Imagining Education Outside Capitalism

Speaker 1 Hello, and welcome to episode 101 of our podcast at Human Restoration Project. My name is Chris McNutt, and I'm a high school digital media educator from Ohio. Before we get started, I want to let you know that this is brought to you by our supporters, three of whom are Kate Robotham, Laura Palandre, and Aubrey Haberman. Thank you for your ongoing support. You can learn more about the Human Restoration Project on our website, humanrestorationproject.org, or find us on Twitter, Instagram, or Facebook. Today, we are joined by doctor Nick Stock. Doctor Stock, a former English teacher, now serves as a researcher for the University of Birmingham. He has published various essays, which focus on critiquing education by using philosophy, typically seen outside of pedagogy, such as Evangelion Education After the End of the World, How Can Education Be Considered a Hyperobject, and Paradise Shall Remain Lost, readdressing deschooling through a Miltonian lens. Specifically, we invited doctor Stockton to talk about his recently published work, the weird, eerie exopedagogy of Mark Fisher, which then dives into the work of Fisher who wrote capitalist realism and connects it to pedagogy, something that that isn't typically associated with. So I was just talking to Nick before we started recording. There's various reasons to invite him on, but the podcast really serves two purposes. One, it's to introduce these ideas that you're talking about because they're very interesting and different than the normal discourse. And two, it's to help me understand what any of this means because it's so far outside the normal discourse that it's it's kinda hard to comprehend because there isn't really an anchor to go off of. So I figured just starting off, it makes sense just to really summarize for the listener

Speaker 2 what capitalist realism is and then kind of how this connects to pedagogy or exit pedagogy. Yeah. I mean, it's a it's an important question, really, I think, for for for for understanding education more broadly as well. I think, kind of understanding what capitalist realism is is really helpful. I mean, so capitalist realism, so, I mean, it was it was the the title of a book that Mark Fisher wrote in in 2008, 2009, which I I didn't encounter until quite a lot later. You know, I've kind of heard the idea floating around, but I think it was I think it might have been towards the start of the first lockdown, actually, that I just kind of devoured everything he'd ever written and kind of became, like, obsessed with him, really, with Mark Fisher. And and, know, capitalist realism speaks so well to, you know, to now just as much as it did, I think, in 2008. I mean, as as the starting point really is he he he takes this quote from it's it's both Fredrick Jameson and Slavoj Zizek of of both apparently said it, which is it's easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. And and Fisher kinda takes that idea very, very seriously that we we are in a a point now where we we actually can't imagine in any way an alternative to capitalism. And and that whenever we do, it's not actually a kind of, like, a serious imagination of it. It's just a sort of an adaption of it or just, you know, kind of a way that it's progressed into a different form, and and it's kind of, you know, something that's impossible to escape out of. I think that the important thing to identify as well is that it's kind of like a like a lens almost. You know, I think this is what some people miss when they're talking about capitalist realism is that, you know, we view the world through the lens of capitalism now that, you know, e even even if it's something like, you know, radical praxis or if it's, you know, kind of trying to start a socialist project, often we end up viewing those things through a capitalist lens still. And and we find it impossible to see how those things aren't in some way capitalistic or aren't in some way touched by capital. And, you know, literally everything in my world within my realism is is now in some way capitalist, and and I think that's kind of one of the things he was pointing to. There is a sort of a few people are claiming that kind of we're hitting the end of capitalist realism, you know, with, there was a brief success with, you know, Jeremy Corbyn in The UK and and with Bernie Sanders in America of, you know, seeming like perhaps people were starting to see things differently. But, you know, to me, the way those projects kind of ended sort of kind of pushes the point to me that actually the capitalist realism still remains very much in place for at least the vast majority of people. But but it it's it's not just as simple as just politics, though, that, you know, it's actually about the way that it kind of touches and taints everything. Right. Right. It's it it it's very much just, you know, like, our ability to see

Speaker 1 pretty much everything, and it it connects to, like, even how we can reimagine different systems in general. Right? It's it's quite literally all encompassing.

Speaker 2 That's right. Yeah. Yeah. That's exactly it. I I always say it's it's the totalizing lens of capitalism is is how I kind of re redescribe capitalist realism. But it's it's not just that I see the world through it. It's it's the only thing that I can see the world through. And, you know, and there there are simple examples of this. You know, if if you want to read Marx, for example, actually, you have to kind of buy into, you know, buying it through a a massive publisher and and, you know, you have to kind of you know, often people buy it from Amazon and that kind of thing. And so, even, like, radical, you know, practices is being sold back to you as, something that you can you can purchase and buy and and that, you know, a a lot of kind of radical theory is is presented more of for its aesthetic rather than any of its actual utility. And, so, you know, there are some of the kind of more obvious examples of it, but but but it's it's so far reaching. And, you know, kind of one of the things that I started thinking about when I was reading it, and and and a few thinkers have done this is is how capitalist realism actually relates to education as well. And which it really does. I mean, actually, in capitalist realism itself, Fisher devotes a couple of chapters to talking about, to talking about schools and colleges. But he was a he was a college teacher for a little while before he before he before he was a lecturer, you know, like like like myself, teach the sixth formers. And he, you know, really kind of realized within the classroom that education was also very, very much being seen through this this capitalist lens as well. And so he's kind of starting to think about ways that it could be freed from that. How successful he is in in in thinking about that, I don't know. And and and that's one of the things I've started to kind of to look at in some of my work is, how education can be freed from capitalism. Because, you know, it's it's it's very difficult actually to imagine a kind of a form of capitalism that's not capitalist realist, really. So a form of education, sorry, that's not capitalist realist. Yeah. You know, that I mean, a a kind of a short history of of of schooling, for example, which really is the most dominant kind of arm of education that we have. It it it kind of arises at the same sort of time that mass capitalism does. You know? The in Europe, in the eighteen hundreds is when mass schooling really kind of becomes, becomes the norm. So you have, you know, England with the the Foerster Act kind of enforced mass elementary schooling. In Prussia, there is a set of mass schooling introduced there. Napoleon introduces, mass schooling in in France as well. It it starts to become the norm. But, of course, this is exactly the same time that that, you know, capitalism is taking forces, the the kind of dominant dominant economic, force in the in Europe. And and so, you know, it's it's no surprise really that that school and and and education in that sense have always been sort of hand in hand with capitalism. And so, you know, here we are two hundred years later, and it's very, very difficult to pull those two things apart. You know, I mean, how does school work? It's it's very competitive. It's it's very, very individualist. It's becoming more and more instrumentalist, you know, seeing that it's it's it's meant to to take you on to something else. And and so it's no surprise really that it that it actually kind of works as something that really feeds into capitalism. Basically,

Speaker 1 if we can't imagine a world without capitalism, you also really can't imagine a world where education is not tied to the things that are explicitly capitalist. Exactly. For example, like, imagining an education system that is not primarily devoted to college and career readiness Mhmm. Or devoted to standardized testing Yes. Is very hard to do, because even if you're you're homeschooling or something, you're still tied into that. This is exactly right. And and and I I would say it's it's verging on impossible, in fact, really, to actually truly, truly disjoin them that our our our imagination

Speaker 2 has been, you know, tarnished by what we think education can be. And, you know, it it it may be there actually isn't a version of education out there that that is truly free from this kind of this history and this this process. But but, nevertheless, it's it's that kind of thinking that that a lot of what I've been doing really. And it it connects to I I think it's it's worth noting that,

Speaker 1 and I believe you you write about this, and it's also said about Badgerard is that both Fisher and Badrard aren't nihilists. So it's not like this this line of thinking is like, hey. The world sucks. It's never gonna get better, and we're we're always gonna be here. So how does that then connect to this concept of exit pedagogy? Because I feel like those two things are connected. I think so. Yeah. I mean I mean, to to to kind of pick at your first point about about nihilism,

Speaker 2 I think it is really important to to kind of emphasize that point that anybody who sees somebody like Fisher or or or Bodriar as a as a nihilist is, I think, really only hearing what they wanna hear rather than actually really engaging with his work that that actually Fisher's work is is infinitely hopeful. And and his entire project really was about seeking alternatives and and looking to what else could be done. And I think this is particularly clear if you you look at his his final book that was released posthumously, which was a collection of lectures of his his final lectures all the all the time that he died. And, you know, that they were they were transcribed very, very faithfully by, Matt Cahoon, who was, one of his students who was who was in those lectures. And the this this set of lectures was called post capitalist desire, and and it it was actually about trying to find and imagine something that could exist beyond, you know, the capitalist realist now and looking at what do we wanna keep from capitalism and what do we wanna drop and and what do we want? You know? What do we actually want out of any kind of future? You know? Is is this something that we actually desire? And and so, you know, it's very much not nihilist at all. It it really is about trying to find, trying to find something that that that we can look towards. And and perhaps perhaps we don't know what we want yet, but that means we need to find out what we want. And I think that's a really important, you know, thing from Fisher there that that we maybe don't know the future that we want beyond capitalism yet because our imagination is so tarnished.

Speaker 1 So, yeah, you're absolutely right. You know, it's it's definitely not in any way a a nihilistic project. Then that kind of builds into the the educational side of things. So if our goal is to then reimagine a system that is not capitalism, that means we also need to reimagine how schooling works to get there. And it's kind of a a chicken and the egg type deal because you start with schooling or do you start with economic systems. But there's no doubt that the way someone goes through the schooling process will affect the way that they view the world around them. And I would imagine that by changing your pedagogy, that you would in turn impact how future societies,

Speaker 2 learn. Mhmm. And I think that some that that might be, like, extreme scare quotes around that, because it gets kinda like so. Yeah. Is this, like like, getting, like, propaganda and, like, how you're Absolutely. And and and, of course, all this kind of thinking always needs to be taken with a pinch of salt. And and and, actually, what you said about the chicken and the egg is so important as well because often all the issues that people kind of want to address with education are actually issues that need to be addressed everywhere in society. A lot of them are, you know, to do with things being funded properly and time being given to staff and, you know, in a kind of a a change in in relations to other systems as well as just education itself that you know, education isn't isn't the panacea for all of these things. It's kind of one of many things that needs to be addressed, and and ultimately, you know, kind of can can be rethought perhaps, but but but how is how is difficult? And that kind of kind of brings me to this this idea of exit pedagogy, which is something I kind of coined really in, in my work. But it it it was based on the idea of so Matt Matt Cohoun, who I mentioned a minute ago, who is one of one of the students of Mark Fisher's. He he wrote a book called Egress, which was zeroing in on one of the concepts that kind of he sees in in Mark Fisher's work. And there's lots of other really interesting aspects to the book as well where he kind of thinks about the mourning of Mark Fisher and and other theoretical ideas that are tied to it. But but, ultimately, he sees this concept of egress as really, really important to Fisher's project. And and egress, you know, it it's it's a it sort of means exits. It's kind of like a it's also like a military tactic of a a way of kind of getting out. It's kind of a strange word, really. But but, ultimately, it kind of seems like egress is something that really, really haunts all of this project. That that what he's often trying to do is trying to keep our eye on what is the kind of the dominant structures that we're within and and how could we get out of them. And that requires a bit of reevaluating, rethinking, redescribing rather than just kind of looking at the objects. Okay. You know, here's capitalism, and then and then what next? Actually thinking about, you know, is the way that we think about this thing correct? And and therefore, does that mean that we can get out of it if we don't really know what it is? And and and that's what I like about Fisher's work so much that he's he's always kind of looking at our things exactly what we think they are. And, you know, Bodhran was so good at this as well and and one of things that he definitely draws from him that, you know, is is capitalism exactly what we think it is. The the the way that Fisher describes it is it's it's kind of monstrous. It's it's materially present. You know? It's something that's here. It's something that almost has an agency of its own. And and and this is where he kinda starts to bring in some of these words about weirdness and eeriness that it kinda has this strange presence that that kind of lingers in our in our lives. And and yet there's also something very eerie about it because, you know, because where is it? You know? It's it's nowhere, but but it's also everywhere at the same time. And then he he he makes, you know, kind of great comparisons to, you know, kind of monsters from other Lovecraftian mythos and this kind of thing that there's there's this kind of weird, movement in between worlds, between this this strange thing. And just to think of it as a set of economic relations really kind of doesn't help us that much in terms of actually thinking about how we can get out of it, But there's so much more to thinking about it. Which which is also something I think you could do with education too. You can use that same kind of thinking for education as well that, you know, it's that just thinking of it in terms of a a system of of teaching is is is too minimizing, but, actually, there's something kind of eerie and and weird about that too, really.

Speaker 1 I I think that before we dive into how that could be used literally in the classroom Mhmm. I think it's also probably worth defining this concept of hauntology. Yeah. Because that that's kind of connected to what you're you're talking about right now. Yeah. Absolutely.

Speaker 2 The hauntology is yeah. So it's a difficult thing to describe, really, because it's such a flexible term, and and it's used differently by different people. But I think I I think it's such an important concept, really, and and it definitely was for for Fisher as well. I mean I mean, some of the things to kinda get to grips with with hauntology. So it firstly, hauntology is is a pun on the word ontology, that was made by Jacques Verida. And he he he was kind of rethinking ontology in the same way that I said when he go fishing was rethinking capital. And ontology is the study of being, you know, the the idea of existence, presence, of of being, and in a sense of our our being in the world and, you know, how we exist. So, you know, obviously, a very, very kind of big complex area of study that that that doesn't necessarily help us for thinking about operating in the classroom that much. But, but, nevertheless, so so so Derrida kind of made a pun on, ontology as as hauntology, which in the French would still be pronounced ontology. So it's it's it sounds like it's the same. But Gotcha. The the the word reminds us that actually there is something wrong with ontology that actually because it is haunted, the word itself ontology is haunted if it's hauntology. And so he's kind of trying to get us to really rethink what is being. What what would it what is that that thing? And is being something that is entirely present? And and, really, the whole history of kind of philosophy and and metaphysics always kind of makes this assumption that the being is is here, is present, that something is always happening. And and and Derrida and and then Fisher later on kind of picks up that idea and and starts to challenge it, which kind of has lots of interesting avenues that are really important, I think. One of them is about time, and and Darren is really interested in time. And and he describes in part hauntology as a a disjointed or disadjusted now. He he takes this line out of Hamlet that the time is out of joint, and and that is the way that perhaps we should think about beings, that things aren't in this kind of linear, present form, but things are actually out of joint. And and this also helps us think about if we're thinking about being, we're thinking about beings as well and and and how those things are formed and are are they formed in kind of, simplistic and and linear ways, or, again, is there something disadjusted and disjointed about beings? And and so Fisher kind of develops this concept a little bit, and he he he looks at the way that we're not just kind of haunted by by things of the past that, you know, hauntology isn't just about, the kind of time being out of joints as in, you know, things from the past that are haunting us. But he also talks about kind of ghosts or specters of the future. You know, he he he says that that really what we are mostly haunted by these days within capitalist realism is is the ghost of a lost future, the the future that, you know, that the people thought they were gonna get in the seventies and the eighties. And if you go back and he he, you know, he spends a long time talking about this, about seventies and eighties popular culture and its imagination of the future is so, you know, kind of thrilling with with what it could imagine could happen. It it thought that, you know, great stuff was really gonna come. And, you know, other writers talk about this too. David Graeber, wrote an article about, you know, where are our flying cars? Where's everything that, you know, we're meant to be getting?

Speaker 1 And, it it it never came. I mean, back to the future, that that reimagining reimagining in back to the future, that was only, what, ten years ago? Right. Like, the actual future that was supposed to be. Exactly. Exactly. You know, I think, I think the first Terminator film where the the world's ended is is 2029.

Speaker 2 So, you know, visions of the future were quite but but but but dystopia and utopia are both important in terms of thinking about the future. And, basically, what Fisher kinda claims is that that that we actually have lost the ability, at least in the dominant imagination. He's not saying that people can't reimagine the future anymore, but he's saying the dominant imagination, especially within popular culture, has lost the ability to actually imagine a future beyond capitalism. Right. And and so we are now kind of haunted by the the the ghost of this future that never came. And and this is why we are seeing, you know, potentially a lot more kind of nostalgia, you know, existing in in popular culture. Because, you know, one one of the reasons that that somebody somebody my age, for example, might really enjoy stranger things or, you know, some of the kind of big eighties vibe show, even though, you know, I I wasn't around in the eighties. I, you know, I was born in 1989. So I don't remember the eighties all that well, but but, you know, you kinda get this wonderful experience of, like, being in the eighties by watching a show like that or listening to some kind of nostalgia wave music. But but but, theoretically, is what I'm enjoying the past, or am I enjoying the future that they thought they were gonna get? And, you know, is is there still a time when there was something imaginably different from from what they were living in? And is is that what the kind of the real haunting nature of the show is perhaps? You know? So, you know, this is this is kind of kind of some of ways to think about hauntology. You know? I I think these ideas about time being disjointed and and and about beings being not entirely present or necessarily entirely absent. Some of those things could can be kind of good ways of thinking about it. But then think about in the classroom, that's, of course, a lot more complicated if if it wasn't already complicated enough, but, you know, that's that's kind of the the, yeah, the the challenge really finding how we can move from one thing to the other. Right. So kinda like to tie this together. The the overall idea is is that it's very difficult to imagine a future without capitalism and the the hauntology component,

Speaker 1 to put it, like, I guess, like, in layman's terms or an example of this would be, like like, my future is through a capitalist lens because someone has constructed that future for me. Like, I've grown up in a world that is very corporate Mhmm. Because everything is controlled by a corporation in one way or another. And, therefore, my future that I imagine is influenced heavily by corporate forces. And that impacts our ability to exit this capitalist system because I am not able to come up with an alternative. Everything is built off improving a system that already exists. And if we relate that over to education, because these forces are so tied together, my ability to reimagine to a new educational system is heavily impacted, if not impossible,

Speaker 2 because it just everything is so intertwined. Yeah. That that's quite a nice little summary, really. I mean and it's even perhaps a step further that it's it's not even that our future is kind of controlled by capitalism. It's that that there is no future. You know? That there there is, I mean, quite literally, there is no future at the moment because, of course, if capitalism keeps on going in the way that it's going, you know, we will we'd be an ecocatastrophe in no time. And so quite literally, there is no future. But then also kind of metaphorically, there's no future that we're sort of stuck in this stasis where where nothing is changing. Right. And that that that everything is just kind of repeating, and it's the same over and over again. And and that's why that example of kind of suddenly everybody loving nostalgic TV and everything's a remake kind of is is is manifest because there is no sense or anything new ever happening anymore. Every everything feels really kind of stuck in stuck in this presence. And education can sometimes kind of perpetuate that. You know, there there there there's a great quote from, from Tocoon who are a, like, a French anarchist collective, and they they talk about schooling in in France. And they say that it's actually something that's teaching us to live within the crisis of the presence, that rather than actually trying to kind of project anything into the future, it's just actually teaching people how to stick it out and and get used to this kind of terrible world that we're stuck in. And this is just kind of education. It's just learning to make you live within it, in the best possible way that it can, but it's not actually helping you in terms of getting out of it, which is that's Yeah. When I come back to this idea of of exit pedagogy then that, actually, how can education not keep recycling and keep, teaching us to live within the presence, but how can it actually teach us to look at the exit and think about where where is the way out? How can we get out of this place? And that's something I think that that that Fisher is is is starting to kinda get at in in both his pedagogy literally, you know, which you can see in his lectures, but also in his kind of broader projects as well and his kind of pedagogy beyond beyond the classroom just in terms of his full project. Project. That that concept of stasis is so fascinating because it's something that is,

Speaker 1 like, like, very real, I guess. Like, Fisher talks about the idea of the future being boring. Yeah. Like, there's no real major difference. And I I think about a lot about, like, neoliberalism Mhmm. And the fact that, ultimately, it seems like not a lot changes. Folks get really rallied up about, for example, political elections or it'd be like the the hot new techno technological trend. And, ultimately, everything feels kinda samey, kinda kinda like nothing really is changing there. And I I think when that connects to education, the most real thing for educators would be what just has happened with COVID. Mhmm. You have a massive pandemic that has killed millions of people. And as a result, education went online for a year, maybe two years depending on the the district. And what happened was there was all this talk about this grand reimagining of education because we had to take things online. That means everything's gonna change. But sadly, for 99% of folks,

Speaker 2 what ended up happening is we recreated the exact same thing online, which ended up being very boring. And then to top it off, we went back when it was worse than it was before, and then just ended up doing the exact same thing again. Yeah. I mean, I I was I was I was teaching from home for for months and then and which was already, like you say, it wasn't a reimagining at all. It was just how can I do what I do in college but but at home? And then it was just repeating. So then we went back into college, and we did it all over again. And, yeah. I mean, it just demonstrated just, like you say, just such a lack of imagination and this unbelievable sense of stasis. And it also kind of represented this this imperative that we have to, you know, get kids through school, get kids through the curriculum. There was this, you know, this real kind of chorus of of lost learning, which I think everybody kept on talking about. Right. You know, what what does that what does that even really mean, like, lost learning? You know? That that people they are, they need to catch up they need to catch up to what? Because, you know, we we set these, these these boundaries of of what students should do. We set these curricula, and we set these exams. And and so if they if if they didn't get to those, well, you know, that that doesn't really matter. That was some Yeah. We you know, that that that they're not some kind of, you know, natural, natural existing imperatives that, you know, people have to follow to progress in their life. You know, if if they didn't learn about, you know, who is the king of England in in 1500, whatever, it's it's it's just not gonna make any difference to them at all.

Speaker 1 Right. And and, I mean, speaking of kind of the, I guess, the stasis of it or just, I guess, the lack of reimagination, what's interesting to note about that learning loss narrative is that there wasn't even that much law. Like, we were to even take it by the terms that are defined, the actual stats are about like 3% standardized test scores, which is not it it's a question. It's it's it's it's exactly. It's completely negligible.

Speaker 2 And, you know, I think a lot of people have gone back to come back to teaching in the classroom and have, you know, have noticed maybe some small differences that perhaps there's some things that people don't know or or maybe there's a skill that they lack. But but but but generally speaking, there has not been this this massive for all over my oh my god. My my students know nothing, and how am I ever gonna you know? So it it it of it really it kind of just reflected this this this sense that that schooling in its current form is the most important thing in the world for for people that age, and that without it, society will fall apart will fall apart, which is actually sadly kind of true that actually our current society would sort of fall apart because, as I said a minute ago, it is teaching us to live in stasis. And, of course, it's, you know, so directly linked to our neoliberal workforce as well, that, you know, students currently are very good at learning this kind of fluid set of skills and being able to move from kind of one area to another. They they learn a kind of a a sense of of of discipline that's really, really encouraged in neoliberal workplaces. They learn this kind of work ethic that they're expected to kind of repeat that you know, these kind of, like, slavish capitalists, you know, kind of ways of being are really, really instilled in in schooling in its current form, definitely. Yeah. The the the hidden curriculum is very much, like, explicit about this and the idea of,

Speaker 1 it's intentionally telling students not to question the system at their end and encouraging behaviors that we often see in the workforce, like toxic positivity through group mindset. Kind of like co opting ideas that were good in theory,

Speaker 2 but transforming them into this lens that makes them very gross and I mean and not really what the original intent was. I read a great line about the, hidden curriculum the other day actually that said it's weird that we call it the hidden curriculum when it's actually the most obvious manifest part of schools that actually if you were to tell me what a school is, that's the hidden curriculum that that all all those things that make it a school. So, actually, it's it's really it's just the schooling is is what the hidden curriculum is. But but, again, as you say, know, that those those things are really, really fundamentally tied to to our our projection into capital beyond beyond schooling, and and and thus, again, they become fundamentally intertwined. And and so then we're kind of back to exit pedagogy again. And and, actually, one of the things I've been thinking about exit pedagogy in terms of, you know, thinking about what what do you want, you know, students in a classroom to do, or or to think or or or to talk about. Well, one of those things is this, surely, that, you know, students more than anyone are are taught to believe that school is the most important thing in the world for them. And, you know, the the especially if we see that the rise in mental health concerns around students in the last sort of ten, twenty years is completely on the rise. And that that is surely tied to, in part, the pressure that they're put under in their schooling and and especially towards testing. And and so they they are made to believe that this is the most important thing that will ever happen, and and and therefore, of course, not to question the structure of it. And and and that was one of the things I started to think about is if if I was to think about Fisher's project in my classroom, would it be me trying to get them to rethink what is schooling, what is education, what are these things for, and letting them see, you know, part of the exit exists in the very structure that they're in in in that moment. And that that that was that was at least one of the things I've started to think about anyway in terms of exiting

Speaker 1 in a in in a kind of metaphorical way. Yeah. I think then this is a good transition over to kind of what does what does that actually look like? And I think this is where it starts to get confusing because there isn't there isn't really an answer, and a lot of this is very theoretical. And I think a a valid critique of kind of this line of thinking, especially Fisher's line of work, is that the actual classroom looked relatively similar to Yeah. How classrooms look today. So we're talking about this while ironically using

Speaker 2 the same lens to talk about the thing. Like, it's you can't escape the system till you're in the system talking about it. That's exactly it. But, you know, I mean, yeah, Fisher's lectures, they they are very much lectures. You know? That it's him standing at the front of the classroom talking. Students, you know, ask questions and have discussions, and they they do readings. And, you know, he he's a good pedagogue in in in the sense of, you know, kind of encouraging student interaction and and letting them, you know, lead sessions and that kind of thing. And and he he obviously very much cares about his students as well that, you know, there there is a real sense of kind of care from him, which is really important because, actually, we we we couldn't say that about most well, definitely about some educators anyway that actually we see quite a sadistic attitude from lots of teachers and and definitely wasn't the case from him. In fact, actually, an earlier version of the article I wrote, I pointed that out. And, and and the reviewer said it was kind of irrelevant, and I was it was just him being nice to his students, and it wasn't irrelevant. And and and to me, actually, it's not irrelevant. I think it's really important to see actually, you know, what a great teacher might look like in the classroom, and his care is is really, really, manifest there. You are right, though, that ultimately, he's describing these kind of issues that we are doing it within that system itself that he is kind of, you know, definitely stuck within it. That that, you know, if if you think about actually, you know, critical pedagogy in general, which on lots of education courses and and, politics courses around the country, around the world, you'd be taught. But you'd probably be taught them not in the manner of actual critical pedagogy. You'd probably taught them in lecture format. And and so there's there's there's this kind of disconnect between the content and between the, between the theory, definitely. And and so it and and and it's very, very difficult to reimagine how would the, you know, the content be represented through this theoretical lens, as you say. It's quite difficult to disjoin them. And and and so that's some of the thinking that I'm I'm trying to do to try and think about what it could look like. A lot of folks listening into this would be very much familiar with the work of Freire

Speaker 1 Mhmm. I guess Hooks, Darter, etcetera, different folks that exist in the the critical pedagogy space as well as laboratory pedagogy space. And it's interesting because at first glance, if I were reading this work, the first thing that I would assume is, oh, what these folks are talking about kind of is this reimagined way of looking at the classroom because it is very, I mean, it's it a lot of it's based on theories of Marx. Mhmm. A lot of it is explicitly anti capitalist, and a lot of it is looking at teaching differently even though it was historically kind of taught in a very, traditionalist lens. However, the exact same time, kind of the the critique that's offered, via your article, is that this, like, liberatory pedagogy can run into the exact same issues that the current system runs into. Mhmm. Can you talk a little bit about that?

Speaker 2 Yeah. I mean, it's it's it's a difficult one. The the critical pedagogy does have its, obviously, you know, there are the amazing amazing sides to it. But there there are a few things that I've noticed in critical pedagogy that are that are problematic. In part, it's kind of still reliance on the classroom, that that that Freire and Hooks and and and Jira, etcetera, you know, that they they really see the classroom itself as the the kind of radical space. And ultimately, the classroom is something that is so fundamentally tied to a a disciplinary apparatus and tied to structures of schooling. Not to say that it couldn't be freed from them, but but often does. And and the the other thing that's really interesting is is that also it it still relies on on having an educator in some form. I think some people would disagree with me there that they would say the whole point of somebody like Ferrous Project is that, actually, it it it doesn't have an educator as such. But I think there still always has to be somebody who takes on that that position of of the teacher even if they have a less active role. And, you know, they are the way I always phrase it is there always has to be a Socrates. People talk about Socratic discussion as the, you know, the the the kind of fairest and most, equal form of of discuss discussing concepts, but there still always has to be a Socrates. There still always has to be somebody to to guide the discussion discussion and and to to introduce introduce the the ideas ideas and to ask the the the questions that that keep discussion moving. And so the role of the educator itself is a is a, you know, a corruptible or or even corrupted force, really. And, you know, to to to reiterate something I was just saying a second ago, and this is this is something I've started researching recently, is is thinking about educators themselves as subjects. And, you know, they they are not, you know, a kind of a transcendental necessarily group of people. There are, you know, thousands and, you know, more fantastic teachers out there, definitely. But there are also some some truly, truly awful teachers out there who are educators because they enjoy the discipline. They enjoy the sadism. They they enjoy the, you know, kind of making students' lives hard. They they enjoy the the egotistical side of feeling like feeling like they are the most knowledgeable person in the room. They you know, even anecdotally thinking about teachers that get excited about making a child cry because they shout at them so much or there's this thing in The UK called no smiles till Christmas where, you know, some teachers, they say, oh, I don't smile until until we get to Christmas so that all my students know that I'm a real hard ass. And the the yeah. They get a bit of a kick from this from this kind of sadistic desire. And and so, you know, the position of the educator is is a slightly corruptible position in that sense. And and so that's always gonna be a bit of an issue, really. And, critical pedagogy itself, you know, it's it's become this kind of symbol more than praxis. Often, you know, does does it does it actually fit in a school? Does it not does it actually kind of get used properly, and could it be used properly on a kind of a mass scale? And and so that kind of starts to open up some of the other problems and possibilities. You know, Roncier, who's another French theorist, he talks about pedagogy without an educator. You know, can that would be the truly most radical liberal form of form of pedagogy that that actually how could we do it without an educator? I mean, I I don't know how you could do that. I think a lot of what Fisher talks about with popular culture is really important in that sense. Maybe we'll come back to that in a minute. But but I think actually that removing the educator kind of starts to starts to challenge that that issue that I've I've raised. Sure. But but also, I think a lot of liberatory pedagogy is is something that can't necessarily be bottled, and this is also something that RADCA talks about, that that to institutionalize education and whenever I use the word education, really, I'm always thinking about it with a capital e as this institutionalized thing, and and that it's impossible to break free from that institutionalized way of thinking about it. Because whenever somebody says, oh, we need to educate people more, that means it needs to be in an institutionalized fashion. And that's where, you know, these kind of liberator experiences can't really take place because suddenly all the issues of schooling that we have come into it. As soon as you start to try and institutionalize anything liberatory, to to me at least, I think it becomes far more, kind of oppressive and and stratified and hierarchized and and taxonomized, you know, kind of all all the problems that we have with schooling at the moment start to arise again. And and so critical pedagogy, though, you know, brilliance of its on on its own, can we make it work in the kind of systematized manner that it would be needed to have the kind of wholesale effect that we want? Maybe it can. You know? Maybe I'm I'm I'm being being pessimistic because, ultimately, at the moment, you know, there's not even anything close to to to that within within universities and with schooling. And and and so maybe this wholesale reimagining of of teacher training and, you know, university educating in that system, you know, would start to see those differences take place perhaps. But but, you know, my experiences in the classroom haven't always told me that it it will necessarily work as as as as the system that that that will change everything and that will kind of lead towards this radical future that, know, is kind of hope from it. There's there's two things that you're talking about here that are,

Speaker 1 I think, interesting to note, and I I think it'd be probably interesting to kind of dissect these. The first is that that concept of, I guess, the the teacher as liberator or at least seeing themselves as such Mhmm. Versus the teacher that upholds the system. And the connection between those who, as you use the word, sadistically, see their students tend to, at least in my experience when you talk to those teachers, they the reason why they act like that is that they are very trustworthy of a meritocracy. Mhmm. They they very much believe that by instilling a very, I guess, aggressive tone with students that they are preparing these students for the workforce or for the future because that's how, quote, unquote, life really is. And it's it's all very much centered on the idea of not reimagining. Like, this is how the world is. This is how it's gonna be. And by doing this, I am making the world a better place. Yeah. And that's that's that's kind of how that's seen versus kind of the, like, guess, the opposite angle at its extreme would be someone like Freire who, even though they are an educator in the space, they see their role as almost deprogramming the existing structure, as in they are they are attempting to make themselves no longer, useful. They they are trying to eliminate their own position, which is it's kind of odd. But in a system that's so large, that's probably would never happen in someone's lifetime. Yeah. Yeah. It would take a a lot of work. I I think that kind of building off of that, one of the things that concerns me about critical pedagogy beyond its ability to change at a mass scale is its ability to remain relevant in a space that tends to attract this idea, like, truth, I guess. Mhmm. Critical pedagogy is very much involved in, like, the critical race theory, arguments. It's it's very Marx in general has been kind of weaponized as this this word that doesn't really mean anything. It's just kinda like, this is bad because it's it's Marx. Yeah. Or this is bad because it's it's critical. Yeah. They they they they become floating

Speaker 2 signifiers that kind of any any issue that that somebody might have gets kind of bundled into without without you know, the original meaning of it is is completely disappeared. It's been replaced by all these other nefarious concepts that are bundled into it and painted as these kind of bogeyman of of the of the education system, which, of course and and with with every era, are new bogeyman as well. The critical race theory is the current one that, you know, kind of very right leaning individuals are claiming is the thing that's going to destroy education system. And, you know, of course, Marx has has performed that role in the past, and and and cultural Marxism has has also been described that way in the past as well. The the the there will always be something that that will act in that way definitely. The the big irony being, of course, actually, as we've said, education is a real great prop of capitalism. And so that although lots of lots of right wing individuals are trying to claim that education is being corrupted by these forces, actually, education is doing a really good job of upholding capitalism in all the strongest ways possible. So it's a real, yeah, a real kind of crazy

Speaker 1 claim, really. The confusing parts begins to be like, how do you convince people to take this on when what we're talking about is the thing that they're afraid of? So, like, up up until this point, like, everything has been, like, critical race theory in concept is not really something to be scared of. But when we start talking about to these folks, hey. We're talking about ending capitalism. That's way I think that's way far out there in comparison to anything that at least how CRT manifests itself in the classroom is even getting at. And and just kind of to build off that for one second, I don't know. I guess I guess this isn't my opinion, but the concept of having an educator almost is needed even if it's not by its traditional role or by its traditional term just because how else would you how else would you deprogram someone into thinking differently when especially when you're young, all you've ever seen and heard is within that system. I think about almost like indigenous ways of knowing. So be before capitalism, there were educators. They're just elders. There are folks that you would you would talk to, and they would teach you the ways of the world. And even though it's not like an educator, at least in terms of schooling, it is still someone who kind of informs your ways of knowing. And that that role has always kind of had, it's my knowledge, in every culture, even beyond cultures of capitalism. There's always been someone who's told you like, hey, this is the way things are. Mhmm. So as a result, you'd I don't know. I feel like you'd almost have to have someone there to tell you, like, hey. Things could be better. Things could be different. Things could be reimagined. And here are the tools to get there. And I'm gonna attempt to get get me out of the picture so you can do it. Yeah. I mean, I I know, if if that's if that's how it could go,

Speaker 2 then that would be that would be great. I I I suppose one of the things I've been pushing back against is that that's not doesn't tend to be doesn't tend to be how things go. Right. But, you know, if we are if you are talking about that kind of figure, and that's when the kind of fisher comes back in the picture, really, that I think he really kind of exemplifies that that that figure that you're talking about. Of course, again, you know, how do you make sure you've got, you know, 20,000,000 Mark Fisher's knocking around to be able to educate everybody? I I don't I don't think it's necessarily a possible thing that these are contingent individuals like Freire and like Hooks, you know, that they are formed by a set of contingent circumstances, that they're not generated by a a linear path that we can just kind of recreate every time if we wanted more individuals like that. And and that's, of course, you know, one of the issues with something like teacher training that it can never, you know, produce those individuals necessarily because it's not just that training program that creates them. And Right. But but but that's not to say that we still can't use them as good models and and people that, you know, perhaps people can aspire to to to act more like in their in in their educating. And and that there are certainly better than a lot of what we have at the moment. That's for sure. You know? And and and I I think that some of the things that that we were talking about earlier are are good models for that in terms of bringing those kind of hauntological ideas into the classroom and and thinking about get getting a a more kind of clear understanding of what does your future look like and and how how could your future be imagined differently and what, you know, I think not just the future, but the past as well. What what of your past has been erased? So what what are the ghosts of of of the past that are still haunting you as well? And, you know, this is something that curriculum does, of course, because curriculum is very, very narrow, set of, generally speaking, you know, kind of patriarchal and very, very kind of Eurocentric ideas. And so in in a sense, there there there is a sense of killing that has happened by the curriculum. It's haunted by ghosts of things that it has destroyed. And and so that's obviously an an important aspect of that as well as kind of coming to terms with those ghosts that that have been instituted by the curriculum. But but also the sense of understanding what has been what has been done in the past and kind of confronting those ideas. I think that's something that that that Fisher does really well as well. And, of of course, something that has been talked about quite a lot at the moment in in in more kind of mainstream discourse in terms of decolonization, for example. And and, obviously, of course, that'd be a good piece of practice for for for this sort of this sort of thinking. Right. And it's it's it's one of those things where it it seems like to me that the purpose of this for

Speaker 1 your average everyday, like, k through 12 teacher Mhmm. Is really just to like, the the moral of the story is to to to question and theorize what it is that you're doing and whether or not it's leading to the outcomes that you anticipate or whether it's leading to the outcomes that the system has already dictated for you, which is more of a reflection or a practice in reflection than it is a literal question that you can answer. Mhmm. It's it's an ability to think differently about the world even though the end goal would be great to imagine an actual difference. Yeah. I mean, I I I think that's exactly right that it's it's it's that constant sort of reminder of of of rethinking and questioning,

Speaker 2 not just the thing that you are doing in the classroom. You know, lots of good teachers will do that all the time. They're they're teaching a text or they're teaching a theory or they're teaching historical event, and, of course, they will rethink and interrogate that. But, also, the kind of the structures that come around it more broadly, that, you know, that, okay. Well, you know, we are looking at the French revolution today. Okay. So we're gonna rethink, and we're gonna question that. We're also gonna rethink, and we're gonna re question the, the sense of understanding French history. We're gonna rethink the sense of history itself. We're gonna rethink the sense of teaching itself. Why are we in this classroom together? And then who are these people? Why are we put in this form? And why am I put in the position of power here? And, you know, there there is this constant sense of of engaging with structure and then the the the reality, the realism of that structure, which comes right back to capitalist realism that we were talking about at the beginning. It's constantly trying to engage with the way that we see the world, and, that that includes every aspect of it. It's it's very easy in the classroom to kind of get sucked into what needs to be done, which is, you know, getting students through their exams. You know, that that is something that all teachers not only could be able to easily free themselves from anytime soon. But but, nevertheless, I I do think there's always room for this kind of broader rethinking and challenging of of structures. And that's something that we we see in Fisher all the time in in all of his his teaching and his books. Even in some of his kind of weird stuff, that's some one of the things I really love of Mark Fisher is he did this audio essay called on vanishing land, and it's kind of has all these these eerie tracks playing, and it's kind of got this part narrative, part theory. And it's just this really, really weird bit of pedagogy in the end that it kinda gets you thinking about, well, if you know, the way that he's seeing the world is in this kind of weird strange way, and so maybe I should start looking at that way. And then you start to challenge, well, actually, what kind of form should essays come in and, you know, could this and it starts to rethink that structure. And I I I started doing loads of audio essays of my own now because I'm just completely fall in love with the idea. So, you know, I I just like like putting music to my own voice apparently. But, nevertheless, it's it's these kind of, you know, slightly stranger ideas that that that perhaps get her to re rethink the structures when the structure itself that it's being presented in is challenged. I I I talk a lot about Brecht in my article as well because because Brecht was someone that did that so well that was always trying to kind of challenge, you know, political structures and and and the rise of fascism. But he was doing that through theater and would often really challenge kind of what theater was, and it kinda keeps making a step back, that distancing from theater and letting us think about what it is and what are we watching here and to keep that distance from it. And so so, again, I'm I'm sort of wondering how those ideas could be could be transposed into the classroom as well. Yeah. And I I think that that's probably a good note to almost end on is that concept of, well, where do I start? So if this is something that I'm interested in, like, where does the the the rabbit hole begin?

Speaker 1 Because as you mentioned, like, the audio essay is that's why I've listened to that. And it's I don't know if that's a good place to start because I feel like the average person is listen

Speaker 2 to it, and they should especially listen to it near Halloween because it's spooky as hell. But I don't think it would be the place to start. I I think everybody could and should read capitalist realism because it it's very short. It's like a 100 pages. It's got loads of really, you know, great complex theory that that we've actually been talking about without giving the names too much. We've been you know, things like Derry Derry and Lacan and and and Duluth and that kind of thing. But but they're made really, really digestible through these great pop culture examples. And and, actually, he looks at pop culture itself as the thing. It's not just theories looking at pop culture. Pop culture itself is really important to Fisher. Right. And and there's loads of tales from the classroom as well that he talks about his time as as an educator. And so I think that's a really good place to start for anybody is is is to recap this realism because it is it's so short. And and, you know, these these these theories can be really useful for for rethinking things. Bell Hooks, you know, talks about theory as as radical practice. And Right. And, you know, Fisher makes that very, very clear in his in his work that theory is a really, really powerful tool for helping us rethink these structures, and and he makes that theory so accessible, that that perhaps that's a good good enough reason in itself to read some of his work.

Speaker 1 Thank you again for listening to Human Restoration Projects podcast. I hope that this conversation leaves you inspired and right at push the progressive envelope of education. You can learn more about progressive education, support our cause, and stay tuned to this podcast and other updates on our website at humanrestorationproject.org.