While defending public education, Pierre Bourdieu, the French sociologist, has never ceased recalling that it was fulfilling a conservative function. Likewise, according to Noam Chomsky, an American linguist and dissident of world reputation, school reproduces the social order and the power structure in as much as it favours the values of the dominating class, i.e. intelligence, priority to the written language over speech. One learns at school to behave in a certain way, obedient and passive. Those who do not bow are rejected; if you do anything that breaks the rules of the system, you run the risk of being sacked. Yet, 99% of intellectuals and journalists are absolutely not conscious of it. They have absorbed the surrounding culture and live in it. No doubt, these Chomskyan considerations are chiefly valid on the north-American educational scene. But would we dare to assert that things are not similar with us, in Belgium, in Europe? Even if, as Anne Morelli puts it in her book "Principes élémentaires de propagande de guerre" (Elementary Principles of War Propaganda), it can be hoped that yesterday's lies will generate more doubt and critical spirit.
In the same domain, I would have a grudge against myself for not mentioning the recent publication of a very good issue of "Etudes Marxistes" on "school merchandizing" and education in Europe. This issue contains, among other things, a manifesto for a democratic higher education system, free, open to the people and at their service, and international in outlook. The future of education in general is still to be planned, but this issue of "Etudes Marxistes" rightly shows that States are really hand in glove with markets and put schools and training at the service of businesses. This State-market economy collusion, which seems to be characteristic of western countries, including the United States, results in consolidating profits for big concerns and socializing losses to the detriment of populations. This issue of the Marxist monthly shows that critical spirit has not disappeared altogether from this country.
The topic that I wish to develop somewhat is "changing mentalities through educating for peace". This reminds me of Einstein's words: "If you want peace, educate for peace". What characterizes the specifically human work is the emergence of a project, the creation of a model which becomes the law of action. Reality is not predestined, but must be worked for.
Twentieth-century changes require us to radically rethink educational problems concerning both contents and structures. Reforms have been suggested, both in Belgium and in France, but at no time was the basic problem raised: that of the finalities of learning, which could of their own, however, make it possible to orientate both contents and structures. Here too, determinism has prevailed over transcendence.
Educational determinism, for centuries, has consisted in making education a method of reproducing the established order. At present, with the help of the media, it explains why a large number of workers adapt to the social system, submit to it and obey.
The current educational system demands, not this or that reform any more, but a radical transmutation. It cannot any longer aim at adapting man to the world disorder, but, unlike determinism, at giving man the means of transcending it, inventing a new concept of man, of society, of the world. Here we are: education cannot be a reflection, but a projection. In these dangerous times of wars and possible nuclear conflicts, this project is urgent and must be a peace project. Actually, at any level, from learning to read to teaching philosophy at university, the first function of the educational system is to integrate the individual into the established disorder, with assets and power on one side, and on the other, the resigned acceptance of "it's like that, we must adapt, i.e. submit to it."
How can we get out of this? How can we build peace or, in any case, prepare for it?
The system we are in, which has money as its dominant axiom, will not last for ever. We do not know how it will end: it might be terrifying. It is, however, advisable to prepare for the next stage. The preparation is indeed under way: thanks to NGO's, meetings, demonstrations, research, change has begun. What is missing is perhaps the unity of these fragmented efforts, the overview. Even though one runs the risk of failure, of disappointment, one must transcend them and accept the hardship of disillusion, without, however, resigning oneself to it: it is in this work that man finds his real place.
The end of wars, the end of the war spirit, that is to say to conquer, kill, dominate, enslave, exploit -does not mean the end of fighting. We must go on fighting and so be the strongest. But the strength we need is not based on weapons, including the weapons of money. It must be a force of humanity, much greater than that of warmongers. This struggle against established powers and interests is difficult and will no doubt be long and exacting. It will bring on us the hatred of those milieus. But, even in the long term, the action, including its failures, suffices to justify our existence.
We must therefore and in particular resist the techno-economic machine through culture. The December issue of "Le Monde Diplomatique", the French monthly, contains, under the signature of Roger Lesgard, ex-chairman of the "Ligue de l'Enseignement", Paris, suggests some additional considerations, with which I shall end this paper. This techno-economic machine is supposed to represent efficiency, performance, financial and consumer logic. It tends to absorb everything, even culture, it's a voracious machine which goes beyond the economic and technical spheres and rests, as much as the educational system and, no doubt, partly because of it, on men's conformism and docility, on the reduction of an unegalitarian society into a mere aggregate of individuals. It exerts its action through the technologies of information and communication - from television to internet - which are supposed to prepare a society of access to knowledge, transparency and democracy.
Facing this invasion, the different dimensions of culture must be given more lively contents. Within the framework of this paper and for the sake of brevity, I shall only mention two of these dimensions:
Resisting the techno-economic machine will be done through our capacity, prepared by an improved educational system, to open up to other people, to recognize them as part of ourselves. In other words, replying as positively as possible to the question asked by the French philosopher Castoriadis: "Is it possible for a man and a society to construct themselves other than in opposition to other people, rejection of them, eventually hatred of them?" A positive reply to this question would create personal peace and world peace.
Edgard André
December 2001
A few definitions