Ivan Illich can be considered one of the most radical political and social thinkers of the second half of the 20th Century.
Illich was co-founder of the widely known and controversial ‘Centre for Intercultural Documentation’ (CIDOC) in Cuernavaca, Mexico, and directed research seminars on ‘Institutional Alternatives in a Technological Society’, with special focus on Latin America.
He was a researcher, writer and activist and was at the time considered to be a ‘troublesome’ individual by the authorities much the way that the US establishment today regards Noam Chomsky.
Illich rose to fame in the 1970s with a trilogy of prominent books. He died in 2002 and 2008 marks the 32nd anniversary of Medical Nemesis and the 37th anniversary of his most evocative work, Deschooling Society.
One of his other main works is Disabling Professions. Illich was a gifted linguist and beneath his sometimes flowery language and emotive muses he made some exceptionally valid points.
His critique of modernity was founded on a deep understanding of the birth of institutions in the 13th century, a critical period in church history, which enlightened all of his work.
Deschooling Society (1971) set the tone for Illich’s other books. In it, Illich stated that many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. The pupil is “schooled” to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new.
What is health?
His critique of experts and professionalisation was set out in Disabling Professions (1977) and in his exploration of the expropriation of health in Medical Nemesis. The latter book famously began, “The medical establishment has become a major threat to health”. The case against expert systems like modern health care is that they can produce damage which outweigh potential benefits; they obscure the political conditions that render society unhealthy; and they tend to expropriate the power of individuals to heal themselves and to shape their environment.
Health, argued Illich, is the capacity to cope with the human reality of death, pain, and sickness. Technology can help, but modern medicine has gone too far launching into a god-like battle to eradicate death, pain, and sickness. In doing so, it turns people into consumers or objects, destroying their capacity for health.
Experts and an expert culture always call for more experts. Experts also have a tendency to cartelise themselves by creating ‘institutional barricades’— for example proclaiming themselves gatekeepers, as well as self-selecting themselves. Finally, experts control knowledge production, as they decide what valid and legitimate knowledge is, and how its acquisition is sanctioned.
Illich was concerned with the way the developing world, in particular Latin America, had a tendency to unthinkingly ape the West and its institutions in its quest for development. Movements advocating alternative living, community-based living, traditional medicine and anti-globalisation owe a great debt to him. He wasn’t just another anti-consumer-society polemicist. Illich offered alternatives, some of which may appear too idealistic, others more realistic.
On a personal note, as a social researcher in the UK during the 1990s, working in some of the country’s more deprived areas, I was confronted with ordinary peoples’ critiques of their conditions and just how relevant Illich remained. It was a period of officially endorsed consumerism (individualism) within social policy, which stressed the role of ‘community participation’, ‘user-led’ provision and ‘user involvement’.
Doors of discontent
However, this kind of backfired as the potential for the collective expression of discontent was unwittingly thrown open. Residents in those communities were heavily critical of the police, schools, social workers and a range of both public and private corporations, all of which were regarded as effectively stripping away their dignity, independence and rights to citizenship— in effect they were the “disabling professions”.
Although the people residing in those communities were acutely aware of their exploitation on an economic level, and therefore were often staunchly socialist in outlook, they often advocated solutions that resonated strongly with Illich’s call for convivial communities and the deprofessionalisation of human relations. But their calls largely fell on deaf ears. They were considered too radical and oppositional (to those who wielded power).
Despite this, Illich’s impact has been vast. His critique of the school and call for the deschooling of society hit a chord with many workers and alternative educators. Illich’s argument for the development of educational webs or networks connected with an interest in ‘non-formal’ approaches and with experiments in ‘free’ schooling. His interest in professionalisation and the extent to which medical interventions, for example, actually create illness has added to the critique of professions and a concern to interrogate practice by informal educators— especially those in more ‘community-oriented’ work.
Illich may be regarded by some as being a product of the liberal 60’s: an idealist swept along by the times. He may also be accused of somewhat downplaying the economic conditions that serve to produce the type of society he describes. The Left often asserted that changes to the education system or professions on their own would be insufficient— the crux of the matter lies with altering the mode of economic production; therein lies the basis for all other change, whether cultural, organisational/professional or political. Some of his critics certainly have valid points. Despite their deficiencies however, many would assert that Illich’s writings are even more relevant today than they were 30 years ago.
