CHAPTER 17: THE OPTIMAL SOCIETY AND EDUCATION

In Part II I have subjected to critical analysis the educational

system of the capitalist world we live in. Here in Part III I will try to
identify the educational solution of an optimal system abiding by the laws
of optimality explained in Part I. We will begin with the more general and
abstract interpretation of the optimal precepts: then we will turn to some of
the specific forms of education suggested by optimality.

Let us begin with the "static" precepts of optimal systems as

applied to education and the educational process. Again the rule of
participation by nature of involvement will dominate our discussion, the
intensity rule being taken as self-evident or not very useful in discerning
what is essential.

Who are the "involved" parties in the educational process or any

educational institution? They are (1) the students; (2) the teachers; (3) the
parents -- especially for younger children; and (4) the general public -- in
economic terms, the demand side of the market -- who use the resources
obtained by education in the productive process. Since we discussed the
educational process with respect to generations and parents' role in Part II,
here we may not stress the parents, but speak instead about the other three
categories. Of course there are also the non-teaching staffs of educational
institutions, and they will concern us below; but they are not at the heart of
our inquiry.

The first thing to notice is an aspect that brings us to refer to

education and the educational process/institution as COMPLEX. Unlike
the production enterprise, there are two social groups -- and not just one --
who participate in a DIRECT manner in the process. In other words, the
quality of involvement is direct for both the students and the teachers.
They both participate directly, so to speak on two sides of the fence: the
demand of education (by students) and the supply of education by the
teachers. This characterization may be somewhat superficial, but it is a
significant point of departure. We must take this complexity into
consideration if we want to define an optimal system.

107
 In addition, one of the directly involved parties is also VITALLY
involved. That party is the students, because the educational process
transforms the students' ego, consciousness, and even the physique in case
of physical education. Thus we have in fact two kinds of complexity--the
direct involvement of teachers and students on two sides of the "market,"
and the deeper vital degree of involvement by the students. Finding the
optimal solution calls for the dissecting of this complexity.

One form of dissection has been proposed by the pedagogist Paulo

Freire, who without the background of our formal theory of optimality has
proposed solutions in harmony with some of ours. According to Freire, the
teachers -- abandoning the "banking" method of pouring information into
students' minds -- should instead become students themselves and jointly
"create" knowledge with their students through dialogical participation,
interaction and study of many kinds. Of course, we speak here primarily
about the situation of more or less mature participants. [1]

As a corollary of the non-fulfillment of optimality which many

students and educators experience in our colleges, high schools and other
higher level schools, we find the current phenomena of student and teacher
alienation. Under the tutelage of superficially involved "banking-
indoctrinating-non-dialogical" teachers, students cease being vitally
involved and at best seek diplomas saleable in the labor market. The
teachers in turn find in this behavior the justification for their own
superficiality and noninvolvement. At the university level, this is
especially true if their quasi-capitalist employers appreciate the publishing
of articles more than their teaching activity.

But let us return to our quest of optima. On the static plane, the
participation of the more deeply and vitally involved students ought
indeed to take priority over the lesser though direct involvement of the
teachers. The constraint here is that as a general rule, the teachers know
more than the students. But their knowledge may be "tainted" by what the
system which pays the teachers wants them to know or teach.

The missing links in this situation are the two dynamic components
of optimality (see Part I), CRITICAL ANALYSIS AND PRAXIS
PROGRESSION and DIALOGUE. It is by teaching and using these tools
in the educational process that the teachers can overcome the asymmetry

108
of involvement. It is in practicing a critical praxis progression in both its
reflective (the first five) and the active (the last two) stages through
dialogue that we come the closest to the optimum, both static and
dynamic. In true dialogue among teachers and students -- and such a
dialogue presupposes by definition equality of participants as students and
teachers -- that untainted objective knowledge and education can be
reached in areas actually desired by the participants. Also the areas and
findings must be tested and verified in the "active" stages of the praxis
progression; i.e. experimentation and final design. I feel that it is desirable
to elaborate on these points not only because they may be somewhat novel
in the domain of education but also because they seem to me of great
importance.

The dialogical approach guarantees that the areas selected for

study are actually those of students' -- and teachers' if they are willing to
be students in the dialogue -- involvement. Moreover the dialogical
process guides the creation of new knowledge which itself comes out of
the participants' involvement. Creative dialogue in areas or subjects which
are peripheral or irrelevant for the participants is unthinkable.

By contrast our capitalist (what Freire terms "banking") education

producing human capital can lead and often does lead to areas of
knowledge which are dull, irrelevant and not leading to true involvement.
At best they interest the students merely because they contribute to
students' degree-receiving and saleability in the human capital market.

The dialogical process in a complete praxis progression also

naturally leads to actual experimentation and real application (the
"revolution" stages six and seven of the sequence) which is the crowning
and real "fixation" of the educational process. Haven't all of us made the
experience of truly retaining from our education things that we have really
and practically done with our hands and minds, and not merely digested
for the exam next day or month? How many of us have realized that only
the things that we learned in school and then worked with have we
remembered? Here again the theory of optimality, in its dynamic stages,
intersects with other, and more academically respectable pedagogical
findings. We learn better things which we may have figured out by
ourselves, and we learn better things of which we have made a concrete,
tangible and hands-on experience. Among these we learn and retain those

109
which we judge to have some good social significance, and that we may
have produced or reached together with a group of jointly interested and
involved friends.

So much for our theoretical background. Let us now speak a little,

in outline only, about the practical implications and applications of this
concept of optimal education. We do not want to elaborate here further
about the early stages of education involving the three or four "R"'s
(reading, writing, arithmetic and computers) except to recall that even in
these early stages of learning, respecting the principles of "complex"
optimality is most desirable wherever and whenever possible. One might
even go as far as to say that there should be a fifth "R" of praxis
progression which should become a fundamental tool and instrument of
inquiry of young people, along with the other four R+R+R+R!

Everything points in the direction of the notion that optimality in

education must somehow be connected with the process of real work,
production and earning of one's daily bread. Again, this is not only a
derivative of our theory of optimality but something that many
pedagogists and practitioners of education would agree with.

First of all there is the question of selecting the domain of learning,

study, and inquiry. For every young human mind the possible set of
domains can be likened to the horizon we observe, standing on a hill, and
turning all around, three hundred sixty degrees. The things known are
within the horizon: the things we do not know are hidden beyond the
horizon. But we can handle at any time in our life only a small segment of
the horizon. This being so, it will make all the difference which segment
we select for further penetration.

Most often these choices are imposed on us by tradition, family,

school, conformity, earning capacity and so forth. There is probably not
much we can to do about it. But optimality would call for the student's
active participation in such selection, instead of having the choices be
imposed externally. Dialogue with peers and teachers through critical
praxis should serve where possible as the optimal tool.

That selection and dialogue should be imbedded in real experience,

in the sense indicated above. A good example and suggested procedure

110
here is the system of rotations in medical schools, whereby the student is
exposed in an initial manner to the various areas of medical study and
application. This then permits him or her to select in a far more objective
manner the special field of study and ultimately the more specific medical
vocation.

It can be said that such a correct critical selection of study, as in

the case of the medical student -- but pertaining to any young student --
constitutes in the broadest sense one's life's vocation which becomes the
one dominant praxis progression leading from no consciousness of the
problem, to the naive consciousness of the existence of the horizon, to the
critical selection of one's specific section of the horizon for one's life's
work; to the (at least symbolic) denunciation of one's ignorance and need
for penetration beyond the horizon to the formulation of the project of
one's life's work; to the experimental stages of one's profession, the
internships of various kinds, to actual mature life's work. The life cycle
thus conceived, if it is based on the shorter-term praxis of selecting one's
genuine segment of the horizon -- instead of having it imposed in one way
or other -- is the best guarantee of a full and optimal life experience.

Compare this optimal educational process with that of even the

most prominent educational institutions such as Oxford, Cambridge or
Harvard. Here young students have imposed on themselves via tradition,
pride, family origin or intellectual status, but without much critical
dialogue, certain forms, accents, manners or clothing habits which smell
far more of future ruling classes than of an optimal educational process in
our sense. What one learns then is given without much critical process by
the "banking" educational process imposed from the outside, and
subordinated for the most part to the oppressive requirements of a certain
ruling group.

The need for using the "fifth R" of a complete praxis progression
in the educational process makes it imperative, as we noted already, to
embed the process at least in part into a context of practical work. But this
should be an open exposure -- not one like that practiced by large
American corporations which hire the highest IQ graduates and make
them learn whatever is necessary for the human capital of the corporation.
Rather the real exposure should take the form of some kind of pulsation
between the reflective and active aspects of life.

111
 Thus it would seem to this writer that all students at a certain time
of their life -- following the acquiring of the three, four or five basic R's --
should enter the world of real production broadly defined, perhaps at
between 14 and 18 years of age. This can then act as the completion of
the reflective learning part of education into the active later stages of
praxis where at least some things learned are put to test and verification.
At the same time this active stage can serve as the springboard for further
stages and initiation of new praxis cycles, leading to further study,
research, and higher education--a higher education far more mature and
desirable than would be otherwise.

Others may find themselves, during such an early active

experience, attracted to stay with the real world without pulsating back
into the educational sphere and find thus their real life's vocation, again in
a more objective way. For all, whether remaining in the productive
process or otherwise, this active experience should become a valuable
stage of socialization and a field where true critical dialogue and
dialogical learning can take place. We learn that in large Japanese
corporations more highly educated young employees, unlike in American
firms, are asked to start their work experience on the shop floor. The
wisdom of this practice, confirmed by the notorious efficacity of these
corporations, would seem to be consistent with our claims of optimality.
We may ask, how much more effective must be the situation in enterprises
which are entirely democratic and controlled by their members!

The higher cycles of such pulsating educational process at the level

of higher education and research would also be far more likely to lead to
socially useful and peaceful applications, and to the development of new
technologies. These would emanate from the experience of work, social
adaptation and human (including ecological) needs of all involved.
Compare this with the present situation of the late capitalist and
communist worlds where a good deal of technological and scientific
"progress" has emanated from wars and military needs!

We should again recall at this point the seminal example of the

Mondragon cooperative sector in Spain, where the professional middle
level and upper level education is closely intertwined with the life of the
democratic worker cooperatives. The students not only participate in

112
running their school; but the school also contains a production
cooperative of the students, which pays for their education while
producing for the industrial cooperatives, which in turn contribute to the
running and funding of the school -- even with some cash or pocket
money left over for the student-workers. It would take a wider study to
examine fully this real experience, and the reader is advised to do so
through the several sources on the subject starting with the BBC
documentary film. [2]

113