These are the personal and social contours of a Risk Society, which oblige schools to prepare children for creating and engaging in a Learning Society. Learning, in a risk society, becomes not merely enhancement of self, or means of social and economic self advancement but . . . an indispensable mode of being and acting in the world. (Strain 2000a, p.244)
In late modern society information has become central to global capitalism (Giddens and Hutton 2001). Learning as a process of gaining and managing information has gained an equivalent place in emerging society as that fulfilled by productiveness in early modern society (Strain 2000a); the ‘human side of
enterprise’ is seen as a crucial factor in competing in the globalised world (Brown and Lauder 2004, p.50)34. Learning by way of both formal education and training and through the fostering of lifelong learning has become a central policy concern for national and local governments (Field 2000; Morris 2001):
Knowledge, itself, therefore, turns out to be not only the source of the highest quality power, but also the most important ingredient for force and wealth. Put differently, knowledge has gone from being an adjunct of money power and muscle power, to being the very essence. (Brown and Lauder 2004, p.50)
According to Brown and Lauder, while such statements may exaggerate the centrality of knowledge for governments, when coupled with their diminished power in a globalised context, advanced Western governments have been forced to compete in so-called ‘knowledge wars’ (2004, p.50). The incredulity and the
33
Some writers have taken phrases such as recurrent education, lifelong education, lifelong learning, adult education and continuous education to cover the same semantic territory. While often used as a synonym for adult education lifelong learning more accurately concerns a ‘complete rethinking of the total educational process’ (Morris u.d., p.4). Although Collins (1997) argues that the terms lifelong education and lifelong learning are used interchangeably, it is also noted by Boshier (1997, p.45) that this is a source of confusion. Boshier argues for the distinction of education from learning and both of these from schooling to avoid a comparison between lifelong learning and a ‘kind of life sentence of schooling.’ This paper uses the term lifelong learning given its concern with both formal and informal learning within and beyond educational institutions as well as the shift toward a vocabulary which centers around the concept of learning over the concept of education as was formerly the case (Morris u.d.). In Geelong the definition initially adopted was that of the World Initiative on Lifelong Learning: ‘Lifelong learning is a continuously supportive process which stimulates and empowers individuals to acquire all the knowledge, values, skills, and understanding they will require throughout their lifetimes and to apply them with confidence, creativity and enjoyment in all roles, circumstances and environments (Wong 2002, p.5). With the launch of G21 the question of definition was a central issue of concern for the Lifelong Learning Pillar which, in its initial development, was called the Education and Training Pillar and was focused only on the formal education provision by schools, the university and so forth. The definition now
acknowledges the social component of learning and has been confirmed as ‘Lifelong learning is all learning activity undertaken throughout the lifecycle of individuals and communities that extends knowledge, skills and competence within personal, civic and social contexts adding value to the economy.’
34
See Schuller and Field (1998) for a critique of the ‘social disembeddedness’ of human capital theories.
decentering of authoritative knowledge positions referred to earlier have
paradoxical consequences for education and learning (Edwards and Usher 2001). On the one hand, lifelong learning becomes oriented toward performativity for both learners and education providers; lifelong learning becomes the means to attaining, maintaining and providing evidence of the flexibility demanded to survive in the globalised context. On the other hand, lifelong learning is the metaphor for the ‘unruliness of knowledge’ (Edwards and Usher 2001, p.273) – the valuing of different sources and forms of knowledge and a corresponding devaluing in discipline-based knowledge. A further aspect of the paradox is the accelerating individualisation and, consequently, commodification of knowledge that results from information and communication technologies. However such technologies also provide opportunities for distributed forms of learning that remain
collaborative. As such, Edwards and Usher (2001) conclude the very demands of performativity are simultaneously opening and closing possibilities for lifelong learning. Such a position accords with the argument put forward by Karmel (2004) that the lack of a lifelong learning policy in Australia is not a cause of concern given a fluid and open formal education system and, in some states at least, an active adult education sector. The ‘rhetorical power’ of the lifelong learning concept had found acceptance within the education and training sector and the wider community despite its ‘somewhat hollow’ use in a broad and increasing range of policy statements, a focus which was not being matched by levels of academic examination (Department of Education Science and Training 2004, p.5; Tuijnman 2002).
If education and training are positional goods that have the potential to contribute to economic, societal and individual benefit (Marginson 1993) then lifelong learning manifest in a learning society is no less than a ‘precondition for social inclusion’ (Strain 2000a, p.244). At the most pragmatic level, the increasing proportion of the labour force utilising knowledge has led to the emergence of the contested notion of the learning society (Jarvis 2004). Edwards (1995) argues the reason the concept acquired so much acceptance was its opacity: very different notions could hide in it. While the concept does not distinguish between education and learning Jarvis
(2004) argues that the learning society is more accurately described as being both educative and learning. The concept of the learning society provides an overall framework for the development of partnerships through which rhetoric(s) of
lifelong learning can be converted to reality. The learning society ‘applies its lifelong learning experience to achieving the principles of community self
improvement and development’ (Morris 2001, p.12). The notion of ‘seamlessness’ is central to the ideal of the learning society: the collapse of the divide between academic, community and vocational learning is intended to facilitate the transition between education sectors, provider localities and the labour market. As such the learning society is concerned with educational reform, not only within schools but also in industry and society, in ways that relate to changes in the broader economy and society (Young and Spours 1997).
Edwards and Usher (1999) suggest three dominant discourses of the learning
society. Firstly, the term refers to an educated society, one that provides educational opportunities throughout life in conditions that lead to self realisation and good citizenship. Secondly, the term refers to a learning market that focuses on choice and stresses the economic relevance and benefits of learning and the acquisition of vocational credentials. Finally, the term can refer to the expanding role of
information and computer technologies leading to fluid identities, cross-cultural activities and different forms of sociality. However, for the purposes of this research the typology offered by Edwards (1995) is useful. The first type is the concept of a free and democratic society which offers opportunities to all to use formal education and, therefore, implies the expansion of formal provision. The second type is the concept of a free education market where providers offer competing learning opportunities aimed at enhanced human capital. Finally, the third type is a poststructural concept of open learning networks which are creatively used by learners to foster a wide range of skills and abilities. Over the past decade, all of these discourses have been evident in the Victorian context (Geelong
Regional Alliance n.d.; I & J Management Services 2000) however I would suggest that while it is the third type of learning society that is being striven for in the work of SGR LLEN, the dominant discourse in the endorsement of the learning society through the implementation of learning towns by the Victorian Government in 2000 was that of a free education market. It is to a weaving of the formation of the Geelong Learning Town that I now turn.