ALCA and pedagogy for oppression

Introduction

ALCA will provide US imperialismwith a legal and decision-making framework to determine trade,investment, ownership policies, labor legislation and the nature,cost, form and content of education and health systems.

ALCAmarks a qualitative change in US-Latin American relationsbecause it establishes a new political system and legal basis fordirect US control over the entire socio-economic structure of LatinAmerica. The governments of almost all Andean countries Peru,Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia (with the exception of Venezuela) havealready demonstrated a willingness to accept the new colonial status. To discuss any major social question today requires that weunderstand the larger meaning of ALCA and its specific impact oneducation and its effects on Peruvian pedagogy.

Thesigning and implementation of ALCA in 2005 is the product of apolitical process ? not a singular event. It isimportant to understand the different phases and incrementalchanges which have created the basis for the current transitionto the new colonialism. ALCA is the culmination of a twenty-yearstruggle, beginning in the case of Peru in the 1980?s underBelaunde and Garcia Presidency, and accelerating in the 1990?sunder the Fujimori dictatorship and culminating with the Toledoregime?s abject and total submission to the neo-colonial ALCAframework.

Thoughthe transition to ALCA took place by piecemeal changes, ALCArepresents a new ?totality? which embraces every aspect ofpolitical, military, social and cultural life. ALCA is not simply aproblem of economic domination. ALCA affects both the internalstructure and international politics of Latin America, up to andincluding the formation of a mercenary army to police the empire, asthe recent intervention and occupation of Haiti illustrates.

Theprocess of colonization began with the imperial use of the foreigndebt to leverage the ?structural adjustment policies?; Washingtonvia its representatives in the international financial institutions(IMF, World Bank, Inter-American Bank) designed an agenda for theprivatization of public enterprises, the denationalization of naturalresources, the end of protective tariff barriers, the deregulation ofthe financial system, the reversal of social and labor legislation,and the promotion of private capitalist control over education andhealth services. Each one of these ?neo-liberal? measures had adual effect: on the one hand it increased the property holding,profits and interest payments to US banks and MNCs; on the other handit created a social class of managers, professionals, investors,administrators, politicians and others within the country whobenefited from these policies and who have become the principleinternal supporters of the transition to colonialism. Neo-liberalpolicies created the new ?personnel? and institutions which wouldbecome the leading internal forces backing ALCA. Neo-liberalism wasa ?pre-colonial?, pro-colonial policy, which created thepolitical class prepared to serve the colonial empire.

Imperialismexpands and rules through force and ideas. For some writers andacademics, the key problem is imperial ?hegemony?: theinternalization of ruling class ideas by the oppressed. I wouldargue that the term ?hegemony? has been abused and distorted. Imperialist ?hegemony? is narrowly based on limited social andpolitical sectors in Latin America. The most ?hegemonized?classes are those which collaborate openly and continuously withimperial institutions and share in the benefits of imperial plunder. This includes political leaders of most electoral parties, the localbankers, investors, consultants, etc. These collaborationist partiesexercise influence over the middle classes by promising ?reforms?and ?democracy? and serving some of their interests. But thegreat mass of the people reject ?free trade?, debt payments,reduction of social budgets, coca eradication and ALCA. Clearlyimperial hegemony is not operative among the masses. The masses arenot hegemonized by Imperialism; they are manipulated by petitbourgeois political and social leaders who are under imperialhegemony. Toward the masses, imperialism rules via force and throughthe rhetorical and organizational manipulation of the ?hegemonized?upwardly mobile electoral political class.

Specificallyin the area of education, the process of privatization advancedthrough several complementary policies. First of all the reductionof the state budget for public education lead to the reduction ofteachers? salaries, an increase in classroom size, thedeterioration of physical facilities etc. State budgets were reducedto channel over one-third of the revenues and over half of the exportearnings toward debt payments. The reduction of educational andother social expenditures also serves an ideological purpose: to cause public education to deteriorate and then to argue that any public activity is inferior to private capitalist enterprise. Furthermore, the reduction of public financing of education is to make public schools more dependent on private financing and thus increase the influence of the private sector over education.

The promotion and subsidizing of private education, and as a result the deterioration of public schools, leads to the segregation of education between the poor and the lower middle class. The funding of private education has several purposes. In the first place, it promotes the idea that ?private? is better than the ?public?. Secondly, it raises the quality of private education for privileged classes and reduces the costs for the elite. The World Bank and private foundations (Ford and Rockefeller Foundations) design and finance educational programs, research agendas, curriculum reform and ideological training in order to further the privatization process and to link education to private business interests, colonial expansion and the diffusion of imperial ideology. While the World Bank argues for greater ?professionalism? and against ?ideology? in educational programs, in reality it promotes a pro-imperial ideology which prepares technocrats to serve the multinationals against a nationalist ideology which serves the people.

The role of education is to create a ?New Person?, to fit in with the new colonial economy; this involves the cultural conversion of independent sovereign citizens into colonial subjects. The construction of a colonial culture is central to maintaining the new collaborator regimes which sustain imperialism. The colonial cultural offensive is challenging Che Guevara?s concept of the ?New Socialist Person? with the notion of the ?New Colonial Organizational Person? (NCOP). The ideology of the NCOP is ?What is good for the multinationals is good for the country?. Their purpose is not to question the goals of the empire but to define the least costly techniques and means to achieve the highest profits.

Che Guevara?s vision of the ?New Socialist Person? stands in sharp contrast to the vision of the NCOP: for Che the purpose in life is to serve the people, to be guided by the ideals of the collective good, to integrate the word with action, to combine mental and physical labor, to despise oppressors and to embrace the oppressed, to sacrifice material wealth for the greater good of mankind. In contrast the vision of the New Colonial Person is to serve the corporation, to be guided by private accumulation of wealth, to speak with ?many tongues?, to despise physical labor, to worship the wealthy and powerful, and despise the poor, to make a fetish of consumerism and sell oneself to the highest bidder.

For Che the highest value was class solidarity; for the colonial subject ?the market? dictates the answers; for Che respect of nature and belief in human potential was supreme; for the colonial subject the object is to extract riches and trample on the rights of indigenous peoples.

The creation of a colonial culture involves not only outward conformity with the economic and social discipline imposed by neo-colonial state to facilitate imperial pillage of labor, natural resources and the public treasury, but the colonization of the mind, the senses and even the objects of desire.

Colonial cultural domination includes influencing visual experiences and entertainment via mass media ? the mindless programs of police violence which enforce state authority, the tele-novelas which convert profound social problems into personal dilemmas, the games of luck and chance which foster illusions of individual escape from mass misery. Gastronomic imperialism in the form of individual consumption of unhealthy fast food, undermines historical endogenous nutritious eating habits and collective intergenerational sharing of food. Gastronomic imperialism creates linkages with the consumption habits of the imperial society, in addition to destroying local food producers and augmenting the profits of billionaire multi-nationals. The colonial symbols of consumption ? the giant shopping centers — become points of encounter among the lower middle class youth, and serve as points of reference for imitative behavior, conducive to colonial submission.

?Education?, in the broadest sense of the word, also takes place outside of the classroom through advertisement, the colonized mass media and conformist families and peer groups. It is not merely the macro-political forces that create the colonial mentality but the micro-contexts, the peer groups and primary relations and their ?opinion leaders? that communicate directly with the students.

Education must take note of promising students with leadership qualities, students who can articulate the values of class solidarity and national independence and organize others in the cause of social justice. The students should be encouraged to take the lead in challenging colonial propaganda in the school-yards, classrooms and playing fields.

Formal education must create the critical mind which allows the individual/student/teacher/family head to analyze and dissect the imperial intent behind macro domination of the mass media manipulation, and the ?unconscious? (or mindless) transmission of the message and values in small groups. The pedagogical struggle is not only about teaching critical content in the curriculum but about interpreting everyday experiences in the larger world.

Educators must not only offer students critiques of the power elite and its many media voices, but work with students and the community in the construction of micro-alternatives. This includes the publication of bulletins, small literary-political magazines, organization of public forums, experimental videos, web-sites, solidarity activities, story telling, puppet and street theater in popular neighborhoods, concerts and social events with a clear social message of class and national affirmation. Students should be encouraged to do class oriented volunteer work tutoring the poor, forming literacy brigades and providing health education.

Educators must encourage students to become actors creating alternative media (community radios) and alternative places of encounter (community centers) which create class solidarity and reject colonial controlled cultural centers.

Formal Education: The Colonial Model

The colonial model of education is presented by local collaborators as ?raising the standards of education?, of pursuing ?teaching excellence?, and of ?modernizing the curriculum? ? all commendable objectives, in the abstract. But as we proceed to examine the operational content of these concepts we find that they are linked to the making of a specific type of student: a colonial subject. The ?raising of educational standards? is frequently an excuse for privatization of education, and converting students into ?uncritical workers?, who identify with the interests of political authorities and business interests. ?Raising education levels? under neo-liberalism means using imperial-centered models of individual achievement, divorced from any notion of social class solidarity. The ?educational reforms? funded by the imperial agencies exploit the inferiority complex of Third World people and authorities by presenting their colonial-centered curriculum as ?modernization?, the transfer of a ?superior? First World success to the colonized peoples. Those critical teachers opposed to the ideological bias of colonial ?modernization? are described as ?ideologically? backward.

We must elaborate our own criteria and standards of excellence and develop our own methods to achieve quality education — one that incorporates the values of national independence, international solidarity and self-managed forms of social property. Curricula should be designed jointly by teachers and students in consultation with parents. We must constantly evaluate techniques and social skills and be open to criticism and new ideas. Above all we must strive to reach the poor, who demonstrate an interest in a common social project.

Imperial educational reforms are complex, integral changes, affecting teacher training, curriculum reform, class discipline and work experiences designed to create a hegemonized mind-set in which the teachers, students and subject people willingly accept colonial domination.

The colonial ?reforms? of teacher education have two sides, one utilitarian, one ideological. The utilitarian component emphasizes greater knowledge of technical aids in education, educational upgrades, overseas enrichment programs, etc. The ideological side emphasizes the teacher as a non-citizen, a non-participant in social struggles or as a guardian of existing authority in politics and economy. According to colonial norms teachers should teach the ?ideals? of the state, not a critical understanding of the realities of the abuse of power, state corruption or economic exploitation.

The central issue of teacher education is its ?hybrid nature?, a blend of technical innovations and ideological indoctrination; only teachers with a firm set of principles can successfully disaggregate the ?reform package?, discarding the imperial-centered ideology from the useful technical innovations.

The transition from the neo-liberal to the neo-colonial regime makes new demands on the labor market requiring a new curriculum, new textbooks, new teachers and new admissions policies. The neo-liberal regime?s main function was to eliminate educational autonomy, weaken public support for public educators, undermine social solidarity, and ease the transition from a semi-private to a private educational system.

The colonial curriculum requires an emphasis on narrow vocational training, social indoctrination into the ?benign effects? of an imperial-centered universe, and passive acceptance of the privileged position of the capitalist market. From the colonial perspective, the ?ideal product? of these ?reforms? is a trained technician without any social reference outside of the established political and economic authories, and an ?educated? professional lacking any critical criteria to evaluate the social context of socio-economic crisis. This type of education encourages people to think that social and economic problems are personal failures, to blame themselves rather than the imperial-dominated system. By accepting ?personal responsibility? for systemic failures, the students, teachers and parents are less likely to ?socialize? their discontent and act collectively.

Under the colonial model the student and teacher training programs are highly stratified and hierarchical: At the top are the exclusive and expensive private high schools and universities, local and overseas, for the sons and daughters of the ruling class and the wealthy, trained to become the senior executives and directors of enterprises and chief ministers. In the middle are the private high schools and high quality public universities, to train the professionals, engineers, consultants and middle management of the imperial-centered system. At the bottom are the technical schools and provincial universities which produce the skilled workers, low level public employees, poorly paid teachers and health workers. For the rest there is the ?informal economy? where an army of poor children labor and, occasionally, study in the evening. This is an educational system designed to reproduce and consolidate colonial society, economy and politics.

Mechanisms of Educational Domination

To enhance imperial influence over the educational process and transmit the imperial-centered ideology to teachers and students several mechanisms and institutional arrangements are put in place by the imperial state, the World Bank, BID, quasi-official private foundations and quasi-autonomous educational institutions.

First and foremost is imperial financing ? referred to as ?foreign aid? based on conditionalities. Funds are distributed on condition that the imperial-centered ?reforms? are implemented. To ensure control, many of the program funding require ?partnerships? between imperial-appointed functionaries and their counterparts in the Third World. This ?partnership? ensures that the ?recipients? follow the ?rules? and guidelines, and achieve the results favoring imperial policies. ?Partnerships? also allow for the colonial cooptation of the Third World counterpart.

To promote US-centered ideology and enhance US strategic economic and political interests, quasi-official ?private? foundations finance (1) conferences on subjects of interest to the empire, (2) advisers who will penetrate key educational institutions and oversee the ?reforms?, (3) exchange programs to ?re-socialize? the students and educators (and possibly recruit them), (4) scholarship programs (like the US Fullbright Scholarships) which induce potential applicants to avoid public manifestations of anti-imperialism, and (5) joint educational programs which create long-term structural linkages which are transmission belts for imperial control. ?Partnerships? between ?unequals? in resources always leads to subordination. Only ?partnerships? among Latin American educators take place on an equal basis and allow for a free and positive exchange.

?Foreign aid? is a highly deceptive phrase for many reasons. First of all it is mostly loans which must be re-paid with interest and principal. Secondly the conditions attached to receiving these loans, facilitate transfers of earnings out of the country which exceed inward loans. De-regulation of the financial markets (a condition for foreign aid) allows corrupt politicians, business people, bankers, narco-traffickers, arms dealers, sex slavers to send billions of dollars of dirty money to overseas banks. Secondly de-regulation allows banks and MNCs to transfer billions in profits, interests and royalties to their headquarters overseas. A nationalist economy which controls capital flows and owns profitable firms and prosecutes ?dirty money? delinquents does not need ?foreign aid?. It can finance development with indigenous funds.

Imperial Strategies: Soft Power, Hard Power

In the language of imperial policymakers, the use of ?soft power? (like ?educational reform?) is just as important as ?hard power? (military intervention or CIA clandestine missions) in sustaining and expanding the empire. ?Soft power? is another way of talking about cultural imperialism. (The implied ?debate? in the US 2004 Presidential elections between Bush and Kerry was essentially over the ?correct? proportion of ?hard and soft power? in the empire building process. Kerry favored using slightly more ?soft power? than Bush.)

Cultural imperialism implies recognition that subjectivity as a force for sustaining imperial rulership and pillage and a weapon for reversing imperial control. Subjectivity is a learned relationship ? one is neither born to be a slave or a revolutionary. Economic and social conditions in themselves may facilitate one or another subjective response, but never is fully determinant. There is no ?objective condition? no matter how precarious and oppressive which automatically determines political consciousness or subjectivity. We know of many cases, documented and experienced, where oppressed people respond to misery by embracing spiritual movements, or by focusing their frustration through family violence. We also know numerous cases of the rural and urban poor organizing and attacking the system. Between the objective world and the response of individuals, classes and ethnic groups is the subjective, ideological and social context which influences perception, understanding and social action. The imperial use of ?soft power? is directed at creating an ?ideological screen? to filter out critical analysis and to promote a positive identification with the symbols and interests of imperial power. For example, every USAID-donated bag of rice, beans and flour carries a big label ? ?From the USA?.
Education: Terrain for Struggle Against ?Soft Power?

Yesterday, today and in the future we are engaged in a battle of ideas, of language, of methods of education and the substance of learning. How many of us in our childhood lived in precarious conditions, worked under exploitative conditions, and were ignorant of the causes, and only later, when we read, and studied and engaged in public discussions became politically aware of the reasons for our conditions?

Teachers and educators have to teach their students how to critically analyze colonial concepts, which have a ?positive? connotation but a totally negative meaning. Imperialism has corrupted our political language, inverting the meaning of concepts and co-opting our language to serve their ends. For example, colonial and neo-liberal ideologues propose ?reforms?, which in fact reverse social programs and concentrate income at the top. Originally, of course, ?reforms? referred to redistributive policies that favored the poor. Another example is the term ?structural adjustment policies?. In the past, the Left spoke of the need for ?structural changes? like agrarian reform and the nationalization of the banks. In the mouths of the neo-liberals, ?structural adjustment? is a euphemism for transferring public property to private foreign monopolies, of promoting foreign investment and bankrupting local producers, of reducing wages and increasing profits. The entire colonial political vocabulary today is full of euphemisms, linguistic colonization which ultimately shapes conceptual thinking and the framework for understanding, interpreting and acting in the world. Educators must engage in a thorough, systematic critique, pointing to the fundamental contradiction between the connotation of these euphemistic concepts and their substantive meaning in our everyday life.

Ideas matter ? and public education both in and out of the classroom can provide the critical tools for analysis as well as the technical skills for earning a living. The battle of ideas takes place on contested terrain: the school is not simply a product of vertical influence, form the top down; education is also a product of horizontal influence, and education from below. History is not simply a study of the names and dates of the elite, but a discussion from below, a peoples? history of social struggle and advances..

The method of teaching depends on the ?subjects? and the purpose of teaching. Those who teach for empire, focus on the positive effects of colonial settlement, not the pillage of pre-colonial civilizations; they feature the rulers and their rulership, not the indigenous efforts of solidarity, autonomy and struggle against exploitation. The ?point of view? (or the ?class perspective?) determines the choice of concepts, the protagonists of history, the nature of the relationship of power. In science we study not only the great discoveries of science, but the choice of subjects for scientific study, the application and beneficiaries of scientific discoveries ? in a word the social context of scientific work.

While many scientists claim to be ?apolitical? the kind of research they carry out ? whether it is military or civilian, for profit-oriented multi-national pharmaceutical companies or for public health agencies, cosmetic surgery for the rich or malaria treatment for the rural poor — is in the first instance based on political decisions. To claim to be ?apolitical? teachers is to abdicate one?s responsibility, to either be ignorant of the political context of one?s work or a hypocritical cynic.

One of the main purposes of the content of education is inevitably determined by the need to create technical skills to successfully enter the labor market. The teaching of the skills and technical knowledge, and the use of new innovations for communicating ideas however needs to be accompanied by a deeper understanding of the social relations of production and work, the social organization of alternative forms of work, the larger universe of inter-state relations and how they affect our everyday experiences at work, in the family and in our personal relations.

For example, skilled workers and trained professionals should be educated about the nature and activity of private capitalist enterprises ? especially their tendency to change the location of production and to abandon communities when it suits their profit margins. Teachers should be educated about the labor process, an example of which is the replacing permanent staff with ?contract teachers? with reduced benefits to accommodate budget reductions resulting from foreign debt payments.

The educational experience is not confined to the teacher-student relation. This forms the core to a series of extra-classroom interactions with parents, neighborhoods, trade unions and social movements. Teacher engagement with working parents is essential for improving education, bettering the climate of work and providing leadership in the struggle for anti-imperialist cultural activities. Improvement in teachers? salaries and working conditions can only be won today through the linkage to broader educational interests which affect students, parents and the local economy. Recent history teaches us that only broad mass movements, not merely teacher strikes, have favorable outcomes. Educators are a ?natural network? ? they are found throughout the country, they have potentially the tools for critical thinking, speaking and writing, they interact everyday with important sectors of the population and they are regarded by parents as essential to the success of their children. Objectively teachers today are forced into a position to share the hardships of their students? families. Teachers are downwardly mobile, their salaries (when they are paid!) are at or below the incomes of semi-skilled workers and middle peasants; their salaries and status are declining ? they have no hopes for improvement within the colonial system as neo-imperial and colonial policies cut budgets to pay overseas bankers. Objectively teacher impoverishment intersects with the general condition of the mass of workers and peasants ? they no longer have a distinct and special status.

Subjectively, however, some educators have resisted recognition of their social situation or have chosen ?personal solutions?, resorting to multiple employment, dependency on spouses? income, false sense of ?professional difference? and/or a misunderstanding of the meaning of a ?good professional?. In many cases, teachers fear reprisals from public authorities or influential business interests. They are aware of teacher dismissals and even physical threats to their life. Precisely because of the central role of public schools in educating and socializing the future generations of workers, peasants and lower middle classes, they have become a ?target of imperial soft power.?

Yet teachers have a strategic asset. All recent studies show that over the past 100 years the majority of working class, peasant and lower middle class families have a powerful belief in education as a vehicle for the economic improvement of their children and of the family. They toil and sacrifice for the ?best education? and they will engage in struggle for ?the best? ? provided they are organized and politically educated.
What is to be Done

Today teachers, students, parents and popular movements are already in struggle for free, inclusive public education and against imperial plans to privatize, profit from and stratify education. Progressive, national, democratic educational policy can only come about through a dynamic national social movement. The building of progressive educational movement must combine specific educational demands with the larger struggles to ?roll back? the advances of imperialism ? the re-nationalization of strategic resources, the reconstruction of an industrial economy based on workers control, the reallocation of public finance from private to public education, the transfer of funds from foreign debt payments to educational and health services for everyone. These macro-political structural changes build on the micro-politics and victories which take place in every classroom, in every school, in every district: micro-politics involves victories in securing funding for new texts, lunches for hungry children, free transportation to school, a health worker, nurse or doctor in every school. Small victories build grand movements. Quantitative advances through micro-politics at some point become qualitative transformations through mass national movements.

Today, Peru is living through a period of increasing polarization and student and peasant mobilization. On the one hand the colonial state attempts to divide and weaken the teachers unions through ?parallel? colonial associations, and to criminalize professors who teach critical social sciences. On the other hand there is a rebirth of a mass student movement which challenges the authoritarian university structure, and has realized some positive reforms. History has demonstrated, that student movements which join larger mobilizations of peasants and urban workers for reforms today, can become the embryo of a revolutionary movement tomorrow.

When we speak of imperialism and particularly of ?neo-liberalism? or ?neo-colonies?, we must recognize that these are general categories which only have meaning when we examine the particularities of the history, culture and social relations of specific social formations. In the Andean countries, any effective struggle against imperialism and neo-colonialism must direct its primary attention to the economic exploitation, and cultural oppression of the indigenous people; imperialism impacts directly through the coca eradication programs which destroy income and force children to abandon school. To speak in general of imperialism or ?neo-colonialism? without examining the role of the particular political leaders and governing elites and their links to different types of ruling classes and administrative functionaries, undermines the effort to focus popular mobilization on real objectives. In Peru the problem of racism is not merely an ?Indian? problem it is a problem of whites, of trade union leaders and professionals who have spoken and written in support of the demands of the Indian people but have not created organic linkages to their historic demands: land, self-governance, territorial autonomy, freedom to cultivate profitable crops (including coca). Peruvian ?neo-colonialism? is very different from Brazilian and Chilean because the social structures, historical demands and political histories are not the same. All peoples share a common adversary ?the US Empire ? but the specific social agencies for transformation, the meaningful demands and conditions vary. The same is true with regional variations within a nation ? while there are common demands to increase state funding for education, the application of funds, social priorities and beneficiaries are different. The art of politics, including educational politics is to build powerful international and national movements through a recognition and articulation of the plural and specific demands of each exploited class, and oppressed ethnic and gender groups. The fine art of educational politics is to integrate particular struggles with the national movements, and articulate a program, which connects local micro-politics with a program for state power.

Finally we should remember that the purpose of education is not only to impart analytical skills and critical thinking and prepare our students to earn a decent living, but to teach moral values, to create the New Person, as Che Guevara taught us: to integrate our ideas with our practice.

October 2004