AI-Human Cybernetics
Digital-Analogue Representatives
2020
"Evolution of the Class"
Democratic systems invariably contain levels of social order reflected in normative schooling. How does this notion of “class” evolve from contemporary binary constructs to individual non-binary subjective agencies? Generalized knowledge, as a moral imperative, may be the primary “agent” of practical “techne” in the formation of change beyond the state apparatus. The evolution of democratic capital in relation to differentiated class struggle, creates a potential for change by a series of individual “actors” guided by the generalized knowledge of highly technological practices. Eventually the apparatus itself, within its binary formations may tend to dissolve, where flows of electrons form pathways of invention.
To understand what schools are for within generalized socio-cultural systems, a critical assessment of external conditions highlights an important tension between generalized knowledge (or “Powerful Knowledge”) (Young, 2016, p.17) and practical knowledge that arises outside the school setting. General knowledge is more consistent over time since it typically involves theoretical principles and ideas that have formed the ontological basis of modern curriculum. This is not to say that basic science for instance does not change over time, since new discoveries do happen that alter standard models, but on a relative basis they are more fixed than sweeping changes in democratic cultures, common work practices, and demographics.
A moral imperative is often associated with schooling by asking the question ‘why’? (Levin, 49) A common question that arises in education is how much of a moral stance is associated with this generalized knowledge, versus those relating to quickly changing practical knowledge frameworks. Also, what category is given more weight? The common thread between generalized and practical knowledge are critical thinking skills, which can be applied to external systems that allow an individual to “think” and navigate within any socio-cultural apparatus.
If the traditional purpose of a Liberal Arts education is self-knowledge, which must always be placed in a broader social context, then there is a tension between individual knowledge acquisition and collective knowledge within the democratic state. Also, as general forms tend to change less over time, since they form the cannon of “accepted” pedagogy, then how are they incorporated for individual citizenry? Similarly, what are the common narratives for practical societal frameworks that can change suddenly, such as new technologies and their application, in the development of individual self-knowledge? The narratives surrounding the evolving technology of democratic capital would imply that the “technological agent” arises out of a connected network of individual-collective imperatives. A contradictory condition arises when canonical generalized knowledge itself becomes an agent of change beyond the technological state that it “originally” created.
The conditions of learning are inevitably influenced by these tensions, even though curriculum can maintain consistency among schools. I agree that this uniformity is important if general principles are to be taught and emphasized in class, as they form a canonical basis for future structural changes. An ontological anchor therefore allows the student to understand a wider changing world and their position relative to it. That is why it is important to provide learning environments that are conductive for that engagement in ways that are respectful, so that students can carry that knowledge and conduct to a broader culture.
The theory and approaches of compulsory education highlighted over the past two centuries demonstrate vast similarities. The establishment of the state and citizenry (Tyack, 364) seem central to the mobilization of class and the reproduction of normative practices. The corporate state may be the eventual manifestation and framework for this notion of class mobility because it sets up the “rules” and “rituals” through which a democratic politics governs itself.
The human-capital theory and the Marxian model are in many ways related. Schooling seen as a “rate of return” (Tyack, 377), where the economic benefits of an education for the expansion of the capitalist state are in line with Capital’s predictions. The unequal division of state power “is” the unequal division state capital. The economic and political imperatives are therefore aligned given which theory is ascribed.
Where the two diverge, may be in the division of labor projected by Marx, as the development of non-cognitive abilities for the capitalist work force (Tyack, 385). Possibly it is a difference in language employed, that economic neo-liberalism could be applying a different rational with the same evident outcome. The outcome being that the capitalist class determines democratic political economy.
In the assessment of working class to elite schools, there is a known differentiation in the content of education (Anyon), that would support the division of labor theory of Marx in a capitalist society. The mobility of its citizenry is therefore largely supported by this differentiation, as it relates to class, race, gender etc. The underlying current of this structure are the flows of capital, which has its own logic, either rational or non-rational. Therefore, employing the logic that if every class, race, gender…received the same high level of education, then political economy would achieve equality. Since power and capital are intrinsically linked, then the capitalist class would still determine the conditions of labor. There are some obvious exceptions to this, and they are common stories of upward mobility, but it is important to see and understand the metanarratives at play, the common consciousness of how we collectively organize. Conditions of democratic capital do evolve in relation to differentiated class struggle, and it is those differences that create a potential for change beyond the state apparatus.
Given the fluid transition between democratic capital and state structure, I agree that the fundamental goal in education is to teach and encourage critical thinking and judgment that is not mutually exclusive from creativity, problem solving skills, political and social science, and the arts. Citizens that can truly think and create with a social ethic are much more likely to act with integrity in any broad scale political, economic, or social system. The structures deployed in any cultural system, whether capitalist vs. communist, democratic vs. autocratic, or libertarian vs. socialist are eventually populated by “people”. Early economic theorists initially determined models that assumed that citizens within those systems would behave rationally, and therefore made predictions about the outcomes of those systems. Certain modern theorists have attempted to reexamine those models to assume non-rational behaviors to better predict outcomes. Cultural systems are inevitably forced to deal with “real” world conditions that invariably lead to irrationality. Every system, either democratic or otherwise have virtues, but a system is eventually affected by people, the masses, and those individual actors.
To start, I am an advocate of individual agency within any system. If that person can act with integrity, good judgement, and a critical eye, then schools can teach their students to be “agents” within a wider world and advocate for themselves, those around them and the broader community. Critical judgment is often very difficult to discern, and its authentic perception is often colored by predominant cultural trends and norms. Understandably, education would be better balanced with social justice theory, and greater emphasis on the humanities and social sciences, but the sciences, both pure and applied, are not immune to this very human condition. One can look at the life and work of 16th century Galileo, where his work was contested by the Catholic Church, and was eventually forced to denounce his scientific findings. A more recent example was the early life and career of Albert Einstein, where he struggled to find an academic position, and worked as a patent clerk while completing his work on Special Relativity. In hindsight, we would all agree that both scientists were strong critical thinkers, but it also questions our acceptance of critical thinking in practice when faced with predominant pedagogy. It may be that as a human condition, just as in economics, critical thinking may in fact elicit a response that appears to be radical or even exclusionary.
Critical thinking can exist at all education levels, but its very discernment can be fleeting. Now, one may argue that science and economics have replaced the predominant hegemonic conditions that are culturally manifested, and it is important to understand, at its foundation, these systems are created and inhabited by people that are not always as rational as the systems they create. Only then, another cultural revolution is brought about by a critical reassessment. It is a human condition, where hegemonies vie for a particular ascendency, and as an individual, one’s own agency can act for the betterment of those around them.
Power structures are often reinforced in school culture, albeit implicitly relating to the hierarchies that extend beyond the school and reflect vestiges of past industrial ages. Hierarchy is an important element in maintaining order, but we are entering an era of increasing fluidity and uncertainty, and at the same time one of accelerating innovation. Now that innovation, may also further entrench established hierarchies, or it may give way to cascading changes, or some combined effect. The role of the schools should encourage the latter innovative model, to promote “necessary” changes. Some of the prevailing trends concern human-computer interaction, gender fluidity, race and class disruptions, rapid genetic evolution, and climate economics. Changes to the core curriculum that are inclusive to these emerging phenomena will help prepare students beyond current curricular norms.
Binary roles are implicitly formed as rational measures within the class, as reflected by modern conditions. Think of any binary that is constructed: teacher-student, parent-teacher, male-female, lecture-assignment, test-grade etc. Implicitly, a hierarchy is set up by these collective binary representatives that we rationally rely on as power differentials. Schools will have to eventually respond to an emergent world where the binaries that we “think of as a given”, start to dissolve and grey-out. What are some of the critical impacts of this? Certainly, a rapidly changing world, that requires one to adapt to any number of changes both problematic and inspired. With an emergent sphere of knowledge that is exponentially increasing, the surface contact to the unknown and uncertain, generates invention.
Knowledge forms, both implicit and direct will undergo a transformation from one of primary binary functions to non-binary subjectivities. It may be that the “school” in its current form may not exist in the coming decades as its walls and structures continue to dissolve into “flowing bits of atoms” and established hierarchies are modulated over time. Take any emergent idea that may be antithetical to the modern classroom, “the cyborg manifest”, “the cloud network”, “trans genetic” or “metaverse” … and one can start to see how things may change, in ways that may transcend the limitations of the “class”.
Anyon, J. (1980/2006). Social class and the hidden curriculum of work. In Provenzo, E. F. Critical issues in education. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 245-269.
Levin, B and Young, J. Making sense of public schooling.
Tyack, David. (1988). Ways of seeing. Harvard Educational Review.
Young, M. (2016). What are schools for.
