Capitalism and the debate on school reform
The main theme that emerges
from the writings of McLaren, Giroux, and Greene is the idea that education is
oriented toward building a capitalistic citizenship rather than a democratic
citizenship. By this they mean that students are not educated to work in and
toward a truly democratic society, but are educated to support the capitalistic
program presented by those in political power. These writers would say that the
biggest crisis in education is not about student ability and incompetent
teachers, but a crisis of a citizenship who have lost the meaning of what it
means to live in a democracy. These writers suggest that the decline of
democracy in the American society has been brought about by a capitalistic value
system and orientation that only perpetuates the current social problems and
social injustices.
McLaren supports this theme by pointing out how the
media has oriented society to such a degree that materialism and commercial
pursuits have removed the issues of social injustice and inequality from the
consciousness of the American society. He speaks on how people as Bush and
Reagan have capitalized on the use of the media to equate capitalism as the
highest moral order for the world. While Americans take pride in the
re-assurgence of America’s political power around the world, under the guise of
democracy, at home the capitalistic orientation of not only education, but also
of every sphere of life, causes the injustices, prejudices and inequities to
continue to escalate. He also attacks the belief that pluralism is accepted in
America and its institutions. Rather than truly being a pluralistic society, the
social differences that are existing will never be analyzed as long as education
continues to concentrate on providing a pedagogy that merely supports the
capitalist views and goals of the world.
Giroux supports this theme by
stating that the American government and the general population do not see
public schooling as an institution to promote critical democracy. While
education continues to support the capitalist view of the world, existing social
conditions continue to deteriorate as the gap between the rich and poor widens.
He offers four suggestions on how to modify the current educational system to
one that is democratic in orientation and not capitalist. In the first, Giroux
suggests that the solution to problems lies in the realm of values and politics,
not management and economics. What he is advocating is that schools should
become democratic in nature where the stories of students are examined and
skills are developed so that students can participate in a democratic community
of change. Secondly, Giroux suggests that differences that exist should be used
to enhance the possibility of promoting dialogue, trust, compassion and
generosity. Thirdly, he suggests that through this dialogue on social
differences, a moral education will emerge in which principles of freedom,
liberty and fraternity can be realized. His fourth suggestion deals with
teachers becoming public intellectuals by providing pedagogical experiences in
which differences are encountered and discussed. The goal of these suggestions
is to make the educational process capable of producing a truly critical
democratic in citizenship.
Greene presents a slightly different view of
the common theme among these writers. While she discusses how the education
system is oriented toward providing a capitalistic orientation toward life, she
centers on how this orientation is the cause of alienation and the perpetuation
of differences. Using literary stories from America’s past, she demonstrates how
those who refuse to strive for the capitalistic goals of America become
disillusioned and drop out of any attempt to transform society. She speaks of
how books as Cultural Literacy and The Closing of the American Mind provide a
literary basis for a continued emphasis on a capitalist orientation in
education. Of especial importance, she also demonstrates how technology and its
support of the capitalist viewpoint have continued to perpetuate social
injustice and brutality. She offers the suggestion that America’s political
power in the world is believed to be the result of capitalism and the rise of
technology.
On the whole, these writers have achieved their
identification of capitalism as being the goal of education. However, I must ask
whether this has not been the avowed goal of public education from the
beginning? Education is provided to educate individuals to support the
capitalist nature of the American society. Skills and values are dissimulated to
prepare students to become active in a capitalistic society. The pay off for the
student is the ability to participate in the institutions of society and enjoy
the benefits thereof. This is referred to as the educational exchange. That
individuals find the pursuit of capitalism as uninteresting or repressive has
existed throughout the history of capitalism. One must ask, however, if students
are not buying into the educational exchange, is it capitalism or some other
factor that is the cause of this disinterest? One could argue that significant
numbers of individuals have simply chosen not to participate by their own
volition. This is, afterall, a legitamite choice in a deomcratic society. Also,
one must ask whether these types of individuals would be more likely to
participate in a democratic dialogue for social change if critical analysis was
emphasized in school.
Having said this, I wonder if the real concern for
these writers is the desire for a genuine discourse and critique about the
nature of capitalism that appears lacking among institutions in general. Are not
these writers placing the blame for a lack of discussion over the nature of
capitalism primarily on the educational system? Looking at McLaren’s discussion,
I find support this thesis. I cannot disagree that the emphasis on commercialism
and materialism has not produced a great inequity in society. The frustrations
and social problems that have arisen due to this emphasis can be collaborated by
the reasons that people give for violence and brutality. These reasons usually
can be identified by some selfish individualistic pursuit in which the
perpetrator is seeking some sort of personal satisfaction. Also, the effective
use of media by corporate institutions to relay a particular lifestyle only
reinforces the differences between those who have and those who do not, between
what is the ideal and what is not, and between what one should strive for and
for what not to strive. The criticism that McLaren levies against the media and
its use can be seen as valid in this sense.
However, there is a
paradoxical nature to the use of media. The media on one hand was created by a
capitalistic society by which entertainment could be produced and institutions
could sell their products. On the entertainment side, it must be granted that
the portrayals are designed to be entertaining, although recent surveys and
polls seem to indicate how bored Americans are with this “entertainment.” On the
commercial side, I could not deny the democratic right of institutions to use
the media to achieve their corporate goals. Whatever differences that may be
strengthen and emphasized by a capitalistic orientation, the use of the media
has been overwhelmingly successful for those who use it strategically. The
failure of the media to expose and critique injustice and inequality has not, to
my knowledge, ever been its primary purpose. However in recent years, the media
has begun to expose social injustice and social problems in more detail. One
could even argue that the media has done more to raise the social conscious of
Americans to the inequities of capitalism than any other insitiution to date. No
doubt, as individuals have become more aware of the environmental problems and
the plight of other oppressed individuals, movements to correct these injustices
have occurred. In this regard, McLaren seems to place too much emphasis on the
use of media in causing inequities and social injustice. Moreover, he does not
explain how the media and its use are directly responsible for the current
problems in the educational prosess. One must ask what connection is there
between an institution of society that is driven by fantasy and imagination and
an institution that is created to produce productive citizens?
I would,
however, agree with McLaren that students need to develop a more critical
orientation to the views that are obtained through the media. In this regard,
schools should provide a pedagogy that challenges the ideas of not only the
media, but also the ways in which capitalism tends to promote injustice in all
institutions. As McLaren successfully points out, the role of nationalism and
religion should be explored in how they have shaped the values of society.
Without a doubt, nationalism by its nature promotes the idea of a difference
between “I” and “them.” Religion also has supported the “Manifest Destiny” that
Americans valued from the middle 1800s onward. This has been best exemplified
lately in the White Aryian movement in America (Lieblich, 1995). Both of these
ideas have been used in ways that promoted injustice and brutality. That
individuals have not developed a critical analysis of these injustices does tend
to prove that education has not developed this skill among students. However, I
must ask, is this the fault of capitalist ideals and the educational processes
only, or the failure of individuals to assume leadership and provide a scholarly
analysis of social problems? Moreover, has democracy failed to the point that
this leadership cannot speak?
Turning to Giroux’s analysis of the central theme, I again see a desire for a
critical analysis of capitalistic institutions. The four suggestions that he
gives for a new educational pedagogy would greatly enhance a citizenship that
has acquired skills to critically analyze the results and injustices of
capitalism. Again I will grant that on the whole, the educational system as it
now is structured does not promote this type of critical democratic analysis. If
this type of citizenship is to be achieved in the educational process,
leadership once again must stand in the void and articulate the kinds of
questions that will lead to this type of orientation. Building upon the four
suggestions he has provided would be a good starting place for developing the
kind of pedagogy that would achieve this orientation.
The weakness with
Giroux’s argument is the rather brief introductory remarks that lay the basis
for his four suggestions. While he decries the absence of a critical citizenship
to analyze the current social problems, Giroux gives no definitive relationship
between education and the lack of critical citizenship. From this, are we to
assume that he merely views the educational process as the only means for
achieving a critical citizenship? If this is the case, are there not other
institutions as well that should develop more critical processes? Taken as
expressed, Giroux’s writing again tends to support my thesis that he is more
concerned with the lack of critical analysis of nature of capitalism than with
education. Education as a means for developing this critical analytical skill
seems to be the main thrust of his suggestions.
Yet the development of
this skill should occur in other institutions as well. As I discussed in class
recently, the “open-book management” style that has in recent years increased
productivity and general morale, has also focused on the injustices and
differences that the Taylorism approach to management has produced over the past
ninety years. By a thorough opening up of communication between employees and
management, differences and prejudices have been eliminated. The work place has
become more productive and employees have been empowered in using critical
thinking skills to enhance their abilities. While the capitalistic goals remain
in place in these institutions, has this new management emphasis destroyed the
democratic voice of the workers? On the contrary, the organizations that have
adopted this management style have become more democratic and just, as well as
providing a larger economic payoff for their employees (Case,
1995).
Perhaps the best support for the main theme of these writers has
been provided by Greene. Greene’s portrayal of how the current focus in
education toward capitalism has lead many students to drop out of the system has
profound significance. Greene has rightly connected the capitalistic orientation
of schools as the cause of numerous individuals dropping out of the system. No
doubt, when individuals do not buy into the goals of a capitalist educational
process, they have no alternative educational system to which they may turn.
While vocational programs and some specialized career schools exist, for the
most part they lack a curriculum that truly can be called educational. Shut off
from an alternative educational opportunity, these individuals often turn to the
nihilistic world of drugs and violence that McLaren decries
about.
Equally noteworthy is how Greene shows how technology has been
used to support the myth that capitalism is the way to salvation in world
politics. Greene is right to emphasize that when the use technology is not
critically analyzed, technology tends to overtake those who are most susceptible
to its deployment. This is seen in third world countries where technological
advances can have disastrous effects on employment. That education, as it
currently is oriented, tends to try to produce students who will advance
technological change is not debatable. Granted, this is the goal of education as
was stated in the beginning of this paper. As Greene points out, this critical
analysis of technological development and its use is absent from the educational
process. Students are indoctrinated to view the superiority of American
technology and are encouraged to become educated to maintain America’s presumed
technological leadership.
As well as Greene connects education to a lack
of a critical citizenry and a cause for a significant differentiation among the
population, I must again argue that the over-riding concern here is the lack of
critical analysis of capitalism and its effects on society. I must ask, is the
orientation of education toward capitalism the only cause of social injustice in
America?
Could it be that the current educational orientation is directed
toward a system of capitalism that is no longer in existence or, at the very
least, is becoming obsolete? Could it be that students sense that the knowledge
and skills they are being taught will provide little support for competing in a
changing world economy? Greene and the other writers seem to ignore the fact
that more than critical thinking skills will be needed in the global economy.
Ingenuity, risk-taking, the ability to grasp concepts competently, and
responsible interpersonal skills will all be necessary for achieving a degree of
equity and justice. This is not a fault of capitalism, but one of emphasis in
which individuals believe that the educational processes and techniques of the
past can somehow rescue America from its declining position. This later
viewpoint has been a point that has been dealt with in many of our class
discussions. The problem is not seen as existing in the process, but in the
outcomes which have declined by some national normalized standard.
Having
critiqued these writings individually, a few general remarks about the general
theme of these writings are in order. I have purposely evade a couple of issues
that are central to the issue under discussion. First, is the economic theory of
capitalism and its institutions responsible for social injustice? Is it not more
to the truth to suggest that it is the prejudices and beliefs of the individuals
who are citizens of a capitalist society and are in control of its institutions
that are the cause of social inequity? I would suggest that prejudice, bigotry
and alienation are a product not just of a capitalist society, but also from the
nature of human existence. Day to day experiences can have a profound effect on
the shaping of values and ideas. While education can provide a place for the
exchange and critical assessment of dominant values and beliefs, time and
experience have a much more profound effect on how values and beliefs are
developed. Equally, those individuals who are insecure or afraid of change will
most likely refuse to become engaged in any critical debate on capitalism or any
other subject. At best, the educational system can only provide an atmosphere in
which critical democratic citizens can emerge. It cannot guarantee this result
any more than it can guarantee that each student will become a productive
citizen partaking of the fruits of their labors.
A second and more
important issue involves the nature of current educational reform practices.
Throughout this course we have been discussing how educational reform tends to
be top-down in orientation. It emphasis on accountability and a more rigid
curriculum, centered on a traditional view of the world, has been adequately
outlined. The authors of the textbook have enlightened the class to how the
educational process has caused the repression of personal identities and
contributed to a greater stratification among students. Yet with all of this
discussion, one question remains. Will not these educational reforms fall flat
on their face?
While the emphasis on measurable results may be enacted
into law, I find it hard to believe that the economic institutions that are
demanding change will not be more critical in the future. Equally, those who
lament over the general lack of skills among graduates will become even more
alarmed as more students drop out of an educational process that has become
obsolete in a changing world economy. In the short term, educational reform may
produce quantitative results, but it will not achieve qualitative results as it
is currently being proposed. While change that is positive may be slow in
coming, change in the processes and emphasis of education is inevitable. Though
educational reform may attempt to turn back the clock on education progress, the
critical democratic citizens that the above writers decry as being absent in
today’s society are the very ones who will promote, articulate, and usher in
this change in educational reform. I can only conclude by saying to those who
would try to control the teaching profession and deskill the process, “Go ahead,
make my day!”
Bibliography
Case, J. (1995, June). The
open-book revolution. Inc., 17, 26-43.
Lieblich, J. (1995, June 3). Saved
or Damned?. Mobile Register, pp. D1, D3.
© CopyRight 2002 Scott R. Simpson