New Common Sense: Critical Education Strategy To Challenge the Industrial Revolution 4.0

Ben Laksana and Rara Sekar provoked ideas for IDF 2019’s Sub Theme 2

Lately, it feels like no day passed without us hearing the term "Industrial Revolution 4.0" echoed in the media, alluded to on social media, pronounced in the opening remarks of seminars and workshops, and used by politicians in order to gain more votes. As an education activist who was not directly involved in the discussion of the industrial revolution, from a distance we saw a pattern of repeated arguments in discussing the industrial revolution 4.0 (hereinafter referred to as RI 4.0).

Often, in the eyes of those who support as well as those who have reservation, RI 4.0 is often perceived as a threat, as "technology” with all its automation processes may reduce people’s job opportunities. Technology advancement is often considered a "disaster", and we must tackle it by developing ourselves in such a way so we can adapt to it.



RI 4.0 is more relevant to our lives than we think. Some time ago we attended the Work-Life Balance Festival held by Sindikasi (Media Workers' Union and Creative Industry for Democracy). In one session, resource persons from representatives of trade unions and information technology industries discussed the “Gaps within Industrial Revolution 4.0.”



In the event that also discussed the mental health and how it affected workers, Sindikasi reminded us that the problems faced by workers cannot be summarized simply by blaming technology as a threat that would take over the role of labor. The problems range from long working hours, inadequate wages (even though developed countries which are often seen as a benchmark for the success of development have rolled out living wage), late payment of invoices, over-exploited creative workers who are neglected of their rights, denied rights, including that of forming an association, up to poor mental health due to the lack of rest. And those workers are often our own friends, or even ourselves.



These various problems of workers today, regardless whether they work at factories or at startups, the driver of Industrial Revolution 4.0, show that the main problem actually does not lie in technology, but rather in failing to understand how industry and economy have departed from what we used to know. This perspective will somehow refute the view that humans, especially workers, must surrender to the situation and that those affected by it have to understand it as something natural and necessary to make the industry efficient.



But is it true that technological development in industry is only to take over jobs? 



Actually, technology, no matter how advanced it is, citing Foster and McChesney (2011) it will, "fundamentally remain a social choice". That is to say that the choice to use technology should be determined by the wider community, not just by a group of people.



At present, we see many industries and manufacturing equipment use advanced technology. Unfortunately, even though technology and industry touch upon the lives of many people, they are not under the control of the community or the labor force. So it is not surprising that workers do not have a stake and are not involved in deciding how and for whom the technology should be used, as well as how it will affect them when automation is applied.



Actually, a collective ownership-based industry is not merely utopian wishful thinking. There have been many successful examples from small to large scale industries such as the Mondragon Corporation in Basque, Spain, which is collectively owned and carried out democratically by its workers. A small example of how democratic approach is used in Mondragon is in how people are recruited to fill in the company's managerial positions. In fact, the ratio of the lowest salary to the highest salary is also decided democratically (for Mondragon the ratio is currently at 1: 4,5).

Mondragon is not a small or underdeveloped company that is anti-automation or other new technology. The company adopts advanced technology and produces high-tech products. As the fourth largest company in Spain, Mondragon is able to provide jobs for more than 70,000 workers. This can be achieved thanks to the principles of democracy adopted by the company.



Reflecting on what companies have done with collective ownership or cooperatives such as Mondragon, if we want RI 4.0 to benefit all, especially the workers, we need workers and people who perceive the current industry with views that are different from the common ones. We need industry, with whatever latest technology it uses, which aims at welfare “for many, and not only for few" - citing the slogan of the Labor Party in Britain.



To make this happen, we need an alternative understanding or — borrowing Gramsci — a common sense, a new perspective. We must have knowledge that leads to the awareness that there is an alternative, that we can implement, and not just think about it. We must instill an understanding that, citing sociologist Erik Olin Wright, “this alternative must be desired, doable, and achievable".


This is where we must ask ourselves: what kind of education is needed to convey the new knowledge and common sense?



To answer this question, we need to emphasize that developing skills is not enough, although this seems to be claimed by the state as the solution to our employment issues. Distinguishing the objectives of non-vocational education and vocational education will only exacerbate the gap. Non-vocational education participants are given more knowledge and skills to "respond" to industrial needs. Whereas vocational education, with a focus on technical skills alone, can be just a shortcut in meeting industry needs - which is not necessarily in favor of the welfare of its workers. The ability of vocational education participants to actualize and develop themselves in the future will be limited because this type of education tends to just try to fulfill economic needs.



So, it should also be stressed that we should not stop at education reform. If the industry undergoes a revolution — a significant and broad social change in its impact on conditions, behavior, and ways of operating — education must also undergo a revolution. There must be a comprehensive change in the way we see education, its purpose, and its impact.



Before we even move there, we must first take a quick and deep look into the current educational problems. The focus of education is often placed only on the quality of education from a technical point of view, such as the ability to read and count which is currently still underdeveloped. This problem needs to be addressed. But we must first understand that education is closely related to culture, politics and, especially, economics. As education sociologist Michael Apple said that "the current education system basically aims to support the maintenance of the production mode/workings of the industrial economy". Thus, the problem of education arises, namely to assume the ultimate goal of education is to fulfill the economy solely.



We can explain it not only by looking at the official curriculum and education policies promoted by the state, which explicitly mentions that our educational goals are to supply industrial needs. But we can also explore education from latent, hidden, or what Apple calls it as the hidden curriculum.



Economists Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis a few decades ago explored the hidden curriculum in depth in the United States. They found that the way the schools were managed reflected the way the factory managed which was only to demand that its employees work. They instilled what education expert Paulo Freire called a "silent culture", a mindset that adhered to the structure and hierarchy like a machine that only worked according to what its boss wanted. So, what is the hidden curriculum in the Indonesian education system?

Reflecting on our personal experiences in Indonesian schools, lessons were delivered in a manner similar to how factories operated. For example, teachers were considered unrefutable knowledge was given in a top-down approach. This rather dogmatic, patronizing process gradually decrease students’ critical thinking, making them unable to raise questions about the background of the knowledge.



Not only that, the view that social science, art, or language were inferior to science and natural sciences, implied that knowledge was seen to be highly technocratic and only reflected the industrial needs that glorified information technology. Finally, we can also see how our education system is more obsessed with end results rather than in the learning process. Again, this is massification of education, mass-based education like a factory which does not acknowledge the needs and conditions of the students.



Is it possible for our current education system, which does not encourage us to ask and imagine new alternatives, to fight a system or power that perpetuates blind obedience, "bullying", and ignorance? It is important to realize that knowledge of social, economic, cultural and political structures is actually not absolute and never perfect.



Power or domination can always be challenged in various ways, including through education. To fight this oppressive culture, free education and not the dogmatic education that we have now is needed. This is emancipatory education, which is not only involved in the development of a society that is critical and reflective of its surroundings, but also able to instill a collective culture that is indispensable for building a democratic society politically and economically.



There are two general frameworks that we are trying to put forward as a first step in forming the emancipatory education needed to challenge the industrial revolution (whatever number it is), which does not favor the welfare of workers and only care about industrial efficiency.



First, we have to start by instilling democracy as a way of life in our daily lives, a deep democracy, as mentioned by an educational philosopher, John Dewey. This can be done through knowledge in learning, through curriculum changes, or through teachers as gatekeepers of science, when in class or through hidden school curriculum.



An example of a hidden curriculum is when educational institutions can change the way they run the system by involving all parties in the school, including students and workers, in making decisions as an attempt to contextualise and democratize the education they implement. It is sad to see rural communities not learning the knowledge needed in everyday life such as agriculture. They are actually busy learning what "Budi" and "Tono" are doing in a big city.



The democratic learning process is very important considering our society does not have extensive experience and knowledge about democracy. This is even worse because the interpretation of  democracy is often limited to the general election only, which is often referred to as an “every five-year democratic feast.”  

Deep democracy is a democracy that upholds the values of justice and humanity that are inclusive, which is not for the benefit of a group of people. These values must be the first consideration when making decisions concerning the lives of others. 



Education is the only thing that embraces deep democracy that can help society to understand the importance of democratic values and actualizes them in all lines of life and daily life, be it in neighbourhood, to jobs such as at Mondragon. In short, with the realization that everything can be done democratically, the industry can and must experience democratization. Workers should have an active role in decision making so policies will concern the future of the industry and their own future as well.



Second, we also have to provoke critical consciousness or critical awareness as mentioned by an educational philosopher and proponent of critical pedagogy, Paulo Freire. By prioritizing critical consciousness, it is hoped that we can break — a term of Friedrich Engels — false consciousness or false awareness of the social reality of the world. Critical awareness encourages our understanding to be transformed into a deep awareness of how the world around us works. This awareness helps us see social, cultural, political, and economic irregularities and contradictions in society, which are at odds with human values and the harmony of life with nature.



Critical awareness as a new breath of education can make us aware of "banking education", education that only asks us to save knowledge like bank savings without really understanding that knowledge. With a new understanding or frame of mind about how the world works, critical awareness can also move us to respond to oppression in our lives or other people in a contextual way and with the aim of changing the oppressive system.



According to another critical pedagogist, Henry Giroux, only with this kind of critical education culture can a person become an individual and social agent, rather than being an audience who does not care about his social reality. Those who are critical are able to challenge power and become a new force in spreading the common good and producing meaningful democracy, not democracy which is reduced by only voting in the ballot box.



Education that promotes critical awareness is not a utopian thing. Developed countries such as New Zealand have long instilled critical awareness through a number of programs such as the Social Inquiry Approach that invites elementary and high school students to critically explore social reality in their immediate environment. Keep in mind, the search for social reality around us critically cannot be limited or censored. In New Zealand, this requires the state to be open, including on issues of human rights, social justice, to the environment - with the state often playing a role. This openness is also important to unravel the dark events experienced by the nation in the past.



It is not easy to describe in detail the solutions in the field of education to welcome RI 4.0. Because, when talking about education, we are actually discussing something complex: curriculum, pedagogy, the quality of teaching staff, school infrastructure problems, issues of inequality, welfare issues, cultural issues, development issues, and not to mention the power dynamics of interest between government institutions. Our hope is actually simple: this article can trigger a change in our perspective on education, industry, relations between the two, and ourselves as citizens and as human beings who always seek meaning.



Finally, we want to close this paper with a few questions:


Who benefits most from our workplace system? Why is it so difficult to imagine an alternative condition about the relations of workers with the holders of power where we work?


How far has the industry functioned as a tool for human needs (which is in harmony with nature), and how far do humans function as tools for industrial needs?


How has our educational experience so far shaped our perspective on work, life, and citizenship?


Are the objectives of formal education only to prepare people to become workers?

Is it difficult to imagine different educational goals, namely deep democratic values, critical awareness, and the ability of people to think independently about the circumstances around themselves and engage in democratic social change?



The era of industrial revolution 4.0 cannot be prevented. Hopefully, the above questions can provide critical reflection to initiate an educational revolution that can offset the industrial revolution (at any number) in Indonesia.



Ben Laksana and Rara Sekar became IDEAS launchers for IDF 2 Sub-Themes 2019: Reforming the Vocational Education and Training (TVET) System for Future Jobs.

Do you have ideas for education in Indonesia? Please write your response in the comment column or send your IDEA in the form of a blog/article, vlog, or infographic to the 2019 IDF Proposal. The idea will be published on the IDF website and some will be selected to be presented in the Ideas and Innovations Marketplace.



Selected comments and the most popular ideas will get a souvenir from Du’anyam. Send your ideas soon!

 

Ben K. C. Laksana

A lecturer and a researcher with more than 8 years of experience in social research especially intersection between education, youth, and sociology, have worked as researchers for a variety of local and international organizations. Prior to this Ben worked for the Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, as a young researcher and also a teaching assistant for several courses around sociology, education, and youth. In addition to research, Ben is currently active as a lecturer in International Relations at the International University of Liaison Indonesia (IULI) and under the Arkademy Project actively develops critical education for the general public by using photography as his medium. Ben has a bachelor's degree from International Relations from the Parahyangan Catholic University and a master's degree in Education from Victoria University of Wellington. 



Rara Sekar

Rara Sekar is an independent musician and researcher in the social and cultural fields. She obtained a master's degree in Cultural Anthropology from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand, with a focus on research on education issues in relation to development, youth, and culture. Previously, Rara also worked as a tutor (assistant lecturer) in the VUW Department of Cultural Anthropology in charge of the Human Rights and Development Anthropology class. Currently, Rara works as a freelance researcher for CCPHI, researching the potential of research cooperatives in Indonesia. In addition, Rara also actively teaches research and photography