The hope that Palestinians pin on the UN and statehood status is just another example of the pitfalls of trying to create change within the system.
The Palestinians are not being screwed by Israel. They are being screwed by a global system, of which Israel is merely one component.
Do the Palestinians really believe that having the status of a sovereign state will protect them from being occupied or invaded? Do they think that, in obtaining statehood, they will suddenly be freed from their open-air prisons and no longer be deprived of basic necessities? The answer, of course, is no, but the hope is that any steps toward statehood will give them certain rights under international law and perhaps some leverage via the UN.
Then I must ask, do you really think the UN is going to deliver? We're talking about the same UN, right?
The fact of the matter is that the UN serves the interests of the global capitalist elite who control its institutional machinery. So long as Palestinian subjugation is useful in the capitalist system, it will continue.
The Palestinians would be better served by recognizing the way in which all modern institutions (including the system of nation-states and international law) functioning together with capitalism as an integrated whole. If the Palestinians want their freedom, they will not find it in the international legal system. Perhaps the only way out of captivity is the path (more or less) of the Zapatistas.
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reform. Show all posts
Friday, November 30, 2012
Wednesday, September 12, 2012
Revolution or Delinking?
My general purpose with the blog has been to provoke thought about questions that are rarely considered. I may make suggestions or undermine particular assumptions, but that does not mean that I feel like I have all the answers. I am just tired of the usual discussions; I want to think about the foundations of our social structure and imagine other possibilities. With that in mind, I try to tackle some common Marxist and reformist assumptions in this post without necessarily coming to any definite conclusions (regardless of the tone I take).
Moving on from the dilemma of policy change versus systemic transformation, I would like to consider the mechanism and possibilities for social change in greater detail. Following directly from reform v. transformation, one the of the most significant questions debated by those on Left is whether or not it is worthwhile to attempt change through political processes. Some argue that gradual reforms at the level of policy are more feasible than abrupt, large-scale transformations. If we ignore politics, they contend, we are doomed to failure. The other camp (with whom I tend to agree) replies that political change is merely cosmetic and does nothing to change the basic social order. Other avenues will be opened to maintain inequality and oppression when one pathway is blocked. And whatever “progress” is achieved is generally insignificant in the grand scheme of things (like re-wallpapering your house when it is structurally unsound and filled with asbestos). Trying to change the world through political processes is like trying to hold the dam with your finger.
However, I think the former group raises an important point when they insist that grand, sweeping revolution is not as feasible. If one examines history, it is clear that the only revolution which had any lasting and systemic impact was the bourgeois revolution (the various peasant rebellions and even the twentieth century communist revolutions did not seriously challenge the hegemony of global capitalism, else our world would look quite different today). The reason the bourgeois revolution was so successful on a global scale is because the incipient bourgeoisie had for centuries been developing their own institutions and domains of authority that existed independently from those of the existing social order. When that social order was challenged, there was something else there to take its place. The same cannot be said of the forces that currently seek to subvert the status quo. Right now, nothing else exists.
Michel Foucault, in a conversation with Noam Chomsky, insisted that it was impossible to envision change within the current system. The problem is that our consciousness is too permeated by the structures (physical and ideological) of the current system, even at the level of the language that we use (e.g. "justice"). Foucault contended that the task of someone who desires change is to study the subtle, overlooked mechanisms of power, in order that it may be resisted and subverted. The question is, though, how long must we continue to study? At what point do we take action? The bourgeoisie didn't accomplish a revolution by extensive observation. They simply got to work forging their own institutions. And all institutions comprising the modern world, as a consequence of the revolution, are bourgeois institutions. Foucault does provide an important insight for us: revolution will have to be total. No existing institution or ideology can be preserved. They are all bourgeois through and through. We must start from scratch.
There is another lesson from history. The weak never win. The bourgeois were the only successful revolutionaries and they were seeking domination rather than liberation.
Then there is the issue of what would follow revolution. Marx was vague about his conception of a communist utopia, but he was clear about his belief that revolution required a single, global movement (a united proletariat). Many socialists hope for a single world government (a socialist word government, of course). No matter what, though, the idea of revolution generally entails some sort of unity. This, more than anything else, makes revolution seem so unachievable. We must also consider more deeply whether unity is actually desirable. I have already questioned both the practical feasibility and the desirability of a single world government. In sum, I pointed out that it would entail more extensive technologies of social control, would create a whole new set of dangers as authority became increasingly concentrated and centralized, and would likely intensify ideological differences (at the same time as it tried to homogenize all difference) because of the high stakes involved in every policy decision. The social evolutionary desire for a single world government is also tied to latently racist ideas of the superiority of Western, secular culture (which, of course, would be universally adopted).
One problem with this idea of a single world society is the findings of sociological research that estimates the optimal group size to be rather small (say, around 150). There are many benefits (economic, physical, emotional) associated with maintaining the types of social bonds and communal solidarity that cannot exist as easily in larger groups. Furthermore, one must face the fact that social/cultural diversity will never be erased. There is nothing to be gained from trying impose a single worldview on everyone. That is not, of course, to say that people should live in isolated groups, or that they can never get along with or even understand people who think differently. I only suggest that people have different ideas about how to live their lives and organize their communities, and they should be free to do that as they please. If a group wishes to organize a community based on the principles of Sharia law, then so be it.
What that in mind, there is a principle that Marx expounded, which may be useful in rethinking revolution. Marx conceived of social evolution in cyclical rather than linear form. He believed that what would follow capitalism would in some ways be a throw-back to “primitive communism” (in which people lived in small social groups based primarily on kinship affiliations), yet with a new twist: technology. The new form of communism would be more enlightened, and with the aid of technology, allow for more dignified human occupations. I do not believe that Marx was ever clear about the size of the community(ies) involved in enlightened communism (if someone knows, please chime in and correct me), but regardless, the general principle may still be applicable.
What if we were to return to a more decentralized, communal social organization, yet continue to incorporate modern technologies into the production process? I can envision a world where communities keep up their own gardens and handcraft things like clothes and furniture; they also specialize in the production of one or more other goods that can be sold to other communities (and likewise purchase specially produced goods from other communities). The internet could facilitate widespread movement of products and ideas. Through the internet, people could maintain contact with others around the world; and movement from community to community would occur with ease (as has been true throughout human history). There would be no need for provincialism. Hopefully, though, materialism could be eradicated. People wouldn’t need to update their wardrobes with the change of every season, and collectible junk would be seen for what it is: useless. This is purely idealistic, of course.
If such a world were to exist, it would not require some large-scale, unified revolution. It would only require groups of people to decide, on their own, not to participate in the capitalist system. If everyone simply stopped participating, the system could not continue. Cessation of participation does not require any large-scale coordination. People can pull out on their own terms. In this respect, I greatly admire the Zapatistas and hold them as an exemplar of how to escape capitalism. It is possible to delink. Although the Zapatistas have not eschewed violence, one benefit of delinking is that it does not require violence (for those who oppose violence on principle, that is a huge benefit).
It is an interesting question to consider whether delinking as a paradigm for social transformation is more feasible and desirable than revolution. It seems less impressive, to be sure. But even if delinking isn’t the answer, the broader question is: why can’t we seem to think past revolution? We are given the choice of reform or revolution, and neither seems entirely satisfactory. So maybe we should try to find a third way.
Moving on from the dilemma of policy change versus systemic transformation, I would like to consider the mechanism and possibilities for social change in greater detail. Following directly from reform v. transformation, one the of the most significant questions debated by those on Left is whether or not it is worthwhile to attempt change through political processes. Some argue that gradual reforms at the level of policy are more feasible than abrupt, large-scale transformations. If we ignore politics, they contend, we are doomed to failure. The other camp (with whom I tend to agree) replies that political change is merely cosmetic and does nothing to change the basic social order. Other avenues will be opened to maintain inequality and oppression when one pathway is blocked. And whatever “progress” is achieved is generally insignificant in the grand scheme of things (like re-wallpapering your house when it is structurally unsound and filled with asbestos). Trying to change the world through political processes is like trying to hold the dam with your finger.
However, I think the former group raises an important point when they insist that grand, sweeping revolution is not as feasible. If one examines history, it is clear that the only revolution which had any lasting and systemic impact was the bourgeois revolution (the various peasant rebellions and even the twentieth century communist revolutions did not seriously challenge the hegemony of global capitalism, else our world would look quite different today). The reason the bourgeois revolution was so successful on a global scale is because the incipient bourgeoisie had for centuries been developing their own institutions and domains of authority that existed independently from those of the existing social order. When that social order was challenged, there was something else there to take its place. The same cannot be said of the forces that currently seek to subvert the status quo. Right now, nothing else exists.
Michel Foucault, in a conversation with Noam Chomsky, insisted that it was impossible to envision change within the current system. The problem is that our consciousness is too permeated by the structures (physical and ideological) of the current system, even at the level of the language that we use (e.g. "justice"). Foucault contended that the task of someone who desires change is to study the subtle, overlooked mechanisms of power, in order that it may be resisted and subverted. The question is, though, how long must we continue to study? At what point do we take action? The bourgeoisie didn't accomplish a revolution by extensive observation. They simply got to work forging their own institutions. And all institutions comprising the modern world, as a consequence of the revolution, are bourgeois institutions. Foucault does provide an important insight for us: revolution will have to be total. No existing institution or ideology can be preserved. They are all bourgeois through and through. We must start from scratch.
There is another lesson from history. The weak never win. The bourgeois were the only successful revolutionaries and they were seeking domination rather than liberation.
Then there is the issue of what would follow revolution. Marx was vague about his conception of a communist utopia, but he was clear about his belief that revolution required a single, global movement (a united proletariat). Many socialists hope for a single world government (a socialist word government, of course). No matter what, though, the idea of revolution generally entails some sort of unity. This, more than anything else, makes revolution seem so unachievable. We must also consider more deeply whether unity is actually desirable. I have already questioned both the practical feasibility and the desirability of a single world government. In sum, I pointed out that it would entail more extensive technologies of social control, would create a whole new set of dangers as authority became increasingly concentrated and centralized, and would likely intensify ideological differences (at the same time as it tried to homogenize all difference) because of the high stakes involved in every policy decision. The social evolutionary desire for a single world government is also tied to latently racist ideas of the superiority of Western, secular culture (which, of course, would be universally adopted).
One problem with this idea of a single world society is the findings of sociological research that estimates the optimal group size to be rather small (say, around 150). There are many benefits (economic, physical, emotional) associated with maintaining the types of social bonds and communal solidarity that cannot exist as easily in larger groups. Furthermore, one must face the fact that social/cultural diversity will never be erased. There is nothing to be gained from trying impose a single worldview on everyone. That is not, of course, to say that people should live in isolated groups, or that they can never get along with or even understand people who think differently. I only suggest that people have different ideas about how to live their lives and organize their communities, and they should be free to do that as they please. If a group wishes to organize a community based on the principles of Sharia law, then so be it.
What that in mind, there is a principle that Marx expounded, which may be useful in rethinking revolution. Marx conceived of social evolution in cyclical rather than linear form. He believed that what would follow capitalism would in some ways be a throw-back to “primitive communism” (in which people lived in small social groups based primarily on kinship affiliations), yet with a new twist: technology. The new form of communism would be more enlightened, and with the aid of technology, allow for more dignified human occupations. I do not believe that Marx was ever clear about the size of the community(ies) involved in enlightened communism (if someone knows, please chime in and correct me), but regardless, the general principle may still be applicable.
What if we were to return to a more decentralized, communal social organization, yet continue to incorporate modern technologies into the production process? I can envision a world where communities keep up their own gardens and handcraft things like clothes and furniture; they also specialize in the production of one or more other goods that can be sold to other communities (and likewise purchase specially produced goods from other communities). The internet could facilitate widespread movement of products and ideas. Through the internet, people could maintain contact with others around the world; and movement from community to community would occur with ease (as has been true throughout human history). There would be no need for provincialism. Hopefully, though, materialism could be eradicated. People wouldn’t need to update their wardrobes with the change of every season, and collectible junk would be seen for what it is: useless. This is purely idealistic, of course.
If such a world were to exist, it would not require some large-scale, unified revolution. It would only require groups of people to decide, on their own, not to participate in the capitalist system. If everyone simply stopped participating, the system could not continue. Cessation of participation does not require any large-scale coordination. People can pull out on their own terms. In this respect, I greatly admire the Zapatistas and hold them as an exemplar of how to escape capitalism. It is possible to delink. Although the Zapatistas have not eschewed violence, one benefit of delinking is that it does not require violence (for those who oppose violence on principle, that is a huge benefit).
It is an interesting question to consider whether delinking as a paradigm for social transformation is more feasible and desirable than revolution. It seems less impressive, to be sure. But even if delinking isn’t the answer, the broader question is: why can’t we seem to think past revolution? We are given the choice of reform or revolution, and neither seems entirely satisfactory. So maybe we should try to find a third way.
Monday, September 10, 2012
Issue Based Change VS Systemic Change
As I discuss possibilities for social change with various people in my life, I am continuing to circle back on and re-reflect upon ideas already discussed in this blog. I hope that this is not merely repetitive, and that my upcoming posts go beyond what I have already written... in some way or another.
I have talked quite a bit about my frustrations with reformism (see, for example, this post). In general, energies and wills get divided and dispersed. First, people are divided into separate interest groups based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and so on. Then, attention is pin-pointed to very specific issues that are supposedly of greatest concern for these (internally undifferentiated) groups. When this happens, there is no common enemy. Everyone has their own personal issues.
I have discussed Michelle Alexander’s problems with civil rights movements focusing so exclusively on issues like affirmative action (people see illusions of progress – token black people who are successful – and are blinded to enduring realities of racial caste). I even contended that Alexander’s concern about the drug war is still too narrow. No single policy or institution encompasses the broad economic and ideological foundations of racial caste.
I have also taken on, to some extent, the preoccupation with abortion within the women’s rights movement. In general, women’s rights tend to center around: abortion, birth control, and rape. Not that any of these are unimportant. However, this collection of issues defines women’s rights exclusively in terms of reproduction, obscures the way in which different women experience oppression differently, and does not expose or challenge the ideological framework that constructs gender.
The gay rights movement has pivoted primarily around two issues: repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and marriage equality. Neither of these battles addresses the real structural roots of homophobia. If anything, they strengthen and support capitalist institutions: those of the military and the traditional, nuclear family. (And really, what does the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell prove other than that the military is stretched too thin and really desperate for bodies?) Furthermore, the so-called “gay culture” (a combination of externally imposed stereotypes and practices born internally out of resistance) that the movement attempts to normalize reinforces the materialistic, superficial behaviors and attitudes that serve to benefit the capitalist system (for example, the obsession with fashion).
If everyone realized their common interests and could sustain a meaningful dialogue regarding both the positive and negative social implications of capitalism as it really exists (not as it should be in some hypothetical universe) – what kind of real social progress might be possible then? Even more, if a critical mass of people were willing to critically analyze and question modern institutions – the law, science, democracy, the family (in short, everything that fills us with such blind pride and faith) – together with all of the ideologies that sustain and are simultaneously produced by these institutions, how might we be able to re-imagine our world and the possibilities for social cooperation, for the better?
Our inability to ask the really difficult questions, and to think critically about the foundations of our society paralyzes any attempt at improving the lot of the poor, oppressed, exploited, and stigmatized masses.
I have talked quite a bit about my frustrations with reformism (see, for example, this post). In general, energies and wills get divided and dispersed. First, people are divided into separate interest groups based on gender, race, sexual orientation, and so on. Then, attention is pin-pointed to very specific issues that are supposedly of greatest concern for these (internally undifferentiated) groups. When this happens, there is no common enemy. Everyone has their own personal issues.
I have discussed Michelle Alexander’s problems with civil rights movements focusing so exclusively on issues like affirmative action (people see illusions of progress – token black people who are successful – and are blinded to enduring realities of racial caste). I even contended that Alexander’s concern about the drug war is still too narrow. No single policy or institution encompasses the broad economic and ideological foundations of racial caste.
I have also taken on, to some extent, the preoccupation with abortion within the women’s rights movement. In general, women’s rights tend to center around: abortion, birth control, and rape. Not that any of these are unimportant. However, this collection of issues defines women’s rights exclusively in terms of reproduction, obscures the way in which different women experience oppression differently, and does not expose or challenge the ideological framework that constructs gender.
The gay rights movement has pivoted primarily around two issues: repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell and marriage equality. Neither of these battles addresses the real structural roots of homophobia. If anything, they strengthen and support capitalist institutions: those of the military and the traditional, nuclear family. (And really, what does the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell prove other than that the military is stretched too thin and really desperate for bodies?) Furthermore, the so-called “gay culture” (a combination of externally imposed stereotypes and practices born internally out of resistance) that the movement attempts to normalize reinforces the materialistic, superficial behaviors and attitudes that serve to benefit the capitalist system (for example, the obsession with fashion).
If everyone realized their common interests and could sustain a meaningful dialogue regarding both the positive and negative social implications of capitalism as it really exists (not as it should be in some hypothetical universe) – what kind of real social progress might be possible then? Even more, if a critical mass of people were willing to critically analyze and question modern institutions – the law, science, democracy, the family (in short, everything that fills us with such blind pride and faith) – together with all of the ideologies that sustain and are simultaneously produced by these institutions, how might we be able to re-imagine our world and the possibilities for social cooperation, for the better?
Our inability to ask the really difficult questions, and to think critically about the foundations of our society paralyzes any attempt at improving the lot of the poor, oppressed, exploited, and stigmatized masses.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
The People United... or, Divide and Conquer
This post is based on my sentiments about reform movements, the welfare state, and the non-profit sector.
I have argued that many people who genuinely desire to do good are coopted by the system and end up wasting all of their time and energy. I find this very frustrating; it seems there is enough will to change the system, but everyone is directing their efforts in different (and ineffective) directions.
In general, I believe changes made within the system (increasing minimum wage, improving funding for education, giving money and loans to the impoverished, legalizing gay marriage, raising taxes, cutting taxes, improving healthcare coverage, and so on) are merely cosmetic and fail to address the underlying issues, and therefore are necessarily of limited scope, both in terms of breadth and duration. These types of reforms only endorse and pereptuate an unjust system and lay the groundwork for future hardships and challenges faced by the oppressed.
What is fundamentally at issue is NOT money, or technology, or policy. The heart of the issue is relationships. Our global society is based on relations of exploitation - including, but not limited to, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and slavery. In fact, capitalism is impossible without some form of slavery, whether characterized as free labor or lack of self-determination. Although slavery has legally been abolished, capitalists have devised other means of obtaining free labor - internships and prison labor are a couple of examples. Some companies, like Walmart, have been accused of simply not paying their employees for all hours worked.
But believe it or not, the "dependency" form of slavery is both more widespread and more troubling. Most of the Third World has been forced into dependency relationships with the industrial powers. They are barely able to exert control over their own affairs. Many Third World citizens do not have any choice about what to produce or how to make their living. Their livelihood is determined by an international agenda. Sweatshops, plantations, and mines abound. Recent outrage over the Foxconn expose proves my point about the narrow scope of the reform attitude. People acted like this was the only place in the world where these conditions existed. They treated it as a problem of a single corporation, when it is the nature of our entire manufacturing system. And they pressed for some minor changes within Foxconn, ultimately leaving those workers on the assembly line and everyone else in the world out in the cold.
Clearly some of these changes make some difference in some people's lives. But my question is this. What if ALL of the time and energy expended in calling for and implementing these reforms, all of the people who belong to non-profits, NGOs, transnational organizations, and grassroots campaigns, came together and united for a single cause. What if everyone challenged the system itself? If all efforts were directed at ending this exploitative system... could it actually be transformed?
The image that comes to my mind is slaves on a plantation, petitioning to be allotted 300 more calories per day, rather than revolting or escaping to freedom.
I have argued that many people who genuinely desire to do good are coopted by the system and end up wasting all of their time and energy. I find this very frustrating; it seems there is enough will to change the system, but everyone is directing their efforts in different (and ineffective) directions.
In general, I believe changes made within the system (increasing minimum wage, improving funding for education, giving money and loans to the impoverished, legalizing gay marriage, raising taxes, cutting taxes, improving healthcare coverage, and so on) are merely cosmetic and fail to address the underlying issues, and therefore are necessarily of limited scope, both in terms of breadth and duration. These types of reforms only endorse and pereptuate an unjust system and lay the groundwork for future hardships and challenges faced by the oppressed.
What is fundamentally at issue is NOT money, or technology, or policy. The heart of the issue is relationships. Our global society is based on relations of exploitation - including, but not limited to, racism, sexism, heterosexism, and slavery. In fact, capitalism is impossible without some form of slavery, whether characterized as free labor or lack of self-determination. Although slavery has legally been abolished, capitalists have devised other means of obtaining free labor - internships and prison labor are a couple of examples. Some companies, like Walmart, have been accused of simply not paying their employees for all hours worked.
But believe it or not, the "dependency" form of slavery is both more widespread and more troubling. Most of the Third World has been forced into dependency relationships with the industrial powers. They are barely able to exert control over their own affairs. Many Third World citizens do not have any choice about what to produce or how to make their living. Their livelihood is determined by an international agenda. Sweatshops, plantations, and mines abound. Recent outrage over the Foxconn expose proves my point about the narrow scope of the reform attitude. People acted like this was the only place in the world where these conditions existed. They treated it as a problem of a single corporation, when it is the nature of our entire manufacturing system. And they pressed for some minor changes within Foxconn, ultimately leaving those workers on the assembly line and everyone else in the world out in the cold.
Clearly some of these changes make some difference in some people's lives. But my question is this. What if ALL of the time and energy expended in calling for and implementing these reforms, all of the people who belong to non-profits, NGOs, transnational organizations, and grassroots campaigns, came together and united for a single cause. What if everyone challenged the system itself? If all efforts were directed at ending this exploitative system... could it actually be transformed?
The image that comes to my mind is slaves on a plantation, petitioning to be allotted 300 more calories per day, rather than revolting or escaping to freedom.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
The New Era of Education Reform
By the time that President Bush took office in 2001, the desire to raise achievement for all students (born out of A Nation at Risk) still remained, but with a distinct tendency to avoid any discussion of what students should know in any subject (a result of the history standards controversy). To satisfy both of these conflicting demands, reformers began to concentrate exclusively on skills - primarily reading, and secondarily mathematics.
The demand for higher standards was replaced by the demand for greater accountability, and this was to be understood solely in terms of test scores in reading and mathematics. It was presumed that the performance of districts, schools, and individual teachers could be measured by changes in students' test scores. Of course, this is not the case, for a large number of reasons, many relating to the nature of the tests themselves. The most fundamental underlying assumption was that all students could succeed given the right teachers and schools. Social structural factors, in the end, did not matter. This, of course, is neoliberal ideology. Social structural factors will always have primary causality, and school-related factors can only have marginal mitigating effects.
The accountability movement joined forces with the school choice movement and the resulting love-child was Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Under NCLB, school progress is measured by student performance on state-designed tests in reading and math. Those who fail to meet "Adequate Yearly Progress" face sactions: students may receive vouchers to attend other schools, for instance, or the school may be "restructured" and placed under different (possibly private) management. One may note that states can set the bar for "proficiency" wherever they want, so that the test results are essentially meaningless, and that simply testing certain literacy and numeracy skills is not an adequate measure of quality education. Hence, NCLB encourages states to lower their standards and teacher and schools to narrow their curriculum to focus on basic skills and test-taking strategies.
However, the greatest implication of NCLB lies in the types of sanctions it employs. NCLB is basically a covert strategy for privatizing the education system. Consider: 1) the bar set by NCLB is so high that only the highest-achieving schools in the wealthiest and most homogenous locales could ever reach it (and even that is not certain);by 2014 nearly every school will be considered "failing" and 2) the consequences for "failing" involve the use of vouchers and the transfer of public funds to private organizations. The reason why just about every school will be considered "failing" by 2014 is that at that time all schools are supposed to reach 100% proficiency for all measured subgroups (race-based and ability-based). However, one subgroup - English-language learners - are defined precisely by their failure on tests of literacy. Any English-language learner who attains a level of proficiency will pulled out of the English-language learner subgroup. Likewise for those with "special needs." NCLB is not measure progress at all!
Obama has largely continued the program established under Bush's presidency. He has accessorized it with some similarly-minded carrot-wielding programs, like Race to the Top. In Race to the Top, certain states - the "winners" - receive extra funding for their schools. And the basis for this vital funding is arbitrary criteria assigned arbitrary weightings, with a little bit of flawed statistical reasoning thrown into the mix, and topped with subjective ratings. Obama and his appointees to the Department of Education continue to voice their support for school choice, competition, charter schools, and teacher accountability.
Going back to what I claimed are the primary roles served by education in a capitalist society, it is reasonable to ask, how does the project of privatization - essentially eroding the public school system - serve those ends? First, education continues to be subsidized. In fact, with programs like Race to the Top, more federal money is being doled out. True, privatization and choice seem to undermine the assimilative role of education, yet they also stand as affirmations of neoliberal ideology, and work as effective means to increase social stratification. Furthermore, with its premise that education reform is about schools and teachers, and not about poverty and society, the new school reforms have absorbed the efforts and directed the actions of those who wish to change society, forcing them to do so set within certain bounds that do not disrupt the social hierarchy at all.
But mostly I believe it is about unions. There has been a concerted anti-union effort throughout the entire WW2 era, and it has kept the United States economically competitive with other industrialized nations, who have stronger unions and/or higher wages. However, the teachers' unions are now one of the most powerful workers' groups (which says more about that state of unions in general than anything else). Most privatization schemes, be they vouchers, charter schools, "restructuring," etc. undercut teachers' unions. Focus on teacher effectiveness (assigning teachers sole responsibility for student achievement when social factors are far more significant), proposals for merit-based pay, attacks on tenure, the claim teachers should be fired more easily, the de-professionalization of teaching and insistence that there should be no requirements for entering the field - all are direct swipes at teachers' unions.
One thing is certain. The "biggest losers" in the new era of reform, with all of its haphazard tinkering with poor and urban school districts, is the most disadvantaged students in the country.
The demand for higher standards was replaced by the demand for greater accountability, and this was to be understood solely in terms of test scores in reading and mathematics. It was presumed that the performance of districts, schools, and individual teachers could be measured by changes in students' test scores. Of course, this is not the case, for a large number of reasons, many relating to the nature of the tests themselves. The most fundamental underlying assumption was that all students could succeed given the right teachers and schools. Social structural factors, in the end, did not matter. This, of course, is neoliberal ideology. Social structural factors will always have primary causality, and school-related factors can only have marginal mitigating effects.
The accountability movement joined forces with the school choice movement and the resulting love-child was Bush's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Under NCLB, school progress is measured by student performance on state-designed tests in reading and math. Those who fail to meet "Adequate Yearly Progress" face sactions: students may receive vouchers to attend other schools, for instance, or the school may be "restructured" and placed under different (possibly private) management. One may note that states can set the bar for "proficiency" wherever they want, so that the test results are essentially meaningless, and that simply testing certain literacy and numeracy skills is not an adequate measure of quality education. Hence, NCLB encourages states to lower their standards and teacher and schools to narrow their curriculum to focus on basic skills and test-taking strategies.
However, the greatest implication of NCLB lies in the types of sanctions it employs. NCLB is basically a covert strategy for privatizing the education system. Consider: 1) the bar set by NCLB is so high that only the highest-achieving schools in the wealthiest and most homogenous locales could ever reach it (and even that is not certain);by 2014 nearly every school will be considered "failing" and 2) the consequences for "failing" involve the use of vouchers and the transfer of public funds to private organizations. The reason why just about every school will be considered "failing" by 2014 is that at that time all schools are supposed to reach 100% proficiency for all measured subgroups (race-based and ability-based). However, one subgroup - English-language learners - are defined precisely by their failure on tests of literacy. Any English-language learner who attains a level of proficiency will pulled out of the English-language learner subgroup. Likewise for those with "special needs." NCLB is not measure progress at all!
Obama has largely continued the program established under Bush's presidency. He has accessorized it with some similarly-minded carrot-wielding programs, like Race to the Top. In Race to the Top, certain states - the "winners" - receive extra funding for their schools. And the basis for this vital funding is arbitrary criteria assigned arbitrary weightings, with a little bit of flawed statistical reasoning thrown into the mix, and topped with subjective ratings. Obama and his appointees to the Department of Education continue to voice their support for school choice, competition, charter schools, and teacher accountability.
Going back to what I claimed are the primary roles served by education in a capitalist society, it is reasonable to ask, how does the project of privatization - essentially eroding the public school system - serve those ends? First, education continues to be subsidized. In fact, with programs like Race to the Top, more federal money is being doled out. True, privatization and choice seem to undermine the assimilative role of education, yet they also stand as affirmations of neoliberal ideology, and work as effective means to increase social stratification. Furthermore, with its premise that education reform is about schools and teachers, and not about poverty and society, the new school reforms have absorbed the efforts and directed the actions of those who wish to change society, forcing them to do so set within certain bounds that do not disrupt the social hierarchy at all.
But mostly I believe it is about unions. There has been a concerted anti-union effort throughout the entire WW2 era, and it has kept the United States economically competitive with other industrialized nations, who have stronger unions and/or higher wages. However, the teachers' unions are now one of the most powerful workers' groups (which says more about that state of unions in general than anything else). Most privatization schemes, be they vouchers, charter schools, "restructuring," etc. undercut teachers' unions. Focus on teacher effectiveness (assigning teachers sole responsibility for student achievement when social factors are far more significant), proposals for merit-based pay, attacks on tenure, the claim teachers should be fired more easily, the de-professionalization of teaching and insistence that there should be no requirements for entering the field - all are direct swipes at teachers' unions.
One thing is certain. The "biggest losers" in the new era of reform, with all of its haphazard tinkering with poor and urban school districts, is the most disadvantaged students in the country.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Creating "Problems" as Strategy
Although in the 1950s and 60s expanding the federal government's role in education (albeit only slightly) was preferable to allowing what could have been a major challenge to the existing socio-economic hierarchy, by the time Reagan took office in 1981, a powerful movement had developed, in opposition to the past decades of Keynesianism, devoted to "reducing the size" of government. Although this monetarist approach (which was actually inaugurated during Carter's term) resulted in stark economic decline and Keynesianism had to be resumed as a last-ditch effort, Keynesianism was pursued in the form of massive military spending and the ideological commitment to cutting government programs and agencies remained.
What happened with education at this point is a good lesson in how the government is not a unified entity. While members of the Reagan administration were eager to get rid of the Department of Education, those who were employed by the agency, of course, were dependent on its existence. I mentioned previously that the creation of problems often serves as a strategy to garner human and material resources in the service of some end. What happened in the Department of Education is a great example of how this can work. The Department commissioned a study of the state of education in the U.S. Conveniently, considering the fact that they were being threatened with non-existence, the department found that there was a crisis in American education, one that jeopardized the very future of the nation and necessitated action, thus re-establishing the importance of the Department of Education. The report that it distributed with great fanfare in 1983, A Nation At Risk, used hyperbolic language and was designed to create hype and engender fear.
The first of the report's main arguments was that achievement levels were dropping from what they were in the past. Statistics based on SAT and other standardized test scores were used to support this claim. The problem with these statistics, however, is that they are comparing different people in different contexts. For example, college was becoming less exclusive and more people were taking the SAT. Furthermore, as times change, so do the skills and knowledge that are relevant to current conditions. Tests necessarily have to change over time (the same test is never used repeatedly without updates), and so not only are different people being compared, but they are being compared with different tests!
The second major claim was flawed for similar reasons. The report argued that U.S. students were not performing as highly as students from other countries, and that threatened our economic future. Using extreme rhetoric, the report warned, "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." Once again, the comparisons being made (this time global rather than historical) are not valid. The tests from which these global comparisons are drawn are not administered to comparable groups of people in each country. In the U.S. all students take it, whereas in countries like Japan, only the best-performing students do. Furthermore, in some countries students face consequences for their performance, while in the U.S. they do not, and are thus less motivated to do well. Finally, and most importantly, the U.S. has a much more diverse population. In particular, it has one of the largest income gaps in the world. Because educational achievement gaps are reflections of income gaps, one would expect measures of average academic achievement to be lower in the U.S. than in other places, because the average is brought down by these disadvantaged groups. On the other hand, it does not seem reasonable to assume that the American education system is significantly worse than other countries, as the nations with supposedly better systems still do not dominated the global domain of academic research in higher education, as the U.S. does in many fields. The fear of "falling behind" other nations in terms of the quality of education has been salient ever since Sputnik was launched. But that does not mean it is anything more than fear.
If there is any problem with American education it has only and always been the achievement gap. However, as argued in my previous post, this is a problem that has roots entirely outside of the educational system, and therefore cannot be resolved via education reforms. It is not a problem of education, it is a problem of poverty and inequality, and that requires full-scale systemic change.
The idea that there is some sort of "problem" that needs to be fixed has, however, been persistent in the history of education. Earlier, it was mainly used as justification for educators to tinker around and try out new ideas. But now the idea has become a fixture of the public consciousness. It has reached the level of common sense, unquestioned hegemony. Because we take for granted the "fact" that our educational system is failing and in dire need of reform, we waste time debating, discussing, researching, and trying out all the new ideas and latest fads. No one thinks to stop and consider what the "problem" really is, and what evidence there is that any problem exists.
What happened with education at this point is a good lesson in how the government is not a unified entity. While members of the Reagan administration were eager to get rid of the Department of Education, those who were employed by the agency, of course, were dependent on its existence. I mentioned previously that the creation of problems often serves as a strategy to garner human and material resources in the service of some end. What happened in the Department of Education is a great example of how this can work. The Department commissioned a study of the state of education in the U.S. Conveniently, considering the fact that they were being threatened with non-existence, the department found that there was a crisis in American education, one that jeopardized the very future of the nation and necessitated action, thus re-establishing the importance of the Department of Education. The report that it distributed with great fanfare in 1983, A Nation At Risk, used hyperbolic language and was designed to create hype and engender fear.
The first of the report's main arguments was that achievement levels were dropping from what they were in the past. Statistics based on SAT and other standardized test scores were used to support this claim. The problem with these statistics, however, is that they are comparing different people in different contexts. For example, college was becoming less exclusive and more people were taking the SAT. Furthermore, as times change, so do the skills and knowledge that are relevant to current conditions. Tests necessarily have to change over time (the same test is never used repeatedly without updates), and so not only are different people being compared, but they are being compared with different tests!
The second major claim was flawed for similar reasons. The report argued that U.S. students were not performing as highly as students from other countries, and that threatened our economic future. Using extreme rhetoric, the report warned, "If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." Once again, the comparisons being made (this time global rather than historical) are not valid. The tests from which these global comparisons are drawn are not administered to comparable groups of people in each country. In the U.S. all students take it, whereas in countries like Japan, only the best-performing students do. Furthermore, in some countries students face consequences for their performance, while in the U.S. they do not, and are thus less motivated to do well. Finally, and most importantly, the U.S. has a much more diverse population. In particular, it has one of the largest income gaps in the world. Because educational achievement gaps are reflections of income gaps, one would expect measures of average academic achievement to be lower in the U.S. than in other places, because the average is brought down by these disadvantaged groups. On the other hand, it does not seem reasonable to assume that the American education system is significantly worse than other countries, as the nations with supposedly better systems still do not dominated the global domain of academic research in higher education, as the U.S. does in many fields. The fear of "falling behind" other nations in terms of the quality of education has been salient ever since Sputnik was launched. But that does not mean it is anything more than fear.
If there is any problem with American education it has only and always been the achievement gap. However, as argued in my previous post, this is a problem that has roots entirely outside of the educational system, and therefore cannot be resolved via education reforms. It is not a problem of education, it is a problem of poverty and inequality, and that requires full-scale systemic change.
The idea that there is some sort of "problem" that needs to be fixed has, however, been persistent in the history of education. Earlier, it was mainly used as justification for educators to tinker around and try out new ideas. But now the idea has become a fixture of the public consciousness. It has reached the level of common sense, unquestioned hegemony. Because we take for granted the "fact" that our educational system is failing and in dire need of reform, we waste time debating, discussing, researching, and trying out all the new ideas and latest fads. No one thinks to stop and consider what the "problem" really is, and what evidence there is that any problem exists.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)