Content uploaded by Naz Rassool
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Naz Rassool on Mar 25, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
Post-Fordism? Technology and New Forms of Control: The Case of Technology in the
Curriculum
Author(s): Naz Rassool
Source:
British Journal of Sociology of Education,
Vol. 14, No. 3 (1993), pp. 227-244
Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1392807
Accessed: 12/09/2009 13:04
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit organization founded in 1995 to build trusted digital archives for scholarship. We work with the
scholarly community to preserve their work and the materials they rely upon, and to build a common research platform that
promotes the discovery and use of these resources. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to British Journal
of Sociology of Education.
http://www.jstor.org
British
Journal
of
Sociology
of
Education,
Vol.
14,
No.
3,
1993
227
Post-Fordism?
Technology
and
New
Forms
of
Control:
the
case
of technology
in the
curriculum
NAZ
RASSOOL,
Department
of
Education
Studies and
Management,
University
of Reading
ABSTRACT
Technology
is
changing
not
only
our material
reality,
but also our social roles and
power
positions
within the social structure.
Whilst its
increasingly widespread applications
in
industry,
on
the
one
hand,
facilitate production
processes
they
also
contribute
to the
marginalisation
and
displacement
of
particular
groups of people
within the labour
force
(Sivanandan,
1989;
Pollert,
1988).
Thus,
technology
can
"embody
specific
forms of power
and
authority"
(Winner,
1986,
p. 19).
This article considers the
view
that
Technology
as
a
reconstituted
subject
in
the
National
Curriculum
in
England
and
Wales
functions
to a
large
extent as
a
means
of
naturalising
evolving
work
practices
and
specific
worker
awarenesses
required
within the
technological production
process.
It
also serves to
legitimate
real and
symbolic
differences
created between
the
new
'technical'
knowledge
elites
and
the
functionaries
within the
production process.
The accommodation in the
technology
curriculum
of
new structural
changes occurring
within
society
can
then be
regarded
as an
attempt by
the state to
rationalise,
in
pupils'
consciousness,
the
basis
of
a
reformulated capitalist
economic order.
Introduction
During
the
past
decade,
there has
been
increasing
evidence of
policy
shifts
taking place
in
England
and Wales towards
providing
pupils
with
an
education
more
overtly geared
to
develop
the
qualities,
skills
and
knowledge
required
for work within the
technological
age
(DES, 1985).
Indeed,
technology,
vocational
preparation,
problem
solving,
attitudes
and
entrepreneurism
were to become
linked
during
the
1980s,
in
a
powerful
discourse
ensemble
developed simultaneously
in
the FEU
(Further
Education
Unit),
APU
(Assess-
ment
and
Performance
Unit),
MSC
(Manpower
Services
Commission)
and the TVEI
(Technical
and Vocational
Education
Initiative)
and, thence,
became
incorporated
into
Technology
in
the
National
Curriculum 5-16.
Although
within the whole
policy
ensemble the
commitment
to these
goals
is
somewhat
equivocal
and
often
contradictory,
the
vocational
and
economic
meanings
constructed
in
successive
government policy
guidelines
such
as
Training
for
Jobs
(1984)
and
Working
Together
(DES,
1986)
do,
nevertheless,
feature
prominently
in
the current
technological
curriculum
framework.
This
paper explores
the social
construction
of the 'new worker' in
the
knowledge
228
Naz
Rassool
content of the
technology
curriculum
during
the
past
decade.
In
case-studies
of the
Further
Education Unit
(FEU)
policy
discourse
during
the
1980s and the
DES/National
Curriculum Council
(NCC)
documents
Technology
in the
National
Curriculum 5-16
(1989,
1990),
it examines
the economic
and cultural
meanings
embedded
in
the notions of
'technological capability'
and
skills/worker
'flexibility'
in
the
technology
curriculum.
It
is
argued
here that the shifts in
meaning
that have
occurred within
the
reformulated
technology
curriculum
(an
amalgamation
of
Art,
Craft &
Technology,
Business Studies
and Home
Economics)
cannot
realistically
be
analysed
outside the
broader framework of
the
accumulation
crisis
that
has beset
capitalism
since the late
1970s. The
emphasis
provided
here
relates
specifically
to
the
effects of the
reconstituted
production
process
on
the
re-organisation
of
labour and the
emergence
of new social relations
(Aglietta,
1979)
within the
technological
production process.
Thus,
it
is
argued
that the
technology
curriculum
provides
the
context
par
excellence
in
which the
ideological
restructuring
of
social
relations
is
to take
place
with
regard
to
(a)
the
redefinition
of
work,
(b)
the
division
of
labour and
(c)
the
restructuring
of
class relations.
In
adopting
this
position,
the
paper
seeks
to
explore
and extend theoretical issues
raised
by
Apple (1988)
concerned
with the
political economy
of
technology
as a
subject
in
the
curriculum and the effects
of
technology
on the
teaching process.
Methodologically,
it
seeks to take on
board some of
the
paradigmatic
concerns
for educational
technology
research
discussed
by Beynon
(1989)
and
Beynon
&
Mackay (1989).
Overall,
the
analysis
represents
an
attempt
to
move
away
from the
functionalism of
the
liberal
pluralist
framework that has
informed
much
of
technology
research,
and
aims
towards
identifying
some
of
the
analytical
and critical
concepts
needed
to theorise
the
'sociology
of
technology'
in
education
(Beynon
&
Mackay,
1989,
p.
246).
I
focus
exclusively
on
the
policy meanings
legitimised
in
key
curriculum
documents
and address these
in
relation to
wider social
practices.
In
doing
so,
my
analysis
excludes
an
overt consideration of the
struggles
for control over
meaning
between different
interest
groups
within the
policy-formulation
arena.
This
is
not to
diminish
the
impor-
tance of
these
struggles-rather,
it
constitutes
an
attempt
to deconstruct the
technology
curriculum
in
order to
lay
bare the concrete
meanings
in
which
knowledge
and
learning
have been
grounded. My
adoption
of
a
textual/content/contextual
analysis
is further
underscored
by
the
principle
that
curriculum
policy
documents
(henceforth,
referred to
as curriculum
documents)
provide
the
'official'
categories
and
frames
of
reference
in
which
dominant ideas
are
made available
for
consideration
in mainstream
educational
discourse.
By
thus
defining
the
parameters
of curriculum
debate,
they
serve to limit what
can and should be
said
about
'knowledge
and
knowing'
(Young,
1971).
Moreover,
curriculum
documents not
only
provide
concrete indications
of
ideological
shifts
taking
place
in
policy,
but
are as
Apple
(1986) suggests,
themselves
part
of
wider
cultural
production
and
thus
"need
to
be seen as constitutive elements
of a
particular hegemonic
project"(Apple,
1986,
p.
174).
In
this
paper
I
posit
the view that
the
vocational
meanings
and worker awarenesses
constructed
in
the
technology
curriculum constitute an
attempt
to
fulfil the
ideological
and economic 'mission'
(Bates,
1989,
p.
217)
of
neo-liberalism.
Curriculum content as
a
cultural terrain
in
which
sociopolitical,
economic and
ideolog-
ical
meanings
are
produced
and
reproduced
thus
locates itself within
the arena of
'sign'
discourse;
"it is
itself
part
of an active
process
of
signification
in
which
meaning
is
produced"
(Hill,
1979,
quoted
in
Apple,
1982,
p.
158).
Whilst
I
focus
primarily
on the
relationship
between the
technology
curriculum
and
the accumulation
process,
I
also locate the
shaping
of cultural
hegemony--and
the
gaps
and
mismatches that
exist between
policy
meanings
and
social
reality.
It
is
with
this
Post-Fordism?
229
awareness of
'power-struggle',
the 'inner
dialectic' of
policy
meanings,
that the
corres-
pondences
or
'power
knowledge'
discourses
(Foucault, 1980)
constructed
between
education
and
the
economy,
between
education
and the
re-organization
of the
labour
force-as well as the
structuring
of
cultural 'truths'
within curriculum
policy
texts-are
to be viewed.
My
own
analysis
of
meaning production
in the
technology
curriculum
takes
into account
that textual
meaning
obtains
a
degree
of
malleability
also
in
interpretation
since readers
bring
to
it
their own
subjective understandings-and,
in
doing
so,
create
possibilities
and
opportunities
for the
fracturing
of
existing
dominant
meanings (Street,
1984;
Whitty,
1985;
Bowe et
al.,
1992).
Because of the
centrality
of
production
meanings
in
the
technology
curriculum,
I
preface my
overall
analysis
with a brief outline of
the
concepts
of labour
and
production
'flexibility'
as have
been
presented
in
the
debate
about
capitalist
crisis
management
and
the
projected
societal
transition from
'Fordism'
to
'post-Fordist'
relations of
production.
Within the context of this
paper,
these
concepts
serve
primarily
as
analytical
categories,
alongside
those
derived
from the 'new
vocationalism',
to
explore
the nature of the work
practices
and
worker
consciousness embedded
in
the
technology
curriculum.
Shifting
Paradigms?
It has
been
argued
that
new
production regimes
and
capital
accumulation
strategies
have
been
emerging
in
response
to the crisis that has beset
capitalism
since
the
early
1970s
(Bonefeld, 1987;Jessop
1988;
Harvey,
1989).
The
emergence
of
'post-Fordist' production
regimes during
the
past
decade
have been
heralded
as
the 'new historical
bloc' which
signifies
a
definitive
end to the
Fordist crisis of
regulation
(Bonefeld,
1987,
p.
97;
Harvey,
1989).
The
'post-Fordist' production process,
it is
argued,
relies on 'flexible'
workers and
technology producing
differentiated,
low
cost,
quality
commodities
in
order
to
cater
for
increasingly
competitive
and more
discerning
markets. The
new
micro-electronics
technology occupies
a
central
position
in
the
reorganized production process.
Computer
aided
design
and manufacture
(CAD/CAM)
are seen
to
play
a
key
role
in
integrating
the
flexible forms
of labour
required
to increase
productivity
by allowing
workers
to
co-operate
in
design
and
production.
This
particular
concept
of team
work,
it
is
suggested,
decentralizes
power
controls
within the
production
process
and
is
seen also
having
contributed to an
increasing
pluralisation
of the
process
of
control within
the
work
context,
as
opposed
to the
top-down,
strong
controls
inherent
in
Fordist
produc-
tion.
The notion of
flexible
specialisation
grounded
in
this
model
of
production,
implies
closer
co-operation
between
designers
and
craft
workers
(often
working
in
different
geographical contexts)
in
the
production
of
commodities,
which
allows
an
interactive
sharing
of
expertise
to
take
place
(Piore
&
Sabel,
1984;
Murray,
1987;
Tomaney,
1990).
Flexible
specialisation
also carries
with it the
promise
of craft
labour
and small
scale
'cottage'
industry using
the
new
technology
to
produce
commodities for
differentiated consumer
tastes within an
international
market
(Piore
&
Sabel,
1984).
This
notion of
flexible
specialisation
has been
viewed
by
many
on
the 'left' as
being,
intrinsically, individually
liberating
to craft
workers-enabling
labour
to
free
itself from
capital.
However,
this
assumption
has been
subjected
to
critique by
writers
such as
Pollert
(1988),
Murray
(1987)
and
Tomaney
(1990),
in
terms
of the
concrete
social
relations
evolving
within the
work
context.
Of
these,
Tomaney (1990)
and
Murray (1987)
have
argued
that
in
reality,
the
notions of
flexible
specialisation
and
'skills/worker
flexibility'
have,
certainly
in
some
industries,
contributed to an
increase
in
the
individualisation
and
intensification of
work,
intermittent
employment
amongst
periphery
workers and a
steady
rise
in
non-unionised,
230
Naz
Rassool
low-wage
labour.
Indeed,
the
fact
that the new
micro-electronics
technology
can be
programmed
to
produce
a
variety
of
products
to
be
used for a
range
of
purposes-having
minimal
requirements
for
labour,
effectively
allows
capital
to use labour
only
when
it is
necessary
(Sivanandan,
1989).
The
use of the
new
technology
in
the
re-organised pro-
duction
process
not
only
plays
a
functional
role
in
the
social
division
of
labour,
but
has
the
capacity
to
replace
living
labour
(Wolf,
1984;
Pollert
1988)
within some
industries.
Moreover,
as a
social
practice
the new
technology
is
also
infused with
symbolic
meanings,
which,
in
turn,
derive from the
values
attached
to it
within
the
life
of
the
society
and,
more
importantly,
the uses
to
which it
is
put.
Collectively,
these 'cultural'
variables
shape
and influence
dominant
definitions
of 'social
progress'
as
well as 'what
we
all
should know and
possess'
in
order to be
'effective' workers and citizens. I
consider
some of these
arguments
in
the
case-studies
below. The
following case-study
of the FEU
technology
curriculum
discourse
provides
an
overview
of the context
in
which
dominant
meanings
about
technology
were
legitimated
in
the
educational
policy
arena
during
the
1980s. It
focuses,
particularly,
on
key
moments when
meanings changed
in
technology
discourse
in
education. It also
highlights
the
dual
meanings
inscribed
into the
integrated
problem solving
model
which
provides
the
basis
of
knowledge
and
learning
in
the
technology
curriculum.
This
discussion
then informs the
analysis
of
the
concrete
meanings
inscribed into
Technology
in the
National
Curriculum.
Case-study
1:
Constructing
Technology
in
the
FEU
Curriculum
The
use of
computers
in
education,
on
the
whole,
remained
disparate
until
their
use-potential
became clarified
in
the
vocational
training
ethos
of
the
educational reforms
during
the
mid-1980s.
Prior to
this,
computers operated,
largely,
at the
periphery
of
mainstream
education
despite
the
many
individual
libertarian claims made
during
the
1970s
about their intrinsic 'value'
in
the
learning
process
(Postman,
1978;
Vaizey,
1971,
1972). Teaching
'computer
literacy'
at
the time
depended mostly
on
decontextualised,
linear
software
which were
geared
to
improve writing
and
'thinking'
skills.
In
reality
though,
this
particular
use of
computers
in
classrooms served
primarily
as a
way
of
keeping
low
ability
pupils
'busy'
in
remedial withdrawal
groups.
Yet
a
decade
later,
computers
were to
feature
centrally
in
the neo-liberal
vision of 'education
for the 1990s
and
beyond'.
The
concept
of
'computer
literacy'
first entered
the FEU
policy
discourse
during
the
early
1980s
as
an
"entitlement",
a
"basic
skill" and
"an
opportunity
that should
be made
available
to
all"
(FEU, 1983a).
Levels of
computer literacy,
at the
time,
were to
be
developed
according
to criteria
which
required
students on
FE courses to be
taught
a
wide and
"not
necessarily
in-depth" range
of
computer
skills which formed
part
of the
"common core
of basic skills"
(FEU,
1983a,
p.
5)
in vocational
education.
For
'less
able'
students
on vocational
training programmes,
being
computer
literate became a "life skill"
as essential to individual
development
as "are other
forms of
literacy"
(FEU,
1983b,
p.
46).
This view was
to alter
radically
during
the
mid-1980s
when
the new
technology
became
increasingly presented
as a
'panacea'
to diverse
economic
problems.
Already
by
1978
UK
firms had been warned
by
Kenneth
Baker,
then
Minister
for Information
Technology,
to
"automate or
liquidate!"
(quoted
in
Bessant,
1987,
p.
163).
The
DOI,
in
turn,
declared that
If
British
firms
do
not seize
the
opportunities
which micro-electronics
offer,
the
effects will
not fall on
them
alone:
inevitably
Britain's
capability
as an
exporting
Post-Fordism?
231
nation will
also
be
affected.
Therefore,
the
UK cannot
afford
to let
its
manufacturing
industries
miss
the
microelectronics
boat.
(Department
of
Indus-
try,
1978,
quoted
in
Bessant,
1987,
p.
163.)
The
parallel
scene
for
curricular
change
was set
by
the Council for
Education
and
Training
(CET)
publication,
Microelectronics:
Their
Implications for
Education and
Training
(1978).
The CET
report
highlighted
the
following
set
of
questions
to
be
addressed
in
education: "What
can
we do
to
help
people
to
prepare
themselves for a
rapidly
changing
society?
What can we
do to
help people
fit themselves for
employment
in
new
and
technologically
advanced
occupations?
What
can
we
do
to
help
people
fill their
leisure
hours
whether
the result of a reduced
working
week or
the
enforced
leisure
of
unemployment?
What can
we do to
help people
to
maintain
their
self-esteem
when
there
are
no
jobs
for them?"
(CET,
1978,
p. 5).
This
gives
some
indication of
the
way
in
which
the
new
technology
was
coming
to
occupy
a
pivotal position
in
the
reconstituted
view
of
production-and
the
need for education
to
fill
the
gaps
and
mismatches
created
between
the
world
of work and
popular
expectations.
A
major
change
in
perspective
took
place
in
1989
when the
concept
of
'key'
technologies
entered the
FEU
curriculum
discourse. The
'key'
technologies
were
defined
as
"newly emerging
topics
in
science
and
engineering
which
are
likely
to
have
a
major
evolutionary
effect
on an
existing
product
or
process
or
(which)
may
lead to
a
revolutionary
new
product
or
process"
(FEU,
1989,
p.
7
information
in
brackets
added).
Computers,
having
been
dissociated from
their
prior
link
with
'lifeskills'
and
literacy
skills
acquisition,
were now
becoming
tied to
a
new
discourse
emphasising
technical
innova-
tion and
enterprise
in
the
production
process--within
the
broader
context of
Science,
Technology
and
Engineering.
In
an
overall
sense,
educational concerns
started to
shift
away
completely
from
"knowledge
about
computers"
towards "a new
approach
to the
development
of
technological
skills rather
than
the
technology
itself'
(FEU,
1989,
p.
vii).
Organic
links
were
being
established
between
the
technology
curriculum,
commodity
production
and
the
market. The
Engineering
Council/Society
of
Education
Officers
(1988),
for
example,
recommended
that
"(the
key
technologies)
should be
considered
in
relation
to the
activities of
research,
design,
development,
production,
finance,
quality,
marketing,
sales
and
service"
(EC/SEO,
1988,
p.
2,
information
in
brackets
added).
Specific
work
practices
and worker
awarenesses,
incorporated
into an
integrated
problem
solving
approach,
were
now
coming
to
occupy
a
central
position
within
FEU
curriculum
discourse.
Students
were,
for
example,
now to
be
provided
with
a
broad
base of
knowledge
and
generic
skills
with
a
sharp
emphasis
on
the
basic
principles
of
design
(incorporating CAD/CAM),
marketing,
management,
economic
awareness and
business
skills
(FEU,
1989,
pp. 8-9)
as
well
as
co-operative
team work.
The
importance
of
team-work
already
featured
in
the
White
Paper,
Better
Schools
(DES,
1985)
which
had
highlighted
employers'
support
for
a
broadly-based
education
and "the
development
of
personal
qualities
and
skills,
including
motivation and
commitment,
self-discipline
and
reliability,
confidence,
enthusiasm
and
initiative,
flexibility
and the
ability
to
work
both
individually
and
as
part
of
a
team"
(DES,
1985,
p.
9).
The
educational
rationale for a
shift to
practical
pedagogies
was
principally
informed
by
the
findings
of
the
APU
report
Design
and
Technological
Activity:
A
Framework
for
Assessment
(1987b).
The
findings
published
in
the
report
were
based
on
the
Unit's
monitoring
of
project
work
done in
Craft,
Design
and
Technology
(CDT)
in
schools,
and
particularly
considered
the
problems
involved
in
understanding
design
and
technological
activity.
232
Naz
Rassool
The
APU
inquiry
into
the
teaching
of Science
(1980-84)
had
already
highlighted
the
positive
educational
value that
inheres
within
a
process-orientated
teaching
approach,
that
is,
an
integrated teaching
approach
which
provided pupils
with concrete
learning
opportunities
and the
experience
of
practical problem
solving
within
their
learning
contexts.
Overall,
the
findings
underscored
in
the APU
reports
were
progressive
in their
orientation
in
that
they signified
an
important
move
away
from
the
prior
emphasis
in
education,
generally,
on more
formal
teaching
approaches.
However,
the
pedagogical
meanings
underscored
here
and the
historical
role
of
the
APU as
definer
of
successful
classroom
practice
deserve more
critical
appraisal-especially
since the
APU was to have
a
formative
influence on the
problem
solving
model
incorporated
into
the
technology
curriculum.
Of
special
significance
is the fact that
the
'progressivist'
educational
ideals
underscored
in
the APU
reports
on the
teaching
of Science
(1987a)
and
Design
and
Technology
(1987b),
deviated
considerably
from
those
that
prevailed
in
the
right-wing
discourse
of the
Black
Papers
during
the 1960s and
early
1970s-the
context
in which
the
Unit had
initially
been
set
up
with
the task
of
monitoring
'standards'
in
education.
In
this
prior
role
the
APU had served
principally
to
legitimate
state
intervention
in
education
during
a
period
of
sustained
right-wing
attacks
on
educational
'progres-
sivism'-much
of which revolved
around
concepts
of
holistic,
thematic,
child-centred
education
and which
supported
an
integrated,
developmental
model of
learning.
Some
of
these
teaching
and
learning
approaches
also
incorporated
problem
solving
rooted
in
a
critique
of
everyday
social
experience
(Walkerdine,
1984;
Avis,
1991;
Rassool,
1986).
Taking
into account the
nature
of
the historical
relationship
that
has
existed
between
the
APU and
education,
the
defining
role that the
APU
reports
now
played
in
providing
educational
legitimacy
to
the
redefined
technology
curriculum
is,
therefore,
significant.
This
can be
interpreted
in
two
ways.
On the one
hand,
it
could
be
argued
that
the
new
technology
curriculum
borrowed
eclectically
from the
past
to
insert
specific
economic/
educational
meanings
into
technology
as
a
reformulated
subject
in the curriculum
and
by
doing
so,
provided
educational
legitimacy
to the
neo-liberal,
market-orientated
ideals
of the
'new
right'.
On
the other
hand,
however,
the
APU's
adoption
of
educational
'progressivist'
meanings
as
its terms
of
reference
can
also
be seen
as
reflecting
how
successful
classroom
practice
had
impacted
itself
on
policy
frameworks
during
the
preceding
decade.
If
so,
the
change
in
focus
of the
APU
can then
be seen
as
having
been
mediated
by
the educationalist
'capture'
of
defining
sites such
as the
APU.
However,
whichever
the
influence,
what
is
clear is
that two
key aspects
of the
technology
curriculum,
namely,
computer
literacy
and
integrated
problem
solving,
having
had
their
origins
in
a
previous
phase
of
educational
policy
and
discourse,
had now
been
reworked,
repositioned
and
given
different
meanings.
With
the
emergence
of
new
forms of
labour
process
and
production
they
had become
tied to
a different discursive
ensemble
within
the
'new
right' policy
framework.
A new discourse
shaped
around
technology, problem
solving
and
integrated
learning approaches
was
now
coming
together
as
an ensemble
of
meaning 'practices'
articulated
in
a
variety
of
influential
sites
including
the
APU,
MSC
and FEU.
Following
the
APU
recommendations
on
the
organisation
of
the context
in
which
learning
was to
take
place,
cross-curricular
and
inter-disciplinary
work
became
a central
feature
in
FE
curriculum
planning.
Within
an educational
context
in which
individual
work
and
centralised
monitoring
have
historically
been
accorded
great
value,
the
change
in
emphasis
towards
team
effort
and,
similarly,
self-monitoring
and
self-motivation
to
work
was
a
key
development
in
overall
curriculum
organisation.
As stated
earlier,
the
shift
towards
team
work
and
cross-curricular
learning
was
clearly
a
'progressive'
move
Post-Fordism?
233
towards
allowing pupils
to
work
in
a
more
open-ended
way
that
could,
potentially,
be
individually empowering.
At
a
deeper
level, however,
the
integrated
methods of
work
advocated
in
the new
technology
curriculum were
now
also,
more
realistically,
beginning
to
reflect the
skills,
qualities
and
areas of
experience
intrinsic
to
evolving
work
practices.
For
instance,
the need for students to have
a
broad
base of
computer knowledge
and
flexible skills
integrated
into
co-operative
team
work,
could
be
seen also
in
relation
to the
technological
production process
in
which CAD/CAM
play
an
important
role
in
achieving
labour
flexibility.
Here the cross-curricular
learning
and
inter-disciplinary
work
practices
can
be seen
in
parallel
with
the
increasing
reliance in
the
production
process
on
multiple
task
performance,
the
elimination of
job
demarcation and the
horizontal
integration
of labour which
places emphasis
on workers'
co-responsibility
(Swyngedouw, quoted
in
Harvey,
1989,
pp.
177-178).
These and other
meanings linking
production
to
market
processes
were consolidated
in
the
Engineering Council/Society
of
Education
Officers
document
16-19
Education
and
Training:
A
Statement
(1988)
which
advised that
"(w)hatever
new
system
comes into
being
should build on the
problem
solving approach
used
in
primary
schools
and
progress
from
a
core-curriculum
and
technical and
vocational initiatives
pre-16"
(EC/SOE,
1988,
p. 29).
The latter
included
MSC and
industry sponsored
mini-enterprises
in
schools which were
geared
to
develop
pupils'
motivation,
self-sufficiency,
literacy
and
numeracy,
communication
skills,
ability
to
work
in
teams,
skills
for
problem solving,
decision-making, knowledge
and
accounts of
book-keeping,
planning
and
forecasting
skills,
a
'yearning'
to
research,
skills
in
the
design
process, understanding
of
quality
control
issues,
marketing
instincts and social
responsi-
bility (EC/SOE,
1988,
p. 29).
The
links established thus
between the
principles
of a
problem-solving
pedagogical approach,
and the
skills and
attributes of
commodity
production
and business
enterprise, effectively
served to
incorporate
the ideals
of
educational
progressivism
into the mores and
values of the
technological production
process,
the market
economy
and 'basic skills'
education. This
was to
be
a
powerful
ideological
compromise
within the
technology
curriculum
framework.
New
meanings
were
being
ascribed
to
the
'progressivist'
notion of
integrated problem
solving
which
now
became located within
specific
production
tasks
orientated
largely
towards
commodity
production
and
marketing.
The
problem-solving
model
adopted by
the FEU
outlined
the
following categories:
the
planning
process (context/task
analysis
or
needs
identification),
work
process (task performance),
product
(artifact/environment),
evaluation
(on-task
assessment)
and
presentation (media
sales and
marketing),
and
working
within
this
framework,
students needed to
develop
the
'right
attitude'
towards
change.
The
emphasis
placed
on
'worker
attitude' was
an
important hegemonic
variable
inserted into
the
FEU
curriculum. The
prospects
of
sporadic
or
long-term
unemploy-
ment
created
by
the
replacement
of human
labour
with
technology
meant that
students
would now
have to
learn
to
adjust
to
job-uncertainty
as a
necessary
part
of life in
the
future
(see
Wolf,
1984,
below).
Some of these
meanings
also
derived from
the MSC
funded
Youth
Training
Schemes which
were
geared
fundamentally
to
develop
individu-
als
who,
as
suggested
by Nigel
Lawson,
then
Chancellor
of
the
Exchequer,
"would
have
the
right
skills
and would be
adaptable,
reliable,
motivated and
prepared
to work
at
wages
that
employers
can
afford to
pay" (quoted
in
Jones,
1989,
p. 107).
Similar
meanings
were
reflected
in
the
FEU
curriculum
where
training
'needs'
were
increasingly
to be
orientated
towards the
structuring
of
a
neutral,
adjustable
individual
consciousness
as
a
means of
ensuring
school
leavers'
unproblematic
acceptance
of
their
uncertain
futures
as
workers
"within
a
constantly
changing job-market"
(FEU,
1983b).
Young
people
would thus
require
a
broad
base of
skills
common
to
many
occupations
by
234
Naz
Rassool
acquiring
a
"range
of
generic
skills
to
improve
their
adaptability
and
potential
for
progression"
(FEU,
1983b,
p.
8).
Job
insecurity
could
then
be
countered
if
students
were
to
develop generic
'transferable' skills
and
a
'flexible'
approach
to
changing
market-
demands for
particular
forms
of labour.
Furthermore,
high
motivation
and
a
'work-pre-
pared'
consciousness would
alleviate uncertainties created
particularly
for low-skilled
workers
functioning
at the
periphery
of the
production
process.
Again,
these
meanings
had
already
been
legitimised
elsewhere
in
educational discourse. The
White
Paper,
Working
Together:
Education
and
Training (DES,
1986)
had
consolidated the
basis
of the
'learning
society'
envisaged
for 'the 1990s
and
beyond'
stating
that "motivation
is all
important
so
that attitudes
change
and
people
acquire
the
desire
to
learn,
the habit
of
learning,
and
the
skills
learning
brings"
(DES,
1986,
1.4).
In
reality
though,
students
were
to
be
taught positive
attitudes of
motivation
which
go
beyond
the immediate
competences
needed
in
contemporary
employment
to
be able
to
adjust
to
evolving
needs
within the
production
process.
Within
a
context
of
permanent
job insecurity
the
assumption
was that
"employees
(would)
need
to want
to
learn,
so that
training
becomes
almost
a reflex
reaction to
changing
technologies
and
employment
patterns"
Jones,
1989,
p.
86),
effectively,
becoming
a
workforce
constantly
in
the
process
of
being
constituted.
As is the
case
with
the
emergence
of flexible skills and
knowledge
in
the
technology
curriculum,
highlighted
above,
the
affective
aspects
of
experiential problem solving
now
coming
to
occupy
a
pivotal position
within the
technology
curriculum
bring
into
focus
the
double-edged
nature
of the
notion
of
motivation
being
constructed.
Whilst motiva-
tion
and
positive
attitudes
clearly
do have
the
potential
to facilitate
pupils'
learning they,
implicitly,
also reflect some of
the worker behaviour
patterns/awarenesses
inherent
in
the
social
relations
of the
re-organised production
process.
According
to Ball
(1990),
"motivation
by
reward-intrinsic
and
extrinsic-and
a
continued
positive
orientation
to
learning
is essential to the
'post-Fordist
bargain
which offers
security
in
turn
for
flexibility"'
(Murray,
1988,
quoted
in
Ball,
1990
p.
126).
Whether
such
employment
'guarantees'
are borne out
in
reality
is, however,
a
debatable
question.
This
is
especially
pertinent
if
we
take
into account
the
capacity
of the
new
technology
to
replace
vast
sections
of workers
in
the
production
process
as
has
been,
notably,
the case
in
the
car
industry.
Wolf
(1984),
for
example, argues
that the
second
generation
of robots
(post-
1979)
used
in
the
production
process
can
effectively
assemble
complete
cars,
including
body-work painting.
The
only jobs
reserved for human
labour include
those
of,
inter
alia,
electrical
wiring
and
cooling systems.
Wolf
(1984)
maintains
that
since 1983 hundreds
of
these
robots have
been installed
in
car
assembly plants
in
West
Germany (as
it was
then)
and that on
average
"every
robot
now
replaces
four to
ten workers
...
"
(ibid., p.
22).
The
subsequent
reduction
in
labour costs
contribute
an increase of at
least
40%
in
profits.
Added
to
this,
the
increasing
introduction
of
short-term
labour
contracts
and the
selling
of
'yearly
work-time'
effectively
enable
capital
to
use labour when
it is
required.
This,
in
turn,
depends
on
market
demand,
thus
leading
to seasonal
work,
an increase
in
overtime
for
some workers
and
sporadic part-time
work for others. These
factors
systematically
erode
the
demands
for
living
labour
(Wolf,
1984;
Pollert,
1988;
Tomaney,
1990)
thus
allowing
the distance between
the work
experiences
of
those
employed
at the
core of
the
production
process
and
those
employed
at
the
periphery
to
widen.
Moreover,
the
geographic
dispersal
of work
contexts,
implicit
in the notion
of
flexible
specialisation,
would
diminish
the
possibility
of collective
struggle
against
oppressive
working
practices
(see
also National
Curriculum
below).
These
real social
effects and
impacts
of the
re-organised
(technological)
production
Post-Fordism?
235
process,
highlight
the fact that the notions of
'motivation' and task-orientated team
work
embedded
in
the
problem-solving
model
as
featured
in
the FEU
technology
curriculum,
in
reality,
serve
a
powerful hegemonic
function. Here
they
would
mediate not
only
the
mores of
task
performance
within
the
work
place,
but also the beliefs and value
system
of a
profit-orientated,
technocratic social
reality.
The social
construction of
everyday
thinking
and
expectations
of
what
it means to
be
technologically 'capable'
and
'com-
petent'
and, therefore,
'employable',
serves to refract
key
aspects
of
prevailing
social
reality-in
this
instance,
high
levels of
unemployment.
It offers a
new societal
alternative
in
which
only
'positive
attitudes' to
change,
worker and
skills
flexibility,
the 'motivation'
to work and 'rational
self-management' strategies
would,
theoretically,
enable
workers
to
secure individual 'choice'
in
the
job-market.
That is to
say, only
those with the
'right'
skills
(transferable/flexible),
the
'right
attitude'
and the
'motivation' to
adapt
to
evolving
changes
would
be
guaranteed employment
in
a
fluctuating
and
contracting
labour
market.
By
thus
attaching
neutral
meanings
to the variables
of
unemployment
and
job
insecurity,
the
responsibility
for future
employment
would
(theoretically)
be transferred
to
the
individual
and,
of
course,
the
exigencies
of the market
(see
also NC
below).
This,
in
effect,
lends credence to the
view that the notion of
labour
flexibility
has
been
appropriated
strategically
as
a
market
and
managerial concept (Pollert,
1988)
and,
as
such,
functions as a
powerful hegemonic
variable
in
the
re-organisation
of both the
production
process
and
labour relations
during
a
period
of
sustained economic crisis.
Certainly,
the notions of
competent
performance, personal
accountability
and
individual
skills-ownership
(FEU, 1984),
inscribed
into the
integrated
'technological' problem
solving
model
would,
at least
theoretically,
have vast
hegemonic
potential
in
relation to
maintaining
the social
equilibrium necessary
for
an
unimpeded process
of
capital
accumulation
(Bonefeld, 1987).
However,
these
distinct forms of
labour
domination
in
the
restructuring
of
capital
are
by
no means
uncontested;
they provide
an
arena of
ongoing struggle
between
capital
and
labour.
Although
the
steady
rise
in
unemployment
during
the
1980s
would have
indicated that
the latter is
losing
out,
we
are now
beginning
to witness the
emergence,
in
the
social
terrain,
of some
of the
contradictions
inherent
in
neo-liberal
economic
policy.
This
formulaic
market-driven
approach
to economic
and
labour
policy
is
in
the
process
of
being
fractured
in
the
reality
of
dwindling
markets
and
increasingly high
levels of
unemployment
during
a
period
of
sustained
economic
crisis.
In
the
deepening
recession of
the
early
1990s the
collective voices of
workers are
again
beginning
to be
audible
in
protest against
job
insecurity
and
unemployment.
Conclusions
At
least three
major
modifications to the
organisation
of
curriculum
learning
during
the
past
decade can be
identified within
the FEU
policy
framework.
These can
be
termed:
(a)
the
conceptual:
areas
of
generic
skills,
knowledge
and
experience
that
place high
priority
on
commodity production,
enterprise
and
marketing
skills;
(b)
the
systemic:
integrated
teaching
and
learning
approaches-which
seemingly
replicate
aspects
of
the
social
relations of the
post-Fordist
production
process;
(c)
the
hegemonic:
the
foregrounding
in
curriculum
discourse of
the
affective
variables
of
'motivation',
'attitude'
and
'personal
efficacy'.
Thus,
although progressive
teaching
and
learning
approaches
placing
the
learner at
the
centre
of the
education
process
are
being
advanced,
the
form
in
which
the
curriculum
236
Naz
Rassool
knowledge
has been
organised
in
the
FEU
curriculum
framework,
also serves
to
legitimate
concrete
production meanings
as
well
as
the
ideological principles
of
neo-lib-
eral
market-forces
policy.
The
meanings
constructed could thus be
interpreted
as
serving
to
legitimate
the
restructuring
of
production
and
the
re-organisation
of
labour
relations
during
the
perceived
societal transition to the
technological
mode of
production.
Curriculum
changes,
in
this
instance,
can
therefore
also
be
seen as the
state's
response
to the
potential
threat to
social order
implicit
in
an
uncertain
employment
market.
They
could also
be
seen
as
helping
to maintain social consensus
during
a
period
of sustained
social dislocation
by
serving
to re-constitute
the
'social
character'
(Williams, 1961)
in
terms
of
the
anticipated
'needs'
of
the
technological production
process.
Case
Study
2:
Technology
in
the National Curriculum
In
the
following
case
study
I
use
a set of
categories
derived,
largely,
from the
'post-Fordist' production process
as
alternatives
to those defined
in
Technology
in the
National
Curriculum
5-16.
It is intended for these to
bring
into focus
the
specific
production
skills and worker awarenesses
legitimated
in
the
technology
curriculum,
and
also,
to
highlight
the inherent contradictions and the tension
in
which
these
meanings
exist.
Although
I
focus
mainly
on textual/content
meanings
I
also take account of
the fact that
curriculum
meanings
are mediated
not
only
through
the
visible
policy
content,
but also
in
its
'silences';
'that
which
it does not
say' (Eagleton,
1976; Williams,
1980).
Drawing
on
the
economic
and
ideological
meanings
constructed
in
the FEU curriculum
policy
discourse,
I
want to
examine
how and
why
a
particular
selection of
'technological'
knowledges
has been
incorporated
into the
curriculum at this historical
moment and
which
areas,
by
that
omission,
are excluded.
In
the
first section
I
concentrate
on
curriculum
content
in
order to
highlight
some of
the
correspondences
that
may
exist
between
technological knowledge
in
the
National
Curriculum
and
new cultural aware-
nesses,
and
the tensions
in
which
these
meanings
exist.
In
the second
section
I examine
the
process through
which
learning
will
take
place
and
juxtapose
the
awarenesses,
thus
developed,
with
the redefinition of work
and the
reorganisation
of
labour relations
in
the
technological production
process.
The
analysis
is
by
no means extensive
and,
because of
limited
space,
excludes consideration
of how
meanings change
in
the
implementation
process-this
forms
part
of
my
ongoing
research.
The
analysis
provided
here
will,
hopefully,
be
substantive
enough
to establish
essential
points.
Curriculum
Content
The
technological production
process
itself
is
credited
as
being
more
flexible than
the
rigidity
inherent
in the semi-automated
assembly-line
Fordist
production
process
(Agli-
etta,
1979;
Pollert,
1988).
This
relates,
in
part,
to the
fact that the new
technology
can
be
programmed
to
produce
a
variety
of
products
to be used
for a
range
of
different
purposes,
with
minimal labour
requirements.
Labour
and
technological
flexibility,
it
is
argued,
enhance
the
scope
of
product
diversity
and
can,
therefore,
cater for
increasingly
more
discerning
consumer
markets.
The relative
ease with
which
a
diversity
of
products
can be
manufactured
with
the
help
of
the new
technology
has
increased
pressure
for
ever-evolving
new
markets
-
and,
de
facto,
the
dynamic
re-construction
of consumer
'needs'
and 'wants'
aimed at
fulfilling
market
demands.
Advertising
and
product
presentation
using
different
forms
of
media
imagery
assume
important
positions
in
the
social
construction,
the
media
'packaging'
of,
largely,
ephemeral
consumer needs.
The
Post-Fordism?
237
mediation
of
a
fragmented,
kaleidoscopic
reality
evident
in the differentiated
and,
largely,
transient
tastes,
desires
and choices reflected
in
ever-present, ever-changing
media
images,
art
and
design
serves
"to
integrate
the
production
of commodities into
cultural
production"
(Jameson,
quoted
in
Harvey,
1989).
I
explore
below
the construction
of new
cultural
meanings
in the
knowledge
content of
Technology
as a National
Curriculum
subject.
Differentiated
production.
Pupils
are
already
at
key
stage
1
taught
to consider the
impor-
tance
of
consumer
'choice'
in
the
manufacture
of artifacts:
they
are
to be
taught,
for
example,
to
"recognise
a
variety
of forms
resulting
from
people's
different
values,
cultures,
beliefs
and
needs" and to
"recognise
aesthetic
qualities
in
things
around
them
and
use
them
in
their work".
Pupils
are to
be
taught
the
centrality
of consumer
choice
in the
production
process
in
that
they
are
to
learn to
"recognise
that
people
like certain
objects,
but
not
others,
(to)
find the reason
why
and use this
knowledge
in their
designing
and
making". Similarly,
they
are to learn to
"take
account of
people's
reactions
to
aesthetic
characteristics",
to
"make the connections
between aesthetic
characteristics of
natural
and manufactured
objects
and
(to)
relate
these to their own
work" and to
"recognise
the
importance
of
consumer
choice and
hence the
importance
of
product
quality
and
cost".
They
should
also be
taught
to "consider
the needs and values
of
individuals
and
groups
from
a
variety
of
backgrounds
and
cultures". There
is a natural
progression
in the levels of
skills to be
developed
at
key
stage
2
in
order to
allow
pupils
to establish
the connection
between
products
and
consumer choice:
pupils
have,
therefore,
to be
taught
to
"know that the needs and
preferences
of
consumers influence
the
design
and
production
of
goods
and services".
At
key stages
3 and
4
these
meanings
become
integrated
with
quality
production
and
product presentation:
pupils
have to
learn,
inter alia
to "aim for
high quality
of
accuracy
and
presentation"
and to
"work
together
to
establish criteria
for
appraisal
of
design
and
technological
ability".
Pupils
are
to
be
encouraged
to
exploit
the
design aspects,
the
customs,
surface
images
and
representations
of different
cultures,
and
the
variety
of consumer
choices that
they
generate,
and
then to
incorporate
these awarenesses
into the
production process.
This
knowledge
mediates
the
importance
of
production
to cater
for a
range
of
consumer
'needs'
and 'choices'
within a
variety
of sociocultural
contexts. The surface
elements
of
cultural
exotica thus
become
highlighted
and
pupils
are
required
to
explore design
possibilities
in
order to
gear
commodity production
to
the
needs
of
particular, specialised,
international markets.
Subliminally,
it serves to mediate an
image
of
a
'classless','global'
society
in
which
patterns
of
consumption
define the
range
of
categories
in
which
consumers
can
aspire
to the fetishism of
international
designer living. Commodity
production
would, therefore,
rely
on a
preferential
reconstruction
of
past
styles
that echo
past
forms
(Harvey,
1989)
and,
having
the
sole concern
of
product marketability, product
research would centre on selected cultural and historical
images.
A
deeper understanding
of the
unequal
relations between
the
'developed'
and
'under-developed'
world set
up
in
international
trade
agreements,
the role of trans-national
companies
in
securing
a
monopoly
in
the
production
of
particular
commodities- and the
negative
effect of these
on Third World economies
(Sivanandan,
1989)-lie
outside
this
knowledge
framework.
By
virtue of this
exclusion,
the
knowledge
constructed here divorces itself from
society
and
politics,
and
by denying
the
opportunity
to
explore
inner-,
intra- and inter-contex-
tual
meaning
it assumes the status of a
'neutral',
'technical'
and 'rational'
knowledge.
'Inner' contextual
meaning
here refers to the
development
of
pupils'
subjective
awareness
238
Naz
Rassool
of
their
roles as both
producers
and
consumers.
'Intra' contextual
meaning
refers
to their
understanding
of the
relationship
between themselves as consumers
and
the
processes
of
the
market,
for
example,
how consumer
'needs' and 'wants' are
shaped
in
media
advertising
based on consumer
stereotypes
of
age, gender,
'ethnicity'
and 'classlessness'.
'Inter' contextual
meaning
refers
to their
knowledge
of the
function of the consumer-
market within the
broader framework of
international
capitalism.
In
other
words,
why
consumer choice has
become a 'democratic
right'
within
the free-market
economy
of
advanced
capitalist
countries
and
a
privilege
to
a
small elite
in
the
'developing'
and
'under-developed'
world.
Knowledge
that
is
intrinsically political
is, instead,
presented
as
neutral
and
unproblematic
technical 'know-how'.
Enterprise
and initiative. These
categories
derive from the context
specified
for
learning
at
key stage
2.
This
states that
"(w)ithin
the
general
requirements
of
design
and
technology,
activities should
encourage
the
appraisal
of
artifacts,
systems
and
environments
made
by
others as well as the
application
of
enterprise
and
initiative"
(DES,
1989).
Pupils
are
to
be
taught
to
"organise
and
plan
their
work
carefully, introducing
new
ideas,
so that their
work
improves",
to
"propose
modifications to
improve
the
performance
and
appeal
of
existing products"
and to
"investigate
artifacts,
systems
and environments to find new
ideas for
designs". They
are
also to learn to "break
design
tasks into sub-tasks and focus
on each
in
turn as a
way
of
developing
ideas",
and to
"generate
ideas and
develop
them
further
using
a
variety
of
techniques
and media".
These
entrepreneurial
awarenesses
draw
on the
meanings
constructed
in
the
FEU curriculum framework
during
the
early
1980s,
as well as the MSC funded TVEI
mini-enterprise projects
in
schools
during
the
mid-1980s.
Although learning
is
located
here within a task
analysis
framework which is
grounded
in
problem-solving approaches,
the need for
production
to
generate
innova-
tion,
entrepreneurship
and
enterprise
in
order to
maintain a
dynamic
market
is,
nevertheless,
foregrounded
in
these technical tasks.
These
market-centred
meanings
follow
through progressively
at
key stages
3 and
4.
Quality
control,
cost
effective
production
and worker
effciency.
As seen
above,
meanings
re-inforc-
ing
quality
production
are
evident
already
at
key stages
1
and
2.
In
addition,
at
key stage
1
pupils
have to "consider
how well their
products
were
designed
and
made,
propose
simple
modifications
to
improve
the effectiveness
of
designs
and
to
overcome difficulties
when
making
them",
as well as to
"reflect,
individually
and
in
groups,
on how
they
went
about their
work,
and
whether
changes might
be needed".
Pupils
are
encouraged
to
'analyse',
'evaluate',
'justify',
'identify',
'use
judgement'
and
'consider',
and would
thus be
developing
a
range
of
higher
order
thinking
skills.
Educationally,
these
are sound ideals
to strive for
in
that
they
would
involve
pupils
in
making
concrete
evaluations,
informed
decisions
and
also
provide pupils
the
opportunity
to
explore
alternative
ways
of
solving
problems-individually
and
as members of
a
group.
At
the same
time,
however,
the skills
and
awarenesses
developed
here also
serve,
implicitly,
to
encourage
self-monitoring
and
appraisal
as an
integral
part
of
practical
'on-task' behaviours
in
production-orientated
problem
solving.
Equally,
the notion of
group appraisal
that features
here
emphasises
workers'
co-responsibility,
learning-by-doing
integrated
into
long-term
planning
and
quality
control as
part
of the work
process.
If viewed
in
relation
to new forms
of labour
control
emerging
within the work
context,
these
'flexible' work
practices
raise
key
questions
regarding
the
quality
of workers'
real life
experiences.
Tomaney
(1990),
for
example,
maintains
that the notion
of
flexible workers
within an
integrated,
self-monitor-
Post-Fordism?
239
ing
production
process,
in
practice
serves
to
intensify
labour.
Learning-by-doing
inte-
grated
into
production,
essentially
involves
the detection of defective
parts
of
the
commodities
produced
(Swyngedouw
in
Harvey,
1989).
At
key
stage
2,
these
on-task
monitoring
skills
are
extended
to also
incorporate
time and resource
management:
pupils
are then to
be
taught
to "allocate time
and
other resources
effectively throughout
the
activity",
"use
knowledge
and
judgement
to make decisions
in the
light
of
priorities
and
constraints",
"avoid
wastage
of
materials" and
to
"know that costs
include
time,
people,
skills,
equipment
and
materials".
They
are
also
to
be
taught
to
"know
that,
in
the
production
and distribution of
goods
the control of stock is
important".
At
key
stage
4
efficient
production
is
approached
as a
whole
process,
and combines
the
knowledge
and
skills
acquired
at
the
previous
key stages-at
a
higher
level
of
production.
The
worker
controls
operating
here start at the
planning stage
and include
costs, resources, time,
quality
and evaluation of
the final
product-and,
eventually,
an overview of the
whole
production process.
Pupils
should,
for
example,
be
taught
to
"prepare
a
flow-chart
and
a
detailed
work
plan
to achieve
the
objectives
of
the
design",
"estimate the
operating
costs
of a
system,
its
dependency
on
other
systems,
and evaluate its
efficiency", "develop
test
procedures, including
those of
quality
control" and to "use
techniques
for
planning
effective cash
flow
and
budgeting systems,
including
computer
modelling,
where
appro-
priate,
to evaluate
options".
The
work
process
is, therefore,
labour intensive
and,
again,
although pupils
are
given
the
opportunity
to make
practical
judgements
and
estimates,
the
meanings
of cost-effective
production,
nevertheless,
feature
centrally.
This
emphasis
on
task-orientation serves to
legitimate
the
idea of the
production process
as a
rational,
neutral
process
in
which workers
'naturally'
participate-unquestioningly.
It
excludes a
consideration of workers'
subjectivities
and
experiences-their
needs,
rights
and
working
conditions
within the
work
place.
The
concept
of worker
democracy
to
negotiate
on
levels
of
stress,
job
satisfaction,
exploitation,
discrimination
and
wages
are,
therefore,
not
taken into account
in
developing pupils' understanding
and awarenesses of
the realities
of
the
work
place.
Marketing,
presentation,
sales and
profit
income.
Selected
aspects
of
marketing
feature at
key
stages
1
and
2.
Pupils
are to
be
taught,
inter
alia,
to
"consider the
influence
of
advertising
on
consumers",
to
"identify
markets
for
goods
and services
and
(to)
recognise
local
variations
in
demand",
"plan
and structure
their
communication of
ideas
and
proposals"
and
to
"develop styles
of
visual
communication which
take
account
of what is
to be
conveyed,
the audience
and
the
medium
to
be
used".
Again, although
educationally,
these
meanings
re-inforce
higher
order
thinking
skills
as well
as
pupils'
awareness of
audience
and communication
skills,
ideologically, they
also
serve
to
naturalise
market-
awareness in
pupils'
consciousness.
Marketing
skills
feature
prominently
at
key stage
3
when
pupils
are
required
to
"understand
how
market
research
can be
used
to
measure
consumer
needs
and market
potential",
to
"recognise
the
relationship
between
price,
cost,
income
and
competition
in
the
market for
goods
and services"
and
to
"collate, sort,
analyse,
interpret
and
present
information
in a form
appropriate
to the
purpose
and
the
intended
audience".
Cumulatively,
these
learning
opportunities
would
serve to
induct
pupils
into the
primacy
of
the
profit-motive
in
the
production
of
commodities.
At
key
stage
4
the
marketing
techniques
become
more
complex
and
technically
sophisticated,
and
are
directed
at
international
markets:
pupils
are then
to be
taught
to
"present
their
proposals
to an
audience,
using
a
range
of
methods
and
media",
"use
modelling
techniques
to
communicate
design
proposals",
to "use
symbols
and
conventions
that
240
Naz
Rassool
have a
meaning
for
an
international audience" and to
"develop
specialist vocabulary,
symbols
and
formulae
in
communicating
ideas".
The focus thus shifts
to the transactional
and
the
presentational,
centring
on the
projection
of
images
in
the
marketing
of
products.
That
is,
advertising
and
product
presentation
within the
broader social
terrain where the
use of different
forms of
media
imagery
assume
an
important
position
in
the social
construction
of
consumer needs. These
images ultimately
serve
to
shape
and influence
the
aspirations,
desires,
subjectivities,
life
styles
and values
of
larger
groups
of
people,
and,
in
this
way,
play
an
important
role
in
the
construction of a 'consumerist' cultural
knowledge.
Curriculum
Process
The cultural and
production
meanings
constructed
in the
programmes
of
study
are
consolidated
in the
attainment
targets
which
assess
levels of
'technological
capability'.
The attainment
targets
follow a
problem-solving process
which
assesses
pupils'
levels
of
skills and
knowledge
in
'identifying
needs and
opportunities',
'generating
a
design',
'planning
and
making'
and
'evaluating'
and
primarily
derive
from
the
APU
Report Design
and
Technology
Activity
(1987b).
Attainment
Target
1
assesses
pupils'
abilities
to
evaluate/
assess market
demands,
initiative
and
enterprise
awareness,
as
necessary
prerequisites
to
the
production
of
commodities.
Particular
importance
is attached
to
the
product's
practical
use
or
applicability
and,
more
importantly,
its
saleability.
Levels of skill
are
assessed
in criteria
which
also evaluate
pupils'
abilities
to use market research
techniques,
as well
as their abilities
to
produce
production
rationales
based
on
information
gathered.
This is re-inforced
in
Attainment
Target
2
'generating
a
design'
which describes
the skills
and
knowledge
needed
to
compile
a
feasability study
with the
view
to
product
design.
In
the
world
of
work,
this task
performance
describes
the
job
responsibilities
of the
project
manager
within the
production
team who
has
to establish the
financial and
technical
viability
of the
production
enterprise
by ensuring
that
the
product
meets
the market
requirements
specification.
Attainment
Target
3
'planning
and
making'
assesses
pupils'
abilities
to
work
efficiently
in
the
management
of
production
including
time
and resource
management
as
well
as task
performance.
Pupils
need
to show evidence
of
flexibility,
innovation
and
enterprise
in their
work
process,
as
well
as the
ability
to
produce
quality
products.
Collectively,
these
meanings
describe
key
aspects
of
the
worker
awarenesses
required
in
the
technological production
process,
including
an
understanding
of the
market.
Attainment
Target
4
'evaluating'
centres
on
the
complete production
process.
This
describes
pupils'
ability
to monitor
their
efficiency
as
members
of
a
production
team,
task
appraisal
(including
resource
and time
management,
as well
as the control
of
work
programmes)
and
product
quality.
Translated
to the work
context,
these
on-task
awarenesses
would
obviate
the need for
overt
centralised
control
since
a
range
of
worker
controls
have
already
been
built
into
the task.
Although
the
controls
are
horizontally
dispersed
in
co-operative
team
work,
they
encompass
the whole
production
process-and
are,
in
effect,
more
totalising.
This surveillance
of both task and
process
in
production
contrast
sharply
with
the
learner-emancipatory
ethos inherent
in
the notion of
collabora-
tive/co-operative
team-effort
that featured
within
the
'progressivist'
integrated
learning
approach
advanced
in
the
APU recommendations.
It also
contrasts with
the
worker-
liberatory
meanings
attached
to the
'post-Fordist'
notion
of
flexible
specialisation.
In
terms
of
this,
the realities
of
flexible
specialisation
need
to be
interrogated
more
closely
in
order
to understand
the
nature
of
the
correspondences
which
might
exist between
the
classroom
practices
of
Technology
as a National
Curriculum
subject
and
prevailing
work
Post-Fordism?
241
practices
in
the
technological
production process. Tomaney (1990),
for
example,
main-
tains that whereas
in Sweden
and West
Germany flexible specialisation
does
appear
to
have
improved
the
experience
of
craft
workers
in the
production process,
in
Britain,
certainly
in
the
car
manufacturing industry,
". .. the
principles
of scientific
management
underlie
the
introduction
of information
technology,
not
emancipatory
craft work"
(Tomaney,
1990,
p.
49).
Indeed,
Tomaney
argues
that
sections
of
industry
such
as car manufactur-
ing plants
and coal
mining
in
the
UK, have,
in
fact,
become more labour intensive in
order
to increase
capital profits,
and
unprofitable
coal
pits
are closed
down and
workers
made redundant.
Similarly,
Murray (1987)
cites
the
centrality
of racial
and
gender
divisions in the 'flexible' work
practices
advanced
in
the
factories
of
the 'Third
Italy'
where
immigrants
from
North
Africa
do
the
heavy
manual labour tasks
and women
provide
a
major
source
for
unskilled labour.
Murray
(1987)
argues
further
that
"(t)he
geographical fragmentation
of
distinct
phases
of
a
product's
labour
process
works
to
create maximum
wage
differentials between
different
groups
of
workers"
(p. 88).
'Periphery'
workers
are,
for
instance,
also to
be located
within the
wider context
of
international
capitalism
in
which
transnational
corporate
business
interests
(working
in
concert with national
governments) play
a
pivotal
role
(Sivanandan,
1989).
This
interna-
tional
'export'
of
production
tasks
suited
to
specific
forms of
labour,
in
reality,
globalises
production
and,
in
the
process,
enables
unequal
class
relations to be
structured
within
a
broader terrain.
The
notion
of
'worker
flexibility'
in
UK
production
processes
is
further
problematical
if
considered
in
the
light
of workers'
everyday
experiences.
A
Ford
worker,
for
example,
described
flexibility
in
the
production process
thus:
Flexibility
means that
every
102
seconds
a
car comes
by,
and not
only
do
you
have to screw
something
into
the
car,
but
in
between
you
have to
tidy up,
check
your
tools,
repair
things
and check
you've
got
enough
parts.
You
do not
have a
single job
anymore.
If
there is no work on
the
line,
they
move
you
to
where there is work.
You are
working
the whole time.
(The
Financial
Times,
8.2.88,
quoted
in
Tomaney,
1990,
p. 48.)
In
reality
then,
where
flexible
work
practices
have been
incorporated
into
the
production
process
they
have
not
necessarily
improved
the
quality
of workers'
experi-
ences. As
Aglietta (1979)
suggests,
"widened work is
just
as
empty
as
before,
and as
completely
reduced
to
pure
duration as was
earlier
fragmented
work
(Fordist
assembly-
line
production)"
(p.
129,
information in
brackets
added).
It
could then be
argued
that,
as was the case with the
transition to
assembly-line
Fordism,
the
emerging
technological
production
processes
within some
industries
have,
seemingly,
also taken
up
"the
princi-
ples
of
Taylorism
and
put
them more
effectively
into
practice,
to
obtain
an
ever
greater
intensification
of
labour"
(Aglietta,
1979
p. 117).
Similar
'mixed'
meanings
are also
reflected
in
the
technology
curriculum
where,
despite
the
emphasis
on
integrated
problem
solving,
based
on
collaborative
and
process-
learning
approaches,
the notion
of
self-monitoring
grounded
in
quality
control and
task
appraisal
in
the
evaluation
process
signifies
an
increase in
labour
intensive
work.
Attainment
Target
4,
'evaluation'
can
also be
interpreted
as
legitimising
the
self-monitor-
ing
used
in,
for
example,
time
economies such
as the
'quality
circles'
used
in
the
Japanese
'just-in-time'
JIT)
production
system.
JIT
strategies
are
fundamentally
geared
to
max-
imise worker
production
by
"reducing
wasted
labour,
materials and
imbalances in
the
(production)
line-and
lead to
a new
emphasis
on total
quality
control"
(Tomaney,
1990,
p.
49).
Thus,
whilst on
the
surface,
the
work
practices
that
feature
in
the
technology
curriculum
do
approximate
some of
the
organisational
aspects
of
the
'post-Fordist'
242
Naz
Rassool
production
model,
affectively, they
can
also
be seen as
emphasising
key
aspects
of
Japanese
production
strategies.
Curriculum
changes
then,
as
is the
case
with
the
restructuring
of
production
processes
and labour
relations
during
a
period
of
sustained social and
economic
crisis,
can then be
seen as a
process
in
flux,
signifying
an
incompleteness
and
partiality
of
degrees
of shifts
taking
place
rather than a
definitive
ideological
break.
In
terms
of
this,
we can
identify
trends,
but
cannot
present
definitive
points
of
closure.
Nevertheless,
whichever
specific
work
practices
are
ultimately
to
be
adopted
generally
in
UK
production processes,
what is
evident
here is the fact that
key
elements of the
technocracy
are
being
constructed
in
the
sub-text
of the
existing
technology
curriculum.
These
meanings
serve to
legitimate
the
importance
of,
inter
alia,
production
and
worker
efficiency,
cost-effectiveness
and
quality
production,
well-motivated
and
flexible
workers;
the
'inevitability'
of low
employment
levels and
permanent
job-insecurity
as 'natural'
outcomes of the
technological
production process,
as
well
as the
centrality
of
the market
as a
'rational',
'neutral'
and
'technical' control
mechanism.
The new
technology
curriculum can
then be
seen
as
performing
a
regulatory
function
in
its
legitimation
of
selected
forms
of curricular
learning.
The skills and awarenesses to
be
developed
would,
therefore,
serve to reconstitute the 'social character'
according
to
the
evolving
needs
of
the
technological production process
(Williams, 1961).
Moreover,
the framework
in
which
'technological'
knowledge
has been
organised, subliminally,
also
provides pupils
with a
predefined
frame
of
reference in
which to
interpret
selected
aspects
of
the
world-as-lived-and
in
this
construction,
excludes those
skills
and
awarenesses
necessary
to function
as
active
participants
in
a
democratic
society.
However,
these
meanings
do
not translate
unproblematically
within the
teaching
situation.
It
is
perhaps
in the
logistics
of
their
implementation
by
teachers
working
in
under-resourced
classrooms,
and
already
overloaded
by
the
teaching
and
assessment
demands
of the National
Curriculum,
that the
struggle
for control over
meaning
in
the
technology
curriculum
will
finally
take
place.
The
debate
about
technology
in
the
curriculum still needs
to be
politicized.
Conclusions
The
continuing
neutral
treatment of
technology
as a
subject
within the National
Curriculum
framework
neatly
avoids
addressing
those
impacts
of
technology
that include
dominant
power
interests.
It
also
neglects
to
address
the
pivotal
role of
technology
in
the
continuing struggle
to secure the
basis of advanced
capitalism
and
its
accompanying
unequal
social relations within
a
global
context.
Moreover,
in the absence
of a
coherent
critique,
the
centrality
of worker/skills
'flexibility'
and
positive
worker attitudes
within the
technology
curriculum
discourse,
have allowed
the crisis of
capitalism
to be constructed
as
being,
primarily,
a
problem
of labour
management
"
...
and
(that)
its solution
lies
in
the
flexibility
of
adaptability
of
labour,
both
in the work
place,
and
in the labour
market"
(Pollert,
1988,
p.
43).
Emphasis
on the need
to have
adaptable
and motivated
workers
deflect
from
the material
base of
contemporary
capitalist
crisis
involving
not
only
production,
but also
capital
investment,
exchange,
trade
agreements
and
labour
con-
trol--within
the wider context
of international
market
competition.
The
significance
of these 'silences'
in
educational
discourse
is
that
they present
an
ahistorical,
de-ideologised
and
de-politicised
view of
technology
as a
curriculum
subject,
as well
as
technology
in
society.
We
need to examine
technology
as a cultural
phenomenon
which
has evolved
within
the
historical
relationship
that has existed
Post-Fordism?
243
between
producers
and
consumers,
and those who control the means of
production.
We
need to deconstruct
the
dominant
paradigm.
Acknowledgement
I
would like to thank
the
two
anonymous
referees
for
their
helpful
comments on
an
earlier draft
of this
paper.
Correspondence:
Naz
Rassool,
Department
of
Educational Studies and
Management,
University
of
Reading,
Bulmershe
Court,
Woodlands
Avenue,
Earley, Reading
RG6
1HY,
Berkshire,
United
Kingdom.
REFERENCES
AGLIETTA M.
(1979)
A
Theory
of Capitalist Regulation:
The US
Experience (London/New
York,
Verso).
APPLE,
M.W.
(1982)
Cultural and
Economic
Reproduction
in
Education:
Essays
on
Class,
Ideology
and the
State
(Routledge
&
Kegan
Paul,
London).
APPLE,
M.W.
(1986)
National
Reports
and the Construction of
Inequality,
British
Journal of Sociology of
Education,
7,
pp.
171-189.
APPLE,
M.W.
(1988) Mandating Computers:
the
impact
of
the
new
technology
on
the
labour
process,
students
and
teachers,
in: S.
WALKER & L. BARTON
(Eds)
Changing
Policies and
Changing
Teachers,
pp.
75-95
(Milton
Keynes/Philadelphia,
Pa,
Open
University Press).
ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE UNIT
(1987a)
Science at
age
13:
a
review
ofAPU Survey Findings
1980-84,
(London,
HMSO).
ASSESSMENT OF PERFORMANCE
UNIT
(1987b)
Design
and
Technological
Activity:
A
Framework
for
Assessment
(London,
HMSO).
Avis,
J.
(1991)
The
strange
fate of
progressive
education,
in:
CCCS
EDUCATION
GROUP
II
(Eds)
Education
Limited:
Schooling
and
Training
and
the
New
Right
in
England
since 1979
(London,
Unwin
Hyman).
BALL,
SJ.
(1990)
Politics
and
Policy-Making
in
Education:
Explorations
in
Policy
Sociology
(London/New
York,
Routledge).
BATES,
I.
(1989)
Versions
of
Vocationalism:
an
analysis
of
some social and
political
influences on
curriculum
policy
and
practice,
British
Journal
of
Sociology of
Education,
10,
pp.
215-229.
BESSANT,
J.
(1987)
Information
Technology
and
the North-South
Divide,
in: R.
FINNEGAN,
G. SALAMON &
K.
THOMPSON
(Eds) Information
Technology:
Social
Issues,
pp.
163-180
(Hodder
and
Stoughton/Open
Univer-
sity).
BEYNON,
J.
(1989) Researching Technology:
the
need
for
an
Educationalist
Paradigm,
Occasional
Paper, Polytechnic
of
Wales.
BEYNON,
J.
&
MACKAY,
H.
(1989)
Information
technology
into education
towards
a
critical
perspective,
Journal
of
Education
Policy,
4,
pp.
245-257.
BONEFELD,
W.
(1987)
Reformulation
of
state
theory, Capital
&
Class,
No.
33, Winter,
pp.
96-127.
BOWE, R., BALL,
SJ.
&
GOLD,
A.
(Eds)
1992
Reforming
Education
and
Changing
Schools:
Case Studies
in
Policy
Sociology
(London,
Routledge).
COUNCIL FOR EDUCATIONAL TECHNOLOGY
(1978)
Microelectronics:
Their
Implications for
Education
and
Training-A
statement
by
the Council
for
Educational
Technology for
the United
Kingdom
(London, CET).
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
AND SCIENCE/DEPARTMENT
OF EMPLOYMENT
(1984)
Train
for Jobs
(London,
HMSO).
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION
AND
SCIENCE
(1985)
Better
Schools,
White
Paper (London, HMSO).
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND
SCIENCE
(1986) Working
Together.
Education
and
Training,
White
Paper (London,
HMSO).
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND
SCIENCE
(1989)
Design
and
Technology for ages
5-16,
Proposals
of
the
Secretary of
State
for
Education and
Science
and
the
Secretary
of
State
for
Wales,
NCC,
June
(London,
HMSO).
DEPARTMENT OF
EDUCATION AND
SCIENCE
(1990)
Technology
in the
National
Curriculum
5-16,
Statutory
Instruments,
March
(London,
HMSO).
EAGLETON,
T.
(1976)
Criticism
and
Ideology:
A
Study
in
Marxist
Literary
Theory
(London,
New Left
Books).
ENGINEERING
COUNCIL/SOCIETY
OF
EDUCATION
OFFICERS
(1988)
16-19
Education and
Training:
A
Statement,
February (London,
Engineering Union).
244
Naz
Rassool
FOUCAULT,
M.
(1980)
In:
COLIN
GORDON
(Ed.) Power-Knowledge (London,
Harvester).
FURTHER EDUCATION
UNIT
(1983a) Computer
Literacy,
Part
1
-
A
manager's guide,
A
Staff
Development
Publication,
November
(London,
FEU).
FURTHER
EDUCATION
UNIT
(1983b)
Supporting TTS--Guidancefor colleges
and others
involved in
the MSC Youth
Training
Scheme
(London,
FEU).
FURTHER
EDUCATION UNIT
(1984)
FEU
Response
to 1984 BTEC Discussion
Document
on Educational
Poliy
(London,
FEU).
FURTHER
EDUCATION UNIT
(1989)
The
Concept of
KEy
Technologies,
An
appraisal of
current use and
thoughts
for
future
implementation
in
education and
training,
Project
Director,
N.
MEEKE,
Gloucester
College
of
Arts
and
Technology
(London,
FEU).
HARVEY,
D.
(1989)
The
Condition
of
Postmodernity:
An
Enquiry
into the
Origins
of
Cultural
Change (Oxford,
Basil
Blackwell).
JESSOP,
B.
(1988)
Regulation
theory, post-Fordism
and the state: more
than a
reply
to Werner
Bonefeld,
Capital
&
Class,
Number
34,
Spring,
pp.
147-168.
JONES,
K.
(1989)
Right
Turn: The
Conservative
Revolution
in
Education
(London,
Hutchinson
Radius).
MURRAY,
F.
(1987)
Flexible
specialisation
in
the
Third
Italy, Capital
&
Class,
No.
33,
Winter,
pp.
84-95.
PIORE,
MJ.
&
SABEL,
C.F.
(1984)
The Second
Industrial
Divide:
Possibilities
for
Prosperiv
(New
York,
Basic
Books).
POLLERT,
A.
(1988) Dismantling Flexibility, Capital
&
Class,
No.
34,
Spring,
pp.
42-75.
POSTMAN,
N.
(1978)
'The Politics of
Reading',
in: P. CZERNIEWSKA &
J.
CHAPMAN
(Eds) Reading:
From Process
to
Practice
(Routledge/Open University
Press).
RASSOOL,
N.
(1986)
Bilingual
Education:
A
Radical
Critique--a
review
of
policy
and research
on
linguistic
diversity
in
the
U.K
Unpublished
M.A.
dissertation,
King's
College, University
of London.
SIVANANDAN,
A.
(1989)
New Circuits of
Imperialism,
Race and
Class,
30
(4), April/June, pp.
1-19.
STREET,
B.V.
(1984)
Literacy
in
Theory
and
Practice,
Cambridge
Studies
in Oral
and Literate Culture
(Cambridge
University
Press).
TOMANEY,J.
(1990)
The
reality
of
workplace flexibility,
Capital
&
Class,
No.
40,
Spring,
pp.
29-60.
VAIZEY,J. (1971)
Education
for
Tomorrow
(Harmondsworth, Penguin
Books).
VAIZEY,
J.
(1972)
The Political
Economy of
Education
(London,
Duckworth).
WALKERDINE,
V.
(1984) Developmental
psychology
and the child-centred
pedagogy:
the insertion of
Piaget
into
early
education,
in
HENRIQUES
J.
et al.
(Eds)
Changing
the
Subject:
Psychology,
social
regulation
and
subjectivity
(London
and New
York,
Methuen).
WHITTY,
G.
(1985) Sociology
and School
Knowledge:
Curriculum
theory,
research and
politics
(London, Methuen).
WILLIAMS,
R.
(1961)
The
Long
Revolution
(Harmondsworth,
Penguin/Chatto
and
Windus).
WILLIAMS,
R.
(1980)
Problems
in
Materialism
and Culture
(London,
Verso,
New Left
Review
Editions).
WINNER,
L.
(1986)
The
Whale and the
Reactor: A Search
for
Limits
in an
Age of
High
Technology (University
of
Chicago
Press).
WOLF,
W.
(1984)
Invasion
of robots threatens
labor,
International
Viewpoint,
Issue No.
45, 30.1.84,
pp.
22-23.
YOUNG,
M.F.D.
(Ed.)
(1971) Knowledge
and
Control:
New
Directions
for
the
Sociology of
Education
(London,
Collier
Macmillan).
