The purpose of this article is to draw methodological insights from the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory, and to subject to the process of ideological (or ‘immanent’) critique certain ‘myths’ regarding the use of technology in education.

The Frankfurt school refers to a group of social theorists, operating in Germany from about 1930 onwards, working in the broadly Marxist tradition, who set out to interrogate issues such as technology and social change, as well as various other social and cultural factors that serve to pre-empt radical social change and uphold the status quo. Included in the Frankfurt School proper are figures such as Marcuse, Horkheimer, Adorno. Habermas is a younger member of the Frankfurt School, and French theorists Althusser and Barthes share some of their theoretical frameworks with the School.

The basic approach which Friesen takes from these theorists is that of the ideological or ‘immanent’ critique. According to the Frankfurt School, no knowledge is free from ideology. It is always created from a particular standpoint and serves some or other human interest. As such, many ‘facts’ or ‘common sense,’ generally accepted as true or valid, are actually political and ideological. They serve certain interests while foreclosing others. These bits of ‘common sense,’ which Barthes called ‘myths,’ need to be interrogated. Though they appear to be self-evident and the realities they describe appear universal, timeless and natural, they have in fact been socially-constructed at a point in time. Their genesis must be revealed. Moreover, the knowledge must be shown to be political by revealing whose interests are served by it. Finally, alternate narratives concerning the same events or issues must be excavated to reveal whose interests have been marginalized and how this can be remedied.

This is the broad approach which Friesen takes to three ‘myths’ about technology in education. The first of these is the myth of the ‘knowledge economy.’ This myth says that here in the West, the whole economic paradigm has shifted. The Industrial economy is a thing of the past. We are no longer competitive at industrial manufacturing. Now, the only way to compete globally is through third-sector, knowledge economy products and services. The myth also posits the ‘knowledge theory of value,’ basically a modification of Marx’s labour theory of value, which says that the value of production is determined by the knowledge that goes into it. In the classroom, the ramifications of such a view have been that children are seen as future knowledge producers who have to be filled up with cutting-edge knowledge. The role of education is to prepare students for production of this type, rather than targeting past objectives such as personal development, fulfillment and autonomy, and responsible citizenship.

This ‘myth’ of the knowledge economy and the concept of the ‘knowledge theory of value,’ were promoted by Daniel Bell, an arch-neoconservative theorist of the 1980s and 90s. And it is not hard to see whose interests such a ‘myth’ serves. It ensures that the next generation of knowledge economy workers are produced in order to continue generating capitalist profits in this sector. However, this view of the economy does not actually correspond to the reality, since in the new economy, there are even more low-paid service, hospitality and health care services workers than there are so-called knowledge workers. This shift in the structure of education to the knowledge economy model does not benefit these workers, since they have received an education which has not allowed them to access higher paid knowledge work, while also having deprived them of what were formally the other objectives of education: self-development, moral and spiritual enlightenment, democratic citizenship. But perhaps this too serves the ruling power structure as it limits the ability of these low-level workers to think critically about their society and their place within it and instead encourages in them the fetishization of technology and knowledge work.  

The second ‘myth’ which Friesen addresses is the one stating that online learning makes education accessible to ‘anyone, anywhere, at any time.’ This was the prevalent discourse in e-learning around the turn of the century and it promised to democratize education by making it accessible to everyone, regardless of where they lived, their social class, and even their race. In fact, it has proven that this myth overstated the technology’s transcendence of such limitations. First, access to education via internet is never seamless and free of material physical constraints. Moreover, access to online education remains differentiated according to socio-economic class. Not everyone has access to reliable high-speed internet. This is certainly true of people in the developing world, but is also the case for certain underserved populations in the developed world. Also, the fact that one can access education via internet says nothing of whether one has the time and money to pursue additional study. This too, is largely a function of social class.

The ‘anyone, anywhere, anytime’ myth therefore serves to promote online education by giving the impression of democratizing access to learning. In reality though, previously-existing class divisions are only reproduced through it. At the same time, it serves the interests of the neoliberal university, increasingly responsive to profit motives. Online learning allows the university to spend less on physical infrastructure. It can also begin to lower labour costs by restructuring its workforce. It can hire fewer tenured faculty, replacing them with an army of sessional instructors and tutors who do not design courses, but only implement previously-made ones year after year.

The third ‘myth’ which Friesen addresses is the one which states that ‘technology drives educational change.’ This is a sort of technological determinism which posits the development of technology as a quasi- autonomous force which responds to some formula and is free of the social relations underlying it. This ‘myth’ states that technological changes is not subject to substantial societal control and instead inexorably reshapes society in its image. The message that educators receive is that they must unquestioningly adopt and integrate each new technological innovation, or risk being rendered obsolete. The truth of the matter, however, is that technological change emerges out of social relations, and that technologies are subject to control and limitation by social forces in the interest of the social good, should sufficient political will exist to do so. By the same token, individual institutions such as the educational system are free to accept or reject discreet technologies, according to whether they serve larger educational purposes, and to modify and adapt them to maximize such outcomes.

Article:

https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.library.uvic.ca/stable/pdf/42980245