Blake, Nigel; Smeyers, Paul; Smith, Richard; and Standish, Paul. (1998) Thinking Again: Education After Postmodernism. Reviewed by Richard W. Race, Keele University

Blake, Nigel; Smeyers, Paul; Smith, Richard; and Standish, Paul. (1998) Thinking Again: Education After Postmodernism. Westport, CN: Bergin and Garvey $55 (Cloth)             ISBN 0-89789-511-8 $19.95 (Paper)       ISBN 0-89789-512-6 Reviewed by Richard W. Race Keele University January 31, 2000             Thinking Again, the product of two years' collaborative thought among the authors, is part of Henry Giroux's book series, "Critical Studies in Education and Culture." The series challenges the current return to the primacy of market values and simultaneous retreat from politics, "so evident in the recent work of educational theorists, legislators and policy analysts (xi)." The book is interestingly structured and it begins with a chapter entitled "Retrospect," which places the book into its postmodern context. This theme of encouraging the reader to reflect on the education system and practice is one of the books strengths. As three of the authors are based in Britain, the book can be seen as a challenge to the reforms introduced into the UK education system during the 1980s and 1990s. However, the authors suggest on page one that the book offers no ready solutions to the practical problems that face education in the modern era.             Blake et al. introduce Lyotard as their main postmodern theorist, taking his concept of performatitvity and attempting to analyse its consequences on the education system. Performance in the classroom concerns efficiency. The very culture of education and society has changed, with serious consequences. An example is the introduction of league tables for primary and secondary schools and local education authorities in the UK, which seems further to reduce education to mere schooling. One of the regrettably few places the authors mention Foucault is in this context: the school is seen as an agency of society whereby power flows toward those who can manipulate consumer choice in the education system. Education is guilty of promoting a traditional curriculum in the UK with teachers being swamped by the pressures of coping with assessment and inspection. It is hard to simply think in the postmodern era but postmodern thinkers, in this case education philosophers, help us think of the education condition and postmodern theory shows us new directions of thought.             The book is concerned with the language of postructuralism and deconstructionism. An argument with which the authors take issue states that both cultural relativism and social pluralism threatens culture and society and must be resisted through education. Educational theorists have been guilty in the past of clinging to relativism, and in the post-1988 era in Britain, the national curriculum (which contains the three core subjects of English, math and science, alon with seven foundation subjects) has neutralised relativism. Managerialism enforced the national curriculum and child assessment, which has changed the nature of the relationship between teacher and student during the 1990s. The authors argue that, "...relativism secures intellectual space for theoretical research which questions the basis of the dominant culture." (p. 12) The aim of the authors is to dissociate poststructualism from naīve forms of relativism familiar in education theory. This is a brave attempt that has been tried in other education areas, both in the US and in the UK. (Scheurich, 1997) (Hill et al., 1999) During the 1990s, educational studies in the UK have tended to apply poststructual theories to policy and practice—Stephen Ball's work being one example—but Blake et al. want a much broader poststructual approach. They mention linguistic relativism and argue: "Linguistic relativism is concerned with meanings in the public realm and sees us all immured in our own language." (p. 13) But the authors encourage a breakout of this definition and examine the possibilities of multilingusitic discourses. Different languages should be made available to both student and teacher, on the grounds that structural linguistics requires an understanding of the signifier and signified, and that language must be public rather than private. Postructualism and deconstructuralism spring from an insight into the limitations of attempts at defining language in terms of determinate structures.             Poststructualist theories offer a conception of change associated with the instability of language. And postfoundationalism is a strategy for avoiding the moral relativism that seems to ensue from this postmodernist critique, adherents of which play the role of latter day sophists who are, as they have been historically, prone to manipulate language in order to avoid questions raised by diversity. Postmodernists mean to question what they see as the reigning politics of knowledge that has marginalised, modified and controlled language. In doing so, they illuminate how profoundly influential are knowledge and power in determining how we think.             There seems to be greater academic freedom in higher education compared with the politicised national curriculum. Indeed, Lord Jenkins led an amendment to the 1988 Education Act in the House of Lords to preserve academic freedoms within British Universities. However, postfoundationalist ideas are regarded in the 1990s with conservative suspicion. The authors argue that foundationalist arguments need to be criticised. In questioning the foundations of knowledge, the philosophy of education needs to be re-examined. The continuing search for the foundations of knowledge is paramount. Social and linguistic constraints create prejudice. Postfoundation relocates dialogue and debate. "Can we solve moral difficulties just by redescribing people, problems or situations?" (31) It is very difficult, as the authors argue, to answer that question when society is controlled by only one discourse.             With regard to identity, Blake et al. suggest that progress allows the learner to acquire new characteristics. Even though the education system classifies children, the worst effects of doing so can be avoided. Recognition of differences should not mean selection and streaming into an educational structure. "It is important how we see ourselves." (p. 33) This applies to both children and practitioners. The authors argue we have to question the alleged objectivity of the curriculum in favor of a more imaginative subjectivity is needed in the classroom. They employ Derridean deconstruction to apply to school roles and identities the notion of "difference," in order to challenge their static nature. This upsets the fixity that education values seem to have in children's lives. We must question ideas, identities and oppositions,, e.g., East verses West, and the consequences this has, e.g., on science education. Different ideas and a truly global perspective enable us to think, teach and learn differently.             The authors put literacy under the microscope, stressing the importance of improving reading standards and reducing illiteracy. The national curriculum has placed the focus on teaching the basics. The system of testing and assessment stipulates exactly what children have and have not achieved. Teachers will see whether children are reading successfully and the tests at 7,11,14 and 16 will assess the child's competence. This testing regime limits the use of imagination, as children read to become members of a learning society and accumulate credits. Issues concerning power and status arise with different conceptions of literacy. Derrida argues that language cannot operate as naturally or innocently and we should break with the idea that language has specific meanings. The issue for Blake et al. is not how to teach children how to read, "but about how language comes to be meaningful." (p. 51) Derrida believes that within languages there are only differences. Meanings should never be finalised. There is always something more to be said. To be illiterate is to understand limitations and to be alert to what Derrida calls the "disseminating play of the text," its constant escape from a unity of meaning or the privileged order of truth. One of the central questions of the book is raised at the beginning of Chapter 5: "Has postmodern philosophy changed the way the positions of the parent and the teacher are conceptualised?" (p. 59) The authors argue that knowledge and subject may be conceived in postmodern terms, and that doing so has ramifications for ethics. For example, postmodernists would reject a rationalistic ethic of educational design and arrangement. Foucault questions modern ethics, focusing on what knowledge does, where power constructs reside and how the relationship of the self is invented rather than discovered. He is also interested in the government of the self in connection to others, and suggests that identity is radically undecidable and that there is no "human nature" as such. Freedom therefore resides in resistance and in an ethic of responsibility for the "truth" one speaks. In the service of these prescriptions, Foucault seeks to examine how different societies are implicated in their respective conceptions of subjectivity. Similarly, Derrida's deconstrcutivism opens up an ethics not of identity but of difference. Lyotard, too, shares this Focaudian vision, in his recasting of ethics as an endless political resistance that defies consensus. But all this concern with subjectivy seems solipsistic, in that it places the self rather than the world and its inhabitants as the focus of ethics. Relatedly, Blake et al. raise concern over the danger of Lyotard's uncritical celebration of multiplicity which could be used in multicultural politics to dilute otherness. To name otherness is to suggest a tolerance of difference. There seems to be a general suspicion and distrust of postmodern ethics. But, as the authors have previously suggested, differences should be always opened to rediscription.             Education postmodernism has focused and criticised the concept of performativity, both of children and schools. "Education itself determines the nature of human beings. Parents have a big say in what it means to educate. Education is also a personal relationship to a real person." (p. 75) Education is socially embedded in particular communities into which one initiates a pupil or student. The teacher has an integral part to play in the education process. The student-teacher relationship is based on trust, whereby students should be given time to digest material and evaluate their own experiences. Reflective judgement, concerning care, trust and integrity in the classroom should be at the back of all teachers minds. Postmodern conditions could improve understanding of teaching and learning in the classroom. There is a dual danger of complacency and sterile conventionality within modern education practice. "What would a well-made lesson be like in a stakeholder society, focusing on learning entitlements, vouchers and contracts?" (p. 81) Within the current education system, the content-oriented curriculum suppresses potential alternatives. The authors pose the question: "Can we deliver in this environment?"(p. 83) Philosophically, a child will find it increasingly difficult to prepare for tests at nursery school or at Key Stage 1. Experience begins both in the home and classroom with initiations into different cultures. Human nature is developed through cultural criteria. As the authors argue, "'to give someone a lesson is to teach but also to punish." (p. 88)             Blake et al. suggest that the post-1988 UK curriculum fits into a general modern rationalist paradigm. This can also be seen within higher education, where course content is determined by the collegial consideration of academic priorities. A rational critique has developed with the media protecting an image of the educated expert controlling the curriculum against the uninformed general public. However, the resultant curriculum values reflect national, Christian values which, the authors argue, are positively anti-academic. The battle is fought against, "an entrenched, academic priesthood." (p. 93) Rational concepts and therefore academic discourse is institutionalised within the education system. The legitimating power of the state and public opinion keeps education traditional. Lyotard highlights the conservative aspects that surround narrative stories. Scientific knowledge and rational critique challenged more traditional education methods. However, teaching traditional narratives, e.g., the worship of the hero, projects social solidarity. The authors go on to analyse how tradition holds society together. The narrative creates a social bond and a sense of belonging. This sense accompanies identity and the Dame Vera Lynne song We'll meet again is used as an narrative example to show how history is suspended in time. Everyone can identity in some sense with the message and perhaps unconsciously with the notion of power that a sense of belonging can give the individual. There is an important difference between this type of social narrative and the educational potential of a literary narrative. Lyotard is critical of grand narratives, which are stories about stories that provide a legitimising function. Lyotard focuses on the decline of the grand narrative. Postmodern narratives become fragmented and dispersed. The authors argue that if education and culture lose the influence of grand narratives, then a plurality of small narratives would supposedly take their place. What about the relationship between children and teachers? The debate between rationality and authenticity or the issues concerning traditional verses child-centred methods of teaching are examined to offer answers to this question. The child- centred movement attempted to allow the child the opportunity to discover the true self. But the authors argue that this sets unacceptable limits. Freud's theory of the unconsious is used here with Lacan's ideas of how people are ordered to show how representations occur and reoccur in society. Lacan's insight suggests that, "meaning is not to be found in what language says, but in the fact of saying it." (p. 116) For Lacan, unity and autonomy are all illusions. We continually look for imaginary wholeness and are both captivated and victimised by illusions of autonomy. The authors use the example of Oedipus which is used to highlight how imagery highlights unlawful desire. Some postmodernists argue that the forbidden is what the unconscious strives to express. The postmodern subject is multiple and modern unity is shattered. But is this the case? Lacan highlights the way law structures the singular way desire works through our life through regulations that affect us from the cradle to the grave. Within education, structures determine the roles of both teacher and student. Students seek recognition and acceptance. The experience of education failure leaves personal scars for life. The struggle for dominance in the classroom is an imaginary and symbolic one. Blake et al. argue that relationships within education need to be re-examined. "Teachers are as much learners, as the learned." (p. 128) There are, or should be, many options and desires available for both student and teacher.             Who and what is education for in the light of the 1988 UK educational reforms? What are the aims and ends of a national curriculum? The authors argue that education reform has focused on means not ends. During the 1990s, philosophical questions seemed to have been made redundant by education management and professionalism. Effectiveness and efficiency have produced ethical neutrality and the system is dominated by the concept of perfomativity. Postmodern managers are effectively morally neutral. Language within the national curriculum is not explored but asserted. English is the master narrative. English is a language of modern industrial productivity, performance and effective communication. Blake et al. argue that because of this possibility of deliberation about the goals and purposes, arriving at ends and values within education is missing. English literature problematizes language, recalling the part narratives play in obscuring the understanding of our language. The effective use of language gives us power. Dickens's Bleak House is used to illustrate how characters are trapped by legal language and signs. It is essential that we keep our capacity for using language creatively. The language of efficiency and effectiveness paralyses our ability to think about education ends and purposes. The authors suggest that language games should be explored to increase understanding of the possibilities and diversity of practice in the classroom.             What are the implications of rote learning, learning "by heart"? A learner might know words but not understand the meanings. Repetition is an inefficient method for the classroom. Learning begins with this familiarity and cultural initiation. The authors highlight the ethical responsibility of teachers to be more diverse in practice. But does a centrally defined national curriculum allow for this? Children return to old stories to provide them with nostalgia and sentiment to nurture a sense of the familiar. Consumer culture also bases itself on familiar imagery. Blake et al argue that, "knowing things by heart has a deep attraction and this defies the economy of teaching and learning." (p. 153) The authors suggest that one must teach without wanting results. What are the implications of this change? To teach without wanting results would suggest changes are required to the national curriculum and education system in the UK. What does the development of open learning tell us about teaching and learning? Open learning has been developed in further and higher education with new psychological methods and the use of information technology. Distance learning and the British Open University have been pioneers in this technique, allowing a learner-centred curriculum to suit the individual. The Open University is a postmodern organisation, but is it a substitute, suitable for people who are unable to attend mainstream university courses? The images are one of the live classroom opposed to the learning package, although the package would allow the student more flexible study. The authors argue that open leaning would allow the learner the opportunity to see and think about the bigger picture. Modern educational methods of writing yields quick results, "but the growth of ideas in the reader is forced to maturity too soon with the result that roots are not properly embedded.'(p. 166) The authors suggest that writing opens the space in which the literal and the non-literal become possible. Open learning disestablishes the traditional roles of both teacher and pupil.The system offers greater convenience and unlimited availability. Within education practice, there should be no uniform method.             The authors focus on the Office for Standards in Education (OFSTED) and its Chief Inspector, Chris Woodhead's criticisms of education theory and research in the UK. Woodhead described education writing as "woolly, simplistic or otherwise corrupt." (p. 175) This seems to reinforce a more general educational message that teachers have to adapt aspirations or else to the system e.g., the national curriculum. Trainee secondary school teachers have to learn 27 competences. The philosophy of education should be theorising what is actually occurring within the system. A question which is posed is, "How do I improve practice?" Good teachers use a range of methods, rather than relying on a list of competences. It is interesting that the focus of the Chief Inspector is on teachers and not children. Deconstructing education theory allows us to see the universal differences in both the classroom concerning both teacher and student. For Blake et al., we must examine education if we are to understand where power lies and how it effaces or masks itself.             The final installment of the book is entitled "Prospect" and, in the spirit of postmodernism, it is in some ways this is the best place to start. Here the authors go into greater detail about the book and their ideas by answering 17 questions. The authors are clearly not happy how postmodernism has been received by the education system as a whole and especially amongst British education philosophers. For Blake et al., a postmodern approach provides new insights into the rationality, managerial and performativity of the education system. Poststructural ideas are particularly useful in understanding relationships within the education system and provide an opportunity to shift the ideas of the self and destroy the conception of the autonomous subject. An obsession with the modern education system stands in the way of progress. The mantra seems to be teach only what can be tested. The authors argue that education institutions need to be released from the concept of performativity, e.g., standard attainment targets tests at 7,11,14 and 16 and nationwide league tables. The book is by no means a guide to postmodernism as a whole, but is responding to educational bewilderment and provides an opportunity to think about current education policy and reform. We must reflect on practice to question what is going on around us in the classroom, staffroom and the education system itself.             Thinking Again: Education after Postmodernism is a challenging, informative and thoughtful book with which the reader should persevere (though this reader found the book's second half much more accessible than the first.) The authors certainly succeed in their aim of making the reader more reflective regarding his or her educational environment. They use compelling examples from classical literature—and any book that can use Gaza's Tears at Italia 90 and Postman Pat as traditional and modern examples of the traditional hero and modern work patterns needs to be congratulated. However, I would be slightly critical of the title. Has education in the UK universally, and globally, truly entered the postmodern? Within higher education, postmodernism has been created, debated and has evolved. The authors are thinking about education after postmodernism. But can postmodern terminology be used within education concerning something like the national curriculum? When we consider the "national" in national curriculum we have a modern concept based on amongst other things, the nation-state. To speak of education after postmodernism" might be to skip a few steps. Possibly, the word, "within" might be more appropriate. I can understand that the authors want us to think about both the presnt and future of education by relating postmodernist theories to current and future cultural advances and societal change, for example, when the authors examine how postmodern theory has begun to analyse the conceptualisations of parent and teacher. With regard to education in the UK, it seems that, once again, "modern" education policy and reform during the 1980s and 1990s has reinforced "modern," traditional roles in the classroom, staffroom and the home, even as postindustrial technologies will work to alter the nature of both the school and the home in the twenty-first century.             I would have found further comment on the relationship between philosophy of education and postindustrial theories very helpful. "Open Learning" is mentioned in one of the chapters, which highlights the possibilities of a more flexible approach to teaching. The Open University is an example of a postmodern, postindustrial education organisation which uses electronically mediated communication, both domestically and globally to both advertise and teach within higher education. These developments, prospects and implications for the future of higher and all education sectors could have been analysed, especially given that one of the authors is based at the Open University and lecturers in education technology. (Possibly this author has done so elsewhere.) How will a more postindustrial approach to supervision and pastoral care in the future affect both undergraduate and postgraduate students in the twenty- first century? How will postindustrial technology change not only education, but the teaching of education? As for the book, my very posing of these questions represents something of a success for the authors, as they have obviously catalysed my "thinking again" about education. References Hill, D. McLaren, P. Cole, M. Rikowski, G. (1999) Postmodernism in Educational Theory: Education and the Politics of Human Resistance, Tufnell Press, London. Scheruich, J.J. (1997) Research Method in the Postmodern, The Falmer Press, Washington. About the Reviewer Richard W. Race Education Department Keele University Staffordshire ST5 5BG