![]()
Migration has been an integral part of all, except perhaps the most remote, societies throughout history, and it is an integral and (likely) permanent characteristic of the modern world. In the best of cases, migrants leave their home country in search of better economic opportunities or novel experiences. In more difficult situations, they flee from poverty, genocide, or civil war; seeking the possibility of a life for themselves and their families free from terror or suffering. With an estimated 270 million people crossing national borders each year (World Migration Report, 2020), migration is exposing an urgent need for societies to re-think notions of ‘us’ and ‘others,’ and what it means to treat people first and foremost as human beings, regardless of their accidents of birth. To this end, this book is an exploration into new possibilities, especially as they relate to learning, change, and even transformation in a migration society.
The explorations in this collection highlight individual stories of migrants, showcase innovative research methods, and explore concepts and theories that might be usefully applied toward learning needs in a migration society. Through this multiplicity of perspectives, we wanted to create an international perspective on the role of adult education in addressing migration. Countries represented in this book are: Austria, Cyprus, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Malta, Sweden, United Kingdom, and USA. While reflecting on the particularities of migration in specific societies, there is a focus on common challenges and questions, current practices, and unresolved problems. We believe such international comparisons hold great potential for seeing new possibilities in any single country, whether in Europe, North America, or across the world.
Migration and Its Challenges
Countries which are (currently) relatively stable and prosperous, and which are therefore on the receiving end of migration, face legitimate concerns about how to accommodate large inflows of people, with possibilities for employment, and in some cases with support during a transition period, perhaps with housing, clothing, and/or food.1 We do not dismiss these practical realities. However, we see them as an issue of ‘how’ rather than an issue of ‘whether.’ We refer to the famous quotation of German writer Martin Walser: “Dem Gehenden schiebt sich der Weg unter die Füße” (“The path moves itself under the feet of the walker”). To us, it seems that the issue is not that migration challenges are insurmountable, but rather that there needs to be a commitment to addressing them. Society’s values are manifest in their priorities, in the questions, goals, and tasks to which they devote themselves. The challenges arising from migration are difficult, but surely not so onerous as, for instance, the obstacles overcome in developing nuclear weapons, space travel, or vaccines against deadly diseases. If the general population saw a benefit to an influx of migrants, the attendant practical considerations would probably be overcome very quickly.
And in fact, people should; the OECD consistently reports on the economic benefits of immigration (see for example, OECD, 2014). But one should not have to provide an argument that migration benefits the receiving society. There exists, we believe, a moral obligation to help those in need. If we aspire to be more than a dog-eat-dog world, then it is incumbent on people to support others who are in vulnerable situations, who are suffering, who are fleeing from terror or poverty. Legitimate concerns about society’s ability to provide space and opportunity for migrants are often conflated with what we believe are falsely-based apprehensions, such as a dilution of the culture, values, norms, and social/legal achievements of the receiving country. In each epoch and locale, migration is connected with specific manifestations of xenophobia or, in more general terms, tribalism; caring only for those perceived to be in one’s circle of social kinship. The particular brand of challenges arising currently in Europe and the U.S. highlights the juxtaposition between their lofty espoused values (e.g., “unity in diversity,” “all men are created equal … with certain unalienable rights … life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”), and the fears and prejudices born of particular differences between receiving countries and their current influx of migrants. In a pronounced way, then, migration is revealing and highlighting important societal questions: of solidarity, of identity, of transition and transformation, of human rights and obligations.
Migration and Adult Education
It would be difficult to find a living person who is not a product of migration at some point (and likely many points) of their family history. The prevalence of migration means that any given society is constantly being influenced by the blending of cultures, traditions, and norms. And, given that migration has been a constant phenomenon since at least the beginning of recorded history, there never has been such a thing as a static, homogenous society. Societies have always been in a state of flux, of development, often transformation.
Adult Education has traditionally been a companion and promoter of social change and societal developments, providing assistance and facilitation in times of crisis and transition, helping people accommodate to new social, economic, and political phenomena; in short, posing questions and offering possible answers to socially urgent challenges (see e.g., N.F.S. Grundtvig, Jane Addams, Anna J. Cooper, Albert Mansbridge, Myles Horton, Paulo Freire). Migration is such a socially urgent challenge, and adult education can aid in this broader work of helping society develop adequate responses to it. This book therefore seeks to explore concepts, theories, and approaches with which to think about, discuss, and shape the societal processes of ‘dealing with’ the challenges, real and imagined, arising from migration. Addressing the topic of migration also offers an opportunity to re-think and re-negotiate old and established assumptions and to push forward in search of new, if tentative, answers.
Migration is ubiquitous. At any given moment, society is being influenced by the blending of cultures, traditions, and norms. Both new arrivals and the longer-settled members of society are (at least potentially) lifelong learners who constantly develop and improve the capacities necessary to better understand the complexities of their social worlds (in order to function better in them), and to co-shape their shared society. Adult education, as an aid to lifelong learning, therefore holds the potential to help facilitate the development of migration societies—at the individual and collective level. The role that adult education might play in such development is the central theme of this book, which is based on a series of underlying premises and possible resulting tensions that we briefly mention here.
First, we assert that adult education is committed to the ideals and principles of democracy, and its core task is to foster, promote, and develop a democratic society. In addressing the challenges of migration, adult education may find itself between two demands. There is the demand to make educational processes effective and efficient in pursuit of learning objectives, which seek to integrate migrants into the receiving society. However, an overemphasis on this leads to an imposition of certain principles and values onto migrants (which verges on indoctrination rather than education), and there exists an ethical demand to respect adults’ autonomy and right to self-determination. On the other hand, too much emphasis on self-determination can be problematic, for instance, when learners’ principles and values contradict the ethical norms or legal standards of society. Recognizing and negotiating this tension is essential.
Second, promoting democracy requires a nurturing of social solidarity, which includes the strengthening of social cohesion and a sense of belonging to communities. In the case of migration, this can easily translate into a false or forced ‘homogenization’ of society. We see here a tension between fostering cohesion of different groups into a ‘whole,’ and a commitment to honoring individuality, subjectivity, and difference. There is a balance that must be negotiated between the goal of social cohesion and a respect for dissimilarities and divergences (and, yes, potential conflicts), which requires cultivating social, collective engagement by enhancing the capacities to participate in the various contexts in which an individual lives.
Although we argue that society needs to learn, develop, and possibly transform in the wake of migration, we do not advocate for using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, to destroy all the established principles and values (of the receiving society, but also of migrants) in order to re-negotiate them anew. The tension here involves the norms and (ethical) achievements of one’s society that are non-negotiable, even in the course of societal change brought about by the mixing of cultures. What are the foundations of our society that we must keep (e.g., human rights)? Alternatively, which norms are merely idiosyncratic cultural products that can coexist or co-mingle with the idiosyncratic products from other cultures (e.g., festivals)? And, what might need to be discussed and collaboratively developed by a new diverse ‘we’ in our societies (e.g., legal holidays)?
This question could be connected to the German debate about the benefits and dangers of the so called ‘Leitkultur’—the guiding culture or value systems considered as an intersubjective agreement on the rules and practices of a society’s coexistence. Leitkultur can be seen as requiring a set of common basic values, shared by all citizens and newcomers. It can become problematic, however, when it is (either explicitly or implicitly) shortened to the thesis that newcomers must adapt to the majority culture. This insistence on homogeneity implies a devaluation of the person in their uniqueness and undermines a culture of respect and recognition.
The authors in this book problematize these and similar tensions in a variety of ways and seek a balance for adult education between consent and dissent; between adaptation and resistance; between personal integration and societal transformation; and between uncritical embeddedness in and overcritical distancing from one’s social milieu. Learning in the wake of migration certainly includes individual qualifications and competencies, but also goes beyond these requirements. If we take the commitment of adult education to democracy seriously, then co-shaping a pluralistic, heterogeneous society means not only individual work and participation, but also interpersonal cooperation and collaboration, joint actions, and deliberation in a public sphere.
In different forms, with multiple arguments and examples, the authors in this book argue that learning in a migration society necessarily includes social change. The corresponding educational efforts emphasize the need for mutual recognition and a plurality of views, in order to develop collaborative possibilities for present and future interaction. Only in this way can citizens (with or without a recent migration experience) take part in the processes of critical discussion, on which depend the quality and legitimacy of a democracy.
Transformative Learning
A key premise of this book is that the learning required in a migration society is transformational in nature. Life in migration societies requires an ability to re-orient oneself in new contexts, to become acquainted with differing perspectives and ways of life, and to think beyond personal and established frames. This explicit distinction of the ‘transformative dimensions of learning’ was first articulated by Mezirow (1978, 1991). From this perspective, humans are continuously engaged in a process of making meaning of their experiences, using mental frameworks to shape how they perceive themselves and the world around them. Important for our discussion in this book are the two types of mental frameworks. The first is a ‘meaning scheme,’ which is a “constellation of concept, belief, judgment, and feelings which shapes a particular interpretation” (1991, p. 223). An example of a meaning scheme might be a person’s views, biases, and feelings toward migrant groups from a particular country or of a certain religion. These meaning schemes are deep-seated and habitual, but at least they are relatively easy to become aware of. It is possible, for instance, through meeting and getting to know a migrant from a particular background, to realize one’s inaccurate and unfair biases, and then to critique and change them.
In contrast to meaning schemes are ‘meaning perspectives,’ which are broad, orienting predispositions; these operate behind the metaphorical scenes of our meaning making. And, when possible to be noticed, they often seem like common sense. Meaning perspectives are therefore exceedingly difficult to truly assess. They might include, for instance, that of course there is a significant difference between national and, say, state or city borders, and that these national borders create (again, ‘of course’) an important distinction between ‘us’ and ‘others.’ They might also include an acceptance of tribalism, that of course a person is justified in caring primarily for those in their own social circle, and not particularly feeling a kinship with those outside of that group.
Sometimes in our lives, these meaning perspectives are contradicted and shown to be inadequate to explain what we are experiencing. Mezirow called this a ‘disorienting dilemma.’ Such dilemmas can cause us to take a closer look at the frameworks we are using to understand the world. In essence, he argued that the real task of adulthood is to examine our meaning schemes and perspectives that were developed during our formative years, and to decide for ourselves what we think they should be in order to have a better understanding of ourselves and the world.
Adulthood is the time for reassessing the assumptions of our formative years that have often resulted in distorted views of reality. … Changing social norms can make it much easier to encounter, entertain, and sustain changes in alternative perspectives. …
Perspective transformation may be individual, … group, … or collective. … (It) is the process of becoming critically aware of how and why our presuppositions have come to constrain the way we perceive, understand, and feel about our world; of reformulating these assumptions to permit a more inclusive, discriminating, permeable, and integrative perspectives, and of making decisions or otherwise acting upon these new understandings. … Meaning perspectives that permit us to deal with a broader range of experience, to be more discriminating, to be more open to other perspectives, and to better integrate our experiences are superior perspectives. (Mezirow, 1991, p. 13–14)
In the decades since Mezirow introduced his theory, many scholars expanded on his work, emphasizing how the process of transformation ...
