Power in practice

: adult education and the struggle for knowledge and power in society. Ronald Cervero & Arther Wilson (Eds.). (2001). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Preface (xv-xxi)
The authors pointed out that the literature of adult education lacked an examination of power relations manifested in adult education, although adults became more engaged in learning activity and the issues of knowledge and power are pervasive. Within this context, they ask, "who benefits from and who should benefit from the programs, practices, and policies of adult education?" (p. xv)

The authors empathized that adult education is concerned not only about knowledge distribution but also social, cultural, and economic power, which they called 'material effects' (p. 2). Holding this position, they reviewed three different conceptions of the political in adult education practice:
1) "The political is personal" (articulated by Freire's partner, Knowles's andragogue, Mezirow's emancipatory educator, Daloz's mentor, Belenky's mid-wife, and Brookfield's skillful teacher): the authors critiqued this learner-centered view romanticizes learners. In this view, they argued, "the highest professional and moral principle for adult educators, then, to involve learners in identifying their needs" (p. 5). They further described:

"Key metaphors are those of building on the experience of these potential adult learners; hearing their "voice", which has often been silenced; or giving them access to learning opportunities that historically have been denied" (p. 5)

The authors argued that lack of social structural reference in this view only addressed universal purposes and failed to approach the political in the context of adult education.

2) "The political is practical": This view is concerned primarily about getting things done from the perspective of educators. Thu, the authors argued, this perspective "lacks an analysis of adult education's relationship to the wider systems of power in society, this view of politics does not usually have an explicit social vision of whose interests should be served by adult education" (pp. 7-8).

3) "The political is structural": This view is not concerned about generic adult learners but learners who are oppressed by socially structured power. As a pitfall of this approach, the authors pointed out that it failed to provide concrete direction for micro practice. There exists a structural framework, but it lacks "applied, middle-range work" (Apple, 1988, p, 200, "Teachers and text", as cited p. 10). [My research, by probing this approach at work through participatory research practice, will contribute to suggesting such applied knowledge to address power relations in the context of adult education.]

Within these strands of the political, the authors finally proposed three propositions:

1) There is a reciprocal relationship between power and adult education: They argued, "power relationships both provide the grounds for action in adult education and are also always acted on by adult education" (p. 11). In other words, the power relations structuring our lives are played out in adult education; at the same time, adult education contributes to redistributing the power.

2) Adult education is a site of struggle for knowledge and power:

[Foley (1993, The neighborhood house: site of struggle, site of learning, British Journal of Sociology of Education, 14(1), 21-37, p. 20) wrote, "A major problem, though, with much supposedly critical adult education theory is that it is often very abstract; it has generally failed to develop analyses of adult learning in particular social contexts" (p. 20).]

[A thought: my research allows looking at adult learning at a micro level.]

The authors empathized that the struggle for knowledge and power define the politics of adult education and stated that this standpoint recognizes multiple interests at stake in adult education activity and requires negotiations of these conflicts, which leads to the question,"who benefit?"

3) All adult educators are social activists in practice (regardless of his or her particular perspective on society). In this light, the authors refuted adult educators as neutral knowledge facilitator, but knowledge-power brokers, who constantly question who (should) benefit from this education.

/// epilogue

The authors took the stance that adult education is a critical site for the struggle of knowledge and power, yet noted the limit of the current research after compiling the empirical studies:

"We share, however, a continuing concern that our actual practices in distributing knowledge, reshaping structures, and changing who benefits remain idiosyncratic and undeveloped" (pp. 268-69)

[Can this limitation overcome through participatory research as a form of adult education?]