**1. Introduction**

Generally, education is geared towards training the mind and getting the learner to acquire skills and knowledge needed in different sectors in society. According to the UNESCO [1] report on education, education is at the core of societies' effort to adapt to change and to transform from within. The centrality of education and its need in society are also acknowledged in the idea of education (in this case higher education) as a common or public good. Notably, the discourse on higher education as common/public good as can be garnered from some scholars ([2–5], etc.) has led to a conclusion that higher education can be conceptualised as a public good since it helps empower citizens to be economically efficient (amongst other utilities).

It can be inferred that the discourse on higher education as common good has been enshrouded in the utilitarian conceptualisation which understands development as economic growth and all aspects of society including education geared towards realising this. Consequently, higher education curriculum in most contemporary societies has focused mainly on learning that enhances the intellectual/cognitive faculties of individuals in society [6, 7].

However, if we agree that education is a public good, there is need to go beyond its conceptualisation from a utilitarian perspective of being instrumental to economic progress of society, to an understanding of education as instrumental to realising individual's transformative capabilities and subsequently, social change. On this, Chakraborty et al*.* ([8], p. 1) are of the view that 'education plays a very important role in moulding the character of an individual …Education can initiate social change by bringing about changes in the outlook and attitude of people'. Notably, contemporary societies are faced with lots of issues which need to be addressed. These issues have been exacerbated by the fact that societies are rapidly industrialising and urbanising, necessitating a simultaneous change in human intellect to adapt to the changes in society [1, 8]. The rapidly changing society has also seen the rise in different social ills and is becoming increasingly morally bankrupt, as people lose their capacity to function as moral agents, who are supposed to be at the helm of realising a positively transformed society. Agreeably, every society needs individuals capacitated through education to fulfil a role in the economic sector and work environment, but they also must be equipped to be agents of social change through their ability to exude proper values, morality and ethics. As it stands it will seem that current forms of education are 'totally mechanized. It develops the cramming power of the students but curbs the individual thinking capability of the students' ([8], p. 1). But we are living in an ever-changing world hence 'education must also change … this means moving beyond literacy and numeracy, to focus on learning environments and on new approaches to learning for greater justice, social equity and global solidarity' ([1], p. 3).

Hence, education aimed at achieving social change should focus on not only subjecting learners to cognitive aspects but also to get them to engage in other aspects of learning which can capacitate them to become agents of social change and progress. Exploring this theme and theorising on some mechanics of realising education for social change is the focus of this article. The article adopts qualitative desktop method and utilises secondary data to explore the nexus between two frameworks: Transformative Learning (TLF) and the Capability Approach frameworks (CA). The consideration is based on the premise that there may be a link between the understanding of the different components of the TLF and the CA in theorising about education for social change.

#### **2. Theoretical/conceptual frameworks**

#### **2.1 Transformative learning framework**

The TLF was proposed by Jack Mezirow in the late 1970s as a theory of adult learning. The framework defines how individuals develop by critically reflecting on their experiences and reconsidering previously held belief systems. This process overtime is geared towards changing the person's flawed perspectives of the world. For Mezirow ([9], p. 22), transformative learning is aimed at transforming 'problematic frames of reference to make them more inclusive, discriminating, reflective, open,

#### *Towards a Theory of Education for Social Change: Exploring the Nexus… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101368*

and emotionally able to change'. Hence, transformative learning is about transforming individual's worldviews and understanding how and what leads to this transformation in worldview. In order words, transformative learning summarily is an educational framework which involves the development of an individual's consciousness achieved by transforming the person's worldview and belief systems. It is education centring on expanding individuals' varied capacities through deliberate processes aimed at getting the learner to access symbolic contacts in the subconscious and to critically interrogate fundamental premises on which previously held beliefs are grounded on [10]. Also, central to the TLF is the position that individuals modify their frames of references through engaging in critical reflection 'on their experiences, which in turn leads to a perspective transformation' ([11], p. 167). Furthermore, according to Mezirow, the process through which an individual's worldview is transformed (perspective transformation) follows through three dimensions including: psychological (transformation in thought), convictional (reconsideration of belief systems) and behavioural (transformation in lifestyle) (in [12]). Perspective transformation resulting in transformative learning is infrequent and usually is consequent on 'disorienting dilemma'. This is elicited by some major life crisis or consequent on build-up of transformations in meaning schemes of the individual over a period. Disorienting dilemmas can also occur in a learning context when educators provide space for learners to engage in new forms of critical thought.

Consequently, it can be inferred that there are some important concepts and components in the TLF. Centrally, 'meaning structures' (perspectives and schemes) are main components of the TLF. 'Meaning perspectives are defined as 'broad sets of predispositions resulting from psychocultural assumptions which determine the horizons of our expectations' [11]. Also, 'A meaning scheme is "the constellation of concept, belief, judgment, and feelings which shapes a particular interpretation' ([13], p. 223). Moreover, the concept of critical reflection is important to the TLF—it 'involves a critique of assumptions to determine whether the belief, often acquired through cultural assimilation in childhood, remains functional for us as adults' [11]. In critical reflection, the learner ponders on the ramifications of the problem and through it understands him/herself better.

Summarily, Mezirow sees transformative learning as the core of adult education pedagogy, in that education is aimed at enabling the individual to be an independent thinker. This is achieved through forms of education aimed at assisting the learner to 'negotiate his or her own values, meanings, and purpose rather than uncritically acting on those of others' ([14], p. 11). Transformative learning in the education setting translates to assisting learners to change their meaning schemes. In this, there is a rational interrogation of previously held assumptions and beliefs, 'it is within the arena of rational discourse that experience, and critical reflection are played out' ([15], p. 11). This is to say that through a rational discourse process, critical reflection develops in which experience and assumptions are interrogated resulting in the transformation of meaning schemes and structures. Hence the process of transformative learning 'is essentially rational and analytical' [14]). This view has resulted in some criticism of the transformative learning theory as being intellectual/rationally focused [16, 17].

As part of the effort to provide alternative viewpoint, some scholars have expanded on the TLF. Of note are the views of Robert Boyd and Paulo Freire. Transformation in Boyd's perspective is 'a fundamental change in one's personality involving conjointly the resolution of a personal dilemma and the expansion of consciousness resulting in greater personality integration' ([18], p. 459). Boyd's conception of transformative

education differs from Mezirow's understanding to the effect that unlike Mezirow's focus on rational conflicts, Boyd looks at the arising and resolution of conflicts in an individual's psyche and how these are transformed. Boyd's point of departure is based on an analytic psychology stance, in this 'instead of becoming more autonomous as Mezirow purports, the individual develops a greater interdependent relationship with and compassion for society' ([15], p. 14). Also, Boyd's understanding of transformative education goes beyond rational to other realms of the learner's life including spirituality. The purpose of transformative education includes aiding the learner to recognise their 'spirit'; 'that abiding within the person is a truth, a knowledge, which is not separate from socio-economic, political, and other cultural influences, but transcends them' ([19], p. 282).

On its own, Freire's philosophy takes as a point of departure the ontological position that human beings should be subjects rather than objects, and as such they are continually self-reflecting and working towards the transformation of their context to become more equitable. Differing from Mezirow's focus on individual transformation, Taylor ([15], p. 16) notes that 'Freire is much more concerned about a social transformation via the unveiling or demythologizing of reality by the oppressed through the awakening of their critical consciousness.' Hence, education does not serve a neutral purpose rather 'it either domesticates by imparting the values of the dominant group so that learners assume things are right the way they are, or liberates, allowing people to critically reflect upon their world and take action to change society towards a more equitable and just vision' ([16], p. 9). Also, just like Mezirow, critical reflection is important in transformational education, but contrastingly Freire understands this as enabling learners to become critically aware of their reality and to work towards their society's transformation. The individual's and society's transformations, according to Freire emancipatory perspective, are interlinked and cannot be separated from each other [15].

Against the above backdrop and together with the understanding of transformational learning as proposed by Mezirow et al., this article adopts the understanding of the framework as 'education that not only transfers knowledge, but also develops whole persons who influence communities and nations' ([20], p. 12). In this article, the views of Boyd and Freire are conjoined and allow us to see that education for social change should include efforts to transform the individual in a holistic way and to capacitate him/her to contribute to society's transformation.

#### **2.2 Capability approach**

The capability approach (CA) proposed by Amartyr Sen and Martha Nussbaum is a theory of development which recommends the move away from utilitarian/economic conception to an understanding of development that considers human development and well-being. It comprises two normative arguments which are: firstly, that people's freedom to achieve well-being is and should be of primary moral importance and secondly 'freedom to achieve wellbeing is to be understood in terms of people's capabilities which is their real opportunities to do and be what they have reason to value' [21]. According to the CA framework, freedom to achieve well-being concerns what people are able to do and be (functioning) which have consequence to the life they are able to lead. Essential to CA is a set of fundamental human capabilities which are important towards realising well-being and the good life. Also, according to the framework, social arrangements put in place to realise well-being should be based on the extent they help people to achieve functioning they value [22].

#### *Towards a Theory of Education for Social Change: Exploring the Nexus… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.101368*

The CA comprises some ideas which are core concepts on which the framework is based, they include: Capability, Freedom, Functioning, Value and Agency. Capability refers to the different combinations of functioning, which an individual can achieve and from which the individual can choose from [23]. Freedom according to Sen ([24], p. 31) is taken to mean 'the real opportunity that we have to accomplish what we value.' Functioning is the different things an individual 'may value or have reason to value doing or being' ([25], p. 75). Functioning hence includes different states (beings—being nourished, being housed, being educated, being illiterate, etc.) of human beings and activities (doings—travelling, caring, voting, debating, eating, consuming, etc.) people are able to undertake [21]. On its own 'value' as a qualifier, which always follows the Capability conceptualisations, is not a unique capability approach concept but an essential condition used to evaluate the quality of life [23, 26]. Agency refers to 'someone who acts and brings about change, and whose achievements can be judged in terms of her own values and objectives, whether or not we assess them in terms of an external criterion as well' ([25], p. 19).

This article adopts the CA in its theorisation of education for social change in conjunction with the TLF. Important for this paper is the consideration of education as necessary towards enhancing individual capabilities and functioning. This should consider all aspects of learning that could be termed transformative and which grounds the life an individual would want to lead and which can impact on society's transformation.

#### **2.3 Education for social change**

Chakraborty et al. ([8], p. 1) defines social change as 'an alteration in the social order of a society.' Social change may hence constitute a positive and or negative modification in established *modus vivendi* of societies. In most instances though, the discourse on social change focuses on how societies adapt to increasing changes in its varied spaces. For example, increasing industrialisation, urbanisation and changes in human knowledge has notably necessitated that society transforms towards adapting to these changes. Chakraborty et al. ([8], p. 2) are also of the view that 'change means accepting new ideas leading to evolution and development.' This arguably could be geared towards moving society towards a positive response to perhaps a previously negative status quo. For Bhat ([27], p. 2), 'the term social change is used to indicate the changes that take place in human interactions and interrelations. Society is a web of social relationships and hence social change means change in the system of social relationships'. This changes the focus of the concept of social change from the macro society level of analysis to the individual level, focusing on how system of social relationships helps in realising society's transformation. This agrees with the view of Sharma and Monteiro ([28], p. 72) who understand social change as leading 'to transformation in thinking which in turn influences behaviour patterns in society. Social change is an alteration in the thought processes of individuals that drives social progress.' This conceptualisation obviously points to the utility of education as the engine of social change.

According to Chakraborty et al. ([8], p. 1) 'Education is the fundamental method of social progress and reform. It guides the children towards new values and assists the development of intelligence and increase the society potential for its own transformation.' For Sharma and Monteiro ([28], p. 72) 'education is the vital link that brings about social change and generates synergies to address the interconnectedness between sustainability, society and the environment. Education empowers society to

assume responsibility for sustainable living.' These assertions help us to understand the real meaning of education for social change. It is understood that education is the engine of social progress and transformation—through education individuals are brought to understand their place in society and to acquire new ideals towards society's progress and transformation. This needs the individual both child and adult to engage in learning that not only increases knowledge, but also education that helps the individual to become credible members of society. As such, education plays and should play a very crucial role in an individual's character formation enabling him/her to help in realising society's transformation and social change [8].

Bhat ([27], p. 19) notes that 'the role of education as an agent or instrument of a social change and social development is widely recognized nowadays'. Education is as such understood as central to realising social transformation and change; 'education is the root cause of social and cultural changes that takes place within the society' ([8], p. 1). For Desjardins ([29], p. 239), 'educational systems contain both transformative and reproductive elements.' Through these systems, education is envisaged to play a crucial role towards both individual and social transformation. Education for social transformation then brings into limelight the need for the learner to improve him/ herself through education and to use such improved capacity to become agents of social transformation. This vision hinges on how the individual views him/herself and his/her role as agency in society's transformation.

Thus, realising education for society's transformation is hinged on understanding the link between the need and freedom for the individual to achieve capabilities and perspective transformation. This, according to Sharma and Monteiro ([28], p. 72), 'implies that educational processes and systems can transform perspectives and behaviour patterns, which in turn inculcates sustainable practices in all aspects of human life.' Education as such is aimed at changing people's behavioural patterns and worldview through curriculum which enhances individual freedom to achieve those different aspects of beings and doings, they have reason to value. This arguably speaks to the nexus between the Capability Approach and the Transformative Learning Framework.
