26 research outputs found
Open Education and the emancipation of academic labour
I have previously argued that open education is a liberal project with a focus on the freedom of things rather than the freedom of people (Winn, Joss. 2012. âOpen Education: From the Freedom of Things to the Freedom of People.â In Towards Teaching in Public: Reshaping the Modern University, edited by Michael Neary, Howard Stevenson, and Les Bell, 133â 147. London:
Continuum). Furthermore, I have argued that despite an implicit critique of private property with its emphasis on âthe commonsâ, the literature on open education offers no corresponding critique of academic labour (Neary, Mike, and Joss Winn. 2012. âOpen Education: Common(s), Commonism and the New Common Wealth.â Ephemera: Theory & Politics in Organization 12 (4):
406â422). In this paper, I develop my critical position that an emancipatory form of education must work towards the emancipation of teachers and students from labour, the dynamic, social, creative source of value in capitalism. In making this argument, I first establish the fundamental characteristics of academic labour. I then offer a âform-analyticâ critique of open access, followed by a corresponding critique of its legal form. Finally, I critically discuss the potential of âopen cooperativesâ as a transitional organisational form for the production of knowledge through which social relations become âtransparent in their simplicityâ (Marx, Karl. 1976. Capital, Vol. 1. London: Penguin Classics, 172)
From Aberfan to the âCanvey Factorâ: schools, children and industrial disasters
Children, and schools, are potent symbols of victimhood in industrial disasters. In the case of historical industrial disasters such as Aberfan and Flixborough, and in terms of preparation for future industrial disasters under Control of Major Accident Hazard regulations, communities are seen as passive responders to accidents. Moreover, following industrial accidents, communities are frequently accused of culpability or profiting from the disaster. There is hence a double pathologisation in play, with communities seen as comprising passive victims and manipulative survivors. Using an historical approach, the official accounts of the Aberfan and Flixborough industrial accidents are challenged with a focus on schools and children. Rather than being passive victims of these accidents, schools and children demonstrated agency in terms of their tacit knowledge, reporting potential accidents and recording their consequences. This provides a lens through which to interrogate current policy on industrial safety as it relates to schools and communities
Education for industry: a complex technicism
Employer criticism of British school-leavers is long-standing. Coherent statements by employers regarding their educational 'needs' have not materialised; employers' accounts concerning such needs are typically confused or contradictory. This paper formulates a 'filter' enabling better understanding of industry's educational needs. The starting point is that these needs are essentially labour-power needs. The 'needs filter' rests on this and another concept drawn from Marxism: capital. Furthermore, its development is grounded on a series of assumptions (that employers 'needs' can in principle be stated, that there are no contradictions within labour-power, and that employers' labour-power needs are realisable through education and training). After discussing conventional views on the 'needs of industry', the filter is presented as a series of labour-power needs for categories and functions of capital. Its utility for curriculum design, employers and researchers is explored. However, if the guiding assumptions underpinning the filter cannot be justified then the whole edifice collapses. It is argued that as labour-power is inherently contradiction-ridden then the filter implodes - along with it any notion that employers can straightforwardly state their labour power needs as a foundation for education and training planning and curriculum development
Marx and the education of the future
With reference to Karl Marxâs writings on education, this article outlines the education of the future as anti-capitalist education. In starting out from a conception of
communism as the âreal movement which abolishes the present state of thingsâ (Marx), it is argued that the anti-capitalist education of the future consists of three moments: critique, addressing human needs and realms of freedom. It is also argued that all three moments are
essential for an anti-capitalist education of the future, but the emphasis on particular moments changes (a movement from moment one to three) as capitalist society and
education are left behind through social transformation. In the light of this framework, Marxâs views on the relation between labour and education, and his views on education run by the state, are critically examined. In the light of the preceding analysis, the article ends
with a consideration of two trends that are gaining strength in contemporary education in England: the social production of labour-power and the business takeover of education. Political responses to these are briefly explore