Beyond Learning

Democratic Education for a Human Future

Gert J. J. Biesta

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317263159
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Education General

Many educational practices are based upon ideas about what it means to be human. Thus education is conceived as the production of particular subjectivities and identities such as the rational person, the autonomous individual, or the democratic citizen. Beyond Learning asks what might happen to the ways in which we educate if we treat the question as to what it means to be human as a radically open question; a question that can only be answered by engaging in education rather than as a question that needs to be answered before we can educate. The book provides a different way to understand and approach education, one that focuses on the ways in which human beings come into the world as unique individuals through responsible responses to what and who is other and different. Beyond Learning raises important questions about pedagogy, community and educational responsibility, and helps educators of children and adults alike to understand what a commitment to a truly democratic education entails.

1
Against Learning

Reclaiming a Language for Education in an Age of Learning

Why does language matter to education? If we were to think of language only as a description of reality there wouldn't be too much to say in response to this question. In that case education simply "is" and language simply describes "what is." Description is, however, only one function of language—and itself a problematic one. Language is not simply a mirror of reality. At least since Dewey and Wittgenstein we know that language is a practice, that it is something we do. And at least since Foucault we know that linguistic and discursive practices delineate—and perhaps we can even say constitute—what can be seen, what can be said, what can be known, what can be thought, and, ultimately, what can be done. Just as language makes some ways of saying and doing possible, it makes other ways of saying and doing difficult and sometimes even impossible. This is an important reason why language matters to education, because the language—or languages—available to education influence to a large extent what can be said and done and also what cannot be said and done.

In this chapter I focus on the way in which the language available to educators has undergone a transformation over the past two decades. I argue that the language of education has largely been replaced by a language of learning. Although this "new language of learning" has made it possible to express ideas and insights that were rather difficult to articulate by means of the language of education, other aspects of our understanding of what education is or should be about have become far more difficult to articulate. Something has been lost in the shift from the language of education to the language of learning. It is for this reason that I wish to argue that there is a need to reclaim a language of education for education. To do so, however, cannot simply mean a return to the language or languages that were used in the past. In a sense the task before us is to reinvent a language for education—a language that is responsive to the theoretical and practical challenges we are faced with today.

Many educators, past and present, have taken inspiration from an emancipatory language of education. There is a long tradition that focuses on education as a process of individual emancipation conceived as a trajectory from childhood to adulthood, from dependence to independence, from heteronomy to autonomy. Critical educators have helped us to see that there is no individual emancipation without societal emancipation. Notwithstanding the difference in emphasis, both traditions are intimately connected with the Enlightenment idea of emancipation through rational understanding and with the humanist framework in which rationality is seen as both the essence and destiny of the human being. This, as I have shown in the prologue, is expressed in the idea that the aim of education is to reach a state of rational autonomy. We now live in an era in which we are beginning to see that there is not one rationality but that there are many—an era that we could call postmodern or postcolonial. We now also live in an era in which we are beginning to see that cognition, knowledge, is only one way to relate to the natural and social world, and not necessarily the most fruitful, important, or liberating one. The political and ecological crises that we are witnessing today are an indication that the worldview that underlies the emancipatory language of education might have reached its exhaustion. The most important question for us today is no longer how we can rationally master the natural and social world. The most important question today is how we can respond responsibly to, and how we can live peacefully with what and with whom is other (see, e.g., Säfström and Biesta 2001).

In this chapter I wish to make a contribution to the development of a language of education that is responsive to these challenges. I will suggest building blocks for a language that puts an emphasis on educational relationships, on trust, and on responsibility, while acknowledging the inherently difficult character of education. In later chapters I will explore these dimensions in more detail.

The New Language of Learning

One of the most remarkable changes that has taken place in the theory and practice of education over the past two decades has been the rise of the concept of "learning" and the subsequent decline of the concept of "education." Teaching has become redefined as supporting or facilitating learning, just as education is now often described as providing learning opportunities or learning experiences. Pupils and students have become learners, and adult education has become adult learning. In England and Wales, Further Education and Adult Education have officially been redesignated as the Learning and Skills Sector. And governments around the world no longer plea for recurrent or permanent education but stress the need for lifelong learning and the creation of a learning society. "Learning" has also become a favorite concept in national and international policy documents, as can be seen in such titles as Lifelong Learning for All (OECD 1996), The Learning Age: A Renaissance for a New Britain (DfEE 1998), and Learning to Succeed (DfEE 1999). The UK now even has an Internet-based provision for everyone who wants to learn, called learndirect^®, set up by the University for Industry and aimed at transforming the UK into a learning society The learndirect^® Web site advertises its provision as follows:

Welcome to learndirect.

learndirect is a brand new form of learning that's for everyone!

learndirect learning is designed with you in mind. Our courses are computer-based but don't let that bother you! The easiest way to get started is to go to one of the many learndirect centres around the country. Our friendly staff will be on hand to help you out. You don't need any experience—we'll take you through your learning step by step, (http://www.learndirect.co.uk/personal [accessed March 10, 2003])

The following excerpt from a document on lifelong learning published by the European Commission provides another clear example of what I propose to call the "new language of learning."

Placing learners and learning at the centre of education and training methods and processes is by no means a new idea, but in practice, the established framing of pedagogic practices in most formal contexts has privileged teaching rather than learning. . . . In a high-technology knowledge society, this kind of teaching-learning loses efficacy: learners must become proactive and more autonomous, prepared to renew their knowledge continuously and to respond constructively to changing constellations of problems and contexts. The teacher's role becomes one of accompaniment, facilitation, mentoring, support and guidance in the service of learners' own efforts to access, use and ultimately create knowledge. (Commission of the European Communities 1998, 9, quoted in Field 2000, 136)

Although the concept of "learning" has become almost omnipresent in contemporary educational discourse, it is important to see that the new language of learning is not the outcome of a particular process or the expression of a single underlying agenda. It rather should be understood as the result of a combination of different, partly even contradictory trends and developments, which suggests that the new language of learning is more an effect of a range of events than the intended outcome of a particular program or agenda. There are at least four trends that, in one way or another, have contributed to the rise of the new language of learning.

1. New Theories of Learning. One influential trend can be found in the field of the psychology of learning and concerns the emergence of constructivist and sociocultural theories of learning (see, e.g., Fosnot 1996; Lave and Wenger 1991). Such theories have challenged the idea that learning is the passive intake of information and have instead argued that knowledge and understanding are actively constructed by the learner, often in cooperation with other learners. This has shifted the attention away from the activities of the teachers to the activities of the students. As a result, learning has become much more central in the understanding of the process of education. Notions such as "scaffolding" have provided a perspective in which teaching can easily be redefined as supporting and facilitating learning.

2. Postmodernism. The impact of postmodernism on educational theory and practice has also contributed to the rise of the new language of learning. Over the past two decades many authors have argued that the project of education is a thoroughly modern project, intimately connected to the heritage of the Enlightenment (see, e.g., Usher and Edwards 1994). The postmodern doubt about the possibility and viability of the project of modernity has therefore raised fundamental questions about the modern configuration of education, particularly with regard to the idea that educators can liberate and emancipate their students by imparting rationality and critical thinking. If, as has for example been argued by the German educationalist Hermann Giesecke (1985), postmodernism implies the end of education, what can be left but learning?

3. The "Silent Explosion" of Adult Learning. The rise of the new language of learning is not only the effect of theoretical and conceptual shifts. There is also the simple fact that more and more people nowadays spend more and more of their time and money on all kinds of different forms of learning, inside and increasingly also outside of the formal settings of established educational institutions. There is not only conclusive evidence that the volume and level of participation in formal adult education has increased, there is also a rapidly growing market for nonformal forms of learning, such as in fitness centers and sports clubs, through self-help manuals, the Internet, videos, CDs, DVDs, et cetera. One of the most significant characteristics of what John Field (2000) has referred to as the "silent explosion of learning," is that the new learning is far more individualistic, in terms of its form and its content and purpose. Field notices that many adult learners nowadays are struggling with themselves, for example, with their body, their relationships, or their identity. The individualistic and individualized nature of the activities in which new adult learners are engaged helps to understand why the word learning has become such an appropriate concept to use to describe these activities.

4. The Erosion of the Welfare State. The rise of the new language of learning can also be related to wider socioeconomic and political developments, particularly the erosion of the welfare state and the rise of the market ideology of neoliberalism. One of the key ideas underlying the welfare state is the principle of the redistribution of wealth so that provisions such as health care, social security and education can be made available to all citizens and not just to those who can afford it. Although much of this is still in place in many countries (albeit with increasing levels of public-private partnerships or even full-blown privatization), the relationship between governments and citizens has in many cases changed from a political relationship to an economic relationship: a relationship between the state as provider of public services and the taxpayer as the consumer of state provision. "Value for money" has become a guiding principle in the transactions between the state and its taxpayers. This way of thinking lies at the basis of the emergence of a culture of accountability that has resulted in tight systems of inspection and control and ever more prescriptive educational protocols. It is also the logic behind voucher systems and the idea that parents, as the consumers of the education of their children, should ultimately decide what should be offered in schools (for a critical analysis of the demise of education as a public good, see, for example, Englund 1994; Apple 2000; Biesta 2004a). This way of thinking introduces a logic that focuses almost exclusively on the user, or consumer, of educational provision. What could be a more suitable name for such a consumer than "the learner"?

If this suffices as an indication of why the new language of learning might have emerged—and I wish to emphasize once more that these developments are not the outcome of a single underlying agenda and that they are not all necessarily problematic or bad—the question to ask next is what the impact of the new language of learning has been on the discourse and practice of education. What is the problem with the new language of learning? What is it that can be said by means of the new language of learning and, more importantly what is it that can no longer be said by means of this language? Could there be a reason to be against "learning"?

Against Learning?

The main problem with the new language of learning is that it has facilitated a redescription of the process of education in terms of an economic transaction, that is, a transaction in which (1) the learner is the (potential) consumer, the one who has certain "needs," in which (2) the teacher, the educator, or the educational institution is seen as the provider, that is, the one who is there to meet the needs of the learner, and where (3) education itself becomes a commodity—a "thing"—to be provided or delivered by the teacher or educational institution and to be consumed by the learner. This is the logic that lies behind the idea that educational institutions and individual educators should be flexible, that they should respond to the needs of the learners, that they should give their learners value for money, and perhaps even that they should operate on the principle that the learner/customer is always right. This is clearly the world of learndirect^®, in which "you don't need any experience," where computer-based learning shouldn't "bother you," and where "our friendly staff will be on hand to help you out." It is also the logic that demands that educators and educational institutions should be accountable, since what ultimately constitutes the relationship between the learner/consumer and the educator/provider is the payments learners make, either direct or, in the case of state-funded education, through taxation.

In one respect it does make sense to look at the process of education in these terms, at least, that is, in order to redress the imbalances of a situation in which education has been mainly provider-led and inflexible. Access to education has, after all, everything to do with such basic things as being able to attend school, college, or university, and traditionally those groups who were not able to organize their lives around the requirements and timetables of educational institutions were simply excluded from many educational opportunities. This is why evening classes, open universities, and flexible and distance learning are so important. It is also the main reason why educational institutions and individual educators should indeed respond to the needs of the learners. To think of students as learners and learners as customers who want value for money can indeed be helpful in achieving equal educational opportunities for all.

The more fundamental question, however, is whether education itself can be understood—and should be understood—in economic terms, that is, as a situation where the learner has certain needs and it is the business of the educator to meet those needs. I believe, following Feinberg (2001), that this is not the case and that it is for precisely this reason that the comparison between an economic and an educational relationship falls short. Why is this so?

In the case of economic transactions we can, in principle, assume that consumers know what their needs are and that they know what they want. (The "in principle" is important here, because we know all too well how consumers' needs are manufactured by the advertising industry) Is this also a valid assumption in the case of education? It might seem that most parents know very well what they want from the school to which they send their children. But this is only true at a very general level—and might perhaps only be true because of the existence of strong cultural expectations about why children should go to school and what can be expected from schools and schooling. But most parents do not—or not yet—send their children to school with a detailed list of what they want the teacher to do. Like: "Dear Miss, Please give Mary thirty minutes of mathematics instruction using method A, followed by fifteen minutes of remedial teaching, and after that, please give her twenty minutes of religious education, and a bit of interaction with the other children in her class as well." Parents generally send their children to school because they want them to be educated, but it is up to the professional judgment and expertise of the teacher to make decisions about what this particular child actually needs. Here lies a fundamental difference between the economic or market model and the professional model. As Feinberg explains: "In market models consumers are supposed to know what they need, and producers bid in price and quality to satisfy them. In professional models the producer not only services a need, but also defines it Sam goes to his physician complaining of a...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Prologue: Education and the Question of Being Human
• 1 Against Learning: Reclaiming a Language for Education in an Age of Learning
• 2 Coming into Presence: Education after the Death of Subject
• 3 The Community of Those Who Have Nothing in Common: Education and the Language of Responsibility
• 4 How Difficult Should Education Be?
• 5 The Architecture of Education: Creating a Worldly Space
• 6 Education and the Democratic Person
• Epilogue: A Pedagogy of Interruption
• Bibliography
• Index
• About the Author