[NLA] building policy vision

[Catherine B. King]

Hello Eileen:

I applaud your call for a look at our "basic assumptions:
or what I call a "foundational review," by administrators
and, I hope, by politicians and other leaders.

Also, I think we perhaps are in agreement about democracy,
but do not understand what "western" means in the same way.
I say that because of what you say:

"but I would argue vehemently against policy that privileges one
approach/philosophy of learning to the exclusion or marginalization
of others, or that sets boundaries that can fence us into too small
an arena. I would also say that the broader our conception of the
field, and our willingness to include many different voices in the
discussion, the more effective and powerful we will be."

"Western" Democracy in my own sense of meaning is contrasted
to either heavy top-down political ideology (de facto communism,
fascism, or religious doctrine in "theocracies").

I agree with what you say here--if I understand you correctly, and
if we understand what "effective" and "powerful we will be" means
in the same way.

However, policy and what you may mean by reflecting on our
"philosophy," is not the same thing as doing critical theory about
what knowledge and learning is.

Also, it's not that theories in areas of knowledge or knowledge per
se cannot be critiqued--it's that any theory is critiqued (judged
to be adequate, good or bad) by virtue of its close and
congruent relationship to the data and by virtue of its explanatory
power in relation to our questions and to other theories.

"Privilege" in terms of policy or of including all "voices" in things that
affect us all, is not the same thing as developing or verifying theory(ies)
about what knowledge is or how human beings, in fact, learn.     In the
case of theory development about cognition and learning, if there is
not "privilege" towards either (1) the theory's congruent relationship to
the data or (2) its explanatory power in the face of open critique, then
we have no basis at all for critique or verification either way--whatever
anyone says must be the case, all theories have equal weight
regardless of what they say--and we know that is not so--or theory
itself with regards to learning is, in fact, defunct.  And I hope that is
not so.

Also, if the basis  for good argument is indeed that everyone has or
should have a voice--this notion not only reveals (1) a political vision,
but also (2) an ethical vision and (3) a vision of the inherent
movement of  intelligence where we assume that what is worthwhile
being heard is not necessarily "encamped" in or "corralled" by any
one group by virtue of its group identity or political or social power--
than not only should everyone "have a voice," but that only by
listening to all voices can we ever hope to truly understand what
is important to understand.

These political/ethical/cognitional notions underlie adult education for
many of us--that truth comes in many forms, that one's personal truth
unfolds in reflective thought and open dialogue, and that no one
should be left out of the argument--especially where we are either
a part of the community or where we are affected in any way by the
dialogue or the policy that evolves from it.   Money or who you know,
etc., should not be de facto gatekeepers.

On these grounds, advocacy is FOR "our" adults so that they
ultimately can develop their own voices in a democratic
milieu and not just "get a job" or "get off the welfare roles," etc.

But it doesn't mean that what is said cannot in principle be
open to critique, wrong, misguided, irrelevant, etc.  I don't
think you are claiming this, but you do not acknowledge it nor
do you give the potential for critique grounds in your argument.

That is acknowledging the importance of all voices is not to also
assume that what any one of us says is necessarily always a good
account, right, true, worthwhile doing, relevant or even coherent
and in our best interest.  The perfection of such dialectic is in
the dialogue and our openness to it. But if we assumed that what
everyone says de facto has the same bearing on the matter in
cognitional and learning theory, then all theory is the same and
human and cultural development has not meaning whatsoever.
Or, as you put it, we would be ineffective and weak instead of
"effective and powerful" if these terms mean to be able to
help and make things work <<well>>.

Dialectic and dialogue (in Freire's sense of it) is not just a
pumping out of--or listening to--everything and therefore nothing.
Its rather a way of getting to a better "what" for everyone
concerned by everyone.   The political vision is that people with
political power should not be doing things that affect others
without including those others in the dialogue.  I think that's
a good political vision.  But that doesn't mean that everyone in
the dialogue cannot in fact be on a road to very effective and
powerful self-destruction.  We can, and often do.

One way to put it is:

A too-liberal will let anything happen and pretend not to be involved.
A too-conservative will try to stop it without consent and with a poor
vision of what is truly good for all; and a good teacher will try to set
up the conditions for what is good to emerge and be revealed in the
dialogue, and be taken up by those who are involved in the dialectic
if they/we will. Ultimately, the fascist has the edge in terms of
their unwavering commitment to their project.

I, too call for foundational review by all of us.  Only by reviewing our
"(often tacit) mental models we apply to our advocacy work" can
we bring critique and potential change-for-the-better to them.
Why else would we review them?  But on what basis are we going
to correct that view if we confuse our political vision with our
theoretical one that takes on the critical nature of "critique" itself
as a part of learning theory?

But I agree that a personal and professional review is the only
way we are going to re-position our understanding of and
advocacy for adult education--or education at all--and to keep
a place where, like you seem to be saying, we can all ask
questions about anything we want including, but not exclusive to,
what it means to live in a democracy or a theocracy, or a
communist or fascist, etc., state where questions themselves
are anathema to their perceived social order and concomitant
views of "education."

Regards,

Catherine King


----- Original Message -----
From: Eileen Eckert <eileeneckert at hotmail.com>
To: <nla at lists.literacytent.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 02, 2003 7:44 AM
Subject: [NLA] building policy vision


> Hi Catherine, and others,
> Catherine, you're right that the themes I listed are consistent with the
> ideals of western democracy. I was operating mainly in the framework of
> cognitive psychology, but I think Kolb's Experiential Learning Theory, for
> example, has its own roots in the fundamentally democratic work of Jon
> Dewey. While you see what I've written through the lens of your work on
> building/protecting democracy (sorry, I can't do justice to your
position),
> my own experiences with liberation work that is not so classically
"western"
> also heavily influence my ideas.
>
> Involvement in anti-apartheid and other human rights work; travel to EL
> Salvador and study of Latin American revolutionary struggles and the role
of
> popular education and literacy work in those struggles; community
organizing
> here; learning within a progressive framework; past participation in
> program-, regional-, and state-level policymaking; extending
teacher-student
> and colleague relationships to know the people I've worked with beyond
their
> official roles--all of these and other experiences contribute to my
current
> level of understanding. They're also mostly outside the scope of teacher
> preparation and certification mandates. I wouldn't say that everybody
should
> have the same experience and background, but I would argue vehemently
> against policy that privileges one approach/philosophy of learning to the
> exclusion or marginalization of others, or that sets boundaries that can
> fence us into too small an arena. I would also say that the broader our
> conception of the field, and our willingness to include many different
> voices in the discussion, the more effective and powerful we will be.
That's
> another reason I think it's so important that we look at the basic
> assumptions we make and the (often tacit) mental models we apply to our
> advocacy work.
>
> This thread has reminded me of a diversity-training workshop I once
> attended, where one participant refused to leave the level of political
> analysis and look inward at his own personal beliefs and actions. While
it's
> certainly important to be able to analyze the world, I believe we also
need
> to be able to look at ourselves. I asked if people would share the
personal
> principles that guide their own actions. A couple have used my own as the
> basis for further dialogue, but no one has shared their individual view of
> the "big picutre" or the principles they bring to advocacy efforts. I
don't
> want to make assumptions about why this is so. Maybe most people deleted
my
> message without reading it, or just aren't interested in this line of
> dialogue. Maybe this list doesn't feel like a safe place to share personal
> reflections. I know I hesitated to share my own, and what I shared is more
> academic and less "me" than it would be if I were <entirely> among
friends.
> But if we are going to advocate for policy that affects the field as a
> whole, don't we have some responsibility to both engage in reflection
about
> how it all fits together, and to be accountable to ourselves by being open
> about what we're advocating, and why?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
> http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
>
> _______________________________________________
> NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
> http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
> LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
> http://literacytent.org

_______________________________________________
NLA mailing list: NLA at lists.literacytent.org
http://lists.literacytent.org/mailman/listinfo/nla
LiteracyTent: web hosting, news, community and goodies for literacy
http://literacytent.org