The significance of 'I' in living educational
theories
Jack Whitehead
Department of Education
University of Bath
DRAFT 15 May 2007
My feeling that I am living a productive life in my work in
education is based on at least three assumptions. The first is that everyone
reading this Chapter will have explored the implications of asking themselves
an 'I' question of the kind, 'How
do I improve what I am doing?' Hence my feeling that what I am exploring may
have some general interest and influence. The second is that those of us who
recognise the importance of learning in social evolution will want to share
understandings of how to enhance the flow of educational influences in
learning. The third is connected to this idea of educational influence. It is
that a world of educational quality can be created through individuals
producing and sharing their explanations of their educational influences in
their own learning, in the learning of others and in the social formations in
which they are living and working. I call these explanations, living
educational theories to distinguish them from the propositional and dialectical
theories of disciplines of education.
The Chapter is organised into three parts. Part One explains
the colonising influence of
approaches to educational theory that replace the principles individuals use to explain their
educational influences from their conscious lived experience, with principles
from propositional and dialectical theories. It describes my break with this
colonising influence in a commitment to generate living educational theories.
Part Two is focused on the significance of including 'I' in living educational
theories in the generation of a world of educational quality from the unique
contributions of the living theories of individuals working and researching in
a range of professional, social and cultural contexts in the UK, Ireland,
Canada, South Africa, China and Japan.
Part Three explains how insights from propositional and dialectical
theories of educational influences in learning can be used in the generation of
living educational theories from a perspective of inclusionality.
1) Explaining colonising influences of propositional and
dialectical theories of educational influence
Some 40 years I began my studies of educational theory as a
22 year old on my initial teacher education programme at the University of
Newcastle in the UK. I read the
works of John Dewey on Democracy and Education and Richard Peters on Ethics and
Education. Between 1968-70, in my initial studies of educational theory for the
Advanced Diploma in the Philosophy and Psychology of Education at the Institute
of Education of London University I agreed with the view of educational theory,
known as the disciplines approach. In this view educational theory was
constituted by the disciplines of the philosophy, psychology, sociology and
history of education. In the curriculum, grounded in this disciplines approach,
Richard Peters would give an introductory lecture, based on his text Ethics and
Education. The students would then break into smaller discussion groups led by
a philosopher of education. The lecture would focus on Peters' exploration of
the implications for a person who was seriously asking questions of the kind, 'What
ought I to do?' The form of the educational
enquiry was grounded in a Kantian form of transcendental deduction. The
justification for the validity of the conclusions of the enquiries had the
form, 'given that proposition x is true, if proposition y can be shown to be
implied in x then there are good reasons for believing y'. Using this form of deduction Peters
would justify his claims that any rational person who was seriously asking
themselves questions of the kind, 'What ought I to do?' must necessarily be
committed to living values of fairness, equality, justice, consideration of
interests, worthwhile activities and to the procedural principles of democracy.
I continue to be inspired by Peters' advocacy of learning to participate more
actively with zest and humanity in democratic forms of government (Peters,
1966, p. 319).
Looking back on my initial acceptance of the disciplines
approach I can see the colonisation of my mind through the pedagogic power of
the ideas and the passionate commitment of my teachers to the ideas. Here is my
explanation of the colonising influences of the disciplines approach to
educational theory.
Richard Peters and Paul Hirst, were two of the Philosophers
of Education at the Institute of Education advocating the disciplines approach
to educational theory in the 1960s and 1970s.
I experienced the colonising influence of the disciplines
approach in the move to replace the principles I used in explaining my
educational influences in learning as I explored the implications of asking
'How do I improve what I am doing?' I found myself asking this question in the
context of my educational relationships with my pupils at Langdon Park School
in London's Tower Hamlets. At the same time as asking and answering this
question I was attending weekly sessions at the Institute in which the living
'I' in such questions was replaced by the abstract concept of a 'person' as the
adherents to the disciplines approach ignored the living 'I' in their pedagogic
adherence to the disciplines approach. It is this replacement that I am
distinguishing as a colonising influence. It violates my understanding of the
relation in education described by Martin Buber in which the special humility of the educator for whom the life and
particular being of all his pupils is the decisive factor to which his
'hierarchical' recognition is subordinated." (p. 122, 1947)
In 1983 Paul Hirst acknowledged the mistake in believing
that principles developed in the context of immediate practical experience
would be replaced by principles with more theoretical justification, when he
said that much understanding of educational theory will be developed:
"... in the context of immediate practical experience
and will be co-terminous with everyday understanding. In particular, many of
its operational principles, both explicit and implicit, will be of their nature
generalisations from practical experience and have as their justification the
results of individual activities and practices.
In many characterisations of educational theory, my own
included, principles justified in this way have until recently been regarded as
at best pragmatic maxims having a first crude and superficial justification in
practice that in any rationally developed theory would be replaced by
principles with more fundamental, theoretical justification. That now seems to
me to be a mistake. Rationally defensible practical principles, I suggest, must
of their nature stand up to such practical tests and without that are
necessarily inadequate." (Hirst, 1983, p. 18)
In 1971 I rejected this assumption of 'replacement' in the
disciplines approach because I could not produce a valid explanation for my
educational influences in my own learning and in the learning of my students by
applying any theory, individually or collectively from any of the disciplines
of education that constituted the disciplines approach to educational theory.
My purpose in coming to the University of Bath in 1973, as a
Lecturer in Education, was to contribute to the generation of educational
theories that could produce valid explanations for the educational influences
of individuals in their own learning and in the learning of others. I call the
explanations that individuals produce for their educational influence in their
own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social
formations, living educational theories (Whitehead, 1989, Whitehead and McNiff,
2006), to distinguish them from the propositional theories that constitute the
disciplines of education. As Peters explored the implications of an abstract 'person'
seriously asking themselves questions of the kind, 'What ought I to do?', I
have been exploring the implications of asking myself 'How do I improve what I
am doing?', in the context of my life in education. One difference between the
way Peters answered his question and the way I answer my question can be
appreciated by focusing on the different meanings of 'person' and 'I'. For Peters, the unique 'I' of a living
individual actually asking 'What ought I to do?' was subsumed under the general
concept 'person' and became insignificant. Peters' enquiry was carried out with
lexical definitions in which the meanings being explored were defined by words
being defined by other words. The
'person' was a linguistic concept, decoupled from the life of any living
individual actually asking, researching and answering the question, 'What ought
I to do?' . In other words
the living 'I' implied in the
question, 'What ought I to do?' became severed from any living 'I' and reified
in the linguistic concept 'person'.
Schroyer made a similar point about the work of Heidegger
about the 'I' remaining formal, while pretending that the word contains content
in-itself:
'Hence the aura of authenticity in Heidegger is that it
names 'nothing'; the 'I' remains formal and yet pretends that the word contains
content in-itself. For Adorno, Heidegger's existentialism is a new Platonism
which implies that authenticity comes in the complete disposal of the person
over himself – as if there were no determination emerging from the objectivity
of history.' (Schroyer, p. vvii,
1973)
What I now want to suggest is that the generation of living
educational theories continue to be stifled by regimes of truth structured by
the propositional logics of Aristotle and the dialectical logics of Hegel and
Marx that eliminate the inclusional logics of living from their explanations of
the educational influences of individuals in learning. I shall point to the
evidence that shows how creative spaces have been opened in the Academy for the
legitimation of living educational theories that do offer valid explanations
for these educational influences. Less you think my claim about regimes of
truth is ungrounded I would point to a requirement of the research committee of
a UK University that the personal pronoun be removed from the title of a
research enquiry, because a self-study involving 'I' had no place in academic
research! I'm also incredulous about the question of a research committee concerned with
ethics that wanted to know how the researcher would ensure that the 'subjects'
were returned to their original state before the research began!
Because of past experiences of miscommunication I want to
take care to avoid misunderstandings about the nature of my criticism of
limitations and mistakes in both the disciplines approach to educational theory
and in the sole use of propositional and/or dialectical logics in explanations
of educational influences in learning. Because of this I want to be as clear as
I can that I value and use insights from the disciplines of education in the
generation of living educational theories by myself and others from questions
of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?' I also use and value the
propositional and dialectical logics that give form to many theories from which
I draw insights. I also want to be clear that I continue to look back on the
passion and commitment to education of my lecturers and tutors at the Institute
of Education as contributing to my most memorable learning experiences.
However, the central point of this chapter is to reveal the errors and
limitations in thinking that valid explanations of the educational influences
of individuals in learning can be generated from the sole use of the
disciplines of education and the propositional and dialectical logics that
structure the majority of academic theories of education.
The idea of logic as the mode of thought that is appropriate
for comprehending the real as rational (Marcuse, 1964, p. 105) appeals to me.
If someone says of my writings that they aren't logical I take this as a
fundamental criticism of the validity of my ideas. I want my ideas about
the nature of educational theory
to be logical in the sense that they are comprehensible to a rational mind. Yet
even as I use the words 'rational mind' I am aware of at least three logics
that can distinguish very different forms of rationality. Here is a brief
clarification of the distinguishing characteristics of the three forms of logic
I use in my educational enquiries into the nature of educational knowledge and
theory.
The first logic I learnt to use in my studies of educational
theory was a logic with a 2,500 history in the Western Academy. It is the
Aristotelean Logic that eliminates through the Law of Contradiction, the
possibility that two mutually exclusive statements like I am free/I am not free
can be true simultaneously. In my engagement with theories in the philosophy,
psychology, sociology, history, economics, theology, politics, management and
leadership of education they all abide by this Law of Contradiction in
eliminating such contradictions between statements.
The second logic I learnt to use was a dialectical logic,
again with a 2,500 year history from the ideas of Socrates expressed through
the writings of Plato. In the Phaedrus, a dialogue on love, Socrates explains
the art of the dialectician in holding both the One and the Many together.
Socrates explains to Phaedrus that human beings have two ways of coming to
know, they can break things down into separate components as nature directs
(and not after the manner of a bungling carver!) and we can hold things
together in a general idea. Socrates holds in high esteem the art of the
dialectician in holding both together these apparently contradictory
perspectives of holding something as both One and Many.
The third logic I am learning to use is a living logic of
inclusionality which emerges in the course of creating one's own form of life
with responses to the possibilities that life itself permits in particular
environmental, global, social and cultural contexts. Inclusionality is a relationally dynamic awareness of space
and boundaries as connective, reflexive and co-creative. Living logics of
inclusionality, in the sense of a mode of thought that is appropriate for
comprehending the real as rational, emerge in the course of giving form to life
itself.
Having benefited in the growth of my educational knowledge
from insights from both propositional and dialectical theories and
understanding this growth of educational knowledge through the production of my
living educational theory with its living logic, I do not deny the value of the
forms of rationality in both propositional and dialectical logics. However I do
understand the 2,500 year old arguments in which both propositional and
dialectical logics deny the rationality of the others logic.
Karl Popper (1963) demonstrated, using two Aristotelean laws
of inference, that any propositional theory that contained contradictory
statements was entirely useless as a theory because he could demonstrate using
the two laws how any such theory that claimed something to be true could also
claim with equal validity that the opposite was true.
Herbert Marcuse (1964) in his book 'One Dimensional Man'
explained that propositional theories that abide by the Law of Contradiction
are masking the dialectical nature or reality with its nucleus of
contradiction. One of the great dialectical thinkers of the 20th Century,
Edvard Ilyenkov sought to explicate the nature of dialectical logic by 'writing'
Logic:
The concretisation of the general definition of Logic
presented above must obviously consist in disclosing the concepts composing it,
above the concept of thought (thinking). Here again a purely dialectical
difficulty arises, Namely, that to define this concept fully, i.e. concretely,
also means to 'write' Logic, because a full definition cannot by any means be
given by a 'definition' but only by 'developing the essence of the matter'. (Ilyenkov, 1977, p.9)
Because of his decision to 'write' logic without a 'living'
logic Ilyenkov was still left with the problem of contradiction at the end of
his life:
'Contradiction as the concrete unity of mutually
exclusive opposites is the real nucleus of dialectics, its central category. On
that score there cannot be two views among Marxists; but no small difficulty
immediately arises as soon as matters touch on 'subjective dialectics', on
dialectics as the logic of thinking. If any object is a living contradiction,
what must the thought (statement about the object) be that expresses it? Can and should an objective
contradiction find reflection in thought? And if so, in what form?' (Ilyenkov, 1977, p. 320)
When
Polanyi (1958) developed his views on personal knowledge as a post-critical
account he advocated the making of a decision to understand the world from our
own points of view as individuals claiming originality and exericising judgment
with universal intent. He developed a logic of affirmation that does not have a
nucleus of contradiction yet can include contradictions in the working out of
the implications of affirmation. Rayner has worked out some of implications of
such a logic in his living logic of inclusionality.
Working
from within a living logic of inclusionality Rayner avoids the conflict between
formal and dialectical logicians through seeing that a mode of thought that is
appropriate for comprehending the real as rational is living with space and
boundaries:
Inclusionality
is an awareness of space and the variably permeable boundaries - ultimately
formed by what physicists refer to as 'electromagnetic energy' - that
inseparably line it, as connective, reflective and co-creative, rather than
divisive. (Rayner,
2005)
I now want to move the ground of my communication from words
on a page into responses to multi-sensorial experiences to communicate the
vital significance of developing a new epistemology for educational knowledge,
with living logics and standards of judgment that can contribute to the
creation of a world of educational quality. I am thinking of contributions to educational knowledge from
educational enquiries of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?'
2) The significance of including 'I' in living
educational theories in the generation of a world of educational quality.
To avoid the colonisation by propositional and dialectical
theories of education in the generation of living educational theories, while
acknowledging and using valuable insights from such theories, I am advocating
the inclusion of 'I' as an individual who is living relationally in cosmic,
global and social spaces. In advocating the inclusion of 'I', I am aware of a
serious limitation in printed, text based representations of my meanings. I am
thinking of limitations in lexical understandings where meanings are
communicated solely in terms of the definitions of the meanings of words in
terms of other words. Lexical
definitions can sever a relationship with the expression of meanings in lived
experience that require ostensive understandings. I am thinking of
understandings, particularly in the communication of the meanings of the
expression of embodied ontological values, that need the showing of what is
being talked or written about. To develop adequate communications in the
generation of living educational theories I have been using multi-media forms
of representation (Eisner, 1987, 1993, 1997, 2005) to communicate the meanings
of the expression of ontological values in educational relationships and in
explanations of educational influence.
The visual data, used as evidence in visual narratives of
educational influence enables the communications of meanings that flow
non-verbally through embodied expressions in living educational relationships.
To show what I mean you can access video-clips and visual narratives at the
url:
http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/sigI.htm
These visual narratives include video-clips of my own
educational relationships in tutoring masters students, supervising doctoral students
and presenting ideas on a new epistemology for educational knowledge at
international conferences. They include explanations by
practitioner-researchers of their own educational influences in their own
learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social formations.
They differ in the meanings that can be communicated through printed text-based
media such as this chapter. Consider, for example, the communication of the
meanings of a flow of life-affirming energy in explanations of educational
influence. Vasilyuk (pp. 63-64, 2001) has pointed out that conceptions
involving energy while current in psychology have been very poorly work out
from a methodological standpoint. As Vasilyuk says we know how 'energetically'
a person can act when positively motivated but we have little understanding of
the conceptual links between energy and motivation, energy and meaning and
energy and value. I am suggesting that to understand the vital influence of
energy and values in explanations of educational influences in learning,
ostensive expressions are required that include visual records of practice.
The meanings that can be communicated through lexical
definitions and ostensive expression also differ, especially in the meanings of the receptive and responsive communicative relationships in
explanations of educational influence. Marian Naidoo (2005) shows these
differences clearly in the multi-media communication of her emergent living
theory of her responsive and inclusional practice as she researches the
processes of improving the way the participants
relate and communicate in a multi-professional and multi-agency healthcare
setting. The thesis includes a visual narrative on DVD and the Abstract
states:
In
telling the story of the unique development of my inclusional and responsive
practice I will show how I have been influenced by the work of theatre
practitioners such as Augusto Boal, educational theorists such as Paulo Freire
and drawn on, incorporated and developed ideas from complexity theory and
living theory action research. I will also describe how my engagement with the
thinking of others has enabled my own practice to develop and from that to
develop a living, inclusional and responsive theory of my practice. Through
this research and the writing of this thesis, I now also understand that my
ontological commitment to a passion for compassion has its roots in significant
events in my past. (Naidoo,
2005)
Hymer
(2007) contributes his
living theory to the flow of living theories through web-space in answering his
question How do I
understand and communicate my values and beliefs in my work as an educator in
the field of giftedness? (http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/hymer.shtml):
I
articulate in narrative form the meanings of my embodied ontological values
through their emergence in my practice - specifically in my practice of
philosophy with children, in creating webs of meaning through dilemma-based
learning, and in seeking to unmask (Foucault, in Rabinow, 1984) the concept of
giftedness - by asking whose interests the concept serves. In the process of
living, clarifying and communicating the meanings of these practices are
formed, I argue, living epistemological standards of judgement for a new,
relationally dynamic epistemology of educational enquiry. (Hymer, Abstract to Doctorate,
2007)
Both Farren (2005), in her research into a web of
betweenness and a pedagogy of the unique, and Lohr (2006) in her research into
love at work use visual narrative to communicate their meanings.
YouTube offers a streaming server facility for showing
video-clips that can be included in visual narratives. From http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/sigI.htm
you can connect to the visual narrative on Creating A World Of Educational
Quality Through Living Educational Theories, that integrates ostensive
expression of the meanings of flows of life-affirming energy with values in
explanations of educational influence. The explanations use the three logics
above with relationally dynamic standards of judgment that emerge from
educational relationships. The educational relationships include such
receptively responsive qualities as love, compassion and justice. The meanings
of these qualities differ in relation to the logic and language used to express
them and to form the rationality of the explanation. The significance of 'I' in
living educational theories is that a living 'I', exploring the implications of
answering questions of the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?', can produce an explanation of
educational influence that includes insights from propositional and dialectical
theories within a living logic of inclusionality.
In the final part of this Chapter I want to show how such
insights can be drawn into a living educational theory with a living logic of
inclusionality without excluding either propositional or dialectical logic.
3)
Using insights from propositional and dialectical
theories in the generation of living educational theories from a perspective of
inclusionality
I think it bears repeating that an assumption in my belief
that I am living a productive life in education is that the generation and
communication of living educational theories is contributing to the generation
of a world of educational quality. At the heart of living educational theories
are the explanations that individuals produce for their educational influences
in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social
formations. I am thinking here of explanations of educational influences in
learning that are generated in enquiries of the kind, 'how do I improve what I
am doing?' Researching the person, the individual 'I' in these enquiries, from
an inclusional perspective, means researching with a relationally dynamic
awareness of space and boundaries that are connective, reflexive and
co-creative (Rayner, 2005). The
insights from propositional and dialectical theories that I use in the
inclusional evolution of my educational theory are too numerous to include
here. They are acknowledged in other publications (Whitehead, 1989, 1993, 2006,
2007). What I want to do here is to illustrate how insights from propositional
and dialectical theories have been integrated within my inclusional educational
theory.
In the growth of my educational knowledge I have engaged
with and found significant in my learning ideas from many others. The
articulation by others of their ideas have helped me to form my own. Here are
some illustrations in terms of my emphasis on the significance of educational
influences in learning in enquiries of the kind, 'how do I improve what I am
doing?' When I say that the ideas of others have helped me to form my own, I
want to stress that my responses to the ideas of others have involved a creative
response that has transformed the meanings of others into my own meanings. So,
when I acknowledge the value of the ideas of others in the growth of my
educational knowledge, I do not mean to say that I have used the ideas of
others as the other intended their meaning. For example I acknowledge the
influence of Paul Tillich's expression of being affirmed by the power of
being-itself. (Tillich, 1973, p. 168) in helping me to articulate my meanings
of the flow of a life-affirming energy. Yet I know Tillich as a Christian
Theologian is expressing a meaning that is intimately connected to his
relationship with his God. Having no theistic sense myself, I express my
meanings of life-affirming energy as being affirmed by the power of
being-itself as a flow of spiritual energy that does not have a named
connection to a God or God. So it
is will all the ideas I acknowledge as having an influence in the growth of my
educational knowledge. Another example of my use of propositional and
dialectical theories can be seen in the influence of the ideas of Habermas and
Ilyenkov.
In stressing the importance of both personal and social
validation in enhancing the validity of explanations of educational influences
in learning, I draw on Habermas ideas (2002, 1987, 1976, 1975). For example in
his work on Legitimation Crisis he focuses on the significance of an automatic
inability not to learn for social evolution. He says that 'Not learning, but not-learning
is the phenomenon that calls for explanation at the socio-cultural stage of
development' (Habermas, 1975, p. 15)
In enhancing the validity claims
of living theories I ask the individuals who constitute validation groups in
responding to my explanations to use Habermas' four principles of validity,
concerning comprehensibility, truth, trust, rightness (Habermas, 1976, pp.2-3).
I do this to enhance the validity
of living theories in terms of their comprehensibility, the evidential base of
the assertions, the understandings of the normative assumptions in the
explanation, the authenticity of the account in that through interaction over
time the explanation shows that I am expressing my intentions truthfully in
seeking to live my ontological values as fully as possible.
In focusing on educational
influences in learning I am also drawn to Habermas's (1987) point about
refraining from critically evaluating and normatively ordering totalities,
forms of life and cultures, and life-contexts and epochs as a whole. I agree
with his emphasis on an orientation to a range of learning processes that are
opened up at a given time by a historically attained level of learning. Where
the generation of living educational theories differs from the generation of
such social theories is that the genesis of living theories, with their
questions 'how do I improve what I am doing?' does begin with an awareness of
concrete ideals immanent in an individual's form of life. For Habermas, a
social theory, can no longer start by examining concrete ideals immanent in
traditional forms of life. In the generation of his social theory Habermas
abstracts cognitive structures from the historical dynamics of events and
abstracts the evolution of society from the historical concretion of forms of
life (p. 383).
In explaining an individuals
educational influence in his or her own learning, in the learning of others and
in the learning of social formations, ideas from Habermas' abstractions can be
integrated within the explanations. While Habermas, and other social theories
sever their meanings from the conscious lived experience of individuals,
through their conceptual abstractions, the abstractions can be of great value
in extending the understandings of the individual in the growth of their
educational knowledge.
In his work on The Inclusion Of
The Other, Habermas (2002) emphasises the importance of engaging with the
contents of an intersubjectively shared social world:
Only the agent himself, who knows his own preferences and
purposes, has the final epistemic authority to judge these 'data'. Practical
reflection can lead to insights only when it goes beyond the subjective world
to which the actor has privileged access and pertains to the contents of an
intersubjectively shared social world. In this way reflection on shared
experiences, practices, and forms of life brings to awareness an ethical
knowledge to which we do not have access simply through the epistemic authority
of the first person singular. (p.25)
Living educational theories are created in the relational
dynamic of both the epistemic
authority of the first person singular and the contents of intersubjectively
shared social worlds.
A dialectical theory that has influenced the growth of my
educational knowledge is Ilyenkov's (1977) theory of dialectical logic. The
tension between propositional and dialectical theorists can be appreciated in
Popper's (1963, pp. 316-317) rejection of dialectical theories as being
entirely useless as theories on the grounds that they contain contradictions.
For Ilyenkov the concretisation of a general definition of Logic consists in
disclosing the concepts composing it especially the concept of thinking. For Ilyenkov to define this concept
fully, i.e. concretely, also means to 'write' Logic, because as he says, 'a
full definition cannot by any means be given by a 'definition' but only by
'developing the essence of the matter'.' (Ilyenkov, 1977, p.9)
In developing the essence of dialectical logic Ilyenkov
points out that contradiction as the concrete unity of mutually exclusive
opposites is the real nucleus of dialectics, its central category. He also
recognises the difficulty of expressing in statements the meanings of
'subjective dialectics', on dialectics as the logic of thinking (Ilyenkov,
1977, p. 320).
The experience of 'I' as a living contradiction in answering
the question, 'How do I improve what I am doing?', when experienced from a
perspective of inclusionality in the generation of living educational theories,
is in a flow-form of experiencing that can be understand in a living logic of
inclusionality. In my view Ilyenkov's difficulty emerged from seeking to
'write' logic rather than including the writing within a living logic of
inclusionality. A living logic of inclusionity, as each living educational
theory shows, can draw insights from ideas in both propositional and
dialectical theories without denying the rationality of either logic. In the
growth of my educational knowledge (Whitehead, 1989, 1993, Whitehead and
Mcniff, 2006) I show the educational influences in my learning of my engagement
with ideas from both kinds of theory. I want to stress the importance of this
learning while at the same time acknowledging the validity of my
experience-based resistance to the idea that an individual's explanation of
their educational influence in their own learning, in the learning of others
and in the learning of social formations can be reduced to any explanation
offered by any discipline of education either individually or in any
combination.
When I rejected the disciplines approach to educational
theory I do not want to be misunderstood as saying that I rejected the
educational influence of the tutors who advocated this approach. I recall their
enthusiasm and commitment with pleasure. I value most highly the quality of the
educational conversations they stimulated. My rejection of the disciplines
approach to educational theory occurred whilst valuing the contributions to the
growth of my educational knowledge of philosophy, sociology, psychology and
history. I hope that this is clear.
In conclusion I want to continue to highlight the tension
between those who are developing a discipline of education and those who are
generating their own living educational theories. The tension can be
appreciated in the differences between education research and educational
research. I work in a Department of Education. My most memorable professional
development as an educator took place in the Institute of Education of London
University. The two research associations I belong to are Educational Research
Associations. They are the American Educational Research Association and the
British Educational Research Association.
I have spent the last 34 years of my professional life seeking to
contribute to educational theory at the University of Bath. In doing this I see
myself contributing to the Mission of the University which includes having a
distinct academic approach to the education of professional practitioners. I am
offering the ideas about the nature of living educational theories as such a
distinct approach. Yet, I am aware that the field of educational research
continues to be dominated by researchers in education research. Geoff Whitty is
a President of the British Educational Research Association who explains very
clearly why the distinction he makes between education research and educational
research leads him to advocate a change in the name of the British Educational
Research Association, presumably to the British Education Research Association.
One problem with this distinction between 'education
research' as the broad term and 'educational research' as the narrower field of
work specifically geared to the improvement of policy and practice is that it
would mean that BERA, as the British Educational Research Association would
have to change its name or be seen as only involved with the latter. So trying
to make the distinction clearer would also involve BERA in a re-branding
exercise which may not necessarily be the best way of spending our time and
resources. But it is at least worth considering. (Whitty, 2005)
Given what I have been saying about the significance of
generating living educational theories for the creation of a world of
educational quality, I wish to keep the focus on educational research with the
recognition that education research has a vital part to play in the generation
of living theories, but must not be permitted to dominate the field of
educational research. The significance for me of including 'I' in living
educational theories is that this prevents the reification of living
individuals into the conceptual abstraction 'person'. The inclusion of 'I'
works for me in preventing the severing from the expression of the
life-affirming energy and values of individuals in their educational
relationships. In particular the use of visual narratives (see http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/sigI.htm)
that show the forms of life of individuals in their social, global and cosmic
contexts can avoid the omission of life-affirming energy and the expression of
embodied values in explanations of educational influence, especially in
explanations for educational influences in the learning of social formations.
My present emphasis on understanding the educational
influences of individuals and groups in the learning of social formations is
related to Bourdieu's understandings of the automatisms of the habitus in
analysing social formations:
'... paradoxically, social science makes greatest use of
the language of rules precisely in the cases where it is most totally
inadequate, that is, in analysing social formations in which, because of the
constancy of the objective conditions over time, rules have a particularly
small part to play in the determination of practices, which is largely
entrusted to the automatisms of the habitus.'
(Bourdieu, p. 145, 1990)
What I am seeking to do in enhancing the flow of living
educational theories through web-space is to enhance their educational
influence, as cultural artefacts, in the learning of social formations as well
as individuals. In doing this I wish to demonstrate that the living standards
of judgment of living theories can be seen as guiding rules that can make a
significant contribution to the generation of a world of educational quality.
In doing this I acknowledge the value of Butler's (1999, p. viii) desire to
'open up possibilities' in her research into gender.
In stressing the importance of 'I' in the generation of
living educational theories I am also conscious of Lyotard's point about the
postmodern condition:
A postmodern artist or writer is in the position of a philosopher: the
text he writes, the work he produces are not in principle governed by
pre-established rules, and they cannot be judged according to a determining
judgement, by applying familiar categories to the text or to the work. Those
rules and categories are what the work of art itself is looking for. The artist
and the writer, then, are working without rules in order to formulate the rules
of what will have been done.
(Lyotard, p. 81, 1986) ,
and of holding open a field of possibility together with an
understanding of the cultural, historical and material influences on what is
possible in a particular social order. In facing this tension through the
creative responses of 'I' in the enquiry, 'How do I improve what I am doing?' I
wish to show how I avoid the determinations of performativity by resisting the
anticipation of an authoritative disclosure of meaning as described by Butler:
'I originally took my clue on how to read the
performativity of gender from Jacques Derrida's reading of Kafka's 'Before the
Law.' There the one who waits for the law, sits before the door of the law,
attributes a certain force to the law for which one waits. The anticipation of
an authoritative disclosure of meaning is the means by which the authority is
attributed and installed: the anticipation conjures its object. I wondered
whether we do not labor under a similar expectation concerning gender, that it
operates as an interior essence that might be disclosed, an expectation that ends
up producing the very phenomenon that it anticipates.' (Butler, 1999, p. xv).
In the course of generating living educational theories I am
also drawn to Bakhtin's insight about the 'I' and about the 'radically
singular' and the 'responsible':
'As Bakhtin explains 'I' do not fit into theory - neither
in the psychology of consciousness, not the history of some science, nor in the
chronological ordering of my day, not in my scholarly duties...... these
problems derive from the fundamental error of 'rationalist' philosophy... The
fatal flaw is the denial of responsibility - which is to say, the crisis is at
base an ethical one. It can be
overcome only by an understanding of the act as a category into which
cognition enters but which is radically singular and 'responsible'. (Emerson, & Morson, 1989, p. 13.)
In stressing the significance of 'I' in generating living
educational theories and providing access to the flow of living theories
through web-space I am stressing the importance of each individual's responsibility
for making a contribution to the generation of a world of educational quality.
I am suggesting that educational researchers, as distinct from education
researchers have a responsible to undertake self-studies that make public their
educational influences in their own learning, in the learning of others and in
the education of social formations as we seek to live our ontological values as
fully as we can. I am thinking of these values as those that give meaning and
purpose to our existence.
The consideration of ontology,
of one's being in and toward the world, should be a central feature of any
discussion of the value of self-study research" (Bullough & Pinnegar, 2004 p. 319)
This is not to deny the value of
being an education researcher. It is to acknowledge the value of the creative
engagements of the individual 'I' with the ideas produced by education
researchers in generating living educational theories that are contributing to
the creation of a world of educational quality. I hope my writings have captivated
your imaginations in seeing the validity of the case I have made for
educational researchers, as distinct from education researchers, to produce
valid explanations for the educational influences of themselves in their own
learning, in the learning of others and in the learning of social formations. I
do hope that you will access the visual narratives at http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/sigI.htm
which communicate much better than my words alone, the meanings of the
expression of the life-affirming energy and embodied values of humanity that
are contributing to enhancing the quality of our living spaces in enquiries of
the kind, 'How do I improve what I am doing?'
References
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford CA;
Stanford University Press.
Buber, M. (1947) Between Man and Man. London; Kegan Paul,
Trench, Trubner
& Co. Ltd.
Bullough, R. & Pinnegar, S.
(2004) Thinking about the thinking about self-study: An Analysis of Eight
Chapters, in Loughran, J. J., Hamilton, M. L. LaBoskey, V. K, Russell, T.
International Handbook of Self-Study of Teaching and Teacher-Education
Practices. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Butler, J. (1999) Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion
of Identity. Routledge; New York and London.
Emerson, C. and Gary Saul Morson,
G. S. (1989) Rethinking Bakhtin. Evanston: Northwestern Press
Habermas, J. (1975)
Legitimation Crisis. Boston, Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (1976) Communication
and the evolution of society. London : Heinemann
Habermas, J. (1987) The Theory of Communicative Action
Volume Two: The Critique of Functionalist Reason. Oxford; Polity.
Habermas, J. (2002) The Inclusion of the Other: Studies in
Political Theory. Oxford; Polity.
Ilyenkov, E. (1977) Dialectical Logic, Moscow; Progress
Publishers.
Lyotard, F. (1986) The Postmodern Condition: A report on
Knowledge. Manchester; Manchester University Press.
Marcuse, H. (1964) One Dimensional Man, London; Routledge
and Kegan Paul.
Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations, Oxford,
Oxford University Press.
Rayner, A. (2004) Inclusionality: The Science, Art and Spirituality of Place,
Space and Evolution. Retrieved 9 March 2007 from
http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr/inclusionality/placespaceevolution.html
Rayner,
A. (2005) Space, Dust and the Co-evolutionary Context of 'His Dark
Materials'. Retrieved 2 August 2006 from
http://people.bath.ac.uk/bssadmr/inclusionality/HisDarkMaterials.htm
Schilling,
M. (2007) Dynamic Presencing: Moving in another space. Retrieved 9 March 2007
from http://video.google.de/videoplay?docid=5965701020655032299&hl=de
Tillich, P. (1973) The Courage To Be, London; Fontana.
Vasilyuk, F.
(1991) The Psychology of Experiencing: the Resolution of Life's Critical
Situations. Hemel Hempstead;
Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Whitehead,
J. (2007) A New Epistemology For Educational Knowledge. Presentation for AERA
in Chicago on 13 April 2007. Retrieved on 9 March 2007 from http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jack/jwaera07dr0903.htm
Whitty, G. (2005) Education(al) research and education
policy making: is conflict inevitable? Presidential Address to the British
Educational Research Association, University of Glamorgan, 17 September 2005.