Page 1661 of 1667
1 1.659 1.660 1.661 1.662 1.663 1.667

Sobre el Servicio Profesional Docente

Gilberto Guevara Niebla

La reforma al artículo tercero y legislación sobre el Servicio Profesional Docente son preceptos legislativos coherentes y sólidos, pero quiero hacer una breve reflexión de sus implicaciones, señalar algunos problemas de interpretación y sugerir modificaciones que, me parece, darían mayor fuerza al conjunto de la reforma. La legislación de la reforma educativa no es fácil, por el contrario, es compleja y eso ha contribuido al surgimiento de problemas de interpretación. El corazón de esa legislación lo constituye la Ley General del Servicio Profesional Docente y en torno a ella ha habido un extenso debate. La coherencia de esta norma es admirable, sin embargo, considerando sus implicaciones yo propondría que se hicieran en ella sólo algunas modificaciones particulares: a) que se dé a la evaluación de desempeño un carácter meramente diagnóstico; b) que se elimine la serie consecutiva de evaluaciones que siguen a la evaluación de desempeño; c) que se cree la categoría de “maestro titular”, categoría que se otorga al cumplir 10 años de servicio; d) que se defina un límite máximo de años de servicio para los docentes que deben someterse a la evaluación de desempeño (por ejemplo, 10 años).

05-docente

Ilustración: Víctor Solís

El legislador no tuvo a la mano un diagnóstico preciso, actuarial, del sistema educativo y del personal docente con diversas adscripciones a la docencia. De hecho, a mediados de 2013 México carecía de un censo de su personal educativo y a eso obedeció la instrucción que el gobierno federal dio al INEGI para que se realizara lo que se conoció como el Censo de Escuelas, Maestros y Alumnos de Educación Básica y Especial (CEMABE) que se llevó a cabo entre septiembre y diciembre de 2013. De haber contado los legisladores de 2012 con una base de datos que diera cuenta de las diversas condiciones laborales del personal de educación en el país, hubiera podido constatar que existían un enorme desorden en las plantillas y una gran diversidad de “situaciones anómalas” como resultado del viejo régimen de administrativo (un régimen con excesiva, y desafortunada, intervención del sindicato). De haber contado con esta información, posiblemente los nuevos ordenamientos legales hubieran sido parcialmente distintos. No pongo en cuestión el carácter general de toda ley (la ley comprende a todos aquellos que se encuentran en las condiciones previstas por ella, sin excepciones de ninguna clase) y el hecho de que las estipulaciones sean uniformes para todos los docentes. Pero esta indiscriminación conduce a aplicar la misma regla a maestros recién egresados de la escuela normal como a docentes con 30, 40 o 50 años de experiencia frente al aula. Esto no deja de sorprender. Hemos visto a maestros que están a punto de jubilarse (se encuentran en prejubilación y les falta un mes o un trimestre para hacerlo) y se ven compelidos por la ley a presentarse a la evaluación de desempeño y no pueden dejar de hacerlo, pues de otra manera “perderían su plaza”. Esto ocurrió no obstante que la Coordinación del SPD se propuso convocar sólo a profesores con un máximo de 25 años de experiencia. Hubo teléfono descompuesto. ¿Es razonable que un docente con larga experiencia sea por primera vez evaluado y ponga en riesgo su plaza después de que el sistema educativo le ha permitido enseñar durante décadas? El problema ético es obvio. Evidentemente, habría que analizar si es justo someter a esa prueba a maestros de esas características y decidir si se podría, o no, eximirlos de ella. No se puede colocar en un mismo molde a todos los maestros porque, si lo hacemos, comprobamos que el molde sólo es válido para algunos de ellos. Una salida posible y decorosa sería limitar la obligatoriedad de la evaluación de desempeño a los maestros relativamente jóvenes sobre los cuales podemos tener una expectativa clara de que pueden —puesto que a esa edad es más factible asimilar las novedades— cambiar sus técnicas didácticas, su manejo de grupo, etcétera. La evaluación de desempeño podría ser opcional para los docentes más viejos y experimentados. Se me ocurre que dicha evaluación se aplique de forma obligatoria a docentes con 10 (¿o 15?) o menos años de experiencia docente. Otra opción hubiera sido que la evaluación de desempeño se acompañara de uno o varios programas atractivos de jubilación anticipada, elemento de atracción que hubiera contribuido tal vez a desahogar problemas y hubiera acarreado, seguramente, el aplauso de muchos. En la opción que antes mencioné, la evaluación de desempeño tendría un carácter de evaluación diagnóstica y su único fin sería apoyar la formación continua de los docentes. Esto significa que los profesores que reciben nota insuficiente recibirían después de su evaluación apoyo para reforzar su formación, pero no sería necesario volver a evaluarlos (artículo 53).

Un problema frecuente lo han padecido docentes que ocupan puestos directivos y que han permanecido en ellos durante 10, 20 o más años, pero sin tener nombramiento definitivo o de base. ¿Están obligados a dejar su puesto? ¿Se va a someter a concurso? ¿O es posible superar la dificultad acudiendo al artículo 9 transitorio de la Ley General del Servicio Profesional Docente? Este artículo dice a la letra: “El personal docente y personal con funciones de dirección o supervisión en Educación Básica o Media Superior impartida por el Estado y sus Organismos Descentralizados que a la entrada en vigor de esta ley tenga Nombramiento Provisional, continuará en la función que desempeña y será sujeto de la evaluación prevista en el artículo 52 de la presente ley (la evaluación de desempeño). El personal que obtenga resultados suficientes en dicha evaluación se le otorgará Nombramiento Definitivo y quedará incorporado en el Servicio Profesional Docente”. ¿Y qué ocurrirá en el caso de personal que tiene muchos años en un puesto y, a fin de retenerlo, se le contrata cada seis meses? Es obvio que un docente que ha trabajado por años sin recibir nombramiento (o plaza) permanente tiene derecho a levantar una demanda contra las autoridades educativas y esa demanda puede ser viable, toda vez que, en su caso, se violaron las disposiciones emanadas del artículo tercero reformado. Hay gran variedad de situaciones entre maestros que han sido, por así decirlo, contratados a través de mecanismos “informales”. Un caso extremo: hay profesores que “rentan” su plaza para que otros la trabajen, esos “otros” se encuentran en total desamparo.

La descentralización de la operación del sistema escolar de educación básica, que se decidió en 1992, no produjo los resultados positivos esperados. Su efecto político fue incrementar las facultades de las autoridades educativas locales y potenciar a las secciones del sindicato, pero la periferia institucional (estados y municipios) no siempre mostró tener capacidad para responder con eficacia al desafío de dirigir la esfera educativa. Desde luego, hay estados que fehacientemente han probado que sí la tienen (Nuevo León, Baja California, etcétera), pero hay otros que simplemente adoptaron una actitud negligente ante el tema educativo. Esto era lógico. Durante mucho tiempo los gobernadores han colocado a amigos o compañeros de partido en las secretarías de educación aun cuando esas personas no tienen ni interés en el campo ni la competencia intelectual que la educación demanda. También ha ocurrido, recurrentemente, a nivel estatal que los recursos financieros de la educación son desviados hacia otros destinos. Tal vez esa situación explique cierta tendencia centralizadora que se manifiesta en algunos cambios recientes (en materia de finanzas la creación del Fondo de Aportaciones para la Nómina Educativa y Gasto Operativo, FONE). Eso no significa que las autoridades educativas locales quedaron exentas de responsabilidades en la reforma educativa. Ellas se encargarán —como lo venían haciendo— de la operación de las escuelas, pero además tendrán nuevas funciones relacionadas con el SPD y con la política de centralidad y autonomía para la escuela. A ellas corresponde proponer al gobierno federal propuestas de perfiles, parámetros e indicadores; emitir las convocatorias a los concursos y evaluaciones del SPD; seleccionar y capacitar a los evaluadores; seleccionar a los aplicadores; participar en la evaluación del desempeño y calificar, conforme a los lineamientos emitidos por el INEE, las etapas de los procesos de evaluación; operar y, en su caso, diseñar los programas de reconocimiento de profesores y directivos; ofrecer programas para la actualización, capacitación y formación continua de los docentes, directivos y supervisores.

El punto débil de la reforma ha sido la periferia del sistema educativo: las autoridades estatales y municipales. El centralismo es igualmente necesario en materia de planes de estudio y programas, como lo establece la fracción III del artículo tercero constitucional y la LGE en su artículo 12 (que reformó al texto anterior el 10 de diciembre de 2004). A la letra este artículo dice: “Corresponde de manera exclusiva a la autoridad educativa federal determinar en toda la República los planes y programas desde preescolar, primaria, secundaria, normal y formación de maestros. Sólo se consultará la opinión de las autoridades locales, de los diversos actores sociales en educación: los maestros, padres de familia y aquellas que, en su caso, formule el INEE”. En algunas materias, la pobreza en materia de recursos humanos educativos de los estados es dramática. Por ejemplo, en evaluación. Hay estados que simplemente no tienen un área de evaluación en sus secretarías. ¿Qué podemos suponer en cuanto al diseño y elaboración de planes de estudio y programas? Las deficiencias estatales son escandalosas. Las entidades federales simplemente no se han abocado a formar grupos de especialistas para atender las diversas necesidades de recursos humanos que reclama la planeación y dirección de la educación local.

La descentralización y la organización federada de la educación son objetivos deseables, desde luego. Pero el centralismo en educación ha tomado un nuevo aire a la vista de los fracasos que los estados han tenido en el manejo de sus asuntos educativos. Al respecto, Emilio Chuayfett dijo en una ocasión: “Es un federalismo coyuntural”, es decir, temporal, no definitivo y creo que todos esperamos que así sea.

Un último apunte. Desde el punto de vista tradicional la legislación laboral de los trabajadores se regula con los apartados A para la empresa privada y B para las empresas estatales (burocracia) del artículo 123. Con la nueva legislación educativa surge una nueva opción legislativa, es decir, de alguna manera ahora existe un “nuevo apartado” porque la burocracia docente tendrá un régimen legal sui generis dado que los docentes tendrán dos regulaciones: por un lado, la Constitución (artículo 3, fracción III) dice que a la profesión docente sólo se puede ingresar o ganar una promoción a través de concursos de oposición; por otro, todos los aspectos de seguridad social y jubilación se van a regir —como es usual— por el apartado B del artículo 123 y la Ley Federal Burocrática. Esto introduce una novedad en el tratamiento legal respecto al resto de los servidores públicos.

 

Gilberto Guevara Niebla
Profesor de tiempo completo del Colegio de Pedagogía de la UNAM y consejero de la Junta de Gobierno del Instituto Nacional para la Evaluación de la Educación.

Este texto se incluirá en el libro Poder para el maestro, poder para la escuela. La reforma educativa de 2013, que circulará próximamente.

Comparte este contenido:

Six Decades of Comparative and International Education: Taking and Looking Forward

Noticias y Presa. noticias CIES, marzo, 2016

Durante esta semana se está desarrollando en Vancouver, Canadá la 60th
Conferencia Anual de la Comparative and International Education Society
(CIES), en la cual se reúnen unos 2500 profesionales de la educación y
académicos para brindar sus enfoques académicos en cuanto a la Educación
Comparada Internacional, denominado por el equipo organizador, como: Taking
Stock and Looking Forward” (En balance y mirando hacia adelante)

En este sentido, el evento permite, en base a los objetivos de desarrollo
sostenible (ODS) para la educación 2016-2030, dar respuestas y reflexionar
en base al objetivo 4 que tiene que ver con la garantía de una educación
inclusiva, equitativa, de calidad y la promoción de oportunidades de
aprendizaje durante toda la vida. Algunas de los talleres pre-conferencia y
temas destacados que serán presentados giran en torno a:

– ¿Las pruebas estandarizadas miden lo mismo a nivel internacional
y nacional? Estudio de caso en los EE.UU.

– Medidas de desigualdad en la educación

– Búsqueda de soluciones ante la regulación de la educación privada

– Construcción de investigaciones de varios países en relación a
la educación de la primera infancia

– Un cambio de paradigma: currículo re-posicionamiento en el
dialogo mundial sobre el aprendizaje permanente y el desarrollo sostenible

– Balance de la investigación educativa y la planificación
internacional después de 50 años

– Diseños del conocimiento en la educación internacional para el
desarrollo

La presentación de ponencias en torno a éstos y otros temas tiene como
propósito entender la educación como el componente más importante dentro de
los sistemas que se desarrollan a su alrededor, a saber: salud, crecimiento
económico, empleo, producción, consumo sostenible y cambio climático, por
ende, enfocar el lente en la educación permitiría a nuestras sociedades
garantizar sus desarrollos y sopesar con éxito los objetivos propuestos.

Más información a través de los siguientes link:

 

Comparte este contenido:

LASA distingue a Norberto Fernández Lamarra con el Premio Paulo Freire a la investigación

norberto 1
Edu-Comp (noticias)   Norberto Fernández Lamarra ha sido distinguido con el Premio Paulo Freire a la Trayectoria de investigación de la Educación en América Latina de la Latin American Studies Association (LASA)  en el que se reconoce su amplia trayectoria en la investigación, sus aportes al conocimiento del campo de la educación superior, su compromiso con la enseñanza universitaria y su estrecha vinculación con el desarrollo de la educación en América Latina.

​Este importante reconocimiento le será entregado en el marco del Congreso de LASA 2016 en la ciudad de Nueva York, durante la sesión de la Sección de Educación, el 29 de mayo a las 7:45 p.m.
​Creemos que el valor de esta distinción, sin embargo, es un reconocimiento también al campo de los estudios comparados en educación ​y al ámbito iberoamericano al que Norberto aporta significativamente. Así, al menos lo valoran los colegas que trabajan con él.
Comparte este contenido:

Una gran injusticia despedir a maestros; EPN desacredita la educación pública y quiere privatizarla: AMLO

Por:  /  marzo, 2016
Ofrece AMLO que si llega a la presidencia encarcelará a corruptos
COMPARTE
(Marzo, 2016).- El ex candidato presidencial Andrés Manuel López Obrador aseguró que es una gran injusticia despedir a maestros por la evaluación educativa, pues aseguró que Enrique Peña Nieto desacredita la educación pública y quiere privatizarla.

De acuerdo con el dirigente nacional de Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional (Morena), la reforma educativa busca desacreditar la educación pública, la del pueblo, y quiere privatizarla para que sólo estudien los que tengan dinero para pagar colegiaturas, escuelas privadas, y perjudican a los maestros por parejo, sean de la Coordinadora o del Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Educación.

“No se deben pelear, y como decía un dirigente social oaxaqueño extraordinario, Ricardo Flores Magón, ‘sólo el pueblo puede salvar al pueblo; sólo el pueblo unido y organizado puede salvar a la nación” declaró el ex Jefe de Gobierno de la Ciudad de México en una gira que realiza por Puebla.

Recordó que la “mafia del poder” utiliza al PRI y PAN como ocurrió en Puebla con la situación que enfrenta la entidad.

“Criticaron al entonces gobernador de Puebla, el priísta Mario Marín, y gritaban: ‘¡Fuera Marín! Entró Rafael Moreno Valle, del PAN, y ahora dicen: ¡Fuera Moreno Valle!” dijo el tabasqueño.

Aseguró que el candidato de Morena a la gubernatura de Puebla, Abraham Quiroz cuenta con diez compromisos básicos que hará efectivos como la entrega de pensión para adultos mayores, apoyo a las personas con discapacidad, becas para estudiantes de preparatoria e inscripción a jóvenes que deseen estudiar el nivel superior.

 

Comparte este contenido:

Avanza en Florida una polémica ley que permitiría llevar armas en las universidades.

http://www.elmundo.es/

febrero/2016/ Estados Unidos

Una medida similar fue aprobada el año pasado en Texas, que permitirá a partir del próximo mes de agosto llevar armas en las universidades públicas de ese estado.

Nueva imagen (5)

Un proyecto de ley que permite llevar armas en las universidades de Florida (EE.UU.) fue aprobado hoy en la Cámara de Representantes estatal pese a la oposición de varios centros universitarios. La medida, que legaliza entre los mayores de 21 años llevar armas en los campus, ha sido aprobada en la Cámara baja y ahora espera el trámite en el Senado.

De ser aprobada, la ley permitirá que 1,4 millones de personas que están autorizadas a portar armas en Florida lo hagan en los centros universitarios.

Pese a la oposición de varias universidades y grupos de estudiantes, el representante republicano Greg Steube, que impulsó el proyecto, argumenta que pretende defender de esa forma el derecho contemplado en la Segunda Enmienda de la Constitución estadounidense.

También permitido en Texas

Una medida similar aprobada el año pasado en Texas permitirá a partir del próximo mes de agosto llevar armas en las universidades públicas de ese estado.

En Estados Unidos, otros siete estados tienen normas parecidas a las de Texas, mientras que 19 prohíben explícitamente el uso de armas en espacios académicos y 23 permiten que sean los centros los que lo regulen.

En Florida, el Legislativo tiene también previsto votar hoy una propuesta que permite a los titulares de permisos portar «abiertamente» sus armas enfundadas en las calles, edificios públicos y otros lugares.

Según la Asociación Nacional del Rifle (NRA), 45 estados de EEUU permiten el porte explícito de armas de fuego, algunos con ciertas restricciones.

Comparte este contenido:

Gun Culture and the American Nightmare of Violence

Henry Giroux

_______________________________________________________________________________

OVE Prensa. La violencia armada en los Estados Unidos ha producido una cultura empapada en sangre – una cultura que amenaza a todos y se extiende desde las muertes accidentales, suicidios y violencia doméstica a fusilamientos masivos. A finales de diciembre, una mujer en St. Cloud, Florida, fatalmente disparó a su propia hija después de confundirla a ella con un intruso. A menos de un mes antes, el 2 de diciembre, en San Bernardino, California, ocurrió el tiroteo que dejó 14 muertos y más de 20 heridos. Y  tan sólo dos meses antes de que, el 1 de octubre, nueve personas murieran y siete resultaron heridas en un tiroteo en un colegio comunitario en Roseburg, Oregón.

Muertes masivas por armas se han convertido en rutina en los Estados Unidos y ello nos habla de una sociedad que se basa en la violencia para alimentar las arcas de los mercaderes de la muerte. Teniendo en cuenta los beneficios obtenidos por los fabricantes de armas, la industria de defensa, los comerciantes de armas y los grupos de presión que los representan en el Congreso, no es ninguna sorpresa que la cultura de la violencia no pueda abstraerse de la cultura, ya sea de negocios o de la corrupción existente en la política.  De ello nos habla en este artículo Henry Giroux

___________________________________________________________________________

 

 

activistas 1
 Gun violence in the United States has produced a culture soaked in blood – a culture that threatens everyone and extends from accidental deaths, suicides and domestic violence to mass shootings. In late December, a woman in St. Cloud, Florida, fatally shot her own daughter after mistaking her for an intruder. Less than a month earlier, on December 2, in San Bernardino, California, was the mass shooting that left 14 people dead and more than 20 wounded. And just two months before that, on October 1, nine people were killed and seven wounded in a mass shooting at a community college in Roseburg, Oregon.

Mass shootings have become routine in the United States and speak to a society that relies on violence to feed the coffers of the merchants of death. Given the profits made by arms manufacturers, the defense industry, gun dealers and the lobbyists who represent them in Congress, it comes as no surprise that the culture of violence cannot be abstracted from either the culture of business or the corruption of politics. Violence runs through US society like an electric current offering instant pleasure from all cultural sources, whether it be the nightly news or a television series that glorifies serial killers.

At a policy level, violence drives the arms industry and a militaristic foreign policy, and is increasingly the punishing state’s major tool to enforce its hyped-up brand of domestic terrorism, especially against Black youth. The United States is utterly wedded to a neoliberal culture in which cruelty is viewed as virtue, while mass incarceration is treated as the chief mechanism to «institutionalize obedience.» At the same time, a shark-like mode of competition replaces any viable notion of solidarity, and a sabotaging notion of self-interest pushes society into the false lure of mass consumerism. The increasing number of mass shootings is symptomatic of a society engulfed in racism, fear, militarism, bigotry and massive inequities in wealth and power.

Guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself.

Over 270 mass shootings have taken place in the United States in 2015 alone, proving once again that the economic, political and social conditions that underlie such violence are not being addressed. Sadly, these shootings are not isolated incidents. For example, one child under 12 years old has been killed every other day by a firearm, which amounts to 555 children killed by guns in three years. An even more frightening statistic and example of a shocking moral and political perversity wasnoted in data provided by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), which states that «2,525 children and teens died by gunfire in [the United States] in 2014; one child or teen death every 3 hours and 28 minutes, nearly 7 a day, 48 a week.» Such figures indicate that too many youth in the United States occupy what might be called war zones in which guns and violence proliferate. In this scenario, guns and the hypermasculine culture of violence are given more support than young people and life itself.

The predominance of a relatively unchecked gun culture and a morally perverse and politically obscene culture of violence is particularly evident in the power of the gun lobby and its political advocates to pass laws in eight states to allow students and faculty to carry concealed weapons «into classrooms, dormitories and other buildings» on campuses. In spite of the rash of recent shootings on college campuses, Texas lawmakers, for instance, passed one such «campus carry bill,» which will take effect in August 2016. To add insult to injury, they also passed an «open carry bill» that allows registered gun owners to carry their guns openly in public. Such laws not only reflect «the seemingly limitless legislative clout of gun interests,» but also a rather irrational return to the violence-laden culture of the «Wild West.»

To read more articles by Henry A. Giroux and other authors in the Public Intellectual Project, click here.

As in the past, individuals will be allowed to walk the streets, while openly carrying guns and packing heat as a measure of their love of guns and their reliance upon violence as the best way to address any perceived threat to their security. This return to the deadly practices of the » Wild West» is neither a matter of individual choice nor some far-fetched yet allegedly legitimate appeal to the Second Amendment. On the contrary, mass violence in the United States has to be placed within a broader historical, economic and political context in order to address the totality of the forces that produce it. Focusing merely on mass shootings or the passing of potentially dangerous gun legislation does not get to the root of the systemic forces that produce the United States’ love affair with violence and the ideologies and criminogenic institutions that produce it.

Imperial policies that promote aggression all across the globe are now matched by increasing levels of lawlessness and state repression, which mutually feed each other. On the home front, civil society is degenerating into a military organization, a space of lawlessness and warlike practices, organized primarily for the production of violence. For instance, as Steve Martinot observes at CounterPunch, the police now use their discourse of command and power to criminalize behavior; in addition, they use military weapons and surveillance tools as if they are preparing for war, and create a culture of fear in which militaristic principles replace legal principles. He writes:

This suggests that there is an institutional insecurity that seeks to cover itself through social control … the cops act out this insecurity by criminalizing individuals in advance. No legal principle need be involved. There is only the militarist principle…. When police shoot a fleeing subject and claim they are acting in self-defense (i.e. threatened), it is not their person but the command and control principle that is threatened. To defend that control through assault or murderous action against a disobedient person implies that the cop’s own identity is wholly immersed in its paradigm. There is nothing psychological about this. Self-worth or insecurity is not the issue. There is only the military ethic of power, imposed on civil society through an assumption of impunity. It is the ethos of democracy, of human self-respect, that is the threat.

The rise of violence and the gun culture in the United States cannot be separated from a transformation in governance in the United States. Political sovereignty has been replaced by economic sovereignty as corporate power takes over the reins of governance. The more money influences politics, the more corrupt the political culture becomes. Under such circumstances, holding office is largely dependent on having huge amounts of capital at one’s disposal, while laws and policies at all levels of government are mostly fashioned by lobbyists representing big business corporations and financial institutions. Moreover, such lobbying, as corrupt and unethical as it may be, is now carried out in the open by the National Rifle Association (NRA) and other individuals, groups and institutions invested in the militarization of US society. This lobbying is then displayed as a badge of honor – a kind of open testimonial to the lobbyists’ disrespect for democratic governance.

But money in politics is not the only major institutional factor in which everyday and state violence are nourished by a growing militarism. As David Theo Goldberg has argued in his essay «Mission Accomplished: Militarizing Social Logic,» the military has also assumed a central role in shaping all aspects of society. Militarization is about more than the use of repressive power; it also represents a powerful social logic that is constitutive of values, modes of rationality and ways of thinking. According to Goldberg,

The military is not just a fighting machine…. It serves and socializes. It hands down to the society, as big brother might, its more or less perfected goods, from gunpowder to guns, computing to information management … In short, while militarily produced instruments might be retooled to other, broader social purpose – the military shapes pretty much the entire range of social production from commodities to culture, social goods to social theory.

The militarization and corporatization of social logic permeates US society. The general public in the United States is largely depoliticized through the influence of corporations over schools, higher education and other cultural apparatuses. The deadening of public values, civic consciousness and critical citizenship are also the result of the work of anti-public intellectuals representing right-wing ideological and financial interests, a powerful set of corporate-controlled media agencies that are largely center-right and a market-driven public pedagogy that reduces the obligations of citizenship to the endless consumption and discarding of commodities. Military ideals permeate every aspect of popular culture, policy and social relations. In addition, a pedagogy of historical, social and racial amnesia is constructed and circulated through celebrity and consumer culture.

A war culture now shapes every aspect of society as warlike values, a hypermasculinity and an aggressive militarism seep into every major institution in the United States, including schools, the corporate media and local police forces. The criminal legal system has become the default structure for dealing with social problems. More and more people are considered disposable because they offend the sensibilities of the financial elite, who are rapidly consolidating class power. Under such circumstances, violence occupies an honored place.

Militarism provides ideological support for policies that protect gun owners and sellers rather than children.

It is impossible to understand the rise of gun culture and violence in the United States without thinking about the maturation of the military state. Since the end of the Cold War the United States has built «the most expensive and lethal military force in the world.» The defense budget for 2015 totaled $598.5 billion and accounted for 54 percent of all federal discretionary spending. The US defense budget is both larger than the combined G-20 and «more than the combined military spending of China, Russia, the United Kingdom, Japan, France, Saudi Arabia, India, Germany, Italy and Brazil,» according to an NBC report. Since 9/11, the United States has intensified both the range of its military power abroad while increasing the ongoing militarization of US society. The United States circles the globe with around 800 military bases, producing a massive worldwide landscape of military force, at an «annual cost of $156 billion,» according to a report by David Vine in The Nation.

Moreover, Vine adds, «there are US troops or other military personnel in about 160 foreign countries and territories, including small numbers of Marines guarding embassies and larger deployments of trainers and advisers like the roughly 3,500 now working with the Iraqi army.» Not only is the Pentagon in an unprecedented position of power, but also it thrives on a morally bankrupt vision of domestic and foreign policy dependent upon a world defined by terrorism, enemies and perpetual fear. Military arms are now transferred to local police departments, drone bases proliferate, and secret bases around the world support special operations, Navy SEALs, CIA personnel, Army Rangers and other clandestine groups, as Nick Turse has shown in Tomorrow’s Battlefield. Under such circumstances, it is not surprising, as Andrew Bacevich points out, that «war has become a normal condition [and the] use of violence has become the preferred «instrument of statecraft.»

Violence feeds on corporate-controlled disimagination machines that celebrate it as a sport while upping the pleasure quotient for the public. Americans do not merely engage in violence; they are also entertained by it. This kind of toxic irrationality and lure of violence is mimicked in the United States’ aggressive foreign policy, in the sanctioning of state torture and in the gruesome killings of civilians by drones. As my colleague David L. Clark pointed out to me in an email, voters’ support for » bombing make-believe countries [with Arab-sounding names] is not a symptom of muddled confusion but, quite to the contrary, a sign of unerring precision. It describes the desire to militarize nothing less than the imagination and to target the minutiae of our dreams.» State repression, unbridled self-interest, an empty consumerist ethos and an expansive militarism have furthered the conditions for society to flirt with forms of irrationality that are at the heart of everyday aggression, violence and the withering of public life.

Pushback Against Gun Control Efforts

Warlike values no longer suggest a pathological entanglement with a kind of mad irrationality or danger. On the contrary, they have become a matter of common sense. For instance, the US government is willing to lock down a major city such as Boston in order to catch a terrorist or prevent a terrorist attack, but refuses to pass gun control bills that would significantly lower the number of Americans who die each year as a result of gun violence. As Michael Cohen observes, it is truly a symptom of irrationality when politicians can lose their heads over the threat of terrorism, even sacrificing civil liberties, but ignore the fact that «30,000 Americans die in gun violence every year (compared to the 17 who died [in 2012] in terrorist attacks).» It gets worse.

As the threat of terrorism is used by the US government to construct a surveillance state, suspend civil liberties and accelerate the forces of authoritarianism, the fear of personal and collective violence has no rational bearing on addressing the morbid acceleration of gun violence. In fact, the fear of terrorism appears to feed a toxic culture of violence produced, in part, by the wide and unchecked availability of guns. The United States’ fascination with guns and violence functions as a form of sport and entertainment, while gun culture offers a false promise of security. In this logic, one not only kills terrorists with drones, but also makes sure that patriotic Americans are individually armed so they can use force to protect themselves against the apparitions whipped up by right-wing politicians, pundits and the corporate-controlled media.

Rather than bring violence into a political debate that would limit its production, various states increase its possibilities by passing laws that allow guns at places from bars to houses of worship. Florida’s «stand your ground» law, based on the notion that one should shoot first and ask questions later, is a morbid reflection of the United States’ adulation of gun culture and the fears that fuel it. This fascination with guns and violence has infected the highest levels of government and serves to further anti-democratic and authoritarian forces. For example, the US government’s warfare state is propelled by a military-industrial complex that cannot spend enough on weapons of death and destruction. Super modern planes such as the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter cost up to $228 million each and are plagued by mechanical problems and yet are supported by a military and defense establishment. As Gabriel Kolko observes, such warlike investments «reflect a pathology and culture that is expressed in spending more money,» regardless of how it contributes to running up the debt, and that thrives on whatanthropologist João Biehl has described as «the energies of the dead.»

Militarism provides ideological support for policies that protect gun owners and sellers rather than children. The Children’s Defense Fund is right in stating, «Where is our anti-war movement here at home? Why does a nation with the largest military budget in the world refuse to protect its children from relentless gun violence and terrorism at home? No external enemy ever killed thousands of children in their neighborhoods, streets and schools year in and year out.»

There is a not-so-hidden structure of politics at work in this type of sanctioned irrationality. Advocating for gun rights provides a convenient discourse for ignoring what Carl Boggs has described as a «harsh neoliberal corporate-state order that routinely generates pervasive material suffering, social dislocation, and psychological despair – worsening conditions that ensure violence in its many expressions.»

As the United States moves from a welfare state to a warfare state, state violence becomes normalized. The United States’ moral compass and its highest democratic ideals have begun to wither, and the institutions that were once designed to help people now serve to largely suppress them. Gun laws matter, social responsibility matters and a government responsive to its people matters, especially when it comes to limiting the effects of a mercenary gun culture. But more has to be done. The dominance of gun lobbyists must end; the reign of money-controlled politics must end; the proliferation of high levels of violence in popular culture, and the ongoing militarization of US society must end. At the same time, it is crucial, as participants in the Black Lives Matter movement have argued, for Americans to refuse to endorse the kind of gun control that criminalizes young people of color.

Moderate calls for reining in the gun culture and its political advocates do not go far enough because they fail to address the roots of the violence causing so much carnage in the United States, especially among children and teens. For example, Hillary Clinton’s much publicized call for controlling the gun lobby and improving background checks, however well intentioned, did not include anything about a culture of lawlessness and violence reproduced by the government, the financial elites and the defense industries, or a casino capitalism that is built on corruption and produces massive amounts of human misery and suffering. Moreover, none of the calls to eliminate gun violence in the United States link such violence to the broader war on youth, especially poor youth of color.

A Culture of Violence

It would be wrong to suggest that the violence that saturates popular culture directly causes violence in the larger society. Nevertheless, it is arguable that depictions of violence serve to normalize violence as both a source of pleasure and as a practice for addressing social issues. When young people and others begin to believe that a world of extreme violence, vengeance, lawlessness and revenge is the only world they inhabit, the culture and practice of real-life violence is more difficult to scrutinize, resist and transform.

Many critics have argued that a popular culture that endlessly trades in violence runs the risk of blurring the lines between the world of fantasies and the world we live in. What they often miss is that when violence is celebrated in its myriad registers and platforms in a society, a formative culture is put in place that is amenable to the pathology of fascism. That is, a culture that thrives on violence runs the risk of losing its capacity to separate politics from violence. A.O. Scott recognizes such a connection between gun violence and popular culture, but he fails to register the deeper significance of the relationship. He writes:

… it is absurd to pretend that gun culture is unrelated to popular culture, or that make-believe violence has nothing to do with its real-world correlative. Guns have symbolic as well as actual power, and the practical business of hunting, law enforcement and self-defense has less purchase in our civic life than fantasies of righteous vengeance or brave resistance…. [Violent] fantasies have proliferated and intensified even as our daily existence has become more regulated and standardized – and also less dangerous. Perhaps they offer an escape from the boredom and regimentation of work and consumption.

Popular culture not only trades in violence as entertainment, but also it delivers violence to a society addicted to a pleasure principle steeped in graphic and extreme images of human suffering, mayhem and torture. While the Obama administration banned waterboarding as an interrogation method in January 2009, it appears to be thriving as a legitimate procedure in a number of prominent Hollywood films, including Safe House, Zero Dark Thirty, G.I. Jane and Taken 3. The use of and legitimation of torture by the government is not limited to Hollywood films. Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump announced recently on ABC’s «This Week» that he would bring back waterboarding because it «is peanuts compared to what they do to us.» It appears that moral depravity and the flight from social responsibility have no limits in an authoritarian political landscape.

Gun Violence Is Just the Tip of the Iceberg

The United States is suffering from an epidemic of violence, and much of it results in the shooting and killing of children. In announcing his package of executive actions to reduce gun violence, President Obama singled out both the gun lobby and Congress for refusing to implement even moderate gun control reforms. Obama was right on target in stating that «the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom.» Congress’s refusal to enact any type of gun control is symptomatic of the death of US democracy and the way in which money and power now govern the United States. Under a regime of casino capitalism, wealth and profits are more important than keeping the American people safe, more worthwhile than preventing a flood of violence across the land, and more valued than even the lives of young children caught in the hail of gunfire.

In spite of the empty bluster of Republican politicians claiming that Obama is violating the US Constitution with executive overreach, threatening to take guns away from the American people or undermining the Second Amendment, the not-so-hidden politics at work in these claims is one that points to the collapse of ethics, compassion and responsibility in the face of a militarized culture defined by the financial elite, gun lobbies and big corporations. Such forces represent a take-no-prisoners approach and refuse to even consider Obama’s call for strengthening background checks, limiting the unchecked sale of firearms by gun sellers, developing «smart gun» technologies, and preventing those on the United States’ terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. These initiatives hardly constitute a threat to gun ownership in the United States.

Guns are certainly a major problem in the United States, but they are symptomatic of a much larger crisis: Our country has tipped over into a new and deadly form of authoritarianism. We have become one of the most violent cultures on the planet and regulating guns does not get to the root of the problem. Zhiwa Woodbury touches on this issue at Tikkun Daily, writing:

We are a country of approximately 300 million people with approximately 300 million firearms – a third of which are concealable handguns. Each one of these guns is made for one purpose only – to kill as quickly and effectively as possible. The idea that some magical regulatory scheme, short of confiscation, will somehow prevent guns from being used to kill people is laughable, regardless of what you think of the NRA. Similarly, mentally ill individuals are responsible for less than 5% of the 30,000+ gunned down in the U.S. every year.

In the current historical conjuncture, gun violence makes a mockery of safe public spaces, gives rise to institutions and cultural apparatuses that embrace a deadly war psychology, and trades on fear and insecurity to undermine any sense of shared responsibility. It is no coincidence that the violence of prisons is related to the violence produced by police in the streets; it is no coincidence that the brutal masculine authority that now dominates US politics, with its unabashed hatred of women, poor people, Black people, Muslims and Mexican immigrants, shares an uncanny form of lawlessness with a long tradition of 20th century authoritarianism.

As violence moves to the center of American life, it becomes an organizing principle of society, and further contributes to the unraveling of the fabric of a democracy. Under such circumstances, the United States begins to consider everyone a potential criminal, wages war with itself and begins to sacrifice its children and its future. The political stooges, who have become lapdogs of corporate and financial interests, and refuse out of narrow self- and financial interests to confront the conditions that create such violence, must be held accountable for the deaths taking place in a toxic culture of gun violence. The condemnation of violence cannot be limited to police brutality. Violence does not just come from the police. In the United States, there are other dangers emanating from state power that punishes whistleblowers, intelligence agencies that encourage the arrests of those who protest against the abuse of corporate and state power, and a corporate-controlled media that trades in ignorance, lies and falsehoods, all the while demanding and generally «receiving unwavering support from their citizens,» as Teju Cole has pointed out in The New Yorker.

Yet, the only reforms we hear about are for safer gun policies, mandatory body-worn cameras for the police and more background checks. These may be well-intentioned reforms, but they do not get to the root of the problem, which is a social and economic system that trades in death in order to accumulate profits. What we don’t hear about are the people who trade their conscience for supporting the gun lobby, particularly the NRA. These are the politicians in Congress who create the conditions for mass shootings and gun violence because they have been bought and sold by the apostles of the death industry. These are the same politicians who support the militarization of everyday life, who trade in torture, who bow down slavishly to the arms industries and who wallow in the handouts provided by the military-industrial-academic complex.

These utterly corrupted politicians are killers in suits whose test of courage and toughness was captured in one of the recent Republican presidential debates, when candidate Ben Carson was asked by Hugh Hewitt, a reactionary right-wing talk show host, if he would be willing to kill thousands of children in the name of exercising tough leadership. As if killing innocent children is a legitimate test for leadership. This is what the warmongering politics of hysterical fear with its unbridled focus on terrorism has come to – a future that will be defined by moral and political zombies who represent the real face of terrorism, domestic and otherwise.

Clearly, the cause of violence in the United States will not stop by merely holding the politicians responsible. What is needed is a mass political movement willing to challenge and replace a broken system that gives corrupt and warmongering politicians excessive political and economic power. Democracy and justice are on life support and the challenge is to bring them back to life not by reforming the system but by replacing it. This will only take place with the development of a politics in which the obligation to justice is matched by an endless responsibility to collective struggle.

Note: Parts of this article were drawn from an earlier version published at CounterPunch.

Copyright, Truthout. May not be reprinted without permission of the author.

Comparte este contenido:

Ya esta en circulación el número 1 del Volumen 52 de la revista Comparative Education

educacion compa 1

Adjunto pueden revisar el indice  del número 1 del Volumen 52 de la revista Comparative Education que acaba de ser editado.

Comparative Education, Volume 52, Issue 1, February 2016 is now available online on Taylor & Francis Online.

Special Issue: Internationalisation and Development in East Asian Higher Education: Some Excitements and Errors

This new issue contains the following articles:

 

Introduction
Internationalisation and development in East Asian higher education: an introduction
Terri Kim
Pages: 1-7 | DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2016.1144309

Articles

Putting higher education in its place in (East Asian) political economy
Bob Jessop
Pages: 8-25 | DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1128659

The concept of greater China in higher education: adoptions, dynamics and implications |
William Yat Wai Lo
Pages: 26-43 | DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1125613

Mobility, formation and development of the academic profession in science, technology, engineering and mathematics in East and South East Asia
Akiyoshi Yonezawa, Hugo Horta & Aki Osawa
Pages: 44-61 | DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1125617

Administrative practices as institutional identity: bureaucratic impediments to HE ‘internationalisation’ policy in Japan
Gregory S. Poole
Pages: 62-77 | DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1125615

Western faculty ‘flight risk’ at a Korean university and the complexities of internationalisation in Asian higher education
Stephanie K. Kim
Pages: 78-90 | DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1125620

Internationalisation without cultural diversity? Higher education in Korea
Rennie J. Moon
Pages: 91-108 | DOI: 10.1080/03050068.2015.1125679

 

 

Fuente:  Luis Mª Naya Garmendia (Lista EDU-COMP)

Comparte este contenido:
Page 1661 of 1667
1 1.659 1.660 1.661 1.662 1.663 1.667