s11, school students, and the end of liberalism
Paper presented to the AARE Conference
University of Sydney, December 4-7, 2000
Dr Tom Griffiths
Faculty of Education
University of Newcastle.
NSW. 2308
(02) 4921 6658
FIRST DRAFT
Abstract
This paper reviews the world-systems perspective on the collapse of communism a decade ago, seen as marking not the triumph of capitalism, but the end of liberalism as the dominant geoculture of the capitalist world-system. The recent "s11" protest movement in Melbourne, Australia is considered in terms of this perspective, as a potential part of an 'antisystemic' movement challenging the legitimacy of the capitalist world-system and working for its transition into an alternative world-system. In this context, the responses of 14 and 15 year old school students to a comprehensive survey are examined, in terms of their support for and / or questioning of the fundamental promises of liberalism. On several points, students' views are seen to be contradictory, expressing support for the official rhetoric of meritocracy in schooling and society, while acknowledging that wider social and economic factors directly undermine these processes. The youth surveyed provide some support for the argument that dominance of liberalism is ending, offering hope for educators and activists working to construct an alternative, democratic, just and egalitarian world-system. Introduction
The collapse of real existing socialism a decade ago, and subsequent incorporation of almost the entire globe into the capitalist world economy, were seen by some as marking the ultimate triumph capitalism as the only, if not the natural, alternative for the world. In contrast, world-systems theorising has argued that these events in fact marked the 'end of liberalism' as the dominant geoculture and ideology of the world-system, and with it the beginnings of the transformation of the capitalist world-system. At face level, recent protests against the global institutions at heart of the capitalist world-system, in Seattle, Washington, Prague, and recently in Melbourne, appear to provide some support for this thesis. There actions are arguably signs of a growing movement in core industrialised countries, with links to the periphery, demanding an alternative and radically different world-system.
This paper briefly reviews the s11 protest in Melbourne earlier this year, in terms of a world- systems approach to contemporary world events, before going on to review responses from Australian youth to a number of questions concerning school education, work, and Australian politics and society. This data, from the Australian component of the international EGSIE study, is analysed in terms of students' indications of their support for and / or rejection of the promises of liberalism on the one hand, and other aspects of the current world-system. These responses are mixed and seemingly contradictory, suggesting at the least some cracks in the geoculture of liberalism amongst Australian youth.
The end of liberalism
This paper takes as its starting point the work by Immanuel Wallerstein on the capitalist world-system, and specifically the argument that world political events from 1989 have marked the end of liberalism as the dominant geoculture of the world-system. In a similar way to arguments from sections of the 'New Left', Wallerstein's thesis argues that the so- called triumph of capitalism signifies the beginnings of its demise at a global level. Boswell and Chase-Dunn similarly situate the revolutions of 1989 in the larger and longer-term development of the capitalist world-system, and the spiral or capitalist and socialist movements within the structure of an encompassing world-system.
The dominant feature of Wallerstein's world-systems approach is its claim that the so-called 'real existing' socialist and communist states, up to 1989, remained within and functional to the capitalist world-economy . From this perspective, the coming to power of communist movements provided stability for the world-system, via their pursuit of a "mercantilist strategy of "catching up" and "surpassing" rival states" , thus maintaining relative peace and stability in their sphere of influence within the interstate system. Wallerstein acknowledges "real differences" between the projects of the so-called socialist and non-socialist states, particularly the consequential impact of states like the USSR and Cuba in terms of legitimising revolutionary struggle; pressuring for and producing welfare reforms in the core; and challenging the legitimacy of the capitalist world-system (pp. 110 & 239). These differences, however, are presented in practice as extreme reforms that remain within the bounds of the capitalist world-system.
Wallerstein argues that 'liberalism' has been the dominant ideology or "geoculture" (p. 166) of the world-system, the concept of liberalism encompassing what he describes as its two variants of liberal-conservative and liberal-socialist (p. 88). While socialist and communist parties throughout the twentieth century claimed to be opposed to liberalism, Wallerstein (1995) argues that the socialist and communist variants came in practice to be "one of its avatars" (p. 89). In making this argument, Wallerstein highlights some central characteristics of both the capitalist and so-called communist variants of liberalism: "The possibility of the (economic) development of all countries came to be a universal faith, shared alike by conservatives, liberals, and Marxists. The formulas each put forward to achieve such development were fiercely debated, but the possibility itself was not. In this sense, the concept of development became a basic element of the geocultural underpinning of the world-system" .
A number of characteristics or aspects of a worldview shared by socialist and capitalist states can be summarised from the world-systems arguments of Wallerstein, including:
• the goal of achieving state power coupled with the principle of self-determination for sovereign states; • full membership and participation in the interstate system; • the state objective of national development, aimed at catching up to more developed core states and achieving modernisation; and
• the belief that this development, and progress, was possible through the application of a rational and state planned development strategy.
Put another way, these common assumptions and objectives of socialist and non-socialist states, within the capitalist world-system, are described by Wallerstein who emphasises that "both conservatives and socialists accepted the world-scale liberal agenda of self- determination (also called national liberation) and economic development (sometimes called the construction of socialism) (p. 103). On this basis, he concludes by noting that "the essential dispute between them was merely about the path to such national development" (p. 109). This argument is detailed extensively by Wallerstein in a number of publications .
Under this argument the belief in the possibility of national economic development for all states is presented as the "geocultural underpinning of the world-system" (p. 163). It is this shared underpinning, and the beliefs that it entails, that have arguably lost their footing over the past decade or more. The collapse of the real existing socialist economies, and so-called triumph of capitalism, has highlighted the incapacity of the current world-system to deliver the promises of global liberalism.
My purpose here is not to attempt to resolve, or even address in any major way, debates about alternative world-systems approaches. As noted, I take Wallerstein's critique as the starting point, with its focus on the capitalist world-economy, and description of principles within and underlying this in terms of liberalism as a shared, global geoculture of development. By implication, there are elements of a world-culture legitimating the shared principles of this geoculture globally. My focus is on the 'end of liberalism' thesis and its implications, in terms of recent event in Australia and globally, and the views of school students recorded in the EGSIE youth survey.
A fundamental aspect of Wallerstein's work on the capitalist world-system focuses on its end, and the transition to a new world-system. This idea is predominant in early work, such as The Rise and Future Demise of the World Capitalist System from 1974, tracing the development of the capitalist world-system and the conditions required for its political stability . More recently, Wallerstein focuses more exclusively on alternatives, on the premise that we are currently "living in the transition from our existing world-system, the capitalist world-economy, to another world-system or systems" (p. 35). The thesis here is that the outcome of this transition is in no way inevitable, but that in this transitional period the collective and conscious efforts of people can have more effect on the structuring of the world than in 'normal' times (p. 35). Boswell and Chase-Dunn critique Wallerstein's failure to address in any detail what may come 'after liberalism', and the strategies and institutions required to transform the current world-system into a progressive, socialist world-system (pp. 159-64). They focus instead on Wagar's utopian novel, with its detailed discussion of possible scenarios for political organisation and action at local, national and global levels, as part of the process of constructing an alternative world-system.
Like Wagar, however, Wallerstein does highlight the importance of antisystemic movements in the shaping of history . Boswell and Chase-Dunn describe the former socialist movements as:
"... counterhegemonic movements in the semiperiphery that attempted to transform the basic logic of capitalism, but which ended up using socialist ideology to mobilize industrialization for the purpose of catching up with core capitalism" (p. 132).
These former movements, like the state socialist systems that they produced, are thus presented as playing the contradictory role of both contributing to the stability of the capitalist world-system, and promoting antisystemic challenges to its legitimacy. Wallerstein argues that the end of liberalism, and structural crisis of the current world-system, means that these "old antisystemic movements" have lost support and legitimacy (p. 58).
In discussing current conflicts within the world-system, Wallerstein points to "very strong movements - particularly in the non-core zones ... [that] ... proclaim their total rejection of the fundamental premise of the capitalist accumulation of capital as a governing principle of social organisation" (p. 58). While his specific focus at the time of writing was on 'fundamentalist' religious movements, the basis for their resurgence is expressed in terms of the "delegitimisation of the ideology of inevitable progress that was a major pillar of world stability for at least two centuries" (p. 58), associated with the 'end of liberalism' thesis.
The essential argument here is that the collapse of the flawed antisystemic socialist movements that had achieved state power, is producing a renewed challenge to the legitimacy of the capitalist world-system and its structures. This is due to the subsequent inability of capitalism as a world-system, and its national various in the former socialist states, to realise the promises of global liberalism.
Recent protests across the world against institutions and aspects of global capitalism can be seen from this perspective as constituting part of arguably more authentic antisystemic movement, particularly through the consistent and explicit call for global justice and critique of corporate styled globalisation. These protests, simplistically labelled 'anti-globalisation' protests by the mainstream media, have recently produced global anti-capitalist days of action, centred around meetings of bodies like the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and International Monetary Fund (IMF), and the World Economic Forum (WEF). In September of this year over ten thousand protesters came together in Melbourne in an attempt to shut down the Asia Pacific meeting of the World Economic Forum.
The protest in Melbourne made explicit links to the global actions, promoting s11 with the call: From Seattle to Melbourne. The protest drew on a diverse range of groups with equally diverse agendas, ranging from traditional trade unions and environmental groups like Friends of the Earth, small Marxist-Leninist political parties, anarchist groups, and multiple non-political party aligned groups and individuals. Organisation for the meeting centred around a more traditional grouping called the 's11 Alliance', with decisions made by majority vote, and an alternative organisational group 'AWOL' (Autonomous Web of Liberation), promoting the formation of autonomous affinity groups and actively organising against centralised decision making, in favour of diversity of action.
The meeting of the WEF was disrupted, with around one third of delegates unable to attend the first day of the three-day meeting, followed by a calculated use of extreme force by the police, rather than arrest, to clear blockaders on the second day of protest. Rather than detail the events of the protest action, and the multiple debates that surrounded the goals, strategies, and organisation of the action, my assertion here is that this emerging protest movement in Australia, and internationally, contains characteristics of a world-systems styled antisystemic movement. While small sections involved in s11 may well have been explicitly 'anti-globalisation', including right wing political groups and unions advocating nationalist and protectionist policies, the diversity of the group suggests that new possibilities for a broad-based anti-systemic movement are emerging.
The diversity of the protest movement, a conscious and fundamental part of its character, means that any claims to characterise common or agreed goals and positions are necessarily open to challenge. That said, from the first call to action by the 's11 Alliance', the protest was explicitly against the particular form of "corporate globalisation", and the array of global implications of globalisation carried out in the interests of corporations and profits. Slogans of 'global need not corporate greed' and globalising social justice were common at the protest amongst different groups. Calls were made for the abolition of international bodies like the WTO, IMF and WEF, and their reform and / or replacement with bodies acting in the interests of the environment, notions of sustainable development, and whole populations.
The global character of the events in Melbourne was apparent in the shared slogans, identification of actions (s11, j26 etc), ways of organising (affinity groups, electronic discussion lists, websites etc), and the spread of alternative, independent media sites to report on events. All of these are potential indications of an emerging, global antisystemic movement. S11 emphasised the super-exploitation of labour internationally by global corporations like Nike, and the need to globalise regulatory control over corporations on issues like wages, working conditions, and environmental standards. S11 explicitly advocated a change in the global system of corporate globalisation, based on the recognition that irreversible ecological damage was already becoming a reality, and that the model of development for all countries was unsustainable, even if it were possible.
There is a strong case to be made that the s11 action in Melbourne was, in many ways, indicative of a new development on the national political scene, with an unmistakably international and antisystemic character. Assessing potential support for this movement, or at least, aspects of the broader political agenda, amongst youth in schools is clearly problematic. To do this, I consider a range of student responses to questions in the EGSIE youth survey around issues of meritocracy in school and working life, globalisation, and the national political system. This provides some insights into the levels of students' beliefs in the dominant discourse of liberalism, with respect to schooling and society, and in turn potential indications of their support for an emerging anti-systemic movement.
The EGSIE youth study
The youth study component of the Australian EGSIE study surveyed 635 students in Year 9 and 10, from eight different schools in three States . Cracks in the geoculture of liberalism amongst this cohort of young people can be seen in their responses to survey items around issues of meritocracy within and beyond the school, notions of what qualities are needed to succeed in school and life, and their attitudes towards global and national political issues. This is done by examining some groups of items from the youth survey, organised in the discussion below under four headings: faith in education; a world-system; success in school; and national politics. Given the problematic nature of making definitive statements on social actors beliefs based on responses to a survey, the discussion of these items centres on potential signs of students' rejection of the promises and institutions of liberalism under the capitalist world-system, in the context o fan emerging global antisystemic movement.
Faith in education
The first indications of a crack in liberalism amongst the youth surveyed centres on their expressed belief in the value and meritocratic nature of school education. On one level this faith seems solid, with 83% of those surveyed agreeing with the statement that "everyone can succeed at school if they try hard", and 84.8% that "it's worthwhile to study in order to succeed in life". Thus students seem to acknowledge the cultural capital value of schooling (and other educational credentials) in later life, and accept the idea that success is largely due to individual ability and effort. At the same time, however, a majority also agreed that "teachers typically favour successful pupils" (66%), suggesting strong recognition of this anti-meritocratic process. In addition, a minority but significant proportion agreed that "I don't have the talents which school assumes I should have" (39.1%), while only 42.8% agreed that "teachers respect my opinion". Any faith in the meritocratic nature of schooling is thus qualified by these responses.
Taking this questioning further, a very high proportion agreed that "teaching should support, in particular, those students with difficulties" (79.8%), showing explicit support for the principle of targeted support for disadvantaged groups. This simultaneous acceptance of the rhetoric of meritocracy and equity, and recognition of external factors influencing individual outcomes, was also seen in questions about factors seen as important for success in school. Here for example only 13.5% of students agreed that having "rich parents" was important for success, while there was strong agreement on the importance of individual factors (see section onQualities for success below, p. *). At the same time, 80% agreed that "the family impacts on school success". At certain points, in response to certain questions, students thus show some recognition that school education is not equitable and fair, but influenced by factors far removed from meritocratic ideals. At one level, these items provide some support for the idea that students are, at least, questioning the geoculture of liberalism, in terms of meritocracy and equity in schooling.
A world-system
Given the nature of the EGSIE youth study, specific items about the world-system were not a part of the survey. However, a significant bank of items did cover issues of international relations and exchange, all of which fall into the broader world-systems perspective. More specifically, questions here referred to different aspects of Australia's relations with other countries, and individuals working or studying in Australia and overseas. Student responses here do not support direct claims about student attitudes towards things like the process of corporate globalisation under the capitalist world-system, as raised by the s11 protest, or indeed any other description of current processes of globalisation and the world-system. They do, however, give some indications of the character of students' attitudes towards different aspects and features of the world-system, like trade and employment and the issue of equality, and their desire for more information about global issues.
On a broad level, there was quite a high level of agreement on a few items that expressed benefits of Australia's international relations with its neighbouring countries. For example, 74.6% agreed that "Australia's relations with neighbouring countries are important", and 68.1% that "international trade and communication is a good thing for Australia and other countries". In the wake of Australia's involvement in East Timor, 61.2% saw our relations with other countries as promoting peace both "in the region and other parts of the world". A majority also agreed that it was "important for Australia to get international input" (58.3%). Similarly, students tended to see benefits for Australia in having people from other countries study (69.7%) and work (57.5%) here, with less support for the idea that students be encouraged to study and work overseas (57.2% and 43.3% respectively).Support for these items is not as overwhelmingly strong as those cited above, suggesting less consensus with respect to these features of Australia's role in the world-system.
This ambivalence can be seen in the fact that barely half of the students surveyed agreed that our relations with other countries "increases equality between people" (54.9%), that trade and relations "brings more jobs into Australia" (54.1%), and that as a result of relations with other countries "An individual has more opportunities in life" (54.3). Alongside these figures, a minority but significant proportion of respondents agreed with negative aspects of Australia's international relations with neighbouring countries. The highest item here was 32.7% who agreed that "our trade and relations with neighbouring countries increased environmental problems in the region". Around one quarter agreed that inequality had increased due to international relations (27.2%), and that individuals have "fewer chances to have an impact on politics because of Australia's interactions and relations with other countries" (23.8%).
Once again the results present a mixed picture, with strong indications that trade and relations with other countries, within the current world-system, is not seen in positive terms by a significant proportion of the youth. Overall, students perhaps tend to view these aspects of globalisation more positively than negatively, but as indicated above support for some items is clearly split. A potential point of challenge to the world-system is particularly evident in students' views about environmental damage, inequality, and a reduced capacity for (ordinary) individuals to have an impact on national politics, under the corporate globalisation processes of the world-system.
Another aspect surveyed related to students' knowledge about global or international issues and Australia's place in them. Students were asked to rate the adequacy of information, both positive and negative, about Australia's relations with other countries, with less than half agreeing that they were taught enough in school about the positive (43.3%) and negative (36%) aspects of Australia's relations with other countries. Looking at the break-up of responses to these items, it emerges that agreement on these questions was strongly polarised according to students' self-perception of success in school. Those who identified themselves at either end of the scale were much more likely to express a desire for more information about these issues. For example, only 25.7% of students who identified themselves as "very successful" in school agreed that they were taught enough about the positive aspects of Australia's relations with other countries, and 25.2% for negative aspects. Even fewer students at the other end agreed, with just 14.6% and 15.2% of those identifying themselves as "below average" agreeing on positive and negative aspects respectively, these figures falling to 6.3% and 10.9% for those perceiving themselves as being "not successful" in school.
Amongst the mid-range of students, responses were markedly different. On the question of positive aspects, 77% of "average" students and 76.5% of "above average" students agreed that they received enough information, while for negative aspects the proportions were 79.4% and 69.3% respectively. Clearly some distinct sections of the school population are not satisfied with the amount of information about these world-system issues. These results highlight another crack in the geoculture of liberalism, through the implicit recognition that there is much about the world-system that students are not taught, and in particular that there is much to be learned about the negative aspects of current arrangements. The break- up also suggests that support is simultaneously weakest amongst those most successful, and most marginalised, within the school system, arguably indicating a strong challenge to the world-system.
Qualities for success in school
Students were asked to rate the importance of a number of factors on success in school life. Most of the nine items could be described as individual characteristics, in terms of ability, and attitudinal and behavioural characteristics. Three items, having "rich parents", "highly educated parents", and "popularity among other pupils", dealt with external factors. Overall, there was strong support for the importance of individual factors, with for example a total of 92.2% seeing "hard work" as an important quality for success in school. Very high proportions also viewed "own abilities and talents" (83.5%) and having a "positive attitude towards school work" (88.6%) as being important. Interestingly, boys were more likely to see "ambition and willingness to compete with others" as important than girls, at a rate of 73.8% compared to 60.9%.
The overall tendency here seems to suggest a belief in the capacity of individuals to succeed through individual ability, effort, and adoption of the appropriate attitudes and behaviours. This is reinforced by only 13.5% believing that "rich parents" were important for school success, while a higher but still minority proportion of 25.9% believed having "highly educated parents" was important. Higher still, 45.6% rated "popularity among other pupils" as being important. Some gender-based differences were notable here also, with boys more likely to see parents' education (33.4% against 17.4%) and having rich parents (18.6% against 7.7%) as being important.
There were some significant differences between schools on this issue, with for example only 6.5% of students in one private (independent) school agreeing that having "rich parents" was important for school success, compared to 19.1% in a disadvantaged public school.
The indications here then are that the liberal-meritocratic idea of success in school, through personal or individual ability and effort, remains strong amongst this cross-section of students. This view continues to be conditioned by minority but statistically significant proportions identifying anti-meritocratic factors like parents' wealth or education, and social relations with other students, as important factors impacting on school success.
National politics
Several items in the survey give some quite direct insights into students' faith in the current social and political system in Australia, relating more directly to the question of a weakening of the geoculture of liberalism, and potential support for s11 type movements, amongst school students. These items suggest high levels of disillusionment with the current political structures, and strong support for the idea of alternative forms of political action to contribute to social and political change.
There were no overwhelming levels of agreement for any individual item here, the highest proportion being 68.7% of students who agreed that "voting is the duty of every citizen who has the right to vote", followed by 65.1% who agreed "I would vote if I had the right". While a clear majority, significant proportions were neutral and / or disagreed with these fundamental premises of Australia's liberal democracy. More significantly, a similar proportion of 62.1% of students agreed that "politicians only promote their own interests", indicating a very low level of faith in political representatives, and less directly the political systems in which they are located. Ambivalence in students' responses here was seen in the fact that almost equal proportions agreed that "voting is the best way to have an effect on things" (58.7%) and that "taking part in demonstrations is a good way of getting your voice heard" (57.0%). Building on this, a strong minority of 38.3% agreed that "you can take part in illegal action if the purpose is good", and almost half agreed that "I could take part in illegal action if it benefited something which is important to me" (45.1%).
The implications here are that students' relatively high levels of faith in their education systems, and in the meritocratic nature of schooling and society, do not translate into overwhelming faith in our national political system of representative government. Instead, these responses can be seen as connecting with the qualifying factors noted in the discussion above. They build support for the argument that a significant proportion of students surveyed do not accept the central promises of global liberalism as they relate to schooling and both national and international politics and relations with other countries.
Conclusion
I would like to claim evidence of emerging and growing support amongst school students for a global anti-systemic movement devoted to constructing and establishing a socialist alternative to the capitalist world-system. On the basis of this evidence at least, such grand claims will have to wait. Indeed, my underlying premise that the s11 protest in Melbourne constitutes a part of an emerging, global anti-systemic movement is clearly open to question, just as the character of protest movement here and in other parts of the world is open to multiple interpretations. Hence I am well aware that I have put forward suggestions and possible connections that require more specific and detailed research. My purpose here is to raise these possibilities, and make some contribution to the beginnings of this work.
The data from the youth survey does show students providing contradictory responses, on the one hand accepting the official rhetoric of meritocracy and individual responsibility, while simultaneously acknowledging structural barriers to educational and socio-economic success, and questioning the very nature of our political system and its capacity to deal with contemporary social issues. Students want to know more about both the positive and negative aspects of global issues, while a large proportion see direct, and even illegal, action as a viable method of achieving some social good.
Do these constitute evidence of the end of liberalism, or at least of its collapsing legitimacy as the dominant geoculture of the capitalist world-system? The answer is a definite maybe. Certainly the capacity of the national state to produce national development, and to relate to other states in ways that are beneficial to people and the environment, is strongly questioned. Similarly, the ability of individuals to succeed in the state based solely on their merit is challenged on both global and national grounds. The questioning is neither universal, nor clear. For the purposes of this paper, however, the data holds some promise, and calls for more specific research focusing explicitly on questions of the capitalist world- system and the accompanying geoculture of liberalism. This will need to be done in conjunction with a detailed analysis and characterisation of the s11 protest movement in Australia, and its connection with other types of protest movements globally. This in turn may lead to work on building an antisystemic movement to influence any transition of the capitalist world-system, and educating school students for their participation in this movement. For citizens, educators and activists committed to a democratic, egalitarian and socially just world-system, there is much to be done.
References