Education and Power

Power.

POWER.

Power over, or power with? or both?

As you may imagine, we talk a lot about power in my international relations (IR) program. In general and simplified, IR realists perceive a 'power over' world and IR liberals (sometimes called idealists in IR) perceive a 'power with' world. I won't talk too long about power, although the subject fascinates me, but a thought (yes one of those...like a good birder I carry around a notepad with me at all times to jot down what I've seen and of course I color code for rare sightings...thanks to avid birder Justin Michels for this tip) occurred to me the other today regarding power and our education system.

Joseph Nye coined the phrase 'Soft Power' back in the early nineties when analyzing how states get other states to do what they want. He already knew that states will use Hard power, ie coercion via force (military power) and payment (economic power), but realized that sometimes these are not good enough. Soft power then, is the ability to get others to do what you want through attraction, and states according to Nye will become more attractive by exporting attractive cultural goods and ideas, and through foreign policy seen as legitimate like taking part in multilateral institutions, abiding by international norms, etc. Soft power fascinates me and just the other day I was speaking with a political adviser from the South African Embassy who told me that Soft Power is the future (at least for his country he believes). Not sure how many of you are now familiar with the concept of Ubuntu...it basically messages solidarity and to me is the dominate cultural export of South Africa....almost as if they are trying to brand themselves with it creating a very positive national identity in the eyes of the global community.

Anyway, how does this connect to education. I was speaking with my buddy Ray Bauer who teaches Spanish in a public school in a suburb right outside of Chicago, about the possibility of the Spanish program at his school being cut. This made me think about something I heard Sir Ken Robinson say:

But something strikes you when you move to America and when you travel around the world: every education system on earth has the same hierarchy of subjects. Every one, doesn’t matter where you go, you’d think it would be otherwise but it isn’t. At the top are mathematics and languages, then the humanities, and the bottom are the arts. Everywhere on earth.

And in pretty much every system too, there’s a hierarchy within the arts. Art and music are normally given a higher status in schools than drama and dance. There isn’t an education system on the planet that teaches dance every day to children the way we teach them mathematics. Why? Why not? I think this is rather important. I think maths is very important but so is dance. Children dance all the time if they’re allowed to, we all do. We all have bodies, don’t we? Did I miss a meeting?

Truthfully what happens is, as children grow up we start to educate them progressively from the waist up. And then we focus on their heads. And slightly to one side.

So, why is it that we prioritize Math? Looking at it from a traditional IR perspective (the realist perspective) one might say it has something to do with our states main interest: national security. This is achieved (according to realists) by maximizing our technological, productive and destructive capabilities. Perhaps Art then, is not seen as essential to our Hard Power needs. However, as Soft power becomes more important in a more interdependent, democratic and nuclear world (nukes make wars more costly), maybe states will start rethinking what subjects they prioritize. What IS the ultimate objective of education, anyway?

So often when I hear commentary on national education reform, or how are the US education system is failing, etc, inevitably in this commentary statistics on how we compare internationally in Math and Science scores are given. What I'm getting at, then, is the link between education - and economic, technological and military power....education as first and foremost serving our national interest of state security. A very realist interpretation for sure, in what I think is still (unfortunately) a very realist inter-national environment.

This has been a long-winded, and possibly not too exciting, way of introducing this concept of Soft Power (~cultural attraction) to you all, ultimately as a way of implying an argument (from an IR perspective) for the sustained funding of subjects (specifically the arts!!!) because they increase our nations Soft Power. I would never like to make this argument (i.e. fund the arts so we can get our way!!)....but perhaps the more arguments the better for these first to go subjects.

Ultimately, I hope this post spurs reflection and hopefully some comments on the objective of education. What is it for, and what should it be for?

(Tip: check out the link I posted on Sir Ken Robinson's name....20 minute talk that is really funny and interesting!)