John Gray Research Papers - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Summary;
This long chapter draft – part of a larger work on education reform – works to connect theories of Social Learning (e.g., Peter Hall) to theories of Hegemony. The use of the plural 'hegmonies of social learning' is chosen to indicate that hegemony often presents itself as episodes of social learning and, as importantly, has multiple sources.

Gramsci's conceptualization of hegemony, as leadership by leading socio-economic classes through the institutions and conventions of civil society, is front and center, but I argue that (if one is careful) it does not preclude the use of International Relations theories, such as that of Robert Keohane. It is worthy of mention that Keohane periodizes his After Hegemony by referring to the economic recovery and increasing unity of Europe and the rapid economic growth of Japan in the late 1960s. (Robert O. Keohane and Joseph S. Nye, Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition, Boston, 1977, p. 44.)

Nonetheless, the analysis moves more towards Robert Cox and Stephen Gill. While drawing on theorists from Amy Gutmann to Bowles and Gintis, the theory chapter works to bring together what I believe is a creditable account of Hall's version of social learning (from the early 90s) and connect it to Gramscian concepts of hegemony. The idea is that hegemony presents itself as episodes of 'social learning.' In this case it would be transnational hegemony.

Transnational hegemony , of course, need not be limited to education, but extending it to education presents particular challenges, especially because of the odd, diffuse set of educational institutions in the US.

As the theoretical framework for a heuristic case study on education reform, it works to
connect neo-liberal ideology to prevalant modes of institutionalization under conditions of globalization. It starts from your idea that social learning involves three orders of change:

1st order – refinement of agreed upon methods.
2nd order -- choice of methods to achieve goals.
3rd order -- selection of goals.

I make two additions to this:

Thus, 3rd order change can be achieved over time by
incremental means, but that is much more likely to
happen if something else happens:

4th order change -- the justification of goals by reference
to principles, values, ideologies and visions of the future,
utopian to dystopian.

In a diffuse institutional structure 3rd order change can be achieved outside of state bureaucracies and without any direct national electoral contest.Rather, as the examples of standards-based reform (which morphed into the Common Core) and charter schools show, 3rd order change can be constituted by incremental means spread over many different institutions.

The discussion of 4th order change segues into discussions of hegemony. The parallel development of investor led capitalism --based on an exchange value paradigm-- and the decay of social welfare models --based on a labor value paradigm-- are the context in which this all unfolds. That we have an integrated system of production, exchange, and accumulation which is subject to no state authority is taken for granted, even in education.

As you notice, I hesitate to say that diffuse 3rd order change requires 4th order change, only that it usually is accompanied by 4th order change and is more likely to happen during periods of 4th order change.

One example: the Common core, specifically its effect on teacher autonomy.
It is a change of pedagogy through Statute, not through teacher training.
State laws (and federal leveraged aid programs) insist that students be tested,
that there be a link between the Common Core and the tests. Moreover,
state laws insist that teachers be evaluated, at least in part, on the test scores of their students.

This is not the only way to do this – you could do this by training teachers
to effectively implement the common core and build up as professional
class of teachers. But that means more money goes to salaries and less
goes to huge educational conglomerates.

Authoritarian tendencies often result in that administrators,
who are also evaluated, at least in part, on the test scores of their students,
start producing Unit Plans (or download them from large educational
conglomerates on contract with the state or district)
which teachers have to follow instead of developing their own.

Combine this with Charters and Alternative Certification programs
that allow for uncertified teachers to go the front ot the class and
you have a great policy for paying teachers less and sending more
money to education companies. A few years ago Pearson signed
a half a billion contract to provide testing services in Texas.
From 2005 to 2011 venture capitalist transactions in the K-12
education sector went up 30 fold -- 13millionto13 million to 13millionto389 million.

The chapter very well might be an imposition
because of its length, but it is not only suitable for skimming, it is preceded by 4 pages of bullet points that lay out much of the theoretical argument.