AIEd Knowledge BaseAIEd KB
On this page

Research Article

From Mechanical Compliance to Human Flourishing: A Socialist Humanist Approach to Asynchronous AI Literacy and Fair Use in Higher Education

created 2026-08-24 · updated 2026-09-19

Synthesis: Rose (2026) is a literature review that reframes AI literacy in higher education from a compliance exercise into a humanist practice, synthesizing the historical evolution of the digital divide with current AI literacy needs through the philosophical and pedagogical lenses of Erich Fromm's socialist humanism, Malcolm Knowles' andragogy, and Jack Mezirow's transformative learning. The review argues that successful AI literacy programs must bridge technical understanding with social advocacy, environmental awareness, and psychological safety, and it identifies four research gaps — transcending functional training, establishing psychological safety, pursuing sustainable implementation, and preserving human Learner Agency — each mapped to a core tenet of the proposed framework. The central thesis is that ethical, equitable AI education must place human flourishing, not administrative efficiency or compliance, at the center of the academic experience.

The review opens by tracing how the integration of AI into universities has reshaped digital equity and academic integrity, forcing a re-evaluation of how educational tools are deployed and how students engage with cognitive tasks. It positions AI literacy as a prerequisite for purposeful, efficient, and ethical usage, warning that without specific training individuals risk marginalization in an increasingly digital economy. Its scope sits at the intersection of three domains: the digital divide as it relates to consumer AI, adult learning frameworks (andragogy and transformative learning), and the ethical and environmental implications of widespread AI use.

From Digital Divide to AI Literacy

The digital divide is a long-standing concept that has shifted terminologically and conceptually since the mid-1990s. Initially defined narrowly as the gap between those with physical access to technology and those without, the concept evolved into the broader notion of digital equity as hardware became more pervasive. Recent scholarship argues that digital equity is now defined by four critical dimensions: digital literacy, affordability, group-sensitive content, and infrastructure availability. The rollout of consumer AI represents a "new wave" of this divide: while AI offers potential for personalized learning, it risks exacerbating existing inequities by favoring individuals who already possess the critical thinking skills needed to audit and validate machine output. This positions AI Literacy as an equity issue as much as a technical one, since without specific training users are marginalized in the digital economy.

Institutional Tensions and the Humanist Framework

Higher education institutions currently find themselves caught between competing priorities: the desire for administrative efficiency and the fear of academic dishonesty, an environment often characterized by "black box" technologies whose internal logic neither faculty nor students fully comprehend. A primary concern in the literature is student "overdependence" on AI, characterized not just as cheating but as a "loss of judgment" in which students substitute AI for cognitive engagement rather than using it as a collaborative partner. This dependency reflects what Fromm described as the "having" mode of learning — focused on possession and results — rather than the "being" mode, which requires active, productive engagement. Researchers therefore call for a shift from punitive compliance policies toward values-based guidance that integrates AI into teaching as a matter of pedagogical judgment.

To move beyond a mechanized approach, the review proposes a framework grounded in Frommian socialist humanism, andragogy, and transformative learning. Fromm argued that a "sane society" satisfies fundamental human needs: relatedness, unity, transcendence, a sense of identity, and a frame of orientation — needs that align in education with the andragogical principles that adult learners require autonomy and a clear sense of purpose. Bridging these with Mezirow's transformative learning theory reframes AI literacy as a tool for self and social transformation, encouraging learners to remain "biophilic" (focused on life, growth, and experience) rather than "necrophilic" (bound to the stagnant mechanical output of the machine). In practice this requires creating psychological and emotional safety within AI literacy programs, empowering students to participate in the discourse surrounding technology rather than being passive users of corporate-dictated rules — a direct challenge to dominant Teaching and governance arrangements.

Ethics, Environment, and the Fair-Use Question

A socialist humanist approach must also address the material and social realities of the technology. Environmentally, AI development is an extractive process demanding significant electricity, water, and minerals, so sustainable AI requires rethinking algorithm efficiency and data-center design. Socially, the concept of "AIgemony" describes how AI reinforces corporate power asymmetries and hegemonic control through biased datasets and social narrative control, so literacy must encompass "green advocacy" and a critical understanding of "ghost work" — the often invisible human labor required to label data and maintain the illusion of seamless AI functionality. These concerns connect directly to Equity and the Digital Divide, and the review grounds its fair-use framing in the ethical and AI Governance dimensions of asynchronous, self-paced AI education in Higher Education.

What this means for practice

  • Instructors. Ground AI Literacy in human flourishing rather than compliance: design for psychological and emotional safety so students can question and audit machine output instead of merely obeying it.
  • Instructors. Move past functional prompting to advocacy — teach AI's material costs, including data-center resource demands and the "ghost work" of invisible human labeling labor behind seamless interfaces.
  • Instructors. Cultivate Fromm's "being" mode over the "having" mode so students use AI as a collaborative partner rather than substituting it for their own judgment.
  • Researchers. Treat the review's four gaps — transcending functional training, psychological safety, sustainable implementation, and preserving human agency — as a testable agenda rather than settled findings.

Limitations

  • This is a literature review with no primary data collection; its humanist framework is synthesized from Fromm, Knowles, and Mezirow, so it can propose a conceptual bridge but cannot report an effect size for any AI literacy program.
  • The author's own limitations section identifies significant "opaque areas" and a lack of extensive longitudinal data on the efficacy of different AI literacy programs.
  • Scope is deliberately narrowed: the review does not explore socialist humanism as a political movement, the full breadth of adult learning theories, or specific AI literacy program efficacies.
  • No systematic search protocol or coding scheme is reported, and sources were identified partly through the Elicit research tool.

Connected Concepts

Connected Articles

Citation

Rose, L. M. (2026). From Mechanical Compliance to Human Flourishing: A Socialist Humanist Approach to Asynchronous AI Literacy and Fair Use in Higher Education. EdArXiv preprint.

Metadata

Study designMeta-Analysis and Systematic Review
LevelHigher Education
Intended audienceTeaching, Researchers
Learning and instructionCritical Pedagogy
Equity, ethics, and responsible useDigital Divide, Equity, Ethics
Foundations of AI in educationAI Literacy
Page kindFramework
SourceHistoryEditChat

Embed this page

Copy the code below to embed a chromeless version of this page in a learning management system or other website. The embedded view hides the site header, navigation, and footer.