The modification of learning through cultural traditions and societal structures

Abstract

During the last decade work and learning have become strongly coupled. Never in recorded history has the need for continuous learning taken on such an economic slant. One could phrase this new paradigm as: ‘Without continuous learning one will lose one’s capability to work’. It no longer seems to be merely a lack of physical capacity or the lack of certain talents that limits one to remain employed: what excludes one from the labour market is lack of, or the refusal to undertake, continuous learning. The Anglo-Saxon and West European worlds nowadays are especially ruled by the economic conviction and ideology underpinning this paradigm. The latter’s dubious nature shall not be discussed here. Rather, this paper will emphasise the fact that the discussion on learning is, amongst others, characterised by the implicit assumption that everybody has a mutual understanding of what learning is. For example, when strategies about workforce development with respect to learning are discussed during a meeting of European researchers or international managers, the aspect that learning is culturally determined is hardly ever taken into consideration. The present volume, ‘Homo Sapiens Europæus—Creating the European Learning Citizen’, focuses on two essential concepts: citizens and learning. The meaning of both concepts/terms is highly subjective, and depends on the social and cultural context in which they are used or discussed. For instance, there is much American literature available that stresses the importance of the school in the development of active citizenship. Yet, the very idea of citizenship in the US is a result of the specific cultural and historical development of this country. As Labaree (2000, p.28) notes: ‘The urge to preserve individual liberty is a key to understanding American society, and it is what defines distinctive approach to politics, economics, and education. ‘Don’t tell me what to do’ has long been our national slogan. By it we have meant in particular that government should keep off our backs—especially government that is far removed from our local community. All you need to do is to remember that this nation was born of an uprising against a colonial government that tried to impose modest taxes on it from afar.’ The coupling of the idea of citizenship and education is very unique to the American culture and value system. In Asian cultures like China or Japan, a concept that relates education and citizenship does not exist. Also the European concept of citizen is still very vague compared to the strong sense of citizenship that exists in the United States. In this sense Marks (2003) raises the question: ‘Could it therefore not be the case, that the idea of citizenship in fact being witnessed is the Americanisation of the globe (and by definition Europe)?’ But this chapter will not stress the origin and connotation of citizenship and its correlation to learning or education. Rather, its main concern will be the cultural determination of learning and education. Thus, whilst Marks concludes his discussion of the Americanisation of the globe by asserting that ‘...comparative accounts of education and education systems are becoming increasingly redundant since we are all becoming more and more alike’ (2003), this chapter makes the case for quite the opposite perspective. Besides work, learning is the activity by which the socialisation process of citizens takes place. Yet socialisation through learning occurs from early childhood, while socialisation through work takes place at a later age. In most cultures learning and work were, and still are, deeply related. One cannot work without having learned to work. But as work is embedded in a specific set of values and norms of a given culture (the source where work ethics stem from), so also is learning, knowledge, and expertise. Each culture and society has developed its specific ways of learning and teaching. Learning to work means to have access to a certain body of knowledge (including practical knowledge) and while putting it into practice, one learns to work in meaningful ways. However, what one understands as meaningful is also culturally determined. The way we learn is part of the process of socialisation and we learn in accordance with what our culture considers as learning. These ways and forms of learning have been developed through history. They are defined by specific values and norms concerning learning and teaching, which differ from society to society and culture to culture. Culture determines—amongst other things—the value systems and norms that guide the individual’s actions and attitudes. Structures regulate the different aspects and functions of society. They set the frame for how, at a macro-level, national education system, and at a micro-level, training activities of companies and single institutions, manifest themselves. Given the quite diverse historical and philosophical roots of education in the countries that make up the European Union, the way learning is understood cannot be expected to be the same. Of course, one may question the need for a common concept of learning, or whether different forms and approaches towards learning may not be an advantage after all. Whatever the case, it is clear that a great sensitivity as well as adequate research instruments are needed in order to identify the meaning and practice of learning in different European cultures—a process that must necessarily underpin the common effort towards the creation of a learning European society. This chapter addresses the cultural and structural dimensions of learning, and the interdependency of the micro- and macro-level of education or vocational education systems. It is based on the findings of the project ‘The Construction of Learning Cultures as a Process of Micro-Macro- Interdependency between Educational Traditions and Learning Cultures,’ funded by the German Ministry of Education and Research. The study addressed learning for work in production settings. Because the countries of comparison—USA, Germany and Japan—have very different approaches to educating their workforce, it was necessary to include the general education systems of Japan and the US in this analysis, while for Germany the emphasis was placed upon its vocational education system. A key finding of this study is that the globalisation of learning has in fact not yet taken place. The instruments and approach applied may serve as an example of how to address the need for grasping cultural dimensions that are essential for education and training of the workforce, and help to determine the structural manifestations of a society’s educational policy and institutions at the macro- and micro-level.