Is education in Latin America dependent?

Is education in Latin America dependent?

Carlos E. Olivera

When the theme of the Fifth World Congress of Comparative Education, 'Dependence and Independence in Education', became known in Latin America, it caused no little astonishment. How could this concept of dependence, bor- rowed from the fields of politics and economics, possibly have any relevance in the context of a congress on education? In what respect could it help to promote the development of our educational systems? Were there no other subjects of comparison between educational systems that might be more illuminating than this foray onto the treacherous ground of ideology?

On further consideration, however, it had to be acknowledged that since the 'theory of dependence' had originated in Latin America, there Could be no refusing to examine it in the forms in which it had been adopted and developed in other contexts. Furthermore, its application to the field of education was undoubt- edly of great interest for recently decolonized countries and continents, as it must also be for the former colonial powers, stung by conscience to the point where they were prepared to propose such Subjects of their own accord.

However, this latter aspectmthe dialogue

Car los E. Ol ivera (Argentina). Vice-Rector in charge of Planning at the National University, Heredia, Costa Rica. Former Dean of the Faculty of Philosophy and Literature at the same university. Former Unesco educational planning expert (Somalia, Central America). Consultant with the International Institute for Educational Planning (IIEP). Founding President of the Institute for Social Cybernetics Applied to Planning (1SGAP), Costa Rica. Author of several works on educational planning and administration.

between former colonial powers and quondam colonized peoples--might have been thought inapplicable in the case of all our countries, whose 'decolonization' (we call it 'independence') dates back almost two centuriesl--an assump- tion that would seem to be confirmed by the scanty representation of Latin American countries at the Congress. It was therefore vital to review the question of dependence in education from the standpoint of our continent, both in order to bring us back into the picture and to provide information and data that might be useful to other countries.

This is the background to the cursory remarks that we made in one of the com- missions of the Congress, and I shall be developing the same themes in this article in somewhat greater detail. The hub of the question may be formulated as follows: what contri- bution might the theory of dependence make to comparative studies in education? In what way would it serve, at least in the Latin American context, to advance understanding of edu- Cational problems, or to clarify the hard choices confronting educational policy-maker s when planning for the future?

What does 'dependence' in education mean?

In Western parlance, the term 'dependence' denotes a power relationship. It expresses the subjection or subordination of individuals or groups vis-d-vis others, the condition of things that belong to larger complexes or sets. This is why the term, which was originally used in the vocabulary of political science, has entered

Prospects, Vol. XV, No. z, I985

228 Carlos E. Olivera

the domains of sociology and depth psychology on the one hand and of economics on the other. In education, the term has iately come into use among educational psychologists: we find, for example, references to pupils' 'dependence' on the teacher. However, in the still more recent usage reflected in the theme of the Congress, the novel element is the shift in its application away from interpersonal relationships towards the actual education systems of the Third World: their structures, their objec- tives, their content, their methods and the training of their teaching staff. According to this conception of dependence, the whole system is in fact dictated, overtly or covertly, by the interests and choices of the former metropolitan powers, or of the 'developed world' in general.

It is here that the ambiguity of the concept begins to emerge. There can be no doubt that all these various aspects of educational systems, in the present-day world, are determined by the politieal authorities: dependence is indeed a reality within each country. However, in opting for one solution rather than another to the problem of education, these political authorities act at the dictate of ideas, theories and doctrines that belong to no one in particular, and consequently, we should speak not so much of dependence as of a more or less decisive influence. Dependence suggests a state of direct, unequivocal subordination which can in general be detected point by point and decision by decision. This is indeed, according to the theory, what occurs in the economic field, for example. Influence, on the other hand, is exerted in an indirect and almost always equivocal manner, and it is perceptible as a factor or component of a whole rather than in relation to specific points. It derives from (moral) authority rather than the (coercive) exercise of power, to quote Emmanuel Mou- nier's distinction. Thus influence leaves the individual or group upon whom it is exerted more or less ample room to manmuvre, whereas in relations of dependence the autonomy of the dependent individual or group is minimal, or even altogether fictitious.2

To return to Latin America and educational systems, let us attempt to identify in concrete historical terms the ways in which such systems might have been either placed in positions of dependence or subjected to specific influences. It should be quite feasible to identify such situations, whether at the origin of educational systems, in the course of their history, or in their present-day mode of operation. Is it possible, in applying these criteria, to speak of the 'dependence' of Latin American educational systems?

The case of Latin America: the historical background

In contrast to what happened in most African states, for example, the educational systems of Latin American countries could not have been established during the period of their dependence on the colonial powers for the simple reason that at the time of independence (i8io-24) , such systems did not yet exist in the metropolitan countries--Spain and Por- tugalmany more than they existed in any other Western country.

To be sure, the leaders and pioneering forces of the independence movement that swept the entire continent, from Belgrano and Moreno in Argentina to Bolivar in Gran Colombia, did not want for ideas and were not sparing of statements of intent regarding the education, or more precisely the instruction of 'the people', who were regarded as 'sovereign'. However, these ideas owed nothing to the colonial power with which links were being severed. 3 Rather, they served as a means of differentiation, since they had been gleaned from the French Encyclopedists and revolutionaries, who were readily referred to for inspiration. Indeed, such ideas frequently found practical expression in laws and decrees on public education. However, they were t o remain virtually a dead letter for a good half-century in these countries, caught up as they were in inter- necine struggles and lacking financial resources.

There is one constant feature of these fruit-

Is education in Latin America dependent? 229

less efforts which has a great deal to do with our sub)ect: the explicit intent to follow European, particularly French, examples. For, while links with a particular power structure and political and economic style were being severed, those severing them were determined to remain within the same cultural orbit. However~ this mimetic drive was not charac- terized by the imposition of any relations of dependence, since--setting aside Napoleon III 's Mexican adventure--France exercised no political ascendancy over the continent as a whole~ while Great Britain, which did exercise a powerful economic hegemony, had no educational model to propose. By contrast~ the influence of French ideas and the French model was indisputable.

From one regime to another, from one law to another, education in France was in fact gradually becoming a 'system' in the modern sense of the term; moreover, its centralizing and standardizing trends came at a most oppor- tune time, serving as they did to bolster, by the weight of a prestigious example~ the efforts to create genuine states that were under way throughout the continent. To be sure, a few visionaries, such as D. F. Sarmiento in Chile and Argentina, also drew their models from other, non-Latin countries (Great Britain, Germany, the United States) to qualify their arguments regarding the power of popular education as an instrument of economic pro- ductivity and political democracy. However, as soon as the question of organization was at issue, the focus always returned to France.

T h e shift from ideas to action, in the form of satisfaction of the establishment of state systems of public instruction, finally arrived, half a century late~ in the last quarter of the nineteenth century, which witnessed the triumph of groups and parties of a liberal and positivist tendency virtually everywhere on the continent. As we know, the great liberal 'blueprint' cherished by that progressive-mind- ed generation assigned to education--on both sides of the Atlantic--a paramount role. And in order to draw up this blueprint, the ruling classes of Latin America turned to Europe for

their models: to Victorian Britain for trade and railways, to Bismarck's Germany for the army, and to Republican France for education.

In particular, Ferry's education law (I88~), which in France enshrined the educational role of the state, became a model that was rapidly imitated. Similar laws were enacted in Argen- tina (i884) , in Costa Rica (I886) and in other countries. Was that the effect of dependence? Certainly not. France did not lay down the law in Latin America--indeed, the French cared very little about that regionmnor did it domi- nate the economies of Latin American countries. This did not prevent France from exercising a powerful influence, one that was both desired and sought after by the ruling classes. Thus in the field of education at that time, we can discern no attempt at domination on the part of France or any other country, nor any con- spiracy, however shadowy, to foist a model upon the region. Rather both here and in Europe we find virtually the same sparring between antagonistic political and ideological groups regarding educational matters.

The two models

However, in order to gain a better insight into what happened at the time, and continues even today to colour many questions relating to education in Latin America, we must note an important point at this juncture: it is essential not to misunderstand the meaning of the term 'liberal' as employed here to characterize those groups that came to power at the end of the last century.

This was not, to be sure, liberalism in the British sense then current: a doctrine advocat- ing the laissez-faire approach, seeking to secure the greatest possible freedom for individuals and groups to create and innovate in all fields, without state intervention. Still less is it to be understood in the sense that has since become current in the United States, where it desig- nates the advocates of wide-ranging state intervention of a regulatory nature on behalf of ordinary people, minorities and underprivi-

230 Carlos E. Ollvera

leged groups. In the 'Latin' world of the time--alike in France and Chile, in Spain and Colombia, in Italy and Argentina--liberalism, which was already strongly tinged with positivism, represented something else: a movement calling for freedom of thought and conscience, in opposition to the traditional religious authorities, and also to the state where the state was in alliance with the Church (though not where the reverse was the case). Long before the appearance of Max Weber's celebrated theories, liberal positivism was im- puting to the Roman Catholic Church and to established religion generally in the colonial era a retarding, anti-progressive influence, while the English-speaking countries that opposed the Roman Catholic Church were associated with the advancement of science, production and democracy.

Conversely, 'conservatism' in Latin American countries did not denote first and foremost the tendency to preserve an economic structure based on the power of the propertied classes (as a factor in the cohesion of the entire oligarchy, both conservative and liberal), but rather the concern to defend inherited beliefs and traditions, which the liberals regarded as obstacles to progress--even though those beliefs were cherished and upheld by the poorest peasant classes (whereas the liberals were frequently well-to-do, forming part of the establishment). I t was in the political and ideological arena that the conflict occurred, not in the economic or social arena.

Thus, whereas British-style liberalism was opposed to dirigisme, state control and central- ization, and whereas North American liberals, on the contrary, opposed the laissez-faire attitude of capitalism in its pure, unadulterated state, the liberalism of the Latin countries, operating on quite another level, was directed against clericalism, whose essential guide was still the Syllabus of Pope Pius IX, issued some years earlier (1864). This form of liberalism did not object to the power of the state as such; rather, it sought to capture that power, in order to impose its own idea of freedom. It therefore readily allied itself with central-

izing trends, and welcomed the active intervention of the state in preference to private initiative--whether on the part of individuals or social groups--as a means of, if not developing the economy, at any rate extending formal schooling and building it up into an educational 'system'. Howevermthe detail is a revealing onemthe laws on education enacted at the time were usually termed 'secular' laws, as were contemporary laws governing marriage, burial grounds and civil status.

Thus, in referring earlier to the French model, we may have been rather too quick off the mark. There was no single model. In matters of politics, economics and education, French society and indeed European society in general were deeply divided, and the same was true on the other side of the Atlantic Ocean. On both continents, the laws that gave structure to educational systems as essential components of the state were not formulated wholly or even mainly on the basis of educational ideas. Indeed, such ideas were a relatively minor component of the laws in question, and certainly the thinking of the major educationists of the century such as Pestalozzi and Froebel played no role at all. The laws were first and foremost apolitical instrument in the ideological struggle against the Church's ascendancy and on behalf of secular education, which was regarded as the very essence of democracy. 4

In the final analysis, therefore, the struggles taking place in Europe were also being waged in Latin America. This is hardly surprising, inasmuch as these countries are not essentially the heirs of pre-Columbian culturesmdespite the claims that have sometimes been made by indigenists and students of folklore--but rather extensions of Europe planted on American soil, where they have had four centuries in which to put down roots. 5 In such circumstances, to speak of 'dependence' in the sense of the theory is really meaningless.

The fact remains, as noted above, that the pre-eminent example of an education system designed as a political blueprint was French. However, the coexistence of a state system

Is education in Latin America dependent? 23I

and Church schools that had been achieved in France, by the enactment of the Guizot and Falloux laws on the freedom of education, was disrupted during the birth pangs of the Third Republic. A few years later, the laws enacted at the instigation of l~mile Combes finally led to Catholic schools being classified as 'private' educational establishments, thereby eliminating every reference to religion from the vocabulary and creating a deep, long- lasting split within society.

In the somewhat paradoxical situation that ensued, with the liberals imposing restrictive laws and the anti-liberals calling for freedom of education--a situation that also occurred in different forms in the rest of the Latin countries of Europe (Italy, Spain and Por- tugal)--the Latin American leaders, in their quest for a universal education system, had a choice between two models, or at least between two versions of the same basic model. The ~educational' dimension, as it were, was essentially the same: namely the determination to achieve the spread of schooling in standardized forms, and thereby to unify the cultural bases of our societies along European lines. On the other hand, the aspects that gave rise to divergence were of a more political nature: the spirit or thrust of such education, certain questions of content, the social background and training of teachers, and above all the selection of those who would be in control of the system.

There was no unanimity in favour of either of these two versions of the model. By and large, governments drew upon educators re- cruited from among the ranks of the official education systems of Europe, above all that of France, entrusting them with the task of organizing new systems, or at least setting up a number of model establishments. In other cases, particular opposition groups and sometimes more conservative governments (as for example that of Garcia Moreno, somewhat earlier, in Ecuador) brought in religious congre- gations that devoted themselves to teaching, or facilitated the establishment of religious schools. Between the two sectors of the edu-

cation system set up in this way (basically, the antagonists of the European struggles trans- planted to American shores), various forms of relationship developed, depending upon local situations, ranging from more or less courteous mistrust to open conflict. The ~denominational' schools, for their part, soon received substantial reinforcements when l]mile Combes's legis- lation forced many French religious educators into exile. However, once again, there was no decision motivated by hegemonic ambitions that determined this dual model: it was quite simply the consequence of a great number of decisions taken free of any alien constraints. 6

The subsequent pattern of development

The early stages in the development of a system doubtless represent the most decisive moment in regard to the question of its dependence or independence. For once a state institution has become established and bureau- cratized, there is little chance of its changing radically, moving from a situation of fairly broad autonomy to one of dependence, for example. However, a century has passed since the period referred to above, a century during which, it is claimed, economic, political and cultural dependence has continued to become more marked as the gap between the developed North and the impoverished South has widened. Might not the same trend have occurred in the field of education?

Any attempt to reply in depth to this question would probably have to be qualified in some respects, particularly if we wished to go beyond the notion of dependence as such and attempt to analyse the more or less clearly identifiable degrees of domination. We make no claim to possess the precise, specialized knowledge of the history of education in at least twenty countries that would be needed in order to formulate such a reply. However, the question may be reduced to more modest proportions, without greatly diminishing its relevance for the subject with which we are


concerned, i f we bear in mind that it is above all dependence vis-d-vis the United States that is alleged by the Latin American proponents of the theory of dependence. ~ From this standpoint, the question can at least be narrowed down more closely within its context.

For this purpose, the twentieth century may usefully be dividedgrosso modo into two periods, separated by the Second World War. In the first period, the influence of the United States, whose main channel was the philosophical and educational pragmatism associated with the name of John Dewey, swept through Latin America, contrasting with the influences which continued to emanate from Europe and which consisted mainly, in the I92OS and I93OS, of idealism or 'culturalism' o f German origin (for example, Kerschensteiner). Hard on the heels of pragmatism came North American educational psychology, also pragmatist in its approach, but which was propagated in Latin America primarily in its ~Europeanized' versions (in particular through the work of Binet and Simon, whose intelligence tests underwent numerous adaptations). Nevertheless, most of the movements that had an impact upon educational thinking in Latin America between the two world wars were still European in origin: Montessori, Decroly, Cousinet, Freinet and the 'activity'-based approach to education in general.

However, three observations must be made in this connection. In the first place, most if not all of these movements came into being outside the official education systems; in fact, they originated in response to criticism of such systems. As a result, on both continents they experienced extreme difficulty in making headway. While they were greeted with enthusi- asm at most teacher-training colleges and other institutions of education, they barely managed to survive in the environment of folanal systems, the authoritarian and standardizing nature of which tended to smother all forms of 'deviation'. As for the specifically North American influences, these emanated from a radically different political, economic and educational culture and system. Even though

they were attractive to many thinkers who had grown weary of verbalism, they were so to speak biologically rejected by the prematurely age-hardened tissue of the educational organism. Finally, it should be noted that none of these movements, at least as they were interpreted in our countries, represented a threat either to the structure or the political goals of the education systems. Their sole aim was to mod- ernize contents and methods in order to do rather more successfully what was already being done.

In short~ this entire era was marked not by any specific relations of dependence but rather by motley theoretical influences of various origins~ some of them being adopted and reformulated, while others were discussed only to be rejected. On the theoretical level, rather than representing a state of dependence, this cat's cradle of influences resulted in the opposite, a broader range of choice and hence a greater degree of autonomy. On the practical level, the real changes made in the systems were minimal, notwithstanding the statutes in which they were sometimes enshrined. Aside from the demonstration classes organized in teacher- training colleges and a number of ~pilot' establishments~ virtually no change was made in the routine, owing to lack of preparation, resources and educational supervision.

Moreover, these influences were mediated less directly than they had been during the previous era, through books and journals, and by the few educationists and government officials who completed their education in Europe or the United States; their introduction by foreign educationists expressly 'imported' for the purpose had ceased, or very nearly so. And when it was finally considered necessary to Cimport' foreigners, the preference went to teachers from other~ more advanced Latin American countries; alternatively, it was to these other Latin American countries that local personnel went for teaching courses and training.


The post-war period

Since I945, matters have taken rather a different turn as a result of the de facto hegemony established by the United States both in the political and military spheres and also in the fields of economic activity, finance, science, technology and information, inevitably, the prestige resulting from such hegemony has rubbed off on other systems of social life: North American fashions have invaded 'mass culture', entertainment and leisure activities, etc. In the field of education also, the influences emanating from North America appear to have outweighed those of other countries. However, the trend has been less spontaneous. Indeed, for the first time it was a government that officially took the initiative, through the provision of bilateral aid, o f seeking to sway educational policies or even to shape education systems. To this end, private aid- granting agencies and philanthropic foundations that had long been working in this field were assigned a fairly wide-ranging additional role. And certainly the intentions were good: modernization, extension, the provision of facilities. The results were also good in certain cases, particularly in regard to facilities, and in some instances in regard to administrative practices as well.

The fact remains that these forms of aid and the resulting 'modernization' served to mediate, however unwittingly, values and a life-style that were completely alien to Latin American culture. With the exception of certain cases (for example, the Peace Corps) where those working for voluntary services made a deliberate effort to become integrated before- hand into Latin American cukure through grass-roots organizations, such action could not fail to introduce deep-lying contradictions and new gaps and time-lags into education systems. In short, it had a disruptive effect which might well have led to relations of dependence in the full sense of the term. However, in order for that to happen, such influences would have had to exert their impact

unchallenged over a fairly lengthy period of time. This has not been the case. Indeed, in the post-war period, other international exchanges have come into being very rapidly, offsetting or even thwarting this unilateral influence.

This phenomenon began in the form of the action, now carried out systematically, on the part of European countries--France, the United Kingdom, Italy and, subsequently, the Federal Republic of Germany, Spain and the Eastern European countries--to re-establish their pres- ence in Latin America. Numerous cultural agreements were signed which have led to, among other things, the founding of bilingual schools, the European components of which follow their own curricula, modelled upon their own structures, and have exerted a considerable impact as demonstration schools. Another result has been the establishment of institutes of technical education, which have exercised a quite significant influence. Such agreements also made provision for study grants and fellowships, the recipients of which have helped, on their return to their countries, to diversify the spectrum of educational influences and thereby to prevent any specific relationship of dependence from developing.

Soon afterwards, the organizations of the United Nations system (Unesco first and foremost, but also FAO, ILO and WHO) launched a number of educational schemes in the field. These, although fairly limited in financial terms, have had a much broader influence on the main lines of educational development than the aid programmes of the United States. In the first place, the assistance provided by these organizations has taken the form specifically of services, tied to no power in particular, and has as a result been received with fewer reservations. Moreover--and this, in our view, is the crucial point--these organizations rapidly, and deliberately, geared their efforts to the mobilization and exchange of the human resources of the Latin American countries themselves, either as expels or as managers and officers in charge of national or multi- national projects. Little by little, with the help of


the 'regional offices', international action and influence of this kind has to a large extent taken the form of mutual assistance, whereby Latin American countries advise other Latin American countries while yet not cutting themselves off from the culture and experience of more developed regions, which they draw upon through the channels of their organization. Finally, agreements concluded with the World Bank have made it possible to set up schemes requiring substantial financial resources without entering into any relations of dependence.

In addition, there have been certain 'old style' European influences that must be taken into account, by which we mean the propa- gation of educational concepts and currents of thought originating in the Old World, even though those propagating them have sometimes been international experts. An example of this is the fairly general trend to transform lower secondary education into an extension of the universal compulsory school-attendance period.

Moreover, in speaking of the influence or the domination exercised by the United States, it is important not to fall into the trap of regarding that country as a monolithic bloc, whose designs and actions are all of a piece. The most radical criticisms of its education system, its theories and its erring ways have been voiced within the United States itself. Such criticisms, which are of course known in Latin America, have provided an additional factor in the resistance to all forms of dependence. Moreover, had any such submission occurred, it could not have been brought about by governments alone: in the course of recent decades, teachers' associations and unions have come to possess such power that all reforms have to be negotiated with them--and they assuredly have little fondness for United States inspired initiatives. Indeed, those Latin American countries whose educational systems have genuinely changed during this period--Cuba, at one time Peru, at present Nicaragua--certainly did not bring about such change under American influence.

The current situation

It is clear from this brief survey of the historical background that the term ~dependence' cannot be applied to the education systems of Latin American countries, unless its meaning be extended to the point where it would be devoid of substance. When these systems originally came into being, the deliberate decision in favour of the French model doubtless reflected an intellectual dependence, one that was voluntarily accepted because of the political principles and the organizational practices that the model exhibited, but in no sense was it the result of domination imposed by a more powerful nation, as current theory would have us believe. Moreover, the common borrowings at the theoretical level, that is, the 'contagion' that spread from the French model, immediately generated a great diversity of educational situations, inasmuch as they were received by countries that were already vastly different in terms of their populations, resources, social structures and economic relations with the outside world. And what is in fact found at all later periods is a proliferation and diversifi- cation of influences, culminating in a broadening range of options that is the very reverse of dependence. The twenty different education systems operating on the Latin American continent exhibit such disparities that in the absence of any common yardstick, the term educational 'dependence' ultimately becomes meaningless.

At present, the problem with which our education systems must contend is not so much dependence upon a foreign power centre as how to select, and integrate coherently into structures corresponding to the reality of their current situation and future prospects, those theoretical advances and development strat- egies that in one region or another of the world have proved their worth in comparable circumstances. It is a complex, Herculean task, one that from the outset calls for rejection of the prejudiced and biased approach which instead of considering each theory, concept or


proposal on its objective merits, makes an issue of its supposed underlying ideology or the country that gave birth to it.

I t is a task that has indeed already been begun, for it is impossible not to appreciate, as the late lamented Ricardo Nassif, among others, has reminded us, the considerable theoretical effort that has been under way for the past few decades in Latin America to replace imported models and to secure endogen- ous development--an effort that has been fuelled and motivated by various factors, not the least of these being the theory of dependence. Certainly the concept, or 'theory', of dependence is of value; the mistake is to place that value in the field of science, whereas it is in fact essentially political in nature.

'Dependence' in education: a scientific or a political concept?

It should be recalled first of all that the concept of dependence is a descriptive, all-purpose, non-analytical one. Even when accompanied b y all the terminology that has been created around it (hegemony, centre and periphery, neo-colonialism, oppression, reproduction) it fails to amount to a genuine scientific theory with explanatory and predictive power. It may call for such a theory, but it cannot of itself provide the basis for one. For none of these concepts provide insight into the underlying causes: they do no more than describe an effect, a given situation. At best, they identify symptoms, which they subsequently explain by reference to other symptoms, or even by reference to the same symptom under another name. The 'theory', not the fact, of dependence is in itself a mere tautology. It is a commentary, amplified and tricked out in a modish vocabulary, on a state of affairs that has always been known: the stubborn fact that individuals, groups, societies and states are not all equal. Always and everywhere the relations between them have been determined to a greater or lesser extent by their relative superiority and inferiority, based on differences

in population, strength, skills, natural resources, homogeneity, organization, technology, etc.

However, by lumping these inequalities together under the term 'dependence', which evokes relations solely of power (excluding those of ordinary communication, diffuse influence, rivalry, co-operation, etc.) we deny ourselves any possibility of discussing them cogently except in terms of political science. As we move away from political science to consider other areas in the social sciences, other systems less directly linked to power relations, the term begins to break down, losing its precision and its ability to characterize a situation. At the international level, for example, it can still properly be used when speaking of economics or information, but is far less appropriate or not appropriate at all, when the discussion focuses on systems of kinship, religion, health care, solidarity---or education. 8

Moreover, it should be pointed out that this concept occurs first of all at the pre-scientific level of everyday observation (Cthe sun revolves around the earth', 'country A is less powerful than country B'). It comes into its own at the primary level of scientific thought, at which the data supplied by the senses are corrected or supplemented by analysis ('the earth revolves around the sun', Ccountry A lies on the periphery while country B occupies a central pos- ition'). However, it contributes nothing at the strictly scientific level that serves to explain and predict in terms of causes and by means of laws ('the earth's orbit is determined by universal gravitation'). It would doubtless be capable of orienting us towards the formulation of hypothesis and causal analysis, but as curently used it tends rather to conceal the true causes behind a facile explanation.

In these circumstances, can the term be employed legitimately? First, it is correct to say that within each society, or rather within each state, education, for example, does in certain respects depend upon politics. But it also depends on many other subsystems, such as production, communication, health care, religion, justice, ownership, etc. It should


also be emphasized that in other respects, these subsystems depend in their turn on education. It would therefore be proper to conclude that the situation is one of highly complex and multifarious interdependence. However, since it has always been known that everyone depends upon someone for something, such a conclusion would add nothing to our stock of knowledge. To advance our knowledge, we must undertake a systematic examination of the details: deter- mine in what respects and to what extent each system or social institution depends on each of the others in each specific case, and analyse their two-way flows and patterns of give-and- take. However, the patient analysis of these complex exchanges cannot be achieved by applying to them the simplistic reductionist model of relations of dependence.

In matters of international comparisons, it is legitimate to use the term 'dependence' to characterize not all relative inequalities but those in which most of the factors of superiority are stacked on the same side. This is the sense in which the term is primarily understood when applied to the Ctheory' of dependence. In that case it clearly reflects a real situation at the economic and financial level, in the fields of science and technology, in the world of information and advertising, and consequently in the realm of political decision- taking. Moreover, it is relatively easy to identify the bases of this hegemony as being more or less concentrated within the so-called Western group of developed countries or at the acknowledged centre of the socialist world. However, it should not be forgotten, as it all too often is, that societies are made up also of other subsystems that to a very great extent, in many instances, are not governed, or may not be governed, by the mechanisms of dependence, and consequently may become fulcrums for a systematic effort to attenuate or to neutralize relations of out-and-out dependence. Education is one such potential fulcrum, particularly, as we have shown, in Latin America. Here, however, we leave the field of social science and enter the arena of political action.

And it is essentially here, in its own specific field, that the concept of dependence, despite, or perhaps because of, its theoretical short- comings, plays a paramount role. It is indeed a powerful force for political mobilization, playing as it does upon the whole gamut of instinctive fears and mistrust intrinsic to the human race at its most primitive: mistrust of others, of what is not familiar, alien, and hence the enemy who is to blame for all our ills. It is an insidious shift in the concept's application, one that occurs very easily, unfortunately, and is all too well known in history.

Dependence has thus become a key word that has served to renew the vocabulary of demagogy. It operates, in virtually automatic fashion, as an extremely effective alibi: it diverts attention from the failings and short- comings of a particular community, from the errors and inadequacies of its ruling groups, and focuses it on others, thereby affording the luxury of a clear conscience at little cost. This indeed is why even those who in each country have compromised themselves most deeply with the hegemonic power centres pay lip service to the theory of dependence: 'The fault~ dear Brutus, is not in ourselves, but in the superpowers, that we are underlings.' It is an easy but dangerous exercise and in any case a sterile one.

However, since it is clearly here to stay, the concept of dependence might be employed in the opposite sense and become the starting- point of a genuine process of consciousness- raising, one that would not be restricted to the observable situation--even if described in all the complexity of its web of interlocking relationships--but would endeavour to analyse its roots, that is, its historical and structural causes, including, to be sure, those that were attributable to others, but also those that were our own doing, as well as those forms of com- plicity, however unconscious, by which the two were linked together.

For in the final analysis, a resolute attack upon the factors of inferiority for which we ourselves were responsible would not only result in a more satisfactory overall situation,

IS education in Latin America dependent? 237

but would cause even the external factors to lose their power and become more susceptible to change: we should have better cards in our hand, and dependence would in fact have diminished. Otherwise, given the flag-waving way in which it is currently employed, the concept is likely to become a self-fulfilling prophecy. On the pretext that only a total reversal of relative positions will do, tools are downed, and no effort is made to work in practical terms for change in the here-and- now; the result can only be consolidation of the very state of dependence for which such abhorrence is expressed.

We can now reply to the questions raised at the beginning of this article. And we must, of course, reply in the negative. First, the so- called r of dependence is not a theory at all in the scientific sense of the term: it is not much more than a set of synonyms, lacking any explanatory potential, and thus has nothing to contribute to comparative studies in education. Secondly, the concept of dependence does indeed refer to an actual fact, a set of situations of a primarily political and economic nature; however, in regard to education, it does not tally, at least in Latin America, either with history or with the present-day situation. It is employed in this context only because the fashion has caught on.

However, while this fixation upon 'dependence' contributes nothing to the understanding of educational problems in Latin America, and although it is even liable to divert attention from the real problems and from the solutions that are within our reach, at the same time there is a real possibility of using it positively, provided its current meaning is transcended, to mobilize the political will to can3r out educational research and reforms, the repercussions of which could not fail to loosen the real ties created by other forms of dependence.

And this, as we can clearly see, is at bottom a question of education. []

Notes

I. The exceptions are Cuba and Puerto Rico, which did not sever their links with Spain until x898. Panama, which became a state at the beginning of the present century, was previously part of independent Colombia.

2. The theme of the Congress was not influence but interdependence in education. But this latter term, although deriving from the former, does not cover the same semantic area in common parlance. 'Inter- dependence' does not imply that the relations between two individuals or two peoples are such that decisions are taken sometimes by the one party and at other times by the other, but rather that all decisions are t he subject of negotiation and bargaining. In relations pertaining to the intellectual sciences, where 'decisions' properly so-ca/led are not involved, it is more correct to speak of reciprocal influences than of interdependence.

3. Links were severed, moreover, through war (civil war evens in some respects) and not through the mediation of an international organization. The disruption was all the more severe as a resulh and the rejection of received ideas all the more radical.

4. At the same time, in high-immigration countries such as Argentina~ the education system was also designed to serve as a means of forging national unity. Here too~ the objective was a political one.

5. I t should be added, however, that in Europe the political dimension of the educational blueprint was coupled with a significant economic dimension, imposed by the needs of a rapidly expanding process of industrial- ization. In Latin America, where such needs were not felt, or felt only minimally, the educational undertaking became all the more markedly political as a result.

6. This is not the place to pass judgementon the suitability or the success of these systems, modelled upon that of a far more highly developed country. As was the case in other European countries, the French system was grafted onto a society that was already largely literate, whereas in Latin America the first objective of the system was to teach literacy skills. This single differ- ence, had it not been overlooked, would have sufficed to change many aspects of the model that was adopted. Here, however, the point at issue is not the quality of the system, but solely its 'dependent' nature.

7- The question was not discussed prior to that time because, aside from a few indirect influences (that of Horace Mann in particular), the United States had virtually no relations with the education systems coming into being in the rest of the American continent, and no contact at all at government level. The establishment in Argentina by North American educationists of the first teacher-trainlng college and, later, of the first kindergarten, represent exceptions.


8. A presentation of the fourteen basic subsystems of all societies, according to the 'theory of human organization', will be found in my paper, 'A Latin American Model for the Integrated Analysis of Educational Systems', presented at the Fifth World Congress of Comparative Education, Paris, 198e [.

Bibliography Br~r Gxrc~No, Jos~. Education in Latin America and the

Caribbean. Trends and Prospects, Paris~ Unesco, r983. BONG~ Mario. Teoria y Realidad. 2nd ed. Barcelona

Ariel, z975. Ftr~rl~R, Pierre. Les syst~mes de formation duns leurs

contextes. Berne, Lung, x98o. I4_AWLOCK, R. G.; Hr.~R~tt~, A. M. Solving Educational

Problems. Paris, Unesco, x978. (See in particular Chapter 2.)

N~sl r , Ricardo. Latin America. Goals and Theories of Education. Paris, Unesco, :98o.

OLIVIne, Carlos E. The Administration of Educational Development in Latin America. Paris, IIEP, I979. (Research Report 34.)

R . ~ , G. W. Introducci6n. Educacidn y socledad en Ayn~rica Latina y el Caribe. Santiago de Chile, UNICEF, I98o.

WEn~mURG, Gregorio. Modelos educativos en el desarrollo hist6rlco de Am6rica Latina. Ibid.

Documents

Is education in Latin America dependent?