Philosopher views
Download 5.81 Mb.
|
PHILOSOPHYIllich’s philosophy was rooted in the recognition that societal organization was unsuited for the optimal realization of human potential. His writings draw from the intellectual traditions of Marx and existentialism, and contemporaries like Pablo Friere and Paul Goodman. His most renowned work regarding deschooling was done in conjunction with Everett Reimer, whom he met in Puerto Rico in 1956. However, Illich also offers criticisms of the medical establishment, development projects, gender inequality, industrialization, authority, and institutions in general. Illich’s guiding ethical principle dictates that the primary social value should be that of conviviality. For Illich, this notion of conviviality would be embodied in a communitarian state where individuals enjoy a maximum knowledge of the range of options afforded to them and a maximum amount of freedom to exercise those choices, with the ultimate goal of self-actualization. In balancing autonomy with community, conviviality is “individual freedom realized in mutual personal interdependence.” (Tools for Conviviality) As opposed to the liberal tradition of Mill and Locke in which personal freedom is balanced by some “social contract” or market economy in an effort to check back the dangers of autonomy, the society that Illich envisions requires radical changes in social thought so that individuals would make moral decisions in terms of optimal outcome for all. The principle guiding those moral decisions, he terms “austerity.” For Illich, austerity is the “social virtue by which individuals would recognize and decide limits on the maximum amount of instrumented power that anyone may claim, both for his own satisfaction and in the service of others.” (Tools for Conviviality) This is analogous, but should not be confused with Marx’s socialist utopia in which individuals produce and distribute the products of labor equitably. The goal of Illich’s criticisms, then, is help move society towards this convivial mode of existence. Illich holds that institutions such as schools, the church, mental hospitals, etc., seek to maintain the static society in which they exist. Rather than making things better, they perpetuate the status quo through the manipulation of the individual subjects within the institution. In our society, Illich argues, institutions have the ability to limit the available autonomy of individuals, selectively determine who should hold autonomy and to what degree, as well as distort the interconnectedness of society. Illich’s primary institution of interest is the school, which he defines as the “age specific, teacher-related process requiring full-time attendance at an obligatory curriculum.” (Tools for Conviviality) Schools are a particularly significant institution for this type of analysis for three major reasons. First, there is the shear amount of time that nearly all individuals spend attending school, specifically in countries where attendance is mandatory. However, just as importantly, school constitutes an individual’s first entrance into public sphere/life without their parents. Finally, society uses graduation from an educational institution to mark an individual’s arrival at adulthood. Thus we conceptualize schools as an integral part of bringing individuals from intellectual infancy to maturity. Consequently, Illich contends that, in light of this context, schools have assumed a place of obvious influence over how individuals come to understand both their society and their position within it. Recognizing the potential to impact the functioning of a society, Illich outlines several fatal flaws that make schools ill equipped to reach the end goal of conviviality. He recognizes that schools are only able to function because they claim and maintain authority over knowledge. As a result, schools view knowledge as a commodity, rather than an internalized process. In order to maintain the value of their commodity, schools create false standards that measure obedience rather than intelligence. All of the flaws that Illich identifies within educational institutions are inherent to their existence as institutions. The hidden curriculum is the “framework of the system, within which all changes in the curriculum are made” (Tools for Conviviality) or, in other words, those elements of the institution that mold students apart from the overt curriculum learned in the classroom. Illich argues that the structures of the school, in terms of the teacher-student relationship and disciplinary structures, groom students to later be controlled by other institutions such as work, environments, and their government. Each time the institution successfully indoctrinates a student into one particular mode of thinking or routine, the next indoctrination will meet with less resistance from the student. Additionally, Illich argues that the focus of school is not merely on the education/indoctrination of students, but rather that as an institution, school is focused on its own perpetuation. In order to guarantee its continuation, school implicitly constructs the value of school learning. At the same time, the school actively undermines the importance and success of other forms of knowledge. This functions to maintain the status quo and keep individuals from looking outside the box. Unlike curriculum, the hidden curriculum transcends the particulars of the specific ideology being taught because it lays in the manner in which schools operate as institutions. Thus, “it doesn’t matter whether the curriculum is designed to teach the principles of Fascism, liberalism, Catholicism, socialism or liberation, as long as the institution claims to define which activities are legitimate education.” (Tools for Conviviality) Illich remarks that the widespread industrialization of western liberal economics has also had a significant effect on the nature of education. Knowledge is now being regarded as a type of commodity or capital, just as money, natural resources and time. Consequently, the school is viewed as an institution that enables individuals and the society to gain capital and power, and using itself as a vehicle, schools promote this conceptualization. How many times have you been told that you must go to college to have a decent future? In reality, Illich contends, knowledge exists not as an independent object, but rather as an internalized aspect of “people who know.” For example, in the common metaphor, “I see what you mean” the thinker and the object are clearly spatially differentiated. There is the mind, and there is the evidence. This model of conceptualizing knowledge results in what Illich calls the “banking concept.” In this framework, education is seen as the process by which an object, knowledge, is transferred from the teacher to the student in little pieces. It does not become integrated into the individual's worldview, but rather owned like any other commodity. This objectification and commodification of knowledge gives primacy to types of knowledge that can be exchanged within a dualistic relationship. Consequently, Illich argues, the school system is less concerned with the usefulness of knowing, thinking, and understanding, than it is with the usefulness of knowledge as a tool. As he suggests, “the survival of a society in which technocracies can constantly re-define human happiness as the consumption of their latest product depends on educational institutions which translate education into social control.” (Tools for Conviviality) In the same way that consumer culture reconstitutes self-actualization in terms of material possessions, the school system relegates the inherent goal of being “the best thinker one can be” to ones ability to best learn sellable information that can be commodified. These two factors are mutually reinforcing. Capitalist economics provide the underpinnings of the pedagogy and the model for commodification, while the hidden curriculum endows students with a commodity-based model of human existence. Moreover, when this objectification is internalized at an early age, it will necessarily carry over into other aspects of one's worldview, preventing an individual from reaching the holistic conceptualization Illich values. The commodification of knowledge can only function by controlling access to the capital of knowing. Just as gold functions as a marker of value because of its limited supply, societal standards must be set to maintain the value of school learning. To do this, first, requires the undermining of self-learning, which is accomplished easily enough through institutional backing and social stigmatization of the available alternatives. Related to this is the concept of selection, the notion that performance in school is an indication of future economic viability. This notion is, both, partially rooted in the assumed value of a school education, and also a justification for social hierarchy. The valuation of institutionalized education consequently seeks to explain the economic disenfranchisement of the majority as a result of scholastic underachievement. Illich explains that, “the number of satisfied clients who graduate from school every year is much smaller than the number of frustrated dropouts who are conveniently graded by their failure for use in a marginal labor pool… citizens are ‘schooled’ into their places.” (Tools for Conviviality) The flaw with this mode of valuation, according to Illich, is that it confuses process with substance. As a society, we are apt to favor an individual who has attended 12 years of school over one who has not. However, merely attending school, or receiving good grades is not representative of actually knowing. Thus, Illich criticizes a society that takes from granted that a diploma must necessarily indicate superior intellect. Rather than actually valuing achievement in practice, we turn to achievement in complying with rules and procedures, or giving the answer that is expected of you. Illich’s conception of the transition away from schools and his vision of the post-school environment is complicated. To spell out a particular educational model would contradict his argument that defining what is and is not proper education has detrimental effects. He does outline a few standards though; alternatives must be made available to all without any kind of qualification on age, socio-economic status, gender, creed, or ethnicity. Additionally, these alternatives must teach what people want to know, when they want to learn it, and avoid the institutionalization of either subject material or methods of instruction. Illich points out that there are a plethora of natural resources for educational use, which far outnumber those currently utilized by schools. Thus, Illich claims we would be able to overcome the decreased efficiency of self-directed learning by increasing the efficiency of its process. For example, although it might not be a convenient for me to consult with a banker about accounting, as it would be for me to talk to my math teacher, the quality of an unforced interaction with a knowledgeable individual more than compensates. Subsequently, the question becomes not what learning should happen, but rather, what methods are there for bringing students into contact with these resources. Such resources can be objects that exist in the world, persons who already have skills and values that a person would like to model him or herself after, people who can challenge them, compete with them, help them, or just to be friends with. In all of these exchanges, Illich contends, that a superior natural learning occurs. With this in mind, Illich suggests four possible ways of facilitating such interactions: reference services to educational objects, skill exchanges, peer-matching, reference services to educators-at-large. The reference services to educational objects would provide access to things needed for learning in much the same way that libraries and museums do in the present. These services would clearly need to be expanded and more accessible to the larger society. The skill exchange would place all persons wishing to learn and those willing to teach in contact with one another. Similarly, peer-matching would place individuals in contact with others interested in exploring similar areas of inquiry. References to educators at large would provide information on quasi-professional teachers and the conditions of their services. (Tools for Conviviality) New advancements in information-communication technologies such as the internet make these types of free form “webs” of educational resources much easier than Illich ever could have imagined. In theory, these alternatives would both reflect and perpetuate the goal of the convivial society. Directory: uploads uploads -> 587 Return function, r i(X) r i(0) r i(1) r i(2) r i(3) 1 0 2 4 6 Thermal Station, I 2 0 1 5 6 3 0 3 5 6 10 uploads -> Department of science and humanities department of mathematics part-a questions and answers uploads -> The Case Against the nypd’s Quota-Driven ‘Broken Windows’ Policing What Is It? uploads -> For want of a nail uploads -> Ownership Models There are two different types of ownership models uploads -> Police Militarization uploads -> City of rising star regular meting thursday, july 14, 2016 uploads -> Township of winfield uploads -> Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act of 2014 uploads -> The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program What We Want Now! Download 5.81 Mb. Share with your friends:
|