The Postmodern Condition

Production 4: Postmodern Condition

In chapter twelve of The Post Modern Condition, Jean-François Lyotard stresses the connection between education and performativity. Lyotard explains the how education is affected by the socio-political paradigm shift in neo-liberalization and performativity. Lyotard notes, “higher learning will have to continue to supply the social system with the skills fulfilling society’s own needs, which center on maintaining its internal cohesion (Lyotard, 48).” The situation that Lyotard describes is the move away from ideals like, humanism and emancipation, towards a skill-based education system and overall society. The “internal cohesion” he speaks of, used to be fulfilled by the metanarrative of human freedom and social equality but in the condition he’s describing it needs to be fulfilled by a skill specific competitive society. This cohesion can be met in education by training people to “supply the system with players capable of acceptably fulfilling their roles at the pragmatic posts required by its institutions (Lyotard, 48).”

My take on Lyotard’s work is that we are still in this condition that he describes where not only higher education systems but elementary and high schools are also looking for a specific skill set for their students. Many pre-secondary schools have specializations in language immersions, arts specialties, technology specialties, or they offer competitive placements in hospitals, law offices or businesses. In society today, policies on elective and mandatory courses reflect the desire for our country to want students in STEM subjects as opposed to arts and humanities. The funding of higher education schools or faculties widely reflects this with business and law schools receiving more government funding than social sciences or fine arts programs. Where humanities subjects critique given knowledge and examine the metanarratives of modernity, STEM subjects efficiently reproduce knowledge in ways relevant to global competitiveness, which creates this system of performance.

Lyotard’s critique of this model is that it’s more concerned with “the production of knowledge (research) than its transmission (53).” That is also to say how knowledge can be valued because of its relevant application to new connections, ideas, rather than valuing the actual practice of acquiring knowledge. I think this critique is still applicable today in the same way that we try to revise pedagogies and understanding of how students create and reproduce knowledge while simultaneously decreasing the focus of a teacher’s role as essential to learning or knowledge acquisition. Furthermore, using the idea that a machine, or a technological data bank can replicate traditional teacher roles. Lyotard uses the example at the end of this chapter of the death of a professor: “a professor is no more competent than memory bank networks in transmitting established knowledge, no more competent than interdisciplinary teams in imagining new moves or new games (53).” This shift he’s critiquing is a move away from content-based learning, but relevant based learning. Just as he points out that the question, “now asked by the professionalist student…is no longer “Is it true?” but “What use is it?” (Lyotard, 51).” Where students, society, and governments are going to look for information isn’t to the teachers or the education system, but to the new technological systems that potentially exceed the intelligence and capacity of its users (Lyotard, 51).

The solution for this would be, “’simple’ and ‘extended’ reproductions (Lyotard, 53).” Simple meaning the “selection and reproduction of professional skills” and extended meaning “for the promotion and ‘stimulation’ of ‘imaginative’ minds (Lyotard, 53).” The simple reproduction can be made available on a wide scale, the extended has the privilege of working on a smaller scale of egalitarianism (Lyotard, 53). This solution of finding a balance between imaginative minds, and reproducers of professional skills can work but he doesn’t ignore the fact that both of these are within the emerging technocratic world which is why the “data banks are the new encyclopaedia (Lyotard, 51)” regardless of the maximum performers, or critical thinkers.

The idea of performativity can be seen as a critical alternative to legitimizing grand narratives because the direction of society is no longer in full cooperation with legitimizing those narratives as truths. This alternative does not have to be negative because the society Lyotard foreshadows is true and the desire for a ‘perfect’ system in which nations can maximize their tools, resources, people for competitive gain is practical. It’s practical, but it is not the end of the conversation on political, educational and economic structures, which place the ideals of perfecting a system above humanism, and use power as its main incentive. These are the limits of performativity.

Performativity leads a type of arrogance that does not allow for outside opinions, should it ruin the system of performativity if certain cases are opened for discussion. Lyotard notes that Luhmann describes this behaviour of performativity as terrorist by nature of elimination of “players of the game” as efficiency in the system (63). The terror uses the phrase, “Adapt your aspirations to our ends – or else (Lyotard 64).” Lyotard says that the terrorism of performativity would be inevitable in the case that computerization of society would regulate a marketing system, include knowledge and use the performativity principles (67). Computers could also, according to Lyotard, supply a public access to data banks and have a language game of perfect information where anybody can access exact information (67). What has changed since the time of this writing is that computers are in fact at the centre of controlling information, regulating the system, and public access to knowledge. His critiques are still relevant to the ills of society today where we still need to ask questions about who gives knowledge, through what medium, with what effect (Lyotard, 48)? Lyotard leaves us questioning if the performativity system will only gain prominence and continue to perfect itself, or if we could have coexistence of a few alternatives to this postmodern condition.