[lbo-talk] School Debate: Central Focus

Tahir Wood twood at uwc.ac.za
Sun Feb 19 23:52:23 PST 2012



>>> <lbo-talk-request at lbo-talk.org> 2/17/2012 4:14 pm >>>
From: "Carrol Cox" <cbcox at ilstu.edu> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] School Debate: Central Focus

And of course for the left, there is only one kind of power, only one conceivable form or source of Power: Working People organized to resist. And there is a very accurate measure of that power: The number of people who take to the Street to March. In my lifetime, the high point of working-class power was November 15, 1969, when in our tens and hundreds of thousands we gathered in Washngton, D.C and San Francisco (and there is evidence tha by doing so we may have stopped a nuclar war.) As of now, teachers do not exist as a collective entity; we cannot know whether they will ever exist as a collective entity (whether as resistance fighters or as an efficient army of imperialism). But if you want better schools; if you want schools that make room for creativity (it is absurd of course to think schooling can actively develop creativity), then there is only ONE central issue for you, because there is only one (potential) force that can defend such 'values:' Teachers. So yes, the only issue, the ONLY issue (in the Debate over Schools) that makes sense for leftists: Higher Pay for Teachers.

T: Well, this is the central part of your argument that I disagree with and which you have now restated at greater length. Let me just summarise my objections and then maybe we should just leave it at that:

1. Teachers as a (relatively) well paid collective entity would not necessarily act as a component of working class power; they might very well act as most 'professions' do, that is, promote their own tribal identity. So while I am all for higher wages (who isn't?) that does not imply the power relations that you posit here. Neither 'imperialist' nor revolutionary, but just existing in a carved out, relatively comfortable niche. This possibility seems unknown to you.

2. I'm not sure of the logic that leads from higher pay to creativity, but I think it is dubious. Higher pay (and other benefits such as scholarships for teachers) can in fact attract many less-than-dedicated mediocrities into a profession, especially a profession that does not require very onerous training and qualifications.

3. I never agree with the sort of argument that says we should simply be doing something (anything) to change power relations — I will ignore the dramatic reference to nuclear war right now — I think one has to have an idea about what you are trying to create. That means taking into account things like the broader context (capitalism generally) and, very importantly, unintended consequences. Your argument about everyone here being into the question of power, and always looking for an opportunity to engage with it, sounds to me like the old saying that if all you have is a hammer then everything is going to look like a nail to you. But to me education is a deeply ideological phenomenon that will not be changed for the better by banging on one aspect of it in isolation from the others. I have always felt that curriculum and community engagement with it is the most important question in education.

4. But one more point on power relations: The imperialist/working people resistance divide that you use is inadequate. It is very misleading to posit only two forces in society in this way. Teachers are simply not proletarians in the same way as sweatshop workers are or as bricklayers are. There are important distinctions in modern capitalist division of labour that create all sorts of patterns of relative privilege and deprivation, not to mention nuances of identification. To be against 'imperialism' does not mean that you are revolutionary in an anti-capitalist sense. You might be an Iranian bazaar merchant or an African despot or an Indian IT entrepreneur. I think one should be very careful not to use 'imperialism' as a proxy for 'capitalism'. Personally I only use imperialism nowadays when issues of national chauvinism and the arrogance of developed nations is at stake. The deeper problem obscured by such phenomena is capitalism.

Which for me is at the heart of the school debate; the capitalist nature of our education. So no I can't agree that raising teachers' salaries will make a difference to that. It's a bit too much like Mao's 'principal contradiction'.

Tahir

-------------- next part -------------- All Email originating from UWC is covered by disclaimer http://www.uwc.ac.za/emaildisclaimer



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list