Book Reviews

 

Education in a Globalized World. The Connectivity of Economic Power, Technology, and Knowledge by Nelly P. Stromquist Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2002, 240 pages, paperback, US$22.95, ISBN: 0-7425-1098-0 Reference citation: De Wit, Kurt. (2003). [Review of the book Education in a Globalized World. The Connectivity of Economic Power, Technology, and Knowledge by P. Stromquist]. In Focus Journal, Vol.1,2. Retrieved Month, day, year, from http://www.escotet.org/infocus/2003/strom.htm

Globalization is a much debated issue, both inside and outside academia. Social theorists discuss it as a multidimensional phenomenon changing every aspect of our societies, new social movements direct attention to the social disadvantages of a globalized economy, and the media focus on the big events: the meetings of the economic elite and the resistance against them. Entering this debate with the ambition of adding something new is a difficult task.

Nelly Stromquist has taken on this challenge. In her book, she highlights the relationship between economic and technological globalization, and cultural and educational manifestations. Stromquist also compares views from the North with those from the South. This, according to Stromquist, leads her to a more balanced and empirically valid theory of globalization. 

Globalization, in Stromquist's view, is basically a strategy of the industrialized North to promote the market model and the values attached to that model, and hence to sustain its dominance in the world. Globalization is a strategy, that is, it does not just happen. It is brought into being by a clearly defined set of actors pursuing a clearly defined set of goals. On the macro level these actors are the state, transnational corporations (TNCs), the mass media, and nongovernmental organizations.

Although the state is the main supporter of the capitalist economic market model, it is also one of the losers of globalization: its power diminishes to the advantage of the economic system. By embracing the dominant ideology of the North, neoliberalism, it undermines its own position, because following this ideology means that policy making takes deregulation, privatization, and liberalization as its core goals. Nevertheless, at the same time the state remains essential. In developing countries, although the state is too weak to shape economic policy, it still plays a vital role in guaranteeing the legal stability business firms require for their operations. According to Stromquist, there is a paradox in the growth of multinational institutions, like the World Bank or the IMF, for these institutions faithfully reflect interests of the major industrialized countries.

In other words, not all countries or states are equal. The countries of the North have an advanced economic and technological position. The countries of the South try to develop their industry, but cannot benefit from this development because the North controls the price setting mechanisms in the international markets. Moreover, when the North grants financial help to the South through the Structural Adjustment Programmes (SAPs), it does so only on a number of conditions, most notably regarding cutbacks in financial expenditure by the state.

As a consequence, education budgets too have been reduced in the 1980s and 1990s through the manipulation of teacher/student ratios and teachers' living standards. Budgets are further reduced by the promotion of measures such as the decentralization of the public school system, the introduction of accountability and testing mechanisms, and the privatization of educational institutions. The education model that in this way is spread around the world, is one in which the traditional coordination by the state of schools and universities is replaced with a model in which private interests are increasingly important. The state no longer has the central regulatory role, but sets the frame in which education institutions can function with relative autonomy. This shift has been termed a move to the supermarket model (see Gornitzka & Maassen, 2000). Paradoxically, this may lead to a greater centralization of decision making and hence, greater control by the state in some areas such as the introduction of national testing and national standards. But in all, due to the neoliberal steering model, the role of the market, and the dominant actors on that market, becomes more important.

The dominant actors on the global market are the transnational corporations (TNCs). These large transnational business firms create jobs and wealth, and they can provide a country or region with a wider array of goods and services than would otherwise be available. But more importantly, they show a lack of respect for social justice, notwithstanding their profound impact on social justice through their employment practices, environmental practices, and as a consequence of their economic power, their considerable political influence. TNCs can influence national politics in two ways. First, TNCs can set states against each other, a strategy often followed when it comes to paying taxes. Second, TNCs can manipulate the state by providing biased information and by using lobby mechanisms. So, while they cannot operate without the stable conditions and regulations provided by the state, TNCs at the same time undermine the state.

This political influence gives them the ability to shape education and culture, both in direct and in indirect ways. The presence of TNCs in the North, and especially of the coordinating centres of these corporations, has an unexpected by-product. The North, particularly the global cities, has become a major site for immigration from the South. This applies not only to the highly educated and skilled, but also, for the lowly educated and lowly skilled. Both groups make demands on the public education system, as both groups send their children to public schools.

In addition, TNCs play an ambiguous role towards the public education system by emphasizing the importance of education, yet complaining about the low quality of public education. An even more direct influence on the education system is their intervention as providers of educational services. The values being introduced are the dominant values of globalization: consumption, individualism, and competition. These values are being both applied to and spread throughout the education system. According to Stromquist, education is used to introduce and sustain the new social order.

The result of the shift to an education (quasi-)market is that education becomes less a public good and more an economic sector in which private interests are increasingly important. Education is now seen as a means to succeed in the global market and the knowledge society. Technical skills and competencies, mainly in science and technology, and economistic values support globalization and do not lead to critical thinking or attention for issues of social justice. Education is conceived in mostly technical terms, as a means for people to obtain high-paying jobs and as a means for schools and businesses to respond to the needs of the new economy. As a result, Stromquist states that the ideological components of education become invisible.

A similar evolution is taking place within the university: the attention to critical thinking is declining as the university becomes more of a business itself. For Stromquist, the university is the spearhead of globalization, because it provides people with the highest possible education and prepares them for the highest possible positions in society. The strengthened ties between university and business have had some positive consequences. For instance, programs for continuing education have been established in a joint effort that would not have been possible for one party alone. But the problem is that universities do not only serve industry anymore, but are becoming businesses themselves. In this entrepreneurial climate, the function of universities becomes industry-like, with the introduction of ranking systems, performance assessments, grant competition, commercialization of knowledge, and so on. As a consequence, an instrumental attitude comes to the fore, in which fields likely to yield high revenues, such as science and engineering, are given priority to the detriment of critical fields in the humanities.

A parallel form of education is emerging. Following the increased role of communications in society, there is more exposure to repeated messages disseminated by the mass media. The mass media present us with uniform messages promoting competition, consumption and entertainment. There is no place for thorough analysis or critical thought. This is caused by the ownership structure of the mass media: a small number of TNCs dominates the sector. They own 'and thus control' a diversity of communication means, gearing them towards exploiting the desires of the audience - an audience that, like the media themselves, is not expected to be critical. While she refers to the work of Bourdieu, Stromquist's critique here also echoes the critique on the 'culture industry' already formulated in the pre-World War period by the critical theorists of the so-called Frankfurt School (e.g. Horkheimer & Adorno, 1947). But Stromquist focuses on the North-South divide, stating the global culture is in fact the culture of the North - or even the U.S. The Americanization of culture is done in subtle ways. For instance, the use of English in higher education makes it easier for countries with a less developed higher education system to access curriculum innovations, but carries with it the hegemony of particular Northern ideas. In a similar fashion, knowledge management systems such as the OECD or the World Bank make a huge amount of seemingly precise, complete and unbiased information available, but at the same time these systems select and reduce their data, thereby defining what is worth knowing as the views of the North. A remark that can be made regarding the uniformization thesis is that the uniform content of messages on the production side of the mass media does not necessarily mean that these messages are received in a uniform way. On the contrary, a decentralized and fragmented reception, a local interpretation of the global, seems more likely (Lash & Urry, 1994). Stromquist does not deny that local differentiation can and does exist, but she asserts that the forces for convergence are much stronger.

Next to the state, TNCs, and the mass media, a fourth set of macro actors consists of those actors that resist globalization. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have an independent position, are well-informed about the negative aspects of the global economy, and are able to actively organize resistance due mostly to their size and expertise. In their capacity of active organizers, they are macro actors that genuinely pursue a deliberate (anti)globalization strategy in Stromquist's sense. However, an educational interest has only recently emerged within NGOs such as, ActionAid and Oxfam, and they focus their actions primarily on basic education.

Women, or to be more precise, gender, receives a separate chapter in Stromquist's book. With respect to gender issues, globalization is an ambiguous process. Women's groups, like NGOs, nowadays are better organized and easier mobilized, and they play an important role in distributing information, setting agendas, etc. New communication technologies are essential. But, according to Stromquist, rhetoric has gone far ahead of actual implementation: increased communications cannot by themselves alter power relations, and indeed a subordinate status for women in society remains a clear problem. The same ambiguity can be seen regarding the position of women in education. For instance, access to education for girls has increased, but girls' success rate has not improved accordingly. The number of women students in higher education has gone up, but enrollment remains specific. A large share of faculty members is female, but women often end up in part-time, uncertain, and/or low-waged positions.

According to Stromquist, the relative success of feminism has one particular downside. The cultural stream produced by the mass media portrays women in new roles producing a serious delusory subjectivity in many young women, causing them to think of themselves as already free and equal to men. Women, says Stromquist, have themselves absorbed and internalized the ideological messages that justify the dominant position of men and men tend to minimize the nature of women's subordination. Here she makes the same distinction between passive women and active men that feminism itself has tried to reject.  

Here we encounter what seems to be the flaw of this book. Although Stromquist states as her goal to develop a more empirically valid theory, she fails to prove its validity. The gender-example illustrates this. The same can be said of the fact that many of the examples throughout the book are about the U.S., and mostly about the 'Anglo-Saxon' world. She is, of course, saying that globalization is for a large part the 'relentless export of U.S. production', but nevertheless, if you don't show how this is true in non-U.S. countries, the empirical validity of the theory remains simply a statement in need of further research. 

But this one criticism does not alter the fact that the theory is valuable in itself for anyone interested in understanding the active policies and strategies involved in the process of globalization and its impact on education. The theory brings to the fore the negative consequences of these deliberate actions, without however dismissing the positive consequences. Globalization is presented in the first place as an excluding, dislocating process, nevertheless, also as a process that causes the spread of respect for human rights, cultural enrichment, and the enhancement of civil society in the form of NGOs. 

Regarding education too, both the positive and the negative side are treated. The positive consequences are, according to Stromquist, the expansion of higher education, the increasing flexibility vis-à-vis economic needs, and the increased circulation of new ideas in technology and science. The negative consequences are the spread of instrumental, Northern knowledge and values, the demise of education as a public good, and the growing presence of entrepreneurs concerned with profit, not critical thinking. Although, in essence, Stromquist paints a negative portrait of globalization, she also points out the ambiguities and paradoxes of the process. Moreover, as these are the result of conscious actors and deliberate actions, a way out is possible, towards a positive globalization process.  

Stromquist concludes by discussing the way in which a new basis for globalization can be created. First, it is necessary to try to create new rules and institutions for stronger and ethical governance. Second, educators face the major task of increasing student awareness of the globalization process and the possible roles of education in this process. Citizens at large aware should also be provided with knowledge about globalization encouraging them to become active members in redefining globalization. Third, educational researchers should carry out more interdisciplinary research. Stromquist provides powerful content in this book to influence a new basis for globalization. 

References

Gornitzka, A. & Maassen, P. (2000). Hybrid steering approaches with respect to European higher education. Higher Education Policy, 13 (3), 267-285. 

Horkheimer, M. & Adorno, T. (1947). Dialectic of Enlightenment [original title: Dialektik der Aufklärung]. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Querido. 

Lash, S. & Urry, J. (1994). Economies of Signs & Space. London/Thousand Oaks/New Delhi: Sage Publications. 

Kurt De Wit
Katholieke Universiteit Leuven, Belgium