Notes for the research studentsÕ seminar with Jack Whitehead on 2nd March 2005, 12.15-1.15 1WN 3.8, Department of Education, University of Bath:

 

EDUCATIONAL THEORIES THAT CAN EXPLAIN YOUR EDUCATIONAL INFLUENCE IN YOUR OWN LEARNING, IN THE LEARNING OF OTHERS AND IN THE EDUCATION OF SOCIAL FORMATIONS.

 

 

Critical educators need an engagement with postmodernism since that can deepen the conceptual reservoir of Marxist theories by pointing out the limitations of such thought. If this engagement is successful it must eventually banish postmodernist theory to the dustbin of history. (McLaren, Hill, Cole & Rikowski, 2002, p.283)

 

What I hope to accomplish in the hourÕs conversation is to captivate your imagination with an idea about the nature of the educational theories that can explain your educational influence in your own learning, in the learning of others and in the education of social formations. My own imagination about the significance of educational theory was captivated by KilpatrickÕs (1951) idea in the first issue of the Journal, Educational Theory. Educational Theory  for Kilpatrick is a form of dialogue that has profound implications for the future of humanity. Since starting my vocation in education in 1967 I have always felt that making a contribution to such a theory would be a most worth-while way to live a productive life. I hope you can feel, through my passion and enthusiasm for the creation and testing of educational theory, that this commitment is still flowing through me!

 

IÕd like to begin with a tension I feel between the idea, in the quote above, that Marxism in Educational Theory must eventually banish postmodernist theory to the dustbin of history and LyotardÕs point about the postmodern condition: 

 

A postmodern artist or writer is in the position of a philosopher: the text he writes, the work he produces are not in principle governed by pre-established rules, and they cannot be judged according to a determining judgement, by applying familiar categories to the text or to the work. Those rules and categories are what the work of art itself is looking for. The artist and the writer, then, are working without rules in order to formulate the rules of what will have been done. (Lyotard, p. 81, 1984)

 

In my living educational theorising I attempt to remain open to the possibilities that life itself permits, rather than seeking the closure implied in banishing Ôpostmodern theory to the dustbin of historyÕ. Hence I am assuming that Marxist educational theorists should recognise the generative power of the postmodern condition in the construction of their educational theories of their educational influence in their own learning, in the learning of others and in the education of social formations.

 

The living educational theories I am drawing your attention to are flowing through the web-space at http://www.actionresearch.net/living.shtml . Each living theory is an explanation of the learning of an individual as she or he formulates and clarifies the embodied values that give meaning and purpose to their lives in the course of their emergence through life itself. Each explanation includes insights from theories in philosophy, psychology, sociology, history, management and theology without being subsumed within these theories either by an individual theory or in any combination of the explanatory frameworks of each theory. I say this to emphasise that each individual has needed to produce their own explanation for their own learning as their living educational theory. They needed to do this because no existing theory could produce, from within the propositional relationships in their conceptual frameworks, an explanation for their learning that validly represents the meanings of the explanatory values and understandings that the individuals use to give meaning and purpose to their lives.

 

In terms of the logic of their explanations they have Ôraised the singular to the level of its internal logicÕ:

 

 ÒÉ in dialectical forms of abstraction the essence is not what appears common to the object and to others with which one compares it, but the necessary internal movement of the object grasped in itself, i.e. it is the essence of this object; the generality of the concept is not constituted by eliminating the singular but by raising the singular to the level of its internal logic, i.e. it constitutes Ôthe specific logic of the specific objectÕ.Ó(SŽve, 1978, p. 265)

 

In constructing their explanations for their own learning, in relation to their values and understandings, each individual ÔIÕ  has explored their existence as a living contradiction in questions of the kind, ÔHow do I improve what I am doing?Õ.  These explorations can be related to IlyenkovÕs point in his dialectical logic:

 

If an object exists as a living contradiction, what must the thought (statement about the object) be that expresses it. (Ilyenkov, 1977, p. 320)

 

Ilyenkov, as  Marxist thinker, couldnÕt answer this question before he died. I believe that he couldnÕt answer this question because of his decision to Ôwrite logicÕ rather than explore the logic of his living in enquiries of the kind, ÔHow do I improve what I am doing?Õ

 

Each of the living theory theses answers the question from within the unique formation of an individual personality in the course of enquiring into the possibilities that life itself permits. I think of the unique formation of each personality in SŽveÕs terms:

 

ÒÉ.I mean the total system of activity of a given individual, a system which forms and develops throughout his life and the evolution of which constitutes the essential content of his biography. The personality is not at all to be reduced to individuality, or to the ensemble of the particular formal characteristics of an individualÕs psychism whether these particular characteristics refer back to biological conditions in themselves independent of personal activity and to the infantile structurations which preceded it, or on the contrary, are only explained by the particular logic of this activity. The personality is the scientific concept which corresponds to the fundamental unity of these two simple formulae: what a human being makes of their life, what life has made of them.  (SŽve, 1978 p.461)

 

Looking forward to engaging in an educational conversation around some of these issues.

 

References

 

Ilyenkov, E. (1977) Dialectical Logic. Moscow; Progress Publishers.

Lyotard, F. (1984) The Postmodern Condition: A report on Knowledge. Manchester; Manchester University Press.

McLaren, P, Hill, D. Cole, M. & Rikowski, G. (2002) Postmodernism Adieu. Chapter in Hill, D., McLaren, P., Cole, M. & Rilowski, G. Marxism Against Postmodernism in Educational Theory. Oxford; Lexington Books.

SŽve, L.  (1978) Man in Marxist Theory and the psychology of personality

Hossocks; Harvester Press.