If a high proportion of people are poor at basic maths, there will be an outcry about deficient numeracy. If large numbers cannot read or write, we will hear of a crisis in literacy. But when the vast majority of people have little grasp of politics, there is barely a murmur about the collapse of democracy.
Politics has been caught in a vicious downward spiral because a few have managed to alienate the majority from the process of public decision-making. Intense lobbying, campaign finance, and tactical threats from the wealthiest 1% (or less) of the population have come to shape the policy agenda for everyone. And this hegemony will continue if most citizens remain ignorant of why and how they must stop being outsiders, and engage in politics to defend their collective wellbeing.
Educators have a vital role to play in clearing this miasma of misunderstanding and kindling instead an appreciation of the importance of taking inclusive political action. There is no shortage of learning resources that can be utilised. The ‘Politics for Outsiders’ collection (along with its companion Learning Guide), for example, brings together what have been developed through academic criticisms and practical policy trials, and provides a coherent set of materials to explain why:
• The concentration of power in a few inevitably leads to the exploitation and oppression of the rest, and it can only be countered by concerted political action;
• The model of inclusive community life provides a basis for consensus-building and provides criteria for critically assessing public policy proposals;
• The dangers of not opposing fundamentalist agendas (be they based on the abuse of wealth, religion, or social differences) must be widely and vividly shared;
• The use of cooperative problem-solving in dealing with social and economic challenges is far more effective than top-down or uncoordinated alternatives;
• The conditions for holding people responsible for the consequences of their actions should not be blurred by sophistry or amoral denials.
By drawing on ‘Politics for Outsiders’ and the writings by other thinkers and practitioners, educators can design courses that will not only inoculate other citizens from the infectious myths deployed to distort political realities, but also help them cultivate the informed and critical mindset needed to reconnect them to policy making in the public realm.
‘99%’ is a potent term to remind us of the vast majority who are left outside the decision-making establishment. Educators, our mission, should we choose to accept it, is to show them the way back in to reclaim the democratic control that should be exercised, not just by a privileged few, but by us all.
Saturday, 1 February 2014
Wednesday, 15 January 2014
Chinese Pride or Western Prejudice
At the end of this month (31 January 2014), the Year of the Horse begins. The media around the world will undoubtedly take the opportunity once again to make as many sweeping comments about China and Chinese people as they can.
This year we can turn it into a little game and check the accuracy of what’s confidently proclaimed by commentators, with the help of a new book by Ben Chu (The Independent’s Economics Editor) called Chinese Whispers: why everything you heard about China is wrong (Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2013). The book brings together an array of generalisations about all things Chinese, and with wit and considerable analytical prowess exposes old myths and new exaggerations alike.
Two of my favourites are: ‘the Chinese don’t want freedom’ and ‘the Chinese live to work’. Apparently, Chinese people are so obsessed with working hard that they neither mind getting paid a pittance nor being denied the freedom to express their concerns about how they are treated. That would be a convenient excuse for the exploitation of Chinese migrant workers in Britain and America in late 19th/early 20th centuries, and of lowly paid workers in China today. But the reality is that when economically one is given no other option but to take what little is on offer, and politically one can see no real opportunity to challenge the prevailing arrangements, one has no choice but to toil in silence – like billions of non-Chinese around the world.
But have not ‘the Chinese reinvented capitalism’? Have they not come up with a new economic system that, guided by far-sighted planning, and fuelled by congenitally diligent workers, is propelling China to surpass the US to become the largest national economy by 2017? According to Chu, China has merely removed the barriers in a way that countries in Europe and America have done in previous centuries (and in East Asia more recently). It has allowed its workforce to engage in producing what there is a worldwide demand for. But it is already making similar mistakes to other more advanced economies in fuelling investment bubbles; allowing a tiny elite to amass an ever increasing share of the wealth generated by the whole nation; and curtailing the purchasing power of the vast majority of its own population through a combination of low wages and minimalist welfare spending. As people save up in case they are sick and for their old age, the demand needed to sustain domestic manufacturing fails to materialise, and the same old capitalist problems will hit China.
Needless to say, Chu does not care for the claim ‘China will rule the world’. He has good reasons. Economically, the country’s per capita GDP is two and a half times smaller than that of Greece. Technologically, it is a long way from the top of the league for innovations. In 2009, it registered 1,600 patents in the US, while Spain registered 4 times that with 6,500, not to mention Japan’s 35,000. Culturally, its influence in terms of arts and entertainment is negligible outside its own frontiers. Militarily, it spent in 2012 eight times less than the US on the armed services. Its troops are confined to its own borders, unlike the US which has 500,000 troops stationed abroad. It also has 20 times fewer nuclear warheads than the US.
To the wider world, China neither poses a threat nor offers a special salvation. The Chinese people have their customs, but they also adapt to changing circumstances. In seeking peace and prosperity, they are not that different from anyone else. If anyone thinks they have a snappy phrase to capture the diverse mindsets and inclinations of a billion Chinese people, they should take a look at ‘Chinese Whispers’ first.
This year we can turn it into a little game and check the accuracy of what’s confidently proclaimed by commentators, with the help of a new book by Ben Chu (The Independent’s Economics Editor) called Chinese Whispers: why everything you heard about China is wrong (Weidenfeld & Nicolson 2013). The book brings together an array of generalisations about all things Chinese, and with wit and considerable analytical prowess exposes old myths and new exaggerations alike.
Two of my favourites are: ‘the Chinese don’t want freedom’ and ‘the Chinese live to work’. Apparently, Chinese people are so obsessed with working hard that they neither mind getting paid a pittance nor being denied the freedom to express their concerns about how they are treated. That would be a convenient excuse for the exploitation of Chinese migrant workers in Britain and America in late 19th/early 20th centuries, and of lowly paid workers in China today. But the reality is that when economically one is given no other option but to take what little is on offer, and politically one can see no real opportunity to challenge the prevailing arrangements, one has no choice but to toil in silence – like billions of non-Chinese around the world.
But have not ‘the Chinese reinvented capitalism’? Have they not come up with a new economic system that, guided by far-sighted planning, and fuelled by congenitally diligent workers, is propelling China to surpass the US to become the largest national economy by 2017? According to Chu, China has merely removed the barriers in a way that countries in Europe and America have done in previous centuries (and in East Asia more recently). It has allowed its workforce to engage in producing what there is a worldwide demand for. But it is already making similar mistakes to other more advanced economies in fuelling investment bubbles; allowing a tiny elite to amass an ever increasing share of the wealth generated by the whole nation; and curtailing the purchasing power of the vast majority of its own population through a combination of low wages and minimalist welfare spending. As people save up in case they are sick and for their old age, the demand needed to sustain domestic manufacturing fails to materialise, and the same old capitalist problems will hit China.
Needless to say, Chu does not care for the claim ‘China will rule the world’. He has good reasons. Economically, the country’s per capita GDP is two and a half times smaller than that of Greece. Technologically, it is a long way from the top of the league for innovations. In 2009, it registered 1,600 patents in the US, while Spain registered 4 times that with 6,500, not to mention Japan’s 35,000. Culturally, its influence in terms of arts and entertainment is negligible outside its own frontiers. Militarily, it spent in 2012 eight times less than the US on the armed services. Its troops are confined to its own borders, unlike the US which has 500,000 troops stationed abroad. It also has 20 times fewer nuclear warheads than the US.
To the wider world, China neither poses a threat nor offers a special salvation. The Chinese people have their customs, but they also adapt to changing circumstances. In seeking peace and prosperity, they are not that different from anyone else. If anyone thinks they have a snappy phrase to capture the diverse mindsets and inclinations of a billion Chinese people, they should take a look at ‘Chinese Whispers’ first.
Wednesday, 1 January 2014
‘Question the Powerful’: quincentenary of the 1514 watershed
The progressive tradition of critical thinking and radical reform has been a driving force for intellectual and social improvement for centuries. Although it began to take shape over the first half of the 16th century, the year 1514 marked a notable watershed worthy of commemoration five hundred years on.
Down to 1514, Renaissance Humanism was still largely preoccupied with recovering ancient learning to quench the growing thirst for knowledge. After 1514, the floodgates opened and the eras of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Age of Reform rapidly came in subsequent centuries – successively advancing the frontiers of human understanding and democratic cooperation far beyond what had been previously thought possible.
Ideas articulated by a number of thinkers in 1514 cumulatively gave rise to the progressive ethos: never accept that there is no room for improvement; constantly explore alternative options; and be ever ready to question the powerful.
In 1514, Erasmus wrote Julius Excluded from Heaven, a satirical dialogue about papal abuse of power, which mocked the religious establishment for pretending that its greed and ill treatment of people were divinely sanctioned. In the same year, Thomas More, a friend of Erasmus, began writing The History of Richard III, a sharp critique of the tyrannical behaviour of kings. It cast doubt about the structure of hierarchical power as much as his other work, Utopia, questioned the socio-economic distribution of resources in the society of his time.
1514 was also the year when Copernicus wrote his Little Commentary, which challenged the view then held by everyone in a position of authority, namely, that the earth was the centre of the universe, and argued instead for a heliocentric model with the earth moving around the sun. No less revolutionary was Machiavelli’s The Prince, which he completed in 1514 to explain, along with its companion piece, Discourses, why rulers must do everything they can to take control of the apparatus of an authoritarian state, and transform it into a free republic for the common good.
One of the most dramatic exemplars of this new progressive mindset was Philip von Hohenheim, who in 1514 embarked on his medical career. He visited universities across Europe and concluded that it was wholly unacceptable to rely without question on ancient texts such as those by Celsus who wrote about medicine fifteen hundred years previously. Declaring that all texts must be critically questioned no matter how long they had been accepted, von Hohenheim changed his own name to ‘Paracelsus’ (‘beyond Celsus’), and led a movement to transform medicine by relentlessly subjecting its theory and practice to empirical analysis and experimentation.
Of course all the figures mentioned above had their share of shortcomings and intellectual blind spots, but collectively, they helped to inaugurate the progressive tradition, which in the next five hundred years transformed innumerable aspects of life for the better. And as we commemorate the quincentenary of this watershed year, we should recognise the oppressive threats posed in our times by the rise of plutocracy and resurgent fundamentalism, and draw strength from the wisdom and courage of the 1514 pioneers to persist with finding better alternatives and never desist from questioning the powerful.
--
To find out more about the progressive tradition, here is a list of ten books that take a closer historical look at how it has evolved, and what lessons we may draw from its development over time.
Down to 1514, Renaissance Humanism was still largely preoccupied with recovering ancient learning to quench the growing thirst for knowledge. After 1514, the floodgates opened and the eras of the Scientific Revolution, the Enlightenment, and the Age of Reform rapidly came in subsequent centuries – successively advancing the frontiers of human understanding and democratic cooperation far beyond what had been previously thought possible.
Ideas articulated by a number of thinkers in 1514 cumulatively gave rise to the progressive ethos: never accept that there is no room for improvement; constantly explore alternative options; and be ever ready to question the powerful.
In 1514, Erasmus wrote Julius Excluded from Heaven, a satirical dialogue about papal abuse of power, which mocked the religious establishment for pretending that its greed and ill treatment of people were divinely sanctioned. In the same year, Thomas More, a friend of Erasmus, began writing The History of Richard III, a sharp critique of the tyrannical behaviour of kings. It cast doubt about the structure of hierarchical power as much as his other work, Utopia, questioned the socio-economic distribution of resources in the society of his time.
1514 was also the year when Copernicus wrote his Little Commentary, which challenged the view then held by everyone in a position of authority, namely, that the earth was the centre of the universe, and argued instead for a heliocentric model with the earth moving around the sun. No less revolutionary was Machiavelli’s The Prince, which he completed in 1514 to explain, along with its companion piece, Discourses, why rulers must do everything they can to take control of the apparatus of an authoritarian state, and transform it into a free republic for the common good.
One of the most dramatic exemplars of this new progressive mindset was Philip von Hohenheim, who in 1514 embarked on his medical career. He visited universities across Europe and concluded that it was wholly unacceptable to rely without question on ancient texts such as those by Celsus who wrote about medicine fifteen hundred years previously. Declaring that all texts must be critically questioned no matter how long they had been accepted, von Hohenheim changed his own name to ‘Paracelsus’ (‘beyond Celsus’), and led a movement to transform medicine by relentlessly subjecting its theory and practice to empirical analysis and experimentation.
Of course all the figures mentioned above had their share of shortcomings and intellectual blind spots, but collectively, they helped to inaugurate the progressive tradition, which in the next five hundred years transformed innumerable aspects of life for the better. And as we commemorate the quincentenary of this watershed year, we should recognise the oppressive threats posed in our times by the rise of plutocracy and resurgent fundamentalism, and draw strength from the wisdom and courage of the 1514 pioneers to persist with finding better alternatives and never desist from questioning the powerful.
--
To find out more about the progressive tradition, here is a list of ten books that take a closer historical look at how it has evolved, and what lessons we may draw from its development over time.
Sunday, 15 December 2013
The Author Formerly Hated for ‘The Prince’
When Machiavelli began work in 1513 on The Prince, he was not to know that it would become one of the most infamous books for the next five centuries. Indeed the worst thing anyone could do in trying to obtain or wield power came to be known by that deplorable adjective, ‘Machiavellian’.
Anyone who has actually studied the works of Machiavelli, especially his Discourses, an essential companion to The Prince, would know that Machiavelli was far from being a friend of deceptive and ruthless rule. But before we look at why the common misunderstanding should be corrected, we should consider a current trend that projects an even more perverse interpretation of Machiavelli.
Take the 2013 BBC TV programme, ‘Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli?’. Instead of challenging the view that Machiavelli was seeking to guide people with power to use it immorally, the makers of the programme and all who were invited to speak on it not only reinforced that view, but also claimed that it was to be celebrated. Their take on Machiavelli essentially came down to this: if you’re running a government or a large business, you have to be ruthless; you have to make others fear you; and you have to go with your judgement alone on what should be done, and get it done by whatever means necessary.
For these political insiders and business gurus, Machiavelli should not be denounced for advocating nasty power play, but praised for validating it as essential in getting the business of a ruler or top executive done.
But while some people may revel in imagining that even the most ruthless behaviour (of their own or the leaders they advised) would be endorsed by a world famous thinker, there are three crucial points they should have noted. First, when Machiavelli advised that the ends would justify the means, he was very specific about what those ends were, namely the establishment and development of a free republic – i.e., an association of citizens who collectively have a say through public deliberations over how they are to be governed. The people are, he insisted, “more prudent, more stable, and of better judgment than a prince.” So unless the leader in question is genuinely striving to create and secure a form of governance which spreads power more evenly to all people, nothing is justified; least of all, any action to simply make oneself more powerful and feared.
Secondly, the authoritarian model is only recommended where the option of a free republic is not immediately attainable. Machiavelli’s advice was not that a leader should be authoritarian, but that if one were living in a state where power was concentrated exclusively at the top and rival forces would resort to vicious means to seize the throne (not to mention stopping anyone from democratising power to the citizenry), then one would have to be ruthless in countering those threats and firm in securing one’s own power. But if one were in a free republic, or had managed to transform an absolute monarchy into one, then there would be no excuse for using repressive measures.
Thirdly, for Machiavelli, even when a ruler is steering a course from the prevailing authoritarian conditions to a free republic, it does not mean that anything is permissible. One has to ask if one’s actions are helping or hindering the all important process of bringing about a form of governance whereby people can speak feely about contested issues and jointly secure their safety and prosperity without being dependent on the whims of one individual (or an elite).
If political and business leaders want to learn anything from Machiavelli, they should stop focusing on expanding their personal power as an end in itself, and start devoting themselves to empowering others to share in decision-making so that it is never the elite few but always the people who together determine the common good.
------
BBC Radio did also produce Jonathan Freedland’s ‘Machiavelli: Devil or Democrat?’, which gave some airtime to Machiavelli’s positive influence on the development of democratic republics. However, Freedland still could not resist casting Machiavelli as part ‘devil’ for The Prince. For a scholarly exposition, consult Machiavelli and Republicanism, Bock, G., Skinner, Q., and Viroli, M. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press: 1990.
Anyone who has actually studied the works of Machiavelli, especially his Discourses, an essential companion to The Prince, would know that Machiavelli was far from being a friend of deceptive and ruthless rule. But before we look at why the common misunderstanding should be corrected, we should consider a current trend that projects an even more perverse interpretation of Machiavelli.
Take the 2013 BBC TV programme, ‘Who’s Afraid of Machiavelli?’. Instead of challenging the view that Machiavelli was seeking to guide people with power to use it immorally, the makers of the programme and all who were invited to speak on it not only reinforced that view, but also claimed that it was to be celebrated. Their take on Machiavelli essentially came down to this: if you’re running a government or a large business, you have to be ruthless; you have to make others fear you; and you have to go with your judgement alone on what should be done, and get it done by whatever means necessary.
For these political insiders and business gurus, Machiavelli should not be denounced for advocating nasty power play, but praised for validating it as essential in getting the business of a ruler or top executive done.
But while some people may revel in imagining that even the most ruthless behaviour (of their own or the leaders they advised) would be endorsed by a world famous thinker, there are three crucial points they should have noted. First, when Machiavelli advised that the ends would justify the means, he was very specific about what those ends were, namely the establishment and development of a free republic – i.e., an association of citizens who collectively have a say through public deliberations over how they are to be governed. The people are, he insisted, “more prudent, more stable, and of better judgment than a prince.” So unless the leader in question is genuinely striving to create and secure a form of governance which spreads power more evenly to all people, nothing is justified; least of all, any action to simply make oneself more powerful and feared.
Secondly, the authoritarian model is only recommended where the option of a free republic is not immediately attainable. Machiavelli’s advice was not that a leader should be authoritarian, but that if one were living in a state where power was concentrated exclusively at the top and rival forces would resort to vicious means to seize the throne (not to mention stopping anyone from democratising power to the citizenry), then one would have to be ruthless in countering those threats and firm in securing one’s own power. But if one were in a free republic, or had managed to transform an absolute monarchy into one, then there would be no excuse for using repressive measures.
Thirdly, for Machiavelli, even when a ruler is steering a course from the prevailing authoritarian conditions to a free republic, it does not mean that anything is permissible. One has to ask if one’s actions are helping or hindering the all important process of bringing about a form of governance whereby people can speak feely about contested issues and jointly secure their safety and prosperity without being dependent on the whims of one individual (or an elite).
If political and business leaders want to learn anything from Machiavelli, they should stop focusing on expanding their personal power as an end in itself, and start devoting themselves to empowering others to share in decision-making so that it is never the elite few but always the people who together determine the common good.
------
BBC Radio did also produce Jonathan Freedland’s ‘Machiavelli: Devil or Democrat?’, which gave some airtime to Machiavelli’s positive influence on the development of democratic republics. However, Freedland still could not resist casting Machiavelli as part ‘devil’ for The Prince. For a scholarly exposition, consult Machiavelli and Republicanism, Bock, G., Skinner, Q., and Viroli, M. (Eds.), Cambridge University Press: 1990.
Sunday, 1 December 2013
The Art of Nurturing Communities
Governments like to turn on the rhetoric about helping communities to develop and thrive. But while some politicians genuinely support community development by investing resources in what are known to make a difference, others talk about building a ‘Big Society’ even as they embark on doing the very things evidence tells us would sap communities’ strength and destroy social cohesion.
Someone will inevitably ask: what differentiates between effective community development and superficial, or worse, counter-productive, activities that do more harm than good to community life? The truth is that there is a wealth of resources out there. From the Community Development Foundation to the materials produced in relation to the Together We Can programme, there is no shortage of information to guide us. And if one is looking for a one-volume handy guide, there is Community Research for Community Development, ed. by M. Mayo, Z. Mediwelso-Bendek, & C. Packham (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)
This book is particularly illuminating when it deals with the issue of researching what works in community-based activities. By bringing together a group of academics who have actually engaged with community organisations, it has given us a collection of essays which combine analytical clarity with practical understanding.
The editors contributed an invaluable opening chapter that tackled head-on some of the most difficult problems in researching community development. They drew attention to the need for conceptual rigour. Community development is enhanced by state-community sector partnership, but undermined by communities having to pick up the pieces of a dismantled state. Following Alinsky’s focus to organise in localities to attain achievable goals in the “here and now” is quite distinct from Freira’s injunction to understand and challenge the underlying causes of social injustice. Doing one does not guarantee the other.
From the book’s wide range of insights, case studies, and wise counsel, I would like to share three ideas that strike me as most important. First, governments concerned with learning about what impact individual community development programmes are having should avoid pressing for evaluation in narrow, pre-conceived, and often irrelevant terms. Those who only ask how many golden eggs are laid by a flock of geese, so to speak, will never appreciate, as the Romans did, the protective value of geese as ‘guard dogs’.
Secondly, researchers should be given scope to tailor their study to help community groups learn more about their own strengths and weaknesses as a constructive exercise, rather than simply to churn out data to respond to measures drawn up by funders. The former approach would actually often lead to more improvements than the all too frequent use of the latter.
Last but not least, both funders and community-based practitioners should learn to bridge the contrasting ‘languages’ they use by developing at the outset a common understanding of a shared enterprise. An enterprise, all involved would do well to remember, which is likely to resemble less a scientific experiment (where input, output, impact can be measured in precise, pre-defined terms), and more a team-building exercise where people come to discover and celebrate their collective potential as a community.
Someone will inevitably ask: what differentiates between effective community development and superficial, or worse, counter-productive, activities that do more harm than good to community life? The truth is that there is a wealth of resources out there. From the Community Development Foundation to the materials produced in relation to the Together We Can programme, there is no shortage of information to guide us. And if one is looking for a one-volume handy guide, there is Community Research for Community Development, ed. by M. Mayo, Z. Mediwelso-Bendek, & C. Packham (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013)
This book is particularly illuminating when it deals with the issue of researching what works in community-based activities. By bringing together a group of academics who have actually engaged with community organisations, it has given us a collection of essays which combine analytical clarity with practical understanding.
The editors contributed an invaluable opening chapter that tackled head-on some of the most difficult problems in researching community development. They drew attention to the need for conceptual rigour. Community development is enhanced by state-community sector partnership, but undermined by communities having to pick up the pieces of a dismantled state. Following Alinsky’s focus to organise in localities to attain achievable goals in the “here and now” is quite distinct from Freira’s injunction to understand and challenge the underlying causes of social injustice. Doing one does not guarantee the other.
From the book’s wide range of insights, case studies, and wise counsel, I would like to share three ideas that strike me as most important. First, governments concerned with learning about what impact individual community development programmes are having should avoid pressing for evaluation in narrow, pre-conceived, and often irrelevant terms. Those who only ask how many golden eggs are laid by a flock of geese, so to speak, will never appreciate, as the Romans did, the protective value of geese as ‘guard dogs’.
Secondly, researchers should be given scope to tailor their study to help community groups learn more about their own strengths and weaknesses as a constructive exercise, rather than simply to churn out data to respond to measures drawn up by funders. The former approach would actually often lead to more improvements than the all too frequent use of the latter.
Last but not least, both funders and community-based practitioners should learn to bridge the contrasting ‘languages’ they use by developing at the outset a common understanding of a shared enterprise. An enterprise, all involved would do well to remember, which is likely to resemble less a scientific experiment (where input, output, impact can be measured in precise, pre-defined terms), and more a team-building exercise where people come to discover and celebrate their collective potential as a community.
Friday, 15 November 2013
Who Needs Capability Assessment?
You would expect a sensible government to put in place critical assessments where there is a need to manage substantial risks and dangers, but otherwise make trust and openness the norm.
By that simple logic, the British Government would insist on carrying out the most stringent capability assessment of bankers and financial traders to determine if they can be trusted to manage other people’s money. Their failings in the past have cost us almost a trillion pounds in bank bailout spending. But the government prefers to leave them to it. Even the tax on their bonuses was dropped on the grounds that they should not be troubled by the red tape of government control.
Where the government does want to see much more red tape is in the lives of vulnerable people. Take the Work Capability Assessment, for example. People who have been found by their doctors to suffer impairment, which prevents them from getting adequate paid employment, need disability allowance to survive. But they are subject to an assessment regime, notorious for its flawed criteria, run by people with no medical expertise, which to meet pre-determined targets would simply declare a large number of them as ‘fit to work’ and cut their benefits. The victims are left to starve. Some have committed suicide.
Why doesn’t the government put an end to this? Or at least recognise that if anyone’s capability sorely needs to be assessed, it is that of the contractor paid millions to do something they are manifestly incapable of doing fairly or competently.
That takes us to the heart of the matter. This government only believes in using ‘capability assessment’ to make life more difficult for scapegoat groups it wants to portray as untrustworthy. Disabled people and low income groups seeking social security; immigrants looking for an opportunity to start a new life in the country; unions trying to resort to strike actions when all else fail; they all have to jump through endless hoops and still find themselves branded negatively.
By contrast, if you are in tune with the plutocratic outlook of this government, then capability is not an issue at all. Like G4S, you can mess up the public contracts given to you, end up being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, and still be given more work and money by this government (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/08/g4s-expand-contract-freeze-government-work). Or like HCA (Hospital Corporation of America), which has been fined over $1 billion for mis-selling healthcare in the US, but is a generous donor to the Conservative Party, and it gets a lucrative NHS contract
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-corporation-america-donates-2246513).
In fact, in order to bring in more corporate ‘high flyers’ to take charge of public services such as education and policing, the government wants to get rid of capability assessment altogether. It has scrapped the requirement of a formal qualification in teaching for academies, ‘free schools’, and (since September 2013) Further Education. Business executives can soon be parachuted into the top ranks of our police forces with no experience in policing whatsoever.
Ultimately, this government’s thinking on capability assessment comes down to this. If you’re high up the corporate ladder, ready to side with/donate to the party that will look after your interests, you will be rewarded even if you’re grossly incompetent. But if you’re low down the socio-economic scale, unable to fight against the vilification and injustice directed at you, you can expect to have plenty of assessments coming your way to frustrate you.
-
[It is worth remembering that less than 0.9% of the social security budget is lost through fraud AND error (£3.2b), whereas £18 billion more would be spent if there were no underclaim or underpayment of benefits. See, The Lies We Tell Ourselves: ending comfortable myths about poverty (report by Baptist Union of Great Britain, Methodist Church, Church of Scotland, & the United Reformed Church, 2013)]
By that simple logic, the British Government would insist on carrying out the most stringent capability assessment of bankers and financial traders to determine if they can be trusted to manage other people’s money. Their failings in the past have cost us almost a trillion pounds in bank bailout spending. But the government prefers to leave them to it. Even the tax on their bonuses was dropped on the grounds that they should not be troubled by the red tape of government control.
Where the government does want to see much more red tape is in the lives of vulnerable people. Take the Work Capability Assessment, for example. People who have been found by their doctors to suffer impairment, which prevents them from getting adequate paid employment, need disability allowance to survive. But they are subject to an assessment regime, notorious for its flawed criteria, run by people with no medical expertise, which to meet pre-determined targets would simply declare a large number of them as ‘fit to work’ and cut their benefits. The victims are left to starve. Some have committed suicide.
Why doesn’t the government put an end to this? Or at least recognise that if anyone’s capability sorely needs to be assessed, it is that of the contractor paid millions to do something they are manifestly incapable of doing fairly or competently.
That takes us to the heart of the matter. This government only believes in using ‘capability assessment’ to make life more difficult for scapegoat groups it wants to portray as untrustworthy. Disabled people and low income groups seeking social security; immigrants looking for an opportunity to start a new life in the country; unions trying to resort to strike actions when all else fail; they all have to jump through endless hoops and still find themselves branded negatively.
By contrast, if you are in tune with the plutocratic outlook of this government, then capability is not an issue at all. Like G4S, you can mess up the public contracts given to you, end up being investigated by the Serious Fraud Office, and still be given more work and money by this government (http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/08/g4s-expand-contract-freeze-government-work). Or like HCA (Hospital Corporation of America), which has been fined over $1 billion for mis-selling healthcare in the US, but is a generous donor to the Conservative Party, and it gets a lucrative NHS contract
(http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nhs-hospital-corporation-america-donates-2246513).
In fact, in order to bring in more corporate ‘high flyers’ to take charge of public services such as education and policing, the government wants to get rid of capability assessment altogether. It has scrapped the requirement of a formal qualification in teaching for academies, ‘free schools’, and (since September 2013) Further Education. Business executives can soon be parachuted into the top ranks of our police forces with no experience in policing whatsoever.
Ultimately, this government’s thinking on capability assessment comes down to this. If you’re high up the corporate ladder, ready to side with/donate to the party that will look after your interests, you will be rewarded even if you’re grossly incompetent. But if you’re low down the socio-economic scale, unable to fight against the vilification and injustice directed at you, you can expect to have plenty of assessments coming your way to frustrate you.
-
[It is worth remembering that less than 0.9% of the social security budget is lost through fraud AND error (£3.2b), whereas £18 billion more would be spent if there were no underclaim or underpayment of benefits. See, The Lies We Tell Ourselves: ending comfortable myths about poverty (report by Baptist Union of Great Britain, Methodist Church, Church of Scotland, & the United Reformed Church, 2013)]
Friday, 1 November 2013
The Cooperative Gestalt
One of the most significant contributions of the Enlightenment is its transformative approach to learning. By shifting the focus from static authority-based teaching to progressive lifelong learning, it enabled us to think and interact with one another in a radically critical and democratic way, which opened up new opportunities to improve our lives.
But just as it has become fashionable in some quarters to dismiss the Enlightenment, the value of progressive lifelong learning has also been increasingly undermined.
So let us take stock and ask ourselves:
What exactly is distinctive about progressive lifelong learning?
What makes its cultivation of the cooperative gestalt so valuable?
Why are some people against it?
& what can we do to promote it in spite of the obstacles before us?
What is progressive lifelong learning?
Instead of accepting that one individual or group of individuals can claim that by some special privilege they alone can know what ought to be believed, and others must accept on their authority what they are told to believe, progressive lifelong learning assesses and shares ideas on what is to be believed in an on-going, provisional manner that is open to anyone to contribute, question and revise. A hypothesis, which may be upheld at one time because of the weight of probabilities supporting it, can come to be amended or altogether rejected should new evidence and interpretations cast doubt on its reliability.
The value of the Cooperative Gestalt
What makes progressive lifelong learning so valuable is not the production of new knowledge as such. The monumental Encyclopaedia produced by the leading Enlightenment thinkers in the 18th century is hardly of much value as a source of knowledge now. Neither is it special in setting out a definitive methodology for acquiring knowledge, or simply being a modernist spirit in seeking to overturn ideas of the past. Its real value lies in cultivating what may be termed the ‘Cooperative Gestalt’, a mindset that disposes those who have embraced it to:
(1) view others without prejudice as fellow human beings with whom one can collaborate on equal terms to pursue shared objectives;
(2) explore with others on what may be believed on the basis of the open exchange of evidence, testimony, and experiments that are available to public scrutiny; and
(3) involve others in making decisions on matters that are not already settled by common consent, under conditions of informed discussions and mutual respect.
Opponents of progressive lifelong learning
The more people interact with others with the Cooperative Gestalt, the more we approximate a truly inclusive society, grounded in solidarity, and helped forward with the shared deliberations of critical minds. But it is precisely because this would undermine the power of certain exclusionary groups to do as they please that progressive lifelong learning has such implacable opponents. From fundamentalists who want to be able to push their unquestionable doctrines, to ‘I’m more than alright, Jack’ plutocrats who want education to serve their narrow profiteering ends, they would like to see progressive lifelong learning fade away. The problem is compounded by muddled relativists who think nothing taught can ever be better or worse than anything else, not to mention the ‘this glass is one-tenth empty’ brigade who belittles everything about the Enlightenment because it did not achieve improvements in every sphere of life over night.
How to support the cultivation of the Cooperative Gestalt
In order to counter the attempts to marginalise progressive lifelong learning, and promote the cultivation of the Cooperative Gestalt, we need to address the needs, so to speak, of the head, the heart and the hands. The head needs to be reinforced with greater understanding. It is important to explain why it is better to learn continuously in an open and inclusive manner so that we are able to make the most of changing circumstances for the good of all. The heart needs to be stirred with passionate concern. We should explore diverse means – fiction, art, film – to fire up the desire to resist attempts to shut down the cooperative mindset. Last but not least, the hands need the practical tools to bring about changes. We should make use of the many resources available to strengthen the impact of progressive lifelong learning.
(For more information on resources available to help teach the Cooperative Gestalt, see ‘Learning more about Cooperative Gestalt')
[The above is based on the talk given by Henry Tam at the ‘Power of Adult Learning’ conference, 23 October 2013, held at the University of Edinburgh (jointly organised by WEA Scotland, Learning Link Scotland, the Scottish Community Development Centre, Dyslexia Scotland, and Lead Scotland).]
But just as it has become fashionable in some quarters to dismiss the Enlightenment, the value of progressive lifelong learning has also been increasingly undermined.
So let us take stock and ask ourselves:
What exactly is distinctive about progressive lifelong learning?
What makes its cultivation of the cooperative gestalt so valuable?
Why are some people against it?
& what can we do to promote it in spite of the obstacles before us?
What is progressive lifelong learning?
Instead of accepting that one individual or group of individuals can claim that by some special privilege they alone can know what ought to be believed, and others must accept on their authority what they are told to believe, progressive lifelong learning assesses and shares ideas on what is to be believed in an on-going, provisional manner that is open to anyone to contribute, question and revise. A hypothesis, which may be upheld at one time because of the weight of probabilities supporting it, can come to be amended or altogether rejected should new evidence and interpretations cast doubt on its reliability.
The value of the Cooperative Gestalt
What makes progressive lifelong learning so valuable is not the production of new knowledge as such. The monumental Encyclopaedia produced by the leading Enlightenment thinkers in the 18th century is hardly of much value as a source of knowledge now. Neither is it special in setting out a definitive methodology for acquiring knowledge, or simply being a modernist spirit in seeking to overturn ideas of the past. Its real value lies in cultivating what may be termed the ‘Cooperative Gestalt’, a mindset that disposes those who have embraced it to:
(1) view others without prejudice as fellow human beings with whom one can collaborate on equal terms to pursue shared objectives;
(2) explore with others on what may be believed on the basis of the open exchange of evidence, testimony, and experiments that are available to public scrutiny; and
(3) involve others in making decisions on matters that are not already settled by common consent, under conditions of informed discussions and mutual respect.
Opponents of progressive lifelong learning
The more people interact with others with the Cooperative Gestalt, the more we approximate a truly inclusive society, grounded in solidarity, and helped forward with the shared deliberations of critical minds. But it is precisely because this would undermine the power of certain exclusionary groups to do as they please that progressive lifelong learning has such implacable opponents. From fundamentalists who want to be able to push their unquestionable doctrines, to ‘I’m more than alright, Jack’ plutocrats who want education to serve their narrow profiteering ends, they would like to see progressive lifelong learning fade away. The problem is compounded by muddled relativists who think nothing taught can ever be better or worse than anything else, not to mention the ‘this glass is one-tenth empty’ brigade who belittles everything about the Enlightenment because it did not achieve improvements in every sphere of life over night.
How to support the cultivation of the Cooperative Gestalt
In order to counter the attempts to marginalise progressive lifelong learning, and promote the cultivation of the Cooperative Gestalt, we need to address the needs, so to speak, of the head, the heart and the hands. The head needs to be reinforced with greater understanding. It is important to explain why it is better to learn continuously in an open and inclusive manner so that we are able to make the most of changing circumstances for the good of all. The heart needs to be stirred with passionate concern. We should explore diverse means – fiction, art, film – to fire up the desire to resist attempts to shut down the cooperative mindset. Last but not least, the hands need the practical tools to bring about changes. We should make use of the many resources available to strengthen the impact of progressive lifelong learning.
(For more information on resources available to help teach the Cooperative Gestalt, see ‘Learning more about Cooperative Gestalt')
[The above is based on the talk given by Henry Tam at the ‘Power of Adult Learning’ conference, 23 October 2013, held at the University of Edinburgh (jointly organised by WEA Scotland, Learning Link Scotland, the Scottish Community Development Centre, Dyslexia Scotland, and Lead Scotland).]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)