Neoliberal dreams are crashing…

A Swedish blogger writes in a blogposting about ”The [neo]liberals Dreams are Crashing, One After the Other” that she thinks [neo]liberalism is a preliminary stage to fascism. What she has been thinking on then is that with the inequality concerning living conditions that automatically follows from such a competition and let-go-politics that is practiced now and as the [neo]liberals are cherishing, people will soon vote for pure fascists.

Or the liberals themselves will go more and more in that direction to get voters from neofascists. And it’s exactly this we see many examples of already, above all concerning the hardened attitude against immigrants.

However, now we see yet another road away from a democratic disposition to a fascistic, as the economic let-go-economy can take too. The more you cut the taxes, privatize and try to create what you assert is freedom and freedom of choice, the worse and less free things become for more and more people, while the elite is drawing away from all other people.

The result will inevitably become more criminality and more corruption in the society. In that situation the state’s countermove will become to introduce more control, more control of most things.

The leader for the Liberal Party in Sweden, Jan Björklund, has been forced to confess that the free schools haven’t been functioning as the liberals thought when they initiated those almost twenty years ago. He doesn’t care especially much if some get much worse education than others or what the segregation in and between the schools is carrying with it.

But on the other hand he doesn’t think it’s good that schools are competing about students with giving them better and better grades/marks (something many was warning for when the free school system became introduced), as seem to have been the case. So now a new control system has to become created!

Comment: and what do those control system cost? And do they lead to a greater and greater freedom quite ironically? And we have also got much more moralizing towards certain groups (from people getting on their high horses).

Citizens have become more and more efficiently controlled.

“We have to protect ourselves against terrorism”

one say, but what one actually mean is to protect the rich establishment from the “social unrest” one is anxious about and that is produced because of living segregation, unemployment, worse school-education etc. etc.

Even though more control hasn’t been a very important question for the liberals you are maybe forced to introduce more control in one privatized area after the other (Addition August 21: and the strange thing is that Swedish liberals are against control!!! Contradicting - and confusing! Do they know what they are talking about? And what is freedom actually? Note: Swedish and American liberals aren't really the same!?).

The march into fascism continues she thinks.

“Safeguard the rich’s freedom, control and toe the line for the rest.”

A commentator to this posting writes that in the liberal utopia nothing is under democratic control, the only control that is left is the capitalistic. As liberalism reduces the part of the society that’s under democratic control, the liberalism is always approaching fascism.

He thinks the capitalism is organized top-down; i.e. a total control of the society. Because the institutions that used to be democratically organized aren’t democratically organized anymore.

He thinks grades or marks only are keeping the middleclass under its arms, so he propagate for no grades or marks.

He also writes about “a simpler and more secure life.” That the biological reason why we get together in groups/societies is twofold; reproduction and security. Those are the evolutionary advantages the society gives. A society that doesn’t create security for its citizens has no raison d’ètre, because it doesn’t fulfill the basic demand on a society.

All other values a society can convey are meaningless for the organism; they are most often just metaphysic constructions.

But security can become connected with metaphysic constructions as freedom. Because if you aren’t secure you aren’t free either, and then you suffer under the fear’s and anxiety’s coercion. Therefore it’s only a seeming freedom the liberals are aiming at, but instead they get a society where all are imprisoned by fear and anxiety for the future, poor as well as rich.

The neoliberalism and the school…

[Updated later during the day and February 23]. From the article "Världen över trampar nyliberalismen med stora fötter över skolan. En skarp varning för följderna utfärdas i en internationell antologi" or ”The World Over the Neoliberalism is Treading With Big Feet Over the School. A Sharp Warning for the Consequences Issued In An International Anthology” on the anthology Global Assault on Teaching, Teachers and their unions" (Palgrave MacMillan) see page 84 in the Pedagogical Magazine no 1/2009.

In this anthology you can read what happens in the education sector when the neoliberal transformation is put into practice globally. The first part of the book gives an introduction to the neoliberal attack.

“The authors think that this attack is part of a political project with three aims, developed since the beginning of 1980.

Those are

(1) Transferring wealth upwards in the social hierarchy through creating new steering mechanisms – the rich shall become even richer.

(2) Remaking national school systems so that the production of workers for the market’s needs becomes the chief goal – educate for work and not [seeing school and education] as a human right.

(3) Breaking down the public sector’s sole right in the education sector for to create extended possibilities for private profit interests – making education a part of the market via what is called free choices.”

Concepts like charter schools, city academies, and language schools are used as descriptions for what we in Sweden call free schools, a concept that rhetorically has a positive ring and therefore fits into the neoliberal ambiguousness the reviewer writes.

The Bush regime in USA used the so called Texas-miracle in its campaign for the new conservative school politics passing under the name No Child Left Behind. You spontaneously come to think of the Swedish minister of education’s way of characterizing the Swedish school from what he calls scientific truths. I would want to blog about this later.

According to the review there is a mobilization over the whole world against those neoliberal currents in the school.

“In the book it is pointed out how important it is that the mobilization continues and becomes extended internationally.”

At the same time as the book was published the website “Teachersolidarity.com - the Global Assault on Teaching, Teachers and their Unions: Stories for Resistance” was created.

I searched on earlier postings with the label rethinking schools and found this about the school ni USA apropos the presumed lousy school in the USA according to Alan Greenspan, who accused it for being the reason for the immensely increased gaps in incomes between CEO s and workers.

Addition after lunch: Apropos our leading school politicians who are honoring knowledge: the chief editor for the Pedagogical Magazine wrote in his last leader about an investigation on a new teacher’s education in Sweden he had just read, by a Sigbrit Franke.

He started his reading with wondering what attitude Franke would adopt towards…

“…the nonchalant, yes, sometimes almost contemptuous, attitude her political employer has shown towards education-scientific research (it had been interesting to see the reactions if for instance Maud Olofsson or Göran Hägglund expressed themselves in a similar manner in their respective areas of responsibility in the government).”

The chief editor thinks Franke’s ambition has been high; wanting to present a suggestion that is “long term durable” and “that isn’t marked by the current prevailing winds in societal and pedagogical debate”.

“That’s not a bad ambition considering that it is exactly those ‘prevailing winds’ in the societal debate that has taken the discussion about education over – often in collision course with what research in the field has shown./…/

As an academic vocational education the teacher’s education shall, as you use to say, rest on scientific ground and well-tried experiences. But it shall not only, Franke maintains in her investigation, be linked up with science – it shall be based on research.”

The leader writer thinks this is a considerable accentuation.

Franke even enter into the discussion on the outer and inner motivation, which for a while has been under discussion. The school has of tradition used ‘grades, remarks (reprimands), detentions, blaming as tools steering the students. But the motivation psychology has, she notes, changed the outlook on the student, in favor of one seeing the students as ‘a basically constructive and curious individual.’

Education and ways of working building on inner motivation will most likely become more effective seen long-term than activities principally based on outer motivation – rewards and punishments.

Addition February 23: The presumed discipline problems in school is that part of the propaganda? See earlier posting.

Also see further from “Neoliberalism, Teachers, and Teaching: Understanding the Assault.”

“Over the last couple of decades a new global consensus about reshaping economies and schools has emerged among the politicians and the powerful of the world. Whereas in the past governments -- preferably democratically elected -- have assumed the responsibility to ensure that all children are educated, schools and universities are now regarded as a potential market. In these educational markets, entrepreneurs set up schools and determine what is taught and how it is taught in order to make a profit. The assumption that schooling is a ‘public good’ is under the most severe attack it has ever endured. Teacher trade unionists are grappling with the increasing privatization of education services, the introduction of business ‘quality control’ measures into education, and the requirement that education produce the kind of minimally-trained and flexible workforce that corporations require to maximize their profits. Among scholars and global justice activists, these reforms being made to the economy and education are often called ‘neoliberal.’ They are experienced almost universally by teachers, children, and parents.

While rich northern nations spend billions of dollars prosecuting wars and have bottomless resources for the exploiting of new gas and oil reserves, the most precious reserves of all -- the world's children -- stand at the back of the line. Nor is there an opportunity to develop education systems so that they can fulfill their true purpose -- to enable people to live a full and creative life, or as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights puts it, to ensure that education is directed ‘toward the full development of the human personality.’

There is an old saying that ‘a lie gets halfway round the world before the truth gets on its running shoes.’ The lie making the running in schooling is that private corporations and entrepreneurs are much more able to make education work for the poor than teachers, communities, and their elected representatives in government. And when one listens to politicians and reads in the media about the benefits of bringing the private market and business methodologies into education, one can often feel as if teachers have hardly begun to tie the laces on their running shoes. The voices for privatization and neoliberalism have virtually the whole of the world's media at their disposal to speed them on their way.

Rebutting the ‘private good, public bad’ propaganda is complicated by neoliberalism's hijacking of ideals and terms borrowed from those who have spent their lives campaigning for education for all and opportunities for the poor and oppressed. Hearing news reports and politicians' statements of lofty goals, one might think there is nothing closer to the hearts of the international financiers, accountants, and politicians than the needs of the poor. It is only when you look at the actual effects of the policies of world financial institutions like the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank on ‘developing’ countries and their education systems that you realize that nothing could be further from the truth. The World Bank's structural adjustment programs have destroyed perfectly adequate education systems in countries like Zambia and are threatening to do the same in many others. Neoliberal reports, websites, and corporate financial bulletins with titles like ‘Why school fees are good for the poor,’ show that when it serves their purpose, neoliberal gurus are quite willing to ditch the rhetoric of social justice and equality and lay bare the true face of their education policy.”

Written by LOIS WEINER is a Professor at New Jersey City University and a member of the New Politics editorial board. MARY COMPTON is Past President of the UK National Union of Teachers, the largest teacher union in Europe.

-----------------------------------------------------------

"Modern education is competitive, nationalistic and separative. It has trained the child to regard material values as of major importance, to believe that his nation is also of major importance and superior to other nations and peoples. The general level of world information is high but usually biased, influenced by national prejudices, serving to make us citizens of our nation but not of the world."

“This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.

I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals.

In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.”

(Albert Einstein)

Contradictions and confusions…

Some thoughts on the bike to work, threw those words down quickly on paper when I came to work, before the first student. I write them down here almost as I wrote them down this morning:

Limit setting for children are hotter than ever again, but letting the market totally free is ok, absolutely nothing wrong with or anything to worry about. Children, on the contrary, need restrictions, restrictions for instance the market doesn’t need. How would it be if children didn't get restrictions? Where would it end? Or it's for "their own good" and the world's good? Those children will grow up to good citizens, capable of handling and managing a free market or something?

Liberals are talking about freedom in one circumstance, but discipline in another.

Integrity – what about?

Respect – what about?

True, genuine respect and capacity to that sort of respect…

Freedom for who? And whose freedom?

Confused (and confusing) liberals here at least can’t really point to proofs or explain where they have got things from. Relying on their feelings?? At the same time as they can be depreciating and belittling other peoples’ feelings! And claiming other peoples’ lack of proofs.

Came to think about integrity violations…

You (the people on the bottom and children) need to earn your freedom?? I wonder if all are entitled or worth freedom in a liberal’s world actually if you scratch on the surface?

The same confusing messages many of us got early??

When I was student at a folk high school here in Sweden after quitting the gymnasium we spoke about let-go (låt-gå in Swedish, or laissez-faire), authoritarian and democratic leadership (in teachers in this case I think). More than thirty years ago we were learned that the democratic leadership was the best.

Have some (many) liberals misunderstood what "freedom" is? Confused it with laissez-faire combined with authoritarianism? I wonder quite ironically.

Pippi...

A reflection all of a sudden: Pippi, the rebel, meant a lot for Tommy and Annika?? The two well-mannered children. With her attitude of questioning things, her way of living, her whole appearance... Stockings in two different colors, the shoes and cloths, the red-hair... Slept with her shoes on and the feet on the pillow... Let her horse walk into he house. When she should clean the floors in her house she put the brushes on her feet and skated around there!!

"Can one really do like that???"

Look at the picture below! Tommy and Annika peeping over the fence, with big eyes and dropped chins!!

But how was it actually for Pippi? Under the surface? Did she hide something? Did she sacrifice something? Was she allowed to express everything or only certain things?

"I have my monkey and horse and the house Villavillekulla, and a lot of money..."

Strong independent... Not needy... I wonder with a lump in my throat..

PS. And the grown up world found themselves in this? That a child lived alone in a big house. No, they tried to put Pippi on a children's home, even tried to force her there with the help of two constables, but Pippi refused to be taken there. The constables couldn't handle her. Pippi was so strong so she lifted them up and threatened them with throwing them away. Or did she actually throw them away? I don't remember (how many children wish they could do that or something like that? That they had the strength to protect themselves? Even if it isn't verbalized or thought in real thoughts?).

Of two bad things she choose the less bad; to have the (relative) freedom living in her own house, with her monkey and horse...

And if one should take this further to real life and real children!!?? Struck me...

PPS. And that about women's voices: are they needed to be heard, or...? You can really wonder... Do we need them at all?? Do women have anything to say? Do they have anything to contribute with? Or do only some have something to say? And what is the most important: what you say or how you say it, seen formally...?

When people raise their voices it must be done in a certain way? And even more if it is woman raising her voice? Then she must do it perfectly??? And not so seldom she has these demands on herself too?? Even if she dares to put them aside, or challenge this by nevertheless raise her voice and try to communicate and speak out loud, despite if how she says it isn't perfect seen to grammar etc.

How many voices have been silenced on the road?

And who keep on raising their voices? Not troubled of the impression they make? Who are more bothered an concerned about the outer appearance even if one maybe don't think they do??

Silently wondering... In fact not so gladly...

It has been things on this road, so now it is soon too much???

But my wish and need to express things has been greater than all self-criticism, and it still seems to be a little greater than this criticism... Because after all, I don't think I am totally stupid?? That I don't realize my limitations at all... Because I do? Or don't I?

Once again, concerning my work, research has found that women have more problems with stage-fright than men... What can this mean? Even there women's voices have become silent?

And it's not only talent or capacity that are the prerequisites for a career as musician, I think I read this recently in a book I have referred to on another forum, that you need someone on the road believing in you and supporting you.

And in the music-history men are dominating... And they are still dominating... Even if things are better" there today. And, of course, men also can have handicapping troubles with stage-fright!!!

Who gets (the) support, and who gets less support???

Strikes me now about my youngest brother, during summer-vacation from his education (to medical engineer at college) he worked at hospital. He in fact reacted, with a smile (a little ironic??), that he thought he got differently treated than the young women...

But I am not at all striving for any career in this work!!! I am satisfied with how it is... Sometimes it feels as I would like to move out into nowhere and disappear...

Harshly beating myself, you stupid, lousy, bad... No, not so glad, no...

Working and working, tired to death!!! With this not said that anyone is forcing me! Of course it is "my own fault"!!!

I wonder what this is triggering: people talking above my head, as if I didn't exist? And had nothing to say? As if what I have to say is so shamy?? And the way I do it is too??

Struggling with this, and in fact challenging this side!?

The "funny thing" is that a female physician (psychiatrist and gestalt-therapist), I didn't visit as a client in therapy though, said to me that I should dare to do things less perfect or how I shall express it!! In a similar manner as a young woman sick-paid for exhaustion was encouraged to deliberately spell words wrong when she wrote, to challenge her perfectionism, allow herself to be more human or something like that...

And, what is behind or beyond (??) these perfectionist demands, or the rebellion against them (which doesn't exclude blushing cheeks)? Who help one with this? Who want to know about them? Maybe last of all a physician (the clever girl or boy)??

Astrid Lindgren's Emil, among her all other strong children-figures (many a bit rebellion!?), got a fairly high position in society... A position with societal power... Noone else of her figures did?? Pippi never grew up?? What happened to her?

Earlier postings on disobedient child (both in Swedish and in English).