The Aims of Education?

The ideas about our systems and institutions of education that I am starting to explore owe a lot to a book chapter written by Noel Castree entitled Whose Geography? Education as Politics, published in Questioning Geography. This post outlines some of the ideas expressed in that chapter, and explores some links.

Lefebvre states that:

[Hegemony] is exercised over society as a whole, culture and knowledge included, and generally via human mediation: policies, political leaders, parties, as also a good any intellectuals and experts. It is exercised, therefore, over institutions and ideas (Lefebvre, 1991: 10).

Thus, Lefebvre suggests that we would be wise to look at our institutions, and ask where hegemony is present and how it might be conditioning the nature of these institutions, and the education that their students gain. If hegemony were indeed present in conditioning the nature of our educational institutions, then these institutions are acting as a tool through which our very identities are shaped, since education forms such a central part of our identity formation.

Castree opens his chapter with this very point. He states that:

Education is not just about the inculcation of knowledge (or at least it shouldn't be). Rather, education is part of the process through which we become the kind of people we are: it shapes our very identities as thinking and acting beings (2005).

- and that as such, education is inherently political and deeply consequential for society. The element of Castree's subsequent discussion that interests me the most is his link to the work of the philosopher Jurgen Habermas, who described ideas of knowledge as falling into three types - analytical, hermeneutic and critical (see this article by Paul Terry for more detail). Habermas' idea was that these three types of knowledge are promoted in a range of places and situations in society, but that educational institutions are one in which they are delivered formally. In simplified terms, Habermas viewed the sciences as delivering largely analytical knowledge, and the arts and humanities as more hermeneutic and critical.

Castree describes how geography degrees, in their unusual arts-and-sciences position, expose their students to all three knowledge types, which encourage different modes of thinking: instrumental-technical, interpretive-hermeneutic, and critical-emancipatory respectively. Yet Castree argues that if students remain unaware of these distinctions, and unaware of the inherently political nature of the education process, then they risk "being the objects, rather than the subjects, of [their] education". Therefore, if students view education as a process of knowledge-accumulation, ignoring the emancipatory potential of critical forms of knowledge, then education can purely serve a 'legitimation function' in society, making the status quo seem 'normal' (an idea proposed by the geographer Allen Scott).

The questions that this line of thinking raises for me revolve around the way in which our education institutions function, and whether the hermeneutic and critical knowledge types could come to occupy a more prominent role. But would such efforts run up against the hegemony that Lefebvre describes as exercised through these institutions? All ideas that have been explored by others before I expect, but catalysts for me nonetheless.

Divided Disciplines and Institutions

One of the closing themes of my degree was the questioning of the place of geography as a discipline within academic institutions - in its sometimes uncomfortable position between the arts and sciences. Debates around this question are a common feature in academic journals (see Progress in Human Geography, Transactions, AAG), few clear conclusions are reached. However, a common suggestion implicit in this debate is that the current disciplinary structure of academic institutions might not be ideal, particularly for a subject like geography with a wide-ranging subject matter. In a recent lecture, Sir Crispin Tickell described this structure as a akin to a series of large boxes placed side by side, each containing a separate academic discipline. Although the boxes are open at the top, those working in each discipline are so far down that the walls of the boxes prevent any meaningful interaction between those from different schools. Sir Crispin's point echoed the (oh so common) call to 'think outside the box' - a call repeated by some geographers who see interdisciplinary work as the answer to the current discomfort in geography departments.

The broader question here might be: does the current practice of compartmentalising learning and knowledge-acquisition facilitate or hinder the understanding of 'the nature of things' (leaving aside for now questions of whether we can ever 'know' a 'reality')? I believe the answer is probably that the current structure of academic institutions may well hinder the development of sound understandings, particularly in the awkward case of geography. However, is this simply reflective of the way we tend to think? To divide, categorise and compartmentalise - are these practices fundamental to our way of knowing the world?

This approach, I feel, is also echoed by many environmental organisations, which tend to divide up the 'environmental problems' of the world into categories such as climate change, food, waste, energy, habitat loss, etc, and then to organise campaigns and actions centred on one of these
elements. However these issues are all clearly interlinked - all a part of the unsustainable living situation that humans have created on earth - and I would question whether the cause of 'environmentalism' is aided by presenting them to the public as separate domains.

Anyway, some thoughts that I hope to develop, particularly those concerning how well our education institutions are equipped at present to produce academics/professionals/leaders to see the bigger picture, and to address 'environmental problems' as inherently 'social problems' which must be addressed in a holistic rather than piecemeal fashion.