Download Rethinking social purpose in contemporary British adult education

Rethinking social purpose in contemporary British adult
education
Paper presented at SCUTREA, 32nd Annual Conference, 2-4 July 2002, University of Stirling
Janice Malcolm & Rebecca O’Rourke, University of Leeds, UK
Introduction
The traditions of radical adult education claim a special relationship with movements for progressive
social change. There is a clearly identifiable, if historically varied, set of values, sites and practices that
share a commitment to educational pedagogy and purpose rooted in social and transformative, rather
than individual and conformist, aspirations. This tradition, like the social movements and political
cultures with which it has been aligned, foundered in the last two decades under the combined impact
and discontents of the radical right, de-industrialisation and globalisation. We track the legacy in adult
education provision and research, consider how contemporary social movements, of the right and left,
engage with lifelong learning and consider what twentieth century radicalism might look and feel like.
The legacy in provision
The radical tradition in British adult education exists because most of the social movements with which
it was linked -late twentieth century feminism as much as late eighteenth century working class and
labour movement struggles – privileged education as both means and medium of their campaigns. This
provided radical adult education with sound institutional and ideological foundations. Throughout the
twentieth century, radical education grew (often in struggle) with the demands made upon it by the
changing social and educational context. Community education and women’s education in particular
were sites of practice that enriched and expanded the democratic traditions of educational activity and
their providers within the labour movement. The last twenty years have seen a period of hard times for
such initiatives: those that have not withered away have become all but unrecognisable. Where once
we had trade union education, we now have the workplace as the site and subject of educational work
promoting, because that is what it funds, instrumental and competitive forms of learning. And these
not only seem more attractive and purposeful to people negotiating everyday life in global capitalism,
promising as they do the really really useful knowledge of vocational skills and training, they also
undermine and diminish, as merely social, the purposes of non-vocational education. Where once we
had women’s studies courses challenging the fundamental basis of knowledge construction and
education’s social purpose and institutional form, we now have the blandest of commitment to equal
opportunities, more often driven by compliance with the law than engagements with power. Where
once we had community education at the cutting edge of social change (common ownership and cooperatives, action on child poverty, health and disability rights, rent strikes, social housing, feminist
and anti-racist campaigns), we now have co-option into the local state’s management of change as
urban regeneration becomes one of the few growth industries in the wastelands of Britain’s former
industrial heartland. Where once we had alliances built on issues of race and gender which linked all
sites and sectors of education from pre-school to post-compulsory, we now have a rhetoric of lifelong
learning and divisive competition within and between sectors and sites of lifelong learning.
Working class communities, whether in industrial-rural or inner city setting, were fruitful sites for the
kinds of community activism and social change that radical education supported and instigated during
the late 1960s and 1970s. By the 1980s, all of these movements had become much more defensive in
the face of de-industrialisation and the systematic asset stripping of civil society conducted by the New
Right. Richard Johnson, the cultural historian of education who conceptualised the radical tradition as
the source of ‘really useful knowledge’ (Johnson, 1988), argues convincingly that the New Right is a
kind of new social movement in its own right, formed in struggle with the ideas and practices of the
1
critical social movements which developed from 1960 onwards (Johnson, 1991). Following this
analysis, we can see that the radical adult education tradition was systematically captured for, and
denatured by, the New Right.
The co-option of its potential for transformation and critique was secured through a variety of
ideological and material means. Debbie Epstein, in a discussion of the New Right’s remaking of higher education, analyses the ways in which marketisation, the entitlement culture
and discourses of derision work against education’s radical and transformative potential by
inscribing it as a site of subversion in urgent need of control (Epstein, 1995). Although the
specificity is different, just as Epstein translates from schooling to higher education, it is
possible to see the same forces at work in radical adult education. Provision is now less about
local activism and more bounded by policy, linked as it is with social inclusion and
regeneration agendas which put the emphasis on learners and learning rather than knowledge
and criticality. At the same time, and perhaps as a result of this shift, its contradictions are
starkly revealed and thus more accessible to practitioners and theorists alike (Crowther, et al,
1999, 2000; Bamber, Ducklin and Tett, 2000).
Shaping the Research Agenda
In order to gauge the influence of radicalism on adult education in more recent times, we analysed
papers presented at this conference - the Standing Conference on University Teaching and Research in
the Education of Adults (SCUTREA). This strategy is flawed in that it shows us only the influence of
radicalism on research and public writing in adult education, rather than on practice; and we are
conscious that much radical educational activity has been undocumented, or recorded only outside the
educational literature. It will clearly be necessary to look further than this, especially to the more
practitioner focused literature of Adults Learning and the like to reach firm and comprehensive
conclusions. Nevertheless, the ‘audit’ of these papers provided some interesting indications of the
directions which adult educators’ concerns have taken over the past thirty years.
The first SCUTREA conference took place in 1970. For the first five years, there is very little evidence
of radicalism in the contributions; the history, philosophy and management of adult education, and the
training of practitioners, dominate the early proceedings. The Russell Report in 1973, and the
(Scottish) Alexander Report in 1974 do succeed in focusing members’ attention on ‘need’ as an
organising principle in provision, although they are largely preoccupied with the restructuring and
management of new forms of community education, rather than with any explicit political purpose. It
is not until 1976 that clear political links are made between the commitments and practices of adult
educators and the social impact of their work. Community education becomes a constant, if minor,
concern over the remainder of the 1970s. There is no specific engagement with feminism and women’s
education until 1980 when five women adult educators seize the initiative with a series of papers
written from a feminist perspective, including one analysing the field of continuing education
(Oglesby, et al, 1980: 28).
There are then only occasional ‘radical’ papers until 1985 when radicalism in the form of feminism,
labour education, Marxism and, occasionally, anti-racism become regular features of the conference
proceedings. In the mid-1980s, much of this writing was firmly related to emancipatory educational
practice; the 1987 conference, for example, was given over almost entirely to a discussion of the
concept of praxis (Armstrong, 1987; Haffenden, 1987). From 1990 onwards things change again.
Several factors contribute. The post-modern turn had begun, and is expressed both in terms of
theoretical unravelling and rewritings, and in the idea of politically ‘new times’, the latter borrowed
from the disintegrating Communist party. Feminism and anti-racism staked out their claim to a voice
in the academy, but academic respectability loosened their organic connections with the social
movements from which they sprang. The war of attrition waged by the Thatcher government on
education was beginning to be felt more keenly in higher education. This led to fierce policy critique,
but was also accompanied by a change of focus as linguistic and deconstructionist analysis, and
auto/biographical approaches to research, replaced attempts to reconcile grand radical narratives with
2
everyday educational practice. In some ways, adult education seems to become more inward looking
from this point onwards.
If we look for evidence of the radical concerns of the 1970s and 1980s in current adult education
writing, the distance travelled becomes apparent. The 2000 SCUTREA conference took the theme of
‘inclusion’ – a linguistic change which itself illustrates some of the political differences that have
emerged. Paper titles mention social inclusion, inclusivity, diversity, (widening) participation and
(community) regeneration, and some papers focus on the ways in which curriculum, assessment,
teaching and ‘pathways’ through learning can promote these qualities. Others offer a critique of the
discourse of inclusion (Armstrong, 2000; Edwards and Miller, 2000). In 2001 the theme was
Traveller’s Tales and in 2002 Altered States. Our chosen ‘radical’ foci of feminism, race, labour and
community do not feature strongly in relation either to practice or to the terms in which critique is
offered – although gender, ethnicity, ‘difference’, disability and ‘learning at work’ do. This is not just
a change in the language used, but a move away from understanding these issues as movements, and
towards seeing them largely as ideological constructs and aspects of identity.
This may be a particularly British problem. Proceedings of the international adult education
conference for the same year (AERC Proceedings, 2000) organised by SCUTREA and sister
organisations in North America, Canada, Australasia and Europe reveal a different picture.
Feminism and anti-racism are clearly present, though their form has changed; in most cases,
they are used as interpretative devices in descriptions of particular forms of educational
practice (Hayes and Way) or aids to identity analysis (Clark). Writing driven by labour
movement activity or commitment is replaced to a large extent by analyses of work-related
learning at either the individual or organisational level (Fenwick, Xu). Community education
is alive and well, though largely of a different ideological stripe to that promoted by Fordham
and others in the 1970s. There is some emphasis on the individual and identity impacts of
community-based education, although Tom Heaney offers a Freirian analysis focusing
explicitly on social change.
Contemporary social movements in relation to lifelong learning
Despite the fact that the once ‘new’ social movements described here have diminished as
important sites of political activity, and thus receded from the theory and practice of adult
education, other social movements emerge to engage radicals and activists. We call these
contemporary social movements. They are both more diffuse and more narrowly focused:
more diffuse in that they are not usually built upon a clearly defined understanding of the
world (or ‘grand narrative’), but narrower in that they often take as their focus a quite specific
area of social, economic or political activity. This focus can be inflected to the right as well
as the left, as recent campaigns about issues as diverse as the cost of fuel and rehabilitation of
sex offenders have shown. Some current examples are:
Anti-globalisation and anti-capitalism
Poverty and debt
Asylum seekers and refugees
Animal rights
Countryside
National or religious identity
Fascism
Environment
Sexuality and gender identity
Health, e.g. HIV/AIDS; fertility; disability; abortion
3
Several of these movements demonstrate a strong commitment to forms of informal political education
for their membership similar to that found earlier in the wider labour movement. There is information
and instruction for activism, and statements of position, often explicitly presented for use when putting
the movement’s case to others. All these movements are sites of learning, sometimes tacit, sometimes
not. Within the context of their organisations, they are sites of popular education and of its service in
social change. Some seek links with formal education, usually schools rather than adult education.
There is no prerogative for them to be radical, critical or emancipatory. In order to tease out the
contradictions (large and small, personal and public, individual and social) of this situation it is
important to look across the whole spectrum of social action and to do so having made a clear
distinction, following Jim McGuigan, between critical and uncritical populism (McGuigan, 1992).
Again, we can use current national and international adult education conferences as evidence
of how far these contemporary movements’ concerns are reflected in adult education theory
and practice. The two sources used here are the SCUTREA and AERC proceedings for 2000,
the latter being on this occasion an international, albeit largely anglophone, event. The
SCUTREA proceedings reflect the current policy preoccupation with ‘inclusion’, as discussed
above. There is relatively little evidence in the 43 papers of direct engagement with the
contemporary movements we have identified, that is, engagement through formal or informal
educational practice. The contemporary themes of active citizenship (Benn), flexibility
(Clarke and Edwards) and regeneration (Watts) are critically addressed, and issues such as
age (Fleming) and disability (Dale) receive perhaps more attention than they would once have
had. Several papers address themes related to globalisation and learning in social or
resistance movements but as theoretical or policy critique (Crowther; Forrester and Payne;
Frost; Johnston; Martin). Significantly, two of these authors have written elsewhere about
how Scottish social movements have been affected by devolution (Crowther, et al, 1999).
Davidson and Piette also look at this in relation to Wales. There are, clearly, strands of adult
education in the UK in which questions of national identity are entwining social movements
with adult education. There is also one paper exploring spirituality and adult learning
(White), which reflects a contemporary social movement of a different kind.
The AERC proceedings are more substantial, containing 98 papers as well as 36 roundtables or
symposia; they are also more diverse, since they are not built around a specified conference theme.
Spirituality, broadly conceived and including religious identity, seems to figure rather more
prominently here than in the SCUTREA proceedings, although the 2001 SCUTREA conference
devoted considerable attention to this dimension. Various papers address the theme in relation to
gender (Tisdall, Rosenwasser), religious activism (Lander), ageing (Muhamad and Merriam) and
‘holistic’ ecology (Hill). Disability features in only two papers as a principal theme (Gorman, Rocco).
Environmental or ecological issues are not prominent either, appearing once in the context of
spirituality (LH Hill), and then in the more practical context of a Canadian sustainable agriculture
programme (Grudens-Schuck). Sexuality appears largely in relation to health issues, specifically in
Egan’s paper on HIV/AIDS prevention programmes, and in a roundtable on identity formation in HIVpositive adults, although there is also an unusual contribution on feminism among transsexuals (RJ
Hill). It is perhaps worth pointing out that in the 2001 proceedings of both organisations, issues related
to sexuality appear rather more frequently, so this may signal change in progress.
There is a category of contributions in the AERC proceedings that might be classed as broadly radical,
and in many of which the concerns and activities of social movements are explicitly addressed. For
example, symposia on the relationship between adult education and democracy in the third world, and
on labour education in the context of globalisation, plus a roundtable on adult education for a civil
society, suggest that these concerns are becoming increasingly prominent. A number of individual
papers address specific aspects or interpretations of radicalism. One or two look at the ambiguous
concepts of ‘citizenship’ or ‘civil capital’ within democracy (Tunmer, Schugurensky, Sumner), others
offer a more direct and challenging approach to social change at local and global levels (Heaney,
Martin, Newman, Preece). It is notable, however, that most of these contributions cover these issues at
what might be termed the macro-level – that is, in terms of broad political, economic and social change,
and the policy directions which influence these changes. There is little here that parallels, for example,
4
Fordham and Randle’s practice-based but politically framed community education contribution (1976),
except perhaps Martin’s call for the conscious re-politicisation of adult education. This is not to say
that practice does not feature in the proceedings; on the contrary, numerous papers describe and
interpret the intricacies of diverse sites of educational practice. But the analysis of practice tends to
happen at the micro - individual or group - level, or alternatively, to focus on more abstract
understandings of human experience and learning. The discourses of positionality, auto/biography,
identity- and knowledge-construction dominate here, to an extent that would have seemed unthinkable
ten years ago, when so much North American adult education research was driven by a crude
scientism. What appears to be missing is the link – in terms of both understanding and practice between the emerging macro-political analyses of global change and social movements, and the microlevel analyses of social and cultural impacts on group and individual understandings and identities
(‘internalised oppression’, as Rosenwasser puts it). The missing link may well be attributable to the
absence of adult educators from the sites of learning within contemporary social movements.
Implications for Research and Teaching
Griff Foley (2001) suggests there are now three options open to those of us committed to critical and
emancipatory adult learning and education: capitulation, nostalgia or fighting on the new terrain. What
will it mean to do this?
First, it will mean fighting our own inertia and depression, and perhaps our internalised individual
competitiveness. We need to relearn the power of organising for activism, and find ways of building
alliances which challenge and subvert the provider competition we have so successfully been
engineered into. In order to do this, we will need to create and use ‘honest brokers’, perhaps national
agencies for adult learning whose situated disinterest can create a framework for genuine collaboration
between local players. Second, we will need to contest and critique the dominant ideologies and
practices of the educational provision we make, at the macro and the micro level. This may take the
form of more attention to the content, as well as form, of what we teach and re-engaging with the
critical and emancipatory power of curriculum analysis and development. It will also involve refocussing the widening participation and mass higher education agendas towards questions of changing
the mainstream, in terms of funding, access, pedagogy and curriculum content. Third, it will mean
embracing a new research agenda, despite (or, perhaps, because) it sits at a tangent to the new politics
of research and research funding. Such a research agenda will map new spaces, including virtual
communities, as well as new times in its focus on the new embodiments of the old-new social
movements, charting the commonalties and differences they share with contemporary social
movements in relation to education. It will also engage with existing conservative populism.
Underpinning all of these imperatives is the need to construct and inhabit positions within lifelong
learning which are both critical and active, that is which are for, as well as against, things.
References
Space restrictions do not permit full references to all papers cited by name but will be found in
SCUTREA and AERC proceedings 2000 respectively.
Jackson A and Jones D (eds) (2000), Researching inclusion, University of Nottingham, SCUTREA.
Sork T, Chapman V and St. Clair R (eds) (2000), AERC 2000: Proceedings of 41st Adult Education
Research Conference, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, AERC.
Armstrong PF (1987), ‘Praxis in adult education: a synthesis of theory and practice: an account of the
Praxis Study group’, SCUTREA Proceedings 1987.
Bamber J, Ducklin A and Tett L (2000), ‘Working with contradictions in the struggle for
access’ in Thompson J (ed) Stretching the academy, Leicester, NIACE.
5
Brown G (1980), ‘Independence and incorporation: the Labour College movement and the Workers’
Educational Association before the Second World War’, in Thompson J (ed) Adult education for a
change, London, Routledge.
Crowther J, Martin I and Shaw M (2000), ‘Turning the academy’, Thompson J (ed) Stretching the
academy, Leicester, NIACE.
Crowther J, Martin I and Shaw M (eds) (1999), Popular education and social movements in Scotland
today, Leicester, NIACE.
Epstein D (1995), ‘In our (new) right minds’, in Morley L and Walsh V (eds) Feminist academics:
creative agents for change, London, Taylor & Francis.
Foley G (2001), ‘Radical adult education and learning’, International Journal of Lifelong Learning, 20,
1/2, pp.71 – 88.
Fordham P and Randle L (1976), ‘The new communities project (Leigh Park)’, SCUTREA Proceedings
1976.
Haffenden I (1987), ‘A critical response towards a constructive definition of praxis for adult educators’,
SCUTREA Proceedings 1987.
Johnson R (1988), ‘ “Really useful knowledge” 1790-1850: memories for education in the 1980s’, in
Lovett T (ed) Radical approaches to adult education: a reader, London, Routledge.
Johnson R (1991), ‘My new right education’, in Education limited: schooling and training and the new
right since 1979, London, Unwin Hyman.
McGuigan J (1992), Cultural populism, London, Routledge
Oglesby L, Keddie N, Thompson J, Swarbrick A and Callaway H (1980), ‘Women and adult
education’, SCUTREA Proceedings 1980.
6