Apocalypse When?
It's amazing what kind of documents I find cluttering my hard drive. I was searching for documents on education when I came across this stubby little piece which doesn't seem connected to anything else. I'm not even sure how complete it is, or what its provenance is. But some of the ideas in it are quite interesting.
=====
Apocalypse
Towards the end of the 20th, and in the early years of the 21st century, a confluence of mathematics, the natural sciences and the social sciences began streaming towards a post-modern form of apocalypse. Of course, being post-modern, the apocalypse (‘unveiling’ in classical Greek) took the form of a growing intimation that the end of history was at end, and that after this glorious moment of our times would come chaos and then the fall of night.
The architects of this world view were a curious mixture of mostly French and American intellectuals, who though hailing from related intellectual traditions, tended towards opposite trends in terms of optimism and pessimism – the French were typically negative about finding meaning in the various disciplines, while the Americans were typically positive about finding the ultimate underpinnings of the universe.
These proponents of potential disaster and the end of things thus included thinkers such as the French topologist Rene Thom (catastrophe theory), American social philosopher Francis Fukuyama (‘the End of History’), [long list of contributors in fields as diverse as metaphysics, biology, semantics… ] Their conclusions included both the utopian idea that the world would slowly converge towards the adoption of universal standards of political and financial governance (thus putting an end to social change and hence ‘history’), and the dystopian idea that the exploding complexity of the human world would in the end make it impossible to stave off some form of anthropogenic calamity – microbiological, ecological, or radiological in nature.
The fact that two so very different ‘endings’ could be postulated, and yet still not exclude each other, was a pointer towards one main theme. The theme which heralded the start of the new millennium was ‘complexity’. From the newly rejuvenated biological disciplines came the realization that the mathematical concept of sudden escalation into chaos could be used to describe populations of living things. It was a short step to link this to the old maxim, “Change is the only constant.”
From catastrophe and cessation to chaos and complexity was perhaps a journey only the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals could appreciate. But what did the rise of an increasingly global economy and the ascendance of multipolarity in all spheres of human achievement mean to the man in the street? It meant change, and with it, confusion.
While the intellectuals were having their fun and games, unlikely opposition arose in the form of Al-Qaeda and the 2002 airborne destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City. It became clear that Fukuyama’s romantic ‘end of history’ was to be delayed by the resurgence of tribal enmities, and that the new millennium would turn out to be more fractious than hitherto expected.
Even before this tragic incident, it was by no means certain that any form of global homogeneity would develop. The collapse of financial markets throughout booming Asia in 2001 sent a strong signal that too rapid a rush towards a truly global economy would require a lot more than unfettered multilateral trade.
Politics, economics… even the sciences were not immune. Luddites in Europe fought against genetically modified crops while Americans panicked over misplaced ex-Soviet nuclear devices. If anything, the new millennium looked set to be an even more bewildering kaleidoscope of viewpoints and ideas than the previous one.
Yet, there were voices of sanity. Managing change became a hot topic as the social sciences decided that the unpredictable and inevitable could be surmounted by cultural flexibility and organic structures. In the field of education, experts like Gardner, Fullan [another long list] pointed out that humans were adaptable creatures, and that given an appropriate education, would survive and thrive even in a world like this.
Asia found its voice in the most unlikely of places. Singapore’s then-Prime Minister Goh said at the 7th International Conference on Thinking: “We have to prepare ourselves for a bracing future - a future of intense competition and shifting competitive advantages, a future where technologies and concepts are replaced at an increasing pace, and a future of changing values. Education and training are central to how nations will fare in this future. Strong nations and strong communities will distinguish themselves from the rest by how well their people learn and adapt to change.”
Japan’s ex-Prime Minster Nakasone weighed in with, “The era will be a composite of globalism and nationalism. Our task at this turning point is, therefore, to think about education, culture and science with this future in mind." And in Singapore, long-used to being at the mercy of the larger world, people began to find answers to UN Ambassador Mahbubani’s question, “Can Asians think?”
It has always been a tenet of the Singapore Education System (SES) that human resources, being the only major resource of the country, should be developed to their highest economic potential. As the SES evolved, the measure of economic potential also changed – and this was reflected in the desired outcomes of education. In the initial years, national survival meant mass technical and scientific education, with an emphasis on literally nation-building skills such as engineering. As Singapore became a more established nation in the late 1970s and 1980s, special programmes to harness talent began to appear: junior colleges, humanities scholarships, a gifted education programme.
But this emphasis on hothousing the academic side of the intellect began to shift in the 1990s. The question of “Can Asians think?” was directed at functional thinking for the post-modern future – thinking which could chart a course through an age of complexity, or find new solutions to new problems. This kind of thinking was not exactly prevalent in the SES.
It had become apparent that the eight nominally-independent schools approved by Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) were being innovative, but perhaps insufficiently so [several research references], with one or two leading the pack and some almost indistinguishable from the non-independent schools. Re-enter the Ministry with a brand new scheme. In December 2002, the MOE approved the setting up of Integrated Programmes in four schools: “The introduction of Integrated Programmes will increase diversity and add choice to Singapore's education system. The Integrated Programme, which allows secondary students to proceed to Junior College without taking the 'O' levels, caters to those who can benefit from a less structured Upper Secondary / Junior College programme. The hallmark of the Integrated Programmes should be innovation and the provision of a holistic education.”
It was as if innovation and a holistic education had never existed in Singapore. With one statement, the Emperor had been shown not to have any clothes. Or was this really the case? This study seeks to examine the background to, and the implementation of the Integrated Programmes in the context of their times. The following questions arise at this point:
=====
Such interesting stuff. I have been unable to elicit further information about the piece, or to find any sequelae. What a pity.
=====
Apocalypse
Towards the end of the 20th, and in the early years of the 21st century, a confluence of mathematics, the natural sciences and the social sciences began streaming towards a post-modern form of apocalypse. Of course, being post-modern, the apocalypse (‘unveiling’ in classical Greek) took the form of a growing intimation that the end of history was at end, and that after this glorious moment of our times would come chaos and then the fall of night.
The architects of this world view were a curious mixture of mostly French and American intellectuals, who though hailing from related intellectual traditions, tended towards opposite trends in terms of optimism and pessimism – the French were typically negative about finding meaning in the various disciplines, while the Americans were typically positive about finding the ultimate underpinnings of the universe.
These proponents of potential disaster and the end of things thus included thinkers such as the French topologist Rene Thom (catastrophe theory), American social philosopher Francis Fukuyama (‘the End of History’), [long list of contributors in fields as diverse as metaphysics, biology, semantics… ] Their conclusions included both the utopian idea that the world would slowly converge towards the adoption of universal standards of political and financial governance (thus putting an end to social change and hence ‘history’), and the dystopian idea that the exploding complexity of the human world would in the end make it impossible to stave off some form of anthropogenic calamity – microbiological, ecological, or radiological in nature.
The fact that two so very different ‘endings’ could be postulated, and yet still not exclude each other, was a pointer towards one main theme. The theme which heralded the start of the new millennium was ‘complexity’. From the newly rejuvenated biological disciplines came the realization that the mathematical concept of sudden escalation into chaos could be used to describe populations of living things. It was a short step to link this to the old maxim, “Change is the only constant.”
From catastrophe and cessation to chaos and complexity was perhaps a journey only the intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals could appreciate. But what did the rise of an increasingly global economy and the ascendance of multipolarity in all spheres of human achievement mean to the man in the street? It meant change, and with it, confusion.
While the intellectuals were having their fun and games, unlikely opposition arose in the form of Al-Qaeda and the 2002 airborne destruction of the World Trade Center in New York City. It became clear that Fukuyama’s romantic ‘end of history’ was to be delayed by the resurgence of tribal enmities, and that the new millennium would turn out to be more fractious than hitherto expected.
Even before this tragic incident, it was by no means certain that any form of global homogeneity would develop. The collapse of financial markets throughout booming Asia in 2001 sent a strong signal that too rapid a rush towards a truly global economy would require a lot more than unfettered multilateral trade.
Politics, economics… even the sciences were not immune. Luddites in Europe fought against genetically modified crops while Americans panicked over misplaced ex-Soviet nuclear devices. If anything, the new millennium looked set to be an even more bewildering kaleidoscope of viewpoints and ideas than the previous one.
Yet, there were voices of sanity. Managing change became a hot topic as the social sciences decided that the unpredictable and inevitable could be surmounted by cultural flexibility and organic structures. In the field of education, experts like Gardner, Fullan [another long list] pointed out that humans were adaptable creatures, and that given an appropriate education, would survive and thrive even in a world like this.
Asia found its voice in the most unlikely of places. Singapore’s then-Prime Minister Goh said at the 7th International Conference on Thinking: “We have to prepare ourselves for a bracing future - a future of intense competition and shifting competitive advantages, a future where technologies and concepts are replaced at an increasing pace, and a future of changing values. Education and training are central to how nations will fare in this future. Strong nations and strong communities will distinguish themselves from the rest by how well their people learn and adapt to change.”
Japan’s ex-Prime Minster Nakasone weighed in with, “The era will be a composite of globalism and nationalism. Our task at this turning point is, therefore, to think about education, culture and science with this future in mind." And in Singapore, long-used to being at the mercy of the larger world, people began to find answers to UN Ambassador Mahbubani’s question, “Can Asians think?”
It has always been a tenet of the Singapore Education System (SES) that human resources, being the only major resource of the country, should be developed to their highest economic potential. As the SES evolved, the measure of economic potential also changed – and this was reflected in the desired outcomes of education. In the initial years, national survival meant mass technical and scientific education, with an emphasis on literally nation-building skills such as engineering. As Singapore became a more established nation in the late 1970s and 1980s, special programmes to harness talent began to appear: junior colleges, humanities scholarships, a gifted education programme.
But this emphasis on hothousing the academic side of the intellect began to shift in the 1990s. The question of “Can Asians think?” was directed at functional thinking for the post-modern future – thinking which could chart a course through an age of complexity, or find new solutions to new problems. This kind of thinking was not exactly prevalent in the SES.
It had become apparent that the eight nominally-independent schools approved by Singapore’s Ministry of Education (MOE) were being innovative, but perhaps insufficiently so [several research references], with one or two leading the pack and some almost indistinguishable from the non-independent schools. Re-enter the Ministry with a brand new scheme. In December 2002, the MOE approved the setting up of Integrated Programmes in four schools: “The introduction of Integrated Programmes will increase diversity and add choice to Singapore's education system. The Integrated Programme, which allows secondary students to proceed to Junior College without taking the 'O' levels, caters to those who can benefit from a less structured Upper Secondary / Junior College programme. The hallmark of the Integrated Programmes should be innovation and the provision of a holistic education.”
It was as if innovation and a holistic education had never existed in Singapore. With one statement, the Emperor had been shown not to have any clothes. Or was this really the case? This study seeks to examine the background to, and the implementation of the Integrated Programmes in the context of their times. The following questions arise at this point:
- Is the concept of Integrated Programmes an appropriate and well-conceived educational response to the global sociopolitical situation of the early 21st century?
- How have these programmes been implemented in schools, and what distinct functional and philosophical differences are there in each implementation?
- What modifications and innovations in school structural and organizational models have been necessitated by these implementations?
- To what extent have these implementation models met with, or are likely to meet with, actual or predicted success?
- What are the likely national outcomes of these programmes and their probable effect on the future of education in Singapore?
=====
Such interesting stuff. I have been unable to elicit further information about the piece, or to find any sequelae. What a pity.
Labels: Apocalypse, Education, Singapore
etched with acid at 9:03:00 pm
3 Comments:
How interesting. JS and I were just discussing the education system earlier today. I remember the term 'social construction' came up, but that's about it.. haha. I don't actually think our local education system produces holistic students. Hm.
As I said, Singaporeans are mainly book-centred or book smart. If you cross over to say Europe and let's say even America, you jump a "quantum leap" to see a brand of students that have achieved more per time period than even the top Singaporean. And yet does not need to "burn" as much as us.
Ok, I think I defined "social construction" very loosely yesterday. Let's take males and females for examples. Across the ages (and even now), females were see to be associated with processes like caring, reproduction and thus limited to the household. Males were, well, leaders in the polis (state), leaders everywhere. So Feminists challenge the socially constructed roles of a male and female.
Perhaps social engineering is the term here. I say perhaps. Well, it's up to perspectives.
Is it necessary to change as the global environment changes? Not necessarily. We can attempt to produce the more all rounded all smart individual, but he/she may still sink in the global pond.
On a lighter note, as I told Jennifer, I would like to have tried IB (not that I think I would have managed). Chemistry would definitely have been one of the subjects for me--so I can shoot more "test tube balls" around the lab, sir. Anyway good entry.
JS
Speaking of endings, have you read Frank Kermode's The Sense of an Ending?
Post a Comment
<< Home