Making space for social purpose adult education ... - University of Leeds

Making space for social purpose adult education within civil society

Rennie Johnston, Consultant in Lifelong Learning and Community Research, UK

Paper presented at the 38th Annual SCUTREA Conference, 2-4 July 2008 University of Edinburgh

Like Ian Martin, I have been concerned with, and engaged in, social purpose adult education most of my working life. Ian has been, for me, probably the most influential, certainly the most read, writer about social purpose, even if I haven't agreed with him all the time. This conference and its focus on social purpose, gives me a chance to re-view past debates and contextualize the struggle for social purpose adult education in contemporary society.

This first part of this paper will examine issues around social purpose education - about values and purposes and the challenges and problems it has to address in the present socio-political context. The second part will focus more specifically on possibilities for action, examine the spaces that exist to pursue social purpose adult education and point a way towards pursuing it in the present political climate. The main reference point will be contemporary society and social and economic policy in the UK but the argument applies well beyond that.

Social purpose adult education re-viewed

Simply put, social purpose adult education embodies a commitment to social justice, the promotion of a critical democracy and a vision of better, fairer world where education has a key role to play. (Coare and Johnston, 2003, pp.ix) There are many issues here I would like to re-view, sometimes applaud, sometimes critique. But for this paper I will confine my discussion to comment and elaborate on some key points that Ian Martin has raised and then examine how social purpose adult educators can develop a critical praxis in the present political and educational climate.

One key and enduring aspect which makes a social purpose approach attractive and important to me is its moral charge. Here, Ian Martin has always been prominent in asserting and maintaining a clear emphasis on egalitarian and humanistic values. And this has never been more necessary than now when there is a need both to confront, yet also work within, a UK government policy that has lost its moral compass amongst a sea of economistic and managerial targets. Of course, in this struggle, alongside such a strong moral charge there is a danger of promoting undue certainty in adversity, making values too precious and exclusive to engage with new ideas and new people, only talking to ourselves. Here, feminists and post-modernists have identified the danger of establishing `regimes of truth' which are characterised, by, amongst other things, `...the theoretical pronouncement of discourses as liberatory, a lack of reflexivity' (Gore, 1992, pp.63). With this in mind, it is important that a social purpose approach, while maintaining its valuebased critique of mainstream educational policy and practice, also works hard to foster and maintain its own reflexivity.

A stated central aspect of social purpose adult education is its commitment to democracy and dissent (Learning for Democracy 2008, pp.2). In the spirit of reflexivity, this

commitment needs both to extend outwards and apply inwards. In the present policy context, social purpose educators do need to be clear about their values to maintain personal and political integrity and in order not to become unduly compromised in their work. However, that commitment should not normally stop them engaging with others, whether politicians, providers or learners, whose practices are based on different values. In any case, values and purposes are not cast in stone as Ian Martin acknowledges:

....arguments can only be sustained if their embodiment is continually reworked and renewed as times change. If and when this process of redefinition and adaptation no longer happens, the arguments wither and die - to be replaced by others which are perceived to be more relevant, apposite, in keeping with the times. (Martin, 2008, pp.1)

Martin's moral charge is apparent and effective in a recent attack on the societal `demoralisation' engendered by therapeutic culture in contemporary educational policy and research. He makes the point that

Educational policy and practice, aided and abetted by research, is once again transforming structure into pathology by ascribing the contradictions of context to the supposed characteristics of individuals.

(Martin, 2008, pp.4)

Here the academy stands accused. With its acquiescence, sometimes connivance, this pathology is all too readily transformed into deficit models of education, whether filling the cultural gaps of non-traditional students in higher education, the skills gaps of economic citizens, the literacy gaps of working-class and minority ethnic people or the `Britishness' gaps of immigrants. This raises a fundamental question for social purpose educators and academics about what kind of citizenship we want to promote: economic, inclusive, assimilationist, active, critical or what. As Chantal Mouffe (1992, pp.25) reminds us:

The way we define citizenship is intimately linked to the kind of society and political community we want

This above critique of the academy raises the dreaded `PM' term, postmodernism, seen by many social purpose adult educators as inducing a moral relativism, promoting `cleverdick' playfulness that gets in the way of committed praxis and fostering an inward looking academic self-indulgence. Having briefly flirted with postmodernism myself (Usher, Bryant and Johnston, 1997) and incurred the disapproval of many social purpose colleagues, I am inclined to be less critical of the first two points. In fact I still think social purpose earnestness could at times be tempered with a ludic sensitivity that serves to energise and expand horizons and engage with other non-believers without necessarily diluting its moral force and social commitment, in the same way as its focus on difference has helped many social purpose educators extend our engagement and solidarity beyond a traditional social class commitment. However I do tend to agree largely with Ian Martin's (for him, rather restrained) criticism that:

The `postmodern turn' in the current theory of much European and North American adult education seems all too often to cut if off from its historical roots in social purpose, political engagement and the vision of a better world. (Martin, 2008, pp.4)

Whether it is the fault of the postmodern turn or just bad old academic conformity, accommodation and career instrumentalism, for me, many university adult educators have been seduced (and reduced) by inward-looking academic reference points that get in the way of both social commitment and a wider world view.

This trend is well illustrated in the 2006 article by Armstrong and Miller, entitled `Whatever happened to social purpose? Adult educators' stories of political commitment and change', aptly paraphrased by some critics as `how all the Marxists have become postmodernists'. The broad thrust of this piece was to analyse and understand the key intellectual, social and cultural influences on the biographies and careers of universitybased adult educators and how they had changed as a result, an interesting and controversial approach, at least for me. As someone whose biography and work was featured in this article, I felt very uncomfortable having my working life and purpose reinterpreted through someone else's lens. But, more to the point, in the context of this paper on social purpose, the authors say:

More than any other factor, they [myself and Ian Bryant, an ex-colleague who is very different from me] suggested that the shifts in the theory of the 1990s had a much deeper and more profound impact on practice in university adult education than party politics and ideologies (Armstrong and Miller, 2006, pp.302)

This analysis may well be true for Armstrong, Miller, Bryant and others in university adult education (but it is does not reflect my personal position). If the general drift of this article is valid, it illustrates the political retreat, in institutional adversity and/or through intellectual argument, of some colleagues from some kind of social purpose approach. It also relates back to my earlier argument for social purpose reflexivity and Ian Martin's argument about the need to rework and renew social purpose arguments. A central question, for me and for a social purpose approach, is whether a clear political position can be completely changed or merely influenced and amended by new social and cultural insights and intellectual theories. It is a moral dilemma and an intellectual challenge for social purpose educators. Here, it is too easy to take up a fundamentalist position (although I am tempted as I increasingly lose touch and sympathy with the academy) and concur with David Mamet when he writes:

Whether they like it or not, the current defectors (from the intellectual left) are seeking to provide a vocabulary for the progressive intellegentsia to abandon the poor. So, for civil libertarians, the divide is no longer left and right, but between authority and personal liberty. For atheists, it is between secularism and religious belief. For some American and European feminists, it is between women's rights and a multiculturalism that validates Muslim patriarchy. For a number of former leftwingers, it is between the social solidarity of a conservative working class and the demands of multicultural newcomers. What all these fault-lines have in common is that they pit progressives against the group that is under the most sustained political attack, here and abroad.... It behoves .....us ..... not to defend the indefensible, but to protect the vocabulary of alliance that has done so much good in the past and is so necessary now. (Mamet, 2008, pp.6)

Perhaps a bit polemical and over-dichotomous, but all university adult educators can probably see themselves somewhere here. It certainly provides salutary, and reflexive, reading for a social purpose `commitment to social justice, the promotion of a critical democracy and a vision of a better, fairer world where education has a key role to play'. It also raises questions about how to develop and maintain a critical social purpose approach in the present political, intellectual and educational climate ? the issue of praxis.

Developing social purpose praxis in contemporary civil society

Making political and polemical points is fun, but as Marx (1962, pp.405) famously put it: 'philosophers have only interpreted the world....the point is to change it '.

The rest of this paper will explore the possibilities for social purpose praxis in the context of civil society.

In their recent contribution to the International Encyclopedia of Education, Crowther and Martin (2008) make the important point that:

It is necessary to recognise that what is meant by `civil society' is both historically specific and ideologically contingent. Indeed, part of the interest lies in how adult education can be used in the struggle to contest and control what civil society means.

They also talk about the existence of `intellectual space' where, following Habermas, people can freely debate and discuss how to build the kind of world that want to live in. With this in mind, I now intend to look at the nature of UK civil society today and the potential spaces that exist to develop social purpose adult education praxis.

For some time now, the UK government has been promoting Active Citizenship, particularly in the context of civil society. Thus, David Blunkett, the then Home Secretary argued that 'We must aim to build strong empowered and active communities' (Edith Kahn Memorial Lecture, 2003) and Fiona MacTaggart, the then Parliamentary Under Secretary identified soon after that 'we should therefore work to improve the capacity of individuals and communities to relate to the world around them as active, critical, engaged citizens.' (cited in Mayo and Rooke, 2006, pp.4). This spawned the ALAC (Active Learning for Active Citizenship) which made real progress in identifying and developing spaces for social purpose-type learning and action within civil society (Johnston, 2008). Regional ALAC hubs were certainly successful in combining critical and active citizenship, for example, in their work with representatives and activists within the London Civic Forum, the wideranging political education work carried out with women's groups by the Impact programme in the Black Country, the politicising processes and outcomes of the `Speaking Up' courses with disabled groups in the South West, the development and support of the migrant workers' group in Lincolnshire and the creation of the Refugee Charter for Manchester. (Mayo and Rooke, 2006 pp.17-38; Take Part, 2006, pp.70-91).

This two year initiative had the advantage of being supported by government but largely at arms length. Today, it has in turn been translated into a much more government-inspired and directed Empowerment agenda. An `Action Plan for Community Empowerment: Building on success', has been jointly developed by CLG (Communities and Local Government, a government department) and LGA (The Local Government Association) to meet three identified outcomes:

? Greater participation, collective action and engagement in democracy ? Changes in attitudes to local empowerment ? Improved performance of public services and quality of life

It sets out 23 specific actions to achieve these, ranging from `1. Secure, more citizenfocused services' through to `23. Increase local accountability and have clearer local leadership of public services.' A brief review of the whole Action Plan confirms two key aspects of the Empowerment Agenda. First, notwithstanding its democratic ambitions and genuine commitment to engage with local people, it is a clear top-down agenda developed

by CLG in collaboration with LGA in which local communities are invited to participate but largely on CLG's terms. Just as significant, a closer look at the 23 actions identified shows that this Empowerment initiative shows it is driven by a Blairite agenda to reform the public sector and make it more accountable to government and communities alike, linked to a parallel Treasury aim to foster a more direct and active involvement of the voluntary and community/Third Sector in the delivery of public services.

These developments raise fundamental questions about the space that exists for a social purpose approach to promote critical and active learning for citizenship. First, any movement towards the Third Sector being more actively involved in delivering public services poses the problem of the role of civil society in promoting both critical and active learning for citizenship, in particular the independence of civil society in relation to both the market and the state. Historically and ideologically, there have also been different understandings of and emphases in civil society between Right and Left. For example, those towards the Right are interested in civil society as it reflects a primarily apolitical arena to develop civic virtues like self-sacrifice, duty and service for others, an arena separate from but still understood to be within the overall framework of a free market society (Green 1993, pp.ix). In contrast, the Left, drawing more directly from Gramsci (1986) identifies civil society as a sector of public life outside of the directly regulated political and economic spheres where there is sufficient relative autonomy and subversive space to develop counter-hegemonic action.

In the context of the above two perspectives, a key contemporary development in the UK has been the process whereby some of the former regional and local responsibilities of the welfare state have been contracted out to voluntary and community organisations. While this can serve to bolster some of these groups and ensure, to some extent, a more regional or local voice in the delivery of civic services, there is a real danger that these organisations consequently lose their collective identity and independence, through becoming service providers and paid agents of the state. As Turner and Ridden (2001, pp.39) argue:

The more voluntary associations become dependent on the state through tax benefits, cash payments or administrative services, the less they function as separate and independent forces in civil society......state power is not diminished by a greater reliance on voluntary associations but is merely relocated

Public policy is increasingly being geared to incorporating citizens into the ambit of both the state and the market. With this in mind, it could be argued that, despite the UK government rhetoric of 'double devolution' where power is devolved from the centre to local government and also devolved from local government to neighbourhoods and communities, in practice its view of civil society is not significantly different from that of the historic Right; that is, it `reflects a primarily apolitical arena to develop civic virtues like selfsacrifice, duty and service for others, an arena separate from but still understood to be within the overall framework of a free market society' (op. cit.).

What kind of empowerment?

Another key question related to social purpose adult education and the development of critical and active learning for citizenship is the exact type of empowerment being fostered. The Empowerment agenda certainly includes some innovative and participatory practices, albeit on a pilot basis, for example, the development of participatory budgeting and the development of forums against extremism and islamophobia. However, these initiatives apart, the Empowerment agenda is in danger of being essentially consumerist. In relation

 ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download