Radical Liberalism and Radical Education

8/9/2019 Radical Liberalism and Radical Education

1/16

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

Radical Liberalism and Radical Education: A Synthesis and Critical Evaluation of Illich, Freire,and DeweyAuthor(s): Peter M. LichtensteinSource: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 1 (Jan., 1985), pp. 39-53Published by: American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3486498

Accessed: 23/02/2010 08:09

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless

you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you

may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ajesi.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed

page of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access toAmerican Journal of Economics and Sociology.

http://www.jstor.org
http://www.jstor.org/stable/3486498?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ajesihttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ajesihttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3486498?origin=JSTOR-pdf


2/16

RadicalLiberalism nd RadicalEducation:A Synthesisand CriticalEvaluationof Illicb,Freire,and Dewey

By PETERM. LICHTENSTEIN*

ABSTRACT.adical liberalism is a social philosophywhich spans two traditions:liberalism (both classical and modern) and left wing radicalism. The formerseeks the liberation of individuals from political/economic power; the latterseeks to overturn a social order based on privilege andproperty. The writingsof Illich, Freire, and Dewey represent an educational philosophical traditionthatfalls squarely into the radical liberal school. All three educators generallyshare a similar attachment to pluralistic, developmental, solidaristic, andegalitarian values. They also desire educational systemswhich are based onparticipatory democracy. Theirs is a praxis-oriented, consciousness raisingeducational alternative which serves as the starting point for revolutionarysocial change.

IntroductionTHE PURPOSEOF THISPAPERs to clarify the theoretical connection betweenradical liberal theories of education and radical liberal social philosophy.The term "radical iberalism" as applied to education theory refers to thosecritical, non-Marxiananalyses of the education process and of the institutionswhich delimit thatprocess. Although there exists a ratherenormous collectionof non-Marxianeducation literature that could be classified as "radical,"theviews of Ivan Illich [1973, 1971 and 1969], Paulo Freire [1975 and 1971] andJohn Dewey [1966, 1962, 1940, 1916, 1915, 1900 and 1887] suitably representthe general tenor of that literatureand are for this reason selected as the basisfor analysis.The term radical liberalism, both in its application to education theory aswell as social theory, is nevertheless fraught with ambiguity, despite theapparentfreedom with which both elements are normallyused. This ambiguityis quite understandable because both liberalism and radicalism have over

* [PeterM. Lichtenstein,Ph.D., is professorof economics at Boise StateUniversity,1910UniversityDrive,Boise, Idaho83725.]Thispaperwas writtenwhile I was a VisitingFellowatCornellUniversity'sProgram n Participation nd LaborManagedSystems.1 am gratefultoseveralpeople fortheircriticalcomments,especiallytwo anonymousreviewers.American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 44, No. 1 (January, 1985).? 1985 American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Inc.


3/16

American Journal of Economics and Sociologytime undergonemany changes in usage. These changes may in turn bedirectly inkedto the manypoliticaland economic transformationshathaveoccurredn the countriesn which thesephilosophieshavebeen popularized.Thus,the termliberalhas been appliedto everyone fromMiltonFriedmanto John MaynardKeynes,and the term radicalto everyonefromJeremyBentham o KarlMarx.The ambiguityhereforespringsfrom the ambiguitywhich hassurrounded achof its sources.In order to understand he broadphilosophicalcontext in which non-Marxian adical educationtheories are located, this paperwill employ aworkingdefinitionof radicaliberalism.Thisdefinition, utlined n a previousarticle n thisJournal[Lichtenstein,984],will then be appliedto help clarifythe principlesof non-Marxianadical ducation heory.1SectionII examinesthe workof Illich,FreireandDeweyin the contextof thisdefinitionof radicalliberalism,while Section III explores the revolutionary ualitiesof thesetheories.SectionIV examinesthe boundarywhich separatesradical iberaltheoriesof education romMarxianheories,and SectionVbriefly ummarizesthe arguments f thispaper.

IIRadicalEducationand RadicalLiberalism

THE HISTORYOF EDUCATION contains many examples of attempts to radicallyalter he experienceof schooling alongradical iberal ines.Among he morenoteworthy f such experimentswere the popular olk high schools begunby Bishop Grundtvign Denmark n the 1840s. Discoveredby Americaneducators n the 1920s, the Danish folk high schools were based on thephilosophythat people would develop "naturally"f provided with anenvironmenthatwassupportive f theirindividualearningneeds.Thehighschoolswereaimed atadults-mainlypeasants, mallholders-and providedno diplomas,certificates, r grades.Therewere no entrancerequirementsother than the desire for self knowledge, and the learning experiencewas a communalone, with students iving togetheron the school premises.[Davis,1971]In Sweden,also,a "free"workers'highschool movementarose atthe turnof the century, although it was secular ratherthan religious. Copied inDenmark,hesehighschoolswereownedbytheWorkers ducation ssociationand offered freedom of choice of subjects,experimentalpedagogy,studycircles,andrequired esidence.[Davis,1971]Similar xperiments ccurredn England t the turnof the century, argely

40


4/16

Radical Educationas an outgrowthof the labormovement.Labor'sdemand for reformof thesystemof universaleducationwas vigorouslypressed.Ultimatelyt lead tothe LabourCollege movement and to the founding of RuskinCollege atOxford University.There were also the educational activities that weresponsoredby the popularco-operativemovement,such as the RochdaleEducationalGuild,the "Pleasant undayAfternoons" f the Liberals nd theSocialistSundaySchoolmovementwhichbrought ogethersocialistsof everyvariety-Christian,Guild, Democratic,Anarchistas well as Marxian-forlecturesanddiscussions.All of these experimentshadworkingclasssupportandsubscribed o humanistic hilosophies. Simon,1965]

Similar ducational eformmovementshave occurred n the United States[Butts,1978], he most recentof whichtookplace during he 1960sand1970s.Thelattermovementreflecteda growingawareness hatmanyminoritiesandwomenwerebeingleft out of both the educational rocessand the economicprocess.Acausalconnectionwasthought o exist betweenthese twophenom-ena. These groups were economicallydisadvantagedbecause they wereeducationally isadvantaged.hisview became dominantandultimatelyedto compensatoryeducationpolicies. [Carnoy,1974] These compensatorypolicies were typical(etatist)liberalresponseswhich did little to alter theunderlying ocialrelationsand structures f schools and universities. t wasbelieved that by providingdisadvantaged roups with greatereducationalopportunitieshe economic results(higherincomes,jobadvancement, tc.)would automaticallyccur withouthavingto changeeitherthe educationalsystem or the economic system. The mainstreamiberal view thereforeassumed hat ncreases n the average evel of educationcould substitute orstructuralocialchange.

Duringthis time there was also a renewed interestin radicaleducationphilosophiesandradical ducationexperiences.This is illustrated ythe freeschool movementwhich includedthe morepassive,apoliticalSummerhill-type schools, parent-teacherooperatives,communityelementaryschools,and the more activistcounterculturalree high schools. Most,if not all, oftheseexperimentswere aimedat libertarianducationandpedagogy,andthehope that"the schools basedupon[thatpedagogy]will developchildrenwhoarejoyful,cooperative, ndpeaceful,neitherracistnor sexistnorrepressed."[Graubard,972a,p. 368;see also Graubard,972b]

This free school movement(whichalso affecteduniversity urricula)wasaccompanied ya waveof popularand academic iteraturedvancing varietyof so-calledradical ducationalternatives.E.g.,Goodman,1964;Neill, 1960;Postman ndWeingartner,969;andReimer,1971]Academicnterest n these

41


5/16

American Journal of Economics and Sociologyalternativexperimentswasalsokindledby scholarly ociologicalanalysesofcounterculturalrganizations, articularlyf theexperimentalchool.[Barrow,1978;Swidler,1979]

Representativef the general enor of this recentmovementarethe worksof Illich, Freire,andDewey.Theirworksencompassmostof the educationalviewsadvancedby the participantsn the movement,and,as will be demon-strated,are firmlyplantedin the generalradical iberal tradition.We shallexamine heireducationheorieson the basisof thesixdefinitionaloordinatesoutlined[Lichtenstein, 984].These coordinates nclude (1) pluralism; 2)developmentalndividualism,3) solidarity;4) egalitarianism;5) participa-tion;and(6) social revolution.The first ivewill be discussedhere while thesixth will be left to SectionIII.Pluralism.According o Illich, the currentschool systemviolatesbasicpluralistic aluesby centralizingnitiativeand authority.Thus,only schoolscan educate becausethey are the ones who happento have the resources.Education n industrial ociety has become institutionalized,ncapsulatingthe rightsof othergroupsand organizationso educate. To Illich, modernschool systemsare thereforeself-generative, reating heir own criteria orjudginghowmuch education s necessary orsocietyto provide.Freireechoes this criticism:ndividualshaveno ability o exercise controlover the educationalprocess,and in their role as studentsbecome merereceptaclesof predigestedknowledge.This theme also recurs in Dewey,whom Wirth alls"thephilosopherof the back o people movement."Wirth,1981,p. 123]Dewey sawthatthe educationprocesshad been "co-optedbyan industrial hilosophyof socialefficiency,"Wirth, 981,p. 125]and thatithadcome to be dominated ythe narrownterests f the few. The centralizationof the powerto educate n the handsof a professional lassoperatingn theinterestsof an industrial ystemhas resultedin an almost totalabsenceofpluralismnthesphereof education.Thepluralistic lternativeo thissituationis best describedby Dewey:

. . .with thedevelopment f commerce, ransportation,ntercommunication,ndemigration,countrieslike the United Statesare composed of a combinationof differentgroupswithdifferent raditional ustoms. It is this situationwhich has ... forced the demand for aneducational nstitutionwhich shall provide somethinglike a homogeneous and balancedenvironment for the young. Only in this way can the centrifugalforces set up byjuxtaposition f differentgroupswithin one and the same politicalunit be counteracted.The interminglingn the school of youthof differentraces,differingreligions,and unlikecustomscreatesfor all a new and broaderenvironment.[Dewey,1916,pp. 25-26]

Developmental Individualism. According to Illich, the centralized, com-pulsorynatureof moderneducation hwartshe individual's rowth ntellec-

42


6/16

Radical Educationtually. People lack the power over their own circumstances nd becomeincreasingly nableto "organizeheir ives around heirownexperiencesandresourceswithin their own communities."Illich,1971,p. 4] The individualthereforebecomes alienated rom the processof education,a processwhichis expropriatedromhim and reifiedin an institutionover which he or shehas no effectivecontrol. "Thepowerof school thus to dividesocial realityhas no boundaries: ducationbecomes unworldlyand the world becomesuneducational."Illich,1971,p. 24]Because he schoolsbecomethe"repositoryof society'smyths" Illich,p. 37] individuals annothope to unveil the realmanipulative atureof modern ndustrialociety.

Freirealso observes how the creativeand activist mpulsesof people areannulledby education.The "banking"pproacho educationreproduceshedialectical ppressed-oppressorelationship:hecultureof theoppressor lass"invades" nd dominatesthe oppressedclass. The latter learn to emulatetheiroppressorsbyaccepting heirculture.This is a formof self-depreciationwhichDeweyalso observesandsees arresting umandevelopment.AlthoughDewey'scriticismswere directedat the classroomof the late 19thandearly20thcenturies, heyareapplicable o today'sclassroomas well. Bureaucraticcentralism utsthe teacherna subservientelationship iththeadministrationand externalizesthe control of the educationalprocesses outside of theteacher.Moreover, he "undemocraticuppressionof the individualityofteachers,"Dewey said, "is linked to a suppressionof the intelligence ofstudents."Wirth, . 137]Dewey consequently egarded ducation,deally,as"afreeingof individualcapacity n a progressivegrowthdirected to socialaims,"where these aims were "cooperativehumanpursuitsand results."[Dewey,1916,p. 115]Solidarity.Illich's position on this concept is best illustratedby hisliberationistCatholicheology.[Elias,1976;McCann, 981]Fraternalelationsamong people are symbolized by the Christian's nion with Christ.In thesphereof education, he contradictoryierarchical ndantagonisticelation-shipsbetweenstudentsandteachers,administratorsndteachers,andparentsandteachers,prevent uch a communion romoccurring.A yearningfor a pre-industrial rotherhood,an idea centralto modernChristian umanism, ppearsalso in the workof Freire.The latterreflectsaview in whichpeople's relationshipo Godis used as a standard ywhich tojudge their relationships o each other. The fraternalrelationshipwhichFreire,like Illich, seeks is religiously groundedand underpinnedby the"pedagogy f the oppressed."To Dewey,the educational ystem s nurtured y a class-dividedocietyin

43


7/16

American Journal of Economics and Sociologywhich the "influenceswhicheducatesome into masters, ducateothersintoslaves. Andthe experienceof each party oses in meaning,when the freeinterchange f varyingmodes of life-experience s arrested."Dewey,1916,p. 98.]Deweyenvisionsa communitynwhichseparate roups,withconflictingviews of the world, can sharetheir knowledge in a continualprocess of"reconstructingxperience,"a communitybased on sharing,and free andopen interaction.Thisfeatureof Dewey's philosophybecame central o theprogressive ducationalmovementwhich,through he ProgressiveEducationAssociation, laimed n 1933that education

should aim to fosterin boys andgirls a profounddevotionto the welfareof the masses,adeep aversion to the tyrannyof privilege, a warmfeeling of kinship with all races ofmankind,and a quick readinessto engage in bold social experimentation. quoted inCagan,1978]

Egalitarianism.llichsees the education ystemas a primesourceof socialinequality: nly the schools and universitieshave the financial esourcesandlegal authority o educate. He sees our society as an industrial, onsumeroriented one in which individualvalues are "institutionallyngineered."[Illich,P. 70] "Certifiedollege graduatesitonly into a worldwhichputsaprice tagon theirheads,therebygivingthem the powerto define the levelof expectationsn theirsociety."Illich,p. 35]Educationalnstitutionshereforebecome manipulativeost-industrialureaucracies hichaddicttheirclientsto the consumerorientedvalues and interestsof business.[Gintis,1972,p.73]Thus,the studentbecomes indoctrinatedntobecominga docile, passiveconsumer,and the negationof this tendencywould, for Illich, consist ofegalitarianducational ystemswithout"schools,"of voluntaristicystemsoflearningwebs in which everyone would have equal access to society'seducational esources.

To Freire, he education-led ocialrevolutionwouldnegatethe oppressor-oppressednegation,and would presumably esultin a classless,egalitariansocietymeetingthe requirements f his Christian umanistheritage.And toDewey, "School acilities must be securedof such amplitudeand efficiencyas will in fact and not simply in name discount the effects of economicinequalities,andsecureto all the wardsof the nationequalityof equipmentfor theirfuturecareers."Dewey,1916,p. 114]Evenmorepoignantly,Deweyasserted hat it is a "flathostility o the ethicsof modern ife to supposethatthereare two different nds of life locatedon differentplanes;that the fewwho are educatedare to live on a plane of exclusiveand isolatedculture,while the manytoil below on the level of practicalendeavordirected atmaterial ommodity."Dewey,1940,pp. 48-49]

44


8/16

Radical EducationAll three education philosophers therefore envision an educational processwhich would reproduce an egalitariansocial system in which everyone wouldhave equal access to educational resources.Participation. All three authors express distinct participatorysentiments.These can be clearly seen in their visions of ideal educational processes.Illich, as mentioned before, envisions a system of convivial educational

"webs," or channels of access to educational resources. These would consistof (1) reference services to educational material;(2) skill exchanges for thosewishing to acquire or improve upon a skill; (3) peer matching, in whichvoluntaryassociations of people can organize themselves to pursue a commoninterest; (4) reference services to "educators at large" in which professionaleducators would be employed to consult with and guide anyone interestedin a certain topic. Such a system would be an alternative to the currentsystemof compulsory education and would provide equal access to resources, enableanyone to find peers who are also interested in similar topics, and providepublic forums for anyone wishing to share ideas. Such a system would alloweveryone to freely and fully participate in all aspects of education.Freire's ideal system carries with it a similar participatory impulse. Hisalternative to the banking approach to education is dialogue, a problem-posing method of education in which knowledge is created through activeparticipation in dialogue. Participants would relate in a non-authoritativemanner:studentswould become teachers and teachers would become students.Education would also become a method of "conscientization" [Freire, 1975]in which reflection and action are unified and in which the educator's rolewould be similar to the role of the radical theologian. [McCann, 1981;Guitierrez, 1973]

Dewey's participatory ideal was a social and educational alternative thatwould do awaywith the class divisions which defined contemporaryeducationalinstitutions. He envisioned a society in which the division of mental andphysical labor, reflected in the division between liberal and vocationaleducation, would be eliminated. What was required was a Freireian praxiseducation:2"The problem of education in a democratic society is to do awaywith [this]dualism and to construct a course of studies which makes thoughta guide of free practice for all .. ." [Dewey, 1916, p. 305] "All educationproceeds by the participationof the individual in the social consciousness."[Dewey, 1887, p. 3] The participatory nature of Dewey's praxis-orientededucation becomes clear:

. . . the great majority f workershave no insight into the social aims of their pursuitsand direct personal interest in them. The results actuallyachieved are not the ends of

45


9/16

American Journal of Economics and Sociologytheir actions, but only of their employers' . . . It is this fact which makes the actionilliberal,andwhichmakesanyeducationdesigned simplyto give skill in suchundertakingsilliberaland immoral.Theactivity is notfree because notfreely participated in. [Dewey,1916,p. 304, emphasisadded]

Before we turn to the sixth coordinate of the radical liberal approach, towhich we devote the entire next section, it should be noted by way ofsummary that all three philosophies are informed by the radical liberalparadigm. They are characterized by the desire to liberate mankind fromoppressive, class divided, alienating social systems, and education plays acentral role in that liberation.

IIIEducationas Liberation

THESIXTH,ANDFINALCOORDINATEf the radical liberal approach to educationis its call for a revolution in cultural values and in social practices. Thisrevolutionarystance sets the radical liberal apartfrom the mainstream laissez-faire and etatist liberal. The primarygoal of radical liberal educators is theliberation of people from oppression and from the constraints imposed by aclass-divided industrial society. They see a social transformation eading to anon-alienating, developmental, libertarianculture. How is this to be achieved,and what is their programfor social change?Illich's liberationist program begins with the sphere of education. Societymust be "deschooled," and the responsibility for education must be returnedto the learner. The culturalrevolutionwhich Illich seeks must begin, therefore,with the dismantlingof compulsory education institutions and their subsequentreplacement with a system of educational webs such as those described inthe previous section.The reasonwhy this revolution must begin with education and not elsewhereis because the "school is not yet organized for self-protection as effectivelyas a nation State,or even a large corporation."[Illich, p. 49] Thus a revolutiondirected at education would be more likely to succeed and would be lesspainful and bloody than might otherwise be the case.Illich's programfor change therefore calls for the development of a strongcounterculturalmovement directed not at the democratization of compulsoryschools but at their elimination. This requires "a new understanding of theeducationalstyle of an emerging counterculture"[Illich,p. 70], a counterculturerooted in Illich's theological perspective and which "calls for voluntarypoverty, chastity, and joyful renunciation of the present world." [Elias,p. 58]This, to Illich, is the task of Christiansalvation, which, in secular terms, issynonymous with liberation.

46


10/16

Radical EducationFreire's revolutionary program is rooted in his attachment to Hegelian

dialectics, according to which revolution is the negation of the oppressor-oppressed negation. Freire'sdialectics of pedagogical liberation serves as thebasis for his programof social change, a programwhich cannot be achievedpeacably: "Freedom is acquired by conquest, not by gift." [Freire, 1971,p. 34]The social change which Freire seeks originates in a praxis-oriented,educational process that would awaken the consciousness of the oppressedthrough the use of dialogue. Only through this process can people come tosee and act upon the oppressive relations in which they find themselves.

Only as they discoverthemselvesas "hosts"of the oppressorcan they contribute o themidwiferyof their liberating pedagogy. ... The pedagogy of the oppressed is aninstrumentor their criticaldiscovery hatboththeyand theiroppressorsare manifestationsof dehumanization.Freire,1971, p. 33]

The goals of this pedagogical liberation process are cooperation, unity,organization,and culturalsynthesis, each of which can be viewed as negationsof contemporarysociety's methods of culturalconquest through mythisization,disunification, manipulation, and cultural invasion.

Freire's analysis of liberation and social change can, like Illich's, be bestunderstood in reference to his Christianhumanist heritage. However, Illich'stheologically grounded program is based on passive renunciation of thepresent world, while Freire sees the task of the Christian to be the activerevolutionary struggle against all forms of oppression. Revolution through"conscientization" is, according to Freire, the act of creating a humanizedworld; it is an act of love and humility.

Dewey turned to the potential of science to develop his program for asocial transformation o a democratic humanisticalternativefuture.To Dewey,science has been captured by industry and made to serve dehumanizingpurposes. However, to Dewey, science can be progressive and humane. Itcan liberate people's minds and create new knowledge and extend theboundaries of our creative capacities. "Science marks the emancipation ofmind from devotion to customary purposes and makes possible the systematicpursuit of new ends. It is the agency of progress in action." [Dewey, 1916,p. 262]The liberating effects of science, employed in the service of education,implies:

The problemof an educationaluse of science is then to createan intelligence pregnantwith belief in the possibilityof the directionof humanaffairs.The method of scienceengrainedthrougheducationin habit means emancipation rom rule of thumband fromthe routinegeneratedby rule of thumbprocedure. Dewey,1916,p. 263]

47


11/16

American Journal of Economics and SociologyTo Dewey, then, "science is the organ of general social progress." [Dewey,1916, p. 270] But to give science this role requires that social relationshipsand social organizations change as well. They must encourage and permitfree and open communication, cooperation, and collaboration. Such an idealinstitutional environment is similar to the kind of dialogue-environmentenvisioned by Illich and Freire: "a mode of associated living, or conjointcommunicated living." [Dewey, 1916, p. 100] And such an environment inturn requires a system of democratic planning and industrial democracy, asystem which makes work experience educative, and which returns controlto the worker: "This means an increasing share given to the wage-earner incontrolling the conditions of his own activity."[Dewey, 1962, p. 153]Workersmust come to understand and control science as applied to industry ratherthan remain mere appendages to science-produced machines. In making thisplea Dewey, unlike Illich and Freire, draws an explicit connection betweeneducational alternativesand economic alternatives.

In summary, the general theory of social change embedded in the worksof Illich, Freire, and Dewey takes the sphere of education to be of centralimportance. Social transformationto a humane democratic society requiresthat the educational activities of people be internalized in and controlled bythe learner instead of by a separate class of specialists who function to servethe interests of a social elite. Education can be liberating, it can emancipatehumanityby awakening and elevating the consciousness of (i.e., "conscien-tizing," to use Freirianterminology) the learner and by making the learneraware and active, instead of deluded and passive.All three also argue for the elimination of the dualism between intellectualwork and physical work, and stress the importance of unifying knowledgeand practice, and of the need for those involved in the education process forrelationships built on dialogue. Education, like the rest of society, must bebuilt on democratic participationand voluntaryaction.

IVRadicalLiberalvs. MarxianEducationTheory

INORDEROGAIN deeper appreciation for the distinctiveness of the radicalliberal approachto education it is necessary to consider not only the boundarywhich separates that doctrine from mainstream liberalism, but also theboundarysetting it off from the Marxianview.In the Marxian literature, the education system is viewed as a set ofstructures,or "sites" within the liberal-democratic State. [Bowles and Gintis,

48


12/16

Radical Education1981]As suchit displaysbothcorrespondences swell as contradictions iththe economic system [Paci, 1977; Carter, 1976] and serves not only toreproduce xistingclassrelationships ndattitudes BowlesandGintis,1976]but also to legitimate he existingsocial structure nd the role of the Statewithin thatstructure.Habermas, 976;Broady,1981]The emphasisof theMarxianpproachs therefore n correspondence,ontradiction,eproductionandlegitimation.3Radical iberaleducatorsalso stress these factorsas being basic to ourunderstandingf theroleof education. llich'sanalysis,orexample,exploredthe relationshipbetween the need forbusinessto sell commoditiesandthecommercial,onsumerorientedvaluesthatarereproducedn the schools anduniversities.The correspondencebetween these two factors s marked,ac-cordingo Illich,bycorporateureaucracieshichmanipulatend indoctrinatestudents hrough he agencyof compulsorychools.Freire'scritiqueof educationalso stressedthe reproductivequalitiesofeducation, n particularhe production f oppressiveclassrelationships.AndDewey's educationalphilosophywhich was rooted in his criticalview ofcapitalism,echoed similar criticisms.For this reason, Dewey was evenconsideredby many o be a close allyof the left.Marxiananalysisof educationalso suggests that the educationsystemfunctions, hroughboth its curricularormas well as its curricular ontent[Apple,1981] to (1) maintainand extend the ideological hegemony ofcapitalistultureandideology[Gramsci, 971]; 2) provide he necessary killqualificationsor the economyby regulatinghe flow of students hrough hesystem [Paci, 1977]; (3) insure that its graduatesassume the behavioralattitudesand values necessary or the smooth functioningof the economy(e.g.,obedience,uncriticalnthusiasm,daptability,ndperseverance)Appleand King,1977;Bowles and Gintis,1977];and (4) guaranteehe stabilityofthe social hierarchyby screening, trackingand labellingstudentspriortotheirentry nto theworldof work[Boudon,1977;Halsey,1977,Karabel, 977;Sewell and Shah, 1977]. It also suggests that contemporary ducationiscomingincreasingly nderthe swayof the logic of capitalist alculation,hatit is beingpenetratedby a Weberianorm of rationality,artlyn response othe existingeconomic crisisandpartlyn response o the introductionf newtechnologies ntotheclassrooms.Apple,1981]Thisdevelopments graduallytransforminghe socialrelationswithin he educationystemby individualizingand routinizingthe learning process, and by transforminghe natureofteachingfrom an activity hat has been relativelyautonomous, pontaneous,and creative, nto one that is increasingly tandardized,dministrative,ndprogrammatic.

49


13/16

American Journal of Economics and SociologyHowever,a close examination f the radical iberalliterature evealsthat

theytoo regardmany, f not all of these factors o be equallyas important.nfact,the radical iberalvision of a humane,developmental,participatoryndegalitarian earningenvironments not unique and is generallysharedbyMarxianducators s well. Wherein,hen, lies the differencebetween radicalliberal and Marxian ducationtheory?On whatgroundscan we arguethatradical iberalismand Marxism re differenton the issue of education, hattheyshould not be placedin the same "radical"ategory?For one thing,radical iberaleducators end to attribute he problemsofcontemporaryducationto the commercializationf social values and thedehumanization hich arises out of industrialization.heysee the crisis ofeducation o be a reflectionof a broader risiswithinwesternculture.Marxian ducators,on the other hand, witness the same problems ineducationbut anchor hese problemsdirectly o the dynamicsof capitalism.It is not industrialization,r cultural trophy erse which areresponsiblebutthe exploitativeand authoritarianmannerin which productionoccurs incapitalism.This difference s directlyrelatedto the materialisticphilosophywhichdefinesMarxism, n approachwhich is typicallyrejectedby radical iberals.Becauseof thisdifference, adical iberalsgive moreattention o theprospectsof socialtransformationwhichbothgroupsdesire)through onscientization.Thiscausesthemto accept he primacy f educationn theirtheoriesof socialchange.Marxisteducators,on the other hand, stress the primacyof capitalistproduction,and would directlylink any educationalalternativeso morefundamental conomic alternatives. he deficiencyof radical iberalthoughtis, to the Marxists,hattheyhavenot tied theirpraxis-oriented,onsciousnessraisingeducation alternative o a larger programof revolutionary hange.Froma Marxist erspective, hen,the radical iberalapproachhasa transcen-dental, dealisticquality o it. It presumes hatstudentsand teacherscanriseabove the illiberalandoppressive orceswhichconfinethembywilling intoactioncountercultural lternatives.This makes the radical iberalproposalsappearutopian o Marxian ducators.

vSummaryand Conclusions

IT HASBEENARGUEDhat radical theories of education, especially those whichbecamepopular uringheearly eventies, epresent distinctive hilosophical

50


14/16

Radical Education

paradigm.This paradigms situatedbetween traditional iberalismon onehand and Marxismon the other. While it shares the liberativethrustoftraditionaliberalism,t neverthelessrejects he latter's hree basicprinciples(possessive ndividualism,rivateproperty,ndpoliticaldemocracy)Lichten-stein, 1984].On the otherhand,this paradigm hares much of the Marxiancritiqueof education,yet it rejects he latter'smaterialistichilosophy.Becauseof its intermediate osition,this paradigm as been assignedthelabel "radicaliberal." t hasa philosophicaloundationwhich is madeup ofsix basic elements (pluralism,developmentalndividualism,olidarity, gali-tarianism, articipatoryemocracy, nd social transformation),ndthe viewsof three radical iberaleducators, vanIllich,PauloFreire,andJohn Dewey,wereexamined rom the perspectiveof these elements.Theboundarywhichseparates adicaliberaleducation heory romradicalMarxianheorywasthendescribed.Althoughhisboundary,ike alltaxonomicalboundaries,s fuzzy,the difference ies essentiallyn the degreeto which thecritiqueof educationis tied to a critiqueof capitalism.Marxian ducatorsregard his connectionasvitally mportantwhile radical iberalsdo not,eventhoughthey appear o sharesimilarperspectives.

Finally,Illich, Freire,and Dewey make an important ontributiono thedefinition f a radicaliberalhumanisticisionof thefuture.Theircontributionlies in the factthattheir educationalphilosophieskeep alive the dreamof ahumanistic ibertarian ociety in which the dignity of man replaces thecalculusof production or profit.Education n such a humanisticsocietywould necessarilybe a criticalendeavorand would foster the developmentof peoplewho aremotivated y cooperation, ltruism ndcompassionnsteadof by competition, goismand hedonism.The current ystemof education n capitalism, een from a radical iberalperspective, ulls students into a false sense of freedom and disguisesthesocial forceswhich influencethe form and contentof curricula. t enforcesthe mistakenmpressionhatcontemporaryapitalisms shapedandmaintainedby a consensus.Education as becomea meansfor life rather hanlife itself;it fragments,divides,andbreaks he circle of humanrelationships, reatingin its placea societybased on competitivendividualism.

Contrastinghe radical iberalview of the existingeducationalystemwiththe radical iberalideal, with what mightexist, bringsinto starkrelief thegross nadequacyf the educational eformsnowbeingdiscussedbyeducatorsandpoliticians meritpay, longerschool days,school districtconsolidation,computereducation,etc.). Yet the kind of educationalarrangements hichradicalliberalsrecommend cannot coexist with social structures hat are

51


15/16

American Journal of Economics and Sociologyhostile to such arrangements.Humanisticeducation cannot functionsuccessfullyin a society which holds divergent values. The radical liberal call for socialrevolution through education therefore will fall on deaf ears (at least inadvanced capitalist societies) unless that call is broadened to include otherspheres besides education. In other words, the ability of existing industrialsociety to turn back any assault on its integrity as a viable status quo shouldnot be underestimated.

Notes1. In that article it was suggested that radical liberalism takes exception to the liberal

adherence to political democracyand privateproperty;political democracyextends humanfreedomwhile privatepropertyabridgeshuman reedom. It was alsoargued hatradical iberalphilosophy can be defined to include the following tenets: pluralism,developmental (asopposed to possessive) individualism, olidarity,egalitarianism, articipatory emocracy,andsocial revolution. These six coordinatesare used in this paper to provide a definition forradical iberaleducationtheories.

2. The connection between Freireand Dewey on the issue of dialogue in praxiseducationis also observedby Wirth.[1981,p. 129]3. It should be made clear that I am speaking throughout his paperof the contemporarywestern Marxian riticaltheoryof capitalisteducationand not of Soviet Marxian ducationtheory.

ReferencesApple,MichaelW. (1981), "Curricular ormand the Logicof TechnicalControl,"Economicand IndustrialDemocracy,2, pp. 293-319.Apple,MichaelW.andNancyR.King(1977), "WhatDo Schools Teach?"Curriculum nquiry,6, pp. 341-58.Barrow,Robin(1978), Radical Education(New York:HalstedPress).Boudon, Raymond 1977), "Educationand Social Mobility:A StructuralModel," in Jerome

Karabeland A. H. Halsey,ed., Power and Ideology in Education (New York:OxfordUniv.Press)pp. 186-96.Bowles, Samuel and HerbertGintis (1981), "Educationas a Site of Contradictionsn theReproductionf the Capital-Laborelationship: econdThoughtson the 'CorrespondencePrinciple',"Economicand IndustrialDemocracy,2, pp. 223-43.(1977), "I.Q. in the U.S. ClassStructure,"n Jerome Karabel nd A. H. Halsey,eds.,Power and Ideology n Education(New York:OxfordUniversityPress)pp. 215-32.(1976), Schooling n CapitalistAmerica(New York:BasicBooks).

Broady,Donald(1981), "Critiquef the PoliticalEconomyof Education: he ProklaApproach,"Economic and IndustrialDemocracy,2, pp. 141-89.Butts,R.Freeman 1978), Public Education in the UnitedStates:FromRevolution to Reform(New York:Holt,Rinehart ndWinston).Cagan,Elizabeth(1978), "RadicalEducationReform,"Harvard Education Review,48, pp.227-66.Carnoy,Martin1974), Education as CulturalImperialism New York:Longman).


16/16

Radical Education

Carter,Michael A. (1976), "Contradiction nd Correspondence:Analysisof the RelationofSchooling o Work,"n MartinCarnoy ndHenryM.Levin,eds., TheLimitsofEducationalReform New York:Longman)pp. 52-82.Davis, David C. (1971), Modelfor a Humanistic Education: The Danish Folk Highschool(Columbus,Ohio: MerrillPublishers).

Dewey,John (1966), Lectures on the Philosophyof Education (1899) (New York:RandomHouse).(1930), Individualism Oldand New (New York:Minton,Balch &Co.).(1940), Education Today(New York:Greenwood).(1916), Democracyand Education(New York:The MacmillanCompany).(1915), Schoolsof TomorrowNew York:E. P. Dutton &Company).(1913), TheSchooland Society (Chicago:Univ. of ChicagoPress).(1929), MyPedagogicCreed(Washington,D.C.:ProgressiveEducationFoundation).Elias,John L.(1976), Conscientizationand Deschooling(Philadelphia:WestminsterPress).

Freire,Paulo(1975), Education or Critical Consciousness New York:Continuum).(1971), Pedagogyof the OppressedNew York:Continuum).Gintis,Herbert 1972), "Toward PoliticalEconomyof Education:A RadicalCritiqueof IvanIllich'sDeschoolingSociety,"HarvardEducationReview,42, pp. 70-96.Goodman,P. (1964) CompulsoryMis-EducationNew York:VintageBooks).

Gramsci,Antonia 1971), PrisonNotebooks New York: nternationalPublishingCompany).Graubard,Allen (1972a), "The Free School Movement,"Harvard Educational Review,42,

pp. 351-73.(1972b), Free the Children New York: rvington).Gutierrez,Gustavo 1973), A Theology f Liberation New York:OrbisBooks).Habermas, urgen(1976), LegitimationCrisis London:BeaconPress).Illich, Ivan(1973), Tools or Conviviality New York:Harper& Row).(1971), DeschoolingSociety(New York:Harper&Row).(1969), CelebrationofAwareness(New York:Doubleday).

, et al. (1973), AfterDeschooling,What?New York:Writers nd Readers).Lichtenstein, eter(1984), "TheoreticalCoordinates f RadicalLiberalism," mericanJournal

of Economicsand Sociology,Vol. 43, no. 3 (July,1984), p. 333fNeill, AlexanderSutherland 1960), Summerhill New York:HartPublishingCo.)Paci,Massimo(1977), "Education nd the CapitalistLaborMarket,"n Jerome KarabelandA. H. Halsy,eds., Power and Ideology n Education(New York:OxfordUniv.Press)pp.340-56.Postman,Neil and CharlesWeingartner1969), Teachingas a SubversiveActivity New York:Dell).Reimer, E. (1971), School is Dead: Alternatives in Education (Garden City, New York:

Doubleday).Sewell, WilliamH. and VimalP. Shah (1977), "SocioeconomicStatus,Intelligence,and theAttainment f HigherEducation,"n Jerome Karabel nd A. H. Halsey,eds., Power andIdeology n Education,op. cit. pp. 197-215.Simon,Brian(1965), Education and the LabourMovement,1870-1920, (London:BeekmanPublishers).Swidler,Ann(1979), OrganizationWithoutAuthorityCambridge,Mass:HarvardUniv.Press).Wirth,ArthurG. (1981), "ExploringLinkagesBetween Dewey's EducationalPhilosophyandIndustrialReorganization," conomic and IndustrialDemocracy 2, pp. 121-40.

53

Documents

Radical Liberalism and Radical Education