j.1741-5446.1980.Tb00934.x] Timothy Reagan -- The Foundations of Ivan Illich ' s Social Thought

7/29/2019 j.1741-5446.1980.Tb00934.x] Timothy Reagan -- The Foundations of Ivan Illich ' s Social Thought

1/14

EDUCATIONAL THEORYFall 1980, Vol. 30, No. 4@ 1980 by the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois

Th e Foun dat ions o f Ivan I ll i ch 's Soc ia l Though t*By Timothy ReaganI.

Ivan Illich, throughout his prolific writings and activities, has maintained a consis-tent and identifiable theoretical conception of what he considers to be the "justsociety." This conception seems to be grounded, to a considerable extent, not inthe libertarian or radical perspectives from which he draws his critique of contem-porary society (both capitalist and hierarchical socialist),' but rather in the medievalideal of human society.

The medieval ideal of human society stresses the cooperative nature of humanendeavor, as well as the ties of the individual both to the social community and tonature. The partial dichotomy which emerges here between the individual and thecommunity is based on a clear acceptance of the independent existence and onto-logical significance of the individual- point to which I will refer shortly.Further, this ideal carries with it a number of other cogent tenets which havemajor socio-economic, political, and religious implications. Among these are thenotion of the dignity of poverty (most clearly exemplified in the medieval view ofthe mendicant), the concept of legitimate or "just" authority (which, although re-lated to both the notion of the "Great Chain of Being" and that of Divine Right, isnot dependent on either), and the conception of the central role to be played byreligion (or, more accurately, by religious faith) in both social and individual life.

It is important, I think, to clearly distinguish and explicate the ways in whichthis concept differs from contemporary mainstream ideology in the West (i.e., NewLiberalism), which has been one of the frequent, if generally unarticulated, targetsof Ill ich's work . While there are, in fact, some surface similarities, these two concep-tions o f society are, Iwould suggest, basically incompatible.

The notion of community is a good example of this theoretical incompatibility.While bo th the New Liberal society and I llich's ideal stress the cooperative natureof the social community, and while both seem to accept a transcendental view ofcommunity, the two conceptions are nonetheless far from parallel. The New Liberalconcept ion views the individualicommunity dichotomy as a false one, since, it isasserted, an individual is socially constituted and, hence, has no meaningful inde-Timothy Reagan is a Ph.D. candidate, Department of Educational Policy Studies, University ofIllinois at Urbana-Champaign.

A shorte r version of this paper appeared in the Journal of the Midwest History of Educa-tion Society 9 (1981). I am grateful to Patricia Amburgy, James Anderson, Gloria Cordon deBunker, Ruth Burnham. Clarence Karier, Gabrielle Lakomski, Mary Leach, Timothy O'Hanlon,Ralph Page, Philip Steedman, Rudolph Troike, and Paul Violas for their help and support.1. llli ch has been described as a libertarian, a revolutionary, a radical, a participatory so-cialist, a supporter of entrepreneurial capitalism, and probably everything in between. Forexamples of this broad range of perceptions, see Robin Barrow, Radical Education (New York:John Wiley & Sons, 1978); Herbert Gintis, "Toward a Poli tica l Economy of Educat ion: A RadicalCritique of Ivan Illich's Deschooling Society," in Ivan lllich et al., After Deschooling, What?(New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1973); Carl G. Hedman, "The 'Deschooling ' ControversyRevisited: A Defense of Illich's 'Participatory Socialism','' Educational Theory 29, 2 (Spring1979); Hugh G. Petrie, "Review of Ivan Illich, Deschool ing Society," Educationa l Theory 22, 4(Fall 1972); Joaqu in Saenz y Arriaga, Cuernavaca y e l progresimo religioso en Mexico (Mexico:1967); and Madan Sarup. Marxism and Education (London: Routledge 8 Kegan Paul, 1978).

293 VOLUME 30, NUMBER


2/14

294 EDUCATIONALHEORYpendent existence apart from the community.2 Further, this perspective sees theend of the community as the maintenance and continuity of the community itself.Sharing the New Liberal rejection of the individuallcommunity dichotomy tosome extent, the medieval concept ion of the "just society" is less able to make thisrejection a universal one. This is so for a number of reasons. First, while arguingthat in the ideal, the dichotomy between the individual and the community oughtto be minimal, this perspective does recognize the unlikelihood of this fortuitousdevelopment, and therefore, the need to plan for dissonance which need not beblamed on the individual. This demonstrates a fundamental dis tinction betweenthe two social ideologies: New Liberalism perceives any conflict between the indi-vidual and the community as dysfunctional, and symptomatic of a problem of ad-justment in the individual, while the medieval notion sees some conflic t as a posi-tive and functional social force (e.g., the role played by saints and, in an earlier age,by the Prophets), and also as potentially (though not necessarily) demonstrativeof social, rather than individual, ills.Second, t h e medieval ideal's rejection of the individuallcommunity dichotomyis less total due to its basic acceptance of the notion of independent and free indi-viduality, as noted earlier. While stressing the need for and desirability of socialcooperation, this ideal also emphasizes the individual's personal responsibility- or example, for ethical decision-making in accord with Moral Law (especiallyas manifested in informed individual conscience), thus limiting the extent to whichthe community can legitimately supersede the individual.

Related to this idea of individual responsibility is a notion of the end of thecommunity which is very different from that of the New Liberal conception of socialends. The community, as understood in medieval social theory, has what Dante,writing at the start of the fourteenth ~ e n t u r y , ~eferred to as duo ult irna -two finalgoals. The first, religious regeneration leading to salvation, is to be achievedthrough membership in the religious community - ut nevertheless on an essen-tially individual, rather than communal, basis. The second goal is happiness in thepresent world, which is achieved through the civil community, and which will bemore, if not completely, communal in orientation. These duo ultima can be reached,it is believed, only together, as two parts of a greater whole. The distinction betweenthe New Liberal and medieval conceptions of social ends, then, is related to therote to be played by the individual in the community, as wel l as to the issue ofwhether the central concern of the just social order is the community or the indi-viduals which compose the community.Although typical of the differences between the medieval and New Liberalconceptions of society, the notion of community is but one of several very goodexamples which might be presented here. Other possibi lities would include therole of nature in both individual and social l ife, the nature, origin, and limitationsof legitimate authority, the question of alienation, the nature of and problems withsocial institutions, the goal of human life, the role of religious faith (both personallyand socially), and so on. In each of these cases, I believe that a good argument

2. This is, of course, a grossly over-simptified analysis of New Liberal thought. I do notmean to suggest that New Liberalism is entirely consistent internally, nor that all of its manifes-tations will totally ignore the separate existence of the individual. I do think, however, that areasonably valid case might be made (emphasizing George Herbert Mead, for example) whichwould support the general contention that the individualicommunity dichotomy is, for NewLiberalism, a problematic one.Another approach to this issue is to stress the difference between the articulation and theeffects of an ideology. In the case of New Liberalism, Isuspect that it could be shown that thesetwo concepts are, despite some apparent inconsistencies, fundamentally in accord on mostissues, and that if the rhetoric of ideological articulation is carefully examined, rather thansimpty taken at face value, it can i n fact be shown to support a variety of very undesirable (and,I think, immoral) social developments.3. See Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought, Vol. 1 (Cambridge:Cambridge University Press, 1978), p. 17 .

FALL1980


3/14

IVAN LLICHSOCIALTHOUGHT 295could be presented to suggest that the two ideological perspectives will result notonly in different, but in incompatible, analyses and social policies.

In the next section of this paper, Ivan Illich s treatment of schooling in contem-porary society will be examined, and an attempt will be made to relate this treat-ment to what I believe is the underlying, essentially medieval, social theory. It willthen be suggested, though in less detail, that the same sort of analysis would beapplicable to Il lich s treatment of other components of modern society- nergy,medicine, and rel igion being the most obvious cases i n point.

I I .

Illi chs critique of schooling, like his critiques of other social institutions, isessentially dialectical, first stressing the flaws and problems with the current situ-ation, and second, offering an alternative model of what might be. His insights vis-a-vis problems in contemporary schooling are both acute and profound, and hismodel of the deschooled society is a creative and intriguing one. What he fails toprovide- s do so many other educational critics- s a reasonable descriptionof how, if we so desired, we might get from what is to what ought to be. This prob-lem, which I believe to be common to all of Illichs institutional critiques, leavesone with the fear that, as the old Vermont farmer once observed with regard to an-other problem, You cant get there from here. This is, however, a problem of anature quite different from that with which most of this section will be concerned,and one which is, I think, far more easily resolved than those whi ch m ight be derivedfrom the analysis which follows.

The dialectical stance which lllich adopts for his critique of schooling can beseen clearly in the distinct ion he draws between the concept of schooling andthat of education. This distinction, which is founded on differences in functionand consequence, is central to Illichs argument. Schooling is a compulsory,age-specific institutional process, carried out by and in schools, for the good ofthe society (or, more accurately, the good of the elite in the society), and includessuch functions as custodial care, sorting and tracking, indoctr inat ion and socializa-tion, and, to a limit ed extent, education. Education refers to an individual pro-cess, and is tied up with rather vague notions of the voluntary acquisition by theindividual of the common moral, cultural, and aesthetic values which togetherconstitute our social capital - the righ t to which is, for Illich, a naturalThe negative side of Illi chs dialectic is schooling, the positive side, education.It is worthwhile to reiterate and explicate the functions of modern schoolingas lllich -qu ite rightly, I think - erceives them. The first function of schoolingis that of providing custodial care:

As much as anything else, schooling implies custodial care for persons whoare declared undesirable elsewhere by the simple fact that a school has beenbuilt to serve them. The schooU is supposed to take the excess populationfrom the street, the family or the labor force.5

This custodial function of schooling, incidentally, is no less applicable to seniorcitizens who are encouraged to return to the classroom than it is to ten-year-oldsremoved from the home, or sixteen-year-olds from the work force.The second function of schooling is the process of social-role selection,wh ich takes place as a consequence of the deliberate, planned sorting and trackingwhich occurs in the school in a variety of ways. This sorting is based, primarily, onwhat lll ich terms the ideology of merit - hat is, on a belief in the meritocraticideal. This ideal is reinforced by the school in its role as certifying agency, which

4. Michael Macklin,When Schools are Gone: A Projection of the Though t of /van lllich (St.5. Ivan Illich, The Futility of Schooling in Latin America, Saturday Review 51 (20 AprilLucia, Queensland: University of Queensland Press, 1976), p. 46.1968): 58, quoted in Macklin, p. 25.

VOLUME30, NUMBER


4/14

296 EDUCATIONALHEORYensures the continuity of faith in the efficacy of schooling. This is not to say, ofcourse, that schools, any more than contemporary society as a whole, actually aremeritocratic. lll ich is well aware of the social class, racial, ethnic, sexual, and othervariables which prevent the development of a true meritocratic order. His critiqueextends, however, even to the perfect meritocracy:

A perfect meritocracy, in which there would be n o excuses, is no t yet uponus, and I believe it can be avoided. It must be avoided, since a perfect meri-tocracy would not only be hellish, it would beThe third function performed by schooling is the socialization, or indoctrina-

tion, of the young into the social order- social order which lllich sees as funda-mentally unjust, based on an acceptance of social conformity, consumerism, andthe "ideology of merit" whi ch together serve to perpetuate social ills. This is accom-plished, in large part, through the "hidden curriculum" of the school, which one ofIll ich's supporters has identified as the "main thrust" of his critique of contempo-rary ~c ho o l in g . ~The fourth function of schooling, which only rarely occurs, lllich implies, iseducation. From his discussion of this aspect of schooling, it is clear that lllichviews such a result as happening in spite of, rather than because of, schooling. Infact, lllich asserts that "the school has an anti-educational effect on society"a aswell as on the individual.

A central feature of Il lich 's paradigm for the examination of social institutionsis the nature of the institution itself. Institutions, lllich believes, fall along a spec-trum, ranging from left to righ t in terms of the extent to which they are, respectively,"convivial" or "manipulative." The former are the ideal desired by Illich, and aredistinguished by spontaneous, voluntary use, though use marked by some degreeof regulation. The latter, which lllich argues are the dominant type in modern soci-ety, are coercive in nature, tend to be socially and/or psychologically "addictive,"are very complex, and entail produc tion processes whi ch result in conv incing con-sumers of their need for the goods or services offered by the i n s t i t ~ t i o n . ~chools,of course, are insti tutions of the "manipulative" sort : they are compulsory stateinstitutions, they breed i n their c lientele an ever-expanding desire for more of theirservices, they are incredibly complex, and certainly they convince their clients(both successes and failures) of the need fo r the services provided by the school.A s will be discussed in detail later, Illich's alternative to this state of affairs is thedevelopment of "convivial" institutions to encourage the process of education.Within the institution of schooling, one of the major components which re-quires greater examination is the role of the teacher. The teacher in the modernschool has, in Ill ich' s view, become an impediment, rather than an aid, to the pro-cess of education.1 This has come about as a result of the tr iple role the teacher isexpected to play: as custodian, moralist , and therapist." As lllich comments,

Children are protected by neither the First nor the Fifth Amendment whenthey stand before the secular priest, the teacher. The child must confronta man who wears an invisible triple crown, like the papal tiara, the symbolof trip le authority combined in one person. For the child, the teacher pon-tificates as pastor, prophet, and priest- e is at once guide, teacher, andadministrator of a sacred ritual.'*6. Ivan Illich, Ceiebration of Awareness (Garden City, N.Y. : Doubleday & Co., Inc., 1969),p. 182.7. Macklin, When Schools are Gone, p. 25.8. Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1970), p. 11.9. See Illich, Deschooling Society, Chapter 4.10. Ivan Illich, "Critica a la liturgia de la enseiianza," in Paulo Freire et al., Educacion para11. Illich, Deschooling Society, pp. 44-46.12. Ibid., p. 46.

el cambio social (Buenos Aires: Tierra Nueva, 1974+), p. 103.

FALL1980


5/14

IVAN LLICH'SSOCIALTHOUGHT 297Finally, the school as a manipulative institution must be understood to be a

universal phenomenon - ne no longer grounded in any particular ideology. lllichargues that:It does not matter whether the curriculum is designed to teach the principleso f Fascism, liberalism, Catholicism, socialism or liberation, as long as theinstitution claims the authority to define which activities are legitimate"education."l

Further, in draw ing attention to the fact that the ritual of schooling itself consti-tutes an important aspect of the "hidden c u r r i ~ u l u m , " ~ ~llich notes:

In all nations, the educated use the same ritual to seduce and obligate othersto accept their faith [in schooIing].l5

An important facet of Ill ich's attack on contemporary schooling is his crit iqueof the epistemological foundations upon which modern schooling is based. lllichasserts that know ledge has become object ified. As a consequence, schools areseen as factories which produce "knowledge-as-commodity, " rather than as aid-ing the individual to subjectively come to "know." The distinction here is that ofknowledge and knowing- he former being a thing which can be possessed, thelatter an individual process which cannot be reified.

This distinction is related, I believe, to what lllich calls the "functional shift ofinstitutions."i6 This shift involves the transition from "frameworks of act ion" to"factories of goods," and can be seen in the linguistic shift which accompanies it.For example, "educating children" has become "giving children an education,"just as "housing oneself" has become "buying a house."

Further, the distinction between knowledge and knowing is demonstratedwith great clarity in Illich's refusal to allow competence and curriculum (i.e., certifi-cation) to be collapsed into a single concept,17 as is generally the case in modernsociety.The preceding discussion constitutes what might be termed the negative sideof the dialectic which llli ch establishes for his examination of "education" in itsconventional, institutional form in contemporary society. The positive side of thedialectic, which lll ich calls the "deschooled society," presents us with a very dif-ferent image of how the process of education might be institutionally undertakenby society.

A number of introductory and reiterative comments about the contrasts be-tween the "schooled" and "deschooled" societies are appropriate here. The endsof each are distinct, if not actually in diametric opposition. The end of the "schooled"society is the trained (i.e., indoctrinated) person, while that of the deschooled so-ciety is the educated human being. In short, the former may be said to school, thelatter to educate- rocesses which are, I think, quit e different.Further, these processes are carried out in social insitutions of similarly dis-tinct natures. Schools, as conceptualized in modern society, are manipulative insti-tutions, while "learning webs" and educational vouchers are convivial ones.

Finally, as noted earlier, the view of knowledge found in the two sorts of soci-eties are fundamentally incompatible. The "schooled" society in which we live seesknowledge as a good or commodity which is quantitatively disseminated in specificsocial institutions (schools), and whose differential possession serves to explainand justify social inequities. The deschooled society, on the other hand, perceives

13. Ivan Illich, The Alternat ive to Schooling, p. 3, quoted in Macklin, When Schools are14. Illich, Deschooling Society, p. 48 .15. Illich, "Critica a l a liturgia de la ensehanza," p. 102.16. Ivan lllich and Etienne Verne, imprisoned in the Global Classroom (London: Writers17. Illich, Deschooling Society, p. 17.

Gone, p. 27.

and Readers Publishing Cooperative, 1976). p. 27 .

VOLUME30, NUMBER


6/14

298 EDUCATIONALHEORYknowledge more in terms of the process of kn ow in g- a notion not amenable toeasy quantification. This process of knowing can be facilitated by interaction withothers, but is not- nd cannot be- istributed in manipulative institutions likeso many bowls of watered-down soup.Illich's conception of the deschooled society, which he believes to have alreadybegun to evolve,18 wi ll entail four interrelated developments. The first of these de-velopments is quite simply the disestablishment of schools. As schools are dis-established, three sets of convivial institutions must be set up. The first of thesewould be a systematic method of providing equal access to whatever educationalresources individuals might desire. To perform this function, lllich proposes as atentative alternative some sort of educational voucher system. The second and thirdconvivial institutions to be established are networks of educational "tools" andpeople, which will together comprise a virtually unlimited series of "learning webs."

These convivial educational institutions share three core concerns. The firstof these concerns is an emphasis on inculcating care for others as individuals,rather than for self or for the transcendental society as a whole.1g The second isthat the central aim of educational institutions must be the provision of "access toreality," which is a step toward a "celebration of awareness."z0 Finally, the thirdconcern is that the right to education is a "natural righ t" possessed by each indi-vidual by virtue of the individual's humanity.

These core concerns are manifested in the criteria which lllich argues must bemet by alternatives to contemporary schooling for them to be acceptable. Amongthese criteria are such considerations as ensuring that education be open to a l lpersons in the society, that i t be available when people need or desire it, that it avoidinstitutionalizing (in a manipulative sense) either the subject matter or the peda-gogical methodology, and that it reject a conception of "knowledge-as-commodity.''Deschooling, lllich believes, meets all of these criteria.

Illich's critique of contemporary schooling, while both valid and useful, isneither as unique nor as original as it is sometimes suggested. The critique is pri-marily a description of modern industrial-bureaucratic schooling, stressing a vari-ety of problems which were common knowledge long before Illich. A s MaxineGreene has noted,

Presenting not the slightest evidence that he has read the literature ofeducation, lllich picks out the very problems with which educational re-searchers and philosophers have been concerned for at least fifty yearsand displays them before our (presumably horrified) eyes.. . . I find it diffi-cult to understand how people who are familiar with the literature can reactto Illich's reports upon the schools as i f he were bringing the news thatGod is dead."While I think that Greene has failed to recognize some important distinctions be-tween Illich's message and the educational research and discussion which pre-ceded him- ot the least of which is Ill ich's successful role in aiding the popu-larization of both knowledge of and concern about educational problems- wouldmaintain that it is the critique of contemporary schooling which is the least con-troversial component of Illich's work.It is, rather, I think, with his description of the deschooled society that lllichpresents a creative and distinctive alternative to that which precedes his arrival onthe pedagogic scene. And, it is in his conception of the deschooled society thatIlli ch's essentially medieval social theory is manifested. Il lich's deschooled societyis, in short, basically a description of education as it emerges in medieval socialthought.

18. ll lich and Verne, lmprisoned in the Global Classroom, pp. 15-16.19. Macklin, When Schools are Gone, pp. 55-56.20. See Illich, " A Call to Celebration," in Celebration of Awareness, pp. 13-18.21. Maxine Greene, "And It Still Is News," in Ivan lllich et al., After Deschooling, What?,p. 129.FALL1980


7/14

IVANLLICH'SOCIALTHOUGHT 299Central to an adequate understanding of the concept of deschooling is the

nature of the convivial institution. lllich emphasizes that one of the central featuresof such an institution is to encourage the development in each person of a concernfor others as individuals, rather than being either egocentric or poliscentric (wherethe polis, or community, is viewed as a whole rather than as a grouping of individualparts). This concern is quite like that of the medieval concept ion of the "good com-munity," in which the biblical injunction to "love thy neighbor as thyself" is effected.It is just such a community that is posited by St. Thomas Aquinas in Chapter 13 o fOn the Perfection of th e Spir itual Life.22A second feature of the convivial institution is that it provides "access to reality"which plays a role in the development of the "celebration of awareness." Both ofthese ideas are grounded in what is a predominantly theocentric view of the world.The former entails a rejection of the current relativistic conception of social reality- s exhibited in such movements as the rise of situational ethics, the shift in phi-losophy of science from the positivism of Popper to the near-anarchism of Feyera-bend, the increasingly common "suit yourself" brand of individualism, and so forth.The latter idea, most clearly enunciated in Illich's " A Call t o C e l e b r a t i ~ n , "~ ~s cen-tered on the desirability of "living change" rather than on relying on planned orengineered illusions. Ultimately, it seems to me, this ideal is a religious one, aimedat increasing- hrough both social and spiritual activity- ankind's humanity,dignity , and " jo y f ~ l ne ss ." ~~

Finally, the reliance of Illich's defense of the convivial instit ution on the notionof innate "natural rights" is an interesting one. It appears to me that this concept,in I llich's case, is embedded in an acceptance of the /ex naturalis- ot, as onemight suppose, in the conception of natural rights which emerged during theperiod of the Enlightenment. The distinction between these two perspectives isan important one: the former presupposes a metaphysical foundation for the law(hence, emphasis on /ex), whi le the latter is a rational, nontheistic const ruct (hence,emphasis onIllich's descript ion of "learning webs," which play a major role i n his concep-tion o f the deschooled society, calls manorial life to mind. On first reading, ofcourse, lllich sounds considerably more egalitarian than would make such a con-nection reasonable. However, it is important to bear in m ind that l llich does acceptan authority structure, recognizes the need for both social rules and individualdiscipline, and does no t call for any sort of egalitarian revolution. Further, lllich isconsistently vague on all of these issues. I tend to agree with Neil Postman, whenhe argues that,

lllich i s not only a mystic and a utopian but an authoritarian as well., . .Illich's eye is firmly fixed on the goal, which fixation is the essence of au-thoritarianism.26One is further reminded of medieval society on a number of other points .Illich's rejection of certification in favor of competence is clearly much more com-

patible with medieval conceptions of society than with modern ones. So, indeed,are his conception of knowledge, his non-age specific educational schema,27 andhis non-compulsory conception of social order. Last, running consistently through-

22 . See Vernon J. Bourke (ed.),The Pocket Aquinas (New York: Washington Square Press,Inc., 19601, pp. 258-59.23. lll ich, Celebration of Awareness, pp. 13-18.24. Ibid., p. 15.25. See A. P . d'Entreves, Natural Law (London: Hutchinson University Library, 1970),26. Neil Postman, "My lllich Problem," in lllich et al.,Af ter Deschooling, W h a t ? , pp. 143-44.27. Philippe Aries' masterful work, Centuries of Childhood (New York: Random House,

Chapters 3 and 4.

1962), comes to mind here.

VOLUME30, NUMBER


8/14

300 EDUCATIONALHEORYout Illichs writing, both on education and other issues, is a view of poverty whichis quite alien to the modern world, and just as feasible in the medieval. ll lich seespoverty as granting a special sort of dignity, and potentially offering a conceptionof social reality wh ich could be envied by those in more prosperous settings.28In the thirteenth century, lacopone da Todi wrote:

He that has Poverty for LoveHas for dominion peace..High Wisdom is in Poverty,For nothing holds her thrall.. .A mystic heaven is Poverty,To earth-dim eyes concealed . . .That man is poor who, having naught,From will to have is free.zs

Ivan ll lich would, I think, agree with such sentiments.111.

His critique of contemporary schooling is but one side of a many-faceted as-sault mounted against modern society by Ivan Illich. It was chosen for more indepthtreatment here for tw o major reasons. First, lll ich is perhaps best known for hiseducational writings, especially Deschooling Society. The second reason thatIllich s educational thought was singled out was that it is the most prolific part ofthe corpus of his work, and hence the most complete theoretical construction. Thisis not meant to imply, however, that Illichs treatment of other social institutions isin any significant way different from his treatment of schooling. It is not, a claimI hope to make good below for each of the major social institutions which lllichcritiques.

Illi chs perspective on energy, most specifically on the current energy crisis,is based, as was his perspective on schooling, on a dialectical view of the situation.His critique is based on the notion that the rhetoric surrounding the energy crisisconceals a contradiction and consecrates an i l l ~ s i o n . ~ he contradiction towhich this refers is that between social equity (and, for Illich, social justice) andcontinued industrial growth. This contradic tion is often emphasized in Illichs work.In terms of schools, for example, lllich often notes that as increasing amounts arespent on schooling (especially in Latin America), the result is increasingly divisiveand rigid social class ~tratification.~he illusion which is being consecrated bythe rhetoric of the energy crisis, according to Illich, is that machine power can, vir-tually indefinitely , take the place of manpower.

This combination of contradiction and illusion leads to a reliance on bureau-cratic, expert elites in both overindustrialized nations such as the United States,and underequipped nations such as those of Latin America. In both cases, the loseris human freedom:

Underequipment keeps people enslaved to primordial nature and limitstheir freedom. Overindustrialization does not admit of differences in pro-duction and political style. It imposes its technical characteristics on socialrelations.3

28. Illich, Celebration of Awareness, p. 173. See also lllich and Verne, lmprisoned in the29. Quoted in Walter Shewring, Rich and Poor in Christian Tradition (London: Burns Oates30. Ivan Illich, Energy and Equity (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc., 1974), p. 3.31. See, for example, Illich, Celebration o f Awareness, pp. 105-35.32. Illich, Energy an d Equity, p. 74.

Global Classroom, pp. 20-21 and Illich. Critica a la liturgia enseiianza, p. 114.8 Washbourne, 1948), pp. 145-50.

FALL1980


9/14

IVAN ILLICHSSOCIALTHOUGHT 301Illi chs solu tion to this unpleasant state of affairs is founded primarily on the

return of decision-making power to the sound judgement of the common rnan.S3His faith in this sound judgement is, alas, no more clear or reassuring than arethe two roads to technical maturity which he proposes, liberation from affluenceand l iberat ion from d e p e n d e n ~ e . ~ ~t the admitted risk of over-simplifying Illichsargument with respect to energy, it seems to me that his whole perspective issummed up in the quote with which his Energy and Equity begins: E l socialismopuede llegar solo en b i ~ i c l e t a . ~ ~rom this, it is a short step indeed to the medievalconcept ion of society.

The theme of Ill ich s most recent work, Medical Nemesis, is that the ability ofman to cope with pain, impairment, and death- ll integral parts of human life-has been systematically expropriated by a maintenance service (the medical pro-fession) which serves not the needs of the individual, but rather those of the cor-porate industrial society. The consequence of this development has been whatllli ch terms the medicalization of life, a pol it ica l process which serves to ensurecontinued reliance on both modern technology and the industrial mode of produc-tion whi ch underlies it.36A central feature of this process of medicalization is iatrogenesis, wh ichrefers to the diseases, illnesses, and side-effects which are physician-ind~ced.~~This concept, coupled with an analysis which seeks to demonstrate the impotenceof most contemporary medical care, is the foundation of Illi chs cal l (here as else-where) for the re-establishment of the autonomy of the individual, and the end ofbureaucratically-managed and supported health care.

The alternative proposed by lllich is that society must adopt an extreme disci-pline grounded in an acceptance of a new imperative, which he sums up as:

Ac t so that the effect of your action is compatible with the permanenceof genuine human life.38This new imperative, wh ich is tied up in an unspecified way with an ethical awaken-i t ~ g , ~ ~ill mean, in practice, that

People will l imit medical therapies because they will want to conserve theiropportunity and power to heal Better health care will not depend onsome new therapeutic standard, but on the level of willingness and compe-tence to engage in sel f -~ a re .~ ~The post-Vatican II era has witnessed the emergence of a theologically sophis-ticated, socially active minority in the Church. This minority, generally referred to

as either radical Catholics or the Catholic left, has called for major changesin both the structure and orientation of the Church. Among the suggestions offeredby this group for the regeneration of the Church are a married clergy, a greater rolefor social activism within and by the Church, rejection of celibacy, the ordinationof women, the disestablishment of the episcopal structure of the Church, and are-examination of the permanence of ordination to the priesthood. Often this grouphas been at the forefront of the l iturgical reform in the Church, has been very activein seeking solutions to social problems (poverty, the war in Vietnam, etc.), and has

33. Ibid., p. 75.34. Ibid., pp. 75-76.35. Jose Antonio Viera-Gallo, Assistant Secretary of Justice in the Government of Salvador36. Ivan Illich, Medical Nemesis: The Expropriation of Health (London: Calder & Boyars,37. Ibid., pp. 21-25.38. Ibid., p. 163.39. Ibid., p. 164.40. Ibid., p. 165.

Allende, quoted in Illich, Energy and Equity, p. 1.1975), p. 11.

VOLUME 30. NUMBER


10/14

302 EDUCATIONALHEORYbeen the most active contingent of the Church in the opening of the Marxist-Christian dialogue.It would be easy to place Illich in this camp. Many of his religious views, hisproblems with the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith (which led to his resig-nation from the prie~thood),~'nd h is close affiliation with the progressive Bishopof Cuernavaca, Mendez Arceo, would all provide evidence for a left-wing religiousorientation. Just such a pos ition is argued by Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga,42 represent-ing the ultra-conservative elements in the Mexican Church. However, lllich is nomore radical vis-a-vis the Church than he is with respect to education, energy, ormedicine. In fact, lllich himself comments that such radical alternatives in theChurch are "neither sufficiently revolutionary to b e worth while ( si c) . . . nor suffi-ciently faithful to fundamental traditional position^."^^ Rather, lllich asserts that:

Great changes must take place in the structure of the Catholic Church if itis to survive. I believe that such changes will come about and, moreover,that they can now be visualized in terms consistent wit h the most radicallytraditional theology.44

llli ch has discussed a number of these "great changes" in the Church in somedetail. For example, he suggests that the problems faced by the Church today withrespect to the role and nature of the priesthood might be solved by reconceptualiz-ing the diaconate in such a way as to allow for the ordination of both married andsecularly employed men.45 In fact, ll lich asserts that "the ordination of secularlyemployed men may be one of the Church's great advances."46

lllich proffers such a projection of the nature of the priesthood in the future asa result of two related beliefs. The first of these beliefs concerns Ill ich' s conceptionof the ideal social role or function of the priest in modern society. Rather than see-ing the priest as community leader, counselor, moral guardian, religious educator,and so on, lll ich argues that the only role a priest should play as priest is that of pre-siding over the celebration of the sacraments. For the priest to perform other func-tions as priest is to "feign competence" where it does not really exist, and whereothers are better able to serve.47

The second cornerstone of Illich's critique of the nature of contemporaryCatholicism (the Church as "It," rather than as "She")48 is the belief that the bureau-cratic aspects of the Church are in fact dysfunctional, as, perhaps, might well beefficiency. The bureaucratic maze that comprises most of the visible Church today,in Illich's view, actually impedes the maintenance and spread of the Christian lifein the world. Further, lllich sees the corporate structure of the Church as unaccep-table for the achievement of what ought to be its aims:

Principles of corporate government are not applicable to the Body of Christ.It is even less appropriate to see His Vicar as the chief executive of a cor-poration than as a Byzantine king. Clerical technocracy is even furtherfrom the Gospel than priestly ar i s t o ~ r a c y . ~ ~

41. See Ocampo V. Tarsicio (comp.), Mexico "Entredicho" del Vatican0 a CIDOC, 7966-69(Cuernavaca: CIDOC, 1969), No. 37, for a complete description of this conflic t. See also Francinedu Plessix Gray, Divine Disobedience: Profiles in Catholic Radicalism (New York: Random House,1970), pp. 306-14.42. Joaquin Saenz y Arriaga, Cuernavaca y el progresmo religioso en Mexico.43. Illich, Celebration of Awareness, p. 70.44. Ibid., p. 69.45. Ibid., pp. 78, 82.46. Ivan Illich, The Church, Change and Development (Chicago: Herder and Herder, 1970),47. Ibid., pp. 72-73; also, Il lich, Celebration of Awareness, pp. 84-85.48. du Plessix Gray, Divine Disobedience, p. 289.49. Illich, Celebration of Awareness, p. 75 .

p. 66.

FALL 1980


11/14

IVANLLICHSSOCIAL HOUGHT 303A final note with respect to Illichs view of the contemporary Church concernsthe different perspective on the social initiative of the Church as a religious institu-tion, and its role in effecting social change. lllich suggests that innovative social

action must be the responsibility of groups committed to radical humanism ratherthan to gospel authority, as the Church must be.50This is so because:If the Church uses the pow er basis she h a s .. . then she perpetuates herinabi l ity to wi tness to that wh ich is speci f ic in her mission.51

Illichs ideal conception of the role of the church in human society is, in a way,the hardest to reconcile with medieval notions of society. This is due, I think, tothe role actually played by the Church in feudal Europe- role which we recallas one of far greater complexity and range than that envisioned for the Church bylllich. However, it nevertheless seems to me that Illichs ideal is considerably morecompatible and consistent with medieval social theory than was the actual medievalpractice. It should be recalled that one of the major problems confronted by medi-eval social thinkers was reconciling the role played by the Church, both at the localand the international levels, with the spiritual ideal it was in theory obligated (andindeed in practice claimed) to uphold.52What I have tried to demonstrate thus far is that the connection between Illichsideal educational structures and medieval social theory is not unusual or out ofplace in Illichs more general social thought. It appears that with every social insti-tution with which lllich grapples- hether it be energy, medicine, or religion-his ideal of what o u g h t to be is either derived from, or at least very compatible with,medieval notions of the just society.

IV .The centrality o f Roman Catholicism to Ivan Illichs social thought has beenmuch commented upon, and I suspect that few would doubt its impact on his views.It is important to stress, at this point, that the religious aspects of Illichs socialthought are not simply parallel to other equally relevant concerns, but rather are,in themselves, fundamental to his conception of social reality. Further, it is alsoimportant to note that within the general rubric of Catholicism there are a vast rangeof very different social constructions of reality. l llich is Catholic, I think, in a sensequite different from both mainstream Catholicism and that Catholicism whichtakes as a central tenet of its faith the theology of liberation. His faith is, as arehis social and political attitudes, far more medieval than modern. At this point, Iwould like to build upon the description of Illichs social thought vis-a-vis religion,as enunciated in the preceding section, to suggest the origins and emphases ofIllichs metaphysical leanings.To point out that he was trained as a priest would, although true, be far from anadequate description of what that means in Illichs case. lllich earned masters de-grees in both theology and philosophy at the Gregorian University in Rome (nottraining to be scoffed at), before obtaining a Ph.D. in history at the University ofSalzburg where he wrote a dissertation on Toynbee. Due to his outstanding aca-demic record, lllich was encouraged by the Holy See to enter the Collegio di Nobili50. Ibid., p . 102.51. Ibid.52. This tension between the ideal of Christ ian universal ism and papal secular ism in the faceof the r is ing author i ty of nation al monarchs is ref lected in Bo ni face Vl l l s papal bul l , Unam Sanc-

turn, as wel l as in his ear l ier Cleric is Laicos, Ineffabi l is Amor, Et si de Statu, an d Auscul taFilii. SeeMaurice Keen, The Pelican History of Medieval Europe (Harmondswoflh, Middlesex: PenguinBo oks, 1968), pp. 207-22, The Pol i t ical Though t of t he Fourteenth-Century Civi lians, in B erylSmalley (ed.), Trends in Medieval Pol i t ical Thought (New York: Barnes& Nob le, Inc ., 1965); WalterUl lman, A History o f Pol i t ical Thought: The Middle Ages (Bal t im ore: Pengu in Bo oks, 1965), pp.110-1 3.

VOLUME 30, NUMBER


12/14

304 EDUCATIONALHEORYEcclesiastici, where the most talented i n the Churchs ranks are trained for careersin the Vaticans diplomatic corps. Instead, he moved to New York in 1951, wherehe served as assistant pastor in an Irish-Puerto Rican parish unt il 1956. He thenserved as vice-rector of the Catholic University of Puerto Rico. He co-founded theCentro Intercul tural de Documentac ion in Cuernavaca, with which he has beenaffiliated since 1960. Before resigning from the priesthood in 1969, lllich hadachieved the rank of Monsignor. In short, lllich is an exceptionally well-trained,bright, committed Roman Catholic, whose resignation from the priesthood wasvoluntary, and aimed at preventing further embarrassment to the Church as a con-sequence of the public ity wh ich had come to surround him, in large part as a resultof his interrogation in Rome. lllich explains his reasons for resigning, arguing that:

It is canonical ly corre ct for a c lergyman to divest himself of his faculties asso on as h e b eco me s n o t o r i o ~ s . ~ ~Despite his resignation, however, lllich was granted, at his request, the right

to maintain both his vow of celibacy and his daily obl igat ion to say the breviary.These are hardly the signs of a man undergo ing a crisis of faith. Rather, they demon-strate a remarkable perseverance of faith in the face of great adversity.

Ill ich s conception of the true nature of Catholicism provides the basis formuch of his social theory, while at the same time mirroring that social theory inmany important respects. The Church as an ideal, for Illich, functions in much thesame way as would any other convivial institution, save that lllich clearly expectsit to play a primary and central role in the individuals social relations, self-concep-tion, and behavior. Insofar as we understand his notion of the role of the Church,we have also understood, in a broader and more complete way than is otherwisepossible, Ill ich s view of the just society. This understanding further supportsthe view posited here that I llichs social theory is basically in accord with that ofthe medieval period.

In both his religious thought and his social theory, lllich rejects several ele-ments of the status quo. First, in every social institution, including religious ones,lllich forcibly rejects the use of coercion and of coercive institutions and institu-tion al arrangements. Second, as already noted, l lli ch argues that bureaucracy,which is undesirable in any social institution, is especially so in the Church,54 andmust be eliminated. Third, he rejects ritual qua ritual everywhere, no less in theChurch than in the school. This is not, of course, the same as rejecting liturgicalforms of worship - uite the contrary. It is only by making the liturgy relevant andaccessible that one makes it real .

The dist inc tion between the Church as She and the Church as It is an im-portant one in Illi chs thought . This distinct ion, which can be seen as representingthe dialectic which lllich applied to other social institutions, is not dissimilar to themore common division between Mystical Body and temporal institution. The Jesuitsociologist, Joseph Fitzpatrick, has expanded on Ill ich s distinction:

The Church-as-She is the mystery of G ods presence amon g us. The Church-as-I t is the scandal of incarnat ion, Gods presence in hum an forms. One m ustuse a l l the hum an power o ne has to expose the scandal in order that thepresence of the Wo rd can be perceived. Il l i ch s funct ion as a pr iest is thescrupulou s cr i t ic ism of the Chu rch-as-I t for th e sake of th e C h u r ~ h - a s - S h e . ~ ~Illich, despite h is relegation of both the Church and her priests to an exclusively

spi ritual sphere,56 nonetheless sees the Church- hat is, the Mystical Body ofChri st-as providing the basic force for social cohesion in the good human53. Quoted in du Plessix Gray, Div in e Disobedience, p. 312.54. See quote 48 in text .55. Quoted in du Plessix Gray, Div ine D isobedience, pp. 289-90.56. See p. 302 above.

FALL 1980


13/14

IVANLLICH'S SOCIAL HOUGHT 305community. Rather than by either visible or invisible coercion, the community isto be united and maintained by faith.The nature of Illich's ideal conception of the Church is perhaps closest to therather ahistorical view of the primitive Christian church which is common todayamong certain Protestant sects. Il lich 's call, as manifested in "The Vanishing Clergy-man,"57 is essentially a

demand for a return to an early-sty le Christ ianity untainted by pomp andsecular power [w hich] is s imi lar in message to the romant ic lo ngin gs o f th eUndergroundThis is, as was noted earlier, far closer to the religious ideal which can be logicallyderived from medieval not ions of society than was the religious reality of feudalEurope.An interesting, and highly visible, side of Ivan Illi ch's faith is his frequent, color-ful, and generally entertaining use of religious metaphors to strengthen his argu-ments, provide illustrations of points, and so on. His institutional critiques oftenmake use of comparisons with the Church and society of the late Middle Ages:

At the end of the M iddle Ages, peo ple placed their t rust in cert i f icates wh ichguaranteed in dulg enc e. In our t ime of decadent c iv i l ization, p eople placetheir t rust in cert if icates wh ich establ ish that they possess som ethin g cal led" e d u ~ a t i o n . " ~ ~The need for reform is, on occasion, stressed by noting similar reforms, and

problems with reforms, which have been experienced by the Church:Since Bonhoef fe r con temporary t heo log ians have po in ted to t he con fu -s ions now re igning be tween the Bib l ica l message and ins t i tu t ional izedre l ig ion . They poin t to the exper ience that Chr is t ian f reedom and fa i thusual ly gain f ro m secular izat ion. Inev itably thei r s tatements sound b las-p h e m o u s to many churchmen. Unquest ionably , the educat ional processwi l l ga in f rom the deschool ing of soc iety even though th is demand soundsto many schoolmen l ike t reason to the enl ightenment. But i t is enl ighten-men t i tse l f that is now being snuf fed out in the schools .60The secular izat ion of the C hr ist ian fa i th depends on the dedicat ion to i t onthe par t of Chr is tians rooted in the Church. In m uch the same way, the de-schoo l ing of educat ion depends on the leadership of those brought up inthe schools.61From the h is tory of the C hurch, we kn ow that s imply reform ing the l i turgyis no guarantee o f theolog ica l renovat ion.62

lllich frequently uses ecclesiastic comparisons which serve not only to makehis point, but which also can hardly help but elicit a smile from his reader:

Equal educat ional opportunity is, indeed, both a desirable and a feasiblegoal , but to equate th is w i th obl igatory school ing is to confuse salvat ionwi th theIt is easier for a cam el to pass throug h the eye of a needle, than for a man,who acqui res th is educat ion, to recast his v is ion of the wor ld f rom the per-spect ive of a poor m ar1.~4

57.58.59.60.61.62.63.64.

I l l ich, Celebrat ion of Awareness, pp. 69-94.d u Pless ix Gray, D iv ine Disobedience, p . 293.I l l ich, "Cri t ica a la l i turgia de la ensefianza," p. 100.I l lich, De scho oi ing Society, pp. 35-36.Ib id . , p . 36.I l l ich, "Cri t ica a la l i turgia d e la ensefianza," p. 105.I l l ich, D eschoo l ing Soc iety, p. 15.I l l ich, "Cri t ica a la l i turgia de la ensehanza," p. 101.

VOLUME 30, NUMBER 4


14/14

306 EDUCATIONALHEORYThese religious metaphors, and dozens like them, show the extent to which

his religious faith permeates Illich's life and thought. Not only is this compatiblewith the medieval ideal, but it is actually quite close to the monastic ideal of the medi-eval era. lllich himself recognizes this when he says:

I am theological ly profoundly conservat ive. I could teach wi th deep re l isha course in pre-conc i l iar theology. . . . I would have l iked to have l ived inthe M iddle Ages, one of t he h igh po in t s o f man 's sp i r i t .6565 . Quoted in du Plessix Gray, Div ine D isobedience, p. 273.

FALL 1980

Documents

j.1741-5446.1980.Tb00934.x] Timothy Reagan -- The Foundations of Ivan Illich ' s Social Thought