第四次讀書會問答錄

Dear Lee,

Not sure which piece the group read for this session. Not the post-hegemony article I think which was the next on the list? Ah, I think I have got it - is it Chapter 1 of Unpopular Education? It must have been hard to read this piece - which I am not sure I would have recommended (perhaps i did!!) - in isolation from the rest of the book and its times. The book was written and researched in the mid- to late 1970s when we were experiencing the early stages of the major transition from the postwar social-democratic settlement in education policy, to the beginnings of neo-liberal, market-led, 'reform' of schooling. In this phase which was inaugurated by Labour not Conservative governments - Thatcher and co were in power from 1979 onwards But we were interested in understanding the success of neo-liberal reform in terms of the limits of the post 1944 Settlement.

1. Implications for Taiwan today? I would need to know more about the directions of state education policy in Taiwan today to answer this. Was there - is there a 'social democratic' phase in Taiwan's history - a phase where a bargain was struck for welfare reforms and for an expansion of popular education? What has been the impact of marketising strategies in public institutions in Taiwan? A social-democratic settlement was the picture in Britain from roughly the 1940s to the mid 1970s. Then economic crisis, the rise of Thatcherite/Reaganite conservatism and the success of neo-liberal theory as a politics produced a new settlement in educational policy which became hegemonic, perhaps, in the 1980 and 1990s. In Britain this system is itself in crisis I think under New Labour. What re-reading the book tells me today is that it is not enough, in opposing the global impostion of neo-liberal solutions - to return to the solutions of public or state education as they had evolved in the 1960s and early 1970s. I would argue that public institutions - which I would argue for rather than privatisation have to involve large elements of popular participation or of direct democracy in their running, though they also require genuinely expert knowledge and competence of course. The problem is to work out an appropriate form of educational governance at every level to promote and support equalising policies in education, equalising and diversifying, itself a complex matter! I know what this might mean in my own city actually, having worked on this politically. I can talk about this when i come.

2. If you want to move forward slowly in time, you could read parts of Education Limited - which is really a volume 2 of the educational studies from CCCS. Probably the best starting point there is not the beginning but chapter 3 'My New Right Education' which looks at the general character of neo-liberal reform of schooling as it had emerged in the UK. There is a really excellent later historically-informed new contemporary account of New Labour education policy by Ken Jones in my and Deborah Steinberg's book on New Labour. - Blairism and the War of Persuasion.

3. But .... Yes, the education-based scholar is right that these texts are short on educational practice and educational alternatives. This is the big challenge today . A book that engages more with this, as well as with policy, is the excellent short book by Terry Wrigley, Another School is Possible Bookmarks Publications 2006..If people are interested in the global dimensions of neo-liberal reform there is a book on teachers that contains studies from all over the world: Mary Compton and Lois Werner, The Global Assault on Teaching, Teachers and Their Unions: Stories for Resistance Palgrave, Macmillan 2008.

4. Critique may not be 'the best way' in Britain or 'the west' either. There is a fundamental error on the left in Uk that if you tell people 'the truth' they will change. Change is more complex requiring hope and a belief in an alternative and experiences of successful practice. So alternatives must be created and this has been a weakness of anti-capitalist or social-democratic movements in many countries. If it is the case that something different might work better in Taiwan, more engaging and more pleasurable as a politics. perhaps you have a lot to teach us here. Anyway arguments are very recognisable to me here.

5. Yes, the art and creativity is very important, which is why i am learning to sing! But the art-based scholar also seems sceptical of art in movements too? Because they are only critical? Being only critical IS a big problem. What do we affirm? Cultural studies teaches that we have to attend to the life experiences of people we work with or organise for. So it is not surprising that political engagement is affected both by involvement in consumer culture and by very long hours of labour. Gilbert (see earlier email) argues we need to create opportunities for more 'part-time' politics. I agree.

6 There is a theme of the limits of binarty notions of power/oppression here which i agree with, but subordination is real!
Lots of interesting questions. I am so looking forward to talking! What are you reading next?
Richard

On 15 Jan 2009, at 03:57, Lee Yu-Hsuan wrote:
Dear Richard,
Our fourth round for reading group. Questions and comments are as follows.

- The education-based scholar who outlined the paper ("perspectives on schooling and politics") posed questions: What are implications for Taiwanese in the 21th century to re-read the British education between two world wars and 1970s? Are there any message revealed through reading? Shall we read "education limited" (British education of 1980s)? How about that of 1990s, the next decade, and later? He also argued that there is a lack of practice instead of concepts/ideas given that radical education or critical education has been developed as time goes by. The struggle model of traditional Marxism tends to show a sense of dualism. Does it work in Taiwan? He argued that critique is only an element of practice as criticizing is not the most useful way in Taiwan. He suggested that Taiwanese people (especially those living in the South) should learn more sophisticated, subtle ways of struggling. For example, he thinks that people such as postgraduate students lack chances or fields to be cultivated as powerful as "Che" (that is my translation. He meant "adult" or someone who is mentally and strategically maturer than the others at the same age). On the other hand, Taiwan is always concentrated on the power relations (oppression/subordination). He looked for more laughters and wondered if NGO in the South can provided more "smooth" milieux (I am not sure of the translation. Perhaps he tried to argue for a non-western way of struggle, particularly embedded in the Chinese/Taiwanese context). Because he mentioned how he was so frustrated by poor results of social mobilisation when he was on behalf of a community college in running cultural festivals. The meetings showed a lack of time-management that exhausted workers' energies. To some extent, this often shortened the life of organisations. In this sense, he argued that the East might need a medium. The medium refers to critique. There is a need of more "flexibility" (not sure again) as he mentioned that people's backgrounds are diverse.

- Also, an art-based scholar agreed with this argument. She mentioned art in community that sometimes is hard to inspire people. Like social movements in Taiwan, there is a lack of environments. Although the beginning shows some inspiring people and humanistic environment to fight against the unjust structure, the following process is usually pushed towards rationality and utility. Criqique becomes ideology of prey. In other words, social movements or art as critique are far from interesting.

Kind regards,

Yu-Hsuan Lee