Apple, Michael W. (2001). Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. New York and London: Routledge/Falmer.
Pp. 306
$23.95 (paper) ISBN 0-145-92462-6
Reviewed by Ramin Farahmandpur
Portland State University
November 11, 2003
For the past two decades, one of the major undertakings of critical educational theorist Michael Apple has been to study the causes of the rise of the New Right and its impact on educational policies in the United States. Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality can be described as a sequel to his two previously published books: Official Knowledge: Democratic Education in a Conservative Age (1993) and Education and Cultural Politics (1996), in which Apple explored the resurgence of the conservative restoration in the United States. In his most recent work, Apple examines how the social, political, economic, and cultural movements on the right have succeeded in forming a "hegemonic alliance" in order to influence and shape educational policies in the United States.
In chapters one and two, Apple identifies four major social, political, and ideological movements, which he refers to as the "hegemonic alliance of the New Right." These four movements include: neoliberals, neoconservatives, authoritarian populists, and the new middle class. Apple suggests that although each movement has different and oftentimes conflicting political and ideological interests, they form a "hegemonic alliance" when it comes to opposing progressive and democratic forces on the Left. In a concerted effort to advance its social, economic, political, and ideological agenda, Apple claims that the New Right exercises hegemony primarily through the medium of ideological leadership. He explains that the New Right’s tactics include, for example, the use of key concepts such as markets, standards, God, and inequality. Each concept constitutes one of the central tenets of the social movements within the New Right. For instance, neoliberals are proponents of the market; neoconservatives are determined to enforce traditional curriculum and national standards across the country; authoritarian populists are motivated by a desire to integrate religion and God within the school curriculum; and finally, the new middle class and the professional managerial class are associated with maintaining social and economic inequality by supporting educational policies that are favorable to their class standing within society.
In his analysis of the causes of the rise of the "conservative alliance," Apple draws upon Gramsci’s concept of the "commonsense." Apple generally limits the "commonsense" to ideological struggles and defines it as the "basic categories" or "key words" such as "democracy," "freedom," and "equality" that are used by people to make sense of the social world. He attributes the rise of the New Right to its cunning ability to change or "alter" the meaning of the commonly held beliefs and views of people of the social world. (Note 1) Apple believes that the New Right success in changing people’s commonsense is due to its use of a "simple" language that people can understand. He refers to this strategy as "plain speaking."
In chapter three, Apple examines the hegemonic alliances among the forces on the Right and the Left. He identified these alliances as a “decentered unity,” a concept whose origin can be traced back to the "radical democratic" approach of post-Marxists Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe (1985). (Note 2) Apple explains that the "decentered unity" consists of a constellation of progressive social groups that form a counter-hegemonic alliance against the dominant social groups in society (i.e., the New Right). In contrast to the Leninist strategy of "democratic centrism," in which the vanguard party operated as the "ideological and political compass" of the proletariat, Apple firmly espouses the notion of a "decentered unity" that consists of an alliance among feminists, multiculturalists, lesbians, gays, anti-racists, environmentalists, peace activists, progressives, and neo-Marxists. (Note 3) Apple describes the "decentered unity" as an alliance that encompasses a broad range of progressive forces and social groups. Hence, he maintains that the "decentered unity" does not succumb to an "official" centralized bureaucratic party line because it is inclusive of multiple voices and subject positions.
In chapters four and five, Apple takes a closer look at the ideology behind the authoritarian populist religious conservative movement. Apple offers both a historical and a political overview of one of the most hotly debated controversies that has erupted over the years in public schools, namely, the teaching of evolutionary science. Apple provides a number of examples including one state school board in Alabama that required all biology textbooks adopted by the state to have a disclaimer noting that evolutionary science is one of the many theories explaining the development of human life. Apple also shows how politicians such as Ronald Reagan and Pat Buchanan have been instrumental in supporting the causes of the religious Right by denouncing Darwinism and evolutionary science. In chapter five, Apple also shows how evangelicals and Christians on the Right of the political spectrum, including Pat Robertson and Ralph Reed, have been major political and ideological forces in influencing the course and the direction of educational policies at the local, state, and national levels. One example involves the controversy over school prayers in public schools.
In chapter six, Apple examines the growing trend of homeschooling in the context of the current social, political, cultural, and economic climate. He notes that while not all parents who homeschool their children hold conservative religious viewpoints, most have a biblical interpretation of the family unit, maintain non-secular views on gender dynamics, and have their own views on what counts as "legitimate knowledge." Apple is alarmed with the homeschooling movement because he believes it is leading to the "suburbanization of everyday life" and the "segmentation of American society." Here, he is referring to the increasing race, class, and gender divisions in American society. Apple is equally concerned about the contradictory nature of educational policies that allows public money for creating charter schools be used by homeschoolers to teach religious viewpoints that would otherwise violate the separation of church and state in the constitution. Apple believes that these loopholes in the federal and state educational policies privileges students from religious segments of society over students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds.
Chapter seven includes perhaps the most contentious facet of Apple’s concept of "decentered unity." In this chapter, Apple puts forth a "dual strategy" approach for building counter-hegemonic alliances. Apple’s dual strategy approach consists of progressive and tactical alliances. Progressive alliances are those that are forged among progressive forces, which include anti-globalization activists, peace organizers, environmentalists, feminists, the working class, and gays and lesbians. On the other hand, Apple explains that tactical alliances are those that can be developed among progressive forces and factions from within the Right wing. For example, Apple proposes that it is possible to make tactical alliances with the anti-corporatist sentiments of authoritarian populists on the Right. The reasoning behind this type alliance is based entirely on common ideological interests. For example, he notes that both the populist Right and the Left have been strong opponents of Chris Whittle’s Channel One. By the same token, Apple is optimistic that tactical alliances can be forged with the populist Right on controversial issues such as state curricula and testing. Of course, this is not to suggest that Apple does not recognize that these alliances need to be approached with extreme caution.
While I agree with Apple’s deep-seated social and political convictions, and concur with his criticism of the New Right’s attempt to shape the course of educational policies in the United States, I remain skeptical regarding his theoretical framework, in particular his neo-Marxist approach to educational reform on a number of major points. These include, among others, his neo-Marxist interpretation of Gramsci’s concept of the “commonsense”; his use of the “decentered unity,” which he identifies as an counter-hegemonic alliance among progressive forces on the left; and finally, his notion of a “dual strategy” for building alliances between progressive forces on the left and those on the Right.
First, there is no doubt that Gramsci’s concept of commonsense is an improvement over Marx and Engels’ interpretations of ideology as “false consciousness.” Yet, to their credit, Marx and Engels were wholly aware that the concept of ideology, which they interpreted as “false consciousness,” did not simply express a false outlook or a "simple inversion" of the social world that the ruling classes imposed on the masses. Consequently, Apple’s claim that the New Right’s success in changing our commonsense is achieved simply by redefining those key ideas (i.e., equality, freedom, democracy) on its own turf is not entirely convincing. Hegemony cannot be achieved simply by means of discursive practices or by way of a "war of position" alone. Stated differently, in their struggles to build alliances by winning over the masses, the Right and the Left do not merely engage in what Gramsci referred to as the "war of position," but also in a "war of maneuver." (Note 4)
Apple believes that the task of the counter-hegemonic alliances among the progressive forces is to develop "creative ways" or measures to win over the masses. In other words, the educational Left should emulate the Right’s success by providing the popular masses an alternative progressive discourse that redefines those key "concepts" (i.e., democracy, freedom, and equality). However, in doing so, Apple falls into "theoretical voluntarism." This is because he underestimates the intimate relationship between ideology and the “material structural determinations” (Mészáros, 1989). Given the fact that the anti-capitalist movements must overcome overwhelming “material constraints,” there is no symmetrical distance in the relationship between “critical ideology” and “established ideology” to the commonsense of the people (Mészáros, 1989).
Furthermore, Apple holds that ideological dispositions do not necessarily correspond to economic, political, or cultural positions of individuals or groups of people. He claims that ideology, class, politics, and culture are "relatively autonomous" from one another. However, his explanation offers little, if any, insight into “how ideologies become a part of the popular consciousness of classes and class fractions who are not among the elite” (Meiksins Wood, 1986, p. 16). The reason why Apple attributes the rise of the New Right to its ability to alter the meaning of concepts such as "democracy" and "freedom" is because he severs ideological contradictions from class antagonisms. Absent from Apple’s neo-Marxist approach to educational reform is any sustained effort to examine class antagonisms among the subordinate groups and the dominant groups. Subsequently, Apple is stranded in a form of "radical idealism." This is because people’s commonsense is shaped not only by the alteration of the meaning of key concepts like "democracy" and "freedom" but also by the class struggles between the capitalist class and the working class.
Finally, Apple’s understanding of the concept of commonsense is limited because it is not sufficiently grounded within the material practices and activities of men and women. There are other pressing questions that remain unanswered. Some of these include: What is the relationship between good sense and bad sense? How are truth and misrepresentations related to one another? What is the composition of the commonsense? Are there more elements of bad sense than good sense? In short, Apple’s employment of the "commonsense" fails to explain, in the main, how and why people’s misperception of the world occurs the way that it does.
Second, I find Apple’s notion of the "decentered unity" highly problematic for a number of reasons. To begin with, one of the questions is: what holds the "decentered unity" together? Stated differently: What is the ideological bond that unites these diverse groups of differing social, political, and economic interests? Apple is quick to acknowledge this dilemma. He admits that there are “real differences” among the wide spectrum of social and political groups that include, for example, political, epistemological, and educational differences. If this is the case, then the follow-up question is: What are the ideological or political forces that conjoins these diverse groups? Responding to these criticisms, Apple writes that the "decentered unity" is “united in [its] opposition to the forces involved in the new conservative hegemonic alliance” (p. 96). However, Apple’s reply does not sufficiently justify such a loosely knitted coalition.
For example, Apple derives the identity of the new social movements from their immediate experiences with oppression. Yet, in his polemic against E. P. Thompson, Perry Anderson (1980) reminds us that experiences alone do not guarantee agency. In other words, there is no assurance that experiences arising from a particular form of oppression will generate progressive forms of social action, or motivate a class, for example, to organize itself and rise up against social injustices. Anderson (1980) raises a number of other fundamental questions that are no less important. These include: How can we distinguish between a valid and invalid experience? And are religious experiences valid?
Apple further notes that the New Right’s success is largely due to its ability to build a "decentered unity." Consequently, he recommends that the Left and progressive forces should learn from the victories of the New Right in their effort to build a progressive "decentered unity." On this point, Apple notes: “The right has been much more successful …than the left, in part because it has been able to craft—through hard and lengthy economic, political, and cultural efforts—a tense but still successful alliance that has shifted the major debates over education and economic and social policy onto its on terrain.”(p. 195). However, one of the underlying weaknesses in Apple’s strategy is that he juxtaposes the hegemonic and counter-hegemonic alliances among the forces of the Right and the Left. In Apple’s view, the Right and the Left are involved in a battle to persuade the masses to join their social and political cause. Hence, Apple leaves us with a political project that reduces social struggles to ideological battles between the Right and the Left that are largely fought in the terrain of discourse and language.
Finally, in response to Apple’s proposal for a dual strategy, which consists of progressive and tactical alliances, the question I raise is whether it is feasible to develop alliances with factions of the New Right. Can the Right and the Left articulate mutual interests against corporations purely on common ideological interests? To Answer this question we need to take a step back and revisit Laclau and Mouffe’s (1985) notion of radical democracy and their unconditional endorsement of the new social movements. For Laclau and Mouffe (1985), the primary contradictions within capitalist social relations of production are not limited to class antagonisms alone, but also extend to ideological and political contradictions. By agreeing with Laclau and Mouffe (1985), who proclaim that political identity is not reducible to class identity, and who also endorse the premise of the irreducibility of ideological and cultural conflicts to class interests, Apple can claim that ideological and cultural struggles enjoy some measure of autonomy from class struggles. And by claiming that ideology and culture are relatively autonomous from class relations, it is clear why Apple believes that the New Right can simply alter the meaning of key concepts such as "democracy," "freedom," and "equality" to serve its own social, economic, and political interests. Cloaked in a poststructuralist reading of hegemony, Apple simply reduces socialist struggle to an ideological warfare between the Left and the Right.
In spite of my critical review of his book, there is no question that over the years Michael Apple has made important scholarly contributions to the field of educational theory and practice. For the past three decades, Apple has not only proven to be one of the most vocal critics of the New Right, but he has also a tireless activist in the North American radical educational scene, not to mention a prominent scholar within international circles. Nonetheless, I believe that Apple’s neo-Marxist disposition in rebuilding alliances and coalitions remains both theoretically and practically problematic for organizing and developing a coherent anti-capitalist social and political movement among the educational left.
Notes
1. There are, however, a number of inconsistencies in Apple’s arguments. For example, there are moments when Apple reduces social struggles to mere ideological struggles, and there are other moments when ideological struggles take precedence over class struggles.
2. One definition of the term is, “to undermine the usual hierarchy of a dominant system by showing that its center may hold only a relative, not a fixed point, or that the center may be exchanged with a place on the margins.”
3. One of the major flaws associated with Michael Apple’s distinction between moral and intellectual leadership and political domination is that he rejects the important role the vanguard party plays in seizing political power. To establish "the dictatorship of the proletariat," the working-class must seize state power. However, Apple’s claims that the ruling classes (in Apple’s case, the New Right) establishes domination by means of moral and intellectual leadership alone. For Apple, hegemony connotes moral and intellectual leadership. In addition, moral and intellectual leadership precedes political dominance. Overall, Apple’s objective is to deny the importance of the vanguard party.
4. Here, I am using the term “war of maneuver" to mean class struggle.
References
Apple, M. W. (1993). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age. New York: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Apple, M. W. (1996). Education and cultural politics. New York: Teachers College Press.
Laclau, E., and Mouffe, C. (1985). Hegemony and socialist strategy: Toward a radical democratic politics. London and New York: Verso.
Mészáros, I. (1989). The power of ideology. New York: New York University Press.
Wood, E. M. (1986). The retreat from class: A new 'true' socialism. London and New York: Verso classics.
About the Reviewer
Ramin Farahmandpur is an assistant professor in the Department of Educational Policy, Foundations and Administrative Studies at Portland State University. He recently completed his Ph.D. in the field of Curriculum Theory and Teaching Studies from the Graduate School of Education and Informational Studies at UCLA. His work has appeared in Educational Researcher, Journal of Teacher Education, Journal of Curriculum Theorizing, Educational Policy, and Multicultural Education. His current interests include Marxist educational theory, critical pedagogy, and multicultural education.
~
ER home |
Reseņas Educativas |
Resenhas Educativas ~
~
overview | reviews | editors | submit | guidelines | announcements
~