How
are living educational theories being produced and legitimated with cultural
diversity from the arts, philosophy, psychology, sociology, education and
religion?
Jack Whitehead, Department of Education, University of Bath
Visiting Professor at Ningxia Teachers, University, Guyuan, China.
DRAFT 25 FEBRUARY 2008
Presentation for the Cultures in Resistance Conference. The 7th Conference of the Discourse, Power, Resistance Series, 18-20 March 2008 Manchester Metropolitan University.
Abstract
A critique of the languages, logics and standards of judgment in contemporary cultural practices for the legitimation of educational knowledge in the Academy will reveal, using multi-media narratives, how they deny the educational significance of the recognition of educational responsibility towards the other in educational relationships. A living educational theory approach in the boundaries of cultures in resistance will be proposed that celebrates the potential for enrichment of educational knowledge through cultural diversity in the arts, philosophy, psychology, sociology, education, religion, ethics and ontology. The performance text of the presentation will include a situated analysis of resistance; a resistance to a lack of diversity in forms of representation about the nature of educational knowledge in many universities.
The presentation includes a self-study of persistence, in the form of a visual narrative, of pressures over a working life in education at the University of Bath of some 34 years that could have breached the principle of academic freedom and other values of humanity. Theoretical insights from the work of Fromm, Said, Foucault, Habermas, Eisner, Ladson-Billings, Tillich, Buber, Bourdieu, Bernstein (B), Ilyenkov and Popper will be integrated into the analysis. The data-base includes some 30 living theory theses legitimated in the Academy over the past twenty years.
Introduction
I was attracted to submit a proposal for
the 7th conference of the Discourse, Power, Resistance series
because of the focus on Cultures in Resistance. My interest in culture is
because of my recognition while that good ideas can be generated in a specific
context they must become part of a cultural influence if they are to have a
widespread influence in the education of social formations. The good ideas I have in mind have
emerged from my 34 year old research programme at the University of Bath, into
the nature of educational theory. Whether they are good ideas is open to your
questioning. They inform my critique below of the languages, logics and
standards of judgment in contemporary cultural practices for the legitimation
of educational knowledge in the Academy. The
ideas are:
My interest in understanding cultures in resistance is because of my experience of working in the boundaries of such cultures that serve both reproductive and transformatory interests in the legitimation of living educational theories. My interest in generating living educational theories, in the boundaries of cultures in resistance, is in enhancing the transformatory power of education in the lives of individuals and social formations.
Because I make a distinction between social actions and educational actions in terms of energised values in educational relationships I will clarify this distinction after I have given my meanings of culture, resistance and inclusionality.
Culture
I draw my understanding of culture from Said (1993) when he writes:
As I use the word, 'culture' means two things in particular. First of all it means all those practices, like the arts of description, communication, and representation, that have relative autonomy from the economic, social, and political realms and that often exist in aesthetic forms, one of whose principal aims is pleasure. Included, of course, are both the popular stock of lore about distant parts of the world and specialized knowledge available in such learned disciplines as ethnography, historiography, philology, sociology, and literary history..... Second, and almost imperceptible, culture is a concept that includes a refining and elevating element, each society's reservoir of the best that has been known and thought. As Matthew Arnold put it in the 1860s.... In time, culture comes to be associated, often aggressively, with the nation of the state; this differentiates 'us' from 'them', almost always with some degree of xenophobia. Culture in this sense is a source of identity, and a rather combative one at that, as we see in recent 'returns' to culture and tradition. (Said, pp. xii-xiv, 1993)
Resistance
Writing about resistance, in the tertiary level of education in
Japan, McVeigh distinguishes a form of social malaise as 'resistance':
By 'resistance' I do not mean a conscious, organized, and
systematic insurrection against the sociopolitical order. Rather, I employ this
term to designate actions and attitudes that do not directly challenge but scorn the system. This
form of subtle resistance ignores rather than threatens and is a type of
diversion (if only temporary) from, rather than a subversion of, the dominant
structures. (McVeigh 2002: 185-186).
I can understand this notion of resistance, but it is not the way I
am using the idea of resistance when I write from a position in the living
boundaries of cultures in resistance. By the 'living boundaries of cultures in
resistance' I am meaning that that there is something expressed in the boundary
sustained by one culture that is a direct challenge to something in the other
culture. For example, in education there is a political culture that has been
imposing a regime of testing in schools. There is a professional culture that
has been stressing the importance of creativity. There continues to be tensions
in the boundaries of these cultures.
These meanings of culture and resistance can help to communicate what I am meaning by cultures in resistance. The first meaning of culture can be associated with transformation, the second with reproduction. I think of cultures as living phenomena that are social constructions sustained by collective communications in forms of life. Particular individuals may die and the culture can continue. If all the individuals sustaining a culture die, the culture dies. Hence my stress on the living and my interest in the influence of living educational theories in sustaining and or transforming cultures. In my research programme into the nature of educational theories I work from a perspective of inclusionality developed by Rayner (2005) and Lumley (2008).
Inclusionality
I like Marcuse's (1964, p. 105) idea of
logic as a mode of thought that is appropriate for comprehending the real as
rational. In the generation of living educational theories I use three forms of
rationality, the propositional, the dialectical and the inclusional. There is a
2,500
history of conflict between adherents to
propositional and dialectical logic in which the adherents to one position deny
the rationality of the other (Popper, 1963, p. 313-17). Within a living
educational theory, insights from both propositional and dialectical theories are
included as I show below. The living logics of inclusionality that permit this
inclusion, without denying the rationality of propositional and dialectical
thinkers, are grounded in Rayner's (2005) understanding of inclusionality as a
relationally dynamic awareness of space and boundaries as connective,
reflective and co-creative. I like
the way Lumley expresses inclusionality in his fluid-dynamical world view as:
"...an inspiring pooling-of-consciousness
that seems to include and connect all within all in unifying dynamical
communion.... The concreteness of 'local object being'... allows us to understand
the dynamics of the common living-space in which we are all ineluctably
included participants. (Lumley, 2008, p.3)
I am working with the living logics of inclusionality
in the critique below. The critique rests on distinguishing the language of
educational and social actions through the expression of a dynamic loving
energy in educational relationships. I tend to use the expression
'life-affirming energy' in distinguishing educational relationships. Because
some other researchers I work with use the expression 'dynamic loving energy',
I would like to see if the video-clip below, communicates the expression of a
'dynamic loving energy' in the mutual recognition of educator and pupil.
Distinguishing educational and social
actions through a dynamic loving energy.
I like the recent developments in the social sciences regarding autoethnographies. I think that much of what I am going to say can be seen as an autoethnography in the sense of an explanation for the life of an individual that takes account of cultural influences.
Where I think the educational explanations
in living educational theories go beyond limitations of explanations from
social science of educational influences in learning, is in the recognition and
representation of a dynamic loving energy as an explanatory principle for
educational influences in learning. It may be that other participants in the
conference work with a different understanding of social action to the one that
I use. It may be that your understanding of social actions include flows of
life-affirming energy that have a social source. In his work on the
phenomenology of the social world Schutz draws attention to 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)
This is my understanding of a social action. In my understanding of educational actions they go beyond this understanding of a social action. An educational action includes a flow of life-affirming energy with values. This life-affirming energy, that others describe as a dynamic loving energy (Formby, 2008; Walton, 2008) while mediated by the individual and the social, flows from outside the individual and the social. Hence the distinction I draw between educational and social actions.
One of my main criticisms of present cultural practices for legitimating educational knowledge in the Academy is focused on differences between the explanatory principle of an embodied expression of a dynamic loving energy in educational relationships and the language of academic explanations of educational influences in learning. Here is a visual representation of the expression of the dynamic loving energy I have in mind from a video-clip on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/user/cvformby
The clip is taken from a visual narrative
of a teacher-researcher's enquiry from her master's programme:
How am I integrating
my educational theorizing firstly with the educational responsibility I express
in my educational relationships with the children in my class, but also with
the educational responsibility I feel towards those in the wider school
community? (Formby, 2008, http://www.jackwhitehead.com/tuesdayma/cfee3draft.htm
)
The visual narrative
that includes the video-clip includes the context:
Recently I watched a
video clip from my Yr 2 class of myself with a little boy, J, who wanted to
wear a Samuel Pepys' wig, a history resource to bring The Great Fire of London
to life. I knew immediately that the video clip said something significant
about me and about my relationships with the children in my class.
The images below are the moments in the
educational relationship that resonate with Claire as expressing her flow of a
dynamic loving energy.
The main point of the critique below is to
reveal omissions of the explanatory principle of a dynamic loving energy
(Walton, 2008) in the propositional languages, logics and standards of
judgement of much academic writings about education. These writings are
reproducing one pole of a dialectic in the living boundaries of cultures in
resistance. In the other pole the boundary is supporting the inclusion of
living educational theories with their energised, values-based standards of
judgment, in the Academy.
In the analysis that follows I first critique the languages, logics and standards of judgment in contemporary cultural practices for the legitimation of educational knowledge in the academy.
I then offer a living educational theory approach to boundaries of cultures in resistance.
Finally I present a performance text of a situated analysis of cultural resistance as a self-study of persistence in the face of pressures within boundaries of resistance. The self self-study of persistence is with a desire for recognition of an outstanding contribution to educational knowledge. This persistence includes the pressures in the power relations of cultural boundaries that can constrain the flow of values, skills and understandings that carry hope for the future of humanity. The text includes an engagement with the ideas of others and connects with living educational theories that are flowing freely through web-space as gifts.
A critique of the languages, logics and
standards of judgment in contemporary cultural practices for the legitimation
of educational knowledge in the Academy.
My move to the University of Bath in 1973 from the post of Head of Science at Erkenwald Comprehensive School in Barking was motivated by a recognition that the dominant view of educational theory was mistaken. I wanted to make a contribution to the creation of valid forms of educational theory. At the beginning of my career in education, in 1966, on the initial teacher education programme in the Department of Education of the University of Newcastle, I had produced my first special study on 'The Way To Professionalism In Education?' I began teaching in 1967 as a teacher of science at Langdon Park School in London's Tower Hamlets. Between 1967-72 I believed that my main contribution to the profession would be as a science teacher in secondary schools. However, in 1971 I began to question the validity of the dominant view of educational theory. In this view, educational theory was believed to be constituted by the disciplines of the philosophy, psychology, sociology and history of education. Having studied these disciplines for my Academic Diploma and MA in Education at the University of London, Institute of Education, and studied my explanations for my educational influences in my own learning and in the learning of my pupils, I could see that no explanation derived from any discipline of education, taken individually or in any combination, could produce a valid explanation of my educational influence in my own learning or in the learning of my pupils.
My sense of vocation changed as I began to believe that my greatest contribution to enhancing professionalism in education might come from contributing to the reconstruction of educational theory. I was fortunate to have my application for a post of lecturer in education accepted by the University of Bath in 1973. This has enabled me to spend the last 35 years, with economic security, on my research programme into the nature of educational theory. I do not want to underestimate the importance of this economic security and will return to its significance later.
Through the support of the University I have been able to attend many international conferences in China, Japan, Australia, the UK, Ireland, South Africa, Canada and the United States, and examine many masters dissertations and doctoral degrees in different universities in different countries. Hence I feel that I have some understanding of the languages, logics and standards of judgment being used to legitimate educational knowledge in different cultures.
My critique of the languages, logics and standards of judgment in contemporary cultural practices for the legitimation of educational knowledge in the Academy is similar to the critique given by Paul Hirst of his original support for the idea of a disciplines approach to educational theory. I am thinking of his point 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)
Imagine experiencing at first hand the
power relations of this dominant cultural belief that your explanations of your
educational influences with your pupils or students were at best pragmatic
maxims having a first crude and superficial justification in practice that in
any rationally developed through would be replaced by principles with more fundamental theoretical justification!
While studying with philosophers of education, who held the above belief, I
felt a clash of cultures. On the one hand I continued to value my understanding
of philosophy of education. On the other hand I felt the need to resist the
dominant culture of the philosophers that held that my explanations of my educational
influences with my pupils did not constitute an educational theory, but needed
to be replaced by explanations with more 'theoretical justification'. The resistance came from
participating in a professional culture that valued the embodied knowledge of
professional educators. I felt a resistance in the boundaries between the
cultures, where the dominant academic culture was actively and explicitly
seeking to replace the embodied knowledge of the professional educator with the
'academic' theories of the philosophers, sociologists, psychologists and
historians of education. The differential power relations in the boundaries of
the cultures in resistance meant that attempts to bring the embodied knowledge
of professional educators into the academy as academic knowledge, met a
resistance from those who thought the explanatory principles in this knowledge,
needed to be replaced by principles with more theoretical justification. The
importance of bringing the embodied knowledge of educators into the Academy has
been highlighted by Snow (2001):
"The knowledge resources of excellent teachers constitute a rich resource, but one that is largely untapped because we have no procedures for systematizing it. Systematizing would require procedures for accumulating such knowledge and making it public, for connecting it to bodies of knowledge established through other methods, and for vetting it for correctness and consistency. If we had agreed-upon procedures for transforming knowledge based on personal experiences of practice into 'public' knowledge, analogous to the way a researcher's private knowledge is made public through peer-review and publication, the advantages would be great." (p.9)
In critiquing the dominant languages,
logics and standards of judgment in contemporary cultural practices for the
legitimation of educational knowledge in the Academy, I want to focus initially
on a difference between propositional and dialectical thinkers. I am thinking
of the difference that has led proponents of the different logics to deny the
rationality of the other's position. In the section below on developing a
living educational theory approach to cultural resistance I shall show how a
perspective of inclusionality can integrate insights from both propositional
and dialectical thinkers without denying their rationalities.
Karl Popper has provided a very clear rejection of dialectical theorising from within the arguments of propositional logic. In answering his question, 'What is Dialectic?', Popper (1963) rejects dialectical claims to knowledge as, 'without the slightest foundation. Indeed, they are based on nothing better than a loose and woolly way of speaking' (p.316).
Popper demonstrates, using two laws of inference, that if a theory contains a contradiction, then it entails everything, and therefore, indeed, nothing. He says that a theory which adds to every information which it asserts also the negation of this information can give us no information at all. A Theory which involves a contradiction is therefore entirely useless as a theory (p.317).
Popper is thinking of theory in the propositional terms used by Pring:
" 'Theory' would seem to have the following features. It refers to a set of propositions which are stated with sufficient generality yet precision that they explain the 'behaviour' of a range of phenomena and predict what would happen in the future." (Pring, 2000, pp. 124-25)
Writing at the same time as Popper in the 1960s Marcuse (1964), a proponent of Critical Theory, explains how propositional theories are masking the dialectical nature of reality with its nucleus of contradiction. One of the greatest dialectical thinkers of the last century Evard Ilyenkov highlighted the problem of contradiction in dialectical theorising. This problem emerged from his decision to 'write' 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)
And the problem of contradiction remained at his death:
"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)
The problem is that once a dialectician
commits to 'writing' with the sole medium of communication being statements on
words on pages of printed text, the dialectician is trapped in the logic of
propositions while trying to express the meanings of living contradictions that
are embodied in practice.
This is my central critique of the dominant
languages, logics and standards of judgment in contemporary cultural practices
for the legitimation of educational knowledge in the Academy. While
propositional theories can explain many significant events in the world, they
cannot produce valid explanations of the educational influences of individuals
in their own learning, in the learning of others or in the learning of the
social formations in which we live and work. When dialecticians seek to produce
such explanations in terms of living contradictions, and to present them in the
sole medium of words in statements of pages of printed text, they are trapped
within a propositional logic. Their form of representation and communication
does not permit the development of a valid explanation of the life of a living
contradiction. I shall now explain how a living educational theory approach in
the boundaries of cultures in resistance can avoid such criticisms with the
living logics of inclusionality.
A living educational theory approach to
the boundaries of cultures in resistance.
I began to use the idea of a living
educational theory (Whitehead, 1989) as an individual's explanation of his or
her educational influence in their own learning, in the learning of others and
in the learning of social formations, to distinguish these explanations from
the explanations derived from propositional theories of education. I liked
Ilyenkov's (1977) question about
living contradictions and felt that the idea of living theory could embrace and
be produced from such contradictions. I am thinking of living contradictions in
terms of certain values together with their denial in practice being held
together in the 'I' in such questions as 'How do I improve what I am doing?'
I have researched my working life at the
University of Bath as the life of a living contradiction (Whitehead, 1993,
2004). I have experienced such contradictions in responding to the following
judgments that are cultural in the sense of being carried with systemic
influence by the disciplinary power of the university. The judgments span some
30 years and continue to live in my participation in the boundaries of cultural
resistance between the traditional representations of educational knowledge in
words in statements of pages of printed text and the expressions and
representations of the embodied knowledges of professional practitioners. The
site of cultural resistance of these living boundaries is most marked at the
University of Bath because of the University's mission to have a distinct
academic approach to the education of professional practitioners.
In looking at the judgments below in terms
of boundaries of cultural resistance I want to make the following distinction
between the privilege of working in a creative, educational space, provided by
my employment by the University of Bath, and the actions of some individuals
who because of institutional position can communicate with the disciplinary
pressure of the organisation. What I mean by this, in the communications below,
is that individuals have sent me communications on behalf of the University.
Because they are made 'on behalf of the University', their communications can
carry the disciplinary power of the University. You will see that the
communications below, now part of the history of the university and influencing
the present culture, are focused on 'The University's' responses to my
contributions to educational knowledge. My own responses, in the cultural form
of my published papers, show my resistance to these judgments, just as the
University's responses to my contributions to educational knowledge show a
resistance to my own judgments.
Working within the boundaries of cultural
resistance means to me meeting and responding to both opportunities and
constraining influences in the power relations of the boundaries. I have been
fortunate, so far, that the flows of life-affirming energy, accompanying my
creativity and values of humanity, have enabled me to face and respond
creatively to the actions and judgments listed below from the dominant culture.
These carry constraining cultural pressures of institutional and disciplinary power
relations between 1976-2006. In the boundaries of resistance I have continued
with my research, writings and teaching in the University to support the
creation of cultures of enquiry (Delong, 2002). These cultures of enquiry
continue to be created through the expression of flows of life-affirming energy
with values that I distinguish as carrying hope for the future of humanity and
my own.
Humour, working with creative students and
colleagues and the art of conversation have played their part in this transcending
of the constraining pressures and the identity challenging influences of the
judgments below. In the presentation of the performance text I will show what I
mean by living contradictions in holding together the experience of flows of
life-affirming energy, and values, and the experience of energy and values
sapping constraints. I will show the transcending and transformatory influences
of humour, values-based conversations and the understandings of the most
advanced social theories of the day. My professional context is in working with
creative students and colleagues in keeping open the flow of life-affirming
energy with values of humanity in channels of communication. Because of the
importance of the art of conversation in transcending constraining pressures I
want to explain what I mean by this art.
Gadamer's ideas appealed to me because I could identify with his
emphasis on the importance of forming a question. For Gadamer, questioning is a
'passion'. He says that questions press upon us when our experiences conflict
with our preconceived opinions. He
believes that the art of questioning is not the art of avoiding the pressure of
opinion.
"It is not an art in the sense that the Greeks speak of
techne, not a craft that can be taught and by means of which we would master
the knowledge of truth".
Drawing on Plato's
Seventh Letter, Gadamer
distinguishes the unique character of the art of dialectic. He does not see the art of dialectic as
the art of being able to win every argument. On the contrary, he says it is
possible that someone who is practising the art of dialectic, i.e. the art of
questioning and of seeking truth, comes off worse in the argument in the eyes
of those listening to it. (Gadamer, 1975.
p.330).
According to Gadamer, dialectic,
as the art of asking questions, proves itself only because the person who knows
how to ask questions is able to persist
in his questioning. I see a
characteristic of this persistence as being able to preserve one's openness to
the possibilities which life itself permits. The art of questioning is that of
being able to continue with one's questions. Gadamer refers to the art of
conversation.
"To conduct a conversation requires first of all that the
partners to it do not talk at cross purposes. Hence its necessary structure is
that of question and answer. The first condition of the art of conversation is
to ensure that the other person is with us.... To conduct a conversation....
requires that one does not try to out-argue the other person, but that one really
considers the weight of the other's opinion. Hence it is an art of testing. But
the art of testing is the art of questioning. For we have seen that to question
means to lay open, to place in the open. As against the solidity of opinions,
questioning makes the object and all its possibilities fluid. A person who
possesses the 'art' of questioning is a person who is able to prevent the
suppression of questions by the dominant opinion.... Thus the meaning of a
sentence is relative to the question to which it is a reply (my emphasis), i.e. it necessarily goes beyond what is said in
it. The logic of the human sciences is, then, as appears from what we have said
a logic of the question. Despite
Plato we are not very ready for such a logic." (pp. 330-333)
Here are the judgments, spanning thirty
years in my work at the University of Bath that have helped me to form my life
as a living contradiction and generate my living educational theory. They carry
the disciplinary power of the institution. Such judgments are the evidence I
offer of a sustained culture of
resistance to the recognition of the transforming cultural potential of the
generation and testing of living educational theories. My purpose here is not
to analyse the particular judgments in relation to the growth of my educational
knowledge. I have done this in detail elsewhere.
Whitehead, 1993 The Growth of Educational Knowledge. Bournemouth; Hyde. Retrieved 19 February 2008 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/writings/jwgek93.htm
Whitehead, 1999 How do I improve my practice? Creating a New
Discipline of Educational Enquiry. Retrieved 19 February 2008 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/jack.shtml
Whitehead, 2004 Do Action Researchers' Expeditions Carry Hope
For The Future Of Humanity? How Do We Know? Action Research Expeditions,
October 2004. Retrieved 19 February 2008 from http://www.arexpeditions.montana.edu/articleviewer.php?AID=80
My purpose here is to provide evidence that
places beyond reasonable doubt my claim that one pole of the dialectic of the
cultures of resistance can be understood as a resistance to recognising the
validity of ideas from my research into living educational theories. In the
performance text below I am seeking to establish, the nature of the other pole
of the cultures in resistance in extending recognition of the validity and
academic legitimacy of the transforming cultural potential of living
educational theories. Here are the
judgments that establish one pole of the cultures in resistance.
The judgments.
1976 Grounds
for recommending that a tenured appointment should not be offered, from the
Academic Staff Committee, approved by Senate:
You have not given satisfaction in the
teaching of prescribed courses.
There is an absence of evidence to
suggest that you have pursued research of sufficient quality for the assessors
to be assured of your ability to perform adequately the duties of a University
Lecturer.
You have exhibited forms of behavior
which have harmed the good order and morale of the School of Education.
1980/82 Following
two rejections of doctoral submissions I could not, within the university
regulations of the time, question the competence of my examiners' judgements.
The letter from the Secretary and Registrar of the University informing me that
I was not permitted to question these judgements, under any circumstances,
stated:
Once the examiners have been appointed,
their competence cannot in any circumstances be questioned.
1987 Following
complaints about my activities and writings from two Professors of Education a
disciplinary meeting was held which included the University Solicitor and I was
informed in writing by the University Registrar that:
Your activities and writings are a
challenge to the present and proper organisation of the University and not
consistent with the duties the university wish you to pursue in your teaching
and research.... You must be loyal to your employer.
1991 The
letter from the Registrar was used as evidence in 1990 by a Board of Studies in
a recommendation to Senate that there was prima facie evidence of a breach of
my academic freedom. Senate established a working party on a matter of academic
freedom. They reported in 1991:
The working party did not find that... his
academic freedom had actually been breached. This was however, because of Mr
Whitehead's persistence in the face of pressure; a less determined individual
might well of have been discouraged and therefore constrained.
2006 An
application for a Readership was rejected by the Academic Staff Committee on
the grounds that:
For a promotion to Reader, the Committee
needs to establish that a candidate has made an outstanding contribution to the
advancement of knowledge. In this regard the Committee considered that the case
for this level of contribution was not yet made and in order to develop the
case further it will be necessary for you to focus on producing articles which
can be disseminated via established and renowned international refereed
journals.
To communicate the nature of the other pole of the dialectical tension in the boundaries of cultures in resistance I now want to answer my question, 'How are living educational theories being produced and academically legitimated with cultural diversity from the arts, philosophy, psychology, sociology, education and religion?' , with the help of a performance text.
A performance text of a situated
analysis of living educational theories in the boundaries of cultures in
resistance; a self-study of persistence in the face of pressure for recognition
of an outstanding contribution to educational knowledge.
My interest in performance texts is because
of their potential to communicate meanings of flows of life-affirming energy
with values in a way that gets closer to these meanings than can be carried
through words in statements on pages of printed text. This performance text
includes a video-clip re-enactment of my meeting with a Senate Working Party on
a Matter of Academic Freedom. This is to show the meanings of my expression of
life-affirming energy with values of academic responsibility in the face of a
feeling of defeat with a lack of recognition of pressures on my academic
freedom. It includes my engagement with some of the most advanced social
theories of the day from Bourdieu, Sen, Yunus, McGregor and Bernstein. It
includes the flow of living educational theories through web-space in
boundaries of cultures of resistance that deny that the idea of living
educational theory is an outstanding contribution to educational knowledge.
Life-affirming energy with academic
responsibility
In the process of contributing to the
academic legitimation of living educational theories I have encountered a
culture of resistance, represented in the above judgments made on behalf
of 'The University'.
When the Senate Working Party on a Matter
of Academic Freedom produced their draft report I was invited to meet the
Working Party to respond to the report. The report's conclusion was that my
Academic Freedom had not been breached. I agreed with this conclusion. What
disturbed me about the draft report was that it contained no reference to the
pressure to which I had been subjected as illustrated in the judgments above
about my persistence in the face of pressure. Here is my re-enactment of my meeting with the Working Party
from the point where I was leaving the room feeling defeated that the pressure
had not been recognised by the Working Party. As I was about to leave the room,
with this powerful feeling of defeat, I felt an even more powerful feeling of
resistance to the feeling of defeat. This energy, I characterise as life-affirming.
It moved me to turn again to face
the committee. Here is my
recollection of what I said and the way I said it. The final report to Senate recognized the significance of my
persistence in the face of pressure in the fact that my Academic Freedom had
not been breached. My purpose in
showing this clip is to communicate something of the energy I have expressed in
the boundaries of the cultures in resistance that has helped to sustain and
extend the cultural influences of living educational theories in the education
of individuals and social formations.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBTLfyjkFh0
In seeking to enhance the flow of living
educational theories in the boundaries of resistance I now want to make a
public response to the decision of the Academic Staff Committee of the
University of Bath, not to recommend, in 2006, my promotion from Lecturer in
Reader. For those familiar with promotions in University I think it is fair to
say, when judging the accomplishments of others who have been promoted to a
senior lecturer or a readership, that to have remained a lecturer in education
for 35 years at the University of Bath might be seen as evidence of a less then
outstanding academic talent! Here
is my story of how this was possible in my case.
Between 1976 – 2005 the decision not
to apply for promotion and resisting the urgings of my colleagues to apply for
promotion, was my own. Between 1976-2005 I held firmly to my position to
remaining a lecturer because promotion would mean that I had to reject my
tenured contract. This contract was issued in 1977 following the above decision
to terminate my existing contract on the above grounds. What amazed me at the time was the
mobilisation by colleagues and students of sufficiently powerful influences
both inside and outside the university to neutralise and overcome the power of
those who mobilised the disciplinary power of the University to terminate my
employment. I have remained
grateful to those whose sense of political integrity and values of justice and
democracy secured my employment at the University of Bath, in a tenured
contract, from September 1977 until August 2009. Until 2005 I resisted urges to
apply for promotion because my tenured contract carried the political integrity
and values of democracy, academic freedom and social justice of those who
protected my employment. Then, in 2005, I felt a movement in my position. This
movement was motivated by a desire to enhance the flow of the influence of
living educational theories, through the recognition by the University of my
contributions to educational research in the promotion to a Readership. The
economic benefits did not play any part in my motivation to apply for a
Readership. I felt the resistance, to applying for a promotion, on the grounds
that my tenured contract carried the energy and values of those who had
resisted my elimination from the University, giving way to a desire for
promotion because of the belief that the recognition in the promotion would
benefit the flow of influence of living educational theories. You can access my
application at:
http://www.jackwhitehead.com/jwreadership.pdf
The application was supporting by a number
of internationally renowned academics who understand the field of my research.
Since receiving notification of the
rejection of my application for promotion in March 2006 I have wondered how to
respond. One easy response would have been to call into question the judgments
and ask for them to be reviewed. My history of responses in the boundaries of
the cultures in resistance have varied from my book on the The Growth of
Educational Knowledge, (Whitehead, 1993) where I named those responsible for
mobilised the disciplinary power of the University and provided the evidence of
the actions. The text was written with the forceful expression of legitimate
anger at a lack of recognition of pressures that could have constrained my
academic freedom. I have shown what I mean by this forceful expression of
legitimate anger in the video-clip above of my re-anactment of my response to a
draft report from a Senate Working Party on a Matter of Academic Freedom.
Keeping my desire to enhance the flow of living
educational theories in boundaries of cultures in resistance, at the forefront
of my motivation, has influenced my present response to the rejection of a
recognition of the contribution to knowledge of living educational theories. I am feeling comfortable in writing
this response in the paper for presentation at this conference on Cultures in
Resistance, in a series of Conferences on Discourse Power Resistance. Probably
because my economic livelihood is not being threatened and my academic freedom is
not under pressure, I am not writing with a sense of outrage and violation that
influenced my earlier writings. I am writing from a feeling of much
satisfaction and pleasure in seeing the flow of influence of living educational
theories in many different contexts, with contributions or original ideas from
my own research.
What pleases me most about the expression
and development of my talents in my work at the University of Bath with its 34
year old research programme into the nature of educational theory, is the gift
I have created, with the help of my students, of the flow of living educational
theories from http://www.actionresearch.net
. In 2004, as a member of the
Senate working party on the regulations governing the submission of research
degrees, I was delighted with the acceptance of the recommendation that e-media
should be permitted in the submissions. Now, I do not believe it to be possible
to establish within the 18 months of this regulations coming into being in the
University and the judgment of the Academic Staff Committee that:
For a promotion to Reader, the Committee
needs to establish that a candidate has made an outstanding contribution to the
advancement of knowledge. In this regard the Committee considered that the case
for this level of contribution was not yet made an in order to develop the case
further it will be necessary for you to focus on producing articles which can
be disseminated via established and renowned international refereed journals.
For the University itself to have
established a renowned international refereed
journal for publishing the multi-media living educational theories between 2004
and 2006 would not have been possible.
However, the University of Bath Library contains the knowledge-base of
these theses, which draw explicitly on my original work on living educational
theory. A further five doctoral theses at the University of Limerick, with the
supervision of Jean McNiff (2008), draw explicitly on original ideas from my
own research.
M‡ir’n Glenn
(2006) Working with collaborative projects: my living
theory of a holistic educational practice . PhD thesis, University of Limerick, retrieved
2 February 2008 from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/glennabstract.html
Caitriona McDonagh
(2007) My
living theory of learning to teach for social justice: How do I enable primary school
children with specific learning disability (dyslexia) and myself as their
teacher to realise our learning potentials? PhD thesis, University of Limerick, retrieved
2 February 2007 from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/mcdonaghabstract.html
Mary Roche
(2007) Towards a living
theory of caring pedagogy: interrogating my practice to nurture a critical,
emancipatory and just community of enquiry (2007) . PhD thesis,
University of Limerick, retrieved 2 February 2008 from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/MaryRoche/index.html
Bernie Sullivan
(2006) A Living
Theory of a Practice of Social Justice: Realising the Right of Traveller
Children to Educational Equality . PhD thesis, University of Limerick,
retrieved 2 February 2008 from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/bernieabstract.html
Margaret Cahill
(2007) My living educational theory of inclusional practice
. PhD thesis, University of Limerick, retrieved 2 February 2008 from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/margaretcahill/index.html
Other living theory theses have been
legitimated in the Universities of Kingston (Evans, 1995; Loftus, 1999)
Plymouth (Follows, 2007), Warwick (Rawal, 2006) and Newcastle (Hymer, 2007).
The point I am making is that in working in
the living boundaries of cultures of resistance it has been possible to develop
a living educational theory approach to these cultures in my workplace of the
University of Bath. This workplace
has provided evidence of its culture of not-learning in terms of its explicit
lack of recognition of the academic significance of living educational
theories, through the rejection of an application of promotion to a Readership,
to the originator of the idea, while at the same time providing a site that has
supported the pole of a culture in resistance for recognising and legitimating
living educational theories.
Engaging with and using insights from
social theories
When I use the idea of a social formation I
am drawing on Bourdieu's point about the importance of the habitus in
understanding limitations in analysing social formations with the rules of
social scientists.
"The objective adjustment between dispositions and structures ensures a conformity to objective demands and urgencies which has nothing to do with rules and conscious compliance with rules, and gives an appearance of finality which in no way implies conscious positing of the ends objectively attained. Thus, 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)
While appreciating the usefulness of the
idea of habitus in explaining social reproduction, I find it of limited use in
understanding social transformations of the kind I am interested in. These
transformations are focused on the education of social formations through
enhancing the flow of living educational theories in the social actions of
individuals.
In drawing
insights from social constructivist theories, while recognising their
limitations in producing energy-flowing explanations of educational influences
in learning, I use the idea of social action as a distinguishing characteristic
of this perspective. I draw the following insights from social theories, such
as those of Sen (1999), Yunus (2007) McGregor (2008) and Bernstein (2000) that
focus on human capabilities, social goods, wellbeing and pedagogy respectively
as I generate my own explanations of educational influence in learning.
From Sen, I
have learnt a language of human capability that enables me to move beyond a
language of economic rationality that reduces explanations of human action to
the influences of capital.
"...what, we may ask, is the connection between "human
capital" orientation and the emphasis on "human capability" with
which this study has been much concerned? Both seem to place humanity at the
center of attention, but do they have differences as well as some congruence?
At the risk of some oversimplification, it can be said that the literature
on human capital tends to concentrate on the agency of human beings in
augmenting production possibilities. The perspective of human capability
focuses, on the other hand, on the ability‑the substantive freedom‑of
people to lead the lives they have reason to value and to enhance the real
choices they have. The two perspectives cannot but be related, since both are
concerned with the role of human beings, and in particular with the actual
abilities that they achieve and acquire. But the yardstick of assessment
concentrates on different achievements... The human capital perspective can‑in
principle‑be defined very broadly to cover both types of valuation, but
it is typically defined‑by convention‑primarily in terms of
indirect value: human qualities that can be employed as "capital" in production
(in the way physical capital is). In this sense, the narrower view of the human
capital approach fits into the more inclusive perspective of human capability,
which can cover both direct and indirect consequences of human
abilities. (Sen, 1999,
p. 293)
While recognising the importance of
economic security in sustaining a creative space for educational conversations
in the University of Bath, I have always felt a resistance to explaining my
actions from within the concepts of economic rationality. This resistance was
due to the omission of flows of life-affirming energy with values within economic
rationality. Sen's economic theory of human capability enables me to recognise
both the influence of economics
and my passionately help value of freedom and other values of human capability
in my explanations of educational influence.
From Yunus I have learnt an inclusional
language of social business. This language and practice of social business is
having a global cultural influence in reducing poverty. It exists in the living
boundaries of cultures of resistance with the language the economic rationality
that explains social action solely from within a concept of 'capital'.
"I propose two possible kinds of
social businesses.
The first I have already described:
Companies that focus on providing a social benefit rather than on maximizing
profit for the owners, and that are owned by investors who seek social benefits
such as poverty reduction, health care for the poor, social justice, global
sustainability, and so on, seeking psychological, emotional and spiritual
satisfactions rather than financial reward.
The second operates in a rather
different fashion: Profit-maximizing businesses that are owned by the poor or
disadvantaged. In this case, the social benefit is derived from the fact that
the dividends and equity growth produced by the PMB will go to benefit the
poor, thereby helping them to reduce poverty or even escape it altogether."
(Yunus, 2007, p. 28)
Given my economic security at the
university since 1973 I can affirm that the main satisfactions I seek in living
a productive life are in psychological, emotional and spiritual satisfactions
rather than financial reward.
From McGregor I have learnt a language of
wellbeing that includes the individual within the social:
Wellbeing is a state of being with
others, where human needs are met, where one can act meaningfully to pursue
one's goals, and where one enjoys a satisfactory quality of life. (McGregor, 2008)
Each week I enjoy the satisfactions of being with colleagues and students at the University of Bath, together with Alan Rayner, in conversations that tap into the life-affirming energy of well-being and I find McGregor's language of wellbeing provides me with a focus for this life-affirming energy.
From Bernstein's (2000) social theory of pedagogy I have learnt to show an awareness of the dangers of creating a mythological discourse that could serve to separate conversations about well-being from conversations that include a recognition of the power relations that are reproducing unjust social hierarchies:
"By creating a fundamental identity, a discourse is created which generates what I shall call horizontal solidarities among their staff and students, irrespective of the political ideology and social arrangement of the society. The discourse which produces horizontal solidarities or attempts to produce such solidarities from this point of view I call a mythological discourse. This mythological discourse consists of two pairs of elements which, although having different functions, combine to reinforce each other. One pair celebrates and attempts to produce a united, integrated, apparently common national consciousness; the other pair work together to disconnect hierarchies within the school from a causal relation with social hierarchies outside the school." (p. xxiii)
By emphasising the generation of living educational theories of educational influences in learning within the boundaries of cultures in resistance I am seeking to avoid the creation of a mythological discourse that becomes disconnected from the hierarchies of power. I am thinking of the power relations that sustain that pole of the cultures in resistance that is resistant to the legitimation and extension of the social influences of living educational theories. I am thinking of the expression of a life-affirming energy, in persisting in the face of the pressure of this resistance, in seeking to extend the educational influences of living educational theories.
In the development of
my living educational theorizing over the past 42 years of professional
engagement in education, with 35 years in my research programme at the
University of Bath, I have learnt much from the ideas of others. I am thinking
of ideas that have enabled me to understand and develop creative responses to
living in the boundaries of cultures in resistance. My earliest readings were
those of the critical theorist Erich Fromm. I remain influenced by ideas from
his books on The Fear of Freedom (1942), Man For Himself (1947), The Sane
Society (1956), The Art of Loving (1957), The Revolution of Hope (1968) and To
Have or to Be (1979). Fromm's
(1942) point where he says that if a person can face the truth without panic
they will realise that there is no purpose to life other than that which they
create for themselves through their loving relationships and productive work
(p.18), remains a vital influence in my own life.
Habermas is another
critical theorist whose ideas have influenced my own. I like his conjecture
that the fundamental mechanism for social evolution in general is to be
found in an automatic inability not to learn (Habermas, 1975, p. 15)
I find support in
Habermas' work for my own focus on learning, in his
attempt to free historical materialism from its philosophical ballast. I like
his distinction between the development of cognitive structures and the
historical dynamic of events, and his distinction between the evolution of
society from the historical concretion of forms of life.
As he says,
"A theory developed in this way can no
longer start by examining concrete ideals immanent in traditional forms of
life. It must orient itself to the range of learning processes that is opened
up at a given time by a historically attained level of learning. It must
refrain from critically evaluating and normatively ordering totalities, forms
of life and cultures, and life-contexts and epochs as a whole." (Habermas, 1987, p. 383)
In enhancing the
validity of living theories I use Habermas' (1976) four criteria of social
validity that in reaching understanding with each other:
The speaker must
choose a comprehensible expression so that speaker and hearer can understand
one another. The speaker must have the intention of communicating a true
proposition (or a propositional content, the existential presuppositions of
which are satisfied) so that the hearer can share the knowledge of the speaker.
The speaker must want to express his intentions truthfully so that the hearer
can believe the utterance of the speaker (can trust him). Finally, the speaker
must choose an utterance that is right so that the hearer can accept the
utterance and speaker and hearer can agree with on another in the utterance
with respect to a recognized normative background. Moreover, communicative
action can continue undisturbed only as long as participants suppose that the
validity claims they reciprocally raise are justified." (Habermas, 1976, pp.2-3)
My use of these criteria is accompanied by
a primary responsibility to personal knowledge (Polanyi, 1958) that comes from
my decision to understand the world from my point of view as a personal
claiming originality and exercising judgment with universal intent.
In addition to the above insights I also
act with the assumption that Habermas (2002) is correct in holding to a
proceduralist concept of law (p.264) in his work on the inclusion of the other
when he says that the private autonomy of equally entitled citizens can only
be secured insofar as citizens actively exercise their civic autonomy. (ibid)
I worked with this assumption in
contributing to a Senate working party in 2003 on the regulations governing the
submission of research degrees. For years I had been advocating the use of
multi-media representations for explaining the growth in autonomy of individual
learners. But it was only in 2004 with a change of governance regulating the
submission of research degrees that permitted the submission of e-media as an
academic legitimate form of representation in the Academy at the University of
Bath.
Foucault's ideas on power relations and the
inescapable relations between power and knowledge in regimes of truth have been
particularly helpful in enabling me to remain open to the expression of
life-affirming energy, creativity and values of humanity in the living
boundaries of cultures in resistance.
I have used insights from Foucault's work
to understand the importance of seeing my work as that of a specific
intellectual rather than a universal intellectual. His ideas on power relations
in distinguishing the power of truth from the truth of power have been
particularly important in my understanding of the idea of regimes of truth and
on understanding the procedures for determining what counts as knowledge in
particular contexts. In relation to understanding the reciprocal influences of
power relations in living in the boundaries of cultures of resistance I have focused on being influenced by
and influencing the processes of legitimation for what counts as educational
knowledge in the academy. Foucault's work on power relations has been particularly
influential in helping me to survive pressures that could have constrained my
academic freedom and creative work, because his insights enabled me to respond
with some understanding to the constraining pressures in the boundaries. In
1988 I acknowledged this influence:
I accept Foucault's point (1977, 1980,
1982) that the analysis, elaboration and bringing into question of power
relations is a permanent political task inherent in all social existence. I
believe he is correct in saying that a local, specific enquiry can take on a
general significance at the level of that regime of truth which is essential to
the structure and functioning of our society. (Whitehead,
1989)
I also like Foucault's point about the
particular value of meditation on death:
"The particular value of meditation on
death is not only that it anticipates what is generally considered as the greatest misfortune, it is not
only that it makes it possible to
convince oneself that death is not an evil; it offers the possibility of casting, in anticipation so to speak, a
backward glance on life. In considering
oneself on the point of dying, one can judge each of the acts that one
is in the process of committing
according to its own worth. Death, said Epictetus, takes the laborer as he labors, the sailor as he
navigates: "and you, what do you want to be your occupation when you
are taken?". And Seneca imagined the moment of death as the one in which one might somehow become the judge
of oneself and measure the moral
progress that one had accomplished up to one's last day. In the twenty-sixth letter he wrote: "Concerning the moral progress that I
shall have been able to make, I
will believe death.... I am waiting for the day in which I will become my own judge and I will know if I have
virtue on my lips and in my heart."
(Eribon, 1989, pp. 331-332)
While not quite on my death bed, I am continuously judging my educational influence in terms of values that I associate with the future of humanity in the creation of my living educational theory.
Eisner (1988) has pointed out the importance of recognising the primacy of experience and the politics of method in educational research. He has been a most persuasive advocate of extending forms of representation using the communicative power of the arts and multi-media (Eisner, 1993) while being aware of the problems and perils of alternative forms of data representation (Eisner, 1997).
I now want to share some insights about the communicative power of the arts and multi-media representations of flows of life-affirming energy and values of humanity in the generation and extension of living educational theories within cultures in resistance. In this performance text I shall emphasise the fluid dynamical nature of my being in the world in relation to these flows of living educational theories, that have been given freely as gifts, by those who created them. I now want to turn to the following live urls on my web-site and to show this flow of living educational theories through web-space.
http://www.actionresearch.net takes you to my web-space
http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/living.shtml
takes you to living theory doctorates.
http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/mastermod.shtml takes you to the living theory accounts of teacher-researchers.
In her living theory doctorate, Madeline Church
(http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/church.shtml ) connects the power relations in bullying to the transforming influence of the communicative power of art:
I notice the way
bullying is part of my fabric. I trace my resistance to these experiences in my
embodied experience of connecting to others, through a form of shape-changing.
I see how question-forming is both an expression of my own bullying tendencies,
and an intention to overcome them. Through my connection to others and my
curiosity, I form a networked community in which I can work in the world as a
network coordinator, action-researcher, activist and evaluator.
I
show how my approach to this work is rooted in the values of compassion, love,
and fairness, and inspired by art. I hold myself to account in relation to these
values, as living standards by which I judge myself and my action in the world.
This finds expression in research that helps us to design more appropriate
criteria for the evaluation of international social change networks. Through
this process I inquire with others into the nature of networks, and their
potential for supporting us in lightly-held communities which liberate us to be
dynamic, diverse and creative individuals working together for common purpose.
I tentatively conclude that networks have the potential to increase my and our
capacity for love.
The idea of living standards of judgment evolved in the research of Laidlaw (1996), who pointed out to me, in the course of my supervision of her doctoral research programme, that the standards of judgment I was clarifying the course of their emergence through cycles of action and reflection, where not just being clarified but they were living and evolving in the course of the enquiry itself.
Church's use of art, especially the art of Gorman, as an inspiring influence in her life, as well as helpful in representation her explanations of her learning, supports
Eisner's call (2005) to extend the forms of representation used by educational researchers in evolving their forms of understanding in re-imagining schools. Church provides a vivid account of cultures in resistance as she responds in the boundaries of cultures that support bulling and those that express a potential for increasing a capacity for love. Eisner's 1993 Presidential Address was a tour de force. The written paper (Eisner, 1993) does not carry the expression of embodied energy and values flowing from a video-clip of Teddy Kennedy reciting from the poem Ulysses in a response to his brother's death. It does not carry the image of the smoke from the chimney's of Auschwitz with a recital of Wiesel's poem, 'Night', communicating man's capacity for inhumanity in crimes against humanity. The actual presentation communicated the value of art in communicating the meanings of embodied expressions of energy with values.
Having considered how living educational theories have being produced and legitimated with cultural diversity from the arts, philosophy, psychology, sociology, education and economics, I now engage with religion and spiritual values. Historically, the role of religions in sustaining cultures in resistance is well documented and can be seen clearly in many present day conflicts such as those in Pakistan, Iraq, Afghanistan, Israel and Palestine as well as internal conflicts in the UK. Religious belief in a God or Gods has often been called upon in times of war to mobilise combatants into killing others. Suicide bombers give up their lives and kill others in the name of their God, as described below. Religious beliefs can also be called upon to influence social policy. For example they are being called upon in the UK to mobilise public opinion into the creation of more faith based schools.
In the production of my own living educational theory I draw on a language used by theologians to communicate meanings of a life-affirming energy that is not grounded in a theistic faith of belief. I am aware of a life-affirming energy that I am expressing in both the production of this written text and in the communication of my performance text. I need language to communicate the meanings expressed with the flow of this energy through my body as I explain my educational influences in learning. I draw on language whose meanings of the originator are different to my own. For example, I draw on the language of the Christian Theologian, Tillich (1973), to refer to my experience of the expression of a life-affirming energy as a state of being affirmed by the power of being itself. For Tillich this power is intimately related to his God. For me, having no religious belief or faith in God(s), the words are used to communicate a flow of life-affirming energy with the power of being itself. In my understanding of how I recognise my tendency to impose my view of the world on others and seek to avoid this, I draw on the ideas of the Jewish Theologian, Buber where he writes of the special humility of the educator:
"If this educator should ever believe that for the sake of education he has to practise selection and arrangement, then he will be guided by another criterion than that of inclination, however legitimate this may be in its own sphere; he will be guided by the recognition of values which is in his glance as an educator. But even then his selection remains suspended, under constant correction by 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." (Buber, 1947, p. 122)
I now want to
focus on the issue of recognition of the other in the living boundaries of
cultures in resistance.
Human beings seek recognition of their own worth, or of the people, things, or principles that they invest with worth. The desire for recognition, and the accompanying emotions of anger, shame and pride, are parts of the human personality critical to political life. According to Hegel, they are what drives the whole historical process. (Fukuyama, 1992, p. xvii)
"The existence of a moral dimension in the human personality that constantly evaluates both the self and others does not, however, mean that there will be any agreement on the substantive content of morality. In a world of thymotic moral selves, they will be constantly disagreeing and arguing and growing angry with one another over a host of questions, large and small. Hence thymos is, even in its most humble manifestations, the starting point for human conflict." (pp. 181-182).
In seeking recognition in the
academic significance of living educational theories with their inclusion of
the thymotic sense of 'spiritness' (Fukuyama, 1992, p. xvi) I want to overcome
a tendency to megalothymia in the sense of a search to be recognised as
superior to others. I have already received recognition by the Academy that my
own contribution to knowledge (Whitehead, 1999) of my subject education, can be
publicly acknowledged as worthy of being seen, alongside the contributions of
my research students, as showing originality of mind and critical
judgement. I want to go further than
this recognition is establishing that the idea of living educational theories
has made an outstanding contribution to the advancement of educational
knowledge, for reasons given below.
As I emphasise the importance
of recognition in my existence I am aware of the importance of the influences
of the ways human beings make sense of their existence, on the spontaneous
recognition by one being of the other. Take for example the expressions of the
two women in the background of the photograph below. The photograph was taken
on my wedding anniversary on 9th September 2004. As it was being
taken I wasn't aware of the two women in the background. But as I look at the
photograph my gaze moves from the foreground to the background and I feel a
pleasure of delight evoked by the spontaneous recognition of the other I see
being expressed by the two women.
My reason for including this picture of this particular place is that it was the exact site of a bomb blast in a Jimbaran Beach Restaurant that killed people on the 1st October 2005. In relation to cultures in resistance I want to contrast the pleasure and delight being expressed in the above image with the cultural expressions in the following:
"Five years of bomb blasts that have blighted
Indonesia
1 October 2005 At least two bombs explode at crowded
restaurants on Bali, killing at least 25. Officials blame unnamed terrorists.
9 September 2004 A suicide car bomb outside the
Australian Embassy in Jakarta kills 11. Six alleged members of the Jemaah
Islamiyah terror group have been convicted for the attack.
5 August 2003 A car bomb in Jakarta kills 12 people
and wounds 150. Fifteen alleged Jemaah Islamiyah operatives convicted over the
blast.
5 December 2002 Bomb explodes outside a McDonald's
restaurant on Sulawesi, killing three people. Jemaah Islamiyah-linked militants
blamed.
12 October 2002 Two bombs explode on Bali, killing 202
people. Thirty-three alleged Jemaah Islamiyah operatives have been convicted so
far.
25 December 2000 Bombs explode at 11 churches across
the country, killing 19 people. The attacks have been blamed on Jemaah
Islamiyah.
13 September 2000 A car bomb explodes inside the
garage of the Jakarta Stock Exchange building, killing 10 people. Perpetrators
of the attack unknown.
1 August, 2000 Bomb kills two and seriously injures
the Philippine ambassador to Indonesia."
On July 7th 2005 Gill Hicks was on the London underground pulling out of King's Cross Station when Abdullah Shaheed Jamal detonated the bomb that cost Gill her legs. Gill writes:
"It – I didn't matter...
...to Germaine Lindsay/Abdullah Shaheed
Jamal, the suicide bomber. He didn't set out that morning to kill or main me,
Gill Hicks. I didn't do anything to him. I didn't know him, he didn't know me.
He didn't know the person I was, what I felt, what I thought. He didn't know
what was in my heart. And I would never have dreamt what was in his.
I was just a body, a representation of
– in his eyes – the enemy. I was a symbol of all he deemed to be
wrong in the world.
I wish he had made the effort to know me
before he detonated his bomb. I wish I could have looked at him in the eyes and
had the opportunity to say – I am not your enemy, I wish you no harm, I
am not the enemy.
I am a person, a human being –
just like you, just like you." (Hicks, 2007, pp.
2-3)
I am thinking that the dynamic loving energy expressed above in Claire Formby's gaze of recognition with her pupil carries hope for the future of humanity, while the lack of effort to understand the other, shown by Abdullah Shaheed Jamal, does not. It seems vital to me that we learn how to bring the loving gaze of recognition of the other into the boundaries that connect cultures in resistance, to avoid such crimes against humanity. Hence my stress on the importance of generating living educational theories that express such values and understandings.
I felt this sharing of values while listening to Sari Nusseibeh (2007) answering questions about his book, Once Upon A Country: A Palestinian Life, at the Bath Literary Festival (24/02/08). I experienced the life-affirming energy of inclusionality being expressed in Nusseibeh's story of his own learning in his existence in the living boundaries of the cultures in resistance between Israel and Palestine. The explanatory power of such expressions has been included in the generation of the living educational theories of Cunningham (1999), Finnegan (2000) and Adler-Collins (2007). I particularly like Finnegan's enquiry, 'How can love enable justice to see rightly?
I tend to express my life-affirming energy in educational relationships and/or in conversations in which human beings are sharing their stories about what really matters to them in giving life its meaning and purpose. Like Cho (2005), in his understanding of love in educational relationships, I experience a dynamic loving energy in the knowledge-creation of practitioner-researchers I am supervising. I am thinking here of the knowledge creation in the production of the living educational theories of master and doctor educators in particular.
So, in conclusion I want to leave you with free access (if you have the technology!) to the living theories being created by practitioner-researchers who are living in the boundaries of cultures in resistance. For example if you access http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/mastermod.shtml
you can see how Amy Skuse has answered her
question, 'How have my
experiences of Year 2 SAT's influenced my perceptions of assessment in teaching
and learning?' while working
in the boundaries between the imposition of national tests, in a process that
is increasingly being recognized as damaging the creativity of pupils and
teacher, and a professional cultural response that is seeking to enhance
pupils' and teachers' creativity.
http://www.jackwhitehead.com/tuesdayma/amyskuseeeoct07.htm
You can see how Claire
Formby has answered her question, 'How do I sustain a loving, receptively
responsive educational relationship with my pupils which will motivate them in
their learning and encourage me in my teaching?' while
working in the boundaries between an academic culture that tends to eliminate
love as an academic standard of judgment, and a professional culture of living
educational theories that includes a dynamic loving energy as a living standard
of judgment. http://www.jackwhitehead.com/tuesdayma/formbyEE300907.htm
You can see how Joy
Mounter has answered her question, Can children carry out action research
about learning, creating their own learning theory? While working in the boundaries between an
academic culture than tends to eliminate the embodied knowledges of
professional educators as worthy of forming academic knowledge, and a
professional culture that elevates this distinct academic approach to the
education of professional practitioners, in their living educational theories,
as a form of knowledge of great value for the future of humanity.
http://www.jackwhitehead.com/tuesdayma/joymounterull.htm
Whilst working with doctoral researchers, I
have learned much from each enquiry.
Recent submissions include those of Eden Charles (2007), Je Kan
Adler-Collins (2007), Yaqub Murray
(2007), Jane Spiro, Jocelyn Jones and Joan Walton. You will find the theses of
Charles (2007) and Adler-Collins (2007) at http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/living.shtml
together with most of the living theory theses I have supervised, as well as
living theory theses supervised by others.
From my supervisions I have learnt that
cultures in resistance include energised boundaries that are seeking to sustain
privileges based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexuality and class and they
include energised boundaries that are seeking to enhance social justice.
Ladson-Billings (2006), for example, in the
2006 Presidential Address of the American Educational Research Association, put
forward the idea of the Education Debt as an energized concept that could
mobilise both white and black communities to address the issue of injustice in
relation to the education of black young people in the U.S. The historical and
cultural conditions in the U.S. are related but different to those of the U.K.
The idea of an Education Debt may help to enhance the flow of social justice in
relation to individuals grounds being disadvantaged because of injustice. My
own preference is to support the generation of living educational theories that
focus on enhancing the flow of social justice, without the mediating idea of
'Education Debt'. I am thinking for example of the living theories of Sullivan (2006), Cahill (2007) and McDonagh (2007).
These can be accessed from the Action Research Theses section of http://www.jeanmcniff.com.
At the 2007
Australian Critical Race and Whiteness Studies Association Conference I learnt
much from the contributors who focused on issues of cultures in resistance
between the indigenous and the dominant culture in Australia. Thanks to the
influence of Yaqub Murray (2007) my awareness includes a consideration of the
significance of 'whiteness' as a historical and cultural power that sustains
the privilege of white people, as in the white supremicist philosophy of the
British National Party. I have considered the possibility that integrating a
concept of 'whiteness', a 'white racial identity' and 'white race talk', in a living educational theory might be
a powerful motivating influence in a social and educational movement towards
greater social justice.
In relation to a
'white racial identity' my own preference is to emphasise the significance of
Ubuntu (Charles, 2007) as way of being that had its genesis in Africa and that
includes values that have traditionally been associated with cultures that have
been described as white or black. With immigration and mixed race marriages and
children, more cosmopolitan (Murray, 2007) cultures are emerging. These could
benefit from Charles' understanding of moving beyond decolonisation through
societal reidentification and guiltless recognition. Charles' Abstract for his
thesis emerged from more than 7 years of sustained enquiry on:
How Can I
Bring Ubuntu As A Living Standard of Judgement Into The Academy? Moving Beyond
Decolonisation Through Societal Reidentification And Guiltless Recognition http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/edenphd.shtml
Abstract
This is a living theory thesis which traces my engagement in seeking
answers to my question that focuses on how I can improve my practice as someone
seeking to make a transformational contribution to the position of people of
African origin. In the course of my enquiry I have recognised and embraced
Ubuntu, as part of an African cosmology, both as my living practice and as a
living standard of judgement for this thesis. It is through my Ubuntu way of
being, enquiring and knowing that my original contribution to knowledge has
emerged.
Two key approaches are identified and described in
depth: 'guiltless recognition' and 'societal re-identification'. These emerge
from a perception of self that is distinct within but not isolated in an
awareness of 'inclusionality'. They are intimately related concepts. Guiltless
recognition allows us to move beyond the guilt and blame that maintains
separation and closes down possibility. It provides a basis for action and
conception that moves us towards the imagined possibilities of societal
reidentification with Ubuntu.
Both 'guiltless recognition' and
'societal reidentification' embody strategic and epistemological practices that
move away from severing, colonising thought, towards ways of being that open up
new possibilities for people of African origin and for humanity generally.
Visual narratives are used to represent and help to communicate
the inclusional meanings of these living standards of judgement. The narratives
are focused on my work as a management consultant and include my work with
Black managers. They explain my educational influence in creating and
sustaining the Sankofa Learning Centre for Black young people in London. They
include my living as a Black father seeking to remain present and of value to
my son within a dominant discourse/context in which this is a contradiction to
the prevalent stereotype.
The most recent living
theory doctoral thesis to be considered for legitimated at the University of
Bath is that of Je Kan Adler-Collins (2007). It is particularly relevant to
this conference on cultures in resistance, as Adler-Collins explored boundaries
in resistance in his enquiry:
Developing an
inclusional pedagogy of the unique: How do I clarify, live and explain my
educational influences in my learning as I pedagogise my healing nurse
curriculum in a Japanese University?
http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/jekan.shtml
Here is the Abstract to
the thesis that documents and explains the significance of an energy-flowing,
living standard of inclusionality, in his explanation of his educational
influences in learning. It includes the living responses to boundaries of
cultures in resistance in which traditional pedagogies and curricula in a
Japanese University, are being influenced by an inclusional pedagogy of the
unique in a curriculum of the healing nurse:
The social context
of this thesis is embedded in the processes and reflections experienced during
the development, implementation and evaluation of a healing nurse curriculum,
using action research enquiry on my teaching practice, in a Japanese rural
university in the years 2003-2007. These processes include the evolution of my
ontology and the creation of an inclusional pedagogy of the unique with
transitional certainty as a living epistemological standard of judgment. An
energy-flowing, living standard of inclusionality as a space creator for
engaged listening and informed learning is offered as an original contribution
to knowledge.
Two major strands of
enquiry are interwoven and inseparable in this thesis. The first is my
life-long self study of my own learning and the values and practices that
embrace all the different facets of my life, including being a nurse, educator,
and Buddhist priest. The second extends the first, putting them firmly in the
context of a specific time frame, weaving a textual narrative that passes
between the different aspects of my multiple selves, building a picture for my
readers that is grounded in my actual praxis. This narrative gives insights to
the growth of my educational knowledge as I research the unique position I hold
of being the only white, male nurse, foreign educator in a culture that is so
completely different from that of my birth and early education. Finally, I use
the analysis of the voices of my students' experience of my teaching and
curriculum to mirror back to me my own values as they were seen through the
eyes of others in their emergence in praxis. Such usage brought about
fundamental ontological changes in me and my practices as a teacher.
With the evidence I have presented above I
believe that I am justified in claiming that this living educational theory
approach is having a transformatory influence in enhancing the flow of
life-affirming energy with values and understandings that I believe carry hope
for the future of humanity. I offer it as worthy of being recognised as an
outstanding contribution to educational knowledge. I do not feel that I am
saying this with any sense of ego. It is just that in sustaining a 34 year
research programme into the nature of educational theory, and looking back on
this productive life, I am hoping that you can appreciate and acknowledge the
contribution to educational knowledge as being worthy at least of recognition
in promotion from a Lecturer to a Reader!
In generating such living theories the explanations of educational
influences in learning have included creative and energising responses to
cultures of reproduction (Charles, 2007; Adler-Collins, 2007) that are
resisting these flows of energy, values and understandings.
For my
conference presentations the proposals are usually submitted several months
before the event. I always like to check that I have done what I said I was
going to do in the original proposal. So, I hope that I have done what I said
that I would do and offered you:
A living educational theory
approach to cultural resistance that has celebrated the potential for
enrichment of educational knowledge through cultural diversity in the arts,
philosophy, psychology, sociology, education, religion, ethics and ontology. Thank you for the
opportunity to share the ideas.
References
Adler-Collins, J.
(2007) Developing an inclusional pedagogy of the unique: How do I
clarify, live and explain my educational influences in my learning as I pedagogise
my healing nurse curriculum in a Japanese University? Ph.D. University of
Bath. Retrieved 28 January 2008 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/jekan.shtml
Bernstein, B. (2000) Pedagogy, Symbolic Control and Identity: Theory, Research, Critique,
Lanham, Boulder, New York, Oxford; Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.
Buber, M. (1947) Between Man and Man. London; Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner
& Co. Ltd.
Bourdieu, P. (1990) The Logic of Practice. Stanford CA; Stanford University Press.
Charles, E. (2007) How can I bring Ubuntu as a living standards of judgment into the Academy? Moving Beyond Decolonisiation Through Societal Reidentification And Guiltless Recognition. Ph.D. University of Bath. Retrieved 15 August 2007 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/edenphd.shtml
Cho, D. (2005) Lessons Of Love: Psychoanalysis And Teacher-Student
Love. Educational Theory, Vol. 55,
No.1, 79-95.
Cunningham, B. (1999) How do I come to know my spirituality as I create my own living educational theory? Ph.D. Thesis, University of Bath. Retrieved 19 February 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net/ben.shtml
Eisner, E. (1988) The Primacy of Experience and the Politics of Method,
Educational Researcher, Vol. 17, No. 5, 15-20.
Eisner, E. (1993) Forms of Understanding and the Future of Educational
Research. Educational Researcher, Vol. 22, No. 7, 5-11.
Eisner, E. (1997) The Promise and Perils of Alternative Forms of Data
Representation. Educational Researcher, Vol. 26, No. 6, 4-10.
Eisner, E. (2005) Reimagining Schools: The selected works of Elliot W.
Eisner, Oxford & New York; Routledge.
Eribon, D. (1989) Michel Foucault , London; Faber and Faber.
Evans, M. (1995) An action research enquiry into reflection in action as part of my role as a deputy headteacher. Ph.D. Thesis, Kingston University. Retrieved 19 February 2008 from http://www.actionresearch.net/moyra.shtml
Finnegan, (2000) How do I create my own
educational theory in my educative relations as an action researcher and as a
teacher? Ph.D. submission, University of Bath.
Retrieved 19 February 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net/fin.
Follows, M. (2007) Looking For A Fairer
Assessment Of Children's Learning, Development And Attainment In The Infant
Years: An Educational Action Research Case Study. Ph.D. University of Plymouth.
Foucault, M. (1977) Intellectuals and power, in Bourchard, D. F. (Ed.)
Language, Counter Memory, Practice. Oxford; Basil Blackwell.
Foucault, M. (1980) in. Gordon, C. (Ed.) Power Knowledge. Brighton,
Harvester.
Foucault, M. (1982) The Subject and Power, in Michel Foucault (Ed.) Beyond Structuralism and
Hermeneutics. Brighton, Harvester.
Fromm, E. (1942) The
Fear of Freedom, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fromm, E. (1947) Man
For Himself. An inquiry into the psychology of ethics, 1969 edn. Greenwich,
Conn.: Fawcett Premier.
Fromm, E. (1956) The
Sane Society, London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Fromm, E. (1957) The
Art of Loving, 1995 edn. London: Thorsons.
Fromm, E. 1968 The
Revolution of Hope Harper & Row, New York.
Fromm, E. (1979) To
Have or to Be, London: Abacus. Gadamer, H. G.
(1975) Truth and Method,
London; Sheed and Ward.
Fukuyama, F. (1992) The End of History and the Last Man, London; Penguin.
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.
Hicks, G. (2007) One Unknown. London;
Rodale International Ltd.
Hirst, P. (Ed.) (1983) Educational Theory and its Foundation Disciplines. London;RKP
Hymer, B. (2007) How do I understand and communicate my values and beliefs in my work as an educator in the field of giftedness? Ph.D. University of Newcastle. . Retrieved 15 August 2007 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/hymer.shtml
Marcuse, H. (1964) One Dimensional Man, London; Routledge and Kegan Paul.
Ilyenkov, E. (1977) Dialectical Logic, Moscow; Progress Publishers.
Ladson-Billings, G. (2006) From The Achievement Gap To The Education Debt: Understanding Achievement in U.S. Schools. Educational Researcher, Vol. 35, No.7. pp. 3-12.
Laidlaw, M. (1996) How can I create my own living educational theory as I
offer you an account of my educational development?
Ph.D. thesis, University of Bath. Retrieved 19 February 2004 from http://www.actionresearch.net/moira2.shmtl
Loftus, J. (1999) An action enquiry into the marketing of an established
first school in its transition to full primary status. Ph.D. thesis, Kingston University. Retrieved 19 February 2008 from
http://www.actionresearch.net/loftus.shmtl
Lumley, T. (2008) A Fluid-Dynamical World View. Victoria, British Columbia; Printorium Bookworks, Inc.
McGregor, J. A.
(2008) Welling, Poverty and Conflict. Briefing Paper 1/08. ESRC Research Group
on Wellbeing in Developing Countries, Bath, University of Bath. Retrieved 22 February
2008 from http://www.welldev.org.uk/news/westmisterseminar/WeD%20Briefing%20Paper%201-08%20web.pdf
McNiff, J. (2008) jeanmcniff.com.
Retrieved 22 February 2007 from http://www.jeanmcniff.com/
McVeigh, B. (2002). Japanese Higher Education as a Myth. New York: M. E. Sharpe.
Nusseibeh, S. & David, A. (2007) Once Upon A Country: A
Palestinian Life. London; Halban.
Popper, K. (1963) Conjectures and Refutations, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
Rawal, S. (2006) The Role of Drama in
enhancing life skills in children with specific learning difficulties in a
Mumbai School. My Reflective Account. Retrieved 15 August 2007 from http://people.bath.ac.uk/edsajw/rawal.shtml
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
Reader, L. & Ridout, L. (2002) Bali and Lombok. Australia; Rough Guides.
Pring, R. (2000) The Philosophy of Educational Research, London & New York Continuum
Said, E. (1993) Culture and Imperialism, London; Vintage.
Schutz, A (1972) The Phenomenology of the Social World. London; Heinemann.
Sen, A.
(1999) Development as Freedom, Oxford; Oxford University Press.
Snow, C. E. (2001) Knowing What We Know: Children, Teachers, Researchers. Presidential Address to AERA, 2001, in Seattle, in Educational Researcher, Vol. 30, No.7, pp.3-9.
Tillich, P. (1973) The Courage To Be,
London; Fontana.
Walton, J. (2008) Ways of Knowing: Can I
find a way of knowing that satisfies my search for meaning?
Yunus, M. (2007) Creating a World Without Poverty: Social Business and the Future of Capitalism, New York; Public Affairs.