Posthumanists are those who put no restrictions on the “constitution and boundaries” of what a human is (Hayles 1999). Futurists in this school of thought are especially inspired by the burgeoning possibilities for the shaping of a person by “digital, genetic, cybernetic and biomedical technologies” (Graham 2002). Education of the technological kind is implicated in this.The enthusiasm to recreate the human person includes human mental and physical powers, but does not recognize the notion of human nature or a spiritual dimension for humans, the qualities of which warrant the corresponding notions of human dignity and rights of the person. Certainly we need to be always delving into the essence of what it is to be human, but associated questions are whether the future will make for a playing field for aliens of our own design, and whether these will pose a threat to what has be achieved over eons of natural social and physical development, and divine intervention. Human progress is not a constant.
The novel became a 'science fiction' film |
Already we can see in the field of genetic engineering the instance where a second, lower class of human is “manufactured” (unethically, and unnecessarily, according to many scientists) because stem cells from members of that “saddled” class can enhance the health of a member of the “unsaddled” group. Those are key descriptive terms for Fukuyama as he battles transhumanism, as in his 2004 paper in Foreign Policy. His prediction is portrayed in the novel Never Let Me Go by British author Kazuo Ishiguro (2005). The narrator tells of what it is to be a member of a new group in society, young people without parents searching instead for a possible genetic source, accepting they can never have a family or children, growing up knowing their purpose in life is solely to provide body organs for the dominant group in society and, as soon as that is done, to “complete”, that is die, even amid a process when they are conscious that they are being stripped of all remaining usable body parts. In a discussion with a protective “full” human the narrator is told:
For a long time you were kept in the shadows and people did their best not to think about you. And if they did, they tried to convince themselves you weren’t really like us. That you were less than human, so it didn’t matter. … There [will] always be a barrier against your being seen as properly human.
That friend of the “use and discard” group goes on: “I saw a new world coming. More scientific, efficient, yes. More cures for the old sicknesses. Very good. But a harsh, cruel world.” Ishiguro sets all this in the present. In truth, there is a wide fascination with what ways the human can be “remodeled”. But I expressed my fears here.
The future
has also arrived with regard the ability of those with economic or political
clout to control the lives, or at least act with disregard for personal
privacy, a fundamental human right. Recent reports make clear that digital learning, along with social networks, could
so easily become part of a “Big Brother” environment.
Just as the “ethically
challenged” may set the pace in the posthumanist world, it may be the
"pedagogically challenged" who will drive the “enhancement” of those seeking an education. The technology
used in education, ranging from pencil and book to keyboard and video, has an
important role in determining the dominant teaching/learning style and hence the character
of the thinking skills that result. British Education Secretary Michael Gove certainly makes
his view clear:
From radio to television, computers and the internet, each new technological advance has changed our world and changed us, too.
However,
ultimately, which role-player has the upper hand in educational technology is the crucial question that Lowell Monke, an American university professor
of education, had in 2004 within a despairing view of the “disruptive innovation” with regards
the “technological ideology” (his words) assaulting the learning process:
We may deliver our children into a world of tremendous technical power, but it is rarely with a well-developed sense of human purpose to guide its use.
Nigel Thrift |
Another with a skeptical view of new technology in education, specifically over the race to use a MOOC in some form, is Nigel Thrift, vice-chancellor and president of the Warwick University, England. Though his university has joined a MOOC grouping – identifying a human purpose in doing so – he posits four reasons for the latest technological “obsession” in the world of education and the media. First, “It is based on the idea that higher education is the next sector in line for the high-volume, low-margin information-technology treatment after finance, retail, and the media.” In other words, self-interested parties see a business opportunity. Second, parents have high hopes because of the rising costs of education. Other observers see school administrators focusing on this aspect. Third, “nations are searching for ways of reducing higher-education spending, and MOOCs can look like a silver bullet, making it all so much easier to cut and still feel good about it.” Fourth, “ it makes sense to look at ways of teaching more people more efficiently”.
How technology should be applied to education is a matter I discuss here. As the enthusiasts breathlessly push for a “dramatic disruption” in education, the introduction of digital learning technologies and the often associated competency-based learning system could replace the old “bums on seats” factory education system with a “shiny new and socially acceptable model” in which there is “a naked grab for power over classroom teachers and … the ascendancy of corporate education providers” (See the full comment). Therefore, it is wise to take Thrift’s advice, which is for everyone to “calm down”, and accept the need to experiment with various possibilities, implementing on a large scale only what research has shown to be fruitful. Even such a prominent proponent of teaching with technology as Michael Wesch has had to “re-boot” as other teachers have found his approach to be as useful as a flat tyre during a grand prix when trying to engage students for an authentic learning experience. On that matter, Wesch states that he now points out to educators the greater need to foster a sense of wonder among young people. That compensatory imperative in education is one that Monke espouses in a 2007 article, where he declares:
Professor Michael Wesch in 2011. Photo: Kansas State U |
The efforts to label and sort children while constantly seeking technical means to accelerate, enhance, and otherwise tinker with their intellectual, emotional, and physical development are acts of mechanistic abuse (there is really no other name for it) committed against children’s nature. There is no more critical task for schools than to counter this unfolding tragedy. Schools can make headway simply by patiently honoring and nurturing each child’s internally timed, naturally unfolding developmental growth, by abandoning anxious efforts to hurry children toward adulthood, and by giving these young souls time to heal from the wounds inflicted by a culture that shows no respect for childhood innocence.This view of education is certainly counter-cultural with regards technology's role in a place of education but it makes plain educators' responsibilities in their care for the well-being of the human person in their charge, no matter whether that person is at K-12 level or a young adult. Only on that basis will educational technologies serve not dystopia but their essential human purpose of enabling new generations to live in tune with an increasingly fragile world.
No comments:
Post a Comment