Post-Development Theory: What Is Education For

Post Development Theory What Is Education Forhtmlpost Development The

Post-development authors challenge the idea of ‘development’ and associate it as an ideological complement of the apparatus of oppression in which academics are implicated through knowledge production (Sachs 1992). Influenced by ideas such as those put forward by Ivan Illich (1971, 1974), Arturo Escobar (1988, 2000, 2007) and Gustavo Esteva (1985, 1987), these ideas have now moved beyond condemning development and towards the construction of a post-development theory (Ziai 2007). Boaventura de Sousa Santos (2007) argues that the box of modernity is now too tight and it is necessary to move elsewhere, while the Mexican professor Don Pablo Gonzalez Casanova (2004) affirms that what created the problem cannot be its solution.

In the meantime, the role of subaltern epistemological perspectives is being explored and developed to dismantle dynamics of oppression (e.g. Esteva 2006, De Sousa Santos 2007, Menezes De Souza 2009). Even authors who can hardly be labeled as radical post-development humanists, such as Robert and Edward Skidelsky (2012), have recently come to a new ethical perspective coinciding with the main element that post-development authors have argued for several decades: we need to start thinking of limits to economic progress in order to pursue a good life, and we need to restore essential humanistic education instead of promoting instrumental training for production and consumerism. In line with these ideas, Ivan Illich (1974) explained that obliging all children to climb the same ladder of schooling is not favouring equality but the opposite.

Indeed, in many countries today, education policies generate overeducated and underemployed people, promote competition, stress and debts for students and intensify inequalities. The core of this problem, explains Illich (1974), is that obligatory instruction could be reducing the desire to acquire knowledge from alternative sources due to a hidden curriculum. Illich explains that ‘the hidden curriculum consists of learning that education is valuable when it is acquired at school through a graduated process of consumption’ (Illich 1974, p. 127, my translation). ‘For a consumerist society, education becomes training to consume’ (Illich 1974, p. 137, my translation).

And the target of this training is the universalization of expectations (Illich 1971). We do not need to carry out a very exhaustive study to see that all those tendencies, which for Illich and his ‘radical humanism’ were very clear, are currently under way. Schooling is widely considered an industry and it is a new form of alienation, indispensable for consumerism that applies techniques of ‘pedagogic torture’: alienation not to extract information (hegemonic elites now have the internet and social networks to achieve that aim) but to impose a certain validated knowledge as merchandise that allows our participation in certain markets and to specific labour levels for a short time (e.g. the ideas on quality enhancement and the focus on employability in a recent document distributed by the European Higher Education Area and the Bologna Process, EHEA 2012).

By these means, schooling moulds the progressive consumer, who is the main resource of capitalist economy. Hence, education innovators will promote educational institutions as ‘bottlenecks’ for the programmes that they bottle, and as Illich clearly explained, for the purposes of consumer formation, these are mechanized goals of institutionalized education delivered through classrooms, online courses or through mass media transmitters. Schooling is corrupting education. For Illich, the essential corruption of education occurs through schooling. To better understand this process, it is necessary to reflect on the notion of institutionalization. To institutionalize something can have several meanings related to ‘institution’ understood as system.

Among those, it could mean to be confined to an institution, to become an institution, to establish something in order to perform a particular role, to build a conventional relation or custom in society, or organize a practice. Institutionalization finds its roots in Latin to place, in the sense of regarding or viewing something as being – for example, in the relationship education = school. It could be easier to understand the notion of institutionalization if we look at another example such as love and marriage. Marriage is a form of institutionalization of love, but it would be a mistake to confuse love with marriage. Similarly, a well-educated person can be a person with a high level of studies or not.

A well-educated person can become a wise person through learning. But an overeducated person in terms of schooling may have an impressive instrumental knowledge, ability to do something or perform in certain way, but not necessarily become a wise person. Like love and marriage, school and education can be related but are not necessarily so, and it is a huge mistake to misperceive having school training as being educated. At the core, education is about learning, learning to live, learning to live a better life. Schooling is about someone being certified that he/she has gained certain abilities in order to exercise certain practices in society; nowadays, this means levels of certification for production and consumerist practices in a capitalist society.

A given certification is an extension of a membership and hence entails exclusion of the rest. The higher the membership, the more privileged, and then, the fewer people will be able to reach the social peak. It does not matter how many years of school a person may have, certification entitles his/her role/level/place in society. Education can help us to go beyond these practices and society. Education can occur in schools or not; in families, or not; in social networks or not; on the internet or not.

The temptation to administer and regulate education and learning poisons the essence of education and corrupts it at its heart towards instrumental reasoning. Concepts 2 Escaping Education ‘The challenge of living the good life without education is intuitively grasped and understood by those whose common sense has not been drowned or buried under the barrage of information prized by the proud owners of information technologies, by those who still have unschooled cultures. From them we have learned to learn without bells and bell curves, without credentials, textbooks, chalkboards and the overwhelming perverse institutional logic that “dumbs down” all those who come under its sway. With them we have learned to free our imaginations from the clutches of classroom information; to recover our common sense before it was extinguished by under use or denigration.

For they know in their hands, their eyes, and in all their other senses what it is to learn without packaged instruction. The people at the grassroots have not forgotten the skills required to live and flourish outside the academic “cave” – with its shadows, its dark doubts that are mistaken to be liberatory or emancipatory certainties.’ Excerpt from Escaping Education: Living as Learning in Grassroots Cultures (2008), by Madhu Suri Prakash and Gustavo Esteva. The contentious hegemonic dispute for the control of schools: Education reforms in Mexico (and worldwide) To clarify the importance of the dispute over administrative issues and of the control and regulation of the delivery of certification, many education reforms, and resistance to them, can be analysed worldwide.

I will pick up the case of Mexico, in Latin America, but a similar approach can be used to reflect on many other cases worldwide – including the UK and the USA. In Mexico, through 2013, there were numerous demonstrations from teachers and students angered by the education initiatives promoted by the government to accomplish ‘international goals’ for education. It seems like a global trend: worldwide social movements with common education-related demands have questioned the commoditized model of what to teach and how to evaluate learning. Also, they have highlighted a major attempt to phase out arts and humanities courses, and governments have usually argued that teachers are not good enough, that education is too expensive and that universal evaluation could be helpful to somehow improve education.

In the case of Mexico, for example, the current president, Enrique Peña Nieto – massively rejected by student organizations such as #Yosoy 132 during his electoral campaign – with the support of the majority of the political representatives (Education Reform Mexico 2013) proposed and approved a reorganization of the schooling system in this country that was widely supported by mainstream media as an education reform. The proposal consists of ten points, but the core of the bid is the creation of a National System to Evaluate Education (Sistema Nacional de Evaluación Educativa, INEE). The democratic wing of the teachers’ union – Coordinadora Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación, CNTE – rejected the proposition arguing that it is an administrative one and not a plan to improve education (CNTE 2013).

From the official documents presented by both parties it seems that the main problem in this dispute is evaluating and deciding who can remain as a teacher and who cannot. It seems that some teachers do not want to take the risk of an evaluation system saying they are the main cause of education problems, and lose their jobs; the government does not want to continue to employ teachers who have been proved inadequate through what it sees as objective evaluations. The debate is not about education itself but about administration, and hence it is about forms of institutionalizing education. The proposal cannot be considered a proposal on education as it does not mention how it will solve educational problems such as deficiencies in infrastructure, curriculum and contents, pedagogical techniques, teaching resources (books, technology) or training for teachers.

It is mainly an administrative reform that attempts to transfer to teachers the responsibility of the country’s failure on international evaluations and that tries to set the schooling agenda on the grounds of those global assessments, framed by the fading capacity of governments to negotiate with corporate powers the transfer of resources to the public sphere and hence their increasing risk of bankruptcy and failure due to their economic deficit. The practical problem in terms of education and from a post-development perspective would reside in the fact that ‘Educators, for instance, now tell society what must be learned, and are in a position to write off as valueless what has been learned outside of school’ (Illich 1977, p. 15). From my viewpoint, this grim picture needs a grayscale, as many teachers are in fact aware of the necessity of responding to students, society and teachers themselves as human beings and their crucial role in essential education to transform society for the better. Teachers, therefore, still have a privileged position of power to transform society into something else, something better, not in instrumental but human terms. This circumstance presents teachers with a dilemma; on the one hand, validating the schooling system with our membership and our labour: we are under the increasing pressure of accreditation reports and data-driven classroom interactions, and the international schooling system develops more and deeper controls to ensure that schooling becomes more (tending to only) for the development of instrumental abilities.

This process is promoted in order to gain accreditations for memberships with the permanent menace of exclusion from the ephemeral role of production and consumerism that entails belonging to a capitalist society. On the other hand, outside of that system of belonging, there is informality and criminality. However, the option is not an easy one; as Dunn-Kenney stated recently, ‘if we as teacher educators abandon oppressive technicality, without abandoning our posts, we are stepping into a new place, traveling without insurance. We have no idea where this moment-to-moment, embodied living will take us’ (Dunn-Kenney 2013, p. 53).

Post-development paths for better explanations and transformations for the better This practical problem, complicated as it is, cannot be well-reflected if it is not seen from a perspective that is questioning if capitalist societies are really bringing us to a better life. And if the answer is no, then forms of education and action to dismantle capitalist dynamics are needed. The challenge from a radical perspective is that we cannot institutionalize those efforts or we could be failing by corrupting the very core of social interactions for learning to live better. Then the question remains: what is education for? What are children and people really learning nowadays? What should we learn to live a better life? Post-development authors answer the previous questions following ancient traditions mainly represented nowadays by indigenous peoples worldwide: the planet is a living being, not a supply of resources; she is ill and could be killed by current human treatment. Contemporary development tendencies intensify the disparities between rich and poor people and push the vast majority of peoples and cultures to migration or extinction. Western schooling values reinforce these awful tendencies instead of attenuating injustice and despoiling. Instead of consumption, competition, alienation and individualism, education should promote human networks to construct knowledge aiming for solidarity, respect and a more healthy conviviality for all living beings alongside self-sufficient communities.

This is perhaps post-development theory’s main challenge – recognizing that the current model is bringing living beings and the vast majority of people into a disastrous present and future. We need to stop pretending we are doing well and go back to the roots to build meaningful tasks for learning to pursue a good life for everybody.

Sample Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

Post-development theory critically examines the concept of ‘development’ as an ideological construct rooted in oppressive systems that perpetuate inequality and marginalization. This perspective questions mainstream Western notions of progress and development, emphasizing instead a paradigm that promotes local, indigenous, and alternative ways of living and knowing. Central to this critique is the role of education, which is often co-opted to serve the interests of capitalism, consumerism, and global economic agendas. This essay explores the fundamental questions: What is the purpose of education? What should be learned to foster a good life? Drawing from post-development thinkers such as Ivan Illich, Arturo Escobar, Gustavo Esteva, and others, the discussion argues for a radical reimagining of education as a tool for human liberation, ecological sustainability, and social equity.

The Critique of Development and Education

Post-development authors challenge the legitimacy of the development paradigm that has shaped global policies, particularly in the context of education. Sachs (1992) and Ivan Illich (1974) critique the idea that development equates to economic growth facilitated through formal schooling, which often results in overeducation, underemployment, and social inequalities. Illich introduced the concept of the hidden curriculum—an indirect message that education’s primary value is in consumption and certification rather than genuine learning or human fulfillment (Illich, 1974). This commodification of education produces a consumerist society where schooling becomes a market-driven industry, alienating individuals from authentic knowledge and community-based learning.

Post-development thinkers argue that institutionalized schooling perpetuates a form of social and cultural alienation by standardizing knowledge and privileging certified abilities over wisdom and humanitas. Education thus becomes an extension of societal structures aimed at reproducing existing power relations, fostering competition, and sustaining consumerist values. Similarly, Escobar (2000) emphasizes that development policies often dismiss local knowledge systems, marginalizing indigenous ways of learning and living, which hold vital ecological and social lessons for sustainability.

Education as a Tool for Oppression or Liberation

The manipulation of education systems for economic and political agendas results in policies that prioritize evaluation, accountability, and efficiency over genuine learning experiences. For instance, in Mexico, reforms introduced in 2013 aimed to evaluate teachers and standardize curricula to meet international benchmarks. These reforms predominantly focus on administrative control rather than improving pedagogical quality or addressing infrastructural deficits (CNTE, 2013). Such policies serve the interests of global neoliberal pressures, reinforcing the alienation of teachers and students alike.

Illich (1974) advocates for the deinstitutionalization of education, promoting informal, community-based learning practices that foster self-directed development outside State-imposed curricula. This perspective warns against reducing education to a mere certification process, which excludes diverse knowledge forms and perpetuates inequalities. Instead, education should aim to foster critical consciousness, solidarity, and ecological awareness. Esteva (2006) and others argue for learning that reconnects humans with nature and community, emphasizing sustainable ways of knowing that do not serve the interests of capitalist exploitation.

Reimagining Education for a Good Life

Post-development vision advocates moving beyond the entrenched paradigms of growth and material accumulation. It urges an educational shift from competitive individualism to cultivating human networks based on solidarity, ecological respect, and community resilience. Indigenous traditions exemplify this worldview, viewing the Earth as a living entity deserving of care rather than a resource to be exploited.

The core question becomes: what do we need to learn to live a better, more equitable, and sustainable life? According to Illich (1974) and Esteva (2008), education should promote skills that enable individuals to live harmoniously with others and the environment—such as community cooperation, ecological literacy, and cultural diversity—rather than solely preparing for consumerist roles. As Hanna (2010) argues, fostering critical awareness and valuing diverse ways of knowing are essential for imagining alternatives to the destructive global systems.

Future generations must embrace knowledge rooted in ecological sustainability, social justice, and intercultural respect. Educating for a good life involves decolonizing curricula, encouraging grassroots learning, and resisting the institutionalization and commodification of education. The role of teachers remains vital in nurturing autonomous, critically conscious learners capable of challenging dominant narratives and creating pathways toward a more equitable society.

Conclusion

The post-development critique of education underscores that current global models prioritize economic growth at the expense of social and ecological well-being. Reimagining education as a practice oriented toward human solidarity, ecological balance, and cultural diversity requires dismantling oppressive institutional structures and embracing community-based, informal learning approaches. Education should not serve consumerism or oppression but aim to empower individuals and communities to pursue lives rooted in dignity, respect, and sustainability. Only through such a transformative vision can we hope to build a future that truly promotes the well-being of all living beings and the planet.

References

• Illich, I. (1974). Deschooling Society. Marion Boyars.
• Escobar, A. (2000). Exploring the Epistemologies of the South. backdrop for post-development. Review of African Political Economy, 99(27), 26–39.
• Esteva, G. (2006). Development. In G. Braidotti & R. Braidotti (Eds.), Nomadic Subjects: Embodiment and Sexual Difference in Contemporary Feminist Theory (pp. 271-278).
• Sachs, W. (1992). The Development Dictionary: A Guide to Knowledge as Power. Zed Books.
• Gonzalez Casanova, P. (2004). La mejora del sistema social. Revista de Estudios Sociales, (18), 42–54.
• Esteva, G., & Prakash, M. S. (2008). Escaping Education: Living as Learning in Grassroots Cultures.
• De Sousa Santos, B. (2007). Another Knowledge is Possible: Beyond Northern Epistemologies.