Sisters of Earth Emerging Course Outline Second Session:
Social Cartographies- The Tree
These cartographies are not intended to provide models, checklists, or normative prescriptions for transformation. Instead, the cartographies are used as pedagogical tools to create new vocabularies, deepen analyses, move dialogue beyond cognitive and emotional lockdowns, change the terms of conversations and open communities up to new horizons of possibility (see Andreotti, Stein, Pashby & Nicholson, 2015). We have used these cartographies to explore the limits, intersections, tensions, nuances, convergences, and divergences between and within different imaginaries of global justice and social change. From our experience, these cartographies have a very interesting effect on our relationship with knowledge and the expectations we place upon knowledge production. When used educationally, they challenge our learned desires for consensus, coherence, neutrality, and quick resolutions. In contexts where social imaginaries are marked by the search for certainty and control, they can facilitate deep learning processes and invite curiosity, reflexivity, openness, and the expansion of sensibilities as we engage with other possibilities.
The approach to education outlined in this paper and illustrated through the various social cartographies is less concerned with cultivating prescriptive approaches to problem-solving and more concerned with preparing people to work with and through the complexities, uncertainties, paradoxes, and complicities that characterize efforts to address unprecedented global challenges. In particular, this approach seeks to create spaces for the flourishing of an “ecology of knowledges” (Santos, 2007). Such an ecology, in which there is symmetry between different and intersecting ways of knowing and being, creates conditions of possibility for people from diverse positions and histories to engage critically with the contributions and limitations of every knowledge system (including the most novel ones, which are only just in the process of formation) without reducing “being” to “knowing”. In this way, we might instead speak in the plural about ecologies of knowledges, as well as accompanying ecologies of ignorances, as every knowledge system has foreclosures and limitations. Such an approach to education challenges mainstream educational approaches, while also offering alternatives to reactive dogmatism, romanticization of alternatives, and/or absolute relativism that are presently creating intercultural paralyses and other barriers to collaborative approaches to imagining and enacting global justice and social change.
In this approach to education, learners would be supported to:
• Engage constructively and in critically-informed ways with the difficult issues and discomforts that emerge in processes of deep intercultural, intergenerational, and intersectional learning and change;
• Develop more complex, systemic, multi-layered, and multi-voiced questions, analyses, and practices that challenge and provide experimental alternatives to simplistic solutions to global injustices;
• Work with diverse and intergenerational others in developing coalitions and dissolving cognitive, affective, relational, economic, and ecological inequalities;
• Identify and transform problematic on-going patterns of local and global engagements that tend to be hegemonic, ethnocentric, depoliticized, ahistorical, paternalistic and offer uncomplicated solutions;
• Cultivate awareness of how we are implicated in the problems we are trying to address – that is, how we are both part of the problem and the solution in different ways;
• Understand historically marginalized people and communities as equally capable, intelligent, knowledgeable, and complex;
• Expand frames of reference, acknowledging the gifts, contradictions and limitations of different knowledge systems, moving beyond ‘either or’ towards ‘both and more’;
• Move reciprocally from theory to practice and from practice to theory, understanding the essential and dynamic link between them, and valuing both equally;
• Recognize systemic ongoing harm without paralysis, quick fixes, or pessimism, in order to re-ignite our visceral sense of connectedness with and responsibility towards each other and the planet; and
• Open our social and ecological imaginations to different forms of knowing, being, sensing, and relating, and to different futurities beyond a single story of teleological progress, development, and evolution.
The TREE
According to Scott (2004), “the way one defines an alternative depends on the way one has conceived the problem” (p. 6). How we conceive of a problem and what we propose in response shapes the critique we offer and our accompanying horizon of possibility. In this cartography we review three possible critical responses to contemporary systemic crises, in order to consider the assumptions, investments, and attachments that shape them, and to consider where each of them might lead. We describe each response as it relates to three different levels of possible analysis and intervention (methodological, epistemological, ontological), and how they would approach system transformation (soft, radical, or beyond reform of the system [see Andreotti, Stein, Ahenakew, & Hunt, 2015]). We illustrate each level of intervention further by considering how they relate to education, as well as discourses of international development, and questions that one might ask when operating at the different levels.
To help illustrate how each layer of analysis addresses different dimensions of a problem of concern, we use the metaphor of an olive tree. The leaves and flowers represent the methodological layer, the branches represent the epistemological layer, and the roots and trunk represent the ontological layer.
Focusing on the leaves and flowers emphasizes how to maximize growth of the existing system, to more efficiently produce and improve outputs – i.e. olives.
Focusing on the branches would entail exploring different directions and angles of growth that could help the tree produce a broader range of better and more diverse outputs. The ontological is partly visible, through the trunk, and partly invisibilized, through the roots, but together they form the basis of the tree, upon which the branches and leaves are grounded.
Focusing on the trunk and roots enables one to pay attention to the wider life cycle of the plant, its relation to the larger ecological metabolism within which it is embedded, as well as its inevitable death.
Methodological Critique (leaves and flowers)
Critiques that operate at the level of methodology conclude that the system is operating as it should, that is, at its optimum performance level, and thus it needs to be adjusted in order to realign with its underlying principles and goals. Thus, this critique emphasizes changing what and how we do something within our existing system to make it more effective on its own terms. It is assumed that any problems we face are attributable to a failure to live up to its underlying promises, such as a lack of efficiency within capitalist markets, a lack of access to Enlightenment knowledge, and a lack of trust in a nation-state’s politicians. Little conversation is needed about how to move forward, because there is only one viable direction for progress. The assumption underlying this critique is that the system is structurally sound, but there is room to improve what is already working well, following the imperative to engineer continuous progress. A deep investment in traditional intellectual economies and the presumed moral authority of traditional institutions inform the critique offered from this position, and its desire to produce policies and practices that will support predefined outcomes and goals. In this way, this approach seeks to address contemporary problems using solutions internal to the system itself (asks the same questions, and gives the same answers). Approaches to education that are driven by these kinds of investments in linear, seamless progress in order to ensure continuity rather than a more fundamental transformation, will likely take a soft reform approach to modern institutions and relationships. Meanwhile, approaches to international development from this critical space will be mainstream, premised on the presumed supremacy and benevolence of the most powerful and wealthy ‘leaders’ of the system (namely, Western nation-states), and the universal extension/adoption of their models for development elsewhere. Questions that might be asked at the methodological level are: What is the problem? How can we fix it? How can I help? What should we do? How should we do it? What happened? What is happening? What strategies are effective? What outcomes are expected? What challenges are faced? How does/will it work? How to improve effectiveness? What knowledge/expertise/data/ is missing? What policy is needed or not being implemented correctly? How does this compare to what happens in other contexts?
Epistemological Critique (branches)
Critiques articulated from the layer of epistemology agree with the layer of methodology that we need to do things differently, but also that we need to think about things differently as well. This is because they identify linkages between the politics and production of knowledge and historical, structural inequalities, including the uneven distribution of power, wealth, labor, as well as hierarchies of merit, credibility and worth of cultures, individuals and life itself. Having identified more deeply-rooted flaws in the system, this approach tends to advocate for more drastic (radical reform) changes to existing political, economic, and educational systems. That is, we need to reconsider what and how we know – and how we might know differently. This critique identifies that our dominant frames of reference favor certain ways of knowing over others and thereby determine what is intelligible, desirable, and imaginable. This in turn shapes the kinds of questions we can ask, the answers that can be provided, adjudicates the authority of knowledge claims, and shapes the perceived validity of approaches to change. In recognition of these limitations, there is an identified need to attend to epistemological diversity and disrupt the illusion of epistemic certainty and universality that it implies. Thus, this critique questions the construction of what is perceived as natural, normal and common sense by attending to how knowledge (rather than ignorance) can be used to rationalize socio-material practices that sacrifice the well-being of certain populations for the benefit of others. This critique therefore identifies the role of knowledge in historical and ongoing slavery, colonialism, imperialism, racism, capitalism, heteropatriarchy, and ableism, although usually not all of these dimensions at the same time. Thus, it is deemed necessary to change the content of existing conversations and institutions by rethinking who is considered an “expert,” and ensuring access for more historically marginalized people, thereby addressing questions of representation as well as redistribution.
When addressing the role of education, this layer of critique will emphasize the limits of a single story of progress, development and human evolution. Educational interventions in line with this approach will focus on the inclusion of perspectives that have been excluded and encourage learners to make the unknown known in order to increase the range of options (same questions, different answers). Regarding international development, critique at this layer questions the hegemony and presumed universality of Western-led development models, in particular how they ignore and invalidate local knowledges and the possibilities they offer for developing differently. Thus, they imagine alternative forms of development, for instance, democratizing participation in development so that local communities have greater power in decision making.
Questions that might be asked at the epistemological level are: Whose bodies/voices are represented in what is perceived to be normal or natural? Who decides which direction forward is? In whose name? For whose benefit? How come (i.e. historical/systemic forces)? How are dissenting voices included (or not)? Whose terms of dialogue/inclusion are in operation? What collective traumas are present? Why? Who has been historically and systemically wounded? Whose vulnerabilities are visible/invisible? What notions of authority, merit, credibility, normality and entitlement are at work? What is being opposed and proposed as replacement? How am I complicit in harm? How am I reading and being read? How can I enact ethical solidarity?
Ontological Critique (trunk and roots)
At the ontological layer of critique, there is a notion that the problems plaguing the system are in fact of its own making, and further, that the system has always been subsidized by the violence of exploitation, ecocide, and genocide. Because solutions articulated from within the system itself will ultimately result in more of the same violence, the system is deemed to be beyond reform. The conclusion of this critique is that we cannot expect capitalism, the state, or Enlightenment humanism, to fix the problems that capitalism, the state, and Enlightenment humanism have created – we therefore need to learn to exist otherwise or elsewhere. Thus, in the short term, contemporary problems might be mitigated in important ways by minor or major adjustments to its existing institutions. However, in the long term, the problems will not be eradicated until we dismantle this system, or witness its self-made collapse, learn from its mistakes, mourn its decline, and create different possibilities in its place.
This perspective shares much of the major reform critiques, but goes beyond reconsidering what we do, and how and what we think, to also ask questions about who and what we (think) we are, the conditions for us to be and to understand being that way, the nature of reality (time, space, conscience, being), and how we could experience existence substantially differently. This critique seeks to explore the boundaries of what we perceive to be real, intelligible, possible and relevant and look for alternatives. If the architectures of existence that support the maintenance of the house are premised on continued violence, then we must reimagine our existence if we want the violence to stop.
When it comes to education, this layer of critique emphasizes the pedagogical need to expand our existing sensibilities and constellations of knowledge, relationality, and affect, in order to prepare us with the stamina and strength to face the difficulties of unlearning our investments in a dying system, and of learning the joys of walking alongside one another (rather than in front or behind), in order to pluralize possibilities for co-existence in a fragile planet. With regard to development, this critique tends to question the very idea of “progress”, and thus considers the need not just for alternative forms of development, but alternatives to development (Santos, 2007; Stein, Andreotti, & Suša, 2016). This analysis addresses the limits of the development model within the West itself, which has led us dangerously close to the limit of our planetary capacity. Thus, within this analysis, mainstream development is identified as a theory of change that no longer offers a compelling or ethical narrative vision for the future – if it ever did.
Questions that might be asked at the ontological level are: What is the nature of reality, self, consciousness, time, space, change, life, and death in this context? What cognitive/ affective/ relational/ educational/ healing/ sensorial practices are possible from this worldview? How is the possibility of my understanding (knowing/sensing), or lack thereof, shaped and limited by my positionality? What is this (not knowing) experience teaching me about possibilities I could never have imagined before?
We note that this cartography only presents usual assemblages – we explore other assemblages with more nuanced configurations in other cartographies. One important response, not articulated in this cartography is the one that expresses a need to “defend and protect the system by any means necessary”. This response projects the source of all systemic problems are onto the most vulnerable populations, justifying the intensification of securitization at, within, and beyond the borders of the states in the name of protecting state sovereignty, private property, and conservative humanist values. This analysis often rationalizes racist rhetoric and physical violence, intensified immigration restrictions, blatant discrimination, and expanded powers of the police, military, and intelligence agencies. While we do not wish to validate this response as a viable option, we nonetheless think it important to consider how and why this analysis appeals to some people, and ask how elements of this approach might appear within any of the possibilities we do consider.
As well, we note that it is possible to hold more than one of these analyses, and/or deploy contrasting elements of different critiques depending on one’s context. However, this approach to knowledge contradicts the tendency that characterizes our dominant approach to problem solving, in which the identification of a problem must be accompanied by a prescription for clearly articulated and coherent responses. Yet this imperative can lead us to avoid problems that seemingly have no coherent solutions, to circularly try and solve problems created by our system with solutions articulated within that system, or to prescribe universal responses that are not appropriate for all contexts.
Part of the necessary work is therefore to learn to become comfortable with the unknown depth of the challenges that we face – we must develop the stamina for addressing complex problems without a predefined end point, and for experimenting (responsibly) with different possibilities when opportunities arise. This, in turn, requires that we disinvest from our attachments to viewing ourselves as heroic, problem-solving protagonists and leaders who have the answers to the world’s problems, and instead investing in the integrity of a collective, horizontal (messy) process of transformation. This is why the affective dimension of this work must accompany the cognitive one. We are still working on a version of the tree cartography that includes the affective dimension, but for now, we pose a series of questions to consider alongside the analyses, in particular those working at the interface between the epistemological and ontological layers:
• What perceptions, projections, desires and expectations inform what you are doing/thinking and how do these things affect your relationships?
• What ignorances do you continue to embody and what social tensions are you failing to recognize?
• How can we distinguish between distractions and important stuff? How do we know when we are stuck?
• What is preventing you from being present and listening deeply without fear and without projections?
• What problems do your solutions reproduce or generate?
• What do you need to give up or let go of in order to go deeper?
• What truths are you not ready, willing, or able to speak or to hear?
• How can we respect the pace and readiness of people’s learning while being accountable to those negatively affected by this learning and its pace?
No comments:
Post a Comment