he idea that “flourishing” might serve as the overarching aim of education has been championed in recent years by a number of philosophers of education. Many of them have recently signed the Jubilee Centre’s “Statement on Flourishing as an Educational Aim.”
But whether flourishing can meaningfully be said to be the “aim” of education is up for debate. There have been some recent voices of dissent, not because educators shouldn’t wish their students to flourish, but because proponents seem to conflate a value or a purpose with an educational aim.
The authors of what’s become known as the Jerusalem Statement take issue with the reconfiguration of education in terms of human capital theory, where students are seen through the prism of economics. In a simple sense this is fine. The reduction of education to the market logic of neoliberalism is something to lament, not least because it saps the power from education’s deeper purposes such as moral, character, and human development.
However, the critique of this human capital framework foundation in education seems rather glib. We need education to prepare workers for the workforce and we also need educators and employers to see the economic value of education and career development. This is a capitalist system after all, where capital is the energy that keeps this whole machine flowing. It should be no surprise that economists and even educators conceptualize labor and knowledge in this way.
The problem of performativity
The problem is perhaps not so much about the arguments for this aim or that, it is the very notion of aims itself. In his seminal critique of aims, Paul Standish asked “…must there be aims?” This is an important question. The assumption that there must be aims, according to Standish, is bound up with modernity itself, specifically with “the principles of rational planning” and the inclination towards “performativity.” Because of this managerial obsession, Standish went as far as to suggest that such talk was akin to a form of “idolatry.” This is a fair point. Educational policy-makers (national and international) have developed grandiose, supposedly virtuous, almost mythical schemes for the transformation of education. Unfortunately, some discourse in the philosophy of education contributes to this predicament.
Those familiar with recent discussions in the sociology of education may know about Stephen J. Ball’s critique of modern education systems. Ball highlights some of the problems of neoliberal encroachments into education where “policy technologies” are used in performative ways to “steer” educators from a “distance.” This is related to the problem that Standish highlights in terms of aims discourses. The educational aim (no matter how noble) becomes another Key Performance Indicator (KPI); another way to instrumentalize education. Ironically, advocates of flourishing seem to have become caught up using the same performative language.
The problem of a narrow, instrumentalist policy approach is implicitly acknowledged by Martin E.P. Seligman too where he suggests, for example, that well-being policies driven by subjective measures are: “…vulnerable to the Brave New World caricature in which the government promotes happiness simply by drugging the population.”
While education as economics is reductive, so is education as “flourishing.” In fact, the latter could be worse because it is vague to the point of vacuity (as Carr rightly laments). As if educators did not have enough to contend with, these educational aims, at least as presented, seem to be deeply flawed and unachievable..
Summing up
So what scope is there for flourishing to be an (or “the’) aim of education? Not much. There are simply too many problems with it. As noble as the aim of flourishing might appear, it is deeply misguided, conceptually flawed, and ethically problematic—certainly as articulated by advocates of the Jerusalem Statement.
There is one way to think about these issues that may help: See flourishing as a good part of the motivation for why we do what we do. We want our students to flourish and we want to contribute to preparing them for a flourishing future. Therefore we should do everything we can to prepare the ground for the flowering of each and every student. Not as an instrumental end or an aim, which is susceptible to the critique of dehumanizing performativity, but as a core value.
So let’s abandon performative talk of aims and work together to create the right conditions for student flourishing. Then we can speak meaningfully about the transformative potential of flourishing and our role in co-creating a future of education that is coherent, ethical, and fit for purpose.
a global affairs media network
Is flourishing a valid aim of education?
Photo by Dawid Zawiła on Unsplash
March 22, 2024
The idea of flourishing as the main aim of education has been gaining traction in recent years. While it is right to push back against seeing education through a prism of economics, there isn’t much scope to take flourishing as the aim of education seriously, writes Eri Mountbatten–O'Malley.
T
he idea that “flourishing” might serve as the overarching aim of education has been championed in recent years by a number of philosophers of education. Many of them have recently signed the Jubilee Centre’s “Statement on Flourishing as an Educational Aim.”
But whether flourishing can meaningfully be said to be the “aim” of education is up for debate. There have been some recent voices of dissent, not because educators shouldn’t wish their students to flourish, but because proponents seem to conflate a value or a purpose with an educational aim.
The authors of what’s become known as the Jerusalem Statement take issue with the reconfiguration of education in terms of human capital theory, where students are seen through the prism of economics. In a simple sense this is fine. The reduction of education to the market logic of neoliberalism is something to lament, not least because it saps the power from education’s deeper purposes such as moral, character, and human development.
However, the critique of this human capital framework foundation in education seems rather glib. We need education to prepare workers for the workforce and we also need educators and employers to see the economic value of education and career development. This is a capitalist system after all, where capital is the energy that keeps this whole machine flowing. It should be no surprise that economists and even educators conceptualize labor and knowledge in this way.
The problem of performativity
The problem is perhaps not so much about the arguments for this aim or that, it is the very notion of aims itself. In his seminal critique of aims, Paul Standish asked “…must there be aims?” This is an important question. The assumption that there must be aims, according to Standish, is bound up with modernity itself, specifically with “the principles of rational planning” and the inclination towards “performativity.” Because of this managerial obsession, Standish went as far as to suggest that such talk was akin to a form of “idolatry.” This is a fair point. Educational policy-makers (national and international) have developed grandiose, supposedly virtuous, almost mythical schemes for the transformation of education. Unfortunately, some discourse in the philosophy of education contributes to this predicament.
Those familiar with recent discussions in the sociology of education may know about Stephen J. Ball’s critique of modern education systems. Ball highlights some of the problems of neoliberal encroachments into education where “policy technologies” are used in performative ways to “steer” educators from a “distance.” This is related to the problem that Standish highlights in terms of aims discourses. The educational aim (no matter how noble) becomes another Key Performance Indicator (KPI); another way to instrumentalize education. Ironically, advocates of flourishing seem to have become caught up using the same performative language.
The problem of a narrow, instrumentalist policy approach is implicitly acknowledged by Martin E.P. Seligman too where he suggests, for example, that well-being policies driven by subjective measures are: “…vulnerable to the Brave New World caricature in which the government promotes happiness simply by drugging the population.”
While education as economics is reductive, so is education as “flourishing.” In fact, the latter could be worse because it is vague to the point of vacuity (as Carr rightly laments). As if educators did not have enough to contend with, these educational aims, at least as presented, seem to be deeply flawed and unachievable..
Summing up
So what scope is there for flourishing to be an (or “the’) aim of education? Not much. There are simply too many problems with it. As noble as the aim of flourishing might appear, it is deeply misguided, conceptually flawed, and ethically problematic—certainly as articulated by advocates of the Jerusalem Statement.
There is one way to think about these issues that may help: See flourishing as a good part of the motivation for why we do what we do. We want our students to flourish and we want to contribute to preparing them for a flourishing future. Therefore we should do everything we can to prepare the ground for the flowering of each and every student. Not as an instrumental end or an aim, which is susceptible to the critique of dehumanizing performativity, but as a core value.
So let’s abandon performative talk of aims and work together to create the right conditions for student flourishing. Then we can speak meaningfully about the transformative potential of flourishing and our role in co-creating a future of education that is coherent, ethical, and fit for purpose.
