Introduction
Education declares different orders of scarcity and
abundance of knowledge at its different stages (family, nursery, school, university). Fundamentally, the balance between granting
flexibility to teachers and learners to explore things freely, and the coercion
forcing them to perform simple skilled performances in examinations and
assignments varies at each stage. In school, a functionalist
orientation dominates – it is this which demands that children be treated like Von
Foerster’s “trivial machines” (a machine where inputs are tightly coupled to outputs producing predictable behaviour). With Higher Learning, there is typically a
broader range of paradigms of thought which interact with one another, each
with their own ‘take’ on knowledge and skills: individuals can become less
predictable, more akin to Von Foerster’s “non-trivial machines” (a machine where outputs feed back to inputs producing unpredictable emergent behaviour). This ought to
mean that different orientations towards truth and facts are supported and the
relationships between them explored. However, if the curriculum and the
management of institutions of higher learning become increasingly functionalist
(as appears to be occurring in the University sector today) with the intention
of declaring knowledge to be scarce with the ultimate aim of ‘selling’
university education, then the conditions for disputation and reflection within
the university will be compromised. It too will start to resemble schooling, increasingly
demanding the skilled performances of the ‘trivial machine’.
There are many conflicting views both of what a university is,
and what it might aspire to be. Here I want to focus on two views which are
defensible in the context of the present system, which contradict each other,
and which are nevertheless co-dependent. View 1 represents the critique of
organised education presented by Ivan Illich in ‘Deschooling Society’. It
characterises school and university as upholding a regime of scarcity of
knowledge. Here, I state View 1 of the University as:
- Universities declare scarcity of knowledge by distinguishing
their organisation from the rest of society. 'Scarce' knowledge and its certification becomes both a consumer object and a token to assist with access to employment.
View 2, on the other hand, whilst rejecting the idea that
knowledge is scarce (knowledge is abundant in the world), maintains that the
pursuit of truth requires some kind of organisational context, and it is the
purpose of the University to provide this. Whilst such an organisational
context is distinguished from the rest of society, its activities are oriented
towards the service to the society that maintains it. View 2 can be stated:
- Universities provide a context for reflection,
action and critical challenge. Whilst not declaring these to be scarce, they do
declare that the conditions under which they might be most fully developed must
be guarded carefully for the good of society as a whole.
View 1 appears to be consistent with the contemporary
marketised view of education as a commodity. View 2 articulates the view of the
University as a “holy place”, not unlike Newman’s vision of the University, whose
purpose is to provide the resources and context within which the bridge between
itself and society is nourished to the benefit of each. The views are mutually inter-dependent, and
in making statements about the university, they also make statements about the
nature of truth. View 1 declares truth to be scarce – much in the same way that
school also characterises truth. View 2 speaks of the University as creating
the conditions for finding truth. The problem is that if view 2 is upheld (and
in many prestigious institutions, it has been upheld), then view 1 will also
apply. The champions of view 2 will find their cause easier (not least because
it will become easier to find money to support themselves) because view 1
applies. Furthermore, view 1 cannot be upheld unless view 2 is upheld: the declaration of scarcity only holds true if scholarship really pursues truth in a context free from interference within an institution.
My purpose here is to think through the tensions between
these positions. To do this, my focus is on the University as an ecology, and
to see Higher Learning as an ecologically healthy state of affairs between the
diverse components that constitute an institution. The University, like a school,
is a place of bodies, buildings, books, power, technologies, ideas and
argument. Each aspect of the environment, whether material or human, relates
with each other: each contains a hinterland of agency which declares, or has declared
scarcity in one form or another; each human actor will react differently according
to their own dispositions (which have been established in their own background)
towards these declarations. Conventionally, we tend to think of communication
within education involving the mental processes within the people, and some
kind of ‘stuff’ (information) in between. The ecological situation is much
richer than this to the point where a simplistic model of communication becomes
difficult to defend. To put it most basically, communication situations
implicate a balance between those forces which declare scarcity and those which
create abundance. Every element plays a role in the situation which steers a
path between uncoordinated anarchy, and rigid trivialisation. Lectures,
academic papers, blogs or tweets, cups of coffee, going for walks, listening
to music, encountering one another’s habits constitutes different balances
between flexibility and rigidity. Facts and concepts act to coordination and
solidify, whilst time ‘wasted’ in idle thoughts and daydreams provides
flexibility and opportunities for adaptation. Yet through flexibility, imaginative glimpses are provided of
the inner worlds of others which is fundamental to intellectual growth. Scholarship entails glimpsing the inner worlds of worlds
gone before and scholars who are dead. We cannot not communicate. However communications can take on forms which become pathological.
Societies, institutions and families can communicate in ways can lead them to
self-destruction through increasing rigidity and loss of flexibility. The fidelity to truth which is the fundamental concern of Higher
learning is about avoiding this by maintaining society's flexibility.
Truth and Higher
Learning
The “Higher Learning” which Universities concern themselves
with is contested. Indeed, the word “learning” has changed its meaning: today
we view it as an active process inspired by psychological descriptions – we might call this ‘processual
learning’. On the other hand, the more old-fashioned terminology refers to the ontological (so 'ontological learning') description of a quality, disposition or
virtue of an individual. Processual learning means
that whilst Universities continue to engage in the subjects whose mastery would
always have engendered the attribution of ‘learning’ in the latter sense - we still have
philosophy, philology, mathematics, etc – Universities now promise 'higher learning' opportunities to actively engage
in learning to be hairdressers, caterers, software engineers: the historical growth of
knowledge from the medieval quadrivium to the specialised courses in natural
sciences, computer science, media studies, cybernetics, we now have courses aimed at creating 'employment opportunities' in diverse subjects like Sports car engineering, Games programming, Special effects or Nursing. In what sense
does the nature of ‘higher learning’ relate each of these? Opinions differ: Whitehead argued that Higher
Learning is simply a matter of “investing facts with imagination”: perhaps the course in electronic engineering is very much ‘higher
learning’ and can be invested with imagination - although it is not clear what Whitehead means by imagination, and certainly, it would depend on how it’s taught. Ron Barnett argues
that
“A genuine higher learning is subversive in the sense of subverting the
student’s taken-for-granted world, including the world of endeavour,
scholarship, calculation or creativity, into which he or she has been
initiated. A genuine higher education is unsettling; it is not meant to be a
cosy experience.”
Does Barnett think that education has become a ‘cosy
experience’? What does it mean to unsettle students?
"Unsettling" is not unique to ‘higher’ learning. Universities are not the only places
where people are challenged to wake up and change their views about the world. There are moments where an assumed picture of
the world can no longer be sustained - important moments in most people’s
lives however they are educated: the moment of realisation, awakening - a
‘moment of truth’ is the point at which individuals release fear and
anxiety and are able to give voice (for the first time) to a new orientation to the world. In
Heideggarian terms, the moment of truth comes as the world is revealed as it
is, unconcealed from the obscurities produced by routine and habit. Expectations are transformed.
Given the non-exclusivity of 'disruption', how does the “higher learning” of Universities contrast with schooling? Is the
behaviour of primary school teachers and University lecturers that different? It
is hard to know if the educational experiences in school are any less or more
unsettling than in University. Cosiness is
threatened at moments when a situation any individual finds themselves in
challenges expectations. University students might experience this as they encounter new knowledge - but what about their teachers? Who unsettles them? University
teaching may aspire to unsettle students with 'powerful knowledge' or claim that it provides 'epistemic access': "ways of shaping and guiding inquiry so that it discovers truth" (Morrow), but in upholding a position that demands challenge of students, it upholds a position of considerable cosiness for academics who (perhaps understandably) defend this as "higher learning". By contrast, schooling is much harder work for teachers, who will rarely find their task 'cosy': good school teachers have to be open to their own unsettling with skills is to listen to this - could this be higher learning too?
Educational processes and events are mediated through objects: not just books, computers and pencils, but bodies, hands, eyes, and so on. The skilled performances of hands in manipulating tools, or instruments is essential to the kind of practical mastery upon which deeper intellectual insight depends. Body movements and behaviours become objectified within educational schemas along with the tools with which bodies have to perform. Unexpected body movements, uncontrolled gestures can have
real impacts which in turn can be upsetting (sometimes dangerous). At any level of education, unfamiliar situations for retraining bodies can be anything but cosy. In such a situation, there are networks of expectations, rights,
responsibilities shared by both teachers and learners: the 'right' way to use such-and-such a tool, dangerous practices, safe environments and so on. Lack of predictability
in the behaviour of objects, and the behaviour of bodies causes particular
kinds of objects to be handled in particular kinds of ways. On considering this the practices of schooling, where bodies might be less predictable, and the practices of University - where they might be expected to be more predictable - can be contrasted. Accompanying the predictability of the behaviour of bodies are the changes to patterns of expectation with
regard to different kinds of object in the environment. How do schools and Universtities compare?
a. The objects of School
The objects of the schoolroom are standardised for everyone:
the chairs, tables, blackboard, pens, exercise books, readers
and increasingly iPads, computers and so on. Like the objects of the
hospital, school objects are surrounded with standardised protocols and procedures, rights
and responsibilities which carry meaning for the various stakeholders who work
with them. Around each object there are rules which apply to each
child: each rule is generally intended to limit the unpredictability of the
child’s responses to the different artefacts. The school situation is
characterised by greater potential diversity in the learner’s response to
diverse objects. Reproduction of objects and their rules helps in reinforcing norms of behaviour amongst a large number of children (whose sheer number and diversity would otherwise produce management problems): until this point in the childrens' lives, predictable standards of behaviour with objects may yet to have established themselves.
The objects of the classroom encode not only the rights and obligations of stakeholders, but to some extent the legitimate activities that may be performed there. The rights and obligations of teachers in relation to these objects in reflected in professional performance indicators which measure the extent to which they
handle classroom resources, curriculum delivery, the lesson plan, etc. This is not to say that innovative pedagogies and some technologies might not find ways of subverting the object-hegemony of the classroom, but that normative understanding of objects means that many barriers have to be overcome for subversion to take place.
The most subversive pedagogical technique is to turn objects into discourse. Sitting behind the radical pedagogies of Freire, Boal or Shor, this process of taking material reality as a question about freedom and coercion and stimulating learners early on to make their own declarations about the constitution of the world, and to challenge those ideas which are imposed upon them. This can stimulate a different kind of learning - although one which then becomes difficult to fit into the moulded expectations of government education ministries. An alternative focus for turning objects into discourse is to focus on the articulation of experiences, emotions, and the greater encouragement of play and exploration. Again, whilst this can be empowering, it can be difficult to integrate with the broader aims of the education system as it is more conventionally constituted.
b. The objects of the
University
The University more readily converts objects into discourse. Its objects are much more diverse: by the stage of University, the bodily responses of learners
are considered to be more reliable and compliant, and where physical unpredictability
might once have dominated the mode of being in school, diversity and
unpredictability becomes transferred to discourse.
Cosiness is broken through intervention in discourse rather than physical or
bodily intervention. Here the university has an advantage over the school
because the University can claim to be the custodian of academics who are the ‘kings or queens of a
discourse’. Academics can
coordinate the discursive development of their students. The scene in the
University is one of the transference and articulation of expectations
regarding material objects and the skills of their transformation as discursive
utterances, which inevitably are assessed in one way or another. In more practical subjects, mastery over the transformation of objects
itself becomes an objective within the domain of education, which in turn
demands control of physical disposition and logical awareness of the nature of
material (particularly material which is deeply logically connected), and the
extent to which discursive articulation is seen as an afterthought in this
delivery of ‘skill’ has meant that much university education has concentrated
on the delivery of skills of manipulation of objects. Universities have always wrestled with this problem –
that the acquisition of skill, whilst seen to be useful, is nevertheless not necessarily
fundamental to the concepts of Higher Learning.
The diversity of objects in the University invites students to encounter and challenge their expectations of the world in various ways. Whether those objects are sophisticated mathematical modelling tools, electron microscopes, medieval manuscripts, cadavers, musical instruments or library catalogues, in each case opportunities for 'unsettling' and the transformation of expectations present themselves. Newman talks about the power of the intellect in rendering objects 'meaningful'; being changed by the objects and people in the university is precisely a process of finding meaning in things. Yet the process of being changed by something is a process of finding something to say about what it is that has changed. Language plays the lead role in creating the means to make
new declarations about objects and ideas. Even when some transformations result in new kinds of object: e.g. pictures, sculptures,
performances, pieces of software, videos, being able to say something about it, to make a new declaration about something lies at the heart of those things which are most meaningful.
Status and Scarcity
If there is a differentiating factor in the ways that
statements as declarations of status – either of things which are made, or
ideas which are expressed – are received in different contexts, it is perhaps
the curse of modern institutions as analysed by Ivan Illich which is most pernicious:
what he calls the ‘regime of scarcity’. Educational institutions, in Illich’s
view, are instruments for the declaration of scarcity of knowledge. Where
everyday life is replete with opportunities for disrupting cosiness and providing
the condition for the acquisition of skill and knowledge, the institution of
education denies ‘vernacular’ knowledge, instead insisting that knowledge is
specialised, scarce, only existing within its walls. In declaring knowledge to
be scarce, institutions declare themselves to be the only route by which it
might be gained. The route becomes lined with qualifications, examinations and
‘professional accreditation’ whereby the institution of education makes its
declaration of scarcity of knowledge official, sanctioned by governments and
society in general. As a consequence of this declaration of scarcity, it is
then hardly surprising acquiring knowledge carries with it economic and social
benefit: the knowledgeable are seen to be the inheritors of a rare commodity –
having what Veblen cheekily refers to as ‘intimacy with occult forces’.
Illich’s idea of institutions upholding regimes of scarcity
has an important relation to Searle’s more recent idea of “status functions”.
The weakness with Searle’s argument is its dependence on language as the
positive force motivating the existence of social entities like institutions,
examinations, degrees, etc. As with any positive approach, the risk lies in its
own declaration of scarcity: that the means for establishing reality lie only
within the confines of this one theorised activity (language). Such a
declaration can seem attractive – we can see the status functions in project
bids, government policies, tax returns, and so on – yet to turn language into
the sole factor to which everything else reduces is to turn real people into
‘language machines’, thus once again ushering in the spectre of the Kantian
transcendental subject. Whilst Searle’s later theoretical position of social ontology
acknowledges and embraces some aspects of social reality which his earlier
theory overlooked, his new position tends to retreat to the line of reasoning of
his earlier work. However, what if Searle’s status functions sat not in a
determinative relation to social reality, but in a negative or contextual
relation to reality? What if a status function is read as a declaration of what
doesn’t count as something? A negativising
of Searle’s position is not determinative of reality but nevertheless illuminating
on the real effects of institutional structures of the social world on real
people: that it is not the substance of social structures (determined in
whatever way one might wish, including speech acts) which constitutes social
reality, but rather it is the constraints that social structures exercise on
the individual and collective will.
Illich’s work on “regimes of scarcity”, which he identified
not only in education, but technology, healthcare, energy, welfare, the
professions, employment and gender is fundamentally oriented to the problem of
artificial social constraint. The effects of such constraints are to obliterate
a convivial world of difference, identity and togetherness and replace it with
a genderless, uniform world of idealised functional units. For this reason,
Illich was particularly sensitive to the pathologies of the cybernetic Kantian
idealism – these were the very pathologies of ‘deep functionalism’ which
flatten society. Technologies, in Illich’s view, begin as small interventions
whereby humans organise themselves convivially (many people each need a shovel
to work together to dig a big hole), but gradually increase in power
obliterating conviviality as a single technology (a JCB) can do the work of a
thousand labourers. With Searle’s insight into status functions, emerging
technologies carry implicate the increasingly powerful actors whose deontic
powers for making new status declarations about new technologies becomes
increasingly difficult to challenge. Here, in the light of Illich’s insights
into the pathology of technology, we might ask, What are these status
declarations declarations about? For Searle, they are positive declarations
about the function and status of the technologies and artefacts themselves. For
Illich, in a similar way to that articulated by Ulrich Beck’s ‘risk society’,
these are negative declarations concerning new scarcities (or new risks): the
JCB, like many labour-saving technologies, declares the scarcity of labour; the
motor car declares the scarcity of geography, and so on. As scarcities are
declared and accepted, so the power of the agencies behind those declarations
becomes enhanced. Capitalism depends of scarcity, where the negotiation of one
scarce resource for another ultimately is subsumed into an economic system of
financial transactions.
Given this economic connection, the institutional
declaration of scarcity, the recent development to marketization in education
is hardly surprising. Textbooks declare a scarcity of knowledge about their
subject matter; academic journals declare scarcity in intellectual quality; the
curriculum declares a scarcity of organising knowledge; the timetable declares
a scarcity of time for learning; the classroom declares a scarcity of space for
learning. By making each scarce, each carries its price to be fought over by
the aspiring generations in a make-believe game whose purpose ultimately is to
serve the economic machine which keeps the institutions running.
Declarations of scarcity dominate not only institutional
structures, but the technologies which emerge from those institutions. Whilst
many believed that Illichian conviviality might arise from the development of
new ‘personal’ technologies for healthcare or learning – and that
technologically-empowered self-management was a way of countering the
institutional pathology of scarcity, the reality has demonstrated a different
and more depressing story. Where the health system declares the scarcity of
health – mostly through the systematic diagnosis of pathology (one might only
be healthy if one abides by the rigour of the health system), new personal
health devices for self-monitoring do not liberate the individual from the
health system, but rather subjects the individual to even more intense and technologized
declarations of scarcity. Health technologies which are successful (such as the
recent rage for smart-watches) are lusted over by the population precisely
because they uphold and even enhance the declaration of scarcity of health that
was once purely the domain of the health service. The various forms of
educational technology are also striking in the ways that they uphold the
institution’s declaration of scarcity of knowledge. Where there is much that is
available online for free, institutional systems like Course Management
Systems highlight the scarcity of
‘approved’ resources (even when those resources are culled from the freely
available web) – particularly those which are targeted at the fulfilment of
assessment and institutional certificates. Whilst in its early form, the
internet appeared to be able to challenge the institutional declaration of
scarcity, over the years since its invention, institutions, publishers and
global corporations have managed to find new ways to assert the scarcity of
resources and gradually encroach on the sea of freely available knowledge. The
forms of these new declarations of scarcity have been various, with new
agencies other than traditional institutions becoming dominant.
Most important are the publishers, who have supplanted the
institution as the gatekeeper to knowledge, whilst also becoming the gatekeeper
to academic status. The status declarations by the publishers and their
journals make a simultaneous declaration about the scarcity of knowledge and
the status of individuals and institutions. Feeding on this are those
organisations which declare the scarcity of quality of learning and opportunity
by producing rankings of institutions worldwide. Then the internet corporations
use their vast statistical resources to make declarations about the scarcity of
influence through web statistics. Governments, faced with the overwhelming
challenge of upholding an institutional fabric at increasing cost, reinforce
the scarcity of intellectual quality within institutions by rationing funding.
Increasingly, those technologies originally intended for personal control
(smartphones, apps, and so on) become themselves the means by which global
internet corporations declare (and enforce) the scarcity of freely accessible
resources.
Scarcity and
Abundance of Love: From Early Childhood to the University
Using a negativised version of Searle’s status functions, it is possible to explore some of the pathologies of View 1 of the education system: that it declares scarcity of knowledge. The
implication here is that scarcity is a declaration by an individual (with a
powerful technology) or an institution. Yet, scarcity declarations fill us with fear to the
point that we might ask whether scarcity is primeval force, whether scarcity is a necessary property of being human. If this were the case, then arguments about the marketisation of education would be right in suggesting that the current phase of marketisation is inevitable. There is evidence to suggest that scarcity may indeed by primeval: many animals
appear to “declare the scarcity” of their own territory and guard it fiercely. So we ask, Does scarcity have a foundation beyond declarations of status functions? To
answer this, it is instructive to examine the beginning of a human life and the
relationship the mother and child between whom attachments do appear to present
a regime of scarcity. This exploration reveals deep mechanisms that connect scarcity with abundance in an ecological framework which will eventually help us to paint a richer picture of the ecological dynamics of Higher Learning.
The bonding between mother and father and a baby has been a
central point of study in psychology since Bowlby’s penetrating analysis of
‘attachment’ which he developed from the theory of Imprinting of Konrad Lorenz.
At the heart of Bowlby’s thinking was the systemic inter-dependency between the
baby and the mother (sometimes the father). The question is whether systemic
inter-dependency is the same as scarcity. If the bonds of attachment are
broken, then serious consequences arise in the psychological constitution of
the child as they grow into an adult. By analysing psycho-pathology in this
way, Bowlby was able to able to re-examine Freudian ideas which largely
concerned repressed sexual impulses and reframe them as systemic responses of
the bio-psychosocial individual inculcated in the events that pass in early
childhood. Bowlby’s theory is explicitly cybernetic. It characterises
individuals as inter-dependent control systems much like the inter-dependent
units of Ashby’s homeostat: the removal or malfunction of one unit would cause
systemic pathology in the other. As with other cybernetic theories, the risk to
Bowlby’s interpretation is that it idealises the individual (baby or
care-giver) as a component in a machine. Having said this, the evidence from
Bowlby’s practice and from Lorenz’s imprinting experiments on geese are
striking.
It would appear from Bowlby’s analysis of the consequences
of withdrawal of the caregiver that the relationship between the caregiver to
the baby is one of a scarcity. However, the fact of scarcity is only made
explicit on the withdrawal of the caregiver – a desperate state of affairs
which fortunately doesn’t afflict all babies. Furthermore, the caregiver and
the baby are in a symbiotic relationship. In Bowlby’s view, the caregiver is
not a resource (as Freud believed when he examined the relationship between
mother and child – for example, the source of milk). In the symbiotic
attachment relation between mother and child, by absolute contrast to scarcity,
the dominant mode of being is one of abundance: there is an abundance of love
and care. However, love and care are administered through a range of objects:
the breast or the bottle, the baby’s dummy or a favourite toy. Yet here too, it
is important to make a distinction about what might appear to be a regime of
scarcity in the cradle.
The world of object relations to the child is
different from those of the parents. Baby buggies, feeding bottles, sterilisers,
nappies and so on are clearly status functions which declare scarcity: the
mothering industry sees to it that every parent believes there is a right way
to bring up their child with the right stuff. Consequently, every manoeuvre
with a small child is a negotiation around material needs. Every negotiation
must be coordinated against social expectations and the affordances of the
world which does not revolve around the early development of children. This is
a process which continues as children grow older. Objects become important as a
strategy for parents to occupy the developing minds of small children: toys and
games, and now particularly TV, computer games and other electronic devices.
Objects as tools of experimentation and exploration are tools for revealing new
truths. Stages of development are crossed with objects, but more importantly,
stages of development are crossed with objects in the company of other people.
The objects that teach to read and write, the tools of inculcation into a
society become particularly important. Object fetishes for a ‘good’ education
are then reproduced and passed down the generations.
What happens as children and their parents become accustomed
to the paraphernalia of objects around them? They become accustomed to a world
view, a world coordinated around objects which declare scarcity: the scarcity
of entertainment, the scarcity of knowledge, the scarcity of friendship, the
scarcity of time, of space and so on. Each object which declares scarcity opens
doors onto new things which can be seen to be scarce. Fads are established
around objects – whether skateboards, favourite music, football stickers,
loom-bands and so on, each making a claim to scarcity. What emerges in the
negotiation of objects is that one object passes onto the next; exploitation of
an object’s scarcity reveals that the declaration of scarcity wasn’t in fact
true, that the object doesn’t deliver. that declare scarcity can be the growing
recognition that It is continually growing, Inquiry leads to the discovery of
new objects, new things, new ideas. And these too become important for
stability.
Language gives people the power to declare their own
objects. It gives them the ability to explore ways in which new social
coordinations might uphold older coordinations. The discarded objects haven’t
disappeared. They are still there. Yet the pain of loss of an attachment figure
can be the source of damage which only plays out in later life. Slowly we move
into discourse and languages. Bodies and hearts formed by early childhood find
new discursive expression. Early behaviour and object attachments can translate
into political beliefs, social groupings, and other practices. The world of
value emerges from earliest childhood. Since we all have very different
experiences of being very small, our values would similarly seem to be very
different: particularly within a free society. So does this mean that all truth
is relative? What is the difference between statements of opinion, statements
of warranted justified belief, statements of referential detachment and other
forms of expression of truth? Is there such a thing as objective truth? In what
way does higher learning orient itself towards the discovery of truth? The
identification of the common ‘lack’ is at the heart of the psychotherapist’s
trade.
There is a gradual process of early childhood object
relations towards later adult discourse relations. The formation of
expectations, and the mastery of skill are fundamental to these processes. The
role of childhood experiences was highlighted as a process of ritualised
behaviour leading to particular socialised behaviour at higher levels, and then
the differences which emerge between social communities and individual being
which causes conflict and then requires different strategies to address. The issue of truth is related to the issue of value in the sense that true and
justified belief which is associated with knowledge is situated against the
values that an individual might profess. However, this is not to say that truth
is relative. The reality of gravity and the nature of matter is not simply
something that is agreed. It is a real thing.
Textbooks, five-pound notes, desks and blackboards are all
objects whose meaning is tied up with social processes around them. Of the
theoretical views on objects, I drew attention to Searle’s speech act oriented
account of objects as status declarations. The blackboard, the 5 pound note,
the textbook and the desk are all objects about which status declarations are
made by institutions or those with the deontic power to make declarations: “sit
at your desk”, “look at the board”, “where’s my money” and “turn to page 64”.
Behind these speech acts lie many others which determine the social role and
uphold the deontic power of the teacher. Of course, objects like textbooks have
causal powers, they are entwined in social processes, and indeed, they might
not even be there. But the point is that we believe that they are there. The
objects matter.
Facts, Truth and
Deontic Power of Scarcity Declarations
Of the objects of schooling, perhaps the most important is the exam
– that declaration of the scarcity of success. Exams are negotiated through the
skilled performance of regurgitating facts. It is not the exclusive domain of
the school (there is still much of this in the University), but it is probably fair
to say that the school examination system demands far more in terms of this
kind of performance than the university: the very success of schooling is
measured (through the exam system) by the acquisition and regurgitation of
factual knowledge and the application of skills such as writing and mathematics.
Examination systems like all forms of scarcity treat human beings as what Heinz
von Foerster calls ‘trivial machines’: a machine whose output becomes reliable
upon the triggering of a particular input. Von Foerster considers that human
beings are non-trivial machines: every output is shaped by previous inputs;
there is no predictability in the results from a non-trivial machine. Using
this analogy, Von Foerster satirises the school system as intent on turning
non-trivial machines into a trivial machines. The reasons why it would do this
have to do with the organisational needs of the education system at large.
Nobody, for example, would argue that the world of work actually requires trivial
machines; indeed, the opposite seems to be true. However, the extent to which
technology seems to be put to the purpose of turning non-trivial work into
trivial work is an emerging trend in society, where the domain of the social
increasingly depends on the will of the architects of a complex machine wired
together with what are assumed to be trivial machines (or rather, non-trivial
machines behaving as if they are trivial machines).
Having said this, the triviality, or non-triviality of a
machine depends on the observer of the machine: another non-trivial machine,
which – within the education system – is also subject to forces that try to
turn it into a trivial machine. In examinations, for example, the objective is
to appear to be trivial when children (and their parents, teachers and friends)
know that they are not so. Indeed, the strategies for trivial behaviour under
such circumstances may be highly non-trivial. The observer of a child’s
examination script may also infer that the given answers are an indication of
non-triviality, but they themselves but abide by the trivial rules of the
examination system, and ensure that marks are awarded for the answers that
appear on the official mark scheme. The making of the non-trivial machines into
a trivial machine appears an important hallmark of schooling. More importantly,
this trivial behaviour is seen as a mastery of factual truths. It is this
relationship between trivial performance and truth which I want to draw
attention to.
What then happens with the ‘higher learning’ within the university?
Often, it is more of the same: the university’s exam system cannot escape the
trivial machine. Sometimes however, the university usurps school trivial behaviour
by exposing new questions – albeit if those new question might still demand a
degree of triviality in their response. This usurping of established ‘trivial
machine’ behaviour may account for something of Perkins's ‘troublesome
knowledge’, although we would have to ask whether the establishment of a new
kind of trivial behaviour within a new context of academic discourse really
fits the criteria of Barnett’s disrupting of cosiness: cosiness is a property
not of individuals but of communities, institutions, societies – it is ecological.
An extreme view would be to say that the declaration of facts is a social act
that upholds the institution’s declaration of scarcity of knowledge. But would
be declare “2+2 = 4” or that the circumference of the earth is 40, 075km to
declare a scarcity of knowledge? There appears to be some kind of commonsense
line to be drawn. Here we might suggest that what matters with the declaration
of a fact is not the fact itself but rather the human relations in the social
situation within which it is asserted. Encounters with facts are always encounters
with the world of other people: the encounter with gravity in the playground is
one of where forces, understanding, care, concern and explanation combine. The meaning
of an encounter with a fact is a realisation and orientation of shared
experience. Whilst the outcome of such an encounter might look like the
behaviour of a trivial machine, there is also an awareness of the inner life of
others which lies beyond apparently trivial linguistic performances. How the inner
life of a fact is communicated depends on the extent to which the situation the
fact is encountered and shared reveals the authenticity of the moment: to say
“fire is dangerous” in the context of a classroom setting which has nothing to
do with fire is entirely different from saying the same thing after someone
close has been badly burnt.
The relation between education, truth and factual knowledge
requires further elaboration. There are a number of problems in relating truth
to education:
- Reductionism in terms of imposing barriers
around truth and educational practice which effectively declare truth to be
scarce;
- An epistemic reductionism where truth is
conflated with knowledge
- An ontological reductionism where truth is
conflated with conceptions of the real
Rather than accepting these tendencies, it may be more
effective to consider that truth has a dynamic and that education is a place
for studying those dynamics: education allow us to explore how truth works. A
principal area such an investigation is to study how facts are communicated and
the various skilled performances that surround them relate to the broader
social context of education.
University teaches its share of facts, but more critical to
the University is the role of questions. In university facts can be challenged,
assertions of truth questioned. The context of the warrant of assertability is
called into question along with the fact itself. The mark schemes for the
university degree measure this questioning in ways which are not measured in
school. In other words, the declaration of scarcity of factual knowledge
determined by the assertion of absolute facts is usurped by the declaration of
critical knowledge held against a new regime of scarcity controlled by
publishers and the academic elite. However, there are different orientations
towards facts across different disciplines which mirror the different paradigms
of thought that might be adopted by somebody. These different orientations
towards facts might be typified as:
- A critical or sceptical approach to facts might
seek to debunk factual knowledge, exposing it as unsound or in the interests of
a particular group (and at the expense of another). This may even be done for
analytic propositions as well as synthetic propositions.
- A functionalist approach might seize on facts seeking
to exploit them in new designs and plans for promoting and using them.
Analytical propositions about learning, positivist understanding of education,
and so on provide good examples of this orientation to the truth.
- A phenomenological/existential orientation to
facts which looks, rather like Husserl did, for the foundations in the psyche
of analytic or synthetic propositions. The purpose of this kind of orientation
is to look beyond the statement of fact into the inner life of the person
believing it. Artistic analysis might be found here.
When considering the classic orientations of truths either
by considering the relationship between the correspondence theories of truth,
then a functionalist orientation is most appropriate. If there is no
correspondence, then there is little chance of exploiting a truth. The analytic
equivalent is the coherence theory by which truth is intrinsically determined
according the inherent meaning of propositions without adherence to an outside
realm must therefore rely on some kind of deep phenomenology wherein the
fundamental basis of establishing such truths belongs. By contrast to these
two, there is the possibility of a dialectical approach to truth. According to
this, truth exists between epistemology and ontology as the limit of opposing
forces: truth is seen to be determined by a social process and material nature.
Most importantly, different attitudes to truth co-exist and appear to stem from
different paradigmatic orientations. The principal issue to then decide is
where the paradigmatic orientations come from in the first place.
Truth and Limits
Neither Von Foerster’s ‘trivial machine’ nor his
‘non-trivial machine’ are really human. Of course, the non-trivial machine is a
useful metaphor for the complexity and unpredictability of human behaviour, but
(as with Ashby’s homeostat which is an excellent non-trivial machine) there are
many characteristics of human behaviour which are not accounted for. Perhaps
the most striking, which is fundamental to higher learning, if not to
schooling, is to account for the drive
for inquiry or the thirst for knowledge. The exploratory tendencies of living
things continually place them in novel relations with their environment. Each
of us feels an urge to explore, to overcome fear, to reach into the unknown.
The relation between living things and the world is not one of survival but
growth. The attachment relationship between mother and child is characterised
by a mutual adaptation process with both parties reaching out, exploring new
possibilities gaining new forms of independence. There is radical restructuring
and change in relations, on the other there is continuity and determination of
shared identity.
The causal chains between interconnected living things
appear to work both in a bottom-up and a top-down way. Individual bodies and
cells maintain consistency and viability of the organism, whilst an
ever-changing environment presents opportunities for speculations of the
organism’s development to develop in new ways: organisms appear to create their
own abundant environment. Within recent work in systems theory, this two-way
developmental mechanism have been characterised as, on the one hand, a
homeostatic cybernetic mechanism of maintaining a steady state, whilst on the
other, autocatalytic process which stimulate environmental conditions for
particular kinds of new speculative development. The cybernetics of Pask, Beer,
or Von Foerster (of trivial and non-trivial machines) is only half the story:
something else must be happening to drive the exploratory process of growth.
If attachment relations exhibit this kind of two-way
mechanism, we might then ask about the conditions under which scarcity emerges,
how attachments might be damaged and the gradual systemic conditions for
producing different kinds of paradigmatic approaches to truth and facts. Where is autocatalysis in this ecology of mechanisms by which both mother and child develop the conditions of abundance
into which they can grow and develop become equally important? Bodily
capabilities develop: babies will seek to explore their emerging capabilities
through crawling, walking and so on. What about the parents? They have needs
for growth too – yet they find these curtailed through their tie to the child. Growth
is directed towards a world of objects which mediate between the child and the
parent as ways of maintaining the identity of their relationship whilst
affording the child space within which they might continue to explore and grow:
playpens, baby walkers, monitors, and other paraphernalia will become important
for these purposes. Who do parents listen too? What declarations of scarcity
are they exposed to? Later on, TV, DVDs, Computer games, books, toys, designer
clothing and mobile phones will continue this mediated relationship. The
conditions of access to objects, the pressures on parents, the extent to which
social isolation becomes stultifying all stand in relation to the choices that
are made for mediating the attachment relations. The socio-economic
circumstances of the family become important: scarce resources must be managed:
time, effort, money, transport, etc. The objects of the nursery declare
scarcity; the demands for perfection in child rearing declare scarcity. The
‘professionals’ of the childcare business get their teeth into parents, who in
turn begin to turn their children into the consumers of the scarce.
The child’s autocatalytic processes become shaped by the
means of scarcity declaration. The basic architecture of the trivial machine
emerges from this attachment situation.
Objects declare scarcity, and with it a functionalist attitude to
paraphernalia and a trivial attitude to knowledge. Object fixated attachment
relations declare authority relations, with this the beginning of the scarcity
declarations of professionals and ultimately the acquiescence with the school
system. But sometimes the attachment situation is more complex. Without the economic means to supplant the official objects in their
childcare, some parents find themelves having to improvise, to be creative and to be different
–where creativity rather than consumption becomes the means of creating abundance. Self-organisation
teaches a different approach. Then the attachments between adults,
communitarian values and flexibility is provided in a way free from the scarcity declarations surrounding objects, and much more to do with creating the conditions for new growth.
Ecological Communication
and Expectation
An ecological approach to communication privileges those
theories of communication which emphasise the ‘betweeness’ of communication as
a transpersonal dynamic over those
(predominantly psychological) theories which speculate on agency and mental
process. In the former camp, the theories of Niklas Luhmann and Talcott Parsons
would appear consistent with ecological principals, whilst those theories which
focus on intentionality as a psychological phenomenon (for example, Searle’s
Speech acts) are more focused on agency. There is evidence for expectations being
codified within a social system, rather than being psychological properties:
money, for example, was acknowledged by Marx as a codified expectation. Social
behaviours from gambling – either on horses or hedge funds – rely exactly on
the explicit codification of expectation. The ‘market’ in education too relies
on a codification of expectation: by this mechanism, institutions,
qualifications and other things acquire status. Indeed, it is through some kind
of codification of expectation that the declaration of scarcity actually has an
effect. However, the codification may not be so much about the ‘expectation’
that money, gambling or education behaves in such-and-such a way, but rather
that each declares scarcity which constrains expectation rather than determines
it. In reality, deflating agency within the dynamic of social communications
doesn’t avoid discussion of agency; rather it reframes it as social rather than
psychological process. Luhmann’s presentation of the idea still carries with it
the principles of German idealism, whereby the transcendental subject is
constituted in a network of information and meaning processing.
In the literature on communication, emphasis is placed on
information. Partly inspired by Shannon’s theory of information, communication
is sometimes imagined to operate like a trivial machine (indeed, Pask’s
conversation model has many ‘trivial machine’ characteristics): messages are conceived,
encoded, transmitted and decoded. However, Shannon’s theory itself, as Deacon
has noted, is a theory of human expectation: how are those expectations
established? There are numerous philosophical challenges in characterising
expectation. For example, no account of expectation can eliminate the problem
of time, yet there is no reason why time should be considered to be a fact of
nature and not itself a construct. Then there are different models of
expectation. For example, mathematician Daniel Dubois contrasts three varieties
of the logistic equation to characterise a. the flow of events; b. the
expectation of a successor event from previous events; c. speculation about the
past origin of events, and the logical speculation of future event. Francisco
Varela has a similar description of the mechanism of consciousness within which
any system of expectation might be assumed to reside. Katherine Hayles has elegantly expressed this configuration between the flow of
events, and two levels of anticipation when she writes of human reflexivity:
"Reflexivity is that moment by which that has been made to
generate a system is made, by a changed perspective, to become part of the
system it generates."
Attractive and logically elegant as such statements are, can
they explain how it is that looking into the eyes of an academic colleague can
convey deeper insight than reading all their books? What lies in our
understanding of one another is an engagement with recognising where each of us
has come from and where each of us might want to go.
An expectation may be characterised, as it has by Rosen,
Leydesdorff, Dubois, Beer and others, as an anticipatory system. This is a
system which speculates on possible future contingencies, and such speculation
might inform other aspects of organisation within a system. In Beer’s Viable
System Model (See chapter 5), for example, speculation about the future (the mechanism of which
Beer never explicitly elaborates) exists in tension with organisational
processes whose job it is to manage the job in hand. The speculative processes
of within Beer’s ‘System 4’ examine the ways the world might be changing and
the changes within the viable system that might be necessary in order to
survive in the future. But what is speculation
of future contingency, and what purpose does it serve? Within Beer’s model, the
purpose is to guide agency in a way that counter-balances the ‘habits’ of
agency which pertain to the operational function. Whilst operational agency
behaves rather like a ‘trivial machine’, by contrast, speculation about future
contingency throws something non-trivial into the mix. In generating new
possible choices for agency, it new redundancies, new pathways, which to the
operational system might appear superfluous except for the fact that the new
redundancies make the simplistic ‘trivial machine’ choices more doubtful. This
tends to annoy operational managers!
The generation of redundancy of functional pathways is a powerful
antidote to the apparent ‘efficiency’ of operational management. The operational
manager’s reaction to this is surprisingly accurate: “What a waste!” they say,
accusing it of simply adding noise to the important work which they try to do:
in other words, the speculation of future contingencies appears to be dissipative
of the energies of the whole. In recent years, however, the importance of the
dissipative structures in ecologies has become more marked and the relationship
between dissipation and the production of redundancy studied as the principal
causal factor in the determination of agency. Fundamental to this thinking is
the idea that dissipation serves to catalyse the environment to produce the
conditions for future growth. More significantly, the privileging of
dissipative structures means that emphasis in the study of communication is not
just placed on the information which is exchanged in communication processes,
but on the time which appears wasted: everything from getting drunk in the bar,
to sleep, to the general lassitude which is so frequently exhibited by
scholars.
Statistical ecology suggests that dissipative structures
together with negative information feedback, homeostatic loops and autocatalysis may work
together in accounting for both the stability of a system’s identity and its
growth and development. Ulanowicz demonstrates these ecological networks as
ways in which the inter-relationship between species create dissipative
structures which create the conditions for future growth. For economists like
Veblen or Bataille, such dissipation is important in accounting for the waste
which they see as fundamental to economic process: as Bataille points out, the history
of the world is characterised by regularities of waste, whether it be through
exuberant expenditure on monuments or wars, or in the arts or in sexual behaviour.
Given this, we might consider the optimal conditions for the generation of
dissipative structures. The collision and tension between different paradigms of
thought is precisely the way in which redundancies of functional action might
be generated. If higher learning concerns itself with the interaction of
different paradigms of thought, then its purpose is to generate redundancies. However,
we should ask where we have data to support this thesis.
Dissipative systems produce data at different levels, and
whilst dissipative dynamics has tended to be ignored in education, it can be
easily overlaid upon existing data. Such data might include the attachment
situation which produces data about the emergence of behaviours in children and
adults. In the ecology between carer and child, the dissipative forces act to
produce the conditions for the development of both child and adult. There is also
plenty of data concerning the impact of policy within education and more
broadly on social structures and human behaviour. Policies frequently react to
the dissipation of organisational energy, and frequently serve to reproduce it
in a different aspect of society. Then there are the mathematical theories of micro
and macroeconomic behaviour which carry some evidence to support them, together
with deep case-studies of personal experiences in the light of systemic
intervention in education and elsewhere provide stories which connect personal attitudes
and transformations in social structure. Whilst such data collections may
appear spurious and not directly commensurable, a dissipative focus serves to
redescribe situations with emphasis on the relationship between their
informational exchanges and the ground upon which those exchanges take place.
The negative move is itself a generator of dissipation: it serves to make explanations
of apparently unlike data commensurable.
Naturalism and Higher
Learning
The conclusion one might reach is that Higher Learning
is about dissipative systems: it concerns an essential social function in
creating space for the generation of redundant pathways. This role situates the
disruption of cosiness which Barnett refers to as a natural consequence of the
generation of sufficient noise whereby established habits become questionable. As
we saw in the beginning of this paper, this creation of redundancy or dissipation
has disrupting and conflicting effects. On the one hand, it serves to create
the conditions whereby new pathways may be explored in society. On the other
hand, in doing this very thing, it declares the scarcity of the conditions for
thinking exploratory thoughts and creating social transformation. In tackling
this apparent contradiction, we might ask whether and how the character of
higher learning might be more naturalistically examined, and whether a deeper
understanding of its dynamics might help with the avoidance of the pathology of
the declaration of scarcity of knowledge.
Most accounts of higher learning are metaphysical. Newman’s appeal to ‘universal knowledge’ - that most celebrated description - is
fundamentally framed by his Thomism. Beloved by Vice Chancellors and
Universities Ministers who wish to appear erudite and sophisticated, Newman’s
work appeals because it manages both to speak to the heart whilst also
remaining strangely aloof and intangibly related to practical reality: Newman
is an easy target for misappropriation. Beyond the metaphysics are the objects,
people, curricula, and management structures of higher education. Universities
have always comprised these things, and their presence and role within the
University is somewhat more stable than the vacillating ideals concerning the
purpose of Universities. As social institutions, Universities present
opportunities for the inspection of the ecologies that connect their people,
objects, curricula and management structures. Among early attempts to study the
social dynamics of educational institutions, the work of Veblen on Higher
Learning which focused on management and the appeal of education to the ‘leisure
class’, and the later work of Everett Hughes stand as important examples. Whilst
insightful and deeply critical, this work was hampered by an analytical
inability to characterise the relations between different parts of the social
ecology, instead tending to focus on a description of the individual parts themselves
(a tendency which continues to this day). With a statistical ecology, can we do
better?
First of all, we are left to observe the things we can see:
the communications and objects of the institution, its policies, functions,
roles and the testimony of those who fulfil roles and functions. The purpose of
any such analysis is to determine the homeostatic connections between
components (people, objects, roles, structures) whilst also identifying the
dissipative structures whereby stated functional efficiency is lost.
The latter is inevitably more difficult to get at than the former,
partly because a lack of efficiency is today seen as a threat to continued
employment, but much dissipation can be inferred by analysing the actual
processes, the intentions, the time delays for implementation and so on.
Assuming that dissipations are forms of flexibility which create the conditions
of abundance within which things can grow, and that mutual information creates
the glue that holds the centre together, the relations between individuals,
objects, technologies and structures can be mapped out.
Doing this allows us to compare the institution of higher
learning with other forms of education, including the school. The dominant
function of schooling is to train the trivial machine: its focus is on mutual
information. In the playground there is flexibility for children, although for
teachers, adherence to targets, examinations and other trivial machine
paraphernalia means that there is little dissipative opportunity for them. The
school teacher has to become a functionalist animal. Sadly, our Universities are
becoming increasingly like this too. However, the central contradiction in the
University’s constitution maintains space for asking the critical question
about what higher learning is, and what Universities are for. Whilst view 1
dominates the HE landscape today, it cannot deny the importance of view 2,
without which it is invalidated. All view 1 can do is assert that the
conditions for the production of new knowledge are the increase in the scarcity
of knowledge, which flies in the face of evidence of everyday life. On the other
hand, defending the maintenance of the conditions for ‘fidelity to truth’ within
the University which does not enhance the position of view 1 entails mapping
out a broader social ecology which situate institutions of higher learning
within the broader social fabric.
