that provided religious education opened; and academic personnel were banned from politics in 1953 In the years that followed, the bourgeoisie used religion in a controlled manner to soothe the masses. Especially after the 1970s, when the religion earned priorities in public bureaucracy, Sunni communities assaulted ‘citizenship’ rights of the Alewi, who are found out of Islam by Sunni communities, in some provinces where they were active (Maraş, Çorum, Sivas). Even so, secular life style maintained its visibility. In this period, religious doctrines based on Sunni Islam naturally gained a greater reputation in education, together with nationalism. On the other hand, scientific subjects that contradicted religion were not excluded from the curriculum—until 2002, when the Islamist Justice and Development Party (AKP) government won a majority in parliament. AKP knew on whose behalf and in what meaning the Western politicians’ emphasis on ‘democracy’, ‘equality’, ‘justice’, and ‘human rights’ was used. Islamists used

52

Unal Ozmen

these universal concepts alongside concepts they thought would be more convincing and useful in managing internal public opinion, such as ‘modernisation’, ‘globalisation’, ‘innovation’, ‘market’, and ‘liberal’. In this way, they could seem Western to the US and European Union public—which they considered a threat—and leftist, liberal, and Kurdish political movements within the country, which they assumed had an Islamist tendency. Therefore, AKP gave the impression that it could transform from an Islamic ideology, whose ultimate objective is sharia, into a domesticated Islamist move with boundaries drawn by the West. This concept is translated as Moderate Islam to Turkey, and equals market Islam (Haenni, 2011). Today, explanations and reports of EU representatives and enlargement commissions, along with statements of the leftist party that accuse the Turkish left after their visit to Turkey are seen to be conscious movements to break the resistance of the Turkish left. Turkey introduced liberal economic policies on January 24, 1980. Education took its turn in the 2000s. First, a comprehensive cadre that would manage the process was put into power. Then education programmes, textbooks, and other supplementary education materials were changed. Legislation about education was later drawn up for the purpose of legitimising the actual state created. All these developments took place with the support of such international financial and political authorities as the World Bank, the IMF, and the European Union under indoctrination and oversight of the organisations under their supervision. Islamists considered the neoliberal (presented as ‘student-centred’) education policy, which went against Turkey’s 200-year Westernisation adventure but was a project of the US and in line with ‘moderate Islam’, as a concession made in return for acting in line with global economic policies that turned the concession into reward. This is the final situation: only 10 percent of secondary schools and high schools falling within the scope of formal basic education are completely focused on religious education. The proportion of students attending these schools is 13 percent. Students attending normal secondary and high schools take three different ‘optional’ religion lessons (life of Prophet Mohammed, memorising Koran, and basic religious information, where worshipping principles of Islam religion are taught), but actually which are obligatory (!), to be chosen apart from two hours a week of compulsory religion lessons. Islam started to be taught under the name of ‘Values Education’ in preschool education. Information that contradicts religion and ‘Turkish-Islamic Culture’ in scientific lessons such as science, physics, and biology are filtered each day, and the remaining scientific subjects are skipped under peer pressure and pressure of school administration. One important agenda item of the 19th National Education Council, which convened in December 2014, was ending coeducation and including ‘jihad’—fighting for Islam—in the curriculum. Extracurricular culture books to be read by students are determined by the state, and they are largely provided by government-supported foundations and communities. In a speech in May 2015, Turkish Minister of Education Nabi Avci stated that the gap between religious schools and others was closed. Turkey has 176 universities. Universities other than those like Middle East Technical University and Ankara, Hacettepe, Boğaziçi, İstanbul, and Marmara universities are shopping malls opened so that trade would revive in the cities

Secularism, and Secular Education in Turkey 53 where they are located. In Turkey, universities are among the investment pledges of politicians, most of whom want them to be called madrasa and their campuses called külliye (Islamic-Ottoman social complex), which means social environments with mosques in the centre. By the end of 2002, 170,000 of 550,000 teachers had become members of the secular and leftist Education and Science Workers’ Union (Eğitim Sen). Today, 350,000 of 900,000teachers are members of the Islamist Union of Educators’ Solidarity (Eğitim-Bir-Sen), which had 26,000 then, and 230 teachers are member of the nationalist Turkish Education Union (Türk Eğitim Sen). The total number of members of leftist/social democrat teacher unions has dropped to 152,000 (127,000 in the Education Union and 45,000 in the Education Workers’ Union). This data is quite significant in terms of understanding the blow taken by democratic teacher movement in this period. Although 350,000 new teachers have been included in the system to date, the fact that leftist unions did not get their share is related to teachers’ increasing conservatism in parallel with other components of the system. It is obvious that this transformation in education worries the secular and educated middle class. The path followed in religious education also pushes the boundaries desired by owners of large capital. Besides being financed by the state, religious education is used as a reference to find jobs in public workplaces. Unfortunately, the interest of poor people, who see this as an advantage, continues in these schools. Other religious minorities, who do not accept the predominantly Sunni Islam religious education, and the secular middle class, who think their children will attain a better future through global professions, look for ways to get away from public schools rapidly. The option they are offered is private schools, for which they pay. Private schools gain importance as secular areas where students feel relaxed and parents think their cultural and social requirements are satisfied. Secularism has turned into a commodity sold by Islamists to secular people (Şen, 2014). In this sense, public opinion does not share socialists’ critical attitudes toward privatisation. The reason is that public schools to which they can attend have been lost.

Education in Muslim Countries It is useful to look at Islamic education in some Muslim countries to comprehend the reasons for the transformation that changed the route of the fight for democratic education in Turkey, as Turkey’s route is directed to the gates of these countries. Critical educators can better understand the dimension of the danger when they consider that Saudi Arabia has granted $10 billion to support activities to religionise education since 2012, when the Arab Spring was upon them. Saudi Arabia: its constitution and education politics document that the purpose of education is correct comprehension of Islam and teaching Koran completely. Sex discrimination exists at all educational stages except kindergarten. Men cannot teach in girls’ schools, and women cannot teach in boys’ schools. Iran: education is under the guardianship of Cultural Revolution Council. With the Iranian Islamic Revolution (1979), information that contradicts Islam was

54

Unal Ozmen

excluded from the curricula and textbooks. Teacher education was revised in line with skills that would apply the new curriculum. All social studies are about Islam (Shiite) and Iran. Those who fail the religious lessons fail the class. Mixed education is prohibited except in remote villages, where combined class education is provided. As is the case in Saudi Arabia, teachers are appointed to schools by sex. Women are not allowed to study abroad. In addition, religious education is provided in separate, widespread schools called HAVZA, financially supported by donations. HAVZAs supervise universities and science boards in terms of conformity to religion. Egypt: this country’s relation to modern education is quite similar to Turkey’s. Egypt adopted modern education in the 1830s and secular education in 1922. Secularism became legal in 1952, and mixed education was introduced in 1956. From 1954 to 1970 (the Nasır period), weight was given to religious education as religious education was liberalised. In the period of office of Anwar Sadat and Hosni Mubarak, compulsory education was raised to nine years in order to overcome the pressure of religious education (1981). (The same year, Turkey decided on eight years, which was not put into practice until 1997). The Muslim Brotherhood, who took power in 2012, was removed with a coup just as it was tending toward Saudi-type education. Pakistan: the literacy rate is 55 percent in adults and 70 percent in young people. Out of 41 million students, 26 million (64 percent) attend public schools, while 15 million (36 percent) attend private schools. Fifty thousand schools are ‘mosque schools’ and ‘home schools’, which are financed by donation and where course-certified ‘teacher’ imams work. These schools give predominantly religious education. In addition, families who find the religion lessons in formal education institutions inadequate make use of madrasas for religion education. The religion lesson called Islam, in which the religion’s worship and faith principles are taught, is compulsory at all stages of private and public schools. Arabic and Koran lessons are included in the curriculum after secondary school. Even though separate schools for girls and boys are widespread in the country, where mixed education is fundamental, many families prefer ‘mosque schools’ and ‘home schools’ where women teach their daughters. The other Muslim countries in the Middle East and Africa are like little summaries of the examples above. In Syria, 50 percent of school-age children cannot find a safe school to attend. In parts of Syria and Iraq that are controlled by the Islamic State only religious and military education is provided. Boko Haram in Nigeria and the Taliban in Afghanistan do not differentiate between ‘enemy’ soldiers and students. While little is known about Muslim communities in the Far East, in Bangladesh, where 70 percent of the population is Muslim, the literacy rate is around 50 percent.

Saudi Intervention in Turkish Education The continuing war in the Middle East renders it impossible to question the dominant ideology while offering the Islamist governments in power the opportunity to reinforce their positions. Wars ideologised the small religious orders apart from

Secularism, and Secular Education in Turkey 55 Sunnism, which is represented by Saudi Arabia, and Shiism, represented by Iran. Shiism has power ideology in the region as well as ideologising even individual communities. The fact that war advocates have organised the masses around religious orders/communities increased the number of power candidates and drew each section of society into this power battle. As a result, all the other ideologies not fed by religion were inevitably rejected and became targets as ideas that disrupt social structure. The ideologies were fed by secularism were most affected by this situation. Even if hot war ends, this region and countries with Muslim populations, such as Turkey, that were somewhat involved in this war will fall far behind the point they have reached in their modernisation efforts through education. For example, Syria embraced coeducation and had an education policy based on secularism that included ethnic groups except Kurds. Neither internal nor external forces that try to exterminate the Assad regime intend to preserve the secular values adopted by Syria. The constituents of the Free Syrian Army, allies of Western countries in Syria, conceive a society no different from the one conceived by the Islamic State and al-Qaeda. The West is trying to get the Assad regime to come together with these organisations and establish a joint administration. Undoubtedly, the concessions made by Assad and gains of pro-sharia opponents will be about which Islamic order will be effective to what extent in society. Discounting the Palestine-Israel war, the hot war that started with invasion of Kuwait by Iraq in 1992 convened the people of the region around different order and faith groups of Islam. The only political movement in the region not fed by religion is the Labour Party of Kurdistan, or Partiya Karkerên Kurdistanê (PKK).1 For now, those who support citizenship values against policies that reflect religion, order, and ethnic ownership have no chance of surviving in this region. Middle East monarchs whose term of power depends on tension policies use religion as a war strategy to provoke their followers more than ever. Saudi Arabia and Qatar in particular are doing their best to prevent citizenship awareness from entering Muslim countries. As a matter of fact, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, which have gone into panic facing the democratic demands of the Arab Spring, did not abstain from supporting radical armed forces that will potentially suppress the democracy demands financially. Kings and Khans are fairly generous to keep democracy a safe distance from their kingdoms. For them, a safe region covers a wide area that will also incorporate Turkey. The Anti-Terrorism Islamic Alliance, established on December 15, 2015 with the participation of 34 countries including Turkey, Egypt, and Pakistan under the leadership of Saudi Arabia, is a challenge that announces the fact that each democratic initiative in the Sunni-Muslim bloc will be relentlessly suppressed. Although the country that will lead such international formations is generally determined based on population and military power, Saudi Arabia’s appointment as organisational leader over Egypt and Turkey is meaningful. This indicates that religion will be presented to people in its most traditional form, and the cost will be borne by countries with oil revenue. Then what is this Saudi Arabia-centred firewall’s relationship with education, and what is its impact on the region’s education policy?

56

Unal Ozmen

Erdoğan Bayraktar, a minister of Turkey’s Islamist government, stated in an interview published in Akşam Newspaper on June 23, 2012, that King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia had unconditionally granted Turkey $10 billion dollars off the books, and that Saudi aid would continue. Why would a country grant that amount of money to another, to which it does not have a strategic bond in military terms, without any financial conditions? The reason the money was delivered to the party administers that constitute the government, not the Turkish government, was later revealed: having accepted the money, the ruling AKP imposed a radical change on the educational system based on its majority in parliament. The uninterrupted eight-year primary schools were turned into two four-year types of schools providing diplomas as primary and secondary schools. An article added to the law ensured that the religious secondary schools abolished in 1997 would be reopened.2 The same law ensured that life of Prophet Mohammed and of Koran memorisation classes were added to the curricula in primary, secondary, and high schools (apart from the religious and moral classes and basic religious information classes). In 2014, the Ministry of National Education added a new religious class to the curriculum under the title of Education on Values. Arabic found its place in curricula to be taught as of 2016, starting in second grade. The dispute over whether coeducation should be continued goes on as the demand of government, unions, and non-governmental organisations supporting the government and media circles. Furthermore, King Abdullah donated $99,990,000to TÜRGEV (Turkish Foundation on Youth and Education Service),3 whose executive board comprises Turkish President Tayyip Erdoğan’s son, daughter, son-in-law, and the sons’ fathers-in-law. This amount of money—$10,000 less than the $100 million deposited by Royal Protocol, which follows the businesses on behalf of the Saudi king—was deposited into the account of Erdogan’s younger son, Bilal, the TÜRGEV executive board member, on April 26, 2012, and the money was transferred to TÜRGEV’s account in a few minutes. Receipt of the donation, which was hidden from the public, was presented to the media by the leader of the main opposition party, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, on January 28, 2014.4 After a short time, secularists understood that the donations were an investment that intended to stop democratic transformation of the Turkish education system: some of this money ($2 billion) was found hidden in shoeboxes in prosecution raids on the general manager of Halk Bank on December 17, 2013. A week later, the documents that included Erdogan’s son in the investigation pointed to the President’s house for the remainder of the money.5 The bank manager testified that the off-the-books money found in his house was the donation to be used to build religious schools. The effort exerted by the Middle East’s Muslim monarchs is not confined to encouraging the Turkish government. The private schools sheltered by the Alewis and middle-class secularists, who are disturbed by religious pressure on state schools, are about to be seized, too. In 2015, the owner of one of the biggest financial organisations in the Middle East, the National Commercial Bank-Saudi Economic and Development Company (SEDCO), of Saudi origin, purchased

Secularism, and Secular Education in Turkey 57 30 percent of shares in Mektebim Ticaret Inc,6 the private school company, from Ethem Sancak, a businessman, who said: “I would sacrifice my father, mother and children for R. Tayyip Erdoğan.” Opting for such an area as education, for which no legal assurance is available and where political powers can leave their investors in a difficult situation even without changing the law, cannot be a rational investment decision for any shareholder, let alone a Saudi company. It is hard to perceive this as a commercial investment in countries like Turkey, where governments change with elections and each makes radical decisions about education. Moreover, even if it seems SEDCO has taken a risk, the partnership structure and even the name of the company (mektep, the Arabic word for school, is not used in Turkey as it is not associated with modernisation role of school) are adequate reasons to think the market overlooks the demands of families who opt for private schools. As I have mentioned above, in Turkey (and Muslim countries), private schools are a shelter for families who feel obliged to stay away from state schools for such reasons as strict application of curriculum, undermining of different faiths and cultures, restriction of students to choose the school type at next level, pressure to choose the optional religious classes, and suppression of cultural uniqueness of children, such as clothes that reflect their families’ social status. For this reason, it is not prejudicial to think SEDCO’s becoming a private school investor indicates it will serve a purpose parallel to the one supporting transformation in state schools. ‘Political Islam’ rejects un-Islamic references, as Samir Amin (2006) says. However, it does not abstain from using some political means of Western democracies, such as party establishment and participation in elections. Regardless of the religious order, the movements that correspond to this concept (political Islam) retain their essence to the extent that they seize this power mechanism in Muslim countries. The first example is the Khomeini era in Iran, and the last is the one-year administration experience of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, which came to power by election and was removed as a result of a coup a year later (June 17, 2012 to July 3, 2013). AKP, which gained a parliament majority established the Erdogan government in 2002, is also an Islamist party. It also aims to weaken and finally eradicate the secular gains accumulated by 90 years of radical Westernisation and 70 years of democracy experience under its predecessors.

In Conclusion Muslim countries and communities are far from the point we dream of, where we expect to make progress through education. In the West, the dominant factions of state ideology that have political power decide the role of religion. The West calls this ‘neoconservatism’. So anyone who questions the dominant religion—even on behalf of religion—can be accepted as progressive. What I mean is, although the educational problems faced by these communities arise from economic and social problems, they are largely based on religious and cultural factors. Therefore, the support to be provided for them (I exclude Turkey here) should aim to empower them culturally rather than be tools to be used in class fights. This empowering

58

Unal Ozmen

culture, which can be called enlightenment, should be cleared of national values (language, tradition, biological similarity, religion) as much as possible but should definitely contain global cultural values inspired by Marxism (law, justice, equality, solidarity). Organising should not be between those who are suppressed and those who suppress, but between groups that are socially disadvantaged, even if they belong to the middle or upper class. Such an alliance naturally requires cultural materials, which are abundant in critical educators.

Notes 1 Education organisation in autonomous Kurdistan regions recently established in Iraq and Syria is determined by the distance between effective political actors of the region and their religious attachment. While the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Administration opts for a Sunni Islam-Kurdish synthesis (nationalistic), a multicultural secular education policy is pursued in Syrian Kurdistan, where the leftist PYD movement under the roof of PKK is cantonised. On the other hand, Kurdish political groups promise their values as ‘national values’ to their own communities, which they try to nationalise in accordance with the nature of national movements. On the other hand, strategic relations they will establish with the battling sides are the biggest obstacle to developing unique policies. After all, the $8 billion financial aid provided by Saudi Arabia to Mesut Barzani, president of the Iraqi Kurdistan Regional Administration, should be considered a result of the dependence relationship that includes some commitments and expectations. 2 In 2002, when the Islamist party established its first government, 71,000 students were enrolled in religious schools. This number rose to 268,000 in the government’s tenth year. According to information provided by President R. Tayyip Erdoğan in his speech inaugurating the 2015–16 academic year, this number rose to 1,200,000 in 2015 (http://istanbul. meb.gov.tr/www/2015-2016-egitim-ogretim-yili-acilis-toreni-yapildi/icerik/961). 3 TÜRGEV is an education foundation that supports extension of religious secondary and high schools, as well as incorporation of Sunni Islamic courses into curricula; that defies coeducation, opens student hostels that pursue activities to this end; and that support the students whose loyalty they are positive about by scholarships. The İstanbul Youth and Educational Service Foundation (İSEGEV), which operated only in İstanbul, was restructured in 1996 to operate across the country; four months after the aid from King Abdullah, it was replaced in August 2012 by TÜRGEV. Passing onto Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s family, the foundation became Turkey’s strongest institution in financial terms. Donations came from contractors that were awarded contracts by the state, as well as municipalities and companies whose investments depend on the decisions of politicians. Furthermore, the Ministry of National Education has rendered the foundation the partner of educational activities such as courses, dormitories, and in-service training directed at students and teachers with a series of protocols. 4 Penal and indemnity lawsuits filed against me because of my articles analysing the donation made by the Saudi Arabian King to TÜRGEV in terms of its political and ethical results continue. 5 The document in question is the records of telephone calls in which President Erdoğan, who was prime minister at the time, instructs his son to hide the money in their houses in a safe place on December 17, 2013, when the operation that covered the bank manager, sons of three ministers, some bureaucrats, and businessmen continued. In the second call on the same day between the Prime Minister, who declared to have a fortune of $2 million in official declaration of property, and his son, junior Bilal Erdoğan told his father that transfer procedures had been completed and that only a small amount of 30,000,000 Euros was left at home! A week later, on December 24, prosecutors included Bilal Erdoğan in the investigation and called him to testify. The prime minister took his

Secularism, and Secular Education in Turkey 59 son into his official car and obstructed him from abiding by the prosecution’s instructions. After a while, intervention by the President stopped the investigation. The President never denied the tapes in the prosecution’s indictment. He created the impression that the money in his house was relief money to be used for the poor. Nevertheless, public opinion polls show that a significant part of population finds the claims in investigation files trustworthy. On the other hand, the proxy wars continuing in the Middle East, impact of the Kurdish political movement on Turkish domestic policy, and the fact that a majority sees the government as the representative of its faith led to toleration of illegal activities of the political power and can keep the politicians outside of debates that would yield results. 6 Mektebim Private School opened as a private company with capital of 10,000 Turkish lira nine years ago entered the 2015 academic year with 69 private schools. The goal of the company, which stated its 2015 turnover as 200 million lira ($70 million) is to increase its schools to 100 in 2016. The company, which grows by purchasing the institutionalised schools, was the first to franchise schools and plans to open its first private university in 2016.

References Haenni, P. (2011). Market Islam: Neoliberalism From Islamic Perspective (trans. by L. Ünsaldı). Ankara: Free University Library. Samir, A. (2006). Modernism, Democracy and Religion: Criticism of Culturalism(trans. by F. Başkaya, U. Günsür, and G. Öztürk). Ankara: Free University Library. Şen, Ö. (2014). Secularism and Left Wing in Turkey. İstanbul: YazılamaYayınevi.

6

Assessing the Effects of the Economic Crisis on Public Education in Greece Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou

The Profile and Consequences of the Crisis The economic crisis of capitalism that started in 2007 in the US, with the so-called real estate bubble and the Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy continues to leave its mark on a global scale. Bringing radical changes in all domains of human activity, it caused a limitless social and humanitarian crisis. With Greece as a typical example (Gounari, 2014, p. 298), it created a chain reaction of consequences that as dramatic as they may be, soon become outdated by new data (Theodorikakou, Alamanou and Katsadoros, 2013, p. 208). Before moving on to the main content of this study, it is necessary to turn, even briefly, to a central thesis of the doctoral research on which this chapter is based regarding the profile and causes of the Greek national crisis. Contrary to official interpretations by dominant circles, this study approaches the crisis as primarily a deep and structural crisis of the capitalist system, a development associated with the over-accumulation of capital and the falling rate of profit (Maniatis, 2015). Consequently, the crisis is not an exclusively Greek phenomenon but is integrated into a more general framework that triggered the internal paradoxes of Greek capitalism, as well as the pressure internalised by the Greek social formation because of the global and European crisis (Sakellaropoulos, 2014, p. 34). Thus, in a battered landscape, Greece, a Western capitalist country, found itself on the verge of bankruptcy. Without overlooking international as well as domestic capital’s initial shock and intense trepidation over the possibility that the crisis could be unmanageable, we should not neglect to mention that they quickly realised the great opportunity for potential exploitation of the situation, ultimately aiming at the application of extreme neoliberal measures, conservative restructuring of labour relations, and redistribution of wealth, and causing deep, drastic changes in Greek society (Sakellaropoulos, 2014). Specifically in Greece, therefore, after six consecutive years of applying policies of internal devaluation and controlled bankruptcy, and with the crisis unhindered to this day, there is a new status quo which comprises the catastrophic characteristics of policies of intensive and expansionary austerity which have been applied. In other words, what we are witnessing in Greece today can be described as the ‘downsizing of a country’ (Sotiris, 2012) that brings fundamental transformations to its economic and social tissue, state apparatus, and human and

Public Education in Greece 61 material resources. These transformations, following the typical neoliberal strategy of ‘creative destruction’ (Harvey, 2005, 2007) should be seen in the framework of “developing a market society in a country where the public good was left to deteriorate beyond repair so it can be easily transferred to the hands of the private sector” (Gounari and Grollios, 2012, p. 305).

The Neoliberal-Neoconservatist Attack on Education Naturally, in a generalised war on the public good, public education could not possibly evade the neoliberal storm, which intends to bring inter alia not only the degradation, marketisation, commodification, managerialisation, and privatisation/preprivatisation of public services (Giroux, 2004; Harvey, 2005; Hill and Kumar, 2009; Hill and Rosskam, 2009; Hill, Lewis, Maisuria, Yanker and Carr, 2015), but also a regression into neoconservatism. In doing so, neoliberalism eliminates all fundamental achievements of the workers in the era of industrial capitalism, sweeping away labour relations, incomes, and democratic rights (Polychroniou, 2013). Essentially, the continuing economic crisis, depression, austerity, and drastic cuts in government spending have had dramatic repercussions in the field of education. Viewed holistically, a new condition has formed in Greek education that could be summed up in the following points, among others: shrinking budgets; grossly underpaid teachers; bankrupt school committees;1 donations replacing state funding; schools merging or closing; inability to staff supportive structures; dismissals and suspensions in secondary education; no new staff appointments; transfers of educational staff members; apprenticeship in technical education; decaying physical infrastructure; modified labour relations; and aggressive propaganda against educators by government officials and systemic media. At the same time, along with the changes altering the core public mission, goals, and meaning (Gounari and Grollios, 2012, p. 303) of public education at the altar of a market-driven society, the hardships and deprivation of those involved in the educational process2 are growing daily to gigantic proportions. Adverse living conditions become more and more common; living habits are subverted; and child poverty rises. Combined with the number of employed poor, unemployment reaches record highs, taxation becomes exhausting, and national depression emerges at an alarming rate. As the system’s working has been given priority over people’s lives (Gindin, 2014; McNally, 2011), the educational system is being radically transformed. Within this context, the Greek educational landscape, as it emerges from reforms at all levels of education, is shaped along changes that promote the mechanisation of the educational process and the fragmentation and quantification of knowledge. They impose management and accountability with the sole aim of effectiveness, success, and discipline, and they deepen the separation of teaching into perception and execution, thus deepening and systematising an executive and performative role for educators, and ultimately boosting competition among institutes, educators, and students (Grollios, Liambas and Pavlidis, 2015, pp. ix–xi).

62

Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou

This direction is nothing new, of course, nor did it arise unexpectedly from the darkest depths of history. On the contrary, this unapologetic and radical turn to neoliberal policies has been one of the main concerns of governing parties in Greece since the 1990s (Chrysochou, Katsiampoura and Skordoulis, 2014). What is particularly interesting, however, is the way the economic crisis in Greece, which has created new conditions of radical restructuring in the economic, social, and political context, has also served as a platform for the much anticipated technocratic turn in education and all its by-products.

Reclaiming an Education Agenda in Times of Crisis Contrary to the wide variety of positivistic, ahistorical, and depoliticised analyses applied by liberal, neoliberal, conservative, and technocratic approaches, there is no such thing as an ‘objective’ and ‘politically neutral’ education and learning process. On the contrary, since education began being systematically provided, it has always been politically directed and ideologically charged (Sarup, 1982; McLaren, 2007, p. 187). Closely related as it is to the concepts of power, politics, history, and context, its directives and priorities are always shaped in conjunction with those of the society and institutions that represent it. The battle to define society’s orientation and priorities is at the same time a battle concerning the orientation and priorities of education. However, the relationship between society and education is not mechanical. It is historical, dialectical, and controversial, the product of social, political, and ideological conflicts, within and outside education (Shor and Freire, 1987; Giroux and McLaren, 1994; Grollios, 2015). Consequently, in this framework, there is an imperative need concerning the effects on education of neoconservative and neoliberal transformations. After the aggravation the financial crisis caused in so many countries around the world, any discussion and analysis of these effects should go far enough into an understanding closer to the ground. In other words, a twofold understanding is needed that will use empirical evidence from research studies as a means to determine the significance of changes in education “over and against and in relation” to the financial crisis (Ball, 2011, p. x; Cole, 2011, p. xii), and, on the other hand, place schooling in its economic, social, political, and cultural context. By focusing on these conditions, to which education has a dialectical and significantly perplexing set of relations (Anyon, 2005), we can also map the economic, social, and political landscape over which the potential struggle of educational and social movements will take place (Ball, 2011).

Teachers at the Forefront: Framing the Ironic Signification At the same time, a closer look at the official discourse of education reforms around the globe3 is enough to prove that the human factor, for so long largely ignored by researchers and policy makers, is back, at the forefront (Bonal, 2012, pp. iv–v). However, it can be argued that there is a bitter irony here, inasmuch as teachers’ centrality in education reform policies and debate is not in their best interest. We are

Public Education in Greece 63 referring to the fact that, behind the pompous babble of the dominant discourse that considers educators as being crucial agents of the learning process, there lies hidden the imposition of the capitalist way of thinking on the educational process. This is none other than the logic of productivity-efficiency, accountability, measurability of results, and fierce competitiveness (Pavlidis, 2013). In reality, instead of increasing teachers’ autonomy, their everyday life in schools and classrooms is increasingly subjected to what Apple (2005) calls an “audit culture. Teachers are treated as “assets to be managed” (Verger and Altinyelken, 2013, p. 2) and as “human resources required for the process of producing student learning outcomes” (Ginsburg, 2012, p. 84). Within this context, the current policy environment, globally as well as in Greece, is characterised by the developing trend towards the debilitation, deskilling, and deprofessionalisation (Apple, 1995; McNeil, 2000) of teachers. The last involves more than a growing loss of power among teachers around the basic conditions of their job as their labour rights are lost, their profession is reshaped, and their professional autonomy and status are undermined (Forrester, 2000; Sahlberg, 2006). Most important, it involves a changing perception of their role as reflective practitioners (Aronowitz and Giroux, 1993). The control-oriented and managerial reforms, because of their disciplinary character, intensification of workload, accompanied by an emphasis on technical competence and performativity, and their ideas of accountability (Apple, 2004), efficiency, and effectiveness, change not only what teachers do, but also who they are or are supposed to be (Ball, 2003). In other words, these reforms signify the disappearance of a form of intellectual labour and a methodical proletarianisation of teacher work (Apple, 1986; Carter and Stevenson, 2012; Forrester, 2000; Giroux, 1988; Ozga, 1995, 2000; Osgood, 2007; Popkewitz, 1991).

Studying the Working Conditions of the Teaching Profession: A Brief Background Teaching is a form of work that has often been put under a microscope. Beginning in the early 1980s, teaching has been subjected to various forms of investigation, and today we have, among others, a plethora of informative analyses.4 The same is not true regarding teachers’ working conditions. As a consequence, and despite the rhetoric about teaching conditions being learning conditions, the connection between teaching conditions and the quality of teaching and learning processes remains, by and large up to the present, a matter that has not yet received the attention it deserves. Conversely, even in cases in which teaching conditions have in fact been the object of research, the major approaches employed were limited in the sense that they reduced teachers to the status of low-level employees or civil servants, whose main function seemed to be the implementation of externally developed reforms (Bascia and Rottmann, 2011). During this time, how the economic crisis affects teachers’ working conditions is little understood and a topic not covered much previously. In the case of Greece in particular, since the country has not experienced similar circumstances in its recent history, data is scant on the level of literature review. In international bibliography, on the other hand, the vast majority of analyses concern the financial part of the new

64

Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou

economic, social, and educational reality formed in the shadow of public debt and International Monetary Fund directives (Koinoniko Polykentro, 2011).5

Contesting the Mainstream Rhetoric of the Educator’s Role At this point, before presenting the aims of this research, we need to note a basic thesis of this study regarding teachers’ work. It is our firm belief that it constitutes a kind of cognitive-intellectual labour. For it to be performed, therefore, it is necessary to ensure the optimum living, as well as working conditions that will allow the full emotional, intellectual, and moral cultivation of educators. In other words, it is necessary to develop and cultivate both teachers’ intellectual potential and their personalities. It is exactly through multifaceted and lifelong learning, together with the mental development of the whole of their intellectual capabilities and their personalities, that educators can perform their professional role, a role that, apart from simply transmitting knowledge, also contributes to the formation of their students’ personalities and conscience (Pavlidis, 2012, p. 86, 2013; Grollios, Liambas and Pavlidis, 2015, p. xvii). As Grollios et al. (2015, pp. xvii–xviii) characteristically mention, we should not forget that educators do not teach simply with their cognitive thought; they teach with “the whole of their personality, their moral principles, their aesthetic perception, their philosophical worldviews, their life stance and the ideals that define them.” This argument directly opposes the popular belief that teaching is a vocation that can be performed by devoted teachers under any circumstances whatsoever. This view, therefore, makes it clear that there can be no creative results in the educational process when teachers are working under constant professional scrutiny, intensification, and professional insecurity(Pavlidis, 2013). Taking into consideration that the role of educators and the intellectual activity of their work is an integral part of the general web of social relationships, it is easy to comprehend why, in conditions of intense economic, social, and political crisis, this role is tested to a far greater extent (Gounari, 2014, pp. 299–300): it is not limited to the classroom. Educators, as historical subjects, belong to their eras and are led to actions and choices defined by the concrete, existential, and objective conditions of their times. These conditions, combined with the whole of teachers’ personalities, conscience, and levels of critical reflection, as well as the overall conditions of the class struggle, will ultimately define what can be practised and achieved (Harris, 1982, p. 153).

Framing the Starting Points of This Study: A Brief Overview The drive for the study came from our firm belief in the need for and significance of a more holistic approach to the subject—an approach that would not limit itself to a mere recounting of the consequences of the crisis; an approach that, by providing a clearer picture of economic, social, and political dimensions of the crisis, along with its causes and its immense diversity of aspects, we hope will demonstrate its real depth and extent. As Gounari correctly observes (2014,

Public Education in Greece 65 pp. 309–310) for a nation to be able to recognise that there are ways to change the situation, it is not enough to experience its tragedy intensely. On the contrary, it should properly and wholly understand the causes. And sadly, she notes, the sombre reality, combined with the official bourgeois interpretations, have deprived Greeks of exactly this capability: their ability to try to understand. In this view, therefore, the basic thesis of this chapter is that in current circumstances a critical and radical view is more necessary than ever. This view would inevitably transcend the dominant austerity narrative and, bypassing the politics of the mainstream media and bourgeois ideology, would kaleidoscopically approach the crisis, its roots, and consequently its causes, and its repercussions, but also alternative ways of overcoming it. This ambitious practice, it is hoped, will contribute to the discussion of how contemporary pedagogy will not remain silent in the face of a phenomenon that is not temporary. We hope it will contribute in a direction of a revolutionary confrontation of a current and multifaceted social phenomenon—a phenomenon we consider to be not only inextricably connected to schooling and the educational processes developed in its frame, but also a formative element of modern societies and definitive for the lives of students, scholars, and educators (Grollios, 2013, 2015).

The Purpose of This Study This study has aimed to investigate the ramifications of the economic crisis, and the associated neoliberal and neoconservative policies applied in Greece, on the professional and, by extension, social/personal life of primary education teachers, as well as its impact on educational practices and overall quality of the educational process. More specifically, we sought to examine the changes brought by the economic crisis into teaching conditions, which educators experience on a daily practical basis in their schools, as well as general possible consequences onto the organisation, structure, and experience of teachers’ work and the web of practices and relationships permeating the edifice of education. Considering that economic, social, and political changes, which are not confined to the microcosm of schools but are taking place all around them (Levin and Riffel, 2000), are what most powerfully affect the nature of schooling and the work of teachers in the long run, we decided to seek primary education teachers’ opinions on the effects of the current economic, social, and political circumstances outside the schools. The reason this connection between economic phenomena and human consequences seems necessary must be sought in the spearheads of neoliberal ideology which, presenting themselves as ‘natural’ or ‘inevitable’ have the tendency to suppress the connection between economic decisions and ‘human cost’ (Gounari, 2006, p. 81, 2014, p. 194).

Methodological Issues The data of this study comes from a research project conducted from November to December 2014. To ensure the creation of a valid tool, the main research was preceded by pilot runs and a pilot study. The pilot study was conducted in October

66

Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou

2014 and consisted of two sessions of group discussions, one in the Attica region of Greece and one in the city of Volos. The main study was carried out in 24 public schools of different types6 in the prefectures of Attica and Magnesia.7 In all, 102 primary education teachers of the PE70 sector8 and specialised subject teachers,9 of various kinds of appointment and work relationships,10 participated: 63 from the Attica region and 39 from Volos and its suburbs. The teachers taught various grades and had experience ranging from two months to 31 years. The total sample comprised 26 men and 76 women. Six of the participants were acting as head teachers of their schools and four as assistant head teachers; 74 were general education teachers (PE70), and the rest taught various specialised subjects. The respondents were not randomly selected. Rather, teachers were carefully and deliberately selected on the basis of knowledge of the population of teachers, of particular settings, and of the research questions (Babbie, 2011; Savin-Baden and Howell Major, 2013, pp. 312–318). In total, 24 focus groups and mini focus groups were formed, each composed of teachers in the same school unit. The groups were distributed across different areas, both in the Attica region and in Volos and its suburbs, being representative of areas with different socioeconomic backgrounds. One of this study’s main research goals led us to the selection of face-to-face focus groups and mini focus groups. Viewing teaching as an occupational community (Van Maanen and Barley, 1984), this research emphasised the collective meaning of teachers’ work rather than individual career trajectories (Agostinone-Wilson, 2013; Allman, 2001; Little, 2007; Sprague, 1992, p. 184). The interviews were semi-structured, with 15 preset, open-ended questions11 and a number of prepared prompts and probes. The questions did not follow a set order; nor did they represent a strict framework. But they were enriched and modified in response to participants’ comments, reactions, and involvement. In addition, we used a structured questionnaire, to collect data on demographic, educational, and professional characteristics of the final sample. The interviews typically lasted 45 to 70 minutes and were conducted in the 24 schools of the teachers who made up the groups. By permission of each subject, the interviews were taped and later transcribed verbatim. The teacher interviews were structured on six research axes, formed after reviewing relevant literature, discussing a list of topics to be investigated with other professionals, and, of course, depending on their gravity concerning the investigation of our research questions. The first axis concerned teaching conditions in school units and included questions about the general running of the school;12 funding received by each school unit and the needs it suffices to cover; staff sufficiency and the teacher/student ratio per class. Furthermore, it was considered useful to include in this category questions about the school unit’s management and the ambiance of the school, offices, and classrooms in conjunction with the effect of developments in education on all these factors. At this point, we also deemed it necessary to ask for teachers’ opinions on the evaluation process, which had partly begun to be applied in schools,13 and on what was being pursued through these procedures.

Public Education in Greece 67 The second axis comprised questions regarding teachers’ labour relations and access to professional development and self-education opportunities. We asked teachers, among others, about their remuneration, the direct or indirect increase of working hours, the possible intensification of their work, and their autonomy at school. We also investigated the quality of teaching and possible consequences on it brought by changes in working conditions and labour relations, as well as the crisis as a whole. On a third level, we strove to gather information about the personal/social lives of educators and the ways they had been affected by the crisis. The possibility that the crisis has affected their mood, creativity, and teaching work was another object of the research. The fourth axis had to do with the impact of the crisis on the student community. Therefore, we asked teachers whether they perceived of any difference regarding their students’ academic achievement, conduct, or health in the last few years. Next, we considered it vital to collect information on how teachers and schools respond to everyday problems. The teachers were asked about the initiatives, actions, and strategies they employ; at the same time, possible obstacles they face were investigated. The sixth and last axis concerned teachers’ collective action and their participation in unions, assemblies, and strikes. It was considered of some significance, at this point, to ask the teachers’ opinion on the attitude adopted by their union, PSTFG,14 concerning the education policy followed in the last few years in Greece.

Results: A First Assessment Although the analysis of this research is still in progress, we will attempt a first reading of the results and a preliminary assessment of the situation. We could contend that teachers generally maintain that underfunding of the school unit is evident in every aspect of schooling and educational reality.15 At the same time, changes in the way funds are made available16 has brought a series of interconnected consequences including bankrupt school boards, municipalities withholding school budgets, and a complicated, time-consuming process of fund release. As a direct consequence, in most cases school units are incapable of covering even such essential needs, as heat and hygiene, forcing teachers to look to personal contacts for credit. With regard to covering expenses for books, stationery, and other materials, a large portion of teachers state that they are forced to use their own resources, providing their financial ability allows it. As a matter of fact, the interviewees unanimously agree that the implementation of all projects promoted with “great fanfare” is contingent on individual financial capacity. As they emphatically state, there is a great disconnection between policy formulations, ambitious “imposed” projects and the funding needed for implementation. Simultaneously, the majority of teachers asked referred to spiralling informal costs for parents and PGA associations,17 which can range from painting classrooms to buying new curtains or a copier, along with the implications from a moral or practical viewpoint. At this point, it is worth mentioning the catalytic

68

Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou

way social class determination of each area18 seems to affect school functioning, related to the financial status of both the municipality and the parents. Another undeniable conclusion is that schools are facing severe difficulties stemming from their inability to fully implement their curriculum because of understaffing. With afternoon schools being staffed after morning schools, the problem of staff deficiency is particularly obvious there. At the same time, teachers overall point out that the greatest adversity faced by school units in terms of sufficiency or timely appointment of staff is primarily in covering specialised subjects. To be more specific, close to zero new appointments of permanent staff during the last few years of the crisis,19 along with reduced hiring of temporary teaching staff, have heightened a long-standing problem. Teachers largely speak of “virtual staffing” of schools, “bad management of human resources” and “unorthodox ways of covering positions” that do not lead to realistic solutions. In this view, the almost exclusively National Strategic Reference Framework (NSRF) funded20 hiring of temporary teachers, apart from the insecurity they instil in educators, the degradation of labour relations, and the internal division of labour21 also bring a chain of negative consequences to the proper function of a school unit and the quality of teaching. As teachers emphatically point out, moreover, in these last few years the efforts to bridge the gap using existing staff, as well as the efforts for savings in the number of employees,22 have led to fragmented schooling, inability to plan ahead for the school year, and a less holistic teaching experience. Teachers are forced to cover lessons so that the school “appears” to be functioning properly; scientific fields are breached; tenured teachers are made available to an increasing number of schools to fill their working hours; and it is not uncommon to see redeployments of staff members, even those in key positions, during the school year.23 Simultaneously, there seems to be great differentiation between large schools in metropolitan areas and those in the country, especially in terms of staffing. Namely, smaller countryside schools are rarely wholly staffed and even when this happens, it is very late in the school year. Teachers say there have been great shortages of specialised staff24 in the past few years, which are now increasingly covered through “Community Service” programmes. Schools that do not belong in the URSC category25 and are largely staffed with permanently tenured teachers are a notable exception. Nevertheless, it would be useful to point out that teachers in these schools invariably start describing their situation by admitting they are “the lucky ones” and consider these school units “the exceptions to the rule”. Even in these cases, however, the almost complete lack of supportive staff26 in schools and management creates problems in cases of emergency.27 Combined with this, the forthcoming evaluation28 has evolved into a major cause for concern in the teaching community, with many implications. It appears to be a catalyst in forming school ambiance as well as teachers’ relationships within their working context. The extent to which it affects teaching and the final result is highly dependent on the type and dynamics of every school, as well as the stand assumed by the head teacher. Thus, considerable differentiation among school units becomes evident.

Public Education in Greece 69 In this context, there are schools in which lack of unanimity among teachers and/or agreement between staff and management has led to serious conflict, which teachers say is greatly aggravated when the two sides are called upon to agree on a stance. A characteristic common theme can be observed in teachers’ descriptions of these schools’ ambiance. They all outline a state of managerial pressure and authoritarianism, and a context in which evaluation is used as a means of intimidation and threat of imminent consequences and dismissals. On the other hand, teachers in some schools say their relationships with colleagues and head teachers remain cordial. According to their interpretation, this happens because the teachers unanimously oppose evaluation and the head teacher shows solidarity with their opinion and demands. It is equally noteworthy that teachers as a group, both those who are experiencing change in their working environments and those who aren’t, express similar concerns. They speculate that if this evaluation proceeds, at least on the basis set in the Presidential Decree, it will inevitably affect the workers’ relationships as much as schooling culture in general. In fact, they maintain that it will contribute to the formation of a competitive and individualistic context, while at the same time obedient towards management. For these and a multitude of other reasons,29 teachers almost unanimously oppose this particular Presidential Decree. Nevertheless, it should be noted at this point that it is not the general idea of evaluation that all teachers oppose. Many, identifying shortcomings, problems, and flaws in the existing system, assert that it is high time for a serious discussion—a discussion they say will most probably give rise to a different form of evaluation “from the bottom up,” as they characteristically describe it, that will be multifactorial and include an evaluation of existing structures, tools, and teaching policies. The latter is one of the many causes of the majority of teachers’ dissatisfaction with their union, PSTFG. As they remark, it is not enough that teachers oppose evaluation. What is needed, they emphasise, is a viable alternative offered by the union, justifying this thesis with the argument that resistance without an alternative solution cannot lead to an essentially active stance. It is worth saying that a large percentage of teachers underline the sector’s inability to anticipate problems or condemn irregularities—an inability to a large extent associated with what they say as the doubtful morals of union ideology and ethics of its representatives, the bureaucratisation of syndicalism, and partisan interests. However, the discussion of changes in teachers’ work brought by new data in the recent years of the crisis can never be complete without reference to a number of other administrative reforms. As teachers overall emphatically remark, the intensification of their work and the overwhelming pressure have escalated to dangerous levels. Teachers present themselves as burdened with administrative form filling and “unnecessary bureaucratic tasks” that distract them from teaching. At the same time, they underline that time available to socialise with colleagues had been cut to a minimum, and the staffroom no longer represents the team spirit of the school community. Several teachers also identify conversion of schools to follow URSC as a defining factor leading to the latter. Comparing those

70

Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou

schools to factories, they argue that they have significantly contributed to the loss of essential communication among colleagues. At the same time, the majority of teachers refer to bureaucratic control mechanisms that raise the visibility of individual performance, secretly cultivate a climate of suspicion and antagonism among colleagues, and promote an individualised work environment. In this context, there is pressure to make some procedures compulsory, such as school counsellors “urging” teachers to participate in paid seminars and the delivery of projects. All of the above seem to cause significant concern for teachers, who describe their situation as dominated by fear, anxiety, insecurity, disappointment, and a targeted approach of “divide and conquer.” They say it is the first time they have felt so divided into categories and sides—a strategy they interpret as an attempt to weaken the professional community by undermining common interests. The interviewees, however, also place a lot of emphasis on the “new” climate which has recently been created between teachers and parents. The majority of those asked point out that in recent years, parents have become much more invasive, demanding, and judgmental of their work. At the same time, a highly problematic situation seems to have been induced by formal complaints by parents, “employee reprimands”,30 and disciplinary actions taken, as the teachers say, for trivial reasons. Regarding the last, several teachers confess that the new legal framework, which significantly enables parents to make official complaints against teachers, has greatly contributed in this direction. Many refer to the underlying purposes of this framework concerning the further bullying of teachers and the illegal assignment of financial burdens on parents, which go hand in hand with their “active participation” in the evaluation and teaching process. Some even emphasise that confrontation with parents is nothing less than a miniature sample of the general conflict society has entered, and they emphasise that to parents, teachers represent the “public sector,” and “a part of the state.” Thus, parents behave this way due to their frustration and fury at these institutions. In addition, a large number of interviewees point out that the core underlying cause of their tension with parents is the personal problems and life changes being faced by parents.31 More specifically, teachers observe that the parents’ inability to cope with the demands of their role,32 their emotional state, their rage, and depression make them lash out at “easy targets.” There are, of course, those teachers in our sample who say the crisis, common difficulties, and problems have brought them closer to their students’ parents. Close relationships in smaller communities where people know one another seem to contribute significantly. Teachers overall contend that this new climate has given rise to exceptionally counter-productive conditions. They say it creates stress, conflict, and competition among colleagues, as well as between teachers and management, while affecting their relationship with students and their teaching. Dominated, as they say, by fear and anxiety for a false “legitimacy” and pressure to “present,” which is completely irrelevant to the learning and teaching process, they see their work becoming increasingly “dysfunctional.”

Public Education in Greece 71 The consequences of the crisis, always according to teachers, are now especially evident in the student community. A majority of teachers interviewed say children are the recipients of negative situations experienced in their home and family environments, on a physical as well as emotional level, and this is reflected in their behaviour and academic achievement. The interviewees point out that most children, despite their young age, are aware of what is going on around them and bring this anxiety into the school. Children’s responses vary, but teachers constantly refer to aggressiveness and depression. At the same time, teachers remark that there is a worrying increase in the number of students who face hunger or the risk of it, as well as widespread malnutrition,33 and a constantly increasing number of students cannot pay to participate in any events organised by the school.34 It is particularly important to emphasise the great differentiation concerning the extent and intensity of cases in different areas, depending on socioeconomic background, but also on the fact that conditions are far better in the country than in the capital. Concerning whether the crisis has affected the mood, creativity, and work of teachers, most seem to agree, stressing that personal stamina, creativity, sense of achievement, relationships with students, and efficiency cannot remain unaffected. On the contrary, teachers are highly dependent on social climate, working conditions, their ability, as they describe it, to “make a decent living”, and the overall context. They seem to be struggling to maintain balance because children, as they characteristically mention, “need them more than ever” and “are not to blame for any of this.” They appear dominated by a strong sense of responsibility to their students, while at the same time, they feel frustrated and angered at being attacked by the media, parents, and the government. A majority of interviewees express intense dissatisfaction with the hypocrisy hiding, as they point out, under the pretence of invoking teaching as a “vocation.” Despite the difficulties, teachers do not remain inactive, at least at the school or neighbourhood level. In many respects, teachers have become students’ and families’ frontline crisis caregivers. Among others, they organise “bazaars” to raise money, collect clothes for students’ families facing serious financial problems, organise book and clothing exchanges, and take the initiative for targeted breakfast provision through personal contacts with supermarkets. It is noteworthy that a majority of teachers do not consider themselves to be aggressively reacting as an occupational community against the neoliberal practices applied in education or in the “war declared on the working world.”

Notes 1 At this point, it should be clarified that with the Greek law 3852/2010 (“New architecture of Local Government and Decentralized Management—Kallikratis Plan) which reformed Greece’s administrative division, important changes occurred both in the purpose (features and activity) and in the number of legal entities governed by public law. These transformations also affected the funding of schools as, since January 1, 2011, school committees, first created under the 1984/1990 Greek law to support the administrative function of schools, were included in the process of mandatory merging

72

2 3 4

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou of public legal entities. More specifically, school committees, operating until 2011 in every school (kindergarten, primary, secondary, and high school of formerly autonomous municipalities) were merged in two legal entities, one for primary (kindergarten and primary schools) and one for secondary education school units (secondary and high schools). Municipalities with a population larger than 300,000 were exempt from this law and were allowed to operate corresponding school committees for every single municipal district—paragraph 2, article 103, law 3852/2010). Therefore, the new expanded municipalities take on increased responsibilities; among others, they have to allocate funds to school committees, pay for student transportation, and maintenance and repair of school buildings. On the other hand, one body, the unified municipal school committee (of primary and secondary education respectively) must make all decisions regarding matters of school unit operation (i.e. managing funds for operating costs, such as heating, lighting, phone bills, and consumables; repairs of furniture and equipment; remunerations of cleaning staff; managing earnings from exploitation of school canteens). It must be noted that in recent years of the crisis, because of the ever increasing duties of understaffed local authorities, the bureaucratic system of merged school committees and the reduced and belated funding for schools’ operation and maintenance, Greek education has greatly regressed in these respects. Including the educators, the students and their families. i.e. the latest UNESCO Global Monitoring Report. Education for All—EFA (2013/4, p. 3); statements issued by the advocates of the Global Managerial Education Reforms. Here we refer to analyses on teacher professionalism and its changing nature; on teachers’ social-class origins and status; on the ‘intensification’ thesis and the proletarianisation of teachers’ work; on the emotions of teaching in a changing world; and on the effects of education reforms. Koinoniko Polykentro is a research centre established and funded by the Civil Servants’ Confederation (ADEDY) in Greece. Merged, All-day URSC (schools with Unified Revised School Curriculum), EPZ (Educational Priority Zones, downgraded areas), schools for children with Pervasive Developmental Disorder (DAD) and others. 15 schools in the Attica region and 9 in the city of Volos and its suburbs. General Education. i.e. special education teachers, English teachers, music teachers. Tenured, temporary, substitutes and others. i.e. initial, in-depth, follow-up questions. Quality and adequacy of material infrastructure and teaching tools. Evaluating the quality of the school unit and headteachers. PSTFG stands for Primary School Teachers’ Federation of Greece (known in Greece as DOE). It is worth noting that from 2009 to 2013, total spending on education has been reduced by 33 percent, while the total education budget reduction will have reached 47 percent by 2016. The school boards, which come under the municipalities, cover the operating costs of the schools instead of the Ministry of Education’s regular budget. PGA stands for Parents and Guardian Association. Both in the Attica region and Volos and its suburbs. While at the same time there are more and more retirements and resignations of existing teachers. National Strategic Reference Framework (ESPA): “The European Union implements cohesion policy objectives as part of the seven-year programming period, for which the Member States always draw up new programming documents. These stipulate the budget and define and lay down new objectives and priorities that Member States in the given period try to achieve and fulfil in compliance with basic strategic documents. ”

Public Education in Greece 73 21 This includes workers with flexible working relations who have been hired with different rights from those appointed via the state budget. 22 i.e. merging and closing schools, abolishing teacher training, teacher transfers. 23 Referring to transfers of teachers in the middle of the school year, even those teaching first grade, which supposedly should never be disrupted. 24 i.e. special education teachers, English teachers, music teachers. 25 URSC stands for all-day schools with Unified Revised School Curriculum. 26 Referring to extra teachers, as well as clean staff, administrative staff, medical staff. 27 i.e. a need for replacement caused by sudden illness, pregnancy, and others. 28 The first form of evaluation in Greece, which was at the same time one of the longestrunning institutions in the history of Greek education, was the so-called Inspector (1895). With his judgement deciding whether a teacher would remain in service or not, the Inspector essentially controlled the degree to which the government education policy was applied, punishing or rewarding teachers accordingly. The object of great controversy in the field of educational politics, it was finally abolished in 1982, when it was replaced by the School Counsellor. Ever since, even though the issue of evaluation in education frequently resurfaced in discussions or proposed laws, it was never until 2013 practically applied on the Greek educational reality (twofold evaluation encompassed in Greek law 2986/2002). When this research was conducted, in 2014, the evaluation process had partly been, in terms of quality of the school unit and evaluation of headteachers. Following the latest political developments in Greece (the third Memorandum on 14 August 2015 and the second electoral victory of SYRIZA on 21 September 2015) the political leadership of the Ministry for Education, enlisting the help of ‘independent specialists’ from international organizations, will have to set the new teacher and school unit evaluation framework by May 2016 in an updated plan of action. 29 As described by teachers, they include its hierarchal and punishing character, the vague criteria, the lack of pedagogic value, the lack of transparency in the process, and the political and ideological purposes it serves. 30 Here we refer to employees’ names being mentioned in formal reports addressed to the management with the employees then called to explain themselves. 31 It should be noted here that families are losing their jobs, homes, and medical coverage, while at the same time first-time use of food banks, transience, and homelessness have all increased. 32 i.e. to feed, dress, care for or help their children with their studies. 33 i.e. children who do not eat meat, fish, or chicken, but rely on pasta and rice instead. 34 i.e. daily excursions, visits to museums

References Agostinone-Wilson, F. (2013). Dialectical Research Methods in the Classical Marxist Tradition. New York, NY: Peter Lang. Allman, P. (2001). Revolutionary Social Transformation: Democratic Hopes, Political Possibilities and Critical Education. Westport, CT and London: Bergin and Garvey. Anyon, J. (2005). Radical Possibilities: Public Policy, Urban Education, and a New Social Movement. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (1986). Teachers and Texts: A Political Economy of Class and Gender Relations in Education. New York, NY: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Apple, M. W. (1995). Education and Power. New York, NY: Routledge. Apple, M. W. (2004). Creating difference: Neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism and the politics of educational reform. Educational Policy, 18(1), pp. 12–44. Apple, W. M. (2005). Education, markets, and an audit culture. Critical Quarterly, 47(1–2), pp. 11–29.

74

Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou

Aronowitz, S. and Giroux, A. H. (1993). Teaching and the role of the transformative intellectual. In S. Aronowitz and A. H. Giroux (eds.), Education Still Under Siege: Critical Studies in Education and Culture. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey, pp. 33–54. Babbie, E. (2011). The Practice of Social Research. Australia, Brazil, Korea, Mexico, Singapore, Spain, United Kingdom, and United States: Cengage Learning. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), pp. 215–228. Ball, S. J. (2011). Crisis and attentiveness. In D. R. Cole (ed.), Surviving Economic Crises Through Education. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. ix–x. Bascia, N. and Rottmann, C. (2011). What’s so important about teachers’ working conditions? The fatal flaw in North American educational reform. Journal of Education Policy, 26(6), pp. 787–802. Bonal, X. (2012). Foreword. In A. Verger, H. K. Altinyelken, and M. De Koning (eds.), Global Education Reforms and Teachers: Emerging Policies, Controversies and Issues. Brussels: Education International Research Institute, pp. iv–v. Carter, B. and Stevenson, H. (2012). Teachers, workforce remodelling and the challenge to labour process analysis. Work, Employment and Society, 26(3), pp. 481–496. Chrysochou, P., Katsiampoura, G., and Skordoulis, K. (2014). The effect of the economic crisis on the professional lives of primary school teachers: The social context. In K. Skordoulis and D. Hill (eds.), Critical Education at the Crossroads, Selected Papers of the 2nd International Conference on Critical Education, 10–14 July 2012, Athens, Greece. Athens: Nissos, pp. 285–295. Cole, D. R. (2011). Preface. In D. R. Cole (ed.), Surviving Economic Crises Through Education. New York, NY: Peter Lang, pp. xi–xii. Forrester, G. (2000). Professional autonomy versus managerial control: The Experience of teachers in an English primary school. International Studies in Sociology of Education, 10(2), pp. 133–151. Gindin, S. (2014). Clarifying the crisis: How should we assess the 2008 economic crash and the political possibilities beyond it? Jacobin. Accessed January 2 online at www. jacobinmag.com/2014/01/clarifying-the-crisis/ Ginsburg, M. (2012). Teachers as learners: A missing focus in “learning for all”. In S. J. Klees, J. Samoff, and N. P. Stromquist (eds.), The World Bank and Education: Critiques and Alternatives. Rotterdam, Boston, and Taipei: Sense Publishers, pp. 83–94. Giroux, H. A. (1988). Teachers as Intellectuals: Toward a Critical Pedagogy of Learning. New York, NY: Bergin & Garvey. Giroux, H. A. (2004). The Terror of Neoliberalism: Authoritarianism and the Eclipse of Democracy. Boulder, CO: Paradigm Publishers. Giroux, H. A. and McLaren, P. (1994). Paulo Freire on Higher Education: A Dialogue at the National University of Mexico. New York, NY: State University of New York Press. Gounari, P. (2006). Contesting the cynicism of neoliberal discourse: Moving towards a language of possibility. Studies in Language and Capitalism, 1, pp. 77–96. Gounari, P. (2014). Neoliberalism as social necrophilia: Erich Fromm and the politics of hopelessness in Greece. In S. Miri, R. Lake, and T. Kress (eds.), Reclaiming the Same Society: Essays on Erich Fromm’s Thought. Boston, MA: Sense Publishers, pp. 187–201. Gounari, P. and Grollios, G. (2012). Educational reform in Greece: Central concepts and a critique. Journal of Pedagogy, 3(2), pp. 303–318. Grollios, G. (2013). Crisis and the role of pedagogy. Paremvaseis. Accessed December 17 online at www.paremvasis. gr/?p=2632 (in Greek). Grollios, G. (2015). Crisis and critical educators. In G. Grollios, A. Liambas, and P. Pavlidis (eds.), Proceedings of the IV International Conference on Critical Education, 23–26 June 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. 312–332. Advance online publication. www.eled. auth.gr/documents/praktika_iv_icce_volume_1_gr.pdf (in Greek).

Public Education in Greece 75 Grollios, G., Liambas, A., and Pavlidis, P. (2015). Introduction. In G. Grollios, A. Liambas, and P. Pavlidis (eds.), Proceedings of the IV International Conference on Critical Education, 23–26 June 2014, Thessaloniki, Greece, pp. i–xix. Advance online publication. www.eled.auth.gr/documents/praktika_iv_icce_volume_1_gr.pdf (in Greek). Harris, K. (1982). Teachers and Classes: A Marxist Analysis. London, Boston, and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Harvey, D. (2005). A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford, MA: Oxford University Press. Harvey, D. (2007). Neoliberalism as creative destruction. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610, pp. 22–44. Hill, D. and Kumar, R. (2009). Global Neoliberalism and Education and Its Consequences. New York, NY: Routledge. Hill, D., Lewis, C., Maisuria, A., Yanker, P., and Carr, J. (2015). Neoliberal and neoconservative immiseration capitalism in England: Policies and impacts on society and on education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13(2), pp. 38–82. Hill, D. and Rosskam, E. (2009). The Developing World and State Education: Neoliberal Depredation and Egalitarian Alternatives. New York, NY: Routledge. Koinoniko Polykentro. (2011). Terms and Conditions of Educational Practice in Public Primary and Secondary Education. Accessed September 2014 online at http://kemete. sch.gr/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ekdosiekp. pdf (in Greek). Levin, B. and Riffel, J. A. (2000). Changing schools in a changing world. In N. Bascia and A. Hargreaves (eds.), The Sharp Edge of Educational Change: Teaching, Leading, and the Realities of Reform. London and New York: Routledge Falmer, pp. 178–194. Little, D. (2007). Marxism and method. In D. Glaser and D. Walker (eds.), TwentiethCentury Marxism: A Global Introduction. New York: Routledge, pp. 230–245. Maniatis, T. (2015). The fiscal crisis in Greece: Whose fault? In S. Mavroudeas (ed.), Greek Capitalism in Crisis: Marxist Analyses. London, UK: Routledge, pp. 33–49. McLaren, P. (2007). Life in Schools: An Introduction to Critical Pedagogy in the Foundations of Education. New York, NY: Allyn & Bacon. McNally, D. (2011). Slump, austerity, and resistance. In L. Panitch, G. Albo, and V. Chibber (eds.), Socialist Register 2012: The Crisis and the Left. London, UK: Merlin Publishers, pp. 36–63. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of School Reform: Educational Costs of Standardized Testing. New York, NY: Routledge. Osgood, J. (2007). Professionalism and performativity: The feminist challenge facing early years practitioners. Early Years: An International Research Journal, 26(2), pp. 187–199. Ozga, J. (1995). Deskilling a profession: Professionalism, deprofessionalisation and the new managerialism. In H. Busher and R. Saran (eds.), Managing Teachers as Professionals in Schools. London, UK: Kogan, pp. 21–38. Ozga, J. (2000). Policy Research in Educational Settings: Contested Terrain. Philadelphia, PA: Open University Press. Pavlidis, P. (2012). Knowledge in the Discourse of Social Evolution. Athens, Greece: Epikendro (in Greek). Pavlidis, P. (2013). The social significance of education. Prin. Accessed September 16 online at http://prin. gr/?p=1887 (in Greek). Polychroniou, C. J. (2013). The specter of authoritarianism and the future of the left: An interview with Henry A. Giroux. Truthout. Accessed June 8 online at www.truth-out. org/news/item/24121-the-specter-of-authoritarianism-and-the-future-of-the-left-aninterview-with-henry-a-giroux Popkewitz, T. S. (1991). A Political Sociology of Educational Reform: Power/Knowledge and Power in Teaching, Teacher Education, and Research. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

76

Theopoula-Polina Chrysochou

Sahlberg, P. (2006). Education reform for raising economic competitiveness. Journal of Educational Change, 7(4), pp. 259–287. Sakellaropoulos, S. (2014). Crisis and Social Stratification in 21st Century Greece. Athens: Topos Publishers (in Greek). Sarup, M. (1982). Education, State and Crisis. London, Boston, and Henley: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Savin-Baden, M. and Howell Major, C. (2013). Qualitative Research: The Essential Guide to Theory and Practice. London and New York: Routledge. Shor, I. and Freire, P. (1987). A Pedagogy for Liberation: Dialogues on Transforming Education. Westport, CT: Bergin & Garvey. Sotiris, P. (2012). The downsizing of a country. Greek Left Review. Accessed September 17 online at https: //greekleftreview.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/greece-the-downsizingof-a-country/ Sprague, J. (1992). Critical perspectives on teacher empowerment. Communication Education, 41(2), pp. 181–203. Theodorikakou, O., Alamanou, A., and Katsadoros, K. (2013). “Neo-homelessness” and the Greek crisis. European Journal of Homelessness, 7(2), pp. 203–210. Van Maanen, J. and Barley, S. (1984). Occupational communities: Culture and control in organizations. Research in Organizational Behavior, 6, pp. 287–365. Verger, A. and Altinyelken, H. K. (2013). Global education reforms and the new management of teachers: A critical introduction. In A. Verger, M. Novelli, and H. K. Altinyelken (eds.), Global Managerial Education Reforms and Teachers: Emerging Policies, Controversies and Issues in Developing Contexts. Brussels: Education International Research Institute, pp. 1–18.

7

The Endpoint of Expectation From Education, the Starting Point of Struggle A Critical Approach to White-Collar Unemployment Aygulen Kayahan Karakul Historical Change in White-Collar Employment and Unemployment Historically, education in industrial societies has been related to employment. When mass production was established, capitalism needed qualified labour power. The new, hegemonic bourgeoisie needed educated labour power. Since factory workers had to be at least literate and numerate enough to report failures in the production process, the working class had to have at least a basic education. In other words, this qualified labour is educated by welfare states to fulfil the needs of the bourgeoisie (Rikowski, 2001, pp. 30–31). Over time, formally educating workers under state auspices has expanded from the basic level to the advanced levels. In the new production relationships in capitalism, intellectual labour power is also needed. Because of the nature of the new jobs that have arisen, there is a need for highly qualified labour. So specialised university education for professional jobs demanding a higher level of knowledge and ability has also expanded. Thus, employment became connected to the level of education, and university education became an important variable in having a job—until a specific period in capitalist development (Burlutskaia, 2014). As well as having political and ideological functions, education and schools also have an economic function in capitalism, for example in continuing to divide manual and mental labour(Althusser, 2014; Bourdieu, 1984; Apple, 1995; Bowles and Gintis, 2002; Rikowski, 2002). Other than the ideological, political, social, and economic functions of higher education, higher education can function as a space/domain in which individuals may expect emancipation for themselves. The abstract and concrete contexts of this emancipation may differ among diverse groups and spaces, but it should be kept in mind whenever we talk about higher education, as well as other stages of education. Some theoretical studies have revealed and strengthened the relationship between education and employment. After World War II, the explicit

78 Aygulen Kayahan Karakul differences in development between countries stimulated the improvement of Human Capital Theory by Gary Becker and Theodore Schultz, which has gained great importance among economists and gained Becker a Nobel Prize. According to the theory, human capital is part of the production process, just like physical capital. Human beings are seen as variables in the production function that can decrease production costs. If this capital is educated, meaning qualified, then total production costs would decrease (Becker, 1964/1993). Once the theory gained fame in economic environments, education started to be seen as an instrument to increase production and Gross Domestic Product (Psacharopoulos, 1984) After new production relationships were established and capitalism progressed, education gained considerable value in the marketplace. In the 1960s, Human Capital Theory was presented, and the strong welfare states were developed at that historical stage. In those years education came to be seen as a driving force in the economic development of states. On the practical level, the general education level of societies has increased, engendering social mobility (Burlutskaia, 2014). The literature on labour power has also been developed. As previously mentioned, labour power is divided between hand and mind, manual and mental labour power. This process can be expressed according to whether the work is physical or intellectual work—expressed in the terms, blue-collar and white-collar workers. Especially since the 1950s, educated labour power has been labelled as white-collar work. White-collar workers are non-manual workers who manage, plan, and control. They have relatively higher salaries and more job security. After the middle classes turned into small landlords in the Middle Ages, they became white-collar workers with the establishment of capitalism. In capitalist system, white-collar workers are associated with the middle classes (Hoberek, 2005, pp. 3–5). While employment is expanding, the unemployed people, Marx characterises as an “industrial reserve army” have always existed. This concept has widened to white-collar workers with the expansion of university education. To educate more than the labour market needs is not a planning mistake; on the contrary, it is a conscious anchor of capitalism to keep wages down (Marx, 2006/1885, p. 284). The consequence of supplying educated labour power to fill the needs of the bourgeoisie provided some gains in the lives of individuals and society— for example, the raised level of literacy. As Freire states, literacy can give large masses of people a chance to be free, to recognise the world (Freire, 2005/1970). In addition, employment is related to the level of education. The value of education has increased, along with the value of the teacher. But this situation has gone into reverse with the new world capitalist agenda neoliberalism, which commodifies everything. The relocation of capital in the world to places where raw materials and labour are cheaper can be summarised as economic globalisation of capital, with an accompanying ideological political content. Neoliberalism, based on the principle of commodification, commercialisation, and ordination of the market mechanism, was disseminated through the world by students of Milton Friedman and Frederick von Hayek, starting in Latin America. This concept—and its policy implementation—transformed the political agenda, daily life, identity, human individualism, and social movements worldwide.

The Endpoint of Expectation From Education 79 Today the globally dominant form of capitalism, i.e. neoliberalism (Hill and Kumar, 2009, p. 3), demands a great deal on the national and international levels. One of its demands is the relatively untrammelled selling and buying of labour power for a ‘flexible’, poorly regulated labour market, and deregulation of the labour market for labour flexibility (with consequences for education). Another demand is a regime of cuts in the postwar welfare state, the withdrawal of state subsidies and support, and low public expenditure (Hill and Kumar, 2009, p. 4). These demands, mostly supplied by states, have many effects on production relations, labour markets, forms of employment, the meaning of work, and the employment and unemployment of labour.

The Effects of Neoliberalism on White-Collar Employment and Unemployment The effects of neoliberalism on white-collar employment and unemployment can be summarised as follows: •

•

•

Capital is relocated to transnational regions; major companies with centres in developed countries shift their production units to developing or underdeveloped countries. In developed countries, this change increased the number of workplaces for mental labour, like Silicon Valley in California. Mental labour on a product—processes like planning, marketing, assessment, and analysis— started to be done in developed countries, while the physical production of the same product started to be done in underdeveloped countries. So the number of workplaces in the underdeveloped countries, like Rana Plaza1 in Bangladesh, has also increased. As flexible production organisation styles have increased, working styles in the labour markets have also changed. Instead of long-term jobs with assurance of promotion, nowadays jobs that are short-term, contracted or subcontracted, insecure, and vulnerable have proliferated. Since these jobs are not related to one another, past job experience has lost its importance. So the employer can easily replace workers. This situation has also changed the long-term or permanent nature of employment; many people now experience at least partial unemployment in some periods of their lives (Aronowits and Difazio, 1992, p. 15). Flexible production relations have created a mass of people working insecurely, termed ‘the precariat’. Job insecurity causes frequent job changes. The precariat is growing larger by the day and involves qualified labours well as non-qualified labour (Standing, 2011, pp. 26–27). One of the four conditions for totally integrating lives and institutions into market relations is to transform the employees’ working conditions and outlook from collective understanding to producing profit for the owners and investors (Apple, 2007, p. 5). The change in working conditions from job security to insecurity transforms workers’ lives into disconnectedness, continuous fear of unemployment, continuous threat of being excluded from the production process, and, as a result, being excluded from a confident future.

80 Aygulen Kayahan Karakul •

•

•

•

The probability of avoiding unemployment by gaining quality with an increased level of education has been substantially destroyed. So white-collar workers resort to jobs that demand less quality and education. From one point of view, this situation is a mismatch of workers’ actual and required education levels (Sloane, Battu and Seaman, 1999, p. 1438). In neoclassical economics, individuals or employers are blamed for this situation, not the system itself. Education is providing decreased social mobility. Starting in the 1950s, with the scientific and technical revolution and computerisation of the economy, the role of higher education as a vehicle of social mobility increased (Burlutskaia, 2014, p. 53). One of the greatest promises the welfare state makes is equal opportunity as a right of all citizens. In the education system, this promise manifests itself as the rise of individuals in the social strata of society according to their individual success and abilities, not their social origin, sex, or ethnic origin. But today the value of success and the ability to gain social mobility has decreased despite high education levels, success, and ability. McLaren and Farahmandpur (2001, p. 279) declare that today’s education system is designed to exclude young people from society, providing roles for them as castaways or pariahs. Like unemployed people, they are also excluded from production processes. Labour has been degraded. White-collar jobs such as planning, designing, and marketing that are identified with educated mental labour can also be reduced to hand labour because their results have physical outputs. The comprehension and implementation stages of labour can also be reduced to manual labour. Through improved technology, many white-collar jobs, including medicine and teaching, have been transformed into jobs that require only waiting and pushing buttons on machines like technicians (Braverman, 1998, pp. 294 and 400). The degradation of labour makes it easy for workers with a specialisation and those from the working classes to be easily interchangeable. So white-collar unemployment, both permanent and partial, has increased. Thereafter, the definition of work and unemployment changed. The jobs in this market are ‘casual’ or ‘precarious’ jobs. Being a white-collar worker no longer protects from unemployment. Workers now have to change jobs an average of 11 times in their lives and renew their basic skills at least three times (Sennett, 2000). Precarisation, or precarity and job insecurity cause distrust and disconnection—the sense that the future consists only of today. In flexible capitalism, time is sequential, not cumulative. So the experience and qualifications of white-collar workers who slide from one job into another are turning to dust. Institutions and companies offer individuals nothing linked to the future. In the workplace, there is no stability, and there are cold wars between workers (Sennett, 2006, p. 4).

Research on Unemployed Graduates For my doctoral dissertation,2 I studied unemployment of university graduates. The intent of the research was to describe the ways university graduates experience unemployment. The research method was based on three dimensions:

The Endpoint of Expectation From Education 81 • • •

A survey of 1,237 unemployed graduates who registered with İŞKUR, the Turkish Official Employment Agency. Face-to-face-meetings with 20 unemployed graduates were conducted. These unemployed graduates were found by using a snowball method. An online meeting study with 91 unemployed graduates who gave their e-mail addresses in answer to a survey question.

Demographic Features of Research Subjects Of 1,237 Unemployed University Graduates Who Took the Survey A total of 50.3 percent were female, 49.7 percent male, with 68.6 percent under age 30, 26.8 percent ages 31 to 40, and 4.6 percent over 40. Some 62.9 percent were graduates in the social sciences, while 37.1 percent were graduates in physical sciences. By family income, 24.3 percent were low-income, 70.9 percent middle-income and 5.3 percent high-income.3 In terms of income per capita in their homes, 14.2 percent were living below the starvation line, 58 percent were below minimum wage, 82.8 percent were living below the poverty line, and 98.3 percent were below the income per capita in Turkey.4 Of 20 Unemployed University Graduates With Whom Face-To-Face Meetings Were Held Twelve were female and eight were male; 11 were under age 30, seven were 30 to 40, and two were over 41. Eleven were graduates in the social sciences, while nine were graduates in the physical sciences. Of 91 Unemployed University Graduates Who Filled Out the Online Interview Form Thirty-four were female and 57 were male; 58 were under 30, 23 were 30 to 40, and ten were over 40. Forty-eight were graduates in the social sciences, while 43 were graduates in the physical sciences. Findings of the Research Financing Unemployment: Unemployed graduates are mostly from the middle classes, with average income level. Families are the greatest financers of their periods of unemployment. The protective role of families can sometimes have a determinant role in the decisions of university graduates and can turn into a pressure mechanism. Although family support is an anchor, there is great expectation from education, creating heavy psychological pressure on unemployed graduates, who think their unemployment is their own fault. Work Experience: A job provides experience if it is related to an individual’s profession, but working at a job unrelated to one’s profession turns into a kind of

82 Aygulen Kayahan Karakul ‘endurance’ until a proper, desired job is found. As flexible employment conditions become widespread, employed graduates, who are working in the lower jobs have to change their jobs frequently. First, expectations about jobs increase soon after graduation and, subsequently, decrease. Many unemployed graduates take jobs for which a lower education level would be sufficient. Working in a bread bakery, as secretary, baby-sitting, in a movie agency, driving, being a cashier, and being a pollster are some of the jobs online interviewees did after graduating from university. When university graduates experience long-term unemployment, they start to take temporary jobs while continuing to look for jobs that are ideal for them. Many work in poor conditions at low salaries while looking for new jobs. Job-Seeking Channels: Most of the unemployed university graduates think preferential treatment is the most important variable in finding a job. In today’s world, the significance of social networks has increased, as unemployed graduates are very aware. They want help in finding jobs from people around them; they are members of Internet social networking sites; they inform their families and friends that they are looking for jobs; and they seek help from friends and teachers from their universities. Perceptions of Reasons for Their Unemployment: Some of the unemployed graduates think the reasons they cannot find jobs are directly related to themselves. They are unemployed because they did not accept jobs that were below their education level. But these are in a minority; most think their unemployment is caused by external factors. Unemployed university graduates mostly carry middle-class values, one of which is the idea that education will bring a prestigious life. They graduate from universities with the idea that qualified people work at good jobs, which was especially common in the 1990s. They inventively prepared for the future with great hopes and they heightened expectations in their protective families. After such considerable preparation for many years by themselves and their families, their hopes are destroyed when these expectations are unfulfilled. Then individuals start to question their own lives. The thoughts of unemployed university graduates about unemployment can generally be grouped into categories: inadequate and unfair employment policies of the government/state, the high number of universities and graduates, and employers who want workers who work longer but earn less. Most declared that their unemployment is beyond their control. Employment Expectations: Depression resulting from unemployment pushes these people to look for partly protected and safe, regular jobs with security, like public-sector jobs as civil servants. This course of action contradicts the structure of most of the jobs in the market and the public sector. Results of the Research and Comments As flexible working styles became widespread in the twenty-first century, unemployed university graduates usually work at temporary, insecure, low-paying, and contract jobs, which do not require high standards of qualification. They simultaneously continue to look for what they regard as ‘proper jobs’. In the past, there were many jobs in which people had started to work in their youth, worked

The Endpoint of Expectation From Education 83 many years, and retired from those jobs. But nowadays, these kinds of jobs have decreased. On the other hand, in parallel with the increase in their experience, unemployed university graduates accept jobs that require less education or no qualifications at all, while also looking for other, more proper, middle class jobs. Unemployed graduates say their families, most of whom are middle-class, are significant resources for financing unemployment. Family has an important place in unemployed graduate’s life, for both financial and spiritual support. The existence of an organisation that financially supports unemployed graduates makes them feel better about their situation. An unemployed person can benefit from public support because of family members with secure, paid employment. So being a member of the middle class gives the white-collar unemployed a form of insurance. They can benefit from social insurance or take money from their parents. Families are willing to financially support their children who are university graduates under harsh conditions until they find well-paid jobs with good conditions. University graduates mainly use formal job-seeking channels characteristic of middle and high social classes, with informal job-seeking channels as a second option. Unemployed graduates first prefer working in public institutions, with private-sector jobs as the second option. Many unemployed university graduates think the reasons they cannot find proper jobs are not related to themselves. Based on this finding, it can be said that many graduates think unemployment is caused by the economic structure. It is found that income level, sex, university department, length of unemployment, and age have statistically meaningful effects on their ideas of the reasons for unemployment. As unemployed university graduates generally work at temporary, insecure jobs for which a high school education would be enough, they look for different jobs. They want to work in the public sector, with high-salary, secure jobs that give value to their education level. These employment expectations are related to income level, sex, university department, unemployment period, and age in terms of statistical significance. Unemployed university graduates, most of who come from middle-class families, have invested in their future by having primary, secondary, and high school education, sometimes going to special courses in addition, and by spending years in universities. Throughout these processes, these students have not felt economically disadvantaged very much because their families cover the expenses. One might say they live in a bubble that protects them from the realities of the world. But after university graduation, they look for jobs, become unemployed, or have to work at jobs with low salaries; because of all these experiences, they question the social mobility promised by their education. While this is the reality, they still have high expectations and continue to expect good, well-paid, secure jobs related to their education level. They still carry the hope that one day they will be important in the labour market because of their university education. Socioeconomic status, sex, university department, length of unemployment, and age are, again, factors in determining their place against the reality of unemployment. Graduates lose their hope of finding proper jobs as they expect, thus, in time, they accept

84 Aygulen Kayahan Karakul jobs below their education level. They start to have inner conflicts and question the value of the years they spent on education. In recent years, the decrease in education’s ensuring social mobility has slowly become noticeable among unemployed graduates. Unemployed graduates started to think their unemployment was due to reasons beyond their control. Unemployment has become an often-seen event, while looking for jobs that would meet their expectations has become a continuous fact. One of the most significant results of the research is the determination that the relationship between education and employment has weakened, especially with the effects of flexibility tendencies in labour force markets in recent years. The idea that education ensures social mobility is no longer necessarily valid; the process of finding a job has become connected to variables very different from education.

Endpoint of Expectation From Education The lower layers or strata of society experience time in two different ways. One is the way of the lumpenproletariat who are excluded from the processes of production. They live for today and their plans for the future consist only of dreams. So they don’t invest in their children’s education, they spend their energies on bringing home the daily bread. The second is the way of the layers, strata, who can join in the production processes and have goals of having a secure job, owning a home, being a civil servant, being in steady work. These dreams, with a prospect of realisation, cause them to defer gratification, to delay their present needs, and to invest all the wealth of the household in these dreams—especially the education of their children. These expectations can be generalised as the middle-class expectations, expectations also shared by many in the classes, the strata, below the middle, sections of the working class such as skilled workers, who have an obsessive desire to give their children a bright future. Family expectations for the white-collar worker candidate transform into his or her spiritual oppression. It is interesting that whitecollar oppression is mostly internalised and attributed to the family. Despite the family’s high expectations of long-term, secure, well-paid jobs, no practical conditions exist in the labour market to realise these expectations. Because of such high expectations, the actual reality hurts emotionally. If the unemployed do not have the ideological perspective to see unemployment as a defect of the economic system, they blame themselves, creating emotional problems. The emotional effects of unemployment on educated white-collar workers are very different from those on less qualified workers. Despite reality, the image of white-collar workers in the media is very attractive. In advertisements, television serials, films, newspapers, and magazines they are shown working in banks, plazas, and trade centres with comfortable and good conditions. They are shown working happily using advanced technological devices to control, decide, plan, and develop products and services. The perception is created that education will bring good working conditions. Such images seem to blame the educated unemployed themselves for their unemployment.

The Endpoint of Expectation From Education 85 Unfortunately, despite the media images, white-collar unemployment has increased, and the university graduates’ unemployment experiences are starting to be heard more in society. The employability effect of education has fallen, and other variables like family, kinship, and acquaintanceship relations have become more important than education in finding a job (Aksoy, 2007). Higher whitecollar unemployment makes graduates question expectations and the economic function of education. The role of education in social mobility has also decreased. So the promises of welfare states to citizens have collapsed. Unemployment has started to be inevitable despite the privilege once gained through education. The decrease in the value of education has accelerated since neoliberal policies began to be heavily implemented. The neoclassic approach explains unemployment as a defect of the system that can be corrected by investing in human capital, especially through education. This approach judges graduate unemployment as a result of an insufficient or inappropriate investment in education. So it offers educated unemployed people more education as a solution, with the popular words ‘lifelong learning’. According to Mayo (2009, p. 7), the neoliberal state takes responsibility for developing infrastructure, with lifelong learning to update competences to increase individuals’ employability. This solution, supported by neoliberal states, has settled into people’s minds so strongly that most of the educated unemployed invest in their own human capital by raising their education level: pursuing postgraduate education, taking courses as well as other things. This is a very hard paradox for an unemployed person, especially for an unemployed member of the middleclass whose family has invested long years in his or her career. Another remedy the neoclassic economy found for unemployment among the educated is the perception that positive thinking can overcome all difficulties, including unemployment. This view reduces an economic problem of the system to psychological process in individuals’ minds. ‘White-collar Zen’, so famous nowadays, is the best example that companies apply to help workers to overcome difficulties.

Can This Endpoint Be a New Starting Point? According to dialectical materialism, every thesis creates its antithesis. When oppression increases in society, it will also create the conditions of freedom. This era is the endpoint of expectations that education will bring employment. The decreasing value of education shows the endpoint of efforts by the petite bourgeois to separate their problems from those of the working classes. Some theoreticians, like Marcuse in One Dimensional Man (1964/2007, pp. 251–261) and the other members of the Frankfurt School, attribute to the intelligentsia a role of being leader of a social change. With the coming of the end of white-collar workers’ privileged life, it is hoped that they will cooperate with other unemployed. Some theoreticians defend the idea that advanced industrial society and advanced technology have enlarged human self-interest, and that the solidarity of the large mass of people has expired. Some believe solidarity, organisation,

86 Aygulen Kayahan Karakul and acting together have changed in appearance through high technology and the emerging service industry (Gibson-Graham, 2006, p. 46). The awakening of all segments of society is one of these great beliefs. One of these missions is the awakening of white-collar workers, who are mostly middle-class and believe themselves more privileged through educational opportunities. There are many examples of revolt by white-collar workers worldwide: At Boeing, 18,000 engineers and technicians went on a strike for 40 days in 2000 with the solidarity of their union, the Society of Professional Engineering Employees in Aerospace (SPEEA). It was the longest and biggest white-collar strike in American history and has harmed America’s biggest exporter (The Economist, 2000). The strike was over inadequate wages, bonus, and medical insurance. In the end, the union won everything it wanted (PBS Newshour, 2000). In Turkey, white-collar workers organised under the Plaza Workers Platform participated in May 1 demonstrations in 2015. Non-appointed teachers in Turkey are seeking appointments as teachers in the public sector and acting to improve conditions for teachers. There is also a platform of nonappointed engineers in Turkey, who acted in April 2015 to be appointed as engineers in the public sector. In Bangalore, India, bank workers went on a strike nationwide for four days in February 2015 with the public sector bank employee unions for wagerelated demands (The Economic Times, 2015). White-collar workers in Montreal, Canada, went on a strike over pension changes named Bill 3 (Quebec’s controversial pension reform) on August 14, 2014. The same legislation caused strike a week earlier in the same city by blue-collar workers (CBC News, 2014). Teachers went on strike in South Africa in August 2015. Unions representing about 1.3 million state workers started the strike over demands to increase wages (Bloomberg, 2015). University lecturers in Kenya went on a nationwide strike in September 2012, backed by the University Academic Staff Union (UASU). The Kenya Union of Post Primary Education Teachers (KUPPET) also joined the Kenya National Union of Teachers (KNUT) in the strike, which paralysed education in the East African nation (MICEKENYA, 2012). To sum up, white-collar workers have started to revolt over unemployment and poor employment conditions, working together with institutions such as unions, NGOs, social networks, and other institutions. These few examples are evidence that white-collar workers have lost the privilege that once came with education. They are aware of their oppression by capitalism, and by revolting, they are raising hope of creating solidarity with all others oppressed by capitalism. This endpoint can become a new starting point of struggle against the oppression of capitalism.

The Endpoint of Expectation From Education 87

Notes 1 The Rana Plaza collapsed in 2013 because of overweight, and 1,134 garment workers died. Many demonstrations have been made to most famous trademarks which have production units in this Plaza. Some of the slogans were as “I don’t want to die for fashion; Benetton Pay up now; Stop the labour killing, We don’t want blood on our clothes, Give an end to the murders for profit”. 2 Supervised by Prof Dr Nejla Kurul in Ankara University. 3 To determine income level, subjects were asked how much money their families had per month. Annual income was calculated accordingly, and to which group they belonged was determined according to the Income and Living Conditions Research 2011 report of TUİK’s (Turkish Official Statistical Institute). In the report, income groups were determined according to households’ usable income in Turkey, with average values of 20 percent group distribution in city level. 4 The Poverty Line was determined according to Starvation and Poverty Line Report, November 2011, prepared by DİSK (Revolutionary Workers Syndicate Confederation), and Starvation and Poverty Line Report, November 2011, of TÜRK-iş (Turkish Workers Syndicate Confederation). Minimum salary was determined to be the amount in November 2011. Income per capita in Turkey was taken from 2011 World Bank data.

References Aksoy, H. H. (2007). Career and training in the new economy: A study focused on small scale enterprises located in OSTIM organized industrial region in Ankara/Turkey. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 7(3), pp. 1067–1084. Althusser, L. (2014/1971). On the Reproduction of Capitalism: Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses. London: Verso Press. Apple, W. M. (1995). Education and Power. New York and London: Routledge Publications. Apple, W. M. (2007). Education, markets, and an audit culture. International Journal of Educational Policies, 1(1), pp. 4–19. Aronowits, S. and Difazio, W. (1992). The Jobless Future: Sci-Tech and the Dogma of Work. London: University of Minnesota Press. Becker, G. S. (1964/1993). Human Capital: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis, With Special Reference to Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment and Taste. Cambridge and New York: Harvard University Press. Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in capitalist America revisited. Sociology of Education, 75(1), pp. 1–18. Braverman, H. (1998/1974). Labor and Monopoly Capital: The Degradation of Work in the Twentieth Century. New York: Monthly Review Press. Burlutskaia, M. G. (2014). Higher education as a means of upward social mobility. Russian Education and Society, 56(4), pp. 52–63. Freire, P. (2005/1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York and London: The Continuum International Publishing. Gibson-Graham, J. K. (2006). The End of Capitalism (As We Knew It): A Feminist Critique of Political Economy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Hill, D. and Kumar, R. (2009). Neoliberal capitalism and education. In D. Hill and R. Kumar (eds.), Global Neoliberalism and Education and Its Consequences. London: Routledge Publishing. Hoberek, A. (2005). The Twilight of Middle Class: Post World War II American Fiction and White Collar Work. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Marcuse, H. (1964/2007). One Dimensional Man. London: Routledge Publications.

88 Aygulen Kayahan Karakul Marx, K. (2006). Kapital [Capital], 2nd vol. (trans. into Turkish by A. Bilgi). Ankara: Sol Publishing. Mayo, P. (2009). The “competence” discourse in education and the struggle for social agency and critical citizenship. International Journal of Educational Policies, 3(2), pp. 5–16. McLaren, P. and Farahmandpur, R. (2001). The globalization of capitalism and the new imperialism: Notes towards a revolutionary critical pedagogy. Review of Education, Pedagogy, and Cultural Studies, 23(3), pp. 271–315. Psacharopoulos, G. (1984). The contribution of education to economic growth. In J. W. Kendrick (ed.), International Comparisons of Productivity and Causes of the Slowdown. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 325–360. Rikowski, G. (2001). Education for industry: A complex technicism. Journal of Education and Work, 14(1). Rikowski, G. (2002). Methods for Researching the Social Production of Labour Power in Capitalism. School of Education, Research Seminar, University of College Northampton, 7 March. Sennett, R. (2000). The Corrosion of Character, the Personal Consequences of Work in the New Capitalism. New York: W. W. Norton Publishing. Sennett, R. (2006). The Culture of the New Capitalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Sloane, P. J., Battu, H., and Seaman, P. T. (1999). Overeducation, undereducation and the British labour market. Applied Economics, 31, pp. 1437–1453. Standing, G. (2011). Precariat: The New Dangerous Class. New York: Bloomsbury Academic Press.

Online References Bloomberg. (2015). South African Teachers’ Strike Compounds Crisis in Education. Online at www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2010-08-31/south-african-teachers-strike-shutsschools-compounds-educational-crisis CBC News. (2014). Montreal’s White Collar Workers Threaten Bill 3 Strike. Online at www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/montreal-s-white-collar-workers-threaten-bill-3strike-1.2736932 The Economic Times. (2015). PSU Bank Unions Threaten 4-Day Nation-Wide Strike From February 25 Online at http://economictimes. indiatimes.com/industry/banking/finance/ banking/psu-bank-unions-threaten-4-day-nation-wide-strike-from-feb-25/articleshow/46314998. cms The Economist. (2000). Slow Death of Boeing Man. www.economist.com. March 16, 2000. Online at www.economist.com/node/331030 MICEKENYA. (2012). Kenyan University Lecturers Begin Strike, Further Paralyze Education. Online atwww.coastweek.com/3536_strikers_01.htm PBS Newshour. (2000). White Collar Strike: Boeing. Online atwww.pbs.org/newshour/bb/ business-jan-june00-boeing_3-22/

8

The Position of an Educational Researcher in a Semi-Peripheral Region Critical Autoethnography of an Academic Subject in Hungary György Mészáros

Introduction: The Destructive Feeling of Envy This paper was born from a personal experience that has become the source of a political analysis. Following the paths of critical autoethnography (McLaren, 1997; Mészáros, 2015), I am using my story, experience, and feelings as a point of departure to arrive at a narrative-interpretive account and, at the same time, a systemic analysis of my academic subject. In Hungarian there is a slang expression: ‘conference rat’. It means a person who often goes to international conferences, using the opportunities of various grants and scholarships to travel abroad. It may have a slightly negative connotation, depending on the context. It may be a compliment for someone’s creative, entrepreneurial engagement. My colleagues and friends have considered me a conference rat for the last five years. Most of them could not travel much. At my university, funds were cut because of the usual austerity policy. I have found resources elsewhere: fellowships, grants, even Indiegogo.com, where I once raised money for a conference fee. It happened that I could participate in international conferences and study visits because I found my way; I was a good entrepreneurial academic subject. Some of my colleagues may have envied the exception that I represented, and this envy also invaded me. During the conferences, I saw my ‘Western’ colleagues’ opportunities and level of economic well-being. I could not go to the expensive social dinners, and I had to consider the menu prices carefully when we went out for a dinner in restaurants, while they ordered whatever they wanted. In such situations, I often felt excluded. I noted their access to literature I could not obtain in Hungary. And I started to envy them. I constructed two sides in my mind: ‘me (us)’ and ‘them’. This separation shows how destructive this feeling is. According to Marx (1932/2013), envy is just another face of greed. It is the driving force of what he calls ‘crude communism’, in which private property is seemingly abolished but in reality still determines people’s relation to the world of things, though in a communitarian form. In his view, the universalisation of envy leads to levelling down and not moving beyond private property. In my experience, this emotion is not conducive to solidarity and does not generate critical political actions. I realised that my envy was just one

90

György Mészáros

effect of the neoliberal subject construction that lurked in influencing our personal (political) life, not to mention human feelings. This experience has led me to analyse how my academic subject is formed in the context of neoliberal capitalism. This paper presents some important findings of this analysis in the form a narrative interpretation accompanied by a more systemic examination. It is fundamentally an autoethnographic account that uses the approaches of Wallerstein’s world-system theory (1984) and of Bhaskar’s critical realism (2008), always with a strong connection to a Marxist critique of the capitalist system.

(Advocating) Critical Autoethnography Methodologically, this paper is related to the variegated tradition of autoethnography reinterpreted by a clearly critical approach. This research methodology or genre is not particularly appreciated or practised in Marxist research. Critical scholars (in a more clearly system-centred and Marxist sense) often enfold their thoughts and present their findings in a highly analytical style advocating realism and objectivity, in contrast with the blurry subjectivism and textualism of poststructuralist writing also represented in the main trends of autoethnography. In addition, the term critical autoethnography is generally not used in a Marxist sense, either. Different authors (e.g. in Boylorn and Orbe, 2013) defining their research as critical autoethnography refer to Madison’s (2011) ‘soft’ interpretation of critical ethnography. His definition focuses on injustice and the researcher’s positionality without a systemic, dialectical, materialist analysis. Nevertheless, as a critical-Marxist educational researcher, I am advocating autoethnography. For our fight against the capitalist system with society’s transformation in view, the understanding of subjects’ position and consciousness in relation to their class is crucial. But the subject is not a fixed entity; it is always in formation, and its changing is a pedagogical process. Different modes of production form different subjectivities. The ‘pedagogy of capitalism’ inscribes systemic traits into the very body of human beings as different authors highlighted it by using various terms for this phenomenon, such as habitus (Bourdieu, 1990), enfleshment (McLaren, 1988), or (although in a different way) human capital (Rikowski, 2011). The academic subject may have an important role in the anticapitalist struggles as an organic intellectual. We should understand its formation to learn more about how capitalism alters subjects and subjectivities, especially in academia. Autoethnography is one of the key methods in this knowledge production; hence it can shed light on the very personal(-political) effects of a systemic pedagogy. I showed this in relation to gender and sexuality in an earlier paper (Mészáros, 2015), and I am again adopting this methodology to discover the mechanisms of subject construction in a semi-peripheral university context. Autoethnography has a lot of different definitions, but according to a wide interpretation, it is a specific research genre or methodology that studies the ‘I’ always in relation to its socio-cultural context. It departs from the subject’s personal experience to say something about society and culture, or from another

The Position of Educational Researchers 91 point of view it focuses on the story of the self, but with an ethnographic eye (cf. Ellis, Adams and Bochner, 2011). Doing autoethnography can be part of a critical activist life in the dialectical tensions of everydayness and scientific research, scientific research and activism, artistic expression and academic inquiry, and personal life and political action. However, I am not advocating a poststructuralist autoethnography in which the subject might disappear in the language, personal experience might be the source of narcissistic storytelling, and the goal might be mainly to create an evocative narrative. These are the dangers of the mainstream tradition of autoethnography employed, for example, by Ellis (2004) and Adams (2011). This approach originated in the posthumanist tradition of postmodernism, and it often comprises a fluid interpretation or deconstruction of the subject. This kind of research was also criticised because of its weak scientific rigour from a post-positivist view (Atkinson, 2006). Anderson (2006) developed an alternative autoethnographic method: analytical autoethnography that can fit the post-positivist scientific standards. My own way of doing autoethnography has some analytical traits, but its main difference from the mainstream trend is not methodological or stylistic. The critical interpretation of the subject constitutes its most important characteristic. Following a certain Marxist tradition (Cole, 2011; Donham, 1999; Heartfield, 2006), I consider the subject not as an abstraction of the independent individual human being, but as an inherently socio-cultural entity. In this approach, individuality and sociality, person and structure are not separated, but constitute the human subject together in a dialectical tension. This paper’s autoethnographic narrative is based on my personal experiences, on the analysis of university documents, and on conversations with colleagues and friends. As I mentioned above, I will interpret my experience in a dialectical, historical materialist way by using various Marxist writings and by following the scheme of the critical realist approach (Bhaskar, 2008; Banfield, 2004). The latter offers a valuable epistemological view and a methodological tool that avoids both the pitfalls of post-positivist empiricism and postmodern relativism. It maintains a realist understanding of the world that seems necessary for a critical political activism. In the next sections, pursuing Bhaskar’s model, I will enfold the different levels of reality: experience, actuality (with tendencies), and mechanisms.

The Experience of My Academic Self I started my academic carrier in 2007 as an assistant lecturer. Universities in Hungary still have a quite feudal, informal system. Obtaining a faculty position is possible if someone has personal contacts with the teachers and a good reputation among those who, formally or informally, have greater voice and influence in the decisions. At that time, my teachers and supervisors thought I would be a good academic, a valuable new member of the Institute of Education at the Eötvös Loránd University, Faculty of Education and Psychology. Probably my fresh ideas, the new methods I used (ethnography and other qualitative methods), and my enthusiasm for research contributed to this decision, but I was certainly already an insider.

92

György Mészáros

Being a university teacher is a relatively secure position in Hungary. If an assistant professor earns a Ph.D., the job automatically becomes permanent. I finished my Ph.D. in 2009, and my career went on well according to Hungarian standards. I became an assistant professor. I was elected a member of the Administrative Council of the Association of Teacher Education in Europe. In 2015 I was nominated to head a newly established research group, Anthropology of Education, and the director of a ‘special college’ of the university for talented students. I have a lot of international relations and experience; I have taught many different courses, been responsible for a specialisation in the B. A. programme in pedagogy, participated in several EU-funded research and development projects, and published many papers, mainly in Hungarian. My work has certainly been appreciated by the Institute of Education and the faculty. Nevertheless, I have never considered my career important in itself. I had previously been a member of a Catholic religious order and a priest for several years. After I left that community, I chose academic life because I wanted to contribute to improving the Hungarian education system. Besides my university duties, I have always been involved in several types of social activism, among them working with an LGBT association and a forum theatre initiative. Although I could be satisfied with my professional life and am a fundamentally happy person, not to mention my privileged position in society, a lot of problems make my academic journey difficult. First of all, my economic situation is very unstable. The salary of an assistant professor in Hungary is about 500 euros a month. Because of the middle-class socialisation common in the country, many people take out mortgages in foreign currency to buy their apartments. I did the same as a good son of my parents, who had their own flat in this way. But after the crises of 2008, the monthly payments on these mortgages significantly increased. My one was c.230 euros before the crises and rose to c.360 euros after. I had to have at least one part-time job besides my university position to make a living. For some time, I taught Hungarian language to foreigners, and in the last few years I was employed by some EU-funded research and development projects—for example, the standardisation of teachers’ professional development and career path and in the elaboration of the coaching system for teachers. In general, these projects are mainly development-centred and not strong in research. Thus, accomplishing my related tasks, I had to produce practical materials in Hungarian that were often not directly useful in my academic activity and career, and were not connected to my research interests or to my always maintained activism. I tried to incorporate and represent my conviction and critical principles in the projects, although I sometimes had to compromise and often felt I had no choice because I needed the money. I did not have enough time to do research that met high-level international standards, and I had even less time and energy to publish in English. That has also made it difficult for me to obtain international research funds or fellowships. At a certain point, I felt burned out because of my heavy workload, economic instability, and constrained activities. I wanted to go abroad and begin a career at a foreign university to have time for high-quality research. But very soon I

The Position of Educational Researchers 93 realised that without a number of international publications, I had no chance. It was a vicious circle. My socialisation as a researcher was not internationally oriented. When I was a doctoral student, expectations for us were not so high, and the urge to participate in the international publishing competition was not really present among the senior researchers, either. But times have changed rapidly in recent years. What is expected of faculty members is increasing, while strategies for supporting them are only slowly developed. Our access to newly published international literature is very limited, and, overloaded as we are by the various tasks, it is difficult to learn how to write papers that conform to Western standards. Recently, the faculty has been trying to introduce some new arrangements to improve the institution’s research potential and to support researchers—for example, by reorganising the institutes by establishing research groups, possibly funding international travels again, and providing English proofreading service. As part of the new strategy, I now head a research group, and I am supposed to obtain funds for our research. I can probably focus more on research, publications and my own interests, but it is still a new and challenging task. Despite all the difficulties, I have always found my own way. I managed to overcome burnout, maintain my international contacts, and find some possible ways out of the trap depicted above with some personal and professional solutions in my life. I have recently finished my habilitation dissertation, and if the process goes well, I will be promoted to associate professor. But so far this all has been a mainly individual process.

The Tendencies After the narrative of my professional experience, I am unfolding another interpretation by searching for tendencies behind the situation described above. It is not enough to outline a subject’s personal experience to understand its real position. Tendencies offer the wider picture in which the everyday situations are embedded. A lower-middle-class university job in Hungary means a relatively freer, more stable position than one in the business sector, but with a much lower salary. Actually, in education a university position is one of the lowest-paid jobs in Hungary, especially at the assistant professor level. Secondary school teachers(in the second category) earn more than I, let alone those in the huge ‘business related’ part of the education system. Education actually seems a good business anywhere but in a university. This is true not only for the private sector; public institutions (such as the Hungarian Institute of Research and Development) pay much more salary to educational professionals with master’s degrees or doctorates than the universities do. People stay at the university because of the prestige their titles confer, waiting for the better-paid positions, or because they are enthusiastic about teaching and academic research like me. For some people, it may be a comfortable job that gives them prestige and freer working conditions, if they have other well-paid jobs or their own private enterprises.

94

György Mészáros

Another identifiable tendency is the neoliberal and neoconservative policy of the actual government. In recent years, the government has followed a clear austerity approach and cut the universities’ budgets. The government’s higher education reforms have introduced some other measures. Some degrees (like a B.A. in cultural anthropology or social studies) were eliminated; others can accept far fewer students. At age 65, professors have to retire and can no longer work at the university. Every public institution of higher education was assigned a chancellor, appointed directly by the prime minister, whose duty is to control the economy and finances of the university. In this way, its critical potential and independence are significantly diminished. The government’s answer to the evident salary inequalities in the same education sector is—not surprisingly—another reform plan to introduce a new performance-based salary system on the basis of publications and teaching excellence. This neoliberal method will deepen the actual hierarchies at the university, will work against collaboration and may make researchers skilled workers more than critical intellectuals. The whole process and environment enhance individualistic and entrepreneurial attitudes in academics. As I mentioned, I have survived and paddled among the difficult university conditions with my approach of self-determination and creative individual solutions. The micro-politics of the university are related to this wider national context. Our dean asked employees to refrain from making any public statements regarding actual political happenings. This directive masks the ideological regulation with the typical neoliberal rhetoric of neutrality. Managerialism is also gaining momentum at the university. The new dean of my faculty wants to put everything in order to create a more transparent working environment. This is his rhetoric, and it is partly true; however, the model of the new order is the neoliberal Western university with its myriad internal regulations, documents, and committees. The work of the faculty’s Institutional Review Board has been re-established; a lot of data about teachers ‘activities, plans, and undertaken tasks are collected regularly. Research has been regulated with an official decree of the dean. The interpretation of research in the document is based mostly on (post-)positivist standards commonly used in psychological inquiry, since psychology constitutes the biggest institute at our Faculty of Education and Psychology. To increase the faculty’s international reputation, the new policy promotes research at the expense of teaching and any other activities. Teacher training and social engagement are not the institution’s priorities. It is important to note that this new management undoubtedly means very adaptive tactics to improve the faculty’s efficacy and prestige in the actual changing and more competitive context. It may be the pledge of the institution’s survival, especially in the wider context of Hungarian academia, where human, social, and particularly educational research have fewer and fewer possibilities. Notwithstanding, it is part of a worldwide tendency. In the competition for grants, publications, and prestige, the ‘soft sciences’ are lagging behind ‘hard’ ones. Education science is particularly weak, as several studies underscore (e.g. Walters, Lareau and Ranis, 2009), because of its direct relation to practice and practitioner research, its researchers’ often originally non-academic backgrounds,

The Position of Educational Researchers 95 the large number of low-quality (or considered low-quality) studies, and its historically newcomer status among sciences. In this context, it is understandable that those schools and research communities that are nearer the mainstream (hard) science model have more opportunities and achievements. In Hungary, the Institute of Education of the University of Szeged has this status. Its faculty does positivist, measurement-centred educational inquiry and has an incomparable greater number of publications than our institute. The success and dominance of that research community is becoming evident, and its members are conquering the important positions of decisions about Hungarian grants, fellowships, and publications in the field of education. I am a critical and qualitative researcher, an ethnographer (almost the only one in the educational academic arena in Hungary). One reason have been constantly looking for international contacts and opportunities is that in this context, dominated by such trends, I can establish hardly any collaboration and cannot construct my academic career mainly in reference to the local pedagogical context. There is still hard work ahead of me and of us (qualitative Hungarian educational researchers), to continue our mission: maintaining our basic principles and, at the same time, surviving among the growing neoliberal expectations towards our scientific work. A final identifiable tendency is that Hungary’s economic growth, in its semiperipheral condition, depends on European Union funds in a significant way. The government criticises the dominance of EU policies following a typically nationalistic narrative but maintains strong links to the EU because most of the development projects can be accomplished only with European funding. For the education sector, this means professional work is regulated by EU priorities, i.e. ideologies, but since the government does not really embrace the EU guidelines on education, many of the projects have been producing materials that will be not used in practice. The dependence on EU funds is conducive to destructive processes: creating useless materials, promoting low-quality and expensive work, and taking researchers away from their more specifically academic tasks. These tendencies constitute the contextual pattern of my academic position: I am a lower-middle-class, white, male researcher working in EU-funded projects and at a university that is becoming more neoliberal in a neoconservative national context. However, my position is different depending on the various contexts. At my school, I have a relatively high position as director and head of a research group. In the Hungarian educational science context, I have lower position as an academic (not working in the education business sector) and because of the dominance of evidence-based research. In Hungarian society, I have a lower-middle-class position (in Hungarian terms), a privileged status as a white male intellectual compared with some oppressed groups, but an underprivileged position as a gay man, a low-paid academic, and victim of the crises with the financial burden of a monthly mortgage payment. In the global context of educational researchers, I am in a relatively low position with better possibilities than my colleagues on the periphery, but with fewer possibilities, fewer resources, and less voice in the scientific arena compared to the researchers in the centre.

96

György Mészáros

Among these different tendencies, my subject is not formed and positioned in a fixed way. It is a fluid process with shifts, changes, and a lot of dimensions. I do not have the pretension of grasping all the different aspects of this complex ‘pedagogy’.

Mechanisms The mechanisms are the most abstract but most important level in a critical realist analysis. They are generative factors that, through the events and tendencies, may (but not necessarily) be revealed in the experiences (Banfield, 2004). Finding mechanisms is theoretical work through the art of abduction and retroduction (Olsen, 2004). In this section, I seek to outline some elements of the analysis of mechanisms. First of all, I am exploring my class position as a micro-mechanism. My being an academic is very much related to the class position. It was certainly not simply my personal, voluntary, and romantic choice to be a university researcher in the field of education. Coming from an intellectual lower-middle-class family, I followed the path set out for me by my background. The academic position offered a very normal way of pursuing the ideal of intellectually engaging work for which I was socialised. There were a lot of other motives in my choices, of course: my mission, my masculinity, my actual possibilities, my personal interests among others. It is a complex matrix of reasons. Without going deeper in the possible explanations of this subjectivity, I am listing some characteristics of this subject position: •

•

•

Theoretically I am in a free and calm environment, but practically I have to search for other jobs continuously and sell my labour because of my low salary and mortgage. The latter is related to my middle-class socialisation: the model of owning one’s apartment is a regular and normal way of constructing a middle-class (family) life based on private property. This situation requires an entrepreneurial attitude that is not about creativity and autonomy, but just means the individual is constrained to struggle and find solutions. It makes me, the subject, perceive the difficulties as individually solvable problems. Thus, without this analysis, the subject cannot see the systemic nature of the obstacles and the possible communitarian answers. In the educational and social sectors, the employee’s work is often interpreted as a mission accomplished because of personal enthusiasm. This interpretation is an adaptive (self-)narrative that gives meaning and offers motivation for work despite the lower salaries in these sectors in comparison with other intellectual middle-class people.

This special lower-middle-class position has serious dangers. Because of colleagues’ different possibilities, huge differences may grow between the employees depending on their jobs or entrepreneurial opportunities outside the university. The freer, less regulated environment could facilitate fruitful intellectual work, but in reality it often engenders major inequalities in individual workloads. It is

The Position of Educational Researchers 97 easy to find the most comfortable way of life at the university, but for some people (included me) the need for continuously pursuing other jobs, and the hard and multiple tasks at the university and outside, may lead to burnout, health problems and more. Enthusiasm, too, may have its negative effects. It can cause a workaholic negligence towards one’s own well-being and may situate the subject in a ‘saviourvictim’ or martyr status. It seems a positive position. Subjects’ self-narratives describe them as good people who give their lives to the cause, poor victims of low-paid jobs and saviours of the people in need, arduously working for those people. This narrative is not only unhealthy on a personal level, but also politically very problematic because it may create a halo around the researcher-teacher that maintains the hierarchical differences between the academic and others, reinforcing the privileged position of the middle-class subject. I know I should be vigilant because I experienced similar feelings. In the last instance, the above-mentioned traits of the academic subject show how capitalism inculcates its mode of production into the subjects. This position is enfleshed in my body (McLaren, 1988), forming my reactions, emotions, bodily actions, and even postures. I can experience this day by day when I am envious and destructively angry; when my back hurts after a workday; when I feel stressed and exhausted; and when I am enthusiastic, workaholic, individualistic, or pretentious. It is in capital’s interest to keep me in this position with these bodily conditions that impede my authentic communitarian, critical engagement, and solidarity as an academic worker. Being an academic, and the academic sector itself, is shaped by the processes and relations of the capitalist world order. This is certainly one of the main fundamental generative mechanisms. The separation of the academic sector from other sectors of the society is part of the highly sectorial nature of capitalist production. Intellectual and physical work, academic research, and teaching in schools are separated. However, capitalism engenders two contradictory processes of reification: it divides intellectual and physical activities constituting the separate academic labour and the related subject position, but at the same time, its interest is to proletarise the same intellectual work (Powelson, 2011). Hence, academics are losing their potential to contribute critically to the transformation of society with their research and intellectual activities. This is particularly evident in the actual world order framed by neoliberal policies. In this new era, the university is explicitly viewed in the service of capitalist economic production. This is the commodification of the academy. The capitalist world order forms academic subjectivities and eats the universities. Behind my story of everyday successes and struggling in this paper, there is this fundamental mechanism. It enlightens the micro-happenings of my life, the career in my profession, the development of my body, and the wider processes at my university and in Hungary. The discovery of the mechanisms helps me understand that these systemic factors generate my experience, and thus my original narrative gains another meaning. It is not only a simple story of an individual university teacher with his desires and personal difficulties, or that of

98

György Mészáros

a university exposed to the insensate reforms of a conservative government, but part of a much wider picture of the world system. Nevertheless, this world system is not unitarian. Wallerstein’s theory (1984) about the different geo-political areas is useful in understanding local processes in the dialectic of global and local mechanisms that locate the position and define the construction of the academic subjects. The studies of Bennett’s volume (2014) and its introductions provide a detailed description of academic life in the semiperiphery that fits my experience very well. The main elements of the analysis can serve as generative mechanisms of my professional life: • • • •

•

•

There is a strong connection between a country’s economic situation and its academic status. The semi-periphery constitutes a ‘middle class’ and transition zone between the centre and the periphery. Because of this mediating role, academic production tends to adapt more to the mainstream trends of the centre, and to replicate its models instead of producing new local knowledge. The academic standards and requirements are often less rigorous in semiperipheral academia, hindering its chances in the international race for publications and grants, but on the other hand making it more open and heterogeneous. However, in recent years this latter tendency has rapidly changed as neoliberal policies have been invigorated, and locally significant knowledge production is being replaced more and more by the clear adaptation to the centre’s trends. There may be a huge gap between the official discourse employing the language of the centre on internationalisation, research, and publications and the actual practice characterised by an inability to adapt to the centre to such an extent.

My subject position is tensing between these different dimensions of the centre and semi-periphery relations. I feel the reproduced inequalities and hierarchies among researchers in different regions that make it difficult to build authentic, nondependent connections and collaborations in solidarity. I experience how difficult is to participate in the international academic competition with far fewer possibilities for access and resources, and after years of a different, less competitive, and rigorous socialisation. Nonetheless, I perceive less the dilemma of reinforcing local identity versus adapting to the centre’s discourses, possibly because the critical discourse is not really present in my academic field in Hungary. So I am trying to import international knowledge to introduce a new discourse into the post-socialist local knowledge production. In turn, I have experienced the difficulty of internationally ‘selling’ my knowledge and my subject encapsulated in this context. My narrative integrates the dimensions unfolded above with other elements of the semi-peripheral academy: the academic as a lower-middle-class, low-paid worker, and the importance of the role of EU funds.

The Position of Educational Researchers 99 From my story it is evident that the rise of neoliberalism is detectable and influencing our professional lives as educational researchers. We are often caught between the growing expectations in official discourses and regulations, and the lack of support and possibilities. The same neoliberalism gives the severe norms and at the same time cuts the resources that could help us conform to those norms. In addition, the assimilation of the professional models of the centre may be a question of survival for us. This maybe the specific semi-peripheral operation of the increasing neoliberalism.

Concluding Remarks: Possibilities I started this paper with the pronoun ‘I’ and have finished it with ‘we’. It is important to find this we-subject instead of the lonely I-subject. Despite the ferocious tendencies of global capitalism and its local servants, the mechanisms do not constitute determination. On the contrary, the mechanisms discovered and reflected are conducive to agency. After this analysis, it is clear that I cannot solve the problems on my own, and entrepreneurial subjectivity is not the solution. Resisting the destructive mechanisms, we need to form alliances, collaborations on different levels. Paradoxically, the same mechanisms offer ways to fight them; capitalism produces its own resistance. The worker position of academics subjected to the neoliberal proletarisation favours their fight against capital, together with the working class, by constructing movements, actions of solidarity; by challenging the system by using its structures. This book is an example of this dialectical praxis: with the publications of academics from the centre and periphery fighting together, giving voice to critical and peripheral views, and producing useful material both for activist research and academic career-building. Instead of the destructive feeling of envy, now I have other emotions: rage against capitalism and hope and optimism. So this autoethnographic journey has been able to change my bodily feelings, and to resist the enfleshment of the capitalist production into my subject. In addition, I hope the personal-political experiences of my subject analysed with a critical realist eye, which has outlined the bigger picture and deeper reality of generative mechanisms, may contribute understanding how capitalism works in concreto: locally, bodily, and thus with the possibility of facilitating more common actions.

References Adams, T. E. (2011). Narrating the Closet: An Autoethnography of Same-Sex Attraction. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Anderson, L. (2006). Analytic autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), pp. 373–395. Atkinson, P. (2006). Rescuing autoethnography. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(4), pp. 400–404. Banfield, G. (2004). What’s really wrong with ethnography? International Education Journal, 4(4), pp. 53–63. Bennett, K. (2014). The Semiperiphery of Academic Writing: Discourses, Communities and Practices. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

100

György Mészáros

Bhaskar, R. (2008). A Realist Theory of Science. London: Routledge. Bourdieu, P. (1990). The Logic of Practice. Cambridge: Polity Press. Boylorn, R. M. and Orbe, M. P. (eds.). (2013). Critical Autoethnography: Intersecting Cultural Identities in Everyday Life. Walnut Creek: Left Coast Press. Cole, M. (2011). Social class, Marxism and twenty-first-century socialism. In M. Cole (ed.), Education, Equality and Human Rights: Issues of Gender, “Race”, Sexuality, Disability and Social Class. London: Routledge, pp. 217–238. Donham, D. L. (1999). History, Power, Ideology: Central Issues in Marxism and Anthropology, Kindle ed. London: University of California Press. Ellis, C. (2004). The Ethnographic I: A Methodological Novel About Autoethnography. Oxford: Altamira. Ellis, C., Adams, T. E., and Bochner, A. P. (2011). Autoethnography: An overview. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 12(1), Art. 10. Online at www.qualitative-research.net/ index.php/fqs/article/view/1589/3095. Heartfield, J. (2006). The “Death of the Subject” Explained. Sheffield: BookSurge Publishing. Madison, D. S. (2011). Critical Ethnography: Method, Ethics, and Performance. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications. Marx, K. (1932/2013). Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844. New York: Start Publishing. McLaren, P. (1988). Schooling the postmodern body: critical pedagogy and the politics of enfleshment. Journal of Education, 170(3), pp. 53–83. McLaren, P. (1997). The ethnographer as postmodern flâneur: Critical reflexivity and posthybridity. In P. McLaren (ed.), Revolutionary Multiculturalism: Pedagogies of Dissent for the New Millennium. Oxford: Westview Press, pp. 76–113. Mészáros, G. (2015). The “gay eye” of a researcher and a student in a Hungarian school: Autoethnography as critical interpretation of the subject. In P. Smeyers, D. Bridges, N. C. Burbules, and M. Griffiths (eds.), International Handbook of Interpretation in Educational Research. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 705–726. Olsen, W. (2004). Triangulation in social research: Qualitative and quantitative methods can really be mixed. In M. Holborn and M. Haralambos (eds.), Developments in Sociology, 20. Ormskirk: Causeway Press, pp. 103–118. Powelson, M. W. (2011). The proletarianization of the academy. Workplace: A Journal for Academic Labour, 18. Online at http://ices.library.ubc.ca/index. php/workplace/article/ view/182287 Rikowski, G. (2011). Capitorg: Education and the Constitution of the Human in Contemporary Society. Online at www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Capitorg Wallerstein, I. (1984). The Politics of the World-Economy: The States, the Movements and the Civilizations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Walters, P. B., Lareau, A. and Ranis, S. (eds.). (2009). Education Research on Trial: Policy Reform and the Call for Scientific Rigor. New York: Routledge.

9

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy and the Struggle Against Capital Today Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford

Derek Ford:

Greetings, Peter! Thanks so much for taking the time out of your schedule for this interview with The Hampton Institute. I wonder if we can start the conversation with where you are right now, in China. Can you tell us a bit about what you are doing there, and how and why it is that your activist and academic work has increasingly brought you to the international arena? Peter McLaren: Thanks for starting this conversation, Derek, it’s always a pleasure. To answer your question I’ll have to dig back a bit. For even as a slatternly and relatively untutored youth the question of oppression and exploitation was of grave discernment to me. I trace this concern to the economic fate suffered by my father, who as a working-class wallpaper salesman before he went overseas for 6 years to fight the Nazis during WWII, found himself on the dole after he was fired from a managerial position he landed in an international electronics firm once the war ended. The severe trauma suffered by my family during this period stayed with me from my teenage years into my early twenties, and after my first marriage fell apart due, partly, to financial pressures, I decided that teaching offered me a chance to test my interpersonal skills and creativity, clear some pedagogical space for examining alarming social trends of the day, as well as try to make a positive difference in the lives of young people—and at the same time enjoy some financial security. That was 1974. I had always perceived as banal most of what was meant to provoke my interest and attention in the world of commodity culture and for the most part refused to answer invitations to participate in the suburban dream. So in 1968, I made the decision to hitchhike to San Francisco and Los Angeles in 1968, a year after the storied the “summer of love”, and participate in demonstrations against the Vietnam War, as well as take advantage of the chemical and cultural offerings of the psychedelic age that was in full blossom at the time. That was my first international trip, no pun intended. It gave me the opportunity to

102

Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford

Ford: McLaren:

meet and explore interior space with Timothy Leary, and to have my poetry mentored by Allan Ginsberg. I returned to Canada to finish my university degree in Elizabethan drama, and eventually found myself teaching elementary school in the largest public housing complex in Canada, located in Toronto’s Jane-Finch Corridor. After publishing a book about my teaching experiences in 1980, which rose to number 7th on the better-seller lists in Canada, and finishing my Ph.D. in 1984, I tried out university teaching for a year, but my contract wasn’t renewed the following year, for political reasons that you can likely imagine. Fortunately, Henry Giroux had seen some of my writings and invited me to join him at Miami University of Ohio (Henry had been fired from Boston University in 1983 by reactionary university president, John Silber, in a landmark tenure case) to create the first cultural studies centre in education in the US at the time. So in 1985, I head for the US where I have been based ever since. My first formal invitation to speak internationally came from one of my mentors, the renowned educator, Paulo Freire, who not only gave my work early support but provided opportunities for me to travel outside of the US. Paulo invited me in 1987 to speak in Havana, Cuba, at an international conference, and it was there that I made friends with scholars and activists in Cuba as well as with visitors from Brazil and Mexico. My work eventually caught the eye of some radical educators in northern Mexico and they established Instituto McLaren de Pedagogía Crítica y Educación Popular in 2007. From there I went on to present my work and build connections and networks, in Colombia, Argentina, Brazil and Puerto Rico mostly, and then around the mid-1990s my work began to capture the attention of Marxist educators in the United Kingdom, and later on in Turkey, Greece, Taiwan, Poland, Hungary, Germany, Pakistan, India, Palestine, Croatia, Serbia, and other countries who had constituencies, large and small, interested in critical pedagogy. One of my books, Life in Schools, was translated into Russian as an award for coming in 11th place in an international poll conducted in Moscow regarding the 12 most significant education books written to date. And you have also worked closely with the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela, correct? Yes, eventually, I was invited to help critical pedagogy become more integrated into the Bolivarian revolution in Venezuela. After meeting with Hugo Chávez in Miraflores Palace, I began to realize that no revolution could exist in isolation. That

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy 103

Ford:

McLaren:

Ford: McLaren:

meeting further inspired me to establish as many relationships with radical groups as I could with the idea of turning critical pedagogy into a transnational social movement. Eventually my work drew interest from northeast China, where I was to meet my wife Wang Yan, and I have been invited to serve as honorary director of a centre for the study of critical education, which we hope to get off the ground this fall. I retired from UCLA in order to take up a position in Orange County (yes, behind the Orange Curtain) when a group of Freirean educators at Chapman University invited me to try to make a difference in their doctoral program in this very conservative part of California. As somebody whose life has always been an uphill battle, I relished the opportunity. To be honest, I can’t tell you how that struggle is going yet; it’s much too early. I’ve spent time as faculty and in visiting capacities in various academic institutions for over forty years. I’ve met great scholars and activists from all over the world who I admire greatly who have managed to do good work within the academy. During this time I have also heard plenty of horror stories that were documented in a book I co-edited with Richard Kahn, Steve Best and Tony Nocella called Academic Repression. But I can tell you that being at Chapman has revived my faith that academic life can be more than just swimming with the sharks and being morally suffocated by a group of self-aggrandizing, self-righteous and power-harvesting egos fuelled by a rampant careerism and willing to do anything to enhance their power and prestige, including selling out their colleagues. It seems to me that this process of internationalization has been accompanied by a radicalization of your thinking and activism. Can you speak a bit about that? In particular, I am wondering what the historical, material, and theoretical factors are that have contributed to this radicalization. Of course much of my journey and formation has to do with developing a theoretical framework and political line of march. I will discuss that road shortly. But traveling and meeting activists far more courageous and politically astute than I afforded me moments of clarity and reflection. And meeting individuals—some renowned and some unknown—who had forged their lives in the heat of struggle gave me pause to think about how much you can really learn from books alone. Are there particular moments that you recall? Absolutely: visiting East Germany shortly after the wall came down when the universities were firing Marxist professors and replacing them with West German critical theorists; visiting Russia during its formal transition to capitalism and watching

104

Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford people scavenge through the garbage bins to find food; staying in Cuba with the Soviet boxing team at the old Capri Hotel; visiting the Museum of the Revolution in Old Havana and spending hours talking to Aleida Guevara about her father (with the help of a translator since my Spanish is atrocious); Paulo Freire attending one of my lectures in Brazil and trying to assist a frustrated translator who was struggling with my unorthodox prose; meeting Hugo Chavez in Miraflores Palace and listening to him encourage an office secretary to return to university; speaking to 25,000 protesting teachers in Morelia, Michoacán; meeting Lopez Obrador in Mexico; weeping alongside the sons and daughters of los desaparecidos in Rosario, Argentina, casualties of La Guerra Sucia; being tear-gassed with Dave Hill by Turkish riot troops in Ankara; listening to Ernesto Cardinal call Hugo Chavez a prophet during a live broadcast of Aló Presidente outside of Caracas; flying in a Venezuelan National Guard airplane as part of a tour of support for the revolution and watching the two young pilots, their machine guns on the floor of the cockpit, trying to figure out where the landing strip was located; singing Hasta Siempre Comandante along with factory workers on buses roaring through the Venezuelan countryside in support of La Revolución Bolivariana; meeting Las Madres de la Plaza de Mayo who visited me during a ceremony in Buenos Aires; speaking at a conference in Morelia when La Familia Michoacana attacked the city, setting passenger buses on fire to block the exits out of the city and being saved from danger by a radical taxi driver who was able to get me safely to the airport; suddenly finding myself listed as “the most dangerous professor at UCLA” by a right-wing organization backed with Republican dollars that offered to pay students 100 dollars to secretly audiotape my classes and 50 dollars to provide notes from my lectures (there were 30 professors who were targeted) and finding few official condemnations of this action by North American teacher groups in contrast to vigorous defence of my work by Latin American educational organizations; conversing with the head of a teachers union in Bogota about how former leaders of the union had been assassinated and that he was fully prepared to die in the struggle to help educate the young people of Colombia; being asked to speak at a school outside of Medellin, Colombia, and using a very ultra-leftist discourse in my talk, and then being gently reprimanded that such a militant language could get both students and teachers killed as when the community in which the school was located was attacked several years earlier by helicopter gunships, thousands of troops, followed by a wave of paramilitary assassinations; being humbled by the dedication of activists all around the world who risk life and limb everyday

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy 105

Ford: McLaren:

while I am able to return to the comfort of my job and home back in the United States. Those moments congeal in the memory and become part of the emotional strata of my work. They form their own pathways to the heart and of course are entangled with the theoretical work—in a type of dialectics between the head and heart—that has persuaded me over the years that we are faced with no other choice than a socialist alternative to capitalist value production. However, in citing these examples, I am aware of the danger of falling into an oversimplified and uncritical euphoria often linked to the politics of memory that can override contradictions that I observed in many of these settings. When I was a teenager I was inspired by the works of William Blake, Dylan Thomas, Shakespeare, Milton, Chaucer, the new criticism of Northrop Frye. In the late 1960s and early 1970s I become influenced by the Beat Poets, the Harlem Renaissance and works by James Baldwin and W. E. B. Du Bois. Then of course, there was the Black Power Movement and the works of Angela Davis, Malcolm X, Amiri Baraka (Leroy Jones) and others. The writings of Margaret Randal were certainly an influence. Now, Derek, you need to understand that this shift from classical literature to more radical works was not easy. My parents were very conservative. My dad was in the Royal Canadian Engineers during WWII and was a member of the conservative party in Canada. My uncle, Terry Goddard, was a hero in the British Royal Navy and flew his Fairey Swordfish off the Arc Royal and disabled the German Battleship Bismarck with a torpedo strike. I was disparaged for turning into a hippie, and I was an outcast among my larger family of cousins, uncles and aunts (which isn’t to say that I wasn’t proud of my father’s service in the war, or my uncle’s Distinguished Service Cross pinned on him by King George VI (The King’s Speech)—I was very proud of both of them). My two best friends committed suicide during those years of rebellion, and for the longest time I felt guilty that I had survived the tumultuous 1960s without my closest friends. Yes, the political and the personal. . . . Certainly. There are always personal struggles that shadow shifts in political perspectives. I think it is important to recognize, too, that theory doesn’t just come to you through books alone but through an engagement with the authors, if you are fortunate enough to do so. I was fortunate that in my early formation there were individual scholars who took time out to acknowledge my interest in their work—I was impressed, for instance, that Michel Foucault gave me the time of day during a class of his that I audited while a doctoral student in Toronto; there were

106

Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford others, too, that were courteous and hospitable and patient with my naïve questions: Jean Francois Lyotard, Anthony Wilden, and Ernesto Laclau stand out. That they were willing to engage with me, however briefly, in person, while I was a young scholar certainly influenced my early “critical postmodernism” period from the mid-1980s to early 1990s since I was more inclined to gravitate to their work after having conversations with them. Henry Giroux was another scholar who befriended me early on when I was a doctoral student and later I had the fortunate opportunity to work with Henry for eight very productive years at Miami University of Ohio. Stanley Aronowitz’s mentoring was significant in my early leftist formation. So I owe a great deal of my orientation—both in my postmodern period and in my current Marxist work—to the kindness of individuals who were humble and gracious enough to befriend a relatively unknown scholar from el norte. One of the biggest influences on my work other than Paulo Freire and the life and legacy of Che Guevara has been the formidable Marxist scholar and activist, Peter Hudis. Peter was secretary to Raya Dunayevskaya, who served as the Russian language translator for Leon Trotsky in 1937, returning several years before his assassination in Coyoacán, Mexico in 1940. Raya’s theory of state capitalism had a big impact on my work. So did the writings of Mas’ud Zavarzadeh and Teresa Ebert. I should mention, in passing, one other moment that stands out for me. Three Marxist educators in the UK—Mike Cole, Dave Hill, and Glenn Rikowski—saw potential in my early critical postmodernist work but were also highly critical of it from their own Marxist perspectives. They took time to engage my work personally and eventually we became close comrades. I learned a great deal from them. E. San Juan is another scholar whom I was fortunate enough to meet on a number of occasions and his critique of cultural studies has certainly had a considerable impact on my work. One of the founders of eco-socialism, Joel Kovel, became a mentor, and Cornel West and Noam Chomsky spoke out in my defense during times I was institutionally under siege. While I was in Venezuela, I had the opportunity to spend time with Marta Harnecker and Michael Lebowitz and found much to admire in their work. Instituto McLaren de Pedagogía Crítica has brought both Marta Harnecker and Peter Hudis to address our annual Volver a Marx conference that we hold in different cities throughout Mexico each year, along with scholars such as Atilio Boron and Enrique Dussel. The internet has now made it much easier for scholars and activists to connect with each other in person, but given the volume of queries that I receive each day, I can fully understand how difficult it is to respond personally to every budding young leftist with a bucket full of pressing questions.

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy 107 Ford: McLaren:

Ford:

McLaren:

Ford: McLaren:

Given this political and personal journey, how do you now identify yourself? I describe myself as Marxist humanist and share an affinity with the International Marxist Humanist organization. I also work in the field of liberation theology and more recently this influence has begun to surface in my work. Some have described my work as Christian communism and this is not an inaccurate description. What my work attempts to do is develop a philosophy of praxis, grounded in a Hegelian-Marxist understanding of history and politics. This is the deep undercurrent that drives my revolutionary critical pedagogy, and works very well with a Freirean approach which was very much influenced by Karel Kosik’s dialectics of the concrete. It works well with Marx’s understanding of revolutionary praxis. I would say that your thinking has also radicalised in response to the depoliticisation of foundations of education. One of the battle fronts in your work has been within the field of foundations of education, and one of the main lines of demarcation has been between post-structuralism and Marxism, or historical materialism. This is why scholars like Ebert and Rikowski were so important to your development as a scholar and, as you said, to your break from critical postmodernism. I am wondering what theoretical or political tendencies you see as our main adversaries in foundations of education today? Derek, I prefer the term adversity to adversaries, since I believe the problems in the foundations of education is a condition that can be found not just among the poststructuralists or postmodernists but embedded within the axial question: What social class do the central theorists studied in foundations courses represent? Yes, that phrasing certainly emphasizes more appropriately the structural nature of this manifestation of the class struggle. So, in education there are three fundamental approaches in philosophical reasoning: essentialism, perennialism, and progressivism, and the focus today among the educational left is mainly on progressivism-romantic progressives and pragmatic progressives (to use terms developed by Richard Quantz), and in my observations over the years, Marxism usually comes into the picture during discussions of the various political-economic ideologies within the progressive coalition. It is therefore important for me to address the following question to students of education: To what extent do these progressive thinkers believe their work rises above the reigning class antagonisms of transnational austerity capitalism? Most students likely believe that the theories that they study are relatively free of class determinations, and that should be

108

Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford a signal to us as critical educators, a warning about how and why certain theories have made their way into the official curriculum. For me, the immediate challenge is to locate theoretical and philosophical work politically within a larger vision or project of emancipation. Ideas—which under certain conditions can certainly exert a material force—are always situated in particular settings. These settings are always conditioned by the ideological and political superstructure, the historical conjuncture in which they were produced and in which they are now studied, and the economic and social structure. We need to understand how possibilities unleashed by the theories we study can be transformed into necessities and for that to happen we need to examine our present conjuncture dialectically, because social conditions and ideologies reciprocally inform each other; they are entangled and to a large extent mutually constitutive, and clearly they are never static or eternal. That being the case, we need to ask ourselves: What are the objective possibilities at this certain historical moment for socialism to become a viable possibility? As a socialist educator, that becomes the fundamental question. That means helping our students navigate beyond false dualisms and abstractions, between thought and action, theory and practice and it is here that a Marxist dialectic becomes important, especially the concept of praxis. One of the primary goals could be put thusly: How can we help the working-class become conscious of itself and its universal role in a permanent revolution? The really important consideration here is what standpoint we take when we move from merely interpreting the world to changing it, when we move from the indicative to the imperative. All of this, of course, is fuelled by commitment and commitment relies on being able to assume the standpoint of the oppressed, the subaltern. Do we educate our teachers by discussing authors that place themselves in the class perspectives of the proletariat, the cognitariat, or the precariat? Paulo Freire, Howard Zinn, Frantz Fanon and Che Guevara all do. But does that mean we only read working-class authors or authors sympathetic to the working-class? Of course not. But we need to teach students to consider how an author’s own class positionality influences his or her work. Over time, and during years of deliberation, I came to understand postmodern thought and reformist liberalism embedded in the work of some critical theorists such as Habermas and in the work of John Dewey as insufficient for challenging the behemoth of transnational capitalism. Rousseau’s voluptuous protest was against the vile and iniquitous social institutions dominated by capitalists. He wagered that if the social contradictions stemming from

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy 109 these institutions could be abolished or severely attenuated, then there would be greater possibility for liberty and sovereignty. Yet as Istvan Meszaros pointed out, Rousseau could not abstain from idealizing the very conditions against which he provided alternatives since it was clear that the contradictions that he condemned were integrated within the objective conditions of capitalist society itself. After all, Rousseau considered private property to be one of the ultimate foundations of civilized life. Many well-intentioned theorists idealize the very conditions of alienation and atomization that they rail against, affirming what they originally intended to negate and they do this by employing abstract moral ideals to challenge what are essentially economic systems of exploitation and thus fail to mediate their ideas to the material base of society (i.e. the social relations of production as well as determinate human relations). The only way out of this impasse in which one interest is set up against another in permanent struggle is through a dialectical materialist analysis. We see a similar predicament in the later Marcuse when he became more interested in the development of Hegel’s ontology than his dialectics, which forced him into an aesthetic ontology marked by an antinomial (neo-Kantian) cul-de-sac in which his critique vacillated between poles regarded as independent rather than internally related, preventing Marcuse from forging a path forward to transformation. While Marcuse’s earlier Great Refusal was rooted in the Hegelian notion of negativity where a positive is constituted as the old is being negated, Marcuse tended at times to separate the normative and the descriptive, thus remaining in the thrall of the Kantian ought or an indeterminate rather than a determinate negation, lacking in the final instance the concrete emancipatory universals of Marx. This, of course, relates to Dunayevskaya’s critique of Marcuse, when she accuses Marcuse of viewing Hegel’s Absolute Idea as a closed totality when Dunayevskaya saw it as containing the highest opposition within itself, a dialectic of negativity that served as the lifeblood of transcendence, a place of self-movement where contradictions cannot be adventitiously dismissed or harmlessly reconciled or cancelled. For Dunayevskaya, absolute negativity constituted important new beginnings for revolutionary thought. But this is not to dismiss the important work of Marcuse. As Charles Reitz points out, Marcuse’s work importantly contributed to a philosophy of labour, which recognizes labour’s central and transformative role in human life. The point I am trying to make is that even within the field of critical pedagogy there is a studied reluctance when it comes to confronting the transformation of surplus labour into

110

Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford

Ford: McLaren:

private capital. Again, we come back to my earlier question: What do educational theorists represent by their ideas? This is no small matter at a time when we are witnessing the gargantuan rise of transnational state apparatuses, interlocked networks of nation states and supranational and transnational institutions that fuels the new global ruling class, a class that is intent on superseding national accumulation. Or, as William I. Robinson points out, at a time of capitalist restructuring, reorganization and refurbishing, producing a new transnational class based on deregulation, informalisation, deunionisation and the flexibility of labour, creating vast armies of precariats and new strategies by the transnational elites to contain real and potential rebellion by the immiserated masses. And so it is the two irretrievably connected questions of how we understand and combat this new transnational capitalist class, yes? Right, and right now colleges of education courses that attempt to be radical usually follow through with hefty doses of Foucault, Deleuze, Hardt, Negri and Said. Such foundation courses in schools of education tend to focus on autonomous Marxism, post-colonialism, and the strategic importance of the self-limiting revolution. We should be careful not to take this work as constituting a rejection of Marxism and revolution and the affirmation of a position that supports labour reform but does not advocate overthrowing state power. Here, the utopian horizon of Marxism is often conflated with repression, something that is likely to lead to the gulag. Kevin Anderson and Peter Hudis have written about this and I am in agreement with them. There is a serious problem with Foucault’s rejection of the Marxist conception of false consciousness in favour of a view in which power is productive and enabling rather than repressive; power is something that, according to Foucault, produces alternative realities. Marx’s humanism is held in suspect as Promethean within which a colonial hubris is embedded. With Foucault there exists no main locus of power that must be challenged, and therefore no concept of liberation or emancipation is possible, only the more truncated possibility of challenging power as forms of micro-resistance. Kevin Anderson maintains that a similar position is reflected in Hardt and Negri’s politics of difference where global struggles are viewed as incommensurable to the extent that they can only be challenged in terms of localized bio-power absent of any unified philosophy or organization. Anderson notes that Hart and Negri posit a one-sided alternative by choosing to remain on the plane of immanence or within the given social reality as a point of resistance, preferring to

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy 111

Ford:

McLaren:

take their inspiration from a pre-Hegelian world cut off from the dialectic and thereby sidelining the positive contained within the negative. While I may agree that the working-class is immanent to capital, I also maintain that it can also become a force for transcendence, as the future is always contained in the present. This does not mean that I reduce everything to proletarian class struggle. Marxist humanists vigorously embrace struggles around race, disability, gender and sexuality but they do so within a revolutionary praxis that is capable of overcoming capitalism and building a social universe outside of the value form of labour. I have faith that people can overcome capitalism through their own emancipatory praxis, as people change society and change their own consciousness at the same time. And this brings us to the question of consciousness, which has always been a central concern of critical pedagogy. What is your position here, in regards to the role of consciousness in struggle and as an educational object of transformation? Here, I concur with Che’s stress on the struggle of human consciousness against alienation and believe that this is necessary in order to create a more human, radical and egalitarian world. I am not reluctant to say that the creation of socialism is a heroic act. After all, the capitalist regime is brutal, as social life throughout the US now reflects the imprint of austerity capitalism and the world is being brought to an ecological tipping point as quantitative changes are transforming into qualitative changes. Garry Leech called capitalism a form of genocide—so we are fighting against the triple threat of genocide, ecocide, and epistemicide—the latter referring to the destruction of indigenous communities and their languages and way of life, their cosmovisions, their ecologies of the mind. A friend of mine at Instituto McLaren de Pedagogía Crítica was talking to an indigenous group leader who told him the community has decided not to reproduce new members, they want to become extinct, life is too difficult, to unremittingly devastating for them to keep going. Capitalism has assumed the jeering rictus of the Grim Reaper as we move ineluctably towards a militarized surveillance state and its fatal degeneration into forms of authority that can only be compared to fascism. Peter Joseph warns that, extrapolated for the twentieth century, capitalism’s inequality in less than six years, arguably kills as many people as it has been claimed that communism killed in the entire twentieth century. We must roundly reject the so-called economic laws of a system oriented to growth, where all activity is reduced to profit calculations and all life is quantified and turned to stone. Hence, we choose not replace capitalist market ecology. Our focus is on

112

Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford

Ford:

McLaren:

Ford:

McLaren:

use value, not exchange value. The historical totality is not static, conjunctures change and because history is not independent of human will and action we must resolve at each moment of history to turn the spontaneity of the masses into consciousness, into critical consciousness, taking socialism as an idea-force to create conditions for ecological revolution, for economic equality, for a social universe outside of capital’s value form where we can create a society free from necessity and absent of racism, sexism, patriarchy, white supremacy and militarism. We do this by reaching out to the people, by taking their individual and personal concerns about family life such as health insurance, job security, violence, racism and meaningful coexistence with their neighbours, and connecting their personal struggles to the larger structures of oppression and exploitation in today’s austerity capitalism. Rewinding slightly to your remarks on understanding and combatting the current manifestations of capital, let’s shift now to your recent work. Don’t you have a new book that is about to hit the presses? Yes, I do, it’s titled Pedagogy of Insurrection: From Resurrection to Revolution (2015), and it is central to my ongoing project of developing a transnational pedagogy of revolution. I offer an analysis of the impact of transnational capitalism on education, particularly US education, including the devastating effects of various corporate initiatives to privatize schools. I discuss what I believe to be the most pressing issues and debates in education today, including advances in ecopedagogy, expanding and deepening ideas that I have been developing under the name “revolutionary critical pedagogy”. This term was inspired by the work of Paula Allman. Included is a chapter in which I engage in a spirited critique of new digital technologies. I also discuss historical figures that have been crucified in the US media but who merit a more serious and sympathetic consideration for their contributions to the liberation and emancipation of humanity— Paulo Freire, Che Guevara, Fidel Castro, and Hugo Chavez. But the centrepiece of the book is a chapter called Comrade Jesus, which concludes with a discussion of violence. Interesting. I am sure that some people might at first blush be a bit surprised to see you speaking about Jesus. Can you talk more about your interest there and the theoretical and practical work that it does? Absolutely. My basic premise, and it is certainly not an original one but one that is consistently abominated by the corporate media—is that there has been an egregious betrayal of doctrine in much Christian teaching, a profound transgiversation when it comes to the most authentic logia of Jesus, that of teaching communism. There have been some exceptions to this betrayal—for

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy 113 instance, liberation theology and critical spirituality. But to me it is clear from reading the bible that communism is identified with being a Christian. Jesus, in fact, taught communism to the first Christians. In fact, the renunciation of property is a primary condition for entering the kingdom of God. I draw on numerous sources of biblical exegesis but rely a great deal on the work of Jose Porfirio Miranda. The kingdom of God is not an otherworldly place that exists in some supernatural realm but rather founded by Jesus here on earth, where it is unequivocally impossible for the rich to enter the kingdom. Mark (10: 21) tells us, “Go sell everything you have and give it to the poor” and that “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God” (Mark 10: 25). According to Miranda, Jesus is not against wealth in the absolute sense, but in the relative sense, in the way that such wealth contrasts with the poor, the destitute, the immiserated so that we can safely say that Jesus was against differentiated wealth, against inequality. Money made through profit is considered to be iniquitous. The rich have already received their comfort and are refused entry into the kingdom of God, something that is made clear in Luke 6: 24. The fact that some are rich and others are poor is indefensible, according to Jesus. The moral reprobation of Jesus with respect to the rich is undeniable. In fact, Jesus’s condemnation of relative wealth is consistent with the teaching of the Old Testament, with Moses and the prophets. It is undeniably the case that the rich deserve to be punished for remaining rich in the face of the poverty, as Psalm 34: 11 makes clear. It is impossible to accept one’s self-enrichment at the expense of the exploitation of others. The price of labour in the capitalist marketplace is imposed on the labourer—the differentiating social position of the rich is predicated on the unfreedom of the poor, whose only alternative to exploitation by the rich is unemployment, hunger and destitution. Differentiating wealth is the fruit of injustice. Chapter 24 of Job explains how the poor suffer at the hands of the rich, as this really is the problem of evil. Evil is a social condition. It is incorrect to interpret Jesus as saying that the poor will always be with us, and that we are never going to change the world and rid it of poverty. I discuss this translation problem in my book. Jesus was saying that the poor are with us continuously—not forever, not always. The prosperity evangelical Christians will likely curse me as they exit their tents and put their serpents back in their baskets, but I believe that what I have to say is backed by careful scriptural exegesis. Since the election of Pope Francis, there have appeared in the mainstream media some interesting articles about a revival of liberation theology, or the social gospel of

114

Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford

Ford:

McLaren:

Jesus Christ, and I found it interesting that Raoul Castro recently said he may return to the Catholic church as a result of conversations he has had with Pope Francis. I think this is a very good time for the book to become available to teachers, educators and theologians. The conditions for such a debate are ripening. It’s time that people of faith who do freedom-work in the interest of social justice make their voices heard. Peter, I know that you are spread quite thin right now, and so I don’t want to keep you too much longer. But, as we are Marxists, we have to end with a note on the future. In your opinion, what work is there to do for critical pedagogues to contribute most effectively toward the intensification of resistance to capitalism? What theorists and movements should we be investigating and engaging? Well, Derek, honestly the first thing that comes to mind is your book with Curry Malott (2015), Marx, Capital and Education: Towards a Critical Pedagogy of Becoming, which is a glowing testament to generation of scholars who have discovered Marx and are using his work in politically innovative ways, opening up new options for living and labouring freely and creatively. The difficulty I think is that the organization, the culture, and the climate of universities today, with their emphasis on harvesting corporate grants, and focusing on instrumental and technocratic skills to prepare students for positions within the capitalist marketplace, is less hospitable to leftists whose research, teaching, or personal activism is driven by a socialist agenda. You can be centre-left and survive but it is much more difficult if you are on the revolutionary left. Some leftists I know who populate the universities remain very cautious in the classrooms and relegate their political work to their free time outside of the campus. It’s a kind of self-monitoring, self-censorship. In the years to come, what spaces will be available for Marxist scholarship and a Marxist politics, especially in very conservative places such as colleges of education? There will always be spaces for identity politics, but fewer spaces for what Angela Davis calls identity in politics. As long as educators rewrite economic problems as moral problems or cultural issues and see class as simply just one other “ism” along with racism, sexism, speciesism or ableism, then the crisis of capitalism will not be regarded as a strategic priority. And I think that deserves to be seen as such. Don’t misunderstand me, Derek, I believe identity politics is very important, questions of inclusion are important, questions about making our curricula culturally responsive and appropriate are important, and examining culture as a site of contestation is also extremely important. I’ve written books about the importance of interculturality and have created many

Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy 115 anti-racist and anti-sexist and anti-homophobic initiatives through my work. And I think that you and Curry address the relationship between race and class quite productively in your chapter on the Ferguson rebellion, which if I recall correctly was actually first published on The Hampton Institute. I believe we should struggle for cognitive justice, and that we should be engaging in decolonizing pedagogies, and learning from epistemologies that have been developed over the centuries by indigenous groups, including those from America Latina. I am a big proponent of the concepts of “buen vivir” and “communalidad” (you can find these terms written into the constitutions of Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador) and recently spent time in Chiapas in communities supporting the Zapatistas. There is much to be learned from these autonomous communities. But our struggles against racism, for example, can also be deepened by seeing the role that capitalism plays and has played since the cotton industry of the early Virginia plantations. I sometimes wonder in my less optimistic moments if the few Marxists, anarchists and revolutionary socialists that currently fleck the landscape of teacher education will be replaced in the years to come mostly by part-time contingent labour, functionaries who will only be able to survive on their grit and food stamps. But what I am seeing now is a resurgence of interest in Marx, at least among the youth, and they need to demand more critical scholarship in the universities. Otherwise they will be contributing to a longer and more resilient school-to-prison pipeline, to more integration of universities into the military industrial complex and to more control over education by corporate investors. The young people need to start a new political party with a clear cut socialist agenda, a party that can make transnational alliances with left parties in Latin America and elsewhere, and chart out a new global future for humanity. The difficulty is that there are very few outlets for critically literate media to challenge the lies, deceptions and the common-sense ignorance of the corporate media. We need to win the war of position, which means, of course, that the left needs to create a viable alternative to austerity capitalism—a socialist alternative—that the majority of people can invest in both rationally and emotionally, something that can build and reinforce their protagonistic agency and will for change. In Venezuela, the state media outlets were overwhelmingly owned and controlled by the rich and favoured the ideas of the ruling class, and still do. And still, the people prevailed and elected Hugo Chavez and his successor, Nicolas Maduro to power. In most countries the rich celebrate and the poor protest while in Venezuela the poor celebrate and

116

Peter McLaren and Derek R. Ford

Ford: McLaren: Ford:

McLaren:

the rich protest. Perhaps something like this can happen here. Let’s hope the situation here does not have to get as desperate as it did in Venezuela, in order for that to happen. I think that we are both in a sort of grounded agreement in respect to the revolutionary potential that is bubbling over across the US. Indeed, and this comes from our activism no doubt. Peter, I promise that I will let you go now. I know that you are anxious to start writing your keynote speech for this year’s International Conference on Critical Education in Poland for next week. And I also don’t want to keep you from reading and responding to the first draft of my dissertation! But I do want to thank you again. Your willingness to collaborate and your readiness to engage in dialogue are really inspiring to young scholars and activists like me. I am looking forward to digging into your new book when it’s out later this summer, and I am sure we will be seeing each other soon. We definitely will be. It’s great to contribute to The Hampton Institute, so thanks for that opportunity. Solidarity!

References Malott, C. and Ford, D. (2015). Marx, Capital, and Education: Towards a Critical Pedagogy of Becoming. New York: Peter Lang. McLaren, P. (2015). Pedagogy of Insurrection: From Resurrection to Revolution. New York: Peter Lang.

10 Considerations on a Marxist Pedagogy of Science Kostas Skordoulis

Introduction: History of Science and Science Studies In this section I review the controversial relation between Marxist History of Science and Science Studies. Science Studies is already an established field of scholarship. However, a certain tension still exists between ‘traditional’ Historians of Science and Science Studies scholars. In a recent debate with Loraine Daston (2009), Peter Dear and Sheila Jasanoff (2010) argue that the evolution of the two fields has been characterised by lively interchange and boundary crossing, with leading scholars functioning easily on both sides of the historical and current divide and they stress the commonalities of the two fields and the potential for valuable synergy. The author of this paper comes from the Marxist History of Science tradition. As a Marxist, I have found myself in a rather peculiar position. The methodology of Marxism in History of Science is considered passé and rather outdated. This is very well manifested in the number of papers published in the field using the Marxist methodology not to mention research on Marxism itself.1 The scene in Science Studies (or Science, Technology Studies—STS) is different. The contribution of Marxism in the field is not disputed and research is to a large extent based on Marxist methodology. Introductory textbooks such as those of David J. Hess (1997) and J. Ziman (1984) make lengthy rather favourable references to Marxism especially on the seminal Hessen’s paper and to lesser extent on Bukharin’s paper presented in the 2nd International Conference on the History of Science, London 1931. A few years ago, a paper was published by Dorn (2000) reviewing the status of Marxist research in the History of Science. He claimed that three fundamental principles retain unexplored possibilities for staking out research frontiers in the history of science: “Being determines consciousness,” the basic principle of the materialist interpretation of history, Marx’s schema of the “Asiatic Mode of Production” as a distinct stage in the historical development of the various modes of production, and Marx’s generalisation in the German Ideology that “the ruling ideas of each age have ever been the ideas of its ruling class” which resonates with some of the formulations of present-day scholars of science studies. Despite Dorn’s suggestions, research in the last decade has been mainly focused

118

Kostas Skordoulis

on studying the contributions of the generations of Marxist scientists and/or historians of science of the past (Werskey, 2007; Enebakk, 2009) and not in promoting novel ways of addressing the key-issues at stake which remain unresolved. In a recent paper (Skordoulis, 2012), in an attempt to revive Marxist scholarship in the History of Science, I gave a Marxist account of the condition of scientific research in the era of the Weimar Republic which gave birth to the theory of Quantum Mechanics, distinct from the cultural approach of the Forman thesis. My goal was to employ the ‘Being determines consciousness’ approach, drawing not only on the influence of the ideological context but most importantly on the material conditions that facilitated the appearance of postclassical physics theories. In 2007, Helena Sheehan (2007) published an inspiring paper on Marxism and Science Studies. Sheehan, herself being a world-renowned Marxist scholar,2,3 through more or less a personal account of events outlined the contribution of Marxism to Science Studies. She traces the trajectory of Marxist ideas through the decades from the origins of Marxism to the present conjuncture. She looks at certain key episodes, such as the arrival of a Soviet delegation at the International History of Science Congress in London in 1931, as well as subsequent interactions between Marxists and exponents of other positions at later international congresses. She focuses on the impact of several generations of Marxists who have engaged with science in diverse ways. She examines the influence of Marxism on contemporary trends in science studies. She concludes that Marxism survives in circuitous and complex ways, arguing not only for a positive interpretation of its contribution in the past but for its explanatory and ethical power in the present and future. I share Prof Sheehan’s optimism to a great extent, adding that whether Marxism will continue to function as a source for academic achievement will be decided not only on the level of the battle of ideas but also will depend on the outcome of social conflicts outside the academia. The reference point for the presence of Marxism in both History of Science and Science Studies is the appearance of the Soviet delegation headed by Nikholai Bukharin in the 2nd International History of Science Congress in London in 19314 and especially the paper given by Boris Hessen ‘The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia’. Hessen’s paper provides a detailed analysis of the way in which classical physics was rooted in the economic and technological developments of the seventeenth century, decisively refuting the ‘individual genius’ view of the history of science. The opening speech of the Soviet Delegation was given by N. Bukharin titled: “Theory and Practice from the Standpoint of Dialectical Materialism”. Although Hessen’s paper has been the subject of study until recently (Freudenthal and Mclaughlin, 2009) and has been referenced numerous times, especially in the Science Studies literature, Bukharin’s paper has not received the attention it deserves despite the fact that it provides the theoretical framework for Hessen’s paper.

A Marxist Pedagogy of Science 119 The main reason is that Bukharin has been falsely associated with a positivistic or mechanistic interpretation of Marxism due to the ideas expressed in his early work Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology written in 1921. Bukharin’s Historical Materialism has been the target of critique not only by nonMarxists but also by prominent Marxist thinkers such as Antonio Gramsci (1971) and Georg Lukacs (1923), the forerunners of the version of Marxism known as ‘Western Marxism’ which developed as a critique of soviet Marxism and among whom Bukharin is considered to be one of the central figures. Among the references to Bukharin’s paper is R. Young. In his “Marxism and the History of Science” he states: Bukharin’s essay seems to me the most interesting. In discussing ‘Theory and Practice from the Standpoint of Dialectical Materialism’, he puts forward a theory of science which roots it in ‘practice’. Indeed, a theory of science based on the concept of practice is the most important theoretical innovation and an original theoretical contribution to Marxism. (Young 1990, p. 82) Helena Sheehan in her “Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History” (1985) writes on Bukharin’s paper which concentrated on showing how philosophy was transformed within a socialist society. The new culture, the new science, the whole new style of life formed a new conjuncture between theory and practice. Bukharin used the term ‘theoretical practice’, explaining that theory was accumulated and condensed practice and that practice was itself theoretical. Nearly all modern schools of philosophy, other than Marxism, failed to realise this and began from individualist, anti-historical presuppositions, making ‘epistemological Robinson Crusoe’s the starting point for their philosophies. He put forward dialectical materialism, not only as rejecting all species of idealism and agnosticism, but also as overcoming the narrowness of mechanistic materialism, that is, overcoming its ahistoricism, its antidialectical character, its failure to understand problems of quality, its contemplative objectivism. This obviously represented a significant evolution from Bukharin’s earlier philosophical thinking. I have recently published a detailed analysis of this outstanding paper of N. Bukharin (Skordoulis, 2015) in a special volume investigating the relation between Marxism and Science Studies. The primary task of this paper was to analyse and examine Bukharin’s paper and to show how the ideas developed therein have influenced the Social History of Science in particular and Science Studies in general and highlight Marxism’s role as a bridge between scholarship in the History of Science and Science Studies. The paper is structured as follows: in the first section, I review the connection between history of science and science studies and highlight the role of Marxism as a connecting ring between the two fields. In the second section, I examine the relation between Marxism and science taking in account the diversified theoretical landscape of Marxism. In the third section, I study the contribution of J. D. Bernal to science education emphasising his classical Marxist perspective. In the

120

Kostas Skordoulis

fourth section, I present a rather neglected Marxist figure in the history of science, Edgar Zilsel, and I review his work in the context of the educational reforms in the period of Red Vienna (1919–34) where he was an active teacher. In the final chapter, I discuss the potential contribution of the classical Marxist approach to a new pedagogy of science that can influence society and its practices.

Science Within the Topography of Marxism The relationship between Marxism and Science is considered to be highly controversial and a vast literature exists on the subject reflecting debates that emerged in the earliest days of Marxism. From the existing literature it is worth mentioning David-Hillel Ruben’s Marxism and Materialism and Patrick Murray’s Marx’s Theory of Scientific Knowledge (1988). Ruben discusses how Marx’s views about knowledge and reality emerged from problems left by his philosophical predecessors and he attempts to articulate a Marxist theory of knowledge. Ruben is also the co-editor with John Mepham (Ruben and Mepham, 1979) of the four-volume series “Issues in Marxist Philosophy” which contains a number of very important essays on dialectics, materialism, and science. Murray (1988) shows how Marx’s own scientific method emerged from an internal critique of Hegel, and examines Marx’s critique of political economy in the light of this. Science and Marxism are both terms that have been understood in various ways over the course of the last 100 years. Marx himself did not write a systematic treatise on science, but throughout his writings there are numerous passages in which he comments on the nature of science and on general questions of scientific methodology. Most of Marx’s comments on methodology and science are scattered in such works as The Holy Family, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, the Theses on Feuerbach, The German Ideology, the Grundrisse, Capital, and in his Correspondence. There are also several places in which Marx compares his own historical, economic, and political studies with the research carried out by natural scientists. From Marx’s direct remarks, a relatively systematic account of science emerges. Marx emphasises that science can only be fully understood in its broader social context. In The German Ideology he asks: “Where would natural science be without industry and commerce? Even this ‘pure’ natural science is provided with an aim, as with its material, only through trade and industry”.5 Or as he puts it in Capital: “modern industry . . . makes science a productive force distinct from labour and presses it into the service of capital”.6 Thus, the Scientific Revolution and the rise of modern physics in the seventeenth century can be properly understood in the context of the development of capitalism. It does not follow from this, however, that science is subordinate to bourgeois ideology. This reasoning is developed by supporters of the doctrine of a ‘proletarian science’ as opposed to ‘bourgeois science’.

A Marxist Pedagogy of Science 121 It is true that the unprecedented phenomenon of the ideologisation of the natural sciences appeared in the USSR under Stalin. The idea that the existing natural sciences are bourgeois is quite alien to classic Marxist thought. It is a Stalinist theoretical innovation that might be described as an inverted positivism. Whereas positivism wanted to ‘naturalise’ the human and social sciences, Stalinism attempted to ‘politicise’ the natural sciences. Both fail to recognise the specificity of the human sciences and the methodological differences between them and the natural sciences. The term ‘Marxism’ generally signifies a body of theory that is based on Marx’s writings. But ‘Marxism’ as a term does not name a unitary body of theory. W. Suchting (1984) in the foreword of his “Marx and Philosophy” states that Marxism is like an inhabited countryside which when seen from a great altitude seems homogeneous enough but when surveyed from closer up presents a rather different picture . . . you may see different towns . . . linked by roads some of which have not been used for a long time. (p. xv) I can say very briefly that one can distinguish at least two main currents within Marxism: classical ‘scientific’ Marxism and humanist critical Marxism initiated by G. Lukacs and the Frankfurt School in the 1920s. Marxist scholars have been divided into roughly two tendencies: one conceiving Marxism as ‘critique’ and the other conceiving it to be a ‘social science’. Marxism has been divided between Critical Marxism and Scientific Marxism. While ‘classical’ Marxism stresses the scientific character of Marxism, ‘critical’ Marxism is highly critical of science and its practice. The two currents of Marxism differ to the degree that they consider important the Hegelian influence on Marx. A general inclination of criticising science has been a characteristic feature of Hegelian perspectives within Marxism (Anderson, 1976). Alternatively, Marxists who embrace science have a tendency to minimise Hegel’s influence on the development of Marx’s thought. ‘Scientific’ Marxists argue that Marx was both a materialist and a scientific realist recognising the ontological objectivity of nature. Marx employed a materialist conception of nature, which was not at all foreign to the major revolutions in the science of his time and which he combined with a dialectic of emergence and contingency. This sort of argumentation has been employed in the past decades under different circumstances. It has recently acquired renewed interest due to the ongoing debate between Marxists and environmentalists. Different, elaborated versions of Marxism, Critical and Scientific Marxism emerge under different socio-historical conditions and in differentiated social networks and groups. Critical Marxism includes Georg Lukacs, Karl Korsch, Antonio Gramsci, J-P. Sartre, Lucien Goldmann and members, or onetime members, of the ‘Frankfurt School’ such as Max Horkheimer, T. W. Adorno, Leo Lowenthal,

122

Kostas Skordoulis

Erich Fromm, Walter Benjamin, Herbert Marcuse, or its second generation, such as Jürgen Habermas. Critical Marxists conceive of Marxism as critique rather than science; they stress the continuity of Marx with Hegel, the importance of the young Marx, the ongoing significance of the young Marx’s emphasis on ‘alienation’ and are more historicist. Opposed to this group, are Marxists who turn their back on Critical Theory as mere ideology and conceive Marxism as science. They include Galvano Della Volpe, Louis Althusser and those influenced by him. The difference between Critical and Scientific Marxism reflects a conflict between those viewing Marx as the culmination of German idealism and those emphasising Marx’s superiority to that tradition. It is, therefore, also a difference between those accepting the young (and consequently more Hegelian) Marx as authentically Marxist and others who regard the young Marx as still mired in ideology (‘false consciousness’). The Scientific Marxists have stressed that Marx made an epistemological rupture with Hegel after 1845. Marxism for them is science, not critique, entailing a methodology whose paradigm is the mature political economy of Capital rather than the ‘ideologised’ anthropology of the 1844 manuscripts (Skordoulis, 2008). In one sense, the controversy about the young versus the old Marx is a metaphor for the more analytic distinction between Critical and Scientific Marxism. Critical Marxists, therefore, commonly stress the continuity between the young and old Marx because the young Marx was patently a Hegelian; they wish to establish Marxism’s enduring link with the larger tradition of German philosophy of which Hegel was the culmination. Correspondingly, Scientific Marxists may stress the quantum leap that the maturing Marx presumably made from ideology to science, as well as ascribing sharp differences between ideology and science in general. Scientific Marxists are emphasising that science is a progressive force unless distorted by capitalism. Science should serve as the model for social and economic planning. This perspective was firstly highlighted in the appearance of the Soviet delegation at the Second International Congress of the History of Science and Technology in London in 1931 as has been mentioned in a previous note.

Bernal’s Legacy The starting point is the appearance of the Soviet delegation at the Second International Congress of the History of Science and Technology in London in 1931, and whose papers have been collected in Science at the Crossroads (Werskey, 1971). The most famous of the contributions to Science at the Crossroads is Boris Hessen’s paper ‘The Social and Economic Roots of Newton’s Principia’, which provides a detailed analysis of the way in which the development of Classical Physics was influenced by the economic and technological developments of the seventeenth century. Hessen focuses on the period of the English Revolution of

A Marxist Pedagogy of Science 123 the 1640s, and examines the impact on the development of physics of economic and technological factors. But Hessen did not present a vulgar reductionist view. While economic and technological factors play a crucial role in shaping the development of science, Hessen also discusses the influence of philosophical and political ideas, arguing that it is necessary to “analyse more fully Newton’s epoch, the class struggles during the English Revolution, and the political, philosophic and religious theories . . . reflected in the minds of the contemporaries of these struggles” (Werskey, 1971, p. 177). Hessen’s essay initiated a new field of study that has been subsequently called ‘social history of science’. Hessen’s paper was instrumental in establishing the ‘externalist’ methodological approach. Without endorsing the extremes of Hessen’s externalism, Western historians applied the same logic to explain the origins of his views. When unveiling the ‘sociopolitical roots of Boris Hessen’, Loren Graham (1985) characterised Hessen’s paper as primarily a response to the contemporary situation in the USSR, and in particular to the hostility of Soviet Marxists to Einstein’s relativity theory. Hessen, a physicist himself, tried to defend Einstein’s theory. Graham maintained, Hessen wished to differentiate between the social origins of science and its cognitive value. . . . He knew that he would have an easier time convincing militant Soviet Marxists that Newtonian physics had enduring value despite its bourgeois social origins than he would demonstrating that the still little understood relativity theory also must be valued despite its social origins in capitalistic central Europe. (Graham, 1985, p. 718) Two years later, Bukharin edited an important collection titled Marxism and Modern Thought (Bukharin, 1935) which contains important discussions of “Marxism and Natural Science” (Y. M. Uranovsky),”The Old and the New Physics” (S. I. Vavilov) and “Marx and Engels on Biology” (V. L. Komarov). Unfortunately this period of Soviet intellectual vitality was about to be extinguished: within a few years many of the contributors to the two volumes, including Bukharin and Hessen, became victims of Stalin’s purges (Gasper, 1998). Although extinguished in the Soviet Union, the work of Bukharin, Hessen, and others influenced a generation of radical scientists in Britain who turned to Marxism and became brilliant popularisers of science and energetic promoters of science education. G. Werskey has written a collective biography of five of these famous British Marxist scientists. His Visible College includes Hyman Levy, J. B. S. Haldane, Lancelot Hogben, J. D. Bernal and Joseph Needham (Werskey, 1978).7 P. M. S. Blackett, who became President of the Royal Society and a Nobel Laureate, was another scientist and leftist influenced by the papers of the Soviet delegation in the 1931 Congress. These scientists founded a tradition that produced a number of influential popular and scholarly works. They were also very active as lecturers and also science popularisers and in the periodical press. J. G. Crowther is considered to be the first science journalist, and was science editor of Oxford University Press. J. B. S.

124

Kostas Skordoulis

Haldane wrote a regular column in the Daily Worker which was later compiled by the biologist John Maynard Smith. But the most influential single work in this tradition was J. D. Bernal’s The Social Function of Science (1939). This publication was followed by a number of books, the most relevant of which are The Freedom of Necessity (1949) and the four-volume Science in History (1954). Bernal’s influence was celebrated in The Science of Science (1964) and Needham’s in Changing Perspectives in the History of Science (1973). Bernal worked tirelessly for the cause of socially responsible science. He felt that the progress of science was sufficient to alleviate the many problems that confront humankind. He believed that science should concern itself in a planned way to improving the lot of humankind (Ravetz, 1971, p. 312). He was hampered by being linked with the planned science of the USSR while Russia was suffering the worst of Stalin’s excesses. He did irreparable harm to his cause by the constancy of this support for the Soviet methods of controlling scientific investigations. Certainly the Lysenko affair (Rose and Rose, 1972) was an Achilles heel; even as late as 1946 he was reviewing Lysenko’s work in a favourable light (Bernal, 1946b). With the flux of time his grand design, which seemed so radical in the 1930s and 1940s, now appears to be an essential part of the writings and conference papers which abound on the subject of Science, Technology and Society (STS). Bernal’s view of science is best represented by the following passage from his work: Already we have in the practice of science the prototype for all human common action. The task which the scientists have undertaken—the understanding and control of nature and of man himself—is merely the conscious expression of the task of human society. The methods by which this task is attempted, however imperfectly they are realized, are the methods by which humanity is most likely to secure its own future. In its endeavour, science is communism. (Bernal, 1939, p. 414) Bernal was deeply concerned with the state of science education (Bernal, 1946a). His criticisms have been echoed down the decades by others but his suggestions are still relevant. In The Social Function of Science he wrote that the chief benefit of science education is that it teaches a child about the actual universe in which he is living, and how to think logically by studying the method of science. He insists that the way in which educated people respond to pseudo-science such as spiritualism or astrology, not to say more dangerous ones such as racial theories, shows that previous years of education in the method of science in Britain or Germany have produced no visible effect whatsoever (Bernal, 1939, p. 72). Bernal devoted 15pages of The Social Function to ‘Changing the Teaching of Science’. He advocated introducing an element of discovery into science teaching, thus predating the discovery-learning movement. He has also argued for the

A Marxist Pedagogy of Science 125 inclusion of questions of social responsibility in the teaching of science—another contemporary theme. Also of contemporary significance is his call for teaching Science for All which would empower citizens through developing their abilities to see that everyone not only has a general picture of the world in terms of modern knowledge, but also appreciates and can use the type of argument on which that knowledge is based, to be able to safeguard themselves from “anti-rational tendencies which are otherwise at the command of all reactionary forces” (Bernal, 1939, p. 248) and to provide an understanding of the place of science in society to enable the citizen appreciate the role of science on society. In making these suggestions Bernal was asking for radical changes in the science teaching of his day. Bernal emphasised the important role of science teachers. For Bernal science teachers, with their special knowledge, represented one of society’s great resources, and it was important that this resource should be used for the benefit of society. At the same time in addressing practical and controversial social problems and in giving leadership to their students, they would need to be thoughtful, aware that “anti-scientific and anti-social forces are powerfully entrenched in the school system” (Bernal, 1949, p. 143). He believed that if school teachers knew their job they would be able to convince the society that a rational approach to social problems is not politics but plain common sense (Cross and Price, 1988). Bernal’s general attitude on science teaching is given epigrammatically: “Science and education are powerful weapons for the defence of democracy, and for making possible the extension and development of democracy in the direction of an ordered, yet free, co-operative community” (Bernal, 1949, p. 158).

Zilsel’s Legacy The Austrian Marxist Edgar Zilsel (1891–1944) examines the role of the tool makers, technicians, and artisans in the birth of modern science in the period preceding the Scientific Revolution of the seventeenth century. Edgar Zilsel was a mathematician, physicist, and philosopher, and one of the most interesting Marxist intellectuals of the Vienna Circle. He had a very good knowledge of what was called ‘traditional philosophy’. Even in the 1920s and 1930s, when Marx’s theory of society and history, and Logical Empiricism had decisively reshaped the theoretical framework of his writings, he still stuck to this type of philosophical questioning. Zilsel intervened in the central debates of the Vienna Circle. Against Neurath, Carnap, and even Schlick, he held that there are legitimate, genuinely philosophical problems that can neither be transformed into logical or empirical questions nor be conceived as only problems of language. From the early 1920s, he became absorbed in the investigation of the conditions under which ideas, theories, and knowledge arise. Although many features of the Vienna Circle’s philosophy have been rediscovered and re-appreciated during the last quarter of the last century, Zilsel has remained relatively unknown among philosophers until recently, when a collection of his works was published (Zilsel, 2000).

126

Kostas Skordoulis

Recent scholarship (Uebel, 2005) presents a revised view of the history and philosophy of a ‘left wing’ in the Vienna Circle, offering a counterhistory, challenging the conventional representation of Logical Empiricism as politically conformist. Uebel’s work is a representative exposition of the Left Vienna Circle (LVC) thesis. Uebel argues that a group within the Vienna Circle, comprised of Otto Neurath, Rudolf Carnap, Hans Hahn, and Phillip Frank, developed a critical and politically engaged early political philosophy of science. According to Uebel (2005), LVC logical empiricism differed from the neutralist logical empiricism later popularised in North America. LVC members believed that by providing conceptual tools to facilitate the progress of science, philosophy may participate in the advancement of emancipatory politics. Describing LVC logical empiricism as ‘critical and politically engaged’, Uebel implies that Carnap, Neurath, and others share common theoretical interests, tools, and questions of present-day social epistemologists, feminist philosophers of science, and others, interested in the possibilities of a political or politically engaged philosophy of science. Uebel focuses primarily on the conviction of some members of the Vienna Circle that philosophy of science has political implications and is part of a larger progressive project. Zilsel joined the Social Democratic Workers Party (SDAP) in 1918 and became active in the Workers Education Movement. He did not obtain an academic post and became one of the most active teachers at the Adult Education Centres(Wiener Volkshochschulen) and the Pedagogical Institute of Vienna that played a crucial part in ‘Red Vienna’s’ education programme. The Vienna Pedagogical Institute was the central teachers’ training college in Red Vienna and therefore the institutional centre of the Social Democratic educational reforms. As well as teaching at secondary school, Zilsel also taught at the Vienna institutes of adult higher education. From the academic year 1922/23onwards the school authorities granted him leave of absence so that he could take up a ‘teaching assignment for philosophy and physics’ at the Volksheim (people’s institute). Thereafter he worked uninterruptedly in popular education in the city until he was dismissed by the Austro-Fascist regime in 1934. ‘Red Vienna’, a term describing the city during its political control by the Social Democratic Workers Party (SDAP) in the 1920s, forms the immediate political context of the Vienna Circle. Led by Otto Bauer, Max Adler, Friedrich Adler, Karl Renner and Rudolf Hilferdig, the SDAP embraced an approach to Marxism that came to be known as Austromarxism, drawing heavily on Marxist, Machian, and neo-Kantian ideas. During the 1920s, the SDAP carried out municipal reforms to aid the new urban industrial working class, instituting libraries, schools, and parks, lecture series, vast housing complexes, sports leagues, and free medical care. The SDAP also established programmes encouraging ‘cultural change’ among the working class, with the aim of ‘turning them into conscious and self-confident actors’ (Richardson, 2009). Zilsel taught a wide range of topics including lectures on Heidegger, Jaspers, Spinoza, as well as ‘Space and Time in Philosophy and Physics’. Following

A Marxist Pedagogy of Science 127 Austria’s Anschluss in 1938, Zilsel left Vienna for London. In April 1939, he immigrated to the US. Within a very short time after his arrival in New York, Zilsel was able to establish contact with Max Horkheimer, the director of the International Institute of Social Research (IISR)—the emigrated Frankfurt School. Although the Institute did not have the necessary means to support Zilsel, they did actively assist his efforts to find such. In 1942, Zilsel published his monumental paper “The Sociological Roots of Science” (Zilsel, 1942). The project of explaining the emergence of modern science was presented for the first time at the 5th International Congress for the Unity of Science at Harvard University in September 1939, five months after Zilsel’s arrival in New York. What is known today as the ‘Zilsel thesis’ was one of his most fruitful hypotheses: the assumption that superior artisans and other practitioners had been operative in developing the epistemic principles of causal explanation and methodical experimentation. In order to study the emergence of modern science as a social process, Zilsel suggested distinguishing three strata of intellectual activity in the period from 1300 to 1600: university scholars who focused on rational distinctions and classification; ‘the fathers of Humanism’ who were interested in accumulation of classical knowledge and mastery of speech and writing; and groups of craftsmen who developed empirical observation, experimentation, and research into causes. Among these, the ‘artist-engineers’ were the most important: they were the immediate predecessors of modern scientists. To understand the different types of rationality that emerged from these strata of intellectual activity, Zilsel not only showed how they were related to the social and professional conditions under which they were produced, he also drew attention to the intellectual and rhetorical struggles that those social groups were involved in. Moreover, he analysed the deep impact that symbolic struggles had on social change. For Zilsel, the rise of the methods of the manual labourers to the ranks of academically trained scholars at the end of the sixteenth century is the decisive event in the genesis of science. Based on the above account for the genesis of modern science, it is obvious that for the LVC science did not imply a purely theoretical activity, a ‘pure’ cognition of the world; their experimental/empirical verification of hypotheses essentially meant work, human labour. In their conception education did not represent a passive reception of scientific knowledge but meant active participation in the construction of knowledge. Since science involves human labour, then there is a material affinity between scientists and the working classes. The division between manual labour and intellectual labour, characteristic of the capitalist mode of production and so popular among the bourgeoisie, is alien to the conceptions of the LVC. The popular education movement linked with the LVC was related to the experiences, knowledge, and skills of factory workers. This meant that workers did not have to adopt alien ‘bourgeois’ cultural traditions and attitudes, but were on the contrary strengthened in their own social identity (Gruber, 1991). The LVC consistently promoted, on the basis of scientific insights, the development of proletarian

128

Kostas Skordoulis

self-awareness which must logically lead to the improvement of social conditions for the working classes. This also meant the promotion of anti-authoritarian and radical democratic efforts and the democratic control of the processes of production and distribution, hence a genuine victory over capitalism. The members of the LVC concerned themselves with the non-capitalist socialisation of science. And this, they believed, would succeed to the extent that the scientific conception of the world came to pervade the forms of public and private life and help shape economic and social life according to rational principles. Accordingly, scientific knowledge could not remain the privilege of a few, but would have to be made accessible as widely as possible. From this necessarily followed the close connection between scientific activity and work in education. The radical aspect of the Vienna Circle’s scientific conception of the world lay in its redefinition of the social position and tasks of science, in its subversive attempt to democratise science, and in its systematic linkage of science, education, and everyday life. These efforts were aimed at familiarizing the public at large with the scientific conception of the world by means of lectures and publications. (Gruber, 1991, pp. 73–80, 83–87). These ideas were pursued in institutes of adult education because established professors used their position to prevent radical scholars from making a university career. In the Viennese institutes of adult higher education, progressive results of science which were controversial and banned in bourgeois academia (e.g. the theory of relativity and psychoanalysis) found a refuge, as did new models of scientific activity in education. There is a close structural connection between scientific activity and rationalist approaches to education: especially when education is understood as the process of establishing the connection between scientific knowledge and individual and collective perspectives on life. The popular education movement in Red Vienna seems to have been remarkably successful in communicating scientific knowledge and linking it to the outlook and personal development of the participants, particularly at the Volksheim. At that period adult higher education reached into all strata of society; in some years it was even the case that blue-collar workers and office employees were considerably over-represented in proportion to their numbers in the population at large (Gruber, 1991). The Viennese movement, neutral in principle, was by no means neutral or unpolitical in effect. It seems to have conveyed knowledge and accomplishments that enabled the participants to develop their thoughts independently and, in conjunction with others, better to understand and shape social conditions. In this respect the popular education movement in Vienna made a significant contribution towards the education of the working classes.

A Discussion on Perspectives The purpose of this paper is to establish a framework of science education inspired by Marxist history of science as has developed through the enrichment with science studies.

A Marxist Pedagogy of Science 129 Recent literature on the so-called progressive science education is solely based on a constructivist version of Critical theory or on a constructivist version of Marxism. Marxism, and Vygotsky could not escape this trend, has been portrayed as a social constructivist theory. I have recently argued against an epistemology that presents Marxism as a constructivist theory and tried to lay the foundations for a redefinition of knowledge and science as social practice based on what is called classical scientific Marxism which is not anymore so fashionable in academia, even among Marxist scholars (Skordoulis, 2016 in Special Issue of “Knowledge Cultures”). In this paper, I am trying to re-establish a link between the need for a new approach to science education in the service of the toiling masses of this world and a Marxist tradition that for many is considered outdated. I believe there have been two peaks in the advancement of Marxist theory. One was the interwar period which ended with the rise of fascism and the eruption of the World War II and the other was the 1960s and 1970s when the new social movements entered in the political scene through a series of rebellions in the heart of the postwar European capitalism. The achievements of this second peak and the appearance of the ‘New Left’, with the new conception of subjectivities and the production of new analytical tools to investigate the secondary contradictions of Late Capitalism (gender, race, ethnicity, religion) conquered the intellectual scene and made the so-called scientific Marxism look totally outdated and old fashioned. In the terminology that I use in this and other papers, it was the complete victory of critical Marxism over scientific Marxism, as represented by the establishment of the intellectual hegemony of the Frankfurt School. And then the collapse of the Soviet bloc came. The collapse of the authoritarian regimes of Eastern Europe signified in the minds of many the once and for all bankruptcy of classical Marxism. Classical Marxism was termed positivistic or Stalinist. But then came the arrogance of the victor. The new disciplines (although they themselves deny this determination) of Postmodernism and Cultural Studies took Critical Theory to its extremes. None felt obliged to talk about materialism and the material conditions anymore. Dialectics governed and questions of ontology were considered passé. Identity reigned over class. It was only a handful of Marxists worldwide that resisted the hurricane of postmodernism and identity politics. And still the theoretical landscape is not clear. Critical Pedagogy and Critical Education followed the stream. It is not accidental that there are only very few papers within the field of Critical Pedagogy that take up issues of Science Pedagogy. But tackling questions of Science is not an easy task. Joe Kincheloe (2008) in his attempt to infuse criticality in Science and Science Education felt it important, very wisely as I see it, to tackle the issue of knowledge first. Being incapable of refuting classical epistemology, he proceeded in establishing his own largely constructivist epistemological system.

130

Kostas Skordoulis

Of course, any new knowledge system constructed can produce or imply a new (another) at least descriptive definition for science and consequently for science education. Instead of falling into logical inconsistencies, logical fallacies or in the best case into self-referenced argumentation, I propose a re-examination and reinvestigation of the classical tradition in the light of the new theoretical achievements of Marxism. Without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, whether this baby is classical or critical Marxism, we have to proceed into a new synthesis of the two (at least two!) main theoretical currents within Marxism. So, the main question arising is: can classical Marxism still deliver? And the answer coming out of this paper is ‘yes’. My investigation of two of the main traditions of classical scientific Marxism brought to the surface ideas and notions that can be potentially entangled with the modern Marxist problematic re-considering the concepts of practice and activity (Skordoulis, 2015, 2016) forming a solid basis for a new Marxist pedagogy of science.

Notes 1 It is very indicative that in the International Conference on the History of Science, Technology and Medicine in Manchester July 2013, organised by the BSHS under the auspices of the Division of History of Science and Technology of the International Union of History and Philosophy of Science among 130 workshops, there was only one workshop organised with a direct reference to Marxism. Workshop 31: “The contribution of Engels to the History of Science and Technology”, organised by Kostas Skordoulis and Robert Halleux. 2 Her book “Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History”, is considered by many to be a landmark for Marxist literature in the history and philosophy of Science. 3 I had the opportunity to meet Prof Sheehan on several occasions during her visits to Greece and discuss among others the future of Marxist scholarship in the field of Science Studies. 4 The congress, which was organised by the International Academy of the History of History of Science founded in 1928, was held in London from June 29 to July 3, 1931. A special Saturday session was added to accommodate the papers of the Soviet delegation. The first congress had been held in Paris in 1929. The papers of the Soviet delegation were published in a collection “Science at the Crossroads” with multiple editions since then. Accounts of the congress include Joseph Needham’s Foreword to the 1971 edition of “Science at the Crossroads”. This edition also contains a well-researched introduction “On the Reception of Science at the Crossroads in England” by Gary Werskey. Werskey also gives an account of the congress in his book “The Visible College” (London, 1978), pp. 138–149 as does Neal Wood in “Communism and British Intellectuals” (London, 1959), pp. 123–125. 5 D. McLellan (ed.), op. cit., p. 175. 6 Vol. 1, Ch. XIV, section 5, p. 361. 7 Werskey’s work refers exclusively to Britain. Well-known Marxists scientists in the Anglo-Saxon world are also Benjamin Farrington and Dirk Struik. Generations of Marxists scientists and educators appeared and flourished nearly everywhere in the Western world with the most celebrated declaration being Albert Einstein’s “Why I am a socialist” (Monthly Review, Vol. 1, No. 1).

A Marxist Pedagogy of Science 131

References Anderson, P. (1976). Considerations on Western Marxism. London: Verso. Bernal, J. D. (1939). The Social Function of Science. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul (2nd ed. M. I. T. Press, 1967). Bernal, J. D. (1946a). Teaching in general education. School Science Review, 27(102), pp. 150–158. Bernal, J. D. (1946b). The situation in biological science in 1949. The Modern Quarterly, 4, pp. 203–217. Bernal, J. D. (1949). The Freedom of Necessity. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Bernal, J. D. (1954). Science in History. London: Watts and Co. (2nd ed., 1957; 3rd ed., 1965; also Penguin, 4 Vols. 1969). Bernal, J. D. (1964). After twenty-five years. In M. Goldsmith and A. Mackay (eds.), The Science of Science. Harmondsworth: Penguin, pp. 285–309. Bukharin, N. (1921/1969). Historical Materialism: A System of Sociology. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Bukharin, N. (1935). Marxism and Modern Thought. London: Routledge. Cross, R. T. and Price, R. F. (1988). J. D. Bernal and science education. Research in Science Education, 18, pp. 152–159. Daston, L. (2009). Science studies and the history of science. Critical Inquiry, 35, pp. 798–813. Dear, P. and Jasanoff, S. (2010). Dismantling boundaries in science and technology studies. ISIS, 101(4), pp. 759–774. Dorn, H. (2000). Science, Marx, and history: Are there still research frontiers? Perspectives on Science, 8(3), pp. 223–254. Enebakk, V. (2009). Lilley revisited: Or science and society in the twentieth century. British Journal for the History of Science, 42(4), pp. 563–593. Freudenthal, G. and Mclaughlin, P. (eds.). (2009). The Social and Economic Roots of the Scientific Revolution: Texts By Boris Hessen and Henryk Grossmann. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 278. Dordrecht: Springer. Gasper, P. (July 1998). Marxism and science. International Socialism Journal, 79, pp. 137–171. Graham, L. R. (1985). The socio-political roots of Boris Hessen: Soviet Marxism and the history of science. Social Studies of Science, 15(4), pp. 705–722. Gramsci, A. (1971). Critical notes on an attempt at popular sociology. In Q. Hoare and G. N. Smith (eds. and trans.), Selections From the Prison Notebooks of Antonio Gramsci. New York: International Publishers. Gruber, H. (1991). Red Vienna: Experiment in Working Class Culture 1919–1934. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hess, D. J. (1997). Science Studies: An Advanced Introduction. New York: New York University Press. Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy. Dordrecht: Springer. Lukacs, G. (1923/1971). History and Class Consciousness(trans. by R. Livingstone). London: Merlin Press. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1845/1970). The German Ideology in: Arthur CJ (ed.) Marx & Engels: The German Ideology. London: Lawrence & Wishart, p. 63 Marx, K. (1859/1967). Capital, 1–3 vols. New York: International Publishers. Murray, P. (1988). Marx’s Theory of Scientific Knowledge. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Ravetz, J. R. (1971). Scientific Knowledge and Its Social Problems. New York: Oxford University Press. Richardson, S. (2009). The left Vienna circle, Part 1. Carnap, Neurath, and the left Vienna circle thesis. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 40, pp. 14–24.

132

Kostas Skordoulis

Rose, H. and Rose, S. (1972). The radicalization of science. Socialist Register, 9, pp. 105–132. Ruben, D. -H. (1979). Marxism and Materialism, 2nd ed. Brighton: Harvester Press. Ruben, D. -H. and Mepham, J. (1979). Issues in Marxist Philosophy, 4 vols. Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press. Sheehan, H. (1985). Marxism and the Philosophy of Science: A Critical History. New Jersey: Humanities Press International Inc. (2nd paperback ed. 1993). Sheehan, H. (July 2007). Marxism and science studies: A sweep through the decades. International Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 21(2), pp. 197–210. Skordoulis, C. (2008). Science and worldviews in the Marxist tradition, Science & Education, 17, pp. 559–571. Skordoulis, C. (2012). Marxism, history of science and the emergence of postclassical physics theories. In V. Jullien, E. Nicolaidis, and M. Blay (eds.), Europe et Sciences Modernes. Peter Lang. Skordoulis, C. D. (2015). Bukharinand the social study of science. Studies in East European Thought, 67(1–2), pp. 75–89. Skordoulis, K. (2016). Science, knowledge production and social practice. Knowledge Cultures 14(6), pp. 291–307. Suchting, W. (1984). Marx and Philosophy. London: McMillan. Uebel, T. E. (2005). Political philosophy of science in logical empiricism: The left Vienna circle. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 36, pp. 754–773. Werskey, G. (1971). Science at the crossroads. In Papers presented to the International Congress of the History of Science and Technology Held in London From June 29th to July 3rd, 1931, By the Delegates of the USSR. London: Frank Cass. Werskey, G. (1978). The Visible College. London: Penguin Books. Werskey, G. (2007). The Marxist critique of capitalist science: A history in three movements? Science as Culture, 16(4), pp. 397–461. Wood, N. (1959). Communism and British Intellectuals. London: Victor Gollancz. Young, R. (1990). Marxism and the history of science. In R. C. Olby, G. N. Cantor, J. R. R. Christie, and M. J. S. Hodge (eds.), Companion to the History of Modern Science. London and New York: Routledge, pp. 77–86. Zilsel, E. (1942). The sociological roots of science. The American Journal of Sociology, 47, pp. 544–562. Zilsel, E. (2000). The Social Origins of Modern Science. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science, 200 (ed. by D. Raven and W. Krohn). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Ziman, J. (1984). An Introduction to Science Studies: The Philosophical and Social Aspects of Science and Technology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

11 “A Picture Held Us Captive. . . .” Marx, Wittgenstein and the “Paradox of Ideology” Lotar Rasiński

Introduction The aim of this paper is to outline some possibilities of reflection on social criticism alternative to the currently dominant model of critical theory, which, in my opinion, expresses the liberal or neoliberal agenda. I use Marx’s concept of ideology as a point of departure for thinking about criticism in emancipatory terms, and as an example of how we could possibly reformulate our thinking about criticism. I want to make clear, however, that classical Marx’s concept of ideology requires a serious criticism itself to make it applicable today. In my work, I focus on what I call the paradox of ideology in Marx and turn to Wittgenstein and his critique of language in my efforts to free Marx’s concept of ideology from dogmatic and reductionist content. In the process, I hope to demonstrate the critical political capacities of Wittgenstein’s philosophy and its applicability to understanding ideology. My considerations are situated in two contemporary discussions, concerning the crisis of the intellectual’s role and the crisis of democratic participation. By the crisis of the intellectual’s role, I mean specifically the disappearance of the universal intellectual (Foucault, 1980, pp. 125–133), whom Foucault defines as the “master of truth and justice” (Foucault, 1980, p. 126), somebody who speaks on behalf of the people, of the masses, expressing universal truths and pointing out the directions of humanity’s development. As an example of such a universal intellectual, Foucault refers to Emile Zola. But if we look for an example in Central Europe, we could probably name Vaclav Havel, the famous Czechoslovak playwright and dissident, and later the President of Czechoslovakia and the Czech Republic (Matynia, 2014). Havel could be seen as one of the last “universal intellectuals” who spoke on behalf of millions of Central Europeans who felt oppressed under the Communist regimes (Havel, 1991). I argue that after the collapse of the Soviet bloc, such conceptualisation of the intellectual’s role is impossible. In the situation whereby a majority of people obediently follow the rules of capitalist and neoliberal agenda, our thinking about the intellectual’s role requires reconsideration. In speaking about the crisis of democratic participation, I draw on Pierre Rosanvallon’s Counter-democracy (2008), in which he speaks of the “erosion

134

Lotar Rasiński

of trust” (p. 9), which expresses itself through the discrepancy between the will of the people and the political decision-making process. I consider this discrepancy, which results in scepticism about politics, to be one of the most profound and urgent risks to democratic politics today. This dangerous gap is also visible in the discrepancy between social and political theory and political practice in everyday life. In my work, I argue that in the current crisis of democratic politics, an important role is played by the dominance of a liberal and neoliberal political ideology that presumes that democratic politics is conditioned by rational agreement among free and autonomous individuals. The elitism of this ideology is manifested in the famous Habermasian trope of “the ideal speech situation” (Habermas, 2001, pp. 97–98) or Rawls’ “veil of ignorance” (Rawls, 1999, p. 118). Its disregard for a whole range of political voices drawing on emotions, disappointment, and fear makes it a dangerously inadequate concept for democratic politics (see Mouffe, 2000).

Why Marx and Wittgenstein? Before I move on to the problem of ideology, let me briefly explain the peculiar connection between Marx and Wittgenstein I am making here to show that the relationship between these two philosophers is much deeper than it may appear at first. Of the many possible connections between these two philosophers, let me mention just two. The first is biographical. Wittgenstein is famous for not paying tribute to contemporary or past thinkers. One of the very few exceptions was Piero Sraffa, a Marxist economist, close friend of Antonio Gramsci and co-editor of L’Ordine Nuovo, one of the leading critical, anti-fascist newspapers in prewar Italy. According to many accounts (Monk, 1991, pp. 260–261; von Wright, 2001, pp. 14–15; Malcolm, 2001, pp. 57–58), the discussions with Sraffa were one of the main reasons Wittgenstein rejected his earlier position in the Tractatus and adopted a more ‘anthropological’ stance, resulting in the concepts of ‘language games’ and ‘forms of life’. Both of these concepts were based on Sraffa’s idea of value in economy (Rossi-Landi, 1983, p. 22). Wittgenstein’s fascination with revolutionary Russia is also well known. He visited Moscow and Leningrad shortly before World War II (Monk, 1991, p. 351). The second connection is theoretical. There is already much literature noting the different points of analogies between Marx and Wittgenstein (Read, 2002; Sen, 2003; Rossi-Landi, 1983, 1992; Kitching and Pleasants, 2002). I would like to stress the deep philosophical analogies between them concerning their understanding of philosophy and its role. I argue that both Marx and Wittgenstein are engaged in a specific, practice-oriented kind of critical philosophy. Marx’s critical thinking, which he understood as a ‘reform of consciousness’, consists of revealing the illusion of the capitalist labour relations. Wittgenstein’s critical thinking is understood as a therapy, which consists of systematic exposure of philosophical illusions bound up with metaphysical use of language. They both agree that practice determines the shape of our thought, and that the main

A Picture Held Us Captive 135 goal of philosophical enterprise is to criticise all manifestations of metaphysical thinking in philosophy. I would like to demonstrate how Wittgenstein’s philosophical project could be understood as a unique Marxian critique, which copes with man’s alienation, although this critique takes place at the level of language. And the other way around, one could say that Marx’s project could be understood as a unique Wittgensteinian therapy targeting consciousness. In this sense Wittgenstein’s philosophy is a logical consequence of Marxian critique of consciousness, a step forward that Wittgenstein makes, proceeding from the critique of consciousness to the critique of thought and language. To be more precise, Wittgenstein does not criticise language as such; his critique concerns, first of all, a specific kind of language that could be called a “parasitic language,” to use Rupert Read’s coinage (2002, p. 260). We deal with such language when a human being using language cannot achieve what he or she would like to achieve. If language becomes alien to us, we cannot express with it what we would like to express and, what is important, we are not able to express ourselves. In this sense Wittgenstein’s therapy aims at some kind of liberation, which would be liberation from the linguistic constraints related to the use of language disconnected from everyday practice.

The Paradox Key to my argument is what I refer to as the paradox of ideology, which can be found in Marx’s classical treatment of the subject in German Ideology (Marx and Engels, 1972). Here I am not interested in reconstructing detailed discussions on the ‘real meaning’ of ideology in Marx’s thought to which many books and articles have been dedicated (e.g. Eagleton, 1991; Barrett, 1991; Žižek, 1994). Rather, I am interested in reconstructing something I would call the logical structure of the argument on ideology, which I see manifested in many wellknown interpretations of Marx’s ideology, such as those of Lenin, Lukács, and Althusser. The most famous definition of ideology we find in German Ideology is based on an analogy between ideology and camera obscura: Men are the producers of their conceptions, ideas, and more—real, active men, as they are conditioned by a definite development of their productive forces and of the intercourse corresponding to these, up to its furthest forms. Consciousness can never be anything else than conscious existence, and the existence of men is their actual life-process. If in all ideology men and their circumstances appear upside-down as in a camera obscura, this phenomenon arises just as much from their historical life-process as the inversion of objects on the retina does from their physical life-process. (Marx and Engels, 1972, p. 154) We can illustrate this situation with a classic picture presenting the functioning of camera obscura.

136

Lotar Rasiński

Picture 11.1

Candle A on the picture represents a real object, and candle B is its reversed reflection (a picture). Of course, the problem here is that both candles in Picture 11.1 are pictures, even though A represents a real object and B represents its reflection. But in Marx’s view, if we are in the grasp of ideology, we cannot see A; we can see only B. Marx stresses three points, which in a way refer to the classical (Aristotelian/ Aquinasian) concept of truth: first, that ideas in our mind are not independent; they represent the ‘real life processes’ (classical relation between the object and the representation). Second, that the picture seen through ideology is reversed, violating the classical relation of correspondence. Third, that the violation is not just a mistake in perception; it is a conscious distortion, a manipulation that serves the interests of the ruling class. So, according to Marx, his critique of ideology as “reform of consciousness” that consists in “explaining to the world its own acts” (Marx, 1997, p. 214) could let us see Candle A as an undistorted picture. If the ideology is a “reversal of the picture of the real object,” we must assume that there is a “true (not reversed) picture” of the real object seen directly, without ideological distortion and manipulation. It is obvious that Marx postulates it because the very idea of the “reversal” contains a “core of truth,” something that is being reversed in the process of manipulation. This “core of truth” is at the very centre of the ideology argument in Marx. This “true picture” can be seen only from a particular position or perspective: that of the proletariat. The most important question that must be raised at this point is this: is the proletariat seeing a picture of the real social relations, or the social relations themselves (in unmediated way)? I am stressing this distinction because it is crucial to the understanding of Wittgenstein’s contribution to the discussion of ideology. In Hegelian interpretations of ideology in Marx, looking from the position of the proletariat allows us to see not a picture of the real object, but the object itself. To understand this view, we must, of course, accept the Hegelian dialectic. Ability to see the true reality is reduced to the particular segment of society: the working class. But at the same time Marx convinces us that the proletariat’s gaze is objective and scientific, revealing the real state of affairs (domination and exploitation, to be specific). In German Ideology Marx and Engels state: “Where speculation ends—in real life—there real, positive science begins” (Marx and Engels, 1972,

A Picture Held Us Captive 137 p. 154). Now, how is it possible that this particular gaze becomes a scientific and objective gaze, deprived of particular class interest (changing the relations of production) and motivated only by cognitive interest? The answer is simple: according to Marx, emancipation of the proletariat means emancipation of humanity as a whole because the oppression of the proletariat is the oppression of all humanity. Therefore, science produced from this position must be objective and universal. And the working class must be something both particular and universal at the same time. We address a couple of problems here, of a philosophical as well as a practical nature. I am not going to discuss here the philosophical criticism of the Hegelian concept of the subject, such as that of Seyla Benhabib (1984, p. 285). Her argument is obvious: the problem of this idea of the subject lies in asserting a uniform and monological model of human action, which can be labelled as ‘production’, and in recognising the historical process as a result of the single subject’s— humanity’s—action. I am going to focus on just a simple logic of the ideology argument, which I see as paradoxical. Marx makes two contradictory statements that exclude each other but are, at the same time, necessary to his argument: (1) All ideas in society are the manifestations of dominating material relationships; to put it simply, all ideas are ideological. “The ruling ideas” of every epoch are “nothing more than the ideal expression of the dominant material relationships.” (Marx and Engels, 1972, p. 171) (2) Marx’s theory of ideology is scientific and objective; that is, it is not the manifestation of dominating material relationships, which means it is not ideological. (Marx and Engels, 1972, p. 154) This paradox has been broadly recognised and resolved in many ways in Marxist theory. For Lukács (1971) there was no paradox at all: ideology is just ‘class consciousness’, and there is no reason to criticise any ideology. Of course, the working-class ideology is the ‘true one’, but it was dictated by class interest in the same way as bourgeois ideology was. Similarly for Gramsci, ideology was an effect of hegemonic struggle, though it could lose its class character, becoming a broad alliance against an oppressive system (1992). Both interpretations clearly deprive Marx’s ideology argument of its critical character. The critical line of ideology argument was continued by Althusser (1994), who insisted on a more radical distinction between science and ideology and, at the same time, the inevitability of ideology. This interpretation, however, was deepening Marx’s paradox further, even though Althusser’s concept of ‘ideological apparatuses’ was important in insisting on material foundations of ideology. The most recent poststructuralist criticisms of Marx’s concept of ideology deny the very idea of representation and blur the distinction between discursive

138

Lotar Rasiński

and non-discursive practices, rendering the concept of ideology and the critique of ideology practically useless in the all-encompassing field of discourse (e.g. Eagleton, 1991, p. 8).

How Can Wittgenstein Be Helpful? Now comes the question: how can Wittgenstein be helpful in reviving Marx’s concept of ideology and making it relevant today? To put it most briefly, Wittgenstein’s critique of language allows us to abandon Marx’s ontological perspective and introduce an epistemological one. What does this mean? Instead of asking about the status of the subject and object of ideology, we should ask about our way of seeing the object of ideology, no matter what the status of this object of ideology. Wittgenstein tells us that perceiving is always connected to the arrangement of what we are seeing (Hutto, 2007). I want to argue that, in this way, Wittgenstein’s thought allows us to avoid the problem of truth-reference in Marx’s concept of ideology while saving its critical potential. In the last part of this chapter I will explain what I mean by this. One of the main objectives of Wittgenstein’s late philosophy was to free us from the ‘captivity’ of a particular picture of language we could describe as Augustinean or Tractarian. That picture was based on the idea that language and physical objects have a common logical structure, and that an internal connection exists between the name and the object. Instead, Wittgenstein proposed a picture of language closely connected to the community, whose grammar is changeable and that is subjected to the plurality of rules produced by human everyday activity. Clearly, Wittgenstein’s aim was to liberate us from an ideological illusion that dominated our minds, one he referred to as the “bewitchment of our intelligence by means of language” (Wittgenstein, 1997, § 109). He insisted that we could not propose any theory of language while being inside language; any theory of language was, according to him, a metaphysical illusion. But his most important lesson was contained in the statement that we may not advance any kind of theory. There must not be anything hypothetical in our considerations. All explanation must disappear, and description alone must take its place” (Wittgenstein, 1997, § 109). Wittgenstein based his critique of the metaphysical view of language not on a new true theory of language, but on the pure description and observations of how language functions in practice. His idea of the language game is not a new theory but a description, just an example of human communication. In this way, Wittgenstein engaged in a critical-philosophical practice similar to Marx’s; like Marx, who tried to expose the illusions of Hegelian metaphysics and capitalist economy, Wittgenstein revealed the illusions of the metaphysical view of language. Analogically, we could think about ideology in Wittgenstein’s terms. He sometimes uses the term “perspicuous representation” to describe his philosophical method. Perspicuous representation means “assembling reminders for a particular purpose,” (Wittgenstein, 1997, § 127) or “seeing connections” (§ 122) and “finding and inventing intermediate cases” (§ 122). As Gordon Baker states, “the

A Picture Held Us Captive 139 search of perspicuity is a leitmotif of his [Wittgenstein’s—L. R.] later philosophy” (Baker, 1991, p. 68). Hutto (2007, p. 301) uses an example of London tube map designed by Harry Beck to illustrate this idea. The maps are designed to expose certain important features of particular domain for the purpose of navigating it successfully. Good maps do not represent all features of their target terrain, describing it completely in every respect, but they rather highlight illuminating features as an aid to getting to grips with a particular domain. In the case of London map, it “displays the certain features of the underground network in a revealing way—just the ones relevant to serve the needs of its daily users” (p. 301). For example, it neither shows the distances between stations accurately nor is a complete and accurate representation of all aspects of the network. But instead it shows something which is important from the perspective of somebody travelling through London by tube—“all the relevant connections”, in a clear and comprehensible way. This means that Wittgenstein’s goal is not to enforce a new vision of language to replace the one that captivates our minds. Instead, he allows us to recognise other possibilities for making sense of one’s own situation. What he offers is the rearrangement of elements that are already in the picture, which simultaneously allows us to see something in a different light, in a new, clear and comprehensive way. We can use the example of another Wittgenstein’s term—“aspect change”—to explain the usefulness of perspicuous representation. Consider Jastrow’s picture of a duck-rabbit:

Picture 11.2

Picture 11.2 presents different applications of Wittgenstein’s concepts: “aspect change” (Wittgenstein, 1997, pp. 195–196, 204, 207–208), “aspect dawning” (Wittgenstein, 1997, pp. 194, 206, 210), “continuous seeing of an aspect” (Wittgenstein, 1997, p. 194), “aspect blindness” (Wittgenstein, 1997, pp. 213–214). Picture 11.2 can be seen as a rabbit’s head or as a duck’s. The “natural” (“at first sight”) perceiving of the picture as, let us say, a rabbit’s head Wittgenstein would call a “continuous seeing of an aspect.” Simply speaking, when we look at the picture we see a rabbit’s head, without any doubts. But if somebody shows us a different arrangement of connections between the elements of the picture—e.g. expose the long horizontal lines as a beak—we might see the duck. Wittgenstein calls this moment an “aspect dawning”: suddenly we can see something else in the same picture. But—despite the attempts demonstrating to us the different aspects

140

Lotar Rasiński

of the picture, if we cannot see any difference in the picture (a duck’s head), Wittgenstein would call this situation “aspect blindness.” Wittgenstein’s analysis of aspect change can help us understand the paradox of ideology. What I want to propose is that one of the key and most intolerable features of ideology is that it always presents itself as the only possible and inevitable understanding of the reality. To give an example of this feature of ideology, I will ask a simple question: can we imagine today a world without capitalist relations of production? North Korea, maybe? For those of us from Central Europe, this brings back mostly unwelcome memories of real socialism that we experienced. But beyond that, and for most people in the world, it is probably easier to imagine a global ecological catastrophe caused by human activity than the end of the capitalist system, testifying to the prevalence and strength of neoliberal ideology today. I want to suggest here that change of aspect, aspect dawning and perspicuous representation are possible means of defending ourselves against ideology, of which the most dangerous manifestation is aspect blindness. They help us see pictures as pictures (Norval, 2007, p. 126)—that is, understand that what we perceive is never the real object or pure fact, but always a picture, and moreover that what we see as the picture depends on the way we arrange its elements. Furthermore, to experience the change of aspect is to be aware of the diversity of social and political reality, a diversity of understanding of our own situation. The experience of “aspect dawning” is irreversible; after such an experience, it is impossible to perceive the world as having only one aspect. We could refer to such experience as an emancipatory one: it helps us understand that the situation of domination we find ourselves in is not an ultimately fixed one, but rather, a confluence of historical and contingent processes whose constraints we experience. It means it is possible to do a kind of ‘mapping work’, which will allow us to ‘find our way’ in a particular situation that ideology presents to us as inevitable. Such maps have a capacity to liberate us from pictures that ‘hold us captive’ by opening up a space of freedom—that is, by pointing at possibilities for thinking, acting, or being governed otherwise. It means it is possible to think otherwise, to ‘work’ on oneself and thereby to make oneself to a degree ‘free’. I would like to conclude by briefly commenting on education in the context of ideology. I understand education as critical practice per se, something we could call, using Marx’s expression from one of his letters to Ruge, a “reform of consciousness” (Marx, 1997, p. 214). Moreover, education in my understanding is the only possible revolution today, a “peaceful revolution”—a form of revolution Marx mentions in his interview to the New York World magazine. This form of revolution could be called a “broader” one, as opposite to the “narrower”, which is related to the “violent change” (Schaff, 1973, p. 264). The “broader” or “social revolution” means a “qualitative change in the social formation” (p. 264) regardless of the form in which such a change takes place. Marx saw a possibility of peaceful revolution in the United States, England, and the Netherlands. As he stated in the interview: “an uprising would be a stupidity in a country where the goal can be reached more quickly and surely through peaceful means” (Marx, 1871). In this sense I consider education as means of qualitative change in the social formation,

A Picture Held Us Captive 141 which would consist in the practice of exposing traces of ideology in our thinking, a practice of revealing all domination and subjugation in society. My view is close to Martha Nussbaum’s idea of Socratic self-criticism (Nussbaum, 1998) and also Foucault’s idea of “practical critique” (Foucault, 1984, p. 45). Nussbaum (1998) demonstrates how Socratic reflection supports human autonomy and agency through questioning what presents itself as obvious and necessary. This model of critique, as she observes, consists in awaking self-reflection in people: “education progresses not through indoctrination from the teacher, but through a critical scrutiny of the pupil’s own beliefs” (1998, pp. 21–22). The core of Socrates’s critical practice was pushing the Athenians out of the everyday routine which made them thoughtless and ‘sluggish’. Socrates used to call himself a ‘gadfly’ and his ‘sting’ was intended to make them think and realise other possibilities and ways of acting, encouraging a conscious choice. Similarly we can think about Foucault’s idea of critique. Critical reflection, which Foucault proposes to call “a practical critique” (Foucault, 1984, p. 45), consists in investigating “in what is given to us as universal, necessary, obligatory, what place is occupied by whatever is singular, contingent, and the product of arbitrary constraints?” (p. 45). In this way Foucault assumes that as there is no escaping historicity, all critique is by necessity limited to concrete historical situation and largely contingent, which means that it cannot be universal. This, however, allows us to become aware that the constraints imposed on us, the situations in which we find ourselves, are, likewise, coincidental rather than ultimate or universal. As a result, “practical critique” involves understanding that thinking differently is possible, that by performing certain work on ourselves we are able to achieve a degree of freedom. As such, Foucault’s practical critique could be understood as an experimental attitude (ethos) towards our own limitations. This moment of becoming aware of one’s own situatedness and conditioning is in a way “opening up the space of freedom”, as Foucault puts it, the first step toward changing what seemed to be necessary and inevitable. What I wanted to demonstrate here is a proposition for an alternative way of thinking about emancipation through social criticism in the context of the dominance of liberal and neoliberal ideologies. I draw on Marx’s concept of ideology, pointing out its paradoxes, and through Wittgenstein’s work, I point to the two philosophers’ inspirations for emancipation from ideology. I want to stress that this approach to social criticism is radically different from the predominant understanding of critique as a rational undistorted discussion, a practical discourse, to use Habermas’s expression (Habermas, 1990, p. 122), in which, on the way to mutual understanding and agreement, we elaborate universal and generally valid principles of social life. Instead, I revive Marx’s original intuition concerning criticism as a practice arising from the actual needs of the oppressed and their desire for emancipation. Like Marx, Wittgenstein’s philosophy shows that the idea of general human moral and political agreement on our fundamental values is just a philosophical illusion. But to understand this does not necessarily bring about the end of democracy. Perhaps this is one of the few chances to save it, and critical education has a key role to play in this process.

142

Lotar Rasiński

References Althusser, L. (1994). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses. In S. Žižek (ed.), Mapping Ideology. London and New York: Verso. Baker, G. (1991). Philosophical investigations §122: Neglected aspects. In R. Arrington and H. -J. Glock (eds.), Wittgenstein’s Philosophical Investigations: Text and Context. London and New York: Routledge. Barrett, M. (1991). Politics of Truth: From Marx to Foucault. Cambridge and Oxford: Polity Press. Benhabib, S. (1984). The Marxian method of critique: Normative presuppositions. PRAXIS International, 3, pp. 284–298. Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An Introduction. London and New York: Verso. Foucault, M. (1980). Truth and power. In C. Gordon (ed.), Power/Knowledge: Selected Interview and Other Writings 1972–1977. Brighton: Harvester Press, pp. 109–133. Foucault, M. (1984). What is enlightenment? (trans. by C. Porter). In P. Rabinow (ed.), The Foucault Reader. New York: Pantheon Books. Gramsci, A. (1992). Prison Notebooks. (ed. with Introduction by J. A. Buttigieg; trans. by J. A. Buttigieg and A. Callari). New York: Columbia University Press. Habermas, J. (1990). Moral Consciousness and Communicative Action (Introduction by T. McCarthy; trans. by C. Lenhardt and S. Weber Nicholsen). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Habermas, J. (2001). Reflections on the linguistic foundations of sociology: The Christian Gauss Lectures (Princeton University, February–March 1971). In J. Habermas (ed.), On the Pragmatics of Social Interaction(trans. by B. Fultner). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 1–103. Havel, V. (1991). The power of the powerless. In V. Havel (ed.), Open Letters: Selected Writings: 1965–1990(ed. and trans. by P. Wilson). New York: Knopf, pp. 125–214. Hutto, D. (2007). Getting clear about perspicuous representations: Wittgenstein, Baker and Fodor. In D. Moyal-Sharrock (ed.), Perspicuous Presentations: Essays on Wittgenstein’s Philosophy of Psychology. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Kitching, G. and Pleasants, N. (eds.). (2002). Marx and Wittgenstein: Knowledge, Morality and Politics. London and New York: Routledge. Lukács, G. (1971). History and Class Consciousness: Studies in Marxist Dialectics. London: Merlin Press. Malcolm, N. (2001). Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Marx, K. (1871). Interview with Karl Marx, head of L’Internationale, by R. Landor. New York World, July 18. Marx, K. (1997). Exchange of Letters [Letter to Ruge]. In D. Easton and K. H. Guddat (trans. and eds.), Writings of the Young Marx on Philosophy and Society. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1972). The German ideology. In R. C. Tucker (ed.), Marx-Engels Reader. London and New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Matynia, E. (ed. and trans.). (2014). An Uncanny Era: Conversations Between Václav Havel and Adam Michnik. New Haven: Yale University Press. Monk, R. (1991). Ludwig Wittgenstein: The Duty of Genius. London: Vintage. Mouffe, C. (2000). The Democratic Paradox. London and New York: Verso. Norval, A. (2007). Aversive Democracy: Inheritance and Originality in the Democratic Tradition, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nussbaum, M. C. (1998). Cultivating Humanity: A Classical Defense of Reform in Liberal Education. Cambridge and London: Harvard University Press. Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Read, R. (2002). Marx and Wittgenstein on vampires and parasites: A critique of capital and metaphysics. In G. Kitching and N. Pleasants (eds.), Marx and Wittgenstein: Knowledge, Morality and Politics. London and New York: Routledge.

A Picture Held Us Captive 143 Rosanvallon, P. (2008). Counter-Democracy: Politics in an Age of Distrust. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rossi-Landi, F. (1983). Language as Work and Trade: A Semiotic Homology for Linguistics and Economy(trans. by M. Adams et al.). South Hadley: Bergin & Garvey Publishers, Inc. Rossi-Landi, F. (1992). Between Signs and Non-Signs (ed. by S. Petrilli). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company. Schaff, A. (1973). Marxist theory on revolution and violence. Journal of the History of Ideas, 34(2), pp. 263–270. Sen, A. (2003). Sraffa, Wittgenstein, and Gramsci. Journal of Economic Literature, 41(4), pp. 1240–1255. Von Wright, G. H. (2001). A biographical sketch. In N. Malcolm (ed.), Ludwig Wittgenstein: A Memoir. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wittgenstein, L. (1997). Philosophical Investigations (trans. by G. E. M. Anscombe). Oxford, UK: Blackwell. Žižek, S. (ed.). (1994). Mapping Ideology. London and New York: Verso.

12 Empowerment in Education— A New Logic of Emancipation or a New Logic of Power? Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk

Introduction “Education enslaves, but liberation requires education” (Szkudlarek, 2004, p. 366). The above quote by Tomasz Szkudlarek summarises the tension and risk observed by critical pedagogy and inherent in each education project and activity. However, this statement could also be understood as illustrating some theoretical continuum, which covers critique of education and the school system on the basis of contemporary sociology, pedagogy, or philosophy; it can be read as a description of the process of acquisition of emancipatory and constructive character by the critical theory of education, initially oriented primarily towards discovery of sources of enslavement and oppression inherent in education. In transition from exposure of educational enslavement to observation of the liberating potential of education, educational critical reflection has developed a number of theoretical and pragmatic categories, and has formed some distinct discourses of critical pedagogy. One such paradigmatic discourse is the discourse of reproduction, developed and subjected to critique almost from the moment first theoretical articulations were made in critical pedagogy. Another one is the discourse of educational resistance, which arose in part as an alternative, and in part as a supplement, to the narrative about the reproduction of the social structure by the school and education system. Paradigmatic discourses of critical pedagogy also include the empowerment discourse, which is the subject of this article. In my short reconstruction of this discourse, exemplified by the pedagogy of Paulo Freire and the philosophy of education of Jacques Rancière, I draw attention to its distinctness from the classical way of understanding of educational emancipation as well as problematise it. In the first part of this paper I present the reasons why this discourse can be thought of as a ‘new logic of emancipation’. The second part attempts a critique of this discourse and suggests its interpretation not as ‘emancipation logic’, but as ‘logic of power’. In this attempt I draw on the thought of the so-called ‘late’ Michel Foucault and his and his successors’ reflections on governmentality.

Empowerment in Education 145

Empowerment as a ‘New Logic of Emancipation’ There are at least two reasons why empowerment proposed by critical educationalists can be regarded as a specific form of emancipation requiring its own label. The first reason relates to emancipation the way it is seen by critical pedagogy. The second reason concerns emancipation in general thinking about education. Focus on change and individual and social emancipation ‘by definition’ characterises critical pedagogy as a theoretical current and pedagogical practice. For critical pedagogy emancipation constitutes the primary rationale and purpose of educational critique. It places this trend within the tradition of leftist social thought (Marxian eleventh thesis, the Frankfurt School) and combines all discourses and concepts feeding the trend. However, these discourses formulate different preconditions and strategies of liberation through education. The first articulations of critical pedagogy—the theories of correspondence and reproduction—are dominated by exposing critique, showing the mechanisms of functioning of education (e.g. as ideological apparatus of the State [Althusser, 2006] or as a matrix recreating capitalist social relations [Bowles and Gintis, 1976]). In theories of resistance this critique is supplemented by the disclosure of the tension and dynamics between these mechanisms and their opponents (e.g. analysis of school resistance and rebellion, [McLaren, 1993] including the type leading to self-exclusion [Willis, 1981]). However, in the concepts of empowerment discourse the critique of education goes far beyond demystification. Here, there are clear signs of dual understanding of ideology and its function as either false consciousness or as hegemony and a discursive, ‘neither true nor false’ performative practice. Theories of critical pedagogy, inclined to perceive ideology as false consciousness masking true social relations and processes, see the road to emancipation in exposure of this falsity. Perspectives that are more oriented towards Gramscian, hegemonic understanding of ideology, perceiving it as not just a source of power and a manipulation tool but also a creative instrument for establishing order, are interested not only in exploring symbolic and structural violence but also in active fight against it by means of education. These ways of understanding emancipation and determining the conditions for their implementation are so different that it seems reasonable to label one of them and define it with the term empowerment. The second reason why the discourse of empowerment in critical pedagogy should not be considered just a discourse of emancipation, but also a special kind of narrative of liberation through education, is because the concept of emancipation functions in a theoretical context that reaches far into the history of philosophy of education and upbringing, and goes far beyond the relatively new (just 30 years old) trend of critical pedagogy. As Maria Czerepaniak-Walczak notes, the origins of the idea [of emancipation through education] should be sought in the Enlightenment, which started including education in its programme of liberation from the constraints of various origin, such as forces

146 Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk of nature, dogmatically determined social order, ignorance, and unrealized own capabilities. (Czerepaniak-Walczak, 2006, p. 56) Emancipation through education was at the centre of pedagogical interests of eminent minds of modernity—Rousseau, Dewey, Helvétius, Kant, Schiller, and Utopians—Owen and Fourier. So, this idea was developed also before the appearance of first articulations of radical critique of education in educational sociology and critical pedagogy. In this context, recognition of emancipation as a specific category organising one of the discourses of contemporary socio-pedagogical thought of the second half of the twentieth century would be an unjustified appropriation (although emancipation as an objective of pedagogical critique is constantly present in such discourse). But, more importantly, modern pedagogical concepts associate education with emancipation in a way that is questioned on the basis of critical pedagogy. The point is they design visions of a future, better society, free of diagnosed oppressions and more just. To match this vision, they adapt the educational model, which, however, is typically adaptive in nature. In other words, many of the above-mentioned philosophers of modernity perceive emancipatory education as a process during which the man is prepared for new, better, and fairer social conditions. Just a few authors observe how individuals themselves may shape these conditions. In this respect, modern understanding of emancipation draws on the original meaning of this concept, which has its roots in the Roman law, where it referred to the process of liberation of a son or wife from under the guardianship of pater familias—father of the family. Emancipation meant renunciation of power possessed and exercised over someone else. For a subjugated person to become free, an act of emancipation had to take place, and its performance depended on the will of the ‘liberator’, i.e. the one who had so far wielded power over that person. So, emancipation came from the outside. The same applies to modern, progressive concepts of upbringing as well as some contemporary discourses of radical critique of education, focused primarily on demystification of power relations (Bingham and Biesta, 2010, p. 32; Rancière, 1991, p. 121). Gert Biesta argues that this externality of emancipation is a consequence of preference by these perspectives of the Marxian concept of ideology as false consciousness concealing true power relations, whose exposure is a prerequisite for emancipation. Since, according to this understanding of the ideology, those who suffer oppression and injustice are not aware of the sources and reasons for their suffering, the road to emancipation must lead through a change of consciousness. This change, however, cannot happen by itself: The predicament of [such understanding of] ideology lies in the suggestion that it is precisely because of the way in which power works upon our consciousness, that we are unable to see how power works upon our consciousness. This not only implies that in order to free ourselves from the workings of power we need to expose how power works upon our consciousness. It

Empowerment in Education 147 also means that in order for us to achieve emancipation, someone else, whose consciousness is not subjected to the workings of power, needs to provide us with an account of our objective condition. (Bingham and Biesta, 2010, p. 30) Consequently, emancipation in this context ‘comes from the outside’ and is performed ‘on someone’—it is an action on subjects, not by subjects. It is also an act—and this diagnosis is crucial for challenging the classic logic of emancipation through the discourse of empowerment—which, assuming the dependence of the individual to be liberated on the liberator, preserves inequality of social relations. The discourse of empowerment, present in critical pedagogy thanks to such authors as Freire or Rancière referred to below, not only rejects such approach to the issue of emancipation, but even challenges it. Both the Brazilian educationalist and the French philosopher focus on action, reflection, will, and intelligence of an autonomous subject, and his/her emancipation is conceived as possible only in the case of personal commitment. Consequently, in the case of the discourse of empowerment there is a clear emphasis on subjective causation as a prerequisite of emancipation. And this aspect makes this discourse a unique narration about educational emancipation.

Paulo Freire In his most famous book, Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Freire analyses the phenomenon of oppression, rooted in the Marxian theory of consciousness and ideology. He shows that the traditional model of education is an element of this oppression and he envisions a pedagogical alternative to it. Significantly, this is also a political alternative, because Freirean perspective is not limited to proposed transformation of school, or more broadly, education. . . . Pedagogy of the oppressed is a broad political vision, in which educational situation should be perceived as an element of a constellation of social determinants. The categories of ‘the oppressed’ and ‘the oppressors’ are not metaphors, but the terms applicable to social groups or classes, forming specific hierarchies of power, remaining in relations of domination/subordination and systems of inequality. (Gawlicz and Starnawski, 2014, pp. 95–96) The basis of deliberations by Freire is the conviction that education is essentially a phenomenon and political activity that either ‘domesticates’ the oppressed in the structure of oppression or gives them a chance at liberation. As Freire observes, There neither is, nor has ever been, an educational practice in zero spacetime—neutral in the sense of being committed only to preponderantly abstract, intangible ideas. To try to get people to believe that there is such a

148 Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk thing as this, and to convince or try to convince the incautious that this is the truth, is indisputably a political practice. (Freire, 2003, p. 77) Pedagogy of the Oppressed analyses the dialectic of oppression, whose experience, according to Freire, is dehumanising (both for the oppressed and the oppressors). The emphasis on the dialectic nature of the phenomenon of enslavement not only reveals obvious inspirations by Hegel and Marx, but, first and foremost, is the foundation of such conceptualisation of liberation according to which not only the oppressed, but also the oppressors need to be liberated. The key aspect of this dissection of the dialectic relationship of enslavement and oppression is the conviction that emancipation cannot be a simple change of roles in the current system of domination and enslavement. Even if those whom Freire calls the oppressed initially desire such emancipation, it is because they are unaware that, as the oppressed, they exist in a situation, ”that is an element of the structure of oppression, which must be replaced for them to gain freedom. In one of his texts about the Brazilian, Paul Allman states: Dialectical thinkers understand the internal relations among all phenomena. In the case of human beings or groups, this is a social relation which could be harmonious but which, thus far in history, normally has been antagonistic, resulting in various social relations that Freire collectively refers to as the oppressor-oppressed relation (e.g., class relations, gender, race, colonial) The antagonism is often so great that nothing short of abolishing the dialectical relation will improve the situation. When there are no longer the two opposing groups, the possibility emerges of human beings uniting in love, with a commitment to social justice and to care for all of our social and natural world. (Allman, as cited in Mayo, 2004, p. 40). An obstacle on the road to liberation of the oppressed is their unawareness of this dialectical nature of enslavement, their false (and functional towards the status quo) belief that emancipation must involve taking over the role of the oppressor: “The oppressed want to free themselves . . . but their idea of ‘a human’ is tantamount to being the oppressor. They internalized his image and are afraid of a real change bringing freedom” (Kostyło, 2011, p. 10). Meanwhile, according to Freire, authentic emancipation is possible only as transcendence of the dialectic structure of oppression, which can only be achieved by the oppressed themselves. According to Freire, although enslavement is also an objective fact, it primarily takes place in the consciousness of the oppressed. Therefore, the first step towards genuine emancipation (empowerment), where subjective causation of the oppressed is vital, is the liberation of their consciousness from the power of ideological illusions. The process of this liberation is described by Freire with the term conscientização, coined by the Brazilian bishop Hélder Câmara. The term, previously not

Empowerment in Education 149 existing in Portuguese and translated into English as conscienization, was considered by Freire to be most appropriate for his understanding of the role of education as a road to empowerment. As Freire observed, “As soon as I heard it [the word], I realized the profundity of its meaning since I was fully convinced that education, as an exercise in freedom, is an act of knowing, a critical approach to reality” (Freire, as cited in Zachariah, 1986, p. 50). Awareness is aroused by stimulating reflection, whereby critical awareness of subjects and groups is developed and deepened, in particular as to their position in the social structure as well as historical, social, political, and cultural conditions of their existence. This process is intended to lead participants to the discovery and understanding of their own situation and its origins. Such understanding of the situation is necessary in order to take action to change it—it is a prerequisite of empowerment. However, raising of awareness and dialogue are not possible in the traditional model of education, referred to as ‘banking education’ by Freire, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat [and] in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. (Freire, 1972, p. 72) Freire contrasts banking education with problem-posing education, involving exploring, finding, encoding, and decoding the so-called generative themes, i.e. the sphere of real-life experiences of the learners: In problem-posing education, people develop their power to perceive critically the way they exist in the world with which and in which they find themselves; they come to see the world not as a static reality, but as a reality in process, in transformation. (Freire, 1972, p. 83) Therefore, in Freire’s concept, empowerment through education is achievable by breaking with the banking model and basing education on the problem-posing approach, aiming to identify problems that reflect the reality of learners, identifying sources of those problems, searching connections between causes and problems, and planning action based on critical reflection. “It is a circular process of listening, dialogue, and action” (Boryczko, 2013).

Jacques Rancière While Freire can be considered the author who actually started thinking about educational emancipation in categories of empowerment, the other author I want to discuss, Jacques Rancière, whose thought can be associated with this discourse,

150 Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk has only recently begun to be ‘exploited’ by critical educationalists. As noted by Maria Mendel and Tomasz Szkudlarek, Rancière’s theory have been in development since the 1970s, but only now it is coming to the fore, becoming a subject of pedagogical analyses and an inspiration for the screening of the existing social perspectives on the role of education and the understanding of the concept of emancipation. (Mendel and Szkudlarek, 2013, p. 24) This is a concept that shifts thinking about emancipation even further in the direction of individual causation of the subject, characteristic of the discourse of empowerment. The starting point for this theory, presented by Rancière in his book The Ignorant Schoolmaster (Le Maître ignorant) is the history of a nineteenthcentury educator Jean Joseph Jacotot, who in 1818 took up the post of a lecturer at the Belgian University of Leuven. Consequently, he found himself in a very peculiar situation—he had to teach basic French to students whose native language was Flemish, a language entirely unknown to him. Unable to communicate with his students in any language, Jacotot organised classes around a bilingual edition of The Adventures of Telemachus by Fénelon. The students were supposed to study that book by themselves and at the same time they would learn French. The success of that experiment, which surprised Jacotot himself, prompted him to develop a so-called universal teaching method, whose basic premise is the conviction that in order to learn something a person does not need a teacher—(s)he can just use their own intellect. Recalling Jacotot, Rancière turns his discovery into an axiom of own concept, proclaiming radical equality of intelligence of all people. According to the concept, everyone is capable of learning anything and does not need a ‘teacher’ presenting and explaining to the student the subject that (s)he wants to learn. Rancière’s axiom of radical equality of all people is a contrafactual assumption—the truth we see and experience every day is quite different. However, that is the performative power of the assumption, “From the pedagogical point of view . . . equality is an assumption that initiates practices aimed at making it real, which entails ignorance of inequality and impossibility” and, consequently, ‘ignorance of impossibility’ becomes identical with possibility” (Mendel and Szkudlarek, 2013, p. 28). The point is not to prove that everyone is equal, but to make such equality real by changing the perspective and abandoning comfortable but precluding discursive practices. Both Freire and Rancière agree on the impossibility of a top-down, institutional introduction of a real change to the educational paradigm. They also agree that authentic emancipation is not possible as realisation of a systematically saved goal or mission of education. However, the two authors differ in their perception of the role of the teacher/educator in relation with learners. Here Rancière is far more radical than Freire. The French philosopher does not see any possibility of formal ‘assignment’ of education to foster or promote liberation; on the contrary, he believes that emancipation is only achievable through the actions of a reasonable individual.

Empowerment in Education 151 Universal teaching shouldn’t be placed on the program of reformist parties, nor should intellectual emancipation be inscribed on the banners of sedition. Only a man can emancipate a man. Only an individual can be reasonable, and only with his own reason. There are a hundred ways to instruct. . . . But there is only one way to emancipate. And no party or government, no army, school, or institution, will ever emancipate a single person. (Rancière, 1991, p. 102) Consequently, a teacher in Rancière’s vision is ignorant in a double sense: firstly, a teacher is allowed to be ignorant in the epistemological sense, (s)he may lack specific knowledge of the subject learned by his students; and secondly, a teacher must be an ignorant in the sense of the adopted attitude towards the students and their intellectual activity. He should not interfere with either their education or the process of their individual emancipation. Freire, on the other hand, assigns a definitely larger and more active role to the teacher, who sides with liberation instead of propagating oppression. The Brazilian looks suspiciously at concepts forcing laissez-faire. As he explains in a conversation with Donaldo Macedo, If educators try to eliminate authoritarianism in their educational practice, they should also avoid the threat of becoming a victim of laissez-faire practice under the pretext of supporting development. . . . The role of a critical educator is to avoid indifference typical of facilitators who propagate the laissez-faire model of education. A radical educator must be actively present in educational practice. (Freire and Macedo, 2010, p. 233) In Rancière’s vision the attitude represented by Freire is unacceptable because it allows teaching activities to enter the paradigm of education in which, according to the philosopher, empowerment and emancipation are impossible. At the heart of the paradigm is assignment of an explanatory role to teaching. As rightly pointed out by Charles Bingham and Gert Biesta, drawing attention to this characteristic of schooling and education, present in the vast majority of models and concepts of education known to the pedagogics of the Western world, is the biggest contribution of Rancière to the development of educational theory. The stigma of explanation exposed by Rancière weighs heavily on all trends and paradigms of education present in Western pedagogical discourse. It is most visible in prescriptive models of education and upbringing, but progressive and critical perspectives are also affected by it. According to Rancière and his commentators, the crux of the problem is that every concept of education known to the Western world pushes a specific method of teaching and upbringing. And, in the opinion of the philosopher, as soon as any form of education becomes a method, it becomes a ‘school’ in four senses of the word. It becomes a school in the sense that it establishes

152 Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk a practice that has followers. It becomes a school in the sense that it creates the circumstances for a number of students to be educated in a similar way. It becomes a school in the platonic sense that it establishes an orderly body of knowledge that contributes to the social order. And, it becomes a school in the jacotist sense that it reaffirms the explanatory order of knowledge acquisition. (Bingham and Biesta, 2010, p. 114) Therefore, according to Rancière, a prerequisite for pedagogical and political emancipation and empowerment is to break with the paradigm of explanation as a relationship connecting the teacher with the student, the philosopher with the poor, and the oppressor with the oppressed because explanation means oppression: “To explain something to one who is ignorant is, first and foremost, to explain that which would not be understood if it were not explained. It is to demonstrate an incapacity” (Rancière, 2010, p. 3). For Rancière, independence of individual intellect, independent ability to understand, learn, and gain knowledge are conditions of a genuine, empowering emancipation.

Empowerment as the New Logic of Power—Foucauldian Inspirations The discourse of empowerment described above is one of the least problematised discourses of critical pedagogy. Analysing this way of thinking about education one gets the impression that the slogan of empowerment in and through education remains an almost undisputed interpretation of emancipatory proposals of progressive critical pedagogy as opposed to the narrative of reproduction, thoroughly critiqued in philosophy and pedagogics, or the discourse of resistance, also subjected to a critical consideration and reconceptualisation. Perhaps this lack of problematisation results from pragmatism of contemporary critical pedagogy, characterised by optimism. This is aptly diagnosed by Piotr Stańczyk, in whose opinion this feature of critical pedagogy is demonstrated by the constantly recurring clarifications of this paradigm, such as: ‘pedagogy of optimism’, ‘pedagogy of hope’, and ‘pedagogy of possibilities’. He argues that Optimism as an integral element of pragmatism of radical and critical pedagogy is indispensable considering the overwhelming force of the theory of reproduction. Indeed, optimism may seem indispensable considering ‘the pressure of unarticulated forces’ in the market or the ‘siege of education’ mounted by political and business forces. (Stańczyk, 2013, p. 10) And because the discourse of empowerment is indeed an ‘optimistic’ discourse of power and hope, especially when compared with the discourse of reproduction, or even the discourse or resistance, it is accepted by critical educators with little criticism.

Empowerment in Education 153 It is a sufficient premise to attempt such discourse of problematisation. In order to remain an intellectually stimulating option of social critique, critical pedagogy cannot afford a dogmatic ‘closure’. Criticism from outside or inside critical pedagogy regarding its conceptualisations is necessary for this trend to maintain its practical and political value and legitimacy. Therefore, this part of the article looks critically at the discourse of empowerment. Here, I will refer to the thought of ‘late’ Michel Foucault and his successors and their reflections on governmentality. To begin with, I must stress that the critique of the discourse of empowerment, possibly thanks to Foucault, is not radical critique, but only negative or problematising critique. Radicalism not only aims for understanding and identification of the subject of critique, but also for its elimination—“it is the theoretical and methodological approach characterized by complete understanding of the research subject and its background while striving for its destruction (rather than transformation) and replacement with a new and better one” (Mucha, 1986, p. 8). Critique of the discourse of empowerment that can be made using Foucault’s toolbox is not a radical critique because, according to the philosopher, a critical attitude consists primarily of problematisation and denaturalisation of obvious discourses. However, this is not a weakness of the critique—after all, there are no reasons justifying radical critique, ‘destruction’, or elimination from the lexicon of critical pedagogy of the category of empowerment. On the other hand, its problematisation seems necessary. Its performance is facilitated by Foucauldian and post-Foucauldian categories, such as governmentality and dispositif, and in particular the latter category as relating to education and upbringing, i.e. educational dispositif (Chutorański, 2013; Ostrowicka, 2012). The concept of governmentality appears in the late works of the French philosopher (lectures at Collège de France in the years 1978–79) and functions in two senses, of which, as was rightly pointed out by Thomas Lemke, the latter is a historically specific version of the former (Lemke, 2010). Broadly speaking, governmentality, another method of governing in addition to sovereign and disciplinary power, is an indirect way of governing population by the State, which, according to Foucault, emerged in modern Europe and is still being executed while undergoing transformations. In one of the above-mentioned lectures Foucault says that we live in an age of arrangements [governmentality], which started in the 18th century, in an age of governmentalisation of the State, which was a particularly complex process, because if problems with arrangements, with implementation of governance techniques became the only political challenge and the only arena for political battles and games, then the governmentalisation of the State was necessary for its survival. Therefore, it is likely that the State we know today exists thanks to this governmentalisation both inside and outside the State. Such tactics allowed to determine which elements of the State could or could not be preserved, were private or public, belonged or not to the State. (Foucault, 2010, p. 128)

154 Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk In order to exercise governmental power over the population, it is vital to stimulate desires and build a structure of possibilities of their fulfilment. Unlike in the case of sovereign power, the aim is not to govern through a system of orders and brutal punishments, or, as in the case of disciplinary power, through mechanisms of detailed control and supervision; instead, the purpose is to lead people (the population) to realisation of beneficial desires. For this reason, some commentators equate governmentality with neoliberal power, ‘the art of governance’, and ‘governance through freedom’. The concept of dispositif is vital to understand how governmentality works. According to Georgio Agamben, it is the most important term in the whole philosophy of Foucault, although he never “gave its true and own definition” (Foucault and Agamben, 2010, p. 82). As per Agamben, it is assumed that Foucault was the closest to precise explanation of this concept in an interview from 1977, where he said, What I’m trying to pick out with this term is, firstly, a thoroughly heterogeneous ensemble consisting of discourses, institutions, architectural forms, regulatory decisions, laws, administrative measures, scientific statements, philosophical, moral and philanthropic propositions—in short, the said as much as the unsaid. Such are the elements of the apparatus. The apparatus itself is the system of relations that can be established between these elements. (Gordon, 1980, pp. 194–228) Thus, a dispositif comprises both discursive and non-discursive elements. Also, it shapes power relationships—it is a manifestation, a system of governmental power; it fulfils “specific strategic function and fits a certain power relationship” (Gordon, 1980, p. 83). According to Agamben, this term both in everyday and Foucauldian use refers to a set of practices and mechanisms (both linguistic and non-linguistic, legal, technical, and military), whose purpose is to face a sudden and unexpected situation and achieve a more or less immediate effect. (Gordon, 1980, p. 88) A dispositif as a manifestation as well as an element and instrument of governmental power always relates to an area of reality. In Foucault’s analyses, security dispositifs are a key issue. Foucault observed that in liberal societies the expansion of areas of freedom is accompanied by a growth in constrain and control procedures, which manifest themselves when ‘natural’ self-regulation mechanisms (e.g. the market) begin to fail. As noted by Lemke, [Foucault] regards security mechanisms as a counterpart and a prerequisite to the existence of liberal freedom. Their task is to safeguard and protect naturalness of the population, which is in constant danger, as well as its distinctive forms of free and spontaneous self-regulation. . . . The security mechanism

Empowerment in Education 155 do not set any boundary between what is permitted and what is forbidden, but they specify the optimal measures within a certain range of variation. (Lemke as cited in Chutorański, 2013, p. 107) The category of dispositif was also related to ‘pedagogical reality’ on the basis of post-Foucauldian studies of governmentality. Educational dispositif, which manifests itself in the areas of education and pedagogical thought, covers relationships between discursive and non-discursive elements: policy of the State and of transnational organisations (the European Union); pedagogical doctrines and theories; philosophical assumptions; psychological and sociological theories; teaching, educational, and therapeutic practices; educational policy; organisational solutions; education economy and management; teaching syllabuses; educational programmes; corrective programmes; organisation and supervision in educational institutions; establishing and running of educational institutions; organisation of life in educational institutions: rules and regulations, procedures, class-and-lesson system; teacher training, etc. (Chutorański, 2013, p. 131) We should consider the discourse of empowerment in the context of this definition of educational dispositif, which identifies pedagogical and philosophical narratives and theories as one of its elements. In particular, we should ask if, within the theoretical framework of the Foucault’s philosophy, this discourse can be identified as an element of such dispositif. I think it is possible, and such recognition constitutes the essence of the problematising critique of such discourse, which shows empowerment as an element of the logic of power. Distinction of the education dispositif enabled the emergence in the field of post-Foucauldian studies of an area of research on the phenomenon of educationalisation of social processes (Smeyers and Depaepe, 2008). In order to see how the narrative of empowerment as the goal and mission of education fits into the mechanisms of governmental power, we should refer to this phenomenon. Educationalisation means transfer of pedagogical ideas and categories to areas of life not directly related to educational activity, such as the economy, politics, civil society, culture, or personal life. On their way, the problems belonging by origin to ‘nonpedagogical’ areas of social life are redefined and become educational issues. (Czyżewski, 2013, p. 81) Educationalisation is an important element of governmentality. Firstly, it allows transfer of the forms of control characteristic of educational activities to the areas traditionally not subjected to such control. Pedagogy of the 18th century provides models of institutionally ‘controlled development’ of subjects, whose goal is to increase the efficiency of their

156 Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk operations. ‘Educationalisation’ of social life involves dissemination of such models in relevant areas of life. Those models are aimed at people as employees, politicians, citizens, family members, or life partners, no longer in the name of pedagogical theories, but rather, recognized as legitimate, knowledge of the economy, politics and, civic or personal life. (Chutorański, 2013, p. 81) Secondly, educationalisation allows for gradual expansion of educational responsibility (and participating subjects) over new areas of social reality. As a result of progressive educationalisation, the problems belonging by origin to ‘nonpedagogical’ areas of social life are redefined and become the responsibility of education, which will be accountable for their resolution—as a system, a school, a teacher, but above all as a student, a graduate, or, for example, an educated unemployed person. (One of the discursive manifestations of the processes of educationalisation of social problems is the popularity of the word ‘employability’ in the discourse of educational and labour policies, which associates having a job with certain characteristics of the person, thereby shifting the responsibility for employment from the sphere of the economy to the sphere of education. M. Simons and J. Maschelein draw attention to the shift, noting that, as a result, “an unemployed person is not simply someone who needs a means of livelihood, but someone who can be seen as a person in need of additional training” (Simons and Maschelein, 2008, p. 196). The perspective of post-Foucauldian studies of governmentality and educationalisation sheds new light on the pedagogical discourse of empowerment because it presents individual, subjective causation postulated by critical educators as one of the symptoms and mechanisms of a modern way of governing the population typical of liberal societies. The same individual causation, which in the concepts of Freire and Rancière is a prerequisite for emancipation, from the perspective of post-Foucauldian studies on governmentality manifests itself as a result of the effectiveness of the mechanisms of power. Rancière’s assertion, “Only an individual can be rational and only using his own judgement. . . . There is only one way to emancipation. And no party, army, school, or institution will ever set free a single person” (Rancière, 1991, p. 102) in the context of reflections by Foucault and his successors, fits the narrative of power rather than constructing a discourse of liberation. In Rancière’s discourse of empowerment, analysed using Foucault’s toolbox, emancipation becomes solely a matter of an individual, causative, powerful subject, fully capable and willing to rule their own life. Considering the category of educational dispositif, Chutorański argues that one of the main tasks of this mechanism of power is transforming development into an object of desire in the sense that everyone should desire self- development, self-realization, and should do everything possible to achieve it. Development as desire and not as possibility is the main problem of educational arrangement, knowledge, and the power that comes with it. Stimulating this desire and creating possibilities of its fulfilment is

Empowerment in Education 157 consistent with liberal arrangements [i.e. governmental power, neoliberal power], enabling creation of subjects and their management ‘in their best interest’, and, a result, interventions of power become natural. (Chutorański, 2013, p. 133) The situation is similar with respect to the postulated empowerment in education—it can also become an object of undisputed desire in the system of neoliberal power. It is not an option, but an imperative, also repeated by ‘positive’ and ‘optimistic’ critical pedagogy. Empowerment cannot be reasonably refused— you cannot be unwilling to ‘take the matters into your own hands’ (such refusal is always perceived as a symptom of enslavement), unwilling to have control over your own life. The unacceptability of the refusal of empowerment is visible even in everyday, colloquial language, in which ‘loss of control over one’s own life’ is an alarming situation that requires some sort of intervention or action. And yet, diagnoses made by Foucault and, especially, post-Foucauldian analyses show that such desires can also be regarded as a manifestation of power and enslavement in action. This is illustrated by Małgorzata Jacyno in the Foucaultinspired work dedicated to the culture of individualism (a culture of governmental power): with the progress of individualisation, supra- or extra-individual determination gradually turns into a secularized form of condemnation. By contrast, one advantage of enslavement by ‘inner demons’ is that it does not seem to deprive an individual of the possibility of self-expression. Therefore, in the culture of individualism there is a place for gruelling work as long as an individual is forced by his/her ‘inner demon’, rather than, for example, an employer. The experience of being used and exploited, unworthy of a man, is being replaced by self-exploitation, which is easier to endure. Workaholism—a form of exploitation privatized or rationalized by psychologisation—is primarily the issue of ‘personality’, and not economic necessity, therefore it is accepted when it is in a certain sense individualized and chosen by the subject. (Jacyno, 2007, p. 51) From the perspective of Foucauldian and post-Foucauldian categories, the pedagogical discourse of emancipation as empowerment reveals itself as a discourse of power, admittedly not disciplinary power, which is more often noticed by critically-oriented education researchers, but nevertheless power. Does it discredit this discourse or the category of empowerment and necessitates its withdrawal from the dictionary of critical pedagogy? Or does it even discredit critical pedagogy, which, while ‘thinking’ and ‘speaking’ the language of emancipation, in fact uses the language of power? Does Foucauldian perspective of governmentality, and in particular educationalisation, inevitably place education and pedagogy in the discourse of power, whatever the form taken by either power or pedagogy? These seem to be worthwhile questions, though not

158 Agnieszka Dziemianowicz-Bąk necessarily in order to provide a simple, unequivocal answer. As already mentioned, the Foucauldian critique that generates these questions stops at the stage of negative critique. Its purpose is no less and no more than problematisation and indication of different possibilities of looking at, and thinking about, what “is given to us as universal, necessary, applicable” (Foucault, 2000, p. 289). One such idea in critical pedagogy is certainly empowerment in education.

References Althusser, L. (2006). Ideologie i aparaty ideologiczne państwa. Accessed 29 November 2015 online at http://recyklingidei.pl/althusser_ideologie_aparaty_ideologiczne_panstwa Bingham, C. and Biesta, G. (2010). Jacques Rancière: Education, Truth, Emancipation. London: Continuum. Boryczko, M. (2013). Krytyczność jako refleksja o własnej praktyce—o edukacyjnym współdziałaniu pracowników socjalnych. Accessed 29 November 2015 online at www. isp.org.pl/uploads/pdf/2004152225.pdf Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Capitalist America. New York: Basic Books. Chutorański, M. (2013). Pojęcie i konteksty wychowania w pracach Michela Foucaulta. Wrocław: DSW. Czerepaniak-Walczak, M. (2006). Pedagogika emancypacyjna. Gdańsk: GWP, p. 56. Czyżewski, M. (2013). Polityki publiczne w optyce postfoucaultowskiej—zarys perspektywy badawczej. In A. Wojciuk (ed.), Analiza polityki publicznej. Podejścia teoretycznometodologiczne. Warszawa: IBE, p. 81. Foucault, M. (1977). The Confession of the Flesh. Interview in C. Gordon (ed.). (1980). Power/Knowledge Selected Interviews and Other Writings. New York: Pantheon Books, p. 83, 88, 194–228. Foucault, M. (2000). Czym jest Oświecenie? In Filozofia, historia, polityka. Wybór pism. (trans. by D. Leszczyński, L. Rasiński), Warszawa-Wrocław: PWN.. Foucault, M. (2010). Bezpieczeństwo, terytorium, populacja. Warszawa: PWN. Foucault, M. and Agamben, G. (2010). Czym jest urządzenie? In G. Agamben (ed.), Przewodnik Krytyki Politycznej. Warszawa: KP, p. 82. Freire, P. (1972). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. London: Penguin Books, pp. 72, 83. Freire, P. (2003). Pedagogy of Hope: Reliving Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York: Continuum, p. 77. Freire, P. and Macedo, D. (2010). Dialog: kultura, język, rasa. In H. Cervinkova and D. Gołębniak (eds.), Badania w działaniu. Pedagogika i antropologia zaangażowane. Wrocław: DSW, p. 233. Gawlicz, K. and Starnawski, M. (2014). Jak edukacja może zmieniać świat?Demokracja, dialog, działanie. Wrocław: DSW, pp. 95–96. Jacyno, M. (2007). Kultura indywidualizmu. Warszawa: PWN, p. 51. Kostyło, H. (2011). Przesłanie “Pedagogii uciśnionych” Paula Freire. Forum Oświatowe, 2(45), p. 10. Lemke, T. (2010). Foucault, rządomyślność, krytyka. Accessed 11 January 2015 online at http://recyklingidei.pl/lemke-foucault-rzadomyslnosc-krytyka Mayo, P. (2004). Liberating Praxis. Paulo Freire’e Legacy for Radical Education and Politics. Westport: Praeger Publishers, pp. 40, 50. McLaren, P. (1993). Schooling as a Ritual Performance: Toward a Political Economy of Educational Symbols and Gestures. London: Routledge. Mendel, M. and Szkudlarek, T. (2013). Kryzys jako dyskurs i narracja. Konteksty edukacyjne. Forum Oświatowe, 3(50), pp. 24, 28. Mucha, J. (1986). Socjologia jako krytyka społeczna. Orientacja radykalna i krytyczna we współczesnej socjologii zachodniej. Warszawa: PWN, p. 8.

Empowerment in Education 159 Ostrowicka, H. (2012). Urządzanie młodzieży. Studium analityczno-krytyczne. Kraków: Impuls. Rancière, J. (1991). The Ignorant Schoolmaster: Five Lessons in Intellectual Emancipation. Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 102–121. Rancière, J., (2010), On Ignorant Schoolmasters, in Ch. Bingham, G. Biesta, (2010), Jacques Rancière. Education, Truth, Emancipation, London: Bloomsbury Academic pp. 102–121. Simons, M., Maschelein, J., (2010) ‘It Makes Us Believe That It Is About Our Freedom’: Notes on the Irony of the Learning Apparatus, in Smeyers, P., Depaepe M. (ed.), (2010), Educational Research: the Educationalization of Social Problems, London: Springer, pp. 191–204. Smeyers, P. and Depaepe, M. (2008). Educational Research: The Educationalization of Social Problems. London: Springer. Stańczyk, P. (2013). Człowiek, wychowanie i praca w kapitalizmie. Gdańsk: UG, p. 10. Szkudlarek, T. (2004). Pedagogika krytyczna. In Z. Kwieciński and B. Śliwerski (eds.), Pedagogika, 1. Warsaw: PWN, p. 366. Willis, P. (1981). Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York: Columbia Press. Zachariah, M. (1986), Revolution Through Reform: A Comparison of Sarvodaya and Conscientization, Westport: Praeger Publishers.

13 Marxist Education Against Capitalism in Neoliberal/ Neoconservative Times1 Dave Hill

Neoliberalism and (Neo)-Conservatism and the Nature and Power of the Resistance Neoliberalism, Neoconservatism, Austerity and Class Struggle The paths of neoliberalisation and (neo)-conservatism are similar in many countries. But each state has its own history and particular context. Each state has its own balance of class forces, its own level of organisation of the working class and of the capitalist class, and levels of unity within the organisation of each of the two contesting classes, and different levels of confidence within the working class and within the capitalist class. These levels change. In states where resistance to neoliberalism is very strong, as in Greece in the recent period since 2008 (Ovenden, 2015; Sheehan, 2017) especially in what can be termed the pre-revolutionary situation of 2012, then governments have, at various times, been cautious in proposing, and in subsequently actually carrying out, neoliberal policies such as mass privatisations, attacks on workers’ and trade union rights, and attacks on ‘the social wage’ of workers and their families. In Greece, working-class consciousness and class organisation, in a situation of naked—and literally deathly—class war from above, are highly developed, with around 30 general strikes since 2010, a history of occupations of factories and ministries, and huge strikes and demonstrations. To take another example, in Portugal, a small country of ten and a half million people, three million were on strike against austerity and privatisation in 2010 (Gerome, 2010). Levels of resistance, organisation, confidence, and unity/disunity vary considerably in different states. In some states working-class organisations such as trade unions and political parties become the foci, the organisational form, of the widespread disenchantment with ‘establishment’ politics and economics, with austerity. However, in some states, in this recent period, the traditional social democratic Left (weakened by its embrace of neoliberalism and austerity), and ‘Far Left’—Marxist and Socialist currents and organisations—have been weak. In some states, for example Ireland and the US, resistance by trade-union and ‘professional organisations’ (which can be equated to trade unions for ‘middle class’ strata of the workforce) and by other working-class social and political organisations and social movements, have been historically very weak. Neoliberalism and the capitalist class have had a far easier path.

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 161 In Ireland, since the financial crisis of 2008 and the imposition of austerity policies by successive governments, there have been only very small anti-austerity demonstrations, though, in common with elections in a number of countries, in anti-incumbent and anti-establishment votes, the sitting government has been defeated in successive elections (2011, 2016). Even a fairly quiescent political culture (in terms of demonstrations) turned highly active, as in 2014 in Dublin where public anger against the introduction of water charges for the first time in Ireland’s history has finally seen the country’s population rebel against the politics of austerity. More than 100,000 people turned out for a mass demonstration against the charges. (Guardian, 2014) In other states the ‘insurgent’/‘anti-establishment’ support on the streets and in voting has benefitted parties and individuals of the right, the most notable globally being Donald Trump in the US, running as the xenophobic anti-establishment candidate. The 2017 vote for Marine Le Pen and the Front National in France, and, in Turkey, Erdogan and his AKP government are salient examples of electorates being attracted to parties and individuals with an ultra-nationalist, religious, anti-minority, and antiLeft ideology. Such parties have gained ground, and sometimes, governmental power, throughout Europe. Nazis/ultra-nationalists/racist parties have been elected to the Ukrainian (2014) (Ischenko, 204) and Slovak (2016) (Centre for European Policy Analysis, 2016, Aisch et al, 2017)) parliaments. Far-right nationalist parties in Poland, such as the Law and Justice Party, were elected to power in 2015, bringing about “the most right-wing Parliament in Europe” (Foy, 2015), and in the Austrian presidential election of April 2016 the far-right Freedom Party candidate polled substantially more votes than the other mainstream party candidates in the first round of polling and was only very narrowly defeated in the second round. The Freedom Party went on to win 26% of the votes in the 2017 parliamentary election, and, at the time of writing, looks set to join a two party government with the conservatives (Guardian, 2017). In Germany the far right anti-immigrant AfD secured 97 MPs in the German Federal Election of September 2017 (Rollenhagen, 2017), and in Greece, the openly neo-Nazi Golden Dawn had 17 MPs elected in the Greek parliamentary elections of 2015 (Ovenden, 2017). This swing to xenophobia and anti-immigrant mobilisation has extended to traditionally Social Democratic states such as Sweden, Finland, and Denmark, resulting in gains in Finland for the Finns party (formerly the True Finns) who gained 17.7 percent in the 2016 parliamentary elections and are part of the governing coalition (2016–17) and the openly anti-immigrant UKIP party gained 12.6 percent of the vote in the UK general election of 2015. Much, but not all, of the ‘Brexit’ vote in the UK referendum on the EU was in response to antiimmigrant, xenophobic campaigning by UKIP. It was also ‘a kick’ against the establishment. (Some of the ‘Brexit’ vote was a traditional Marxist/socialist vote against ‘the Bosses Europe’, the Europe of enforced neoliberalisation). On the radical Left, Presidential candidates and party leaders such as Jeremy Corbyn, Bernie Sanders, and radical Left (or erstwhile radical left) ‘Broad Parties

162

Dave Hill

of the Left’ such as Syriza in Greece, or Podemos in Spain, and coalitions of Marxist parties such as the AAA-PBP in Ireland have also won seats (with seven Trotskyist MPs in the Dail, the Irish Parliament following the 2016 parliamentary elections). In the US, Bernie Sanders mobilised millions, and the election in 2015 of a radical left social democrat leader of the Labour Party in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn stimulated the growth, the more than doubling of Labour Party membership such that the Labour Party is now (winter 2017–2018) the largest political party in Europe, with over 600,000 members. Whether the Radical Left or the Radical Right ultra-nationalists and neo-Nazis succeed in winning support from those despairing of austerity, hostile to the ‘establishment’ parties of centre-left/left and centre-right/right that have enforced unremitting austerity, is open to ongoing struggle, to the balance of class forces in terms of preparedness, numbers, organisation, and leadership. In the US there has been little resistance even to extreme measures taken, for example the Wisconsin state government’s passing a law in 2011 which made it illegal to negotiate with trade unions; thus putting an end to collective bargaining with trade unions. There were major demonstrations, at one stage of 100,000 protesters, and trade union protests—but the law passed, even if it did electrify the left and the trade union movement in the US. The election of Trump as US President in November 2016 has stimulated massive protests, mostly of an identitarian, rather than a class-based nature. To Leftists in Britain and other states with a historically strong organised Left/ trade union/working class organisation, this illegalisation of trade union negotiating powers, the power of unions to represent their members, was literally incredible. Although there has been a succession of neoliberal and neoconservative governments in Britain, in particular since the first Thatcher government elected in 1979, both Conservative and New Labour, the trade unions still have considerable strength. The Trade Unions Congress (TUC) in Britain has around six million members, albeit down from 13million members in 1979. On October 20, 2012, 150,000 members went on the march in London against austerity. That followed on from the student and worker marches against the education cuts of 2010 and 2011. And the marches and demonstrations continue, 150,000 marching against austerity in London in June 2015. In the UK, while the Thatcher anti-union legislation (for example, illegalizing ‘sympathetic’ strike action) has remained, there was successful resistance to the Summer 2016 Conservative government proposals to severely restrict the rights and abilities of public sector trade unions to go on strike (Umney, 2015). Under the Conservative government proposed legislation, first proposed in 2015, “50 percent of eligible voters would be required to take part in any strike ballot, or the action would be deemed illegal”. In addition, “in ‘important public services’ an additional stipulation mandates that 40 percent of the eligible electorate vote in favor of the strike”. This law would have rendered illegal half the strikes in England since 1977. Opposition has reduced the scale of the attack on trade unions (Mason and Stewart, 2016), but this is class war at its most naked. The ruling, capitalist class knows where to strike at the organised power of the working class.

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 163 When the organised working class awakens, when it develops the consciousness of acting as what Marxists call a ‘class for itself’ (with class consciousness) instead of simply a ‘class in itself’ (a group of workers with similar relationships to the means of production, i.e. as workers, not capitalists), and when it has the experience and the ability to organise large-scale protest and action—when, as Lenin, Trotsky and Gramsci have argued, there is party, leadership, and organisation (Slaughter, 1975)—then it can take and coordinate very strong action. The failure of the revolutionary Left in Greece in 2012 (Ovenden, 2015) in what was arguably the first pre-revolutionary situation since 1974–76 in Portugal, was that the occupations, the strikes, and the Left in general had no central leadership or co-ordinated leadership or direction—in contrast to the Russian situation in 1917 where the Bolshevik Party was an effective co-ordinating revolutionary force, and in contrast to the English Revolution and the role of The Levellers in the 1640s (Rees, 2016). However, some trade-union and social democratic party leaderships sometimes lead comfortable lives; sometimes—frequently—they have good relations with the government and are incorporated into the (capitalist) state apparatuses (Trotsky, 1940; Wells, 2008). Many are flattered, ‘patted on the head’, ‘given gongs’ (honours, awards), and incorporated into the capitalist state apparatus. Far from all the trade-union leaders are politically radical. A few union leaderships are Marxist. In Britain, for example, the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) has some power in unions at the leadership (National Executive Committee) level; as does the Trotskyist group, the Socialist Party, (whose international is the CWI, the Committee for a Workers International) as well as the Socialist Workers Party (whose international is the IST, the International Socialist Tendency). And of course, socialists and Marxists are very active within the membership of trade unions, pushing the leaderships into more radical action, as organised in various rank and file, shop-floor-based groups. The power of the organised working class, if spurred into action, and if organised, can have very considerable impact. Levels and types of resistance against neoliberalism and austerity capitalism in the US (Malott and Agostine-Wilson, 2013a, b), England, and Wales (Canaan, Hill and Maisuria, 2013; Canaan et al., 2018 forthcoming; Hill, 2010a), Greece (Sotiris, 2013; Vatikiotis and Nikolakaki, 2013), Ireland (O’Flynn, Power, McCabe and Silke, 2013; Power, O’Flynn, Courtois and Kennedy, 2013), and Turkey (Inal and Akkaymak, 2012; Inal and Ozturk, 2013; Gezgin, İnal and Hill, 2014; Sayilan and Turkmen, 2013) are described and analysed in great detail from a Marxist perspective in the chapters on ‘Resistance’ in Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt (Hill, 2013. A second, updated edition, edited by Dave Hill and Polina Chrysochou, is due to be published in late 2018) (Hill and Chrysochou, 2018, forthcoming). Teachers, both university/higher education teachers and school teachers are, in many states such as Greece, UK, US, among the most highly organised and unionised groups of workers, and sometimes among the most militant.

164

Dave Hill

Arenas of Resistance/Sites of Struggle There are various arenas in which Marxist and Critical Educators can be, are, and should be active—within the limits of individual capabilities and strengths, of course. These arenas are: (a) within the classroom/seminar room/lecture theatre; (b) within the wider school community/organisation—such as the staffroom, the union branch; (c) within the local community/town/city—for example in tenants’ or benefits’ or anti-racist, or anti-austerity or other local community organisations and movements—and within town-wide/city-wide political parties; social movements and trade unions; (d) at national levels within such movements, parties, and organisations. I point to these arenas for transformative political social and educational activism since education—whether transformative or reproductive, whether revolutionary, reformist, or conservative or reactionary—takes place outside formal schooling and education systems as well as within (I detail these in Hill, 2004a). However, in this chapter, I will focus on some aspects of education and schooling within formal education systems and relate these to various issues in Marxist theory.

Critical Education, Critical Educators, Marxist Education, Marxist Educators Critique, dissent, and transformation are not easy. Critical and Marxist educators engage in critique of educational experiences within the conditions of Capitalism and its current neoliberal and neoconservative form of capitalism. (Edwards and Canaan, 2015, discuss the relationships—and differences between—radical, critical, and Marxist educators). At an extreme level, university teachers and school teachers in Turkey have been dismissed in their thousands following the July 2016 attempted coup against Erdogan (by a rival Islamist faction); many are facing prosecution and imprisonment and have had their passports withdrawn. Leftists have been targeted for signing a petition opposing the Erdogan/AKP government militarised policy in south-east Kurdish majority Turkey (Stavila, 2016). And in India, the accusations of ‘anti-patriotism’ against staff and students at JNU university led to sedition charges being filed by the right-wing Modi/BJP government (Roy, 2016). The political context in different states from Turkey to India, from the US to the UK, from Ukraine to Greece, shows the different faces of and interrelationships between calls to religion, armed racist/neo-Nazi thugs and murderers, and chemically treated water-canon used by the police. And, as ideological state apparatuses (Althusser, 1971; Hill, 2004b), schools and universities themselves have a repressive function with repressive surveillance, punishment, and new public managerialist mechanisms and measures to dissuade, and punish, ‘deep dissent’, ‘deep critique’. And for radical and critical educators in general in states such as the UK and US, those trying to engage in ‘deep critique’ (Rikowski, 2008) of capitalism, of capitalist economic, social, and political relations, and how these operate within

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 165 schools and universities, there is often marginalisation, non-promotion, dismissal, pressure to conform to and comply with pro-capitalist norms in ideology. There is pressure of performativity (Ball, 2003), of endless form-filling and surveillance and control of teachers. However, either quietly or openly, in schools, colleges, and universities, many radical and Marxist critical educators, as well as others try to affect four aspects of learning and teaching, asking questions and making proposals about (at least) four aspects of education. These questions are common to many types of radical and critical educators, not simply Marxists (Edwards and Canaan, 2015). Below, I add what is specifically Marxist about these four issues. Pedagogy Some Critical and Marxist educators question the pattern of teaching and learning relationships and interaction, or teacher-centred pedagogy; what Freire termed ‘the banking model’ of education. Instead, using, for example, Freirean perspectives and praxis, they try instead, to use democratic participative pedagogy and dialogic education which attempt to break down, to some extent, patterns of domination and submission within classrooms/seminars and ‘model’ non-dominative/ submissive’ attitudes and relationships for the wider society. Freirean pedagogy is a collaborative enterprise that listens to children’s, students’, and local communities’ voices (Vittoria, 2016) and is aimed, as Freirean critical pedagogues such as Henry Giroux and Joe Kincheloe argue, at collective, social, community empowerment and liberation where education is recognised as intensely political. Of course, Critical Pedagogy did not start with Freire and his Latin American and North American developers and interpreters, although they have codified and, in a way, institutionalised it. I say, ‘in a way’ to denote that as well as establishing critical pedagogy as a validated university field of education study, they have promoted, stimulated, and encouraged, in varying degrees, a critique of capitalism, imperialism, and capitalist-imperialist education, and, in the form of ‘Revolutionary Critical Pedagogy (e.g. McLaren, 2005, 2010) and various communist and Marxist educators, promoted and worked with the development of resistance movements at the level of schools/universities/social movements. To repeat the phrase, ‘of course’, this is what hundreds of thousands of teachers, ideologues, and pedagogues have been doing for the best part of 200 years, from the USSR to the UK, from Guinea-Bissau to Germany, from Poland to Peru, from Turkey to Tinseltown (Hollywood). This is not to deny the profound impact of Freire on critical education. Critical and Marxist educators, those working within a Marxist theoretical, political, and practical frame, attempt to utilise different types of pedagogy in teaching, and to engage in non-hierarchical, democratic, participative, teaching and research. Such approaches are rooted in social constructivist Vygotskyan understandings of learning, and are also aimed both at producing co-learning, by teachers as well as taught, and at overtly welcoming and valuing more cultures than are commonly valued in a transmission mode of teaching, that is to say, welcoming and valuing

166

Dave Hill

what Gramsci termed ‘subaltern’ cultures. Vygotsky, as a Marxist, was inspired by Marx’s dialectic in that his model of teaching and learning rejects top-down and bottom-up accounts of the learning process—these unidirectional models originate in class-based societal relations which Marxists reject. For Vygotsky, scientific concepts could only be mastered with the aid of instruction, which, in his view, is both systematic and teacher-directed. Vygotsky’s discussion of the development of scientific concepts is carried out in terms of the ways in which they differ from everyday, or spontaneous, concepts, both in their defining characteristics and in their manner of acquisition. Compared with spontaneous concepts, scientific concepts have four features which the former lack: (a) generality, (b) systemic organisation, (c) conscious awareness, and (d) voluntary control. Wells (2004) summarises this as the development of those higher mental functions that are characterised by conscious awareness and volition (p. 314). Their success (in developing what he termed ‘scientific’ concepts), he suggests, is the outcome of a long process of instruction, in which: The teacher, working with the school child on a given question, explains, informs, inquires, corrects, and forces the child himself to explain. All this work on concepts, the entire process of their formation, is worked out by the child in collaboration with the adult in instruction. (Vygotsky, 1934) Vygotsky’s theory requires a setting (historically and socially conditioned) where the teacher is interacting with an individual student, or a small group, in relation to a task in which they are jointly engaged. Instruction is a cooperative process, in which teacher and student are jointly engaged. The development of the student’s higher mental functions occurs through the teacher’s assistance and participation. This form of instruction enables the student to progress in bringing a task to a satisfactory conclusion, and at the same time underlines the crucial role of the guidance of the teacher. Of course, critiques of over-dominant teacher-centred pedagogy are not restricted to Marxist educators. They are also made by liberal-progressive, child/studentcentred educators, anarchist educators, and by some conservative educators, concerned about teaching effectiveness and preparation for the workplace in terms of group work skills and also in terms of developing self-directed and self-policed labour. Often following Gramsci, or at least, principles and practices enunciated by Gramsci, Marxist teachers, by virtue of their role in actually teaching, in actually carrying out the role of teacher, need to maintain an authoritative stance. We have a duty to teach, to develop conceptual and critical understanding, to lecture, to facilitate the working-class development of working-class organic intellectuals. In this enterprise, learning can be hard work. The intellectual realm is not simply the preserve of an elite: all people, not just those who fulfil the social role of the intelligentsia, are intellectuals capable of analysing, critiquing, evaluating, synthesising, In addition to developing an understanding of elite culture and developing ‘traditional’ intellectual skills, Marxist educators are determined to develop critical

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 167 consciousness and, as well as valuing rather than demeaning working class life and culture, there is a further characteristic of the work of Marxist educators. It is, echoing Freireans and working-class and trade union educators globally, the creation of socialist consciousness, for those in our classrooms and lecture halls, which is grounded in everyday life. ‘Grounding’ and Activism Gramsci wrote that “the mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist in eloquence . . . but in active participation in practical life, as constructor, organiser, “permanent persuader” and not just a simple orator” (Gramsci, 1971, p. 10). As Fischman and McLaren (2005) put it, “Gramsci (1971) believed that intellectuals need to develop not only intellectual capital to engage with and on behalf of the masses but the social capital of trust and collective will necessary to bring about community-based liberatory praxis”. Similarly, with regard to the relationship between commitment/committed action and conscientization, Freire (1988, p. 114, cited in Borg, Buttigieg and Mayo, 2002, p. 172) notes that “conscientization is not exactly the starting point of commitment. Conscientization is more of a product of commitment. We do not have to be already critically self-conscious in order to struggle. By struggling we become conscious/aware”. There is a dialectical relationship between conscientization and committed action/struggle. Pavlidis (2015, pp. 32–33) puts it very clearly: Educators cannot fight for a genuine transformation of society unless they are emotionally, ideologically and politically attached to the social force that mostly needs this transformation. And such a force within capitalism is only the class of wage-labourers. Consequently, educators who strive for social transformation should be perfectly aware of the essential contradiction of capitalist society that necessitates and enables its revolutionary overcoming, and consciously work inside and outside schools, in the fields of social theory and practice, as wage-labour organic intellectuals, contributing to the understanding and expression of its strategic interests, thus serving the cause of the emancipation of labour and humanity. This ‘grounding’, this activism, is important: not just our own, but that of the class we work with/among/represent. While this is not inevitable, i.e. learning counterhegemonic, class-conscious lessons from the mass rally, the strike, the protest movement, we can see the potential of ‘learning-in—action’, learning from the visceral, the emotional, the solidarism of protest and action. The role of organic socialist intellectuals is crucial. And I am not simply talking here of the party ideologue member of the intelligentsia. I am talking of those who intellectualise social, political, cultural, economic matters from the standpoint of what Gramsci termed ‘good sense’, from a class-conscious perspective, such as the ‘political’ shop steward, or union organiser, the member of a socialist party, the

168

Dave Hill

teacher, the youth worker. Herein lies our pedagogical importance, of party, of our organisation, of propaganda leaflets and newspapers and booklets and books and DVDs and social media postings; here, as well as in conversation and in rhetorical speeches, we carry out the role of socialist analysis, of revolutionary pedagogy, of connecting the here and now of a rent strike, a pro-immigrant rally, an anti-austerity march, a picket line of a zero-hours contract employer, an occupation of a tax-avoiding multinational company-owned shop: here is essential pedagogy, Marxist pedagogy. Thus critical education is about far more than school or university-based pedagogy. It takes place outside schools and universities as well as inside as the rise of alternatives to the English university(Canaan et al., 2013, 2018; Hill, 2013) and elsewhere. There is educational resistance not only within, but also outside the state-controlled education structures. Marxist teachers, cultural workers, intellectuals are active within teach-ins at the ‘Occupy’ occupations, their Tent Cities, the Free University movement, and through oppositional media as well as within trade union and student groups—and within political parties. Curriculum A second area Marxist and other critical educators can and should critique is the curriculum—who selected the content and how rigid is it? Even where the curriculum is very tightly controlled, even where it is very rigidly prescribed, there are, as Gramsci, taught us, always spaces, little spaces in which to infiltrate, to use, to colonise. Spaces for any significant critique, or what Rikowski (2008) calls ‘deep critique’, are circumscribed. Education, and ‘teacher training’ in many countries such as the US and England and Wales have been de-theorised. The increasing subordination and commodification of education, including university education, have been well-documented. In England and Wales the government has, in effect, expelled most potentially critical aspects of education, such as sociological and political examination of schooling and education, and questions of social class, ‘race’, and gender, from the national curriculum for what was formerly called ‘teacher education’ but is now termed ‘teacher training’ (Hill, 2004b). The change in name is important both symbolically and in terms of actual accurate description of the new, ‘safe’, sanitised and de-theorised training of new teachers. ‘How to’ has replaced ‘why to’ in a technicist curriculum based on ‘delivery’ of a quietist and overwhelmingly conservative set of ‘standards’ for student teachers. Teachers are now, by and large, trained in skills rather than educated to examine the ‘whys’ and the ‘why nots’ and the contexts of curriculum, pedagogy, educational purposes, and structures and the effects these have on reproducing Capitalist economy, society, and politics. What follows—socialist curriculum suggestions relating to curriculum content—needs to be taken in the context of the preceding section on Pedagogy, for example, that curriculum content should develop an understanding of elite culture and developing ‘traditional’ intellectual skills, and that Marxist educators should develop critical consciousness, indeed, critical class consciousness.

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 169 Thus schools, further education/vocational colleges and universities and adult education should: •

•

•

•

Encourage Critical Thinking across the curriculum. Teach children not ‘what to think’, but also ‘how to think’. This includes how to think critically about the media and politicians, how to become aware of and evaluate alternative visions of the past, the present, and the future, and how to question the curriculum and of any classroom, school, local, national, or international community/society—‘who benefits from this? who loses’?’ Children must also be taught to ask ‘which (raced and gendered) social class groups and communities win and lose through particular policy and processes’, and be taught about Marxist analysis and the class exploitative nature of capitalism as well as current liberal and conservative ideological perspectives on society, but taught from a moral-ethical perspective/analysis that privileges social justice and Marxist analysis of class society (Malott and Ford, 2015; Pavlidis, 2015). Such critical thinking should include how to think critically not only about the media, politicians, the economic and social relations of production, but also about Marxist analysis. Critical analysis should be self-critical. Address and value ecological literacy and a readiness to act for environmental justice as well as economic and social justice. Encourage children to ‘work for a fairer society with much more equal chances, pay packets and power, and to work against environmental toxicity and despoliation, and for environmental sustainability. Ensure that schools’ curriculum and the ‘hidden curriculum’ are anti-racist, anti-sexist, anti-homophobic—and, in a very, very stark contrast to many books, articles and courses on social justice and equality issues—that the curriculum and the hidden curriculum should actually address, identify, critique, and combat social class exploitation under capitalism, and its attendant class discrimination. Schools and teachers should make sure they encourage equality, welcome different home and group cultures and welcome— rather than labelling, demeaning and degrading—individuals and groups such as the poor. As part of this, anti-bullying practices in every school should be fully implemented. Equality issues and anti-discrimination should be part of the actual curriculum, whether permeating subjects or as discrete units/topics. Assessment procedures should be varied to meet varying learning styles. An honest sex education curriculum in schools that teaches children not just ‘when to say no’, but also when to say ‘yes’. This should be a programme that is focused on positives and pleasure and personal worth, not on stigmatising sex and sexualities.

Resistance in the Classroom Of course, many educators, students, and communities do offer resistance from a variety of ideological perspectives. This is so especially in the inner-cities, where

170

Dave Hill

questions of social class, inequality, poverty, and race are part of the material and cultural reality of everyday life. Marxist educators, indeed critical educators in general, can, with students, look at the curriculum and ask, ‘Who do you think wrote this? ‘Who do you think decided on including this in the curriculum’? ‘What do you/we think should be in the curriculum that is currently absent?’ ‘Why do you think it is absent? ‘Who do you think benefits and who loses from this curriculum?’ However limited the spaces are, within a school, university, or educational site, within a curriculum, we can always find some possibility to question and to encourage the children/students to do this so that they are, in effect, developing an awareness of what can be called ‘ideology critique’ (Kelsh and Hill, 2006). We can question existing versions of history. We can ask, ‘is there a different version or view of the past, the present, or the future?’ The question, ‘who wins, who loses?’ when related to social class is a key question that can be interrogated of any micro-, meso-, or macro- policy—such as the content of a curriculum, pedagogy, the hidden curriculum, or of wider historical, cultural, economic, political developments and policies and ‘common sense’. Which (‘raced’ and gendered’ social class, or social class fractions, ‘win’ or ‘lose out’—and how. And why!) Where Marxist educators, and Revolutionary Critical Educators (McLaren, 2005, 2010) (in effect, Marxist educators, but using a different nomenclature) differ from more social democratic and liberal critical educators is in the emphasis placed on resistance and socialist transformation (Kelsh and Hill, 2006; Skordoulis and Hill, 2012). Social democratic and liberal/liberal-progressive educators do not proclaim the need for an anti-capitalist revolution, the need to replace capitalist economic and social relations by socialist ones. They are happy to limit themselves to working within, to ‘better managing’, the capitalist system. Organisation of Students A third question that critical and Marxist educators can and should ask concerns the organisation of the students. How should children and students of different social class, gender, and ethnic backgrounds and different sexual orientations be organised within classrooms, within institutions such as schools and universities, and within national education systems? Are some groups, such as girls, some ethnic minorities, the working class, or the poorer sections of the working class, in fact systematically labelled, segregated, divided, demeaned? In some countries virtually all children go to the same type of school. But children tend to go to schools where their own class predominates. Some socialist municipalities (‘local education authorities’ in the UK—in the US, ‘school districts’) in England in the 1960s and 1970s, such as Sheffield and the ILEA (Inner London Education Authority, where I taught in a comprehensive secondary school—that is to say, a High School—in the late 1960s) did use measures such as ‘zoning’ (drawing catchment areas for schools that deliberately included poor, average income, and high income urban areas) or taking a set proportion of children/students from what were called ‘ability’ bands (in reality, ‘attainment’ bands). But there is a clash of principles here, with no set Marxist solution—the

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 171 clash between the deliberate mixing of attainment/ability bands or groups of children/students, and a deliberate mixing of different social strata) on the one hand, and a different principle of neighbourhood schooling on the other. Marxist educators call for a fully Comprehensive Secondary School system (known in India as a Common School) so that each school has a broad social class mix and mix of ability and attainment levels. This demands an end to privately purchased schooling and college education and to selective systems of schooling. Existing private schools should be integrated into the state education system— so that the benefits of the private school system are shared amongst all pupils/ students. All schools should be placed under democratic locally elected, local council control. Private schools should be prohibited. Religious groups (of any religion) should not be allowed to control and run schools. ‘Faith Schools’ and organised religion should be removed from schooling. If Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, Wiccans, or whatever wish to teach religion, they should do it in their own time, place of worship (e.g. Friday/Saturday/Sunday schools) or in their supplementary or complementary schools. Ethics and spirituality can be taught in state schools, and teaching about religions, but there should be no indoctrination or brainwashing into a specific religion—or ideology (such as free-market fundamentalism). A critical approach should be taken towards religion, recognising not only its social and personal functions but also its political functions. In considering how children/students should be grouped both between schools and within them, there is also a question of how the education system inculcates a differentiated sense of class awareness in working-, middle-, and ruling-class students. It tries to keep the working class as a working class that is obedient, subservient, and individualistic, rather than communally oriented. Marxist and other egalitarian educators clearly prefer and work for what in Britain is called ‘comprehensive’ schools, and in India, for example, is called ‘the common school’. But then, even where this happens (as in Finland, where there are only a handful of private schools, where students up to the age of 16 are taught in common/comprehensive schools in ‘mixed ability’ classes), there are internal informal mechanisms operating, such as the hidden curriculum of differentially (classed, ‘raced’, gendered, and ‘sexually oriented’) expectations and responses to different cultural capitals (Anyon, 2011; Hill, 2009; Reay, 2006). Ownership, Control, and Management of Schools and Colleges and Universities A fourth question Marxist and other critical educators ask is about ownership and control of schools (and, indeed, vocational colleges and universities). Who should own, control, and govern schools, further education (vocational) colleges and universities? Of course, we cannot change the law at a stroke, but we can lead a movement that at some stage—in two years’ time, ten years’ time, 20 years’ time—the ownership and governance of schools can be changed, made democratic, secular and can attempt to be egalitarian. Instead of what is happening

172

Dave Hill

under neoliberal rule now, in the US with Charter Schools, in England with ‘Academies’/Academy schools (state funded schools, i.e. in theory, ‘public/for the public and with public accountability) but, in effect, state-funded schools that are privately run, managed, controlled. In England, in early 2018, more than half of all secondary schools/high schools, have been taken out of democratically accountable local authority/municipal control and handed over to religious organisations, or schools that are run and governed by rich businessmen or women, or by transnational corporations (Ball, 2012), or by national ‘for-profit’ private companies, by companies that are in theory and public discourse ‘not-for-profit’ (but which reward handsomely their executives and their friends). To take one example, the head of one chain of Academy schools (the Harris chain of Academies) has a salary in excess of £400,000 (Mansell, 2016). This salary comes from public funding for schools in the chain, at the expense of school books and school workers’ conditions and salaries. For example, Mansell (2016) reports that draft figures shown by the 12-school Griffin Schools Trust, “an academy chain whose joint chief executives own a company that received £700,000 from it over two years is enraging unions by, they say, allowing only small numbers of its rank-and-file teachers to progress up pay scales”. Marxist educators (and others, of course) believe that schools, colleges, and universities should be run democratically, with education workers and students, as well as elected representatives of local communities, having powers in and over those education institutions, within a secular, democratic, national framework. Explicit in this is the assertion that education is a public good and a public right that should not be distorted and corrupted by private ownership—there should be no private schools, colleges or universities. (For attempts to address these various aspects of education, in developing a socialist policy for education, see Hill and Boxley, 2007; Hill, 2010b). A question related to ‘who should own and control schools’ is how should they be managed, what should be the style of management—to put it crudely, should it be democratic and participative and collegiate, or should it be authoritarian, dictatorial, top-down control? Associated with ownership and control, are the moves globally to privatise and pre-privatise state education (which has progressed a long way in the US and in England); the form of control and management of the workforce, of teachers, lecturers, school support and administrative staff, (known as New Public Managerialism); and the importation of the huge differentials of pay, perks, and power typical of the private sector, into education (and other public services such as health and welfare/social services).

What Is Specifically Marxist About These Four Education Proposals? Marxists work for and willingly embrace reforms, they are committed to three forms of analysis and action that social democrats, radical liberals, radical democrats, non-Marxist feminists, non-Marxist anti-racists, and non-Marxist Queer activists are not.

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 173 These three forms of analysis are: • • •

Class Analysis: the Capital-Labour Relation Capitalism must be replaced by Socialism and that change is Revolutionary Revolutionary Transformation of Economy and Society needs to be preceded by and accompanied by a Class Programme, Organisation, and Activism

Class Analysis: The Capital-Labour Relation The first point is the salience of class as compared with other forms of structural oppression and discrimination and inequality. Marxists, Marxist Feminists, Marxist anti-Racists, Marxist Queer Theorists stand together with social movements and civil rights campaigners in opposing racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of discrimination. But Marxists go further than criticising (and acting against) social discrimination, oppressions, into economic rights. And further than that, into the recognition that full economic rights cannot be achieved under a capitalist economic system, but only under a socialist or communist system. Furthermore, it is recognised that it is only the organised working class (black-white; male-female; straight-LGBT, Dalit and all other castes) that can organise and succeed in replacing the Capitalist system (Hill, 2009; Smith, 2008). The Communist Manifesto(Marx and Engels, 1848/1977) is startlingly powerful and relevant today in its analysis of capitalism. Capitalism, as analysed and criticised by Marxists, is the systematic exploitation by the capitalist class of the labour power of the working class(es), with the capitalists appropriating the surplus value created by the labour of the working class(es). As Ebert and Zavarzadeh (2002) summarise, One’s class is determined not by how much one makes but where one stands in the social division of labour, which puts people into one of two fundamentally opposed positions: those who sell their labour to live (workers) and those who purchase this labour and make a profit from it (owners). This is the relationship between Capital and Labour—the Capital-Labour Relation. In these broad terms, there are two classes in capitalism—the capitalist class, who own and/or control the means of production, distribution, and exchange—banks and leading financial institutions. These control the economy and the media and the major political parties. In the US for example, both major parties, Republicans and Democrats, are overwhelmingly funded by Big Business (Fraser and Gertsle, 2005; Sefla, 2012). The other class is the working class, the 99 percent, unskilled workers, skilled workers, supervisory managerial and professional workers (such as teachers, lecturers). What each of these ‘strata’ or groups within the (broadly defined) working class have in common is that they all must sell their labour power to capitalists, or to organisations and apparatuses in the capitalist state (such as health or education services), in order to be paid a wage that allows them to subsist and meet various

174

Dave Hill

needs so that they can return to work the next day in good enough shape to participate in the production or circulation of surplus value. Capitalist economy and society is one in which there is an ongoing system of class conflict, of class war, with each of the two (major) classes of society— capitalists (called the bourgeoisie by Marx and Engels) and workers (called the proletariat by Marx and Engels)—engaged in struggle over increasing the proportion of surplus value (the value left when raw materials, rents, and wages/salaries have been paid) that should go into capitalists’ pockets as profits, or into workers’ pockets as wages, and, as welfare benefits—the social wage. The social wage comprises publicly funded education, publicly funded health services, and publicly funded welfare benefits such as old-age pensions, disability, unemployment, maternity, and other welfare benefits, such as subsidised travel and subsidised rents for private house renting. More broadly, the struggle is over ownership of the means of production (Ebert and Zavarzadeh, 2002). The struggle over the distribution of surplus value is a trade-unionist struggle, as Lenin points out in What Is To Be Done (Lenin, 1992/2008) that does not go beyond the limits of ‘what is’: capitalist relations. There is a ‘social wage’ only in the parameters of capitalism, which in fact makes those social wages necessary (because of exploitation for surplus value that leaves workers unable to meet their needs). It needs reiterating that the relationship between these two classes is essentially antagonistic; there is, under capitalism, a continuous ‘class war’, a continuous antagonistic relationship between the exploiting class and the exploited class, whatever the state of subjective appreciation/understanding/consciousness is. In the words of The Communist Manifesto, “society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other: Bourgeoisie and Proletariat” (Marx and Engels, 1960/1848, p. 109). There is what is sometimes termed ‘class compromises’. These are periods of relative class balance, a relative equivalence of class forces in struggle, and there is certainly non-stop propaganda by media and state apparatuses controlled by capitalists to assert that ‘class is dead’, that talk of class and class conflict is old-fashioned, that ‘we are all in this together’, and that classes, rather than being antagonistic, work more or less harmoniously together. It is the state apparatuses that not only keep the working class, this workforce, trained and fit to work— schools, universities, and health services—but that also attempt to keep the working class in a state of ‘ideological acquiescence’, to believe that with regard to how society, the economy, and politics are ordered, ‘there is no alternative’. Some Marxists agree with radical democrats, liberals, and even some conservatives that in the post—World War II period of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s, what the French call ‘les trentes glorieuses’‘(the Glorious Thirty’ years of 1945–75), there was pretty much a system of class balance. Ebert and Zavarzadeh sharply critique this narrative of ‘the Long Boom’ in their (2008) book Class in Culture. They relate working-class gains primarily to shortage of labour, rather than “a break in class struggles, the end of class militancy and class antagonisms” (p 64). That is to say, the organisations of the working class(es), such as trade unions,

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 175 were in a strong enough position vis-à-vis the capitalist class—the employers and the governments they control—to win pay rises, employee and trade union rights, and some welfare benefits. Capitalism Must Be Replaced by Socialism and That Change Is Revolutionary Marxists believe that reforms are not sustainable under capitalism, even if, when they are implemented, they are hugely or minimally welcome to Marxists. However, they are unsustainable, and are stripped away when there are the (recurrent and systemic) crises of capital, as happened in the 1930s, 1970s, post 2008). I want to emphasise here that Social democratic parties and politicians, such as Pablo Iglesias and Podemos in Spain, Alexis Tsipras and Syriza in Greece, Jeremy Corbyn and the majority of the Labour Party membership in the UK, Bernie Sanders in the US, do not want and have never wanted to replace capitalism— they just want to manage it better, to regulate it, to reform it—to make it work better, with more ‘social justice’, and with what Lenin called ‘trade union demands’, for increasing the social wage and the individual wage and collective wage of workers, with ‘better management of capitalism’ understood to mean the more equitable distribution of surplus value. In classical Marxist analysis capitalism is never acceptable, whether regulated, reformed, social democratic or not, because it is the exploitation (economic, therefore political, cultural, social oppression) of humans by humans. Hence what defines classical Marxists is a belief, an analysis, that capitalism must be replaced per se/in itself, regardless of the degree or sustainability/non-sustainability of reforms under capitalism. This is an important point: it is why Marxists work to develop class consciousness, a sense of the working class being ‘a class for itself’ (its class position) as opposed to ‘a class in itself’ (a class with class consciousness) (Marx, 1847) a class with ‘good sense’ as opposed to ‘common sense’ (Gramsci, 1971; Harman, 2005), a class that has conscientisation (Freire) for in capitalist society, under conditions of class exploitation, as Pavlidis (2015) puts it “workers spontaneously can develop only a trade-union consciousness, which does not exceed the horizon of their individual claims within the framework of the bourgeois society, and signifies ‘the ideological enslavement of the workers by the bourgeoisie”. (Lenin, 1978, p. 41, cited in Pavlidis, 2015) (Lenin, 1902/2008). The link between workers’ consciousness and socialist revolution is to teach against, to subvert, this ‘ideological enslavement’, in order that workers of the world can unite, as ‘a class for itself’ and break the chains that bind them. Class consciousness does not follow automatically or inevitably from the fact of class position. In The Communist Manifesto Marx and Engels(1848, p/22) explicitly identify the “formation of the proletariat into a class” as the key political task facing the communists. Therefore, what is needed is a revolution to replace, to get rid of, the capitalist economic system with its capitalist economic relations of production and

176

Dave Hill

its capitalist social relations of production—the ownership by capitalists of the wealth and the power in society. Revolutions are usually (though not always, for example the left-wing ‘Carnation Revolution’ in Portugal, 25 April 1974) violent (ruling classes do not often give up their power at home or in their empires voluntarily or peacefully) as, of course, are counter-revolutions. Revolution might, possibly, be partly stimulated and achieved through the ballot box, or as a combination of Parliamentarist/electoral work and Direct Action (such as strikes, occupations, barricades). Or, of course, solely by Direct Action. The ballot box alone cannot bring about revolution because state institutions in capitalism are not democratic. A Congress or Parliament or president or Prime Minister has limited power over these institutions. An elected socialist government would not be able to bring about much change which went against the interests of the capitalist class because the military, judiciary, police, and corporate hierarchy are not democratic. They use state violence to stop unwanted changes. This is the critique for example made over the last few years by the Greek revolutionary Marxist coalition Antarsya of the Radical Left (of which I am a member) of the Syriza Party in Greece. Syriza could formerly be characterised as left social democratic (albeit with Marxist component groups). Until taking power as a party committed to carrying out the austerity policy demanded by ‘the institutions’ (of European Capital—the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the European Commission, and the European Central Bank (ECB) in Greece in June 2015, when it became the handservant of Capital of the Greek bourgeoisie). For revolutionary Marxists, a socialist revolution is necessary, so that there comes into power (not just into government) an egalitarian, socialist economic, political, and education system (Hill, 2012). Revolutionary Transformation of Economy and Society Need to Be Preceded by and Accompanied by a Class Programme, Organisation, and Activism The third point of difference between Marxist and non-Marxist radicals is that in order to replace capitalism, Marxists have to actually work to organise for that movement, for that action. Thus, a duty as a Marxist is activist praxis, within the limits of one’s ability and competing demands. Marxists move beyond proposal into activism and praxis—I add ‘praxis’ here, since activism is not only spontaneity but also voluntarism, both of which can eschew theory in favour of action; praxis is action guided by theory, or theory in motion. Marxists, recognise that political organisation, programme development, and political intervention are necessary. They have to be fought for and developed— and defended. And a particular type of activist praxis is called for, to the extent of one’s capabilities, that is, for Marxist educators to act as, to be, to become, ‘organic intellectuals’ (Gramsci, 1971; Pavlidis, 2015). And, since that praxis is guided by class analysis, furthermore, in contrast to adopting a postmodernist or an identitarian analysis and politics, or a deconstructive intersectionality analysis, it is only the organised working class (Black-White;

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 177 male-female; straight-LGBT) that can organise and succeed in replacing the capitalist system, engaging in a socialist reconstruction of economy, polity, and society. Class is absolutely central to Marxist ontology and epistemology. Class conditions and permeates all social reality in capitalist systems. Marxists therefore critique postmodern and post-structural arguments that class is, or ever can be, ‘constructed extraeconomically’, or equally that it can be ‘deconstructed politically’—an epistemic position which has underwritten in the previous two decades numerous so-called ‘death of class’ theories. I am not arguing against the complexities of subjective identities, or against understanding intersectionality. People have different subjectivities. To take as an analytic example, one event, the ‘Great Coalminers’ Strike’ in Britain, 1984–85. Some individual coalminers in Britain were gay, black, Betty Page or Madonna fetishists, heavily influenced by Biggles or Punk, their male Gym teacher or their female History teacher, by Robert Tressell or by Daily Porn masturbation, by Radical Socialists or by Fascist ideology. But, to take one example of the salience of class analysis, the coal mining industry has virtually ceased to exist in Britain, and the brutal and violent police occupation of mining villages such as Orgreave during the Great Coalminers’ Strike and the privatisation of British Coal and virtual wiping out of the coal mining industry was motivated by deliberate class warfare of the ruling capitalist class. It was class warfare from above. Whatever individuals in mining families liked to do in bed, their dreams, and in their transmutation of television images, they suffered because of their particular class fraction position—they were miners—and historically the political shock troops of the British working class.

Educate, Agitate, Organise In terms of education policy and praxis, it is possible to itemise policy proposals, rooted in the Marxist analysis—of class society, of the Capital-Labour Relation, of the nature of the state and of ideology that I have set out for example in Hill (2012, Hill and Boxley, 2007), and of the nature of education in Capitalist society (Bukharin and Preobrazhensky, 1919/2007, Marx, 1845, n. d., 1867/2015; Althusser, 1971; Hill, 2004b; Malott and Ford, 2015). It is what I attempted to address in the section above on Pedagogy, Curriculum, Organisation of Students, and Control and Ownership of Schools and Universities. Both in the education arena and in the wider society, we Marxists seek to serve and advance the interests of the working class—recognising the fundamental nature of class exploitation and the multiple oppressions based on identities and subjectivities. We, as teachers, as educators, are working class, too: we sell our labour power to capitalists and to the apparatuses of the capitalist state, such as schools and universities. We have to consistently and courageously challenge the dominant ideology, the hegemony of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie, the capitalist class. We have to contest the currently hegemonic control of ideas by the capitalist state, schools, media, and their allies in the institutions of religion.

178

Dave Hill

But the situation we face is not just a war of ideas, an ideological war: it is also an economic class war, where the social and economic conditions and well-being of the working class are threatened and undermined by the ruling class and its capitalist state (Campagna, 2013). David Blacker (2013) goes even further, and argues that contemporary and future capitalist onslaughts will result in deaths for ‘superfluous’ workers and sections of the non-working industrial reserve army. For many millions of workers’ families—including what in the US and elsewhere are called ‘middle-class’ workers—an everyday reality in this current era of capitalism, neoliberal capitalism, is indeed ‘immiseration capitalism’, is declining standards of living and for millions, poverty, absolute as well as relative, with fear, homelessness, fear of unemployment, of eviction, of not being able to last till the next pay-cheque or social security benefit, of not being able to materially help children, and fearing for their futures, are stalking the capitalist heartlands. The precise organisation and characteristics of the resistance to the depredations is a matter for strategic and tactical considerations, relating to the current balance (strength, organisations, (dis)-unity) of class forces in specific local and national contexts. But to counter not only neoliberalism, but also neoconservatism, the ultra-patriotism, the racism, the authoritarianism, the sometimes outright fascism of the radical right, gaining recruits in various states, and gaining government control in states from Poland to Hungary to Ukraine to India to Turkey, the task is to unmask, to explain, and to organise against the radical right neoconservatism as well as neoliberalism. What is clear is that the task regarding capitalism, for Marxist activists and educators, is not just to reform it, welcome though such reforms, such as what Trotsky (1938) termed a ‘minimum programme’ are, we must be active in campaigning for and protecting such reforms. But, regarding capitalism, our task is to replace it with democratic Marxism. As teachers, as educators, as cultural workers, as activists, as intellectuals, we have a role to play. We must play it.

Note 1 Acknowledgements: This chapter is a development from: Hill, D. (2016). Marxist alternatives to neoliberal/neoconservative education. Knowledge Cultures, Special edition on ‘Revolution and Education’, edited by Lilia Monzo and Peter McLaren; from: Hill, D. (2016). Transformative education, Critical education, Marxist education; possibilities and alternatives to the restructuring of education in global neoliberal/neoconservative times. In R. Kumar (ed.), Neoliberalism and Educational Crisis in South Asia: Alternatives and Possibilities. London: Routledge; from: Hill, D. (2015). From deconstruction to reconstruction: Critical pedagogies, Critical education, Marxist education. In G. Grollios, A. Liambas, and P. Pavlidis (eds.), Proceedings of the IV International Conference on Critical Education “Critical Education in the Era of Crisis”. Online at www.eled. auth. gr/; from: Hill, D. (2015). Class struggle and education: Neoliberalism, neo-conservativism, and the capitalist assault on public education. In N. McCrary and E. W. Ross (eds.), Working for Social Justice Inside and Outside the Classroom: A Community of Teachers, Researchers, and Activists. New York: Peter Lang; and from: Hill, D. (2012). Fighting neoliberalism with education and activism. Philosophers for Change. 1 March. Online at https://philosophersforchange.org/2012/02/29/

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 179 fighting-neo-liberalism-with-education-and-activism/. Thanks to Deborah Kelsh for her comments on one part of this article, and to Kostas Skordoulis. Any inadequacies remain mine.

References Aisch, G., Pearce, A. and Rousseau, B. (2017). How far is Europe swinging to the right? New York Times, 20 March. Online at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/05/22/ world/europe/europe-right-wing-austria-hungary. html Althusser, L. (1971). Ideology and state apparatus. In L. Althusser, Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. London: New Left Books. Anyon, J. (2011). Marx and Education. London: Routledge. Ball, S. J. (2003). The teacher’s soul and the terrors of performativity. Journal of Education Policy, 18(2), pp. 215–228. Ball, S. (2012). Global Education Inc.: New Policy Networks and the Neoliberal Imaginary. London and New York: Routledge. Blacker, D. (2013). The Falling Rate of Learning and the Neoliberal Endgame. Winchester: Zero Books. Borg, C., Buttigieg, J. and Mayo, P. (2002) Gramsci and Education. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield. Bukharin, N. and Preobrazhensky, E. (1919/2007). The ABC of Communism. London: Merlin Press. Campagna, F. (2013). The Last Night: Anti-Work, Atheism, Adventure. Winchester: Zero Books. Canaan, J., Earl, C., Hill, D., and Maisuria, A. (2018 forthcoming). Resistance in England. In D. Hill and P. Chrysochou (eds.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt, 2nd ed. Brighton: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Canaan, J., Hill, D., and Maisuria, A. (2013). Resistance in England. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Centre for European Policy Analysis (2016). Central Europe's Fascist Revival. Online at http://cepa.org/index/?id=3155c3cd32750b623b04e923d2cf879d Ebert, T. and Zavarzadeh, M. (2002). ABC of class. The Red Critique, 7, November– December 2002. Online at www.redcritique.org/NovDec02/printversions/abcofclassprint.htm Ebert, T. and Zavazardeh, M. (2008). Class in Culture. Boulder, CO: Paradigm. Edwards, G. and Canaan, J. (2015). Radical, critical and Marxist education in neoliberal Britain. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13(3), pp. 71–96. Online at www.jceps.com/archives/2749 Fischman, G. and McLaren, P. (2005). Rethinking critical pedagogy and the Gramscian and Freirean legacies: From organic to committed intellectuals or critical pedagogy, commitment, and praxis. Cultural Studies—Critical Methodologies, 5(4), pp. 425–447. Foy, J. (2015). Poland returns most rightwing parliament in Europe. Financial Times, 26 October. Online at www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f0a994e8-7bdf-11e5-a1fe-567b37f80b64. html#axzz42GBpf4B2 Fraser, S. and Gertsle, G. (2005). Ruling America: A History of Wealth and Power in a Democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Freire, P. (1988). Pedagogia, Dialogo y Conflicto. Buenos Aires: Ediciones Cinco Gerome, C. (2010). 3 million paralyse economy in “biggest general strike ever”. Socialist World, 27 November. Online at www.socialistworld.net/mob/doc/4689 Gezgin, U. B., İnal, K., and Hill, D. (eds.). (2014). The Gezi Revolt: People’s Revolutionary Resistance Against Neoliberal Capitalism in Turkey. Brighton: Institute for Education Policy Studies.

180

Dave Hill

Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections From the Prison Notebooks (eds. and trans. by Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith). New York: International Publishers. Guardian. (2014). Across Europe disillusioned voters turn to outsiders for solutions. The Guardian, 16 November. Online at www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/16/ across-europe-disillusioned-voters-turn-to-outsiders Guardian. (2017). The Guardian view on the Austrian elections: an old threat in a new guise. Editorial. The Guardian, 16 October. Online at https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/ 2017/oct/16/the-guardian-view-on-the-austrian-elections-an-old-threat-in-a-new-guise Harman, C. (2005). From common sense to good sense. Socialist Review, 292. January 2005. Online at http://socialistreview.org.uk/292/common-sense-good-sense Hill, D. (ed.). (2013). Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Hill, D. (2004a). Educational perversion and global neo-liberalism: A Marxist critique Cultural Logic: An Electronic Journal of Marxist Theory and Practice. Online at http:// eserver.org/clogic/2004/2004.html Hill, D. (2004b). Books, banks and bullets: Controlling our minds – The global project of imperialistic and militaristic neo-liberalism and its effect on education policy. Policy Futures in Education, 2(3–4), pp. 504–522 (Theme: Marxist Futures in Education). Online at www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/viewpdf.asp?j=pfie&vol=2&issue=3&year=2004 &article=6_Hill_PFIE_2_3-4_web&id=81.158.104.245 Hill, D. (2009). Culturalist and materialist explanations of class and ‘race’: Critical race theory, equivalence/parallelist theory and Marxist theory. Cultural Logic: An Electronic Journal of Marxist Theory and Practice. Online at http://clogic.eserver.org/2009/2009. html Hill, D. (2010a). Students are revolting—and quite right too. Radical Notes (Delhi, India). Online at http://radicalnotes.com/journal/2010/12/03/students-are-revolting-educationcuts-and-resistance/ Hill, D. (2010b). A socialist manifesto for education. Socialist Resistance Online. Online at http://socialistresistance.org/?p=905 Hill, D. (2012). Vote in Greece in the June 17 2012 election for Antarsya and a transitional programme. 4th International Revolutionary Marxists Blogspot. Online at http://4thinternational.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/vote-in-greece-in-june-17-2012election.html. Also at www.ieps.org.uk/papersdh.php Hill, D. and Boxley, S. (2007). Critical teacher education for economic, environmental and social justice: An ecosocialist manifesto. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 5(2). Online at www.jceps.com/index. php?pageID=article&articleID=96 Hill, D. and Chrysochou, P. (eds.). (2018, forthcoming). Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Hill, D., McLaren, P. , Cole, M., and Rikowski, G. (eds.). (2002). Marxism Against Postmodernism in Educational Theory. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books. Inal, K. and Akkaymak, G. (eds.). (2012). Neoliberal Transformation of Education in Turkey. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. Inal, K. and Ozturk, H. T. (2013). Resistance in Turkey. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Ischenko, V. (2014) Ukraine has ignored the far right for too long – it must wake up to the danger. The Guardian, 13 November. Online at https://www.theguardian.com/ commentisfree/2014/nov/13/ukraine-far-right-fascism-mps Kelsh, D. and Hill, D. (2006). The culturalization of class and the occluding of class consciousness: The knowledge industry in/of education. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 4(1). Online at www.jceps.com/index.php?pageID=article&articl eID=59

Marxist Education Against Capitalism 181 Lenin, V. I. (1902/2008). What is to be done? Burning questions of our movement. Marxist Internet Archive. Online at www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1901/witbd/ Lenin, V. I. (1978). What Is To Be Done? Burning Questions of Our Movement. N. Y.: International Publishers Malott, C. and Agostine-Wilson, F. (2013a). Austerity capitalism and education in the USA. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Malott, C. and Agostine-Wilson, F. (2013b). Resistance in the USA. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Malott, C. and Ford, D. (2015). The “cynical recklessness” of capital: Machinery, becoming, and revolutionary Marxist. The SoJo Journal: Educational Foundations and Social Justice Education, 1(1), pp. 63–80. Online at Mansell, W. (2016). Harris academies boss’s salary nudges £400k after latest pay rise. The Guardian, 9 February. Online at www.theguardian.com/education/2016/feb/09/ harris-academy-salary-chief-executive-daniel-moynihan-schools Marx, K. (1845/n. d.). The German ideology. Marxist Internet Archive. Online at www. marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm Marx, K. (1847/1999). The poverty of philosophy. Marxist Internet Archive. Online at www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/poverty-philosophy/ Marx, K. (1867/2015). Capital: A critique of political economy: Vol. 1. The process of capitalist production. Marxist Internet Archive. Online at www.marxists.org/archive/ marx/works/download/pdf/Capital-Volume-I.pdf Marx, K. and Engels, F. (1848/2010). The communist manifesto. Marxist Internet Archive. Online at www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Manifesto.pdf Mason, R. and Stewart, H. (2016). No 10 makes new U-turn over trade union bill. The Guardian, 26 April. Online at www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/26/ no-10-makes-new-u-turn-over-trade-union-bill McLaren, P. (2005). Capitalists and Conquerors: A Critical Pedagogy Against Empire. New York: Rowman and Littlefield. McLaren, P. (2010). Revolutionary critical pedagogy. Interactions: UCLA Journal of Education and Information Studies, 6(2). Online at http://escholarship.org/uc/item/ 7qj2b570 O’Flynn, M., Power, M., McCabe, C., and Silke, H. (2013). Resistance in Ireland. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Ovenden, K. (2015). Syriza: Inside the Labyrinth. London: Pluto Press. Ovenden, K. (2017). Golden Dawn Nazis are back in the dock. Morning Star, 24 September. Online at www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-be88-Golden-Dawn-nazis-are-backin-the-dock Pavlidis, P. (2015). Social consciousness, education and transformative activity. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies, 13(2). Online at www.jceps.com/ archives/2611 Power, M., O’Flynn, M., Courtois, A., and Kennedy, M. (2013). Austerity capitalism and education in Ireland. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Reay, D. (2006). The zombie stalking English schools: Social class and educational inequality. British Journal of Education Studies, 54(3), pp. 288–307. Rees, J. (2016). The Leveller Revolution. London: Verso. Rikowski, G. (2008). The compression of critical space in education today. The Flow of Ideas. Online at www.flowideas.co.uk/?page=articles&sub=Critical%20Space%20 in%20Education.

182

Dave Hill

Rollenhagen, L. (2017). The German Elections Were a Disturbing Win for the Far-Right. GQ Magazine, 26 Sept. Online at https://www.gq.com/story/german-elections-2017 Roy, S. (2016). JNU sedition charge: Modi government is acting like a bull in a China shop. Huffington Post, 12 February. Online at www.huffingtonpost. in/2016/02/12/ make-in-india-week-_n_9218726. html Sayilan, F. and Turkmen, N. (2013). Austerity capitalism and education in Turkey. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Sefla, L. (2012). The Democrats: A Critical History. Chicago, IL: Haymarket Books. Sheehan, H. (2017). The Syriza Wave: Surging and Crashing With the Greek Left. New York: Monthly Review Press. Skordoulis, C. and Hill, D. (eds.). (2012). Introduction. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Critical Education, 2011. Athens: University of Athens. Slaughter, C. (1975). Marxist theory and class consciousness. In C. Slaughter (ed.), Marxism and the Class Struggle. London: New Park Publications. Online at www.marxists. org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/en/slaughte.htm Smith, S. (2008). The politics of identity. International Socialist Review, 57(January– February). Online at www.isreview.org/issues/57/feat-identity.shtml Sotiris, P. (2013). Austerity capitalism and education in Greece. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Stavila, A. (2016). Academia in Turkey “reminds me of Ceauşescu’s Romania”, says exiled scholar. Times Higher Educational Supplement, 6 February. Online at www. timeshighereducation.com/news/andrei-stavila-academia-in-turkey-reminds-me-ofceausescus-romania Trotsky, L. (1938). The Death Agony of Capitalism and the Tasks of the Fourth International: The Transitional Program. Online at www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/ tp/tp-text.htm#m Trotsky, L. (1940). Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay. Online at www. marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/xx/tu.htm Umney, C. (2015). Finishing what Thatcher started. Jacobin, 13 October. Online at www. jacobinmag.com/2015/10/corbyn-labour-conservatives-tube-strike/ Vatikiotis, L. and Nikolakaki, M. (2013). Resistance in Greece. In D. Hill (ed.), Immiseration Capitalism and Education: Austerity, Resistance and Revolt. Brighton, UK: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Vittoria, P. (2016). Narrating Paolo Freire: Towards a Pedagogy of Dialogue. Brighton: Institute for Education Policy Studies. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Thinking and Speech. Online at www.marxists.org/archive/ vygotsky/works/words/Thinking-and-Speech.pdf Wells, G. (2004). Dialogic Inquiry: Towards a Socio-Cultural Practice and Theory of Education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Wells, M. (2008). Trotsky’s trade unions in the epoch of imperialist decay. Socialist Appeal, 16 April. Online at www.socialist.net/trotskys-trade-unions-in-the-epoch-ofimperialist-decay.htm

Name Index

Abdullah of Saudi Arabia 56, 58 Adams, Tony E. 91 Adler, Friedrich 126 Adler, Max 126 Adorno, Theodor W. 121 Agamben, Georgio 154 Ağaoğlu, Adalet 46 Agostinone-Wilson, Faith 66 Aisch, Gregor 161 Akgöl, H. 65, 71 Aksoy, H.H. 85 Alkan, M. Ö. 36 Allman, Paul 66, 148 Althusser, Louis 77, 122, 135, 137, 145, 164, 177 Altunya, N. 40, 45, 47 Amin, Samir 57 Anderson, Kevin 110 Anderson, Leon 91 Anderson, Perry 121 Anyon, Jean 62 Apple, W. M. 63, 77, 79 Aronowitz, Stanley 63, 79, 106 Atatürk, Mustafa Kemal 37, 45 Atkinson, Paul 91 Avci, Nabi 52 Babbie, Earl 66 Bain, Alexander 21 Baker, Gordon 138, 139 Ball, Stephen J. 62, 63, 165, 172 Banfield, Grant 91, 96 Barrett, Michele 135 Barzani, Mesut 58 Bauer, Otto 126 Baykurt, Fakir 40 Bayraktar, Erdoğan 56 Beck, Harry 139 Becker, Gary S. 78 Belandis, Dimitris 16

Benhabib, Seyla 137 Benjamin, Walter 122 Bennett, Karen 98 Bernal, John Desmond 119, 122–5 Best, Geoffrey 22 Best, Steve 103 Bhaskar, Roy 29, 90–1 Biesta, Gert 146–7, 151–2 Bingham, Charles 146–7, 151–2 Blacker, David 178 Blake, William 105 Bonal, Xavier 62 Boron, Atilio 106 Boryczko, Marcin 149 Bourdieu, Pierre 77, 90 Braverman, Harry 80 Bukharin, Nikolai 117–9, 123, 177 Burlutskaia, M. G. 77, 78, 80 Busch, H. 12 Callinicos, Alex 20, 22, 26–7, 30 Câmara, Hélder 148 Campagna, Federico 178 Canaan, J. Earl 163, 168 Cansu, B. 46 Carnap, Rudolf 125–6 Castro, Fidel 112 Castro, Raul 113 Chavez, Hugo 102, 104, 112, 115 Chitty, Clyde 22 Chrysochou, Polina 163, 188 Chutorański, Maksymilian 153, 155, 156–7 Cole, D. R. 62 Cole, Mike 91 Comenius, Jan Amos 21, 33 Connell, Raewyn 41 Connelly, F. M. 24 Corbyn, Jeremy 161–2, 175 Crowther, J. G. 123

184

Name Index

Czerpaniak-Walczak, Maria 145–6 Czyżewski, M. 155 Dale, R. 14, 19 Daston, L. 117 Davis, A. 105 Deleuze, Gilles 110 Della Volpe, Galvano 122 Dewey, John 21, 25, 108, 146 Dilthey, Wilhelm 24 Donham, Donald L. 91 Dorn, Harold 117 Duarte, Nancy 21 Dunayevskaya, Raya 106, 109 Durkheim, Emile 23 Dussel, Enrique 106 Eagleton, Terry 135, 139 Ebert, Teresa 107 Edip, Halide 46 Einstein, Albert 123, 130 Ellis, Caroline 142 Enebakk, Vidar 118, 131 Engels, Friedrich 3, 123, 130, 135, 136–7, 173–5 Ercan, F. 40, 47 Erdoğan, Bilal 56, 58n5 Erdoğan, Recep Tayyip 1, 2, 56, 57, 58n2, 58n3, 58n5, 161, 164 Ertürk, E. 41 Fang, Z. 30 Fanon, Frantz 108 Farrington, Benjamin130 Forrester, Gill 63, 74 Fortna, Benjamin C. 36 Foucault, Michel 7, 105,110, 133, 141, 153–7, 158, Fourier, Charles 146 Francis (Pope) 163 Frank, Phillip 126 Freire, Paulo 6, 7, 24, 33, 62, 78, 102, 104, 106–8, 112,144, 147–51, 156, 165, 167, 175 Froebel, Friedrich 21 Fromm, Erich 122 Fukuyama, Francis 27 Gasper, Phil 123 Gawlicz, Katarzyna and Starnawski, Marcin 147–8 Gellner, Ernest 45 Gerome, C. 160 Gibson-Graham, J.K. 85, 86 Gindin, S. 61, 74

Ginsberg, Allan 102 Ginsburg, M. 63 Giroux, Henry A. 61–3, 104, 106, 165 Gök, Fatma. 40, Goldmann, Lucien 121 Gordon, Colin 154 Goulas, Vlasios 12, 19 Gounari, Panayota 60, 64, 65, Graham, L. R. 123, 131 Gramsci, Antonio 119, 121, 134, 137, 142, 143, 145, 164, 166–7, 168, 175, 175 Greenwood, J. D. 50, 54 Grollios, George 11, 12, 16, 61, 62, 64, 65, 178 Gruber, Helmut 127, 128 Guevara, Aleida 104 Guevara, Che 196, 108, 112 Güntekin, Reşat Nuri 46 Habermas, Jurgen 108, 122, 134 Haenni, Patrick 52, 59 Hahn, Hans 126 Haldane, J. B. S. 123–4 Halleux, Robert 130 Hardt, Michael 110 Harman, C. 175 Harnecker, Marta 106 Harris, K. 64, 172, 181 Harvey, David 61 Havel, Vaclav 133 Heartfield, James 91 Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich 3, 28, 30, 109, 111, 120, 121, 122, 136–8, 148 Heidegger, Martin 126 Helvétius 146 Herbart, Johann Friedrich 21 Hess, David J. 117 Hessen, Boris 117, 118, 122–3 Hilferdig, Rudolf 126 Hill, Dave 22, 27, 106, 163–4, 168–4, 176, 177–82 Hoberek, Andrew 78 Hogben, Lancelot 123 Horkheimer, Max 121, 127 Hudis, Peter 105, 110 Husserl, Edmund 24 Hutto, Daniel 138–9 Hyland, Terry 23, 33 Iglesias, Pablo 175 Ischenko, V. 161 Jacotot, Jean-Joseph 150 Jacyno, Jolanta 157

Name Index 185 Jastrow, Joseph 139 Jesus 112–3 Kahn, Richard. 103 Kallikratis Plan 71 Kant, Immanuel 146 Kelsh, Deborah 179 Kılıçdaroğlu, Kemal 56 Kincheloe, Joe 129, 165 Komarov, Vladimir Leontyevich 123 Korsch, Karl 121 Kosik, Karel 123 Kostyło, Piotr 148 Kotzias, Nikos 16 Kumar, Ravi 178 Kurul, Nejla 87 Laclau, Ernesto 106 Le Pen, Marine 161 Leary, Timothy 102 Lebowitz, Michael 106 Leech, Garry 111 Lemke, Thomas 153–5 Lenin, Vladimir 8, 135, 163, 174–5 Lewin, Kurt 24 Little, Daniel 66 Lowenthal, Leo 121 Lukacs, Georg 119, 135, 137 Lyotard, Jean Francois 26, 106 Lysenko, Trofim 124 MacDonald Fraser, George 21 Macedo, Donaldo 151 Madison, D. Soyini 90 Maduro, Nicolas 115 Malcolm X 105 Malcolm, Norman 134 Malott, Curry 114, 168–9 Mandel, Ernest 3 Maniatis, Thanasis 60 Mansell, W. 172 Marcuse, Herbert 85, 109, 122 Mardin, Şerif 43, 46 Marx, Karl vii, viii, 3,7,21, 27–30, 33, 78, 80, 89, 100, 106, 109,114, 115, 117, 120–3, 125, 133–7, 140–1, 148, 166, 173–5, 177 Maschelein, Jan 156 Matthews, Michael R. 22, 29, 30 Matynia, Elżbieta 133 Mavroudeas, Stavros 17 Mayo, Peter 85, 148, 167 McLaren, Peter 62, 89, 90, 97, 101–16, 145, 165, 167, 181 McLellan, David 130

McNally, David 61 McNeil, Linda M. 63 Mendel, Maria 150 Mepham, John 120 Mészáros, Gyorgy 2, 6, 89, 90 Miranda, Jose Porfirio 113 Monk, Ray, 134 Moore, Alex 26 Mouffe, Chantal 134 Mubarak, Hosni 54 Mucha, Janusz 153 Murray, Patrick, 120 Needham, Joseph 123–4, 130 Negreponti-Delivani, Maria 16 Negri, Antonio 110 Neurath, Otto 125–6 Nocella, Tony 103 Novack, George 24 Nussbaum, Martha 141 Oakeshott, Michael 27 Obrador, Lopez 104 Okçabol, Rifat 43 Olsen, Wendy 96 Örnek, Cangül 40 Osgood, Jayne 63, 75 Ostrowicka, Helena 153 Ovenden, Kevin 160–1, 163 Owen, Robert 146 Ozga, Jenny 63, 75 Özgüden, M. 39, 40 Özsoy, S. and Ünal, I. 41, 48 Parker, Stuart 26 Partington, Geoffrey, 21, 27 Pavlidis, Perikles 63–4, 167, 169, 175–6 Perkins, Harold James 22 Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich 21 Peters, R.S. 26 Polychroniou, C. J. 61, 72 Popkewitz, Thomas S. 63 Powelson, Michale W. 97 Psacharopoulos, George 78 Quantz, Richard 107 Rancière, Jacque 144, 147, 149–52, 156 Ravetz, Jerome R. 124 Rawls, John, 134 Read, Rupert 134–5 Reay, D. 171 Rees, J. 163 Reitz, Charles 109 Renner, Karl 126

186

Name Index

Rich, R. W. 21 Richardson, Sarah S. 126 Rikowski, Glenn 77, 90, 106–7, 164, 168 Robinson, William I. 110 Rollenhagen, L. 161 Rorty, Richard 26 Rosanvallon, Pierre 133 Rose, Hilary and Rose, Steven 124 Ross, E. Wayne 22 Rossi-Landi, Ferruccio 134 Rousseau, Jean-Jacques 146 Roussis, George 12 Ruben, David-Hillel 120 Ruge, Arnold 140

Stańczyk, Piotr 152 Standing, Guy 79 Stavila, A. 164 Stenhouse, Lawrence 24 Struik, Dirk 130 Suchting, W.A. 28–9, 30, 54, 121 Szkudlarek, Tomasz 144, 150

Sadat, Anwar 54 Sahlberg, Pasi 63 Said, Edward 110 Sakellaropoulos, Spyros 12, 17, 60 San Juan, Epifanio 106 Sancak, Ethem 57 Sanders, Bernie 161–2, 175 Sartre, Jean-Paul 121 Sarup, Madan 26, 62 Savran, Sungur 39, 45–6 Sayer, Andrew, 25 Sayilan, Favziye 37, 39, 40, 163 Schaff, Adam 140 Schiller, F. 146 Schön, Donald 23–5 Schultz, Theodore 78 Sen, Amartya 134 Sen, Egitim 46, 53 Şen, Ö. 53 Sennett, Richard 80 Sheehan, Helena 118–9, 130, 166 Shor, Ira 62 Silber, John 102 Simon, Brian 7, 20–1, 31 Simons, M. 156 Skordoulis, Kostas 118–9, 122, 130, 169, 179 Slaughter, C. 163 Smith, John Maynard 124 Smith, S. 173 Socrates 140 Sönmez, Sevil 39 Sotiris, P. 163 Sotiris, Panagiotis 60, 163 Sprague, Jeb 66 Sraffa, Piero 134 Stalin, Joseph 121, 123–4 Stamelos, George 10, 12, 14, 17

Uebel, Thomas E. 126 Umney, C. 162 Ünal, L. I. 62, 66, 72 Uranovsky, Y. M. 123 Üstel, F. 62, 73 Üzgel, Ílhan 42

Taylor, Frederick Winslow 72 Timur, T. 38 Tressle, Robert 177 Trotsky, L. 163 Trump, Donald 161–2 Tzipras, Alexis 175

Vasilopoulos, Andreas, 10, 12, 14, 17 Vavilov, Sergey Ivanovich 123 Vittoria, P. 165 Von Wright, Georg Henrik 134, 143 Vygotsky, Lev Semyonovich. 21, 29, 30, 32, 129, 165–6 Wallerstein, Immanuel, 6, 90, 98 Wang Yan 103 Weber, Max, 24 Wells, G. 163 Werskey, Gary 118, 122–3, 130 Wilden, Anthony 106 Willis, Paul 145 Wilmott, Robert 22, 30, 31 Wittgenstein, Ludwig 133–41, Wood, Neal 130 Yildiz, Ahmet 37, 39, 40–1 Young, Michael 24 Young, Robert, M. 119 Zachariah, M. 149 Zavarzadeh. Mas’ud 106 Zilsel, Edgar 7, 120, 125–7 Ziman, John 117 Zinn, Howard 108 Žižek, Slavoj 135 Zmas, A. 14, 17 Zola, Emil 133 Zürcher, Erik J. 36–7

Subject Index

academia 3, 6, 90, 94, 98, 118, 128–9 academic 2, 6, 8, 91, 94–9; see also researcher; scholar accountability 11, 16, 17, 41, 61, 63, 18, 72 action 3, 24–6, 28, 30, 31–2, 64, 97, 99, 108, 111, 124, 137, 147, 149, 150, 157, 163, 167, 177; political 6, 89, 91 activism 4, 8, 32, 91, 93, 104, 114, 116, 164, 167, 173, 176 activist 1, 2, 8, 102–4, 106, 116, 178 agency 6, 23, 30, 99, 115, 141 agent 15, 30, 36, 37, 38, 43, 63; see also subject AKP 1, 35, 41–2, 44, 45n6, 46n7, 46n9, 46n14, 51–2, 56–7, 161, 164 alienation 18, 23, 109, 111, 122, 135 al-Qaeda 50, 55 apparatus 8, 42, 60, 110, 137, 145, 154, 163–4, 173–4, 177; see also dispositif Arab Spring 5, 53, 56 aspect change 7, 139, 140 austerity 4,15, 61, 65, 89, 94, 160–4, 168, 176; see also capitalism authoritarianism 1, 24, 69, 151, 178 autoethnography 89–91 awareness 45, 55, 149, 166; see also consciousness Bologna Process 14 bourgeoisie 22, 39, 45n7, 51, 77–8, 127, 174–5, 177 capital 6, 12, 15, 25, 26–7, 32, 39, 43, 50, 60, 78–9, 97, 99, 110, 111, 120, 122, 173, 175–6; cultural 171; human 78, 85, 90; intellectual 167; social 167 capitalism 6, 20, 22, 25, 31, 38, 50, 60, 77–80, 86, 90, 97, 99, 103, 111–12, 115,

120, 122, 128–9, 164–5, 167, 169, 173, 174–6, 178; austerity 107, 111–12, 115, 163; contradictions in 22–3, 28, 31, 129, 164; crisis of 4, 60, 114; global 6, 40, 32, 99,; immiseration 178; industrial 61; neoliberal 8, 42, 50, 90, 178; reform of 22, 31; resistance to 114, 163; state 40, 106; transnational 107–8, 112 capitalist system 3, 40, 60, 78, 90, 140, 173, 177 class 9–12, 19, 21, 31, 37, 43, 49, 68, 84, 107–8, 110, 114–15, 129, 147, 160, 162–3, 166, 168–71, 173–7; antagonism 32, 107, 174; capitalist 10, 16, 19, 27, 37, 110, 160, 162, 173–7; conflict 174; consciousness 5, 90, 137, 160, 163, 167–8, 171, 175; fight 57; high 83; industrial 23, 126; interests 22, 27, 31–2, 137; labouring 21, 27, 31; lower 43; middle 6, 43, 53, 56, 58, 78, 81–6, 92–3, 95–8, 160, 178; poor 39; position 96, 175; relations 11, 18, 22, 31, 148; ruling 15, 21, 39, 110, 115, 117, 136, 162, 176–8; struggle 4, 27, 31, 64, 107, 111, 123, 174; upper 58; war 160, 162, 174, 177–8; working 3–4, 15, 31, 39, 45n7, 77, 80, 84–5, 99, 108, 111, 126–8, 136–7, 160, 162–3, 166–7, 170–1, 173–8 cognitariat 108 cognition 3, 24, 127; see also knowledge commodification 32, 61, 78, 97, 168 communism 89, 107, 112–13, 124 competency 41, 63, 85 competition 4, 11, 13, 14, 16, 45, 49, 61, 70, 94, 98 competitiveness 12, 14, 15, 17, 63 conflict 26, 30–1, 43, 46n12, 62, 70, 84, 118, 174; see also struggle

188

Subject Index

conscienization/conscientization 149, 167, 175 consciousness 21, 26–7, 29, 30, 32, 90, 111–12, 117–18, 135, 146–8, 163, 174– 5; class 5, 137, 163, 168, 175; conflicting 27, 31; critical 17, 30, 112, 166–168; false 110, 122, 145–6; national 39; reform of 134, 136, 149; revolutionary 31; socialist 167 see also awareness conservatism 8, 27, 42, 53, 160 crisis 1, 3, 4, 8, 10–12, 14, 15, 22–3, 28, 31, 40, 60–5, 67, 69, 71, 161; of capitalism 4, 23, 60, 114; of the capitalist system 3, 60; of democratic participation 133–4; of democratic politics 134; in education 1, 40; of the intellectual’s role 133 critical analysis 4, 169 critical realism 90 critical spirituality 112 critical thinking 50, 134, 169 critique 11, 20, 23, 25, 27, 109, 112, 119, 120–2, 135, 141, 144–5, 153, 155, 158, 164–5, 176; deep 164, 168; Marxian 135; Marxist 90; of consciousness 135; of education 144–6, 165; of ideology 136, 138, 170; of language 133, 135, 138; practical 141; social 153 Cultural Studies 7, 102, 106, 129 culturalism 25 culture 11, 25, 57–8, 90, 114, 119, 155 165, 169; audit 63; commercial 22; commodity 101; elite 166, 168; of individualism 157; popular 18; religious 44; subaltern 166; Western 50; working-class 167 curriculum 11, 18, 23, 35, 36, 42, 43, 51–2, 54, 56, 58n3, 108, 114, 168–70; hidden 169–71 democracy 15, 20, 23, 25, 51, 55, 125, 141 deregulation 17, 79, 110 dialectic(s) 98, 105, 108–9, 111, 120, 129, 166; of the concrete 107; of emergence and contingency 121; Hegelian 3, 109, 136; idealist 3; materialist 3; of nature 29; of oppression 148; theory-practice 30 discrimination 44, 53, 169, 173 dispositif 153–6; see also apparatus economy 8, 9, 15–6, 39, 80, 85, 138, 155–6, 168, 173–4, 176–7; political 120, 122 ecopedagogy 112

education 8, 10–19, 25, 27, 32, 41, 49, 62, 77–86, 95, 107, 112, 115, 125, 127–8, 140–1, 144–7, 149–52, 155–6, 158, 164–5, 168–9, 172, 174, 177; as apparatus 42, 145, 164; as a right 1, 172; “banking” 149, 165; basic 40, 52, 77; commercialisation of 40; commodification of 168; as a commodity 1, 43; competition in 11, 16, 35, 61, 70; compulsory 13–14, 43, 46n10, 54, 129, 141, 149–50, 165, 168; critical 1, 2, 6, 8; as critical practice 140; economic function of 77, 85; economic value of 17; employability effect of 85; functions of 77, 85; in Greece 60–73; higher 77, 80, 94, 128; humanitarian 18; humanistic 16–8; in Hungary 93–5; Islamic 53; marketisation of 40, 42–3; military 54; mixed 42, 54; in Muslim countries 49–50, 53–54; neoliberal 41, 44, 49; objectification of 35; polytechnic 18; preschool 17, 52; private 18; progressive 11–12; problem-posing 149; public 1, 11, 16–17, 43, 61, 58n1; religionisation of 42; religious 36, 51–4; restructuring of 11; revolutionary 40; role of 1, 85, 149–50; secondary 14, 61; secular 43, 51, 54; and social mobility 10, 78, 80, 83–5; socialist 27; state 11; technical 18, 61; technocratic turn in 62; tertiary 14; in Turkey 35–46, 49–53, 55–9; university 77–8, 83, 168; values 42, 52; see also: philosophy of education; reform of education; schooling; science education, training; teacher education adult 128, 169 education science 94–5 education(al) policy 2, 4, 8–11, 13, 16–19, 21–2, 26, 29, 31, 35, 39, 51–2, 55, 58n1, 62, 67, 73n28, 155–6, 172, 177 education(al) system 16, 43–4, 80, 93, 144, 154, 170, 171, 176; capitalist 25; English 4, 21; Greek 61; of EU memberstates 4, 14; European 16–17; Turkish 37, 56 educational studies 11 educationalisation 155–7 educator 1, 2, 4, 8, 21, 61, 63–5, 67–8, 114, 150–1, 164, 167, 169–71, 177; critical 17–19, 32, 53, 58, 108, 152, 156, 164–5, 168, 170–1; Marxist 17–19, 102, 106, 130n7, 164–8, 170–2, 176, 178; radical 102, 151,164–5; teacher educator

Subject Index 24, 26, 31–2; see also pedagogue; teacher effectiveness 9, 11–12, 17, 22, 61, 63, 166 efficiency 16–17, 22, 31, 41, 63, 71, 155 Egypt 49, 54–5, 57 emancipation 7, 8, 77, 108, 110, 141, 144– 52, 156–7, 167; human 31; of humanity 18, 27, 112, 137, 167; of the proletariat 137; through education 7, 145–6; of the working class 3, 4 empiricism 23–4, 28, 91; logical 125–6, employability 17, 85, 156, empowerment 7–8, 11, 144–145, 147–153, 155, 157–8, 165 enfleshment 90, 99 enlightenment 31, 39, 44, 58 Enlightenment 7, 20, 22, 26–8, 31, 145 epistemology 29, 115, 129, 177 equality 11, 16, 58, 112, 150, 169, European Commission 13, 14, 16, 176 European Economic Community 9, 10, 12, European Union (EU) 4, 13–15, 17–18, 50, 52, 72n20, 95, 155 exploitation 101, 112–13, 136, 157, 169, 173–5, 177; see also oppression fascism 9, 111, 129, 178 Frankfurt School 27, 85, 121, 127, 129, 145 freedom 8, 9, 25, 85, 113, 140–1, 148, 149, 154; see also liberty gender 11, 44, 90, 111, 129, 149, 169–70 globalisation 13, 42, 52, 78 governmentality 7, 153–7 Greece 60, 62–3, 65–7, 71n1, 73n28, 102, 160–2, 163, 175–6 Human Capital Theory 78 human science 21, 24, 28, 121 humanism 110, 127 Hungary 1, 89, 91–3, 94, 97–8, 102 idealism 20, 119, 122, ideological enslavement 175 ideology 4, 7, 13, 27, 52, 54–5, 57, 65, 69, 95, 107–8, 120, 122, 133–8, 140–1, 145–7, 171, 177 industrialisation 21, 39 injustice 32, 90, 113, 146 intellectual 49, 50, 95, 133, 166–8, 178; critical 94; military-civilian 38; organic 90, 166–7, 176; universal 133

189

International Congress of the History of Science and Technology 118, 122, 127 International Monetary Fund (IMF) 51, 52, 54, 176, Iran 53–5, 57 Iraq 5, 13, 50, 54–5 Islam 44, 50–5, 57, 58n1 Islamic State 50, 54, 55, 58n1 Islamicising 2, 35, 42 Islamisation 41, 46n8 job 5, 14, 41, 53, 63, 73n31, 77–85, 92–3, 96–7, 156 job security 6, 78–9, 112 justice 9, 10, 58, 90, 133; cognitive 115; economic 1; environmental 169; social 15, 114, 148, 169, 175 knowing 23–4, 27–8, 149 knowledge 3, 11–13, 16–19, 21–2, 26, 28, 35, 41, 64, 77, 98, 120, 125, 127–9, 152, 156; acquisition of 16, 18; applied 17; common-sense 28; empirical 20; fragmentary 3; innate 4; local 98; Marxist theory of 120; pedagogic(al) 26, 31; practical 23; professional 23; scientific 16, 18, 127–8; workplace organisational 23 knowledge economy 23 knowledge production 17, 18, 90, 98 labour 16, 18, 20–3, 28–32, 41, 43, 68, 77–80, 87n1, 109–11, 113, 115, 120, 127, 166–7, 173–4; academic 97; intellectual 63–4, 127; manual 77–8, 80, 127; mental 77–80; relations 60–1, 67–8, 134; scientific 30; see also work labour market 6, 11–12, 14, 17, 78–9, 83–4 Labour Party (Kurdistan) 55 Labour Party (UK) 162, 175 labour power 5, 77–9, 173, 177; see also workforce labourer 28, 113, 127, 167; see also worker language 135–9 language games 134, 138 language learning 12, 14 learning 13–14, 21–2, 25, 62–3, 70, 165–7; lifelong 14, 17, 64, 85 Left 1–2, 4, 45n7, 52, 107, 114–5, 129, 160–3, 176 Left Vienna Circle (LVC) 126–9 liberation 110, 112, 135, 144–8, 150–1, 156, 165; through education 145

190

Subject Index

liberation theology 107, 112, 113 liberty 23, 109; see also freedom literacy 37, 54, 78 madrasa 36, 53–4 managerialisation 61 managerialism 94, 172 market 11–12, 14, 17, 22, 35, 39, 41–4, 48, 50, 52, 57–8, 152, 154; see also economy; labour market; marketplace marketisation 40, 42–3, 61 marketplace 42, 44, 78, 113–14 Marxism 3, 4, 7, 58, 107, 110, 117–23, 126, 129–30, 178; classical 7, 121, 129–30; critical 121–2, 129–30; as critique 121–2; humanist 121; as science 121–2; scientific 121–2, 129–30; soviet 119; Western 119 Marxist analysis 3, 169, 175, 177 Marxist History of Science 7, 117, 128, Marxist thought 2, 121, 135 materialism 20, 197, 119–20, 129; dialectical 3, 85, 119; historical materialism 107 Middle East 51–6, 59n7 modernisation (Turkey) 36–9, 43–4, 49–50, 52, 55, 57 modernity 7, 25–6, 146 movement: alternative teacher education 24; competency 23; critical education 1, 8; educational 4, 29; effective schools 11; efficiency 22–4, 28; Islamist 42, 45n7; learner-centred 24–5; popular education 127–8; poststructuralist 25–6; reflective practice 30; standards 23; teacher-as-researcher 24; teacher education 22–30 nationalism 8, 15, 51 natural science 22, 24, 28, 120–1, 123 neoconservatism 2, 8, 57, 61, 160, 178, neoliberalism 1, 2, 15, 61, 78–9, 99, 160, 163, 178 oppression 84–6, 101, 112, 137, 144, 146–8, 151–2, 173, 175, 177; see also exploitation Pakistan 54–5 participation 70, 127, 167; civic 15; democratic 133 pedagogue 24, 165; critical 6, 114, 165; see also educator; teacher

pedagogy 4, 20–32, 65, 90, 96, 120, 144, 152, 155, 157, 165, 168; critical 6–7, 27, 102–3, 109, 111–12 129, 144–7, 152–3, 157–8, 165; democratic participative 165; modern 28; of the oppressed 40, 147; personal 24; of science 7, 120, 129–30; revolutionary critical 6, 107, 112, 165; teacher-centred 165, 166 perspicuous representation 138–40 philosophy 18, 119, 125, 126, 134–5, 143; critical 134; of education 144–5; Foucault’s 154–5; German 122; idealist 28; Marxist 3; of labour 109; political 27, 126; of praxis 107; of science 126; Wittgenstein’s 133–5, 138–9, 141 policy: economic 10, 39, 52; neoliberal 6, 19, 35–36, 40–1, 44–5, 62, 85, 94, 97–8, 160; see also education policy politics 15, 42, 62, 65, 107, 125, 134, 155, 160, 168, 174; democratic 134; education 53, 73n28; identity 114, 129; Islamic 44; Marxist 114; of memory 105; neoconservative 1; neoliberal 1, 34, 41, 44 positivism 24, 121 postmodernism 26, 91, 106–7, 129, poststructuralism 25–6 poverty 11, 61, 81, 113, 170, 178, practice 1, 10, 21, 24–6, 30, 32, 35, 65, 94, 98, 108, 119, 121, 129–30, 134–5, 138, 140–1, 145, 147–8, 151–2, 167; see also praxis pragmatism 24, 152, praxis 4, 99, 108, 167, 176; activist 176; collective 4; education 177; emancipatory 111; Freirean 165; revolutionary 4, 107, 111; scientific 4 precariat 79, 108, 110 privatisation 53, 61, 160, 177, production 18, 22, 23, 31, 49, 77–80, 84, 90, 97, 99, 109, 117, 127–9, 137, 140, 163, 169, 173–6; academic 98; cultural 11; see also knowledge production; value production proletariat 4, 37, 108, 136–7, 174–5 proletarisation 99 property 113; private 89, 96, 109 psychology 24, 94 race 111, 115, 129, 148, 168, 170 racism 18, 112, 114, 115, 173, 178, rationalism 27–8

Subject Index rationality 22–3, 25, 27, 30, 127, Red Vienna 120, 126, 128 reflection 21, 24–5, 133, 147, 149; critical 64, 141, 143, 149; educational 143; pedagogical 18; self- 141; Socratic 141; upon reality 29; on the world 20 reflective practitioner 24–5, 63 reflexivity 20–1 reform 172, 175, 178; of capitalism 22, 31; of consciousness 134, 136, 140; of education educational 23, 37, 61–3, 94, 120, 126; in Turkey 37, 39–40, 44; of the system 23; welfare 25 relativism 11, 26, 91 religion 36, 42, 45n3, 46n9, 50–2, 54–5, 57–8, 129, 171, 177; see also Islam religionisation 42, 43 religionising 35, 42 reproduction 4, 12–13, 144–5, 152 research 4, 17, 18, 32, 90–5, 97–9, 114, 117–8, 120, 127, 165 researcher 6, 23, 24, 29, 90, 93–9, 157; see also academic; scholar resistance 1, 8, 22, 27, 31–2, 52, 99, 110, 114, 144, 145, 152, 160, 162–3, 165, 168–70, 178 revolution 38, 102, 108, 110, 112, 140, 163, 170, 175–6; Bolivarian 102; ecological 112; English 123; Iranian Islamic 53; scientific 13, 80, 120–1, 125; technological 13, 80 Right 4, 10, 27, 161–2, 178 rights 15, 17, 40, 50, 51, 61, 63, 160, 162, 173, 175 Saudi Arabia 53–6, 58n1 scholar 1–2, 65, 90, 102–3, 106–7, 114, 117, 121, 127–9; see also academic; researcher school 8, 10–14, 17–18, 21–2, 27, 30, 32, 77, 112, 147, 151–2, 156, 164, 169–72, 174, 177; in Greece 61, 63, 65, 67–73; in Turkey 36, 41, 42–4, 46n9, 49, 51–4, 56, 58n2, 59n6 schooling 22, 30–1, 43, 62, 65, 68, 151, 164, 168, 171; see also education; teacher education; training science 6–7, 14, 16, 20, 22, 24, 27, 30–1, 94, 119–30, 136–7; bourgeois 120; hard 94–5; proletarian 120; social 121; soft 94; see also human sciences; Marxist history of science; natural science; science education

191

science education 123–4, 128–30 Science Studies 117–19, 128, secularism 53–4, 55 self-awareness 21, 128 self-education 4, 67 sexuality 111, 169 skills 12–8, 35, 37, 54, 80, 114, 127, 166, 168 social criticism 133, 141, social mobility 10, 78, 80, 83–5 social relations 31, 37, 64, 109, 136, 145, 147–8, 169–70, 176, social wage 160, 174–5 socialisation 25, 36–7, 39, 43, 92–3, 96, 98, 128 socialism 19, 31, 108, 111–12, 140, 173, 175 society 3, 8, 9, 13, 20, 23, 27, 38, 45, 46n8, 51, 55, 62, 70, 78, 85, 90, 97, 109, 111–12, 120, 124–5, 137, 146, 165, 167, 169, 174, 177; capitalist 23, 27, 109, 167–8, 174–7; civil 39, 155; class 169, 177; industrial 85; information 13; knowledge 13; market 61; metacapitalist 9; secular 37, 39; socialist 18, 119 solidarity 18, 58, 69, 85–6, 89, 97–9 state 9–10, 21, 36, 40, 50, 52, 78, 145, 153, 155; capitalist 173, 177–8; nation 9, 23, 36, 40, 45n3, 110; neoliberal 85; secular 37; socialist 9; surveillance 111; welfare 9–10, 77–80, 85 strike 15, 67, 86, 160, 162–3, 167–8, 176–7, struggle 8, 27, 31–2, 40, 43, 45n7, 49–50, 62, 64, 86, 90, 103–4, 107, 109–11, 115, 123, 127, 137, 162, 167, 174; see also conflict subject 28, 64, 89–91, 93, 96–9, 137–8, 147, 149–50, 155–7 subjectivity 90, 96–7, 99, 129, 177 surplus value 173–5 Syria 51, 54–5, 58n1 SYRIZA 73n28, 162, 175–6 teacher 2, 8, 12, 16, 18, 20, 24–6, 29–32, 63–4, 86, 92–3, 97, 104, 108, 125, 141, 149–51, 163–6, 168–9, 172–3, 177–8; in England 20–7, 31–2; in Greece 61–71; in Muslim countries 53; in Turkey 35–41,43–5, 46n13,14, 53, 164; see also educator, pedagogue teacher education 14, 21, 22, 24–6, 28, 30–2, 54, 115, 168 teacher training 14, 22, 24, 94, 155, 168

192

Subject Index

teacher typology in Turkey 35–41, 43–5 teaching 11, 17–18, 21, 25, 27, 35, 38, 41, 61, 63–4, 66–71, 93–4, 97, 101–2, 114, 124–5, 151, 165–6 theory 8, 22, 24–5, 29–32, 106, 108, 119, 121, 134, 167, 176; critical 27, 122, 129, 133, 144; educational 144, 151; of language 138; Marxist 8, 121, 125, 129, 137, 164; of relativity 123, 128; Ranciere’s 150; world-system 90, 98; see also Human Capital Theory thought 3, 10, 24, 30, 64, 108–9, 134–5, 145–6, 155; see also Marxist thought; reflection trade unions 2, 39, 160, 162–4, 174 training 9, 13, 16–7, 49, 58n3, 156; see also education; teacher training transcendence 21, 25–7, 109, 111, 148, Turkey 1, 2, 35–46, 49–58, 81, 86, 87n3, 102, 161, 163–4, 113, 174, 178 unemployment 11, 61, 79–86, university 8, 12, 14, 17, 21, 24, 30, 32, 46n9, 52–4, 59n6, 82, 91, 93–5, 97–8, 103, 114–15, 164–5, 168, 170–2, 177;

corporatisation of 17; Euro-university 17 university graduates 80–3, 85 value production 6, 105, 174 Venezuela 102, 104, 106, 115–16 Vienna Circle 125–6, 128 violence 112, 145, 176 Volksheim 126, 128 war 27, 45n7, 54–5, 71, 80; Cold 10, 40, 44; Imperialist 20; in Iraq 13; in the Middle East 54–5, 59n5; in Syria 51; Vietnam 101; World War II 9, 10, 25, 39, 44, 51, 77, 101, 129, 134; in Yugoslavia 13; see also class war white-collar workers 6, 78, 80, 84–6 work 63–7, 69–71, 78–80, 95–7, 108, 114, 127, 140–1, 166; see also labour worker 10, 14, 18, 23, 41, 45n7, 61, 69, 77, 79–80, 84, 94, 97–9, 127–8, 160, 163, 168, 173–5, 178; see also white-collar workers workforce 160, 172, 174 World Bank 51, 52