The West,
The East and Milojevic’s Educational Futures
The purpose of this
paper is to critically review Milojevic’s Educational Futures.
Firstly I outline the contents of the text and some of its strengths
and weaknesses. Secondly I take to task some of the features of the
text that represent typically problematic aspects of critical
futures, in particular the concept of “The West.” I compare and
contrast certain aspects of Eastern and Western education, with a
particular emphasis on Chinese education. A seminal point is that
the portrayal of these concepts in Milojevic’s text is simplistic,
reflecting the need for an updating of postcolonial, poststructural
and critical futures thought.
Look into degree courses at
UoP to expand your knowledge of the education
Text name:
Educational Futures: Dominant and Contesting Visions
Author:
Ivana Milojevic
Subject:
Educational futures
Publication details:
Oxon: Routledge
Reviewer:
Marcus Anthony
What distinguishes hegemonic futures narratives from other,
counter or alternative, ones is their capacity to convince others of
the inevitability of a particular future. (Milojevic 2006 65)
In Educational
Futures: Dominant and Contesting Visions educational futurist
Ivana Milojevic has written a compelling and readable volume. Here I
shall provide a brief description of the contents, while giving an
overall evaluation of the volume. There is not space here to offer a
complete examination of all parts of the volume, so I shall focus
upon what I consider to be the most salient points. The text is
particularly useful in that it highlights some of the strengths and
typical problems with critical futures. The problem that I shall
focus upon in the latter part of this paper is Milojevic’s
representation of East and West.
The text
The title is a good
indication of what lies within the covers. This is a critical
futures text, where ideas and images about “possible, probable and
preferred futures” (p. 2) are examined. It “provides an overview and
detailed analysis of arguments about where education, particularly
state-based education systems, is and should be going” (p. 4). Yet
as Milojevic states, it is neither about prediction nor
prescription. Instead she sets out to destabilise the dominant
narratives and offer alternative perspectives from other largely
silenced discourses.
The book is divided
into four parts. In part one Milojevic outlines historical futures
discourses in education. This includes an analysis of how constructs
of time and the future have been used to colonise and educate “the
other.” Several alternative histories are outlined with indigenous
and Eastern concepts featuring heavily.
In part two
Milojevic highlights the two most dominant narratives in
contemporary state education – globalisation and “cyberia” (“WebNet”).
These are two closely related discourses according to Milojevic.
Modern education - and particularly globalised education - is
criticised as being “essentially practical training for a globalised
market place” (p.57). The central issue with these images of the
future is that they tend to be seen as “the future” (p.64)
rather than as one of many possible futures.
Milojevic’s
approach is not simply to criticise the dominant discourses and
highlight the benefits of alternatives. Rather she outlines the
strengths and weakness of all the dominant and contesting visions.
This approach gives the text balance. The weakness of such an
approach is that the detached perspective often leaves the reader in
a space of uncertainty. Which of these discourses, and in what
combination, represents the best way to take us forward? Typical of
critical futures, Milojevic chooses not to take a definite stance. A
related problem is that the text at times becomes descriptive, as
Milojevic outlines numerous theorists regarding the particular
subject matter at hand. Nonetheless it does provide a sound review
of related literature. The text will therefore prove valuable for
researchers and educators looking to gain an overview of the
relevant discourses.
In the third part
of the book Milojevic posits three alternative approaches to
education – the indigenous, the feminist, and the spiritual. These
represent important perspectives which are still largely absent from
cotemporary public education. The final section then attempts to
weave all the visions together and looks to the possible future of
an expanded discussion of state education in The West.
The feminist
vision, according to Milojevic, challenges the patriarchal
presuppositions of the dominant educational discourses, highlighting
the importance of emotional connection, nurturing, and internal
transformation (pp. 146-147).
Milojevic remains
critical of utopian thinking, but maintains that is it nonetheless
important. She believes in the importance of “eupsychia” – “a
prescriptive and improved imagined state of not only collective but
also individual being” (p. 50). This includes the psychic and
spiritual unfolding of the individual (p. 54).
However the text
clearly privileges certain religious perspectives. For example
Milojevic’s discussion of spiritual alternatives focuses upon
Eastern (especially Indian) and new age perspectives. The role of
traditional religious approaches is left unclear. Milojevic leans
away from conventional religion. Quoting O’Sullivan (1999) she
writes:
Religion does not only attempt to institutionalize
spirituality; in many instances this is done ‘for the perpetuation
of the institution rather than for the explicit welfare of the
individual’ (p.191).
The three alternative education approaches are in many ways
related, as Milojevic herself states. They remind us that the future
is not inevitable, that there are other options available to
educators in the present age. This I feel is the greatest value of
this book. Let us not forget that – as Milojevic states bluntly –
all education is informed by cultural values.
West, East and
stereotypes
One point that I
would like to take up with the text is its representation of ‘The
West’. For example Milojevic finds that The West has forgotten
indigenous, feminist and spiritual education. Yet as one who has
lived and traveled widely throughout East Asia, such a criticism is
not exclusively relevant to modern Western education systems. It may
come as a surprise to those filled with romantic images of the Far
East, but in Beijing, Shanghai, Tokyo, Seoul and Hong Kong,
Milojevic’s educational alternatives are even more distanced from
mainstream education than they are in the West. These Eastern
cultures seem all but completely possessed by cyber culture,
materialism and the push for greater globalisation. Schools are
dominated by rote learning, are heavily text-book based, teacher-centred,
and there is an almost-obsession with “the test.”
There may be a
temptation to (once again) blame the West for the increasing
materialism and left-brained, linear ways of knowing that now
dominate state education in East Asia. We might suggest that Asia is
simply copying Western-style society and education. The issue here -
and with postcolonial interpretations in general – is whether the
West is itself being stereotyped and partially misrepresented in
these depictions. Consider the following statements made by
Milojevic:
Lawlor argues that it is thus western logical habits that
cause us to fall into static, uniform, quantitative interpretation
and make us fail to see qualitative process-related differences
(p.480).
Milojevic also
points out that indigenous critiques of contemporary education find
a central focus upon “western knowledge and education” (p. 174).
Further, as with so many other critiques of Western ways of knowing,
Milojevic finds unfeeling Cartesian rationalism as the defining
thrust of Western cognition (p. 147). Finally she follows
Griffiths
as she concludes:
The current hegemonic approach to time can be described as
western, Christian, linear, abstract, clock-dominated, work
orientated, coercive, capitalist, masculine and anti-natural. (p.
223)
Yet is such an
approach to history and time - and these preferred way of knowing -
predominantly and peculiarly Western at all? Chinese ways of
knowing are often seen as being based on holistic concepts such as
the Taoist yin and yang, and Lao Tzu’s fluid water metaphors (e.g.
Capra 200; Jiyu 1998; Talbot 2000).
But there is a tendency to romanticise this. My experiences (having
taught in schools in
Taiwan,
urban and rural mainland China and in Hong Kong) have led me to
conclude that such ways of knowing are (sadly) largely extinct in
modern public education in the greater
China
region. Text books, rote learning and cramming for exams dominate
pedagogy.
The key is that in
Chinese culture at least, the linear, patriarchal, verbal/linguistic
and mathematical approach to education has a long tradition which
precedes Western influence. Within Confucian education, the copying
and memorization of the classics formed the basis of an education
system that was literally designed to create products that would fit
neatly into an “harmonious” society. In particular the emphasis was
on producing public servants for the state (Fairbank & Goldman,
2006). Passing the examination for the public service could lead one
into the higher strata of Chinese society, and scholars were
revered. Candidates were literally placed in neatly arranged
box-like cubicles to do the public service exams (Gardner,
Kornhaber, & Wake 1996), epitomising the conformist, linear and boxed-in ways of knowing. The
examination system was seen to be of greatest importance, and able
students put themselves to the task of memorizing vast amounts of
information for a purpose no greater than regurgitating it in the
public service exams (Fairbank & Goleman 2006).
To this day a
virtual obsession with examinations stifles Far Eastern public
education to a degree difficult to contemplate in The West. Finally,
it should be noted that the proportion of Chinese tertiary students
presently majoring in maths and science is several times greater
than that of developed Western nations such as the
United States
(Friedman, 2006). From my experience, pantheistic, mystical and
indigenous ways of knowing are totally absent. Further the Chinese
degradation of the environment and subjugation of Tibetans and
indigenous peoples proceeds at breakneck speed.
Of further consideration in
being more accurate to the concept of “The West” is that if we look
at the history of Western civilisation we find a long tradition of
mystical and intuitive ways of knowing that have spanned numerous
cultures from the time of the ancient Greeks to the present day
(Anthony 2006; Tarnas 2000). Even the fathers of modern science such
as Newton, Galileo and Kepler held deeply mystical conceptions.
According to Kepler himself, astronomers were not mere observers:
… in all acquisition of knowledge it happens
that, starting out from the things which impinge upon the senses, we
are carried by the operation of the mind to higher things
which cannot be grasped by any sharpness of the senses (quoted in
Huff 2003 p 353).
The irony is that
even as Milojevic (following Krishnamurti) critiques dominant
Western education because its focus upon “information and knowledge”
does not lead to “intelligence”, “goodness” or “flowering” (p.201),
the same critique is now even more relevant to education in China
and East Asia, where the spiritual has been leached from the
curriculum. The discrepancy arises because Milojevic draws heavily
upon Indian thinkers such as Krishnamurti, Sri Aurobindo, Tagore,
Gandhi and Sarkar. These men taught and wrote much of their work
before the economic explosion of
East Asia in the latter decades of the twentieth century.
I therefore see the
need to make a clear distinction between the Indian episteme and the
current East Asian episteme, and especially to acknowledge the
social and economic developments of
Asia in recent years. This in no way illegitimates Milojevic’s
essential argument that spiritual, feminist and indigenous
perspectives may be enormously beneficial in modern education. It
simply means that (ironically) hyper-capitalistic East Asian
cultures themselves are the ones that are in most need of such
perspectives.
The issues
highlighted here are equally relevant to an emerging domain of
futures studies – integral futures. This field tends to valorise the
spiritual and The East, drawing heavily from the work of Ken Wilber.
Such figures as Sohail Inayatullah, Richard Slaughter, Chris Reidy,
Marcus Bussey and myself can be said to be influenced by, or
actively involved in this field (see the Journal of Futures
Studies May 2006 to read all these theorists). Ivana Milojevic
has also been influenced by this movement, and uses the term
“integral education” to describe a curriculum more deeply imbued
with holistic and spiritual perspectives. The key point I wish to
make here is whether such a movement (and critical futures
literature in general) is tending to romanticize and champion the
exotic and alternative - in Milojevic’s case The East, indigenous
cultures and feminist perspectives? I find Friedman’s (2005)
critique of transpersonal psychology for these very same issues to
be relevant here. It must be noted that Wilber (2000) himself has
drawn great inspiration from the transpersonalists and Eastern
philosophy – and his followers have been accused of being a “cult” (Bauwens,
n.d.).
In conclusion to
these concerns I would like to state that from my direct experience
in working in education in The East and also in Australia, New
Zealand, and visiting schools in the United States, I strongly
believe that our terms of cultural reference need clarifying and
upgrading in the twenty-first century. The world can no longer
simply be dichotomised into West and East. With the increasing
prosperity of
Asia, the power shift that has begun may continue to a point
where Asia
will drive the world’s economy within a few short decades (Friedman
2006). The dramatic social shifts in Asia which are accompanying
these changes mean that references to The East as a culture founded
upon spiritual and mystical precepts is now more stereotype than
actuality. It would be something of an irony if Integral Futures
were to take greater influence in The West in years to come even as
Asia continues to “Westernise.” We may find at some point that
futures conferences are filled with “Eastern” mystics from Western
countries and “Western” theorists from
Asia.
Final remarks
Despite these
significant issues, Milojevic’s work is recommended. It highlights
the important role of critical futures studies. Without the
identification of the hegemonic and contesting discourses in
education those hegemonic discourses will tend to remain implicit,
invisible and viewed as inevitable.
Milojevic stops
short of offering a definite prescription for our educational ills.
Instead she concludes with a list of questions. She believes that an
engagement with the central questions she posits and a deeper
reflection upon “the full diversity of worldviews” and ways of
knowing will lead to the greatest beneficial changes in education
and society (p.257). This leaves the reader less than certain about
where she stands. Yet such an uncertainty may well be a necessity
for any revision or shift in perspective and paradigm. It may be
that the didacticism that tends to be inherent in dominant social,
political and educational narratives is what prevents us from
broadening our visions. Discomfort and unease may be the price we
have to pay as we challenge our imagined futures.
Milojevic has made a solid contribution to pedagogical theory
here. Personally I would like to see such a text form part of
teacher training in B. ed, Dip. ed and masters courses. Future
teachers and educational administrators should be engaging with
these issues. As Milojevic indicates (p.45), our images of the
future guide our current actions. Finally, according to Milojevic a
paradigm shift is beginning whereby indigenous and Eastern
conceptions of education are becoming more accepted (ibid.) As
Kuhn (1970) so aptly pointed out,
paradigms delimit not only particular domains of enquiry, but also
the kinds of questions that are permissible. Milojevic broadens both
the domains of knowledge and the range of possible questions. The
possibilities might be uncomfortable to consider and the choices
destabilising – but this is by necessity.
Selected References
Bauwens, M., n.d., ‘The cult of Ken
Wilber. Available from: www.kheper.net/topics/Wilber/Cult_of_Ken_Wilber.html.
[Accessed 13 January 2006].
Capra, F., 2000. The Tao of
Physics (25th anniversary edition). Boston: Shambhala.
Inayatullah, S., 2004. Deconstructing
and Reconstructing the Future: Predictive, Cultural and Critical
Epistemologies. In: Inayatullah S., (Ed). The Causal Layered
Analysis Reader. Taipei: Tamkang University Press, 55-82.
Fairbank, J., and Goldman, M. 2006,
China: A New History.
Cambridge: Belknap.
Friedman, H., 2005. Towards
Developing Transpersonal Psychology As a Scientific Field. Available
from: www.Westga.edu/~psydept/os2/papers/friedman.htm. [Accessed 6
July 2005].
Friedman, T., 2006. The World is
Flat. London: Allen Lane.
Gardner, H., Kornhaber, M.L., & Wake,
W.K., 1996. Intelligence: Multiple Perspectives. New York:
Harcourt Brace College.
Huff, T., 2003. The Rise of Early
Modern Science. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Jiyu, R., (ed.) 1998. The Book of
Lao Zi. Beijing: Foreign Languages Press.
Kuhn, T., 1970. The Structure of
Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
O’Sullivan, E. (1999)
Transformative Learning: Educational Vision for the 21st
Century, Toronto: OISE, University of Toronto Press.
Talbot, M., 1992. Mysticism and
the New Physics. New York: Arkana.
Tarnas, R. 2000.
The Passion of the Western Mind.
Wilber, K., 2000c. Sex, Ecology,
Spirituality. Boston: Shambhala.