Are the aims of education necessarily those of civilization? Who benefits from learning how to learn, and is child-centered creativity constructive or destructive of social well-being?

Georges Van Den Abbeele, University of California, Irvine

Abstract

This paper will provide an overview of key pedagogical theories (Rousseau, Dewey, Althusser, Bateson, Giroux) in terms of questioning whether the aims of education for the individual child and those of society (or civilization) can be reconciled or not. In other words, does the good of the child converge with the good of society, and is such a convergence even desirable? If “disruption” in business and technology has become understood as the catalyst for progressive innovation, then should education teach creativity even if disruptive rather than the mere acquisition of useful “skills” for workplace success? In the terms of Gregory Bateson, shouldn’t the ideal of education be what he calls “second order” learning, that is, learning how to learn rather than non-reflective learning? Similarly, with the use of technology: is the purely instrumental use of technology sufficient, or should the emphasis be on a reflective or creative relation to technology, that is on learning technology as a technology of learning how to learn? Finally, what are the civilizational benefits of creativity or second-order learning? Should dissensus be valued over consensus?