العلاقة بين التعليم والاقتصاد والأنظمة الاجتماعية
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN
EDUCATION, ECONOMY
AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS
by Florian Colceag
بواسطة فلوريان كولسياج
تلعب الأنظمة
التعليمية دورا هاما في الحفاظ علي الثقافات أو نقلها. فالأشخاص الذين يتلقون
تعليمهم في نمط تربوي يتصرفون طبقا للأهداف التربوية الناجمة عن النظام التعليمي، مما
يخلق ما يسمي برأس المال الاجتماعي.
" تعد الثروة
الاجتماعية قاعدة عامة مثيلة والتي تقوم بتعزيز التعاون بين شخصين أو أكثر. فالقواعد
التي تشكل رأس المال الاجتماعي تمتد بدءا من قاعدة المعاملة بالمثل بين صديقين
وصولا إلى مذاهب معقدة وموسعه واضحة مثل المسيحية أو الكونفشيوسية (Fukuyama,
1999)"
كما قامت ثقافات مختلفة بتطوير أشكال مختلفة لرأس
المال الاجتماعي محليا. وتمكنت هذه العادات من تقديم نموذج للاستقرار المحلي في
بيئات ايكولوجية واقتصادية، وذلك بسبب نظام تعليمي معين بدءا من الأسرة وحتى
التعليم الرسمي.
قامت سياسات
العولمة بتقديم مطالب جديدة لمختلف الثقافات والنظم الاقتصادية. فتلك المطالب ليست
قابلة للتعديل دائما في أي ثقافة، ويرجع ذلك بشكل أساسي إلي أن الأشخاص يتم
تعليمهم وفقا لاحترام قواعد مختلفة عن تلك التي تتطلبها سياسات العولمة. وهذا هو
السبب وراء ظهور أي مشكلة ملحة في عصرنا هذا : كيف يمكننا أن نطور نظاماً تعليمياً
يكون له القدرة على التكيف مع المطالب الثقافية ، ولكن في الوقت نفسه يستطيع
التكيف مع السياسات الاقتصادية والبيئية التي تميز العولمة ومرحلة ما بعد الصناعة.
وتعمل الثقافات المختلفة على تطوير أنواع مختلفة من المواهب التي ترتبط بمطالب
اقتصادية محددة، فمن الممكن ألا يتم استيعاب ثقافة وافدة بسبب التوزيع غير
المتكافئ للمواهب في العالم، وأيضاً إلى عدم القدرة على التكيف الناتجة عن غلق
الموارد البشرية المتخصصة.
ويجب أن تتسم
العولمة ......................................
لطلب هذه الدراسة تحت رقم (0002) مترجم الى العربية نرجو مراسلتنا على الايميل التالي info@googangroup.com لطلب العمل الرجاء ذكر رقم العمل مباشرة عند الطلب .
www.googangroup.com
قسم الدراسات
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN EDUCATION, ECONOMY
AND SOCIAL SYSTEMS
by Florian Colceag
Introduction
Cultures are preserved or transformed due to educational systems. People
that are educated in an educational style will behave corresponding to the
educational goals induced by the educational system, this creating a social
capital.
” Social capital is an instantiated informal norm that promotes
cooperation between two or more individuals. The norms that constitute social
capital can range from a norm of reciprocity between two friends, all the way
up to complex and elaborately articulated doctrines like Christianity or
Confucianism (Fukuyama, 1999)”
Different cultures developed locally different forms of social capital.
These customs were able to provide a form of local stability in ecological and
economical niches, due to a particular system of education from family to
official education.
Globalization policies introduce new demands for different cultures and
economic systems. These demands are not always adjustable to any culture,
mainly because people are educated in respect to different norms than those
required by globalization policies. This is why an imperious problem is
emerging in our time: how to develop an educational system adjustable to
cultural demands, but in the same time adjustable to economic and environmental
policies that characterize globalization and the post-industrial period.
Different cultures develop different kinds of giftedness correlated to specific
economic demands. An intrusive culture might not be absorbed due to the unequal
distribution of giftedness on the globe, and to the incapacity of adjustment
generated by the lock of specialized human resources.
Globalization must be characterized by an enormous responsibility
concerning the preservation of cultural capital developed during the history.
Globalization policies must be responsible also about the detrimental
consequences for the environment that appears because of the incorrect
understanding of the artificial demands required by another culture.
There are two ways to assure a
globalization politics balance: one is by imposing new rules using different
kind of forces, the second is to create stability by integrating every culture,
economy, education in an organic way, respecting not destroying local values.
The general tendency is to use the simplest variant, the first one. The second
one is more difficult, more technical but in the same time more protective. It
might be a complex but adequate response for a complex problem.
A great responsibility is educational. Classic systems of education are
not able to assure environmental protection, economic adaptability, or trust in
other cultures’ values. A profound change must be produced in education to
become non-aggressive for the environment, adjustable to global economic
demands, or able to support inter-cultural values.
A complex problem
The relationship between educational systems and the economy is very
strong. In the economy the educational and cultural qualities obtained by
education will transform economical values. We can observe this situation in
every culture we study. The education enriched in school is only a continuation
of familial education and has the tendency to preserve the local values and the
local culture. Relationships between familial structure, familial education,
local cultures, and economic systems are studied by many economic philosophies.
“Granovetter’s idea of embeddedness may be seen as an attempt to
introduce into the analysis of economic systems social organization and social
relations not merely as a structure that springs into place to fulfill an
economic function, but as a structure with history and continuity that give it
an independent effect on the functioning of economic systems.( James
Coleman,1988)”
For example, monopolistic economies were developed only in some
countries. This fact was due to the local psychology, cultural concepts such as
discipline, efficiency, and social respect. These values were cultivated by
families and also by schools. As a final result, the economical system requires
educated persons with the same qualities (discipline, efficiency and social
respect). The final result is an
educational system cultivating these social qualities, instead of high
intellectual qualities like abstract thinking, generalization, or passion for research.
A monopolistic economy characterizes many countries with an industrial economy
where big economical associations control the market.
Another style recognized in education is strictly related to familial
economy. In a familial economy, the tendency is to develop children’s qualities
as much as possible, in order to give them the possibility for developing an
individual economical niche. This kind of educational system develops and
exploits individual skills and is very creative and artistic. The main
qualities required by familial economic system and developed by the system of
education are based on how to think instead of how to behave. As a final result
we can see a high level of creativity and talent, but a low level of discipline
and social respect. Familial economy is characterized by small familial
factories with small business, developing a competitive market.Francis Fukuyama, Edward Banfield,
James Coleman , and other economists studied this connection and discovered
that social capital has the tendency to be an invariant characterizing
different cultural area:
“Not just any set of instantiated norms constitutes social capital: they
must lead to cooperation in groups and therefore are related to traditional
virtues like honesty, the keeping of commitments, reliable performance of
duties, reciprocity, and the like. A norm like the one described by Edward
Banfield as characterizing southern Italy, which enjoins individuals to trust
members of their immediate nuclear family but to take advantage of everyone
else, is clearly not the basis of social capital outside the family ( Fukuyama
F. 1999)”
“Probably the most important and most original development in the
economics of education in the past 30 years has been the idea that concept of
physical capital as embodied in tools, machines, and other productive equipment
can be extended to include human capital as well( Schultz 1961; Becker 1964).
Physical capital is created by changes in persons that bring about skills and
capabilities that make them able to act in new ways.(James Coleman; 1988)”
Social capitals developed by different cultures are also different.
Traditional historical cultures developed a more protective social capital for
human and natural environment sacrificing dynamism. New cultures are more
dynamic and efficient, but in the same time more simplistic and less protective.
Any kinds of social capitals have good and bad characteristics, and each of
them found different solutions for the same problem.
The system of education based on how to behave develops a simplistic and
efficient style of life. People feel better in communities, have a cooperative
style of life and are economically prosperous with hard work. The design of
their houses or clothes is simple and efficient, they are respectful, but
intolerant to a different kind of education. They try not to offend others, and
cultivate self-respect, self-efficacy, and familial comfort.
In contrast the education based on how to think gives, as a final
result, people with high moral standards, but also people with low moral
standards; people with high intellectual qualities, and people with low
intellectual qualities. A great variability of characteristics are developed by
this system of education from intellectual, moral, social, economical to
artistic, scientific or philosophical. The economy is not as strong as in the first
system but is not so destructive for the natural environment, as it is in the
first system. The social values cultivated in this system are hospitality,
generosity, and competition for ideas.
In fact each culture developed a unique way of adaptation to
environment, economy and a particular educational system. The relationships
among nations provided cultural produces exchange, and local economy produces
exchange.
It seems that each kind of culture is the consumer of products generated
by the other one. A monopolistic society is a great consumer of intellectual or
artistic produces generated by familial society. At the same time familial
society is a great consumer of technological products, social, economical rules
and standards, or of regulations generated by the monopolistic society. It
seems to be a balance between these two kinds of societies but is not. In fact,
there is a permanent conceptual struggle between these two systems. This
struggle can take the form of cooperation versus competition, or as
self-respect versus the right of individuality. It may be also seen as a
conflict between intellectual skills versus social skills, or between
efficiency and artistic development. The sense of freedom cultivated by these
two kinds of cultures and economies are also different. For a monopolistic
system, it is the freedom to achieve in any social position, for familial
system is the freedom to achieve to any human standard. The first one
cultivates economical soldiers, the second one cultivates creators and artists.
Each one wishes to have the qualities cultivated by the other one but has the
biggest appreciation for their own value. Everything appears to be reflected
through a mirror that transforms some qualities in values to these cultures, but
the qualities are not the same. Different cultures develop different forms of
social capital, some of them antagonistic, most of them adjusted to very
specific demands.
From the global balance point of view humanity is in this period in a
critical point. If in the ancient period humans were aggressed by nature, they
become later aggressors. This kind of behavior becomes more destructive in
globalization because of the complex cultural, social, economical, and
educational conflict.
“ Virtually all forms of traditional
culture-social groups like tribes, clans, village associations, religious
sects, etc. are based on shared norms and use these norms to achieve
cooperative ends. The literature on development has not, as general rule, found
social capital in this form to be an asset; it is much more typically regarded
as a liability. Economic modernization was seen as antithetical to traditional
culture and social organization, and would either wipe them away or else be
itself blocked by forces of traditionalism. Why should this be so, if social
capital is genuinely a form of capital? The reason, in my view, has to do with
the fact that such groups have a narrow radius of trust. In-group solidarity
reduces the ability of group members to cooperate with outsiders, and often
imposes negative externalities on the latter. For example, in the Chinese parts
of East Asia and much of Latin America, social capital resides largely in
families and a rather narrow circle of personal friends. It is difficult for people
to trust those outside of these narrow circles. Strangers fall into a different
category than kin; a lower standard of moral behavior applies when one becomes,
for example, a public official. This provides cultural reinforcement for
corruption: in such societies, one feels entitled to steal on behalf of one's
family. (Fukuyama, 1999)
Each kind of culture that developed a particular social capital has
particular beliefs and customs, historical experience, or traditions.
Corrupting or destroying them means to loose a precious system of values.
The main problem is to use cultural, educational and economical
experiences in order to create stability and development, not in order to
impose by force new rules to lead the world. This balanced might be obtained
through education.
The main problem of both educational systems is educational reform. Each
system desires to achieve the positive results obtained by the other one, the
reform becomes permanent and unstable, because any change creates a lot of new
problems, which needs another reform with different goals. The main problem is
”Is it possible to obtain a system of education with the positive qualities
from both parts?” To respond to this
problem we might notice first if these two educational systems are the only two
systems existing in the world. The response is negative. At least one other
form of education exists from ancient time. It is the spiritual form of
education. All religions included this form of education in different variants.
The pure variant of spirituality has no contact with economy, art, or culture.
It may be found in India, in our times, were Sanyasins, persons who have no
fortune, are completely naked, and eat only what people give, have only the
following preoccupations: to protect the nature including humans, animals,
plants, insects, or bacteria, and to understand the ultimate laws of the
universe. There are also contaminated variants of these kinds of education.
Most of them are religious. Contamination is produced by economical reasons,
most of churches are rich, or by cultural factors, there are religions
characterizing different cultures. We can find contamination between
monopolistic and familial education too. There are many international
experiments in this direction none are very successful. All have some good
points and bad points.
Educational process happens not only in school, but also in family,
society, church, working place. It
characterizes a culture and can not be reformed only in one specific component,
because of the cultural stability assured by the others ”(Frasier 1989”,Baldwin
1978”, Tonemah and Brittan 1985” “ Hillard 1978”, Lee 1984, 1989)”.
Tonemah and Brittan(1985) noted the strong tribal perspective associated
with the concept of giftedness in their description of gifted attributes of
Native American students. They delineated characteristics of gifted potential
in four areas:
(a)
(a) acquired skills in language, learning, and
technological skills;
(b)
(b) tribal/ cultural
understanding referring to their exceptional knowledge of ceremonies, tribal
traditions, and other tribes;
(c)
(c) personal /human qualities such as high
intelligence, visionary/inquisitive/intuitive, respectful of elders, and
creative skills: and
(d)
(d) aesthetic abilities, referring to unusual talents in the
visual and performing arts, and arts based in the Indian culture.
Garrison (1989) described gifted Native American individuals as tending
to be less dependent on language to communicate ideas, to learn by observation
and to teach by modeling, and to consider the group more important than the
individual;” ( Frasier 1995)
Different cultures required different human qualities, gifts and social
adjustments.
Schools can not assure an educational reform
without the contribution of all the other factors. This is why, cultural or
educational philosophy is not very easily absorbed.
From another point of view different education philosophies are
contradictory each other. For example religious philosophies contradict
economical philosophies. Using Sanyasin’s way of life, the environment will be
perfectly protected, but economy can be developed. Using a composed philosophy
of education and cultural structuring developed by cristianism, we find other
internal contradiction. For example, the right for abortion that may assure a
populational balance contradicts the fundamental right for life assured by
divine law in any religion.
Maladjustment
What is happening when a culture with a
specific economy and educational system invade another culture. There are many
historical examples, which give us the possibility to see the amplitude of
damages. One of them is typical American domination after colonial invasion on
the American continent .The damages produced on land fertility due to
agricultural techniques transformed a large part of the fertile land in
desert. Now for the same surface with
grass cultivated for growing cows, half of the meat quantity is produced than
few centuries ago, when buffaloes and deer lived on the same surface of land.
Native American cultures that were developed on the economic system based on
direct exploitation of natural resources were extremely respectful for the
environment. They developed a system of moral concerns regarding land
protection that didn’t characterize the intrusive cultures. Something similar
is happening now in Australia due to the same factors and with similar
cultures. Even more detrimental is the destructive process developed after 1990
in many parts of the globe. American intrusion in Chinese economy developed it
very fast, but in the same time a large part of Chinese forests disappeared
swallowed by this hungry economy. Traditional Chinese economy was very
protective of the environment, transforming every piece of wood in a useful or
artistic object in an original way. American economy requires some standards of
quality for the same wood, being more detrimental for the environment. Chinese
economy was flexible, American standards are more rigid, and a consequence in
the detriment of the nature. Traditionally Chinese people were educated with
different standards being concerned more on ideas, philosophy, and affectivity
than on the respect for standards characterizing monopolistic economy. The tropical forests of Borneo also
disappeared almost entirely, many populations with jungle cultures being forced
to go to the city
searching
for a job.
Another example
is Romania. Economical demands concerning macro economical characteristics were
not accompanied by microeconomic, organizing economical system with
responsibility. As a result the Romanian economy was damaged in the last ten
years. Education provided by Romanian economical system was not adjusted to new
demands quickly enough to avoid economical destruction by creating new kinds of
specialists. This possibility was not possible mainly because of cultural
considerations. Romanian culture developed a particular kind of giftedness and
moral qualities, most of them opposite to
adjust to the pressure of new demands. Cultures don’t die so
easily, economies can be redeveloped, new generations may adjust to new
demands, but natural detriments are very difficult to be ever recuperated. This
is why globalization policies must be extremely responsible for any culture.
The role of education becomes in these conditions more important than ever.
Even if this task is extremely difficult humans must create a complex chain of
implications from education to the balance with the natural environment. This
chain must pass through cultural stability, economical flexibility and respect
for other cultures. Our neighbors are not our enemies, but our collaborators.
Everybody have something good to learn from another culture. The next period
must be characterized by the desire of preservation of natural environment
using educational policies. This kind of demands might change people and with
them economical aggressive rules or cultural aggressive behaviors. The goal is
human and nature to survive together. World is our world, not their world. If
pollution happens in a place of this planet, it will not remain between
national borders. If in a country all the forests will disappear, clime will
change in a different country too. Natural genetic banks and cultural bank are
everything we have stable and bust be preserved. There are the results of life
evolution and of historical human evolution. If a country will conquer the
world, will destroy the world by imposing other values. Increasing number of
people will require another kind of economy protective to natural and cultural
economy if we want to preserve the world. A major role in this global world is
educational.
A
difficult task
It seems to be impossible to define and develop a system of education
that might be internally consistent, or philosophically non-contradictory, but
it is not. New technologies developed a new vision about communication; new
ultimate scientific theories have the tendency to improve our way of thinking
eliminating some of our contradictions. The globalization process deletes the
borders between nations and economies, cultivating in the same time the
cross-cultural concepts. The postindustrial period reduces the necessity for
human physic work developing new fields of spirituality: inter human
relationships or environmental education. In the future the education will be
completely different from what we consider now to be a classic education.
Globalization will develop new rules of social game in which communication
necessities will delete the border of cultural offense. Now we are still
extremely traditional. In monopolistic cultures, people feel offended if their
professional value is challenged. Even if they use reductionism methodologies
of thinking and working narrowing their field of activity as much as possible,
they are very proud of the results of their work. Even if they don’t have a
global vision about the detriments produced in the natural environment by their
philosophy of hard workers, they don’t admit to doubt that their work is a
waste of resources. Familial economies and education promote a better way of
exploiting the environment, being more elastic regarding the standards. Their
products have the tendency to be unique, not serial, because of their view and
respect for different moral concepts. In these cultures a human feels offended
if somebody challenges his (hers) moral standards. Even if these are the
societies with a large spectrum of educational derivatives, and where social
standards are not as respected as in monopolist economies, they feel offended
if somebody doesn’t trust them. I believe and I hope that these kinds of
cultural offenses will disappear very soon, and we will be the witnesses of a
new kind of education. Globalization requires this, cultural outrage or lack of
trust in other cultures being potentially a factor of instability. In a world
with a unique economy desired by a global world must be found also a cultural
protective way of education, that might be able to assure a good informational
contact avoiding misunderstandings. This is maybe the most important step in
assuring stability in the new millennium. Any culture needs more information
because most of its problems found solutions in other cultures. Cultural
fortune represents now the biggest gift for the globalization period. This is
why it must be stimulated by a global system of education designed to value
different cultural solution for the global world. Actual systems of education are designed for
different goals and are very detrimental in long term for the natural
environment”(Chet Bowers 1985)”
The design of this new education is a very
great challenge for every educator and for every human. The new education will
have as result, a new economy, and social life in another period. If the design
is good the society will be stable and prosperous, if not the problems and
crises will multiply in an unpredictable way.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق