Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Gergen 2009 ch9 Education-In-A-Relational-Key Small

    Uploaded by

    Paul Liu
    50 views31 pages
    UCSB ED125 Reading

    Original Title

    Gergen_2009_ch9_education-in-a-relational-key_small

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    UCSB ED125 Reading

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    50 views31 pages

    Gergen 2009 ch9 Education-In-A-Relational-Key Small

    Uploaded by

    Paul Liu
    UCSB ED125 Reading

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as pdf
    of 31
    Kenneth J. Gergen Relational Being Beyond Self and Community OXFORD [UNIVERSIFY PRESS 8 Education in a Relational Key Sometimes I think I inherited my occupation. My father was also a professor. I was transfixed by his teaching, In part it was the fascination of irony. Asa growing boy I had experienced him asa stern and demanding authoritarian. My fiends called him “the bear.” Only slowly did I realize thae we—his four sons—might be ‘responsible for his Prussian personality. It was his best option for controlling and channeling the ever-impending chaos. My father, “the mathematics professor,” was an altogether different man, In the classroom his animated movements were coupled with a spontaneous vwit, and as words and challedust filled the ai, his students were enchanted. So was I. Although drawn by his classroom performance, I could never emulate my father’s syle. That was his alone. However, in my first years of teaching I did detect a certain resonance. Like him, I was the ‘master of the classroom: I designed our routes, ordered the intellectual provisions, delivered commanding lectures, and evaluated performance with an impartial hand. In these respec, Talso resembled most of my colleagues. Ino longer teach in this way. The classroom is no longer my ship; I am no longer its commander. | have shed the traditional vision of individual minds, of che knowing teacher and ignorant student, of teaching as a cause 240 Eaweaton i Relational Koy of learning. J find i diffcule to think of my actions in the classroom inde- pendent from the students I teach, and student performance as issuing from an internal well-spring of intelligence. What takes place in the class- room is our achievement iagether. | scarcely think 1 am alone in this increased sensitivity to relationship. Today, new practices are everywhere in motion, slowly leaving behind che myth of individuals who succeed ot fail by virtue of individual ralents. Tia the present chapter I explore these emerging practices and their poten tials. [begin by reconsidering the aims of education. If we dispense with the presumption that education is about improving individual minds, how are we to conceptualize its function? Here I propose that because all knowl edge is a communal creation, education is more fruitfully conceived as a process for enhancing participation in relational process, With this view in plice, I tum to che central concern of the chapter, namely educational practices that reflect, sustain, and advance productive forms of relational being. Here I shall take up a range of relationships—berween teachers and students, among students, between the classroom and the world outside, and more. In each case we shall explore practices that link excellence in ‘education with excellence in relationship. Aims of Education Revisited ‘Western culture has long been enamored with che vision ofthe individual as the origin of reason, We marvel a the idea of the lone genius, the Galileo, Newron, or Einstein, all symbolically embodied in Rodin’s classic pose of ‘The Thinker, Likewise the educational establishment has long flown the Cartesian banner of cegizo. We spend long hours developing curricula to help students “chink for themselves.” We also hold that thinking tales place ptior to, and separate from, speaking or writing, Thinking is « private act, and words are merely the vehicles by which we make our thoughts known to others. The individual mind is primary; relations are secondary and ‘optional. In this tradition we draw a clear distinction between the knowing, teacher and the ignoranc pupil; we believe the purpose of education isto fill the minds of individual students; and we presume that a knowing mind is ood preparation for a successful future. All of these presumptions derive from the tradition of bounded beings—separate and independent minds, Bur, why should we suppose that knowledge is an individual possesion, ot that education is about “filling” or fishioning minds?” au 242_ RELATIONAL BEING Exsly in the 2oth century the philosopher John Dewey raised much the same questions. For Dewey the cultivated mind was esentally a social ‘mind, "All education proceeds by the participation ofthe individual inthe social consciousness” (p. 77): In this sense, Dewey foreshadows themes ‘central to relational being, IF raised in social isolation, what would an indi- vidual think abou? There would be no eapacity to think about science literature, o arts no deliberation on good and evils no concern with family community, or global well-being. These “objects of thought” all develop through our relationships with others. To deliberate at all about suci -marters first requires language, and language by is narure can only be gen crated within relationships. A language spoken by one person alone is Wh: is “rational thought” outside relationship? To think rationally is to ein a cultural tradition, For example, that 14x 24 = 336 is rations! only ifone agrees to play within the conventions ofa number system with the base of 10. The same may be said of memory. To remember what has ‘been taught is not to consulta recording in the brain, Rather, it sro engage {n a cultural convention conceming what counts as an acceptable perfor- mance of memory. IF a teacher asks a student what he remembered from class the day before, and the student perfectly mimed the bo ‘movements ofthe teacher, he would be chastened, These were among the proposals of Chapter 3, Al the knowledge we dispense in our classes—from history to literature, biology to calculus, geography to psychology—is invariably a communicy achievement, Without a community to agree about the objects of study, the methods of research, the terms by which the world is described, and the value of inquiry, there would be virually no bodies of knowledge available To putie broadly, knowledge is not lodged somewhere within the minds of individual scientists or scholars. These were the arguments ofthe preceding chapter. "Dioey J (07), My potagogc eed. Te Sebel oral LIV, 479-80, ‘See Winganacin, L. (ig. Pluie Hawaii. (CE. M, Anse, Tens (Oxford: Blackwell, Scion 2. Education is Relational Rey If knowledge and reason ate relational achievements, we must reconsider che question of educational goals. If relations are primary, what then is the aim of education; what do we hope 0 achieve fom our practices? If whac we cll mental Functioning is relacional metioning, we must begin +0 ask questions about the relationships in which students are, or will be, participating and the outcome of such participation. From this standpoint I propose that she primary aim of education i to enhance the potentials for participating in relational proceses—from the local tthe global. The aim, then, is not that of producing independent, autonomous thinkers— raythological creatures at best—but of facilitating relational processes shat ean ultimately conteibute to che continuing and expanding flow of :elationships within the world more broadly.) ‘What would i be to place relationship prior to the individual in edu- cation? First, the focus would be directed to relations between teachers and seudents, and among students. Who is participating and in what manner? Tn the long run, the character of these relationships may prove more signif cane than the subject matter under study. Second), we would move beyond the classroom. The classroom should give woice to the webs of relationship in which seudents and ceachess are engaged. Relations between the class room and its environment should also be extended from the local to the slobal concext. The classroom would ideally be a meeting ground for the concems of the world. And finally, there are the relationships ofthe firure. ‘With what skills are students prepared to enter the relationships on which global life will depend? Most obvious are entries into the prevailing communities of practice: law, medicine, texching, business, government, the helping professions, the military, and so on. A relationally effecive cducation would also consider the potentials for productive participation in families, communities, the politcal process, the ans, diverse cultural umaditions, nature, and more. Education is uot, chen, a process of praducing cflective individuals; i is one of fostering processes that indefinitely extend the potentials of relationship. ln my view, education in a relational key is critical to the global future. ‘Owing to the profound technological cansformations of che past century, ‘we confront increasing numbers of people, from differing locales, for dif- fering purposes. Everywhere there is a need for collaboration, teamwork, "here ee abo simi hare o Brune’ vision of educavonal proces ering hoes of he er, See Brune, J 8. (996). The enlur of dnc Carbide: Harv Univesity Pra. Flowers, thee ae norbl difisx ces wel pecan terms of Brune’ emphasis leitondedicsted wo afiing individual snd and et. 23 or RELATIONAL BEING. networks, and negotiation. Required are continuous adjustments to a con- tinuously changing sea of meaning and mareril. In the organizational sphere, for example, this reliance on relationship is reflected in moves from hicrarchieal to fattened structures and increased reliance on cross- functional teams for vital decisions, Successful collaboration is also pivotal forthe dramatic billowing of virtual organizations and international volun rary moments (NGOs). And ic isin just such eapacties for coordinated relationship that ecumenical movements, geopolitical organizations, and scientific research teams depend.’ The tradition of individual-centered education isil-suived for participation in such ventures. “There is more: Contemporary communication technologies also feed the flames of conflict. Through the Web, the Internet cell phones, and the like, ic is possible in short order co assemble enclaves ofthe ideologically ‘committed, Each ordering is also a disorderings an antagonistic gap is cre- ‘ated between 1s and them. And, as the control of violence shifis from large ailtary regimes to small bands of “terrorists,” every antagonism is lethal in its potential, In his context of the global powder keg, contributions to productive relational process are essentia:' Here we must consider that educational institutions are vircually alone in their capacities for building the vocabularies of effective relationship. Most institutions are bent on sclfenbancement; in contrast, education in relational process can serve the good of all ‘The implications of education for relational ends are profound. Ouratten~ tion fits shifts from the mind of individual students to the kinds of rela- sionships out of which mutual knowing can emerge. As noted, we focus on relational processes within the classroom, between the classroom and com- ‘munity, and educational systems throughout the world, Further, we ‘become sensitized to community differences and the ways in which knowl ‘edge in one may be dysfunctional within another. We begin to ask whose voices are present in the educational process and whose are absent or silenced, In all these contexts, interest shifis from the excellence of a bounded unit, o the potentials inherent in coordination, Isolation, hierar- chy, and antagonism give way to co-cteation, “On the sigifcanes of ruknionl were tun, for example see are, P. Ca and Gibson, CB. 2003). Manan wor ans aes prgetie, Mav, NJ Eebaum. "See Bal, PC. and Gils, CB. 2002). Mathison work name A new pepe. Mab NJ: Elba, "See epocily the Chap 6 dscunon of eolic and dlogu. Eduction ina Relational Key 24s Circles of Participation ‘Ac present most educational practices and policies are individualist in char- acter, The educational aystem is designed to bring about lasting changes in the condition of the individual mind. In metaphotic terms, the school functions as a factory for turning the raw scuff of the mind into a finely functioning machine. In today's vernaculars the machine produit is a com- puter into which the educational system hhas installed durable software, ‘The factory metaphor is often linked, as well, with an economic one. In this case we are inclined to judge schools in business terms, such as cost cffectiveness and product quality. There are numerous critics ofthis tradi- tion, and many attempts to avoid its strangulating, grip? My attempt here is not to review these many important resistances. Rather, what hori zone are now opened if we replace the individual with the relationship as the fundamental unit of education? What practices and policies are invited? To prepare for this discussion, further scaffolding is useful: Consider first thac within che existing tradition we largely view the suudent’s state of knowledge as an effect for which che educational system is the cause. The system éaaches and the student karns the factory grinds out its prod On this view, we have no easy way of asking about the effects of the student on the system; we don’t ask about the effects of computer software ‘on the factory that produced it, Bue what if we view the student and che teacher as participants in a relationship? I am not speaking here of a rela- tionship of bounded unirs, causing each other's movements like so many billiard balls Rather, they are engaged in a relationship in which they are ‘mutually creating meaning, reason, and value. The student does not possess meaning tint granted by the teacher; the teacher speaks nonsense until the student affirms that sense has been made. Without co-action, there is no communicasion and no education. With mutual engagement the student and teacher actively participate in a mutual process of teaching/learning. But the teacher and student are scarcely alone, Each isa participant in an extended array of relationships. Thus, the student arrives in class as a ‘multi-being, already participating in relations with family friends, and Pivotal n sch eric is the wt of aslo Fei, who ls characteriza the exining trndion a muri oa beng model, Eduction on hie, a iatiment ofthe pow «fal impaing knowlege o avin in dhe sent, with ew toward a irae are oF pf. Sch 970 volun Peg athe oppo. Lal: Coan 246 _ RELATIONAL sxING neighbors, along with a host of fantasy figures from television, videogames, and the like (Chapters). Following the earlier analysis, ler us view each of the student's relationships as a circle of participation, Thus the student arrives embedded within multiple circles, with mother, father, siblings, fiends and so on. Further, let us recognize that each of these ctces is also educational, That is, participation in any relationship will bring with ican increase in one's capacities, sensitivities, and skills for relating. Each fosters a way of being with others, fsvoring certain ways of taking, values, fears, enthusiasms, and so on, Each generates its own limitations as well In eect, cach establishes its own ways of “doing knowledge.” ‘We futher recognize that the ceicher artves in the classroom as rmult-being, embedded in a similar matrix of connection, along with rela- tions with other teachers, administrators, and more, Each of these relations leaves the teacher with a residue of potentials. When teacher and student meet, each is embedded within a multiplicity of relationships, and each is replete with multiple skills (and potential deficiencies) in relating. In this sense, the meeting of the student and teacher brings about a new circle of relationship, one that could link each of them to an expanded sea of potentials—or not. Yet, we also recognize that a student's achievements depend on his or her circle of relations with classmates. Not only do these relationships ltarbor significant educational potential, bur chey will also insinuate them- selves into the relationship berween teacher and student, Effective teachers, then, will atend not only to their personal relations with their students, but will develop practices that draw into the circle the relations of students among themselves, Jn effect, we expand the potentials of the educational process by broadening the range of citcles taken into account.” Let us aguin expand the relaional realm: In recent years educators hhave become inereasingly concemed with the relationship of seudents to their families. What takes place within the teacher/scudent relationship can be significantly influenced by the student’s home-lfe, Effective peda- ogy should take this circle into account, Further iis useful to expand the focus on relationship to include the surrounding instiations of business, government, industry, and so on, If education is to be successful, these circles should also be drawn into the classroom proceedings. Finally, we ‘ay inquire into the relationship within the classtoom to the world more "Us eres ener’ ve of eden a mung fon “sb-commniy in inertion.” Bruner Jp ce) Eedwation ine Releional Key 247 sgenerally. If schooling is to prepare students ro become world slobal relations are to be prized. 8, then Relational Pedagogy in Action My concern in the remainder of this chapter is with edueacional practice. ‘What does a relational orientation invite in the way of specific practices? There is much to be suid here—on practices of cuticalum development standardization, educational policy, and the like, However, for illustrative purposes I will focus on pedagogy. To keep the discussion manageable, I will also limit the focus ro four specific circles of relationship, We will consider practices in the relationship berween teacher and student, among students, berween the clasroom and the community, and between the classroom and the world. Each discussion will constiute a lens through which certain issues and potentials will become prominent. When we focus on the circle uniting teacher and student, certain practices will become salient; through lens in which student relations are focal, furchet practices emerge, As each lens brings a relational circle into visibility, s0 do our sensitivities and creative potentials expand. Throughout these discussions, I will illustrate with a variety oF innovative practices from con- temporary classtooms, The multiple sites in which these innovations ‘emerged suggests that a broad movement is in the making, Circle 1: Teacher and Student Educators have long pondered the question of whac makes a good teacher: which personality traits and practices are most effective. In tecent years attention has also centered on the student: his or her stage of cognitive development, personal needs, self-esteem, and so on. The concer with teacher characteristics traditionally lends itself to curriculum-centered edie cation (drawing from the teacher's knowledge base), while concern with student capabilities lends strong support to a student-centered curticulum. However, each of these traditions is typically focused on the bounded individual—either the teacher or the student. A relational orientation asks us to consider them rogether. A teacher may demand classroom ordet, but such demands will go unnoticed if students disrespect the teacher. ‘Teaching cannot be separaced from learning; without one the other fails to exis at RELATIONAL BEING ‘When a sndent fils a course, there are ways in which the reacher has alo fled a teacher receiving a "best teaching award” should share it ‘with his or her students. Parencs rewarding their children for good ‘marks, should also congratulate the teacher. In this light consider the traditional relationship berween teacher and stu- dent. The teacher stands in the front of the classroom with students seated about; the reacher describes, explain, and demonstrates a subject matter while the cudents listen and possibly ake notes. Here we notice, frst thae the teacher controls the classroom, including who can speak, when, and about what. Second, we notice the dependence of the relationship on rmonolegue (the teacher does most of the talking). In ty view, these condi- tions vasely reduce the potentials of relationship, and in doing so markedly mie the educational outcomes. ‘When the relationship is dominated by the teaches’s monologue, stu- dents are not only denied fll participation, buc aswell the capacity ro draw from the multiple relationships of which they are a part. Rich potentials remain unused oF suppressed. When teachers alone generate the order of the classroom, students often find it an alien one, Ic is mot their orders it makes ltele sense within their relational histories. For older students, teacher control can often invite resentment and a resisance. Ideally, the order of the classroom should emerge through collaboration. Insignificant degree, this can be accomplished by shifting from monologue to dialogue asthe primary form of teaching, Here students have greater opporcunity to give expression to their outside relationships, and ro weave them into the classroom order. In effec, students bring their extended network of rela- tionships into the classroom. One student might relate the course material (o her personal life; another might inject humor, and another amplify with a relevant story. Their lives are brought more fully into contact with the teacher, with their fellow students, and with the course material itself, To be sure, there might be les “coverage of the course material," but the out- come enriches the potentials for elarional participation. ‘As a teacher, [love having extensive knowledge at my finger bringing i wo life with my words, creating interest and admiration among my students. Iam the center of their attention, the font of knowledge, the wise and giving father, Yet, Ihave also come to realize thac this same romance with myself as teacher may also be ‘more self-serving than educational. The students essentially witness « Eaucavon is a Relational Key 249 performance, They are scarcely aware of the years of effort required for me to speak with ease; they have not seen the hours Ihave spent in organizing, brushing up, and thinking through the trajectory of the appointed hour. What I say appears to spring spontaneously from ry powers of reasoning, Not only is this misleading, but the students are minimally prepared by my performance for action in the world, ‘They are primarily prepared to observe, appreciate, take « Few notes, and in some form vo repeat my words when later quizued. They are ‘minimally prepared to enter later relationships as effective dialogic partners. They have no experience in offering ideas. responding sensitively to others, or joining with others in creating visions that none could have imagined alone. Many teachers are sensitive to these issues. The emphasis on narrative writ ing and reporting, requests for students ro bring artifacts from home into the class, and assignments that link elass and neighborbood move in this direction. However, there is also a Family of metaphors springing to life within recent years, ech offering more inclusive alternative to the mono- logic orientation, and a richer vision of the relationship between teacher and students, I find the following among the most promising oF these menaphora: ‘The Dialogic Classroom. In the co-active creation of the real and the good, dialogue is the prefered form of pedagogy. But dialogue comes in many forms, The most popular is that oF debate one side versus the other. In earlier years 1 often used debate as a means of stirring interese and engagement, and in demonstrating the intelligibility of both sides of an issue. Over the years, howeves, my enthusiasm waned. Debate has a way of closing the focus. When its “one side versus another,” the broader context is seldom considered. Further, debate tends to polarize the class. Once committed toa given side, suudents ean see ltl of value in “the opposition.” “The participants are now combatants, and relationships are threatened. In hhow many debates do we find one side congratulating the ocher on making 1 good point, or adding their insights to the ideas offered by the other? Argument is effectively an invitation co mutual negation’ ‘Forfar dicsion ae the ey, “The lof pre crigus” a Gg K: J 000 Soi omar in conte. Leao: Sage favor of Socratic dialogue. Here the teacher employs conversation as the means to bring students into a sate of knowledge. However, while an important contribution to collaborative learning, the Socratic method is implicitly monologic. That i, the reacher knows in advance the desired conclusion of the interchange, and fashions his or her questions accordingly. In contrast, more recent contributions to the concept ofthe dialogic

    You might also like