On 15 Apr 2008, at 17:22, Cathie Pearce wrote:
Thanks for this Jack and Peter.
Yes, really helpful and I was just
beginning to feel a bit overwhelmed
with emails even though I really
wanted to read them all, so yes, this
is a good way of doing it. I also
like the idea of links and refs so that
the contributions can be more
exploratory but also substantial,
should anyone want to follow stuff up.
I'm the world's worst at
cross referencing so I'll find this useful
and helpful to do as well.. and feel
free to point it out to me too.
Would seriously love to explore some
Deleuzian stuff in this forum as
I'm excited about its possibilities and
potentials within social science
research in general and educational
research in particular.
I'm finding Louise's question really helpful in moving on
ideas in my own research programme and I think that responding to some of
Deleuze's ideas will help even more. I broke free from the constraints of
traditional scholarship in the middle of my masters degree in 1971 when, after
4 years teaching I had the confidence to focus on exploring the implications of
my question, 'How do I improve what I am doing?', in the context of my
educational relationships with my pupils. For my masters degree I researched
teachers' influence on developing pupils scientific understandings in the
secondary school where I was Head of the Science Department. I think this
'breaking free' involved a confidence that my embodied knowledge as an educator
could not be adequately explained by any discipline of education, either
individually or in any combination and that I would have to produce my own
explanation for my educational influence. It might be that Louise could
break from similar constraints by exploring the implications of asking,
answering and researching a question like, 'How do I contribute to the
development of my student's active citizenship through transformative story
telling?' I'm also wondering if educational research can be thought of
as a social science without a loss of what it is that constitutes research as
'educational'.
My next point informs my understanding of what constitutes
something as educational. If I'm mistaken it will have serious consequences for
the future of my educational research programme.
I work with Weber's understanding of a social action
being that action which:
" ...by virtue of the subjective meaning attached to it
by the acting individual (or individuals), takes account of the behaviour of
others, and is thereby orientated in its course." (Schutz, 1972, p. 29)
Schutz, A (1972) The Phenomenology of the Social World.
London; Heinemann.
For me to recognise something as educational I need to see a
flow of life-affirming energy. Here is where I may be making a fundamental
mistake in my research programme. At present I cannot see that the flow of
life-affirming energy is social in the sense of emerging from the subjective
meanings of active individuals that are taking account of the behaviour of
others. I value many social theories, but I cannot see that they express the
meanings of the flows of life-affirming energy that distinguish, for me, a
social action from an educational action. So, I'm feeling resistant to seeing
educational research as a particular case of social science research in
general. I'd be grateful if anyone could help me to see that I'm making a
mistake here.
When Moira responded to the video of the keynote at mms://wms.bath.ac.uk/live/education/JackWhitehead_030408/jackkeynoteictr280308large.wmv
she said that she felt that
it was beyond criticism. I like what Deleuze says about resisting
judgment in art:
"Deleuze claims that standards of value are internal or
immanent: to live well is to fully express one's power, to go to the limits of
one's potential, rather than to judge what exists by non-empirical,
transcendent standards. Modern society still suppresses difference and alienates
persons from what they can do. To affirm reality, which is a flux of change and
difference, we must overturn established identities and so become all that we
can become - though we cannot know what that is in advance. The pinnacle of
Deleuzean practice, then, is creativity. 'Herein,
perhaps, lies the secret: to bring into existence and not to judge. It is so
disgusting to judge, it is not because everything is of equal value, but on the
contrary because what has value can be made or distinguished only by defying
judgment. What expert judgment, in art, could every bear on the work to come?' (Deleuze,
1997, p. 135 (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilles_Deleuze).
Looking at the video I feel the pleasure of seeing my
creativity at work. The video seems to me and to others who have responded to
it as showing me expressing my art as an educator in the act of creation. I
agree with Deleuze when he emphasises the importance of bringing into existence
and not to judge.
I do however exercise judgment because of my educational responsibility
as an educator and educational researcher to engage in knowledge-creation. In
wanting to understand my educational influence in my own learning, in the
learning of others and in the learning of the social formations in which I live
and work I exercise judgment. Again, I may be making a fundamental mistake in
my educational research programme in believing that one of my most significant
contributions to society, as an active citizen, could be to bring into the
Academy standards of judgment, in relation to knowledge-creation, that include
values and understandings that carry hope for the future of humanity and my
own. Many thanks for stimulating these thoughts. Please don't hestitate
to point out where you think I am mistaken.
I believe that everyone will appreciate Pete's understanding
of respect:
Jack - For me, respect is something that primarily is earned, so it flows
automatically; it is not something that primarily is given as the result of a
conscious decision on the part of the giver. Thus, respect moves of its own
volition to where it is deserved and acts as a touch of affirmation. - Pete
Love Jack.
Deleuze, G. (1997) Essays
Critical and Clinical, trans. Daniel W. Smith and Michael A. Greco,
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.