.
FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS 1 Does this approach lead to action? Potentially yes, but this operates at two levels. If action is defined as a change of assumptions/worldview that leads to a change in behaviour and relationships, the answer can be that this is the aim of the project: that people will change themselves through the interaction with others, that this change will happen at an epistemic level and that it will be transferred to other areas of their lives. If action is defined as ‘direct collective action’, then the answer is still ‘potentially yes, but this is not the aim of the project. In order to enable people to think independently, our role in the project cannot be one of telling people what they should think or what they should do. This would be inconsistent with the theoretical principles of the project that establishes an ethical framework described by Foucault as seeking not to “suggest what people ought to be, what they ought to do, what they ought to think and believe”, but to enable the construction of an awareness about how social mechanisms have, up to now, been able to work and how, therefore, these systems have conditioned the way we think, evaluate, act and relate to others. And then, starting from there, leave to the people themselves, knowing all the above, the possibility of self-determination and the choice of their own existence. However, through the tasks and simulations (of decision making processes) we encourage participants to plan collective interventions responsibly and nothing prevents educators/facilitators from supporting the group in implementing their ideas if participants choose to do so. What we are advocating for is responsible/accountable action in which pupils know WHY they are intervening and the implications and potential limitations of their strategies. We believe that without the knowledge of where their possibility for intervention is coming from (their lenses/position of privilege), they will intervene in an uncritical way and this intervention may exacerbate the conditions they are trying to change in the first place (especially if this intervention is related to the 'Third World' or to local disenfranchised groups). 3 Does the methodology allow for racist, sexist or homophobic perspectives to pass unchallenged? No. It is precisely the unpacking/challenging/dealing with these perspectives – and not simply silencing them - that is one of the central objectives of the project (the last of the five principles sets the mode for that). However, each educator/facilitator will need to determine the right moment to unpack those perspectives (or whether, in certain contexts, they will need to silence them to protect other participants). 4 Wouldn't it be more effective just to teach pupils virtues and values explicitly? We are not saying that virtues and values should not be taught at different moments in the educational process, however, the view that morality can be explicitly taught and be unproblematically assimilated by students can be interpreted as a kind of banking concept of education that assumes that the authority of institutions/teachers can 'input' something directly into the minds of learners and that as long as they ‘provide’ the right answers in tests or interviews, they have changed their values and behaviour. Social and educational theory has challenged these assumptions by acknowledging that the students come to school already knowing a lot about the world (due to their exposure to language/cultural significations) and that 'real' learning will be the result of a complex interaction between what the student is exposed to at school (formal input, but also several aspects of the environment) and the understanding of the world he/she has already constructed. Therefore, this learning is not the work of the teacher, but of the student him/herself. There are several implications arising from this change of perception (which is central to most of the theories used in the project), but an important one is that, within a complex environment of peer pressure, information overload and different kinds of (local and global) injustices, empowering pupils to think independently and make informed and responsible decisions become more meaningful than a rhetoric of good virtues. First, presenting human rights as a "universally agreed" unproblematic set of values is misleading and potentially alienating * . The Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created as a governance mechanism of the United Nations to prevent genocide (it was not meant to be used as a statement of values either). According to the UN, it was conceived as a statement of objectives to be pursued by Governments, and therefore it is not part of binding international law. Nonetheless, it is still a potent instrument used to apply moral and diplomatic pressure on states that violate the Declaration’s principles. As an instrument, it has been used to protect civilians from State violence, but it has also been used by powerful countries as an alibi for other types of interventions (with ambiguous aims/interests). Therefore, we believe that, although people should support it in principle, they should also engage critically with it. Third, from a pedagogical perspective, apart from a simplistic and uncritical view of international politics, potential outcomes of implementing the UDHR as a framework of values could include the reinforcement of assumptions of cultural and economic superiority/inferiority, reinforcement of Eurocentrism and a vanguardist/missionary feeling and attitude towards the South. This does not mean that human rights should not be addressed (and supported!) as one of the global issues addressed in the project, but that approaching it uncritically as an uncontested, universally agreed framework for values does have highly problematic potential implications. 6 Can we support something and be critical of it at the same time? We believe this can be done and should happen. First, the inter-relations amongst countries are extremely complex and, although quick fix solutions are necessary sometimes, they are also risky as any intervention to bring justice is limited and can potentially exacerbate other injustices (think about fair trade, for example). Second, system thinking asks us to move beyond the either/or or black/white mentality (e.g. this is either good or bad) towards addressing (and learning to live with) complexity, contradictions and uncertainty (e.g. this can be both good and bad at the same time – fair trade can be good for poor farmers in the South who are part of the fair trade network and bad for poor farmers in the South who cannot be part of it). We believe that acknowledging the origins, limitations and implications of our ways of seeing and being is important if we want to intervene responsibly and accountably in our contexts. 7 Is this a guilt trip for Northern/privileged people? No, it is not a guilt trip. If we want a world without divisions, we need to clear the space for dialogue by examining how historical processes and violences (the world's wrongs) have affected our identities, cultures and assumptions and those of others – as well as constructed 'our' privilege and wealth. This position of privilege should not be viewed as one of 'help' to those who have been wronged, but responsibility to them – a commitment to NOT reproducing the same systems – of changing the source in order to tackle injustice. In order to achieve that, we think it is necessary to encourage a productive acknowledgement of complicity (with historically determined systems that reproduce oppression) that instead of paralysing people, should lead to better and more effective and responsible interventions. We feel that after questioning and recognising complexity people will be better able to intervene responsibly in their context (within their capacities). We do not encourage ‘outrage’. As Moore (2005) suggests, outrage as a base for activism leads to disappointment, disillusionment, quick burn out, self-righteousness, fundamentalism, being willing to harm others for one's righteous cause, and most importantly to being so caught up in your rage that you end up attacking the very people you are supposedly working with in the name of making the world a better place. Therefore, we believe that it is important to acknowledge that this is about ‘us all’ – we are all part of the problem AND part of the solution - and that we need to try to change our contexts without reproducing the relations of domination (that created the problems in the first place). However, we recognise that, in certain contexts (e.g. where there is a high level of political apathy), strategies that promote outrage can be used to sensitise pupils and prompt quicker responses. But the strategy and outcomes should be approached critically and lead to reflection and other strategies should be used to move the process along towards reflection and responsible action. 9 Are you saying that critical reading is bad and critical literacy is good? No. We are saying that critical reading is not enough. We are saying that they are different approaches to problems and people should have both available in order to assess the best way to intervene in their contexts. In certain contexts a decision based on critical reading may be better than one based on critical literacy (e.g. applying the law to protect potential victims of a genocide). However, in other contexts, a decision based on critical literacy may offer a more ethical base for decisions (e.g. determining how a country/community should develop or deciding on curriculum content). The idea is to enable people to make better informed decisions within their contexts. On the one hand, we are "neutral" in the sense that we do not want to impose a specific ideology - participants decide what they want to believe in and what they want to do. On the other hand, as the project is based on a post-structuralist perspective, we do not believe in the possibility of complete neutrality or objectivity. The agenda of the project is explicit and the central idea is to develop specific analytical skills and move towards 'worldcentric' or planetary citizenship. People may use mainstream and non-mainstream perspectives for that, but there is a strong tendency in the project to privilege non-mainstream (silenced or subalternised) perspectives, coming with the perception that students are exposed to (and have probably assimilated) mainstream perspectives in their ordinary lives (through the media, education or religion), but this might not be the case in certain contexts. 11 Are you saying that this methodology can work in any educational context? No. The methodology has been piloted successfully in certain contexts in Brazil and the UK (e.g. teacher training, higher education, community groups, post-16 education) and we now have an international research project to pilot it in more contexts in 11 countries (e.g. secondary education and union education). Each context will have specific characteristics related to the profile of participants. Factors like age, level of inclusion/exclusion in the social-economic system, emotional stability, communication skills, etc. directly affect how participants react to the methodology. The right choice of content and its level of language are key in addressing these factors and the educator/facilitator who works in the context is in the best position to make decisions. However, there may be contexts where the methodology will not work or will prompt unexpected and undesirable outcomes (like any other pedagogical intervention). Therefore, it is again up to the educator/facilitator to assess the suitability of the methodology for their context, to adapt it as necessary, to evaluate its effectiveness or to choose not to use it. 12 Will you present a balance of perspectives? Will you present capitalist and socialist perspectives to students? Each unit for adults should engage with a range of perspectives (trace where things are coming from and where they are leading to). The content is defined in each context by the educator/facilitator who is organising the space. If capitalist or socialist perspectives are presented, students should be encouraged to engage critically with both of them. Although the resources for young people sometimes present only one perspective, learners are especially encouraged (through the groundrules and procedures) to engage critically with it and explore different angles and possibilities. 13 Will you question the voices of the oppressed as well? Yes. The objective is to critically engage with any perspective. This is done with the acknowledgement that all perspectives are partial and culturally biased -including those of the oppressed individuals and the observer. 14 Won't this process undermine the claims of certain groups struggling for justice? If the strategy used by such groups cannot stand critical scrutiny in terms of its implications and power relations, then, potentially yes. 15 Isn't it important to define what is right or wrong for pupils? Yes, it is important. But pupils are exposed to different notions of right and wrong in different contexts. Defining right and wrong in absolute terms is unrealistic and strategically, it can reproduce relations of domination that have led to colonialism and its aftermath in the first place - that of one people feeling they had the right to define what is right or wrong for everyone else. Within the methodology what is suggested is that what is right needs to be (re)defined in each context by a careful analysis of the different aspects of the (complex) part of the system we are intervening in. If adopting an absolute/universal framework of values is the best we can do, we are seriously running the risk of leaving some of the roots of the injustice we want to fight against unexamined and unchallenged, by reproducing the assumptions that may keep these roots alive. Therefore we are promoting the creation of a small space in the curriculum where we can engage critically with the assumptions that define what is right or wrong. Once the space is closed, participants go back to the original context of pre-defined rights and wrongs. 16 Isn't citizenship education about changing other people as well as ourselves? We believe citizenship education is about influencing change in the world through responsible intervention. We don't believe it is about changing other people (as it implies wanting to have power over them, which infringes their right of self-determination). As mentioned before, imposing what people ought to think (or do with their lives) in an educational context is not consistent with the theoretical framework of the project. However, we would agree that change in institutions, processes and systems is a necessary and urgent task to challenge injustice. Therefore, our interventions should be informed and responsible because we are intervening in complex systems and contexts and uncritical interventions may end up being detrimental to the very people we want to help, especially if coming from the 'North' (e.g. Campaign against child labour or no-sweat). Critical engagement and self-reflexivity demand analytical tools that are not being (and probably have not been) developed in the current mainstream educational systems in the UK and around the world. That is one of the reasons why we have decided to prioritise them in this project - but we are NOT saying that all education should follow this approach. We are not even saying that all citizenship education should follow this approach. 17 What is the difference between knowledge, perspectives and opinions in the project? From a positivist perspective these lines are very clear cut: knowledge is what has an unproblematic connection with objectivity, or truth (what is legitimate within a universalised value-system), an opinion is a value statement that is considered unfundamented or biased. Within post-structuralism, these lines are blurred as it is assumed we do not have the means to access reality objectively (which is different from saying that reality does not exist). All our attempts to refer to reality are culturally biased and therefore partial and incomplete. Thus, within an open space, we take the opinion of an individual (even if he/she is a famous philosopher or professor) as his/her partial/culturally biased knowledge/perspective. Both perspectives (positivism and post-structuralism) are legitimate perspectives in academia. From a 'critical literacy' standpoint, even these assumptions are not universal. Considering them 'facts' already shows a cultural bias and the partiality of knowledge of the speaker in terms of: systems theory (the world is flat if you look at it from a specific perspective and therefore it can be flat and round at the same time), (ethno-)mathematics (2+2 does not equal 4 in all cultures or circumstances) and linguistics ('bananas' and 'yellow' are culturally bound constructs as well -and not transparent and neutral references to reality). From lenses based on critical literacy, all knowledge is legitimate (as it is constructed in our contexts and interpretations of the world), but it is also partial and incomplete. In terms of relativism, the principles of the open space methodology suggest that knowledge is contingent and therefore "truth" and morality are defined in each context. However, relativism implies that the moral or ethical judgments or acts of one person or group cannot or should not be judged by another and we are promoting critical engagement with perspectives. The difference here is that, as in Maturana's theory, we separate the "being" (the person) from his/her perspective. You are valid and legitimate as a person with whatever knowledge you bring to the space which is probably different from other spaces where your legitimacy depends on the kind of knowledge you have got and whether it conforms to 'normality' or not). But once inside the space, the partiality of this knowledge, as well as the limitations and implications of what one says or does is open to question. As this happens to everyone in the space (including the facilitator), the integrity of participants is maintained - we do not engage critically with people, but with partial and unfinished perspectives. And this is not done in order to reach a consensus or agree on a course of action, therefore, anyone can take from the exercise what one wishes to take. 20 Are you promoting a particular kind of ideology? No. We are using post-structuralism as a pedagogical strategy to trigger the development of specific cognitive behaviours and to create different kinds of relationships. We are not saying people should adopt post-structuralism or an idea that there is no absolute truth as an absolute truth or ideology. The methodology proposes critical engagement with fundamentalisms/dogmatisms and relativism (which also becomes a dogmatism if taken literally). 21 What do you hope to achieve? In pedagogical terms, we hope to develop critical and transnational literacies, as well as knowledge about knowledge construction (or epistemic cognition). In ethical terms, within an open space, understanding our lenses better (where we are coming from, where we are leading to), as well as the lenses of others may help us perceive the limitations and contradictions in our own ways of seeing. It may open our lenses to an ethical dialogue with other lenses. It may help us change the colours of our own lenses and influence others to change their lenses as well. It may also help us think outside our boxes/lenses and imagine other possible ways of seeing, being and living together - another possible world without the current divisions. This process may support us in intervening responsibly to make it happen as well. 22 Isn't what you are trying to promote too advanced for most people? Won't participants need a degree of intellectual maturity to participate in the space? People are exposed to different logics/lenses all the time - some develop enquiry skills and critical literacy naturally, others need support to learn. The more we are exposed to difference the better (e.g. migrant children or children from mixed heritage families may learn it at home as a strategy of survival). Our assumptions in terms of what is real and possible in relation to learning are also dependent on our lenses, cultures and contexts. Whether this is advanced or not depends on our parameters to evaluate learning and cognitive development. There is research evidence from the philosophy for children (P4C) initiative that suggests that even 'ordinary' 6 year-olds are capable of applying very complex philosophical strategies if their environment encourages the use of these skills (they claim that children are natural 'questioners'). However, as in this initiative we are dealing with 'heavy' subject matter (injustice, oppression, power, etc) and although I believe both privileged and disenfranchised children are exposed to versions of that from a very early age in their contexts (and can feel and recognise the effects of those in their environment even if they do not have the language to talk about them), we do recommend caution when using this with primary schools on the grounds of appropriacy of content - and not of cognitive or intellectual development. 23 Aren't participants lost with so much questioning? Some individuals (or even cultures) tend to avoid uncertainty, difference, complexity and conflict, so some people might experience discomfort or feel overwhelmed by the questioning process. However, if people do not have spaces where they can develop skills to deal with these things, they will remain where they are. Conflict and being outside the comfort zone are important dimensions of learning. On the other hand, facilitators are also responsible for providing support when learners get stuck in their learning process. Modelling behaviour is a way of reassuring participants that there are other possible ways of relating to these things. Therefore, it is extremely important that facilitators have developed critical literacy skills before they start facilitating. Going through the teacher education units is a way of building the repertoire that will improve facilitation skills. 24 Shouldn't we be trying to reach some consensus on what we need to do together in the world? We believe spaces of consensus are extremely important for collective decision making in different contexts. And so are educational spaces of dissensus - for learning how to listen, to relate, to think independently, to address issues of power, to deal with conflict and complexity and to engage with assumptions and implications of perspectives (to develop critical literacy). We believe that there are few projects doing this, so this is an educational project about spaces of dissensus that build skills that are important for spaces of consensus. They are complementary strategies used in different contexts with different aims. We believe educators should decide what is best for their context according to the needs of learners and adopt appropriate strategies accordingly. 25 What is the difference between the resources for adults and the resources for young people? The resources for adults follow an inductive approach to questioning: each procedure has specific aims in relation to critical literacy. They are also more text-based. The procedures for young people are more experiential and the aims relate to building relationships in the group, developing clarity in thinking and empowering learners to feel the ownership of the space in order to feel safe in participating in the debate. The critical literacy dimension, in this case, is developed by the facilitator during the debate by modelling 'critical literacy' questioning (e.g. where things are coming from/leading to? what other possibilities are there? what are the contradictions? etc.) 26 What is the role of the facilitator? The ideal role of the facilitator is to open and close the space and to create the conditions for its role to disappear in the group's process. Depending on the type of group the facilitator will have a more passive or active role. If the group is relatively homogeneous, if there is a problem with its dynamics, if participants are reluctant or lack the skills to engage critically with the issues, if the group tends to move quickly towards consensus, and/or if key different perspectives are absent in the space, there will be a greater need for facilitator intervention. Facilitators need to be very responsive to the climate of the group, to be able to "read" the degree of intervention which would be productive. ***
Philosophy for Children (P4C) is an enquiry approach that has very similar procedures to OSDE (especially the procedures for young people). However, OSDE and P4C/P4GC come from different philosophical traditions . P4C is based on a tradition that emphasises morality and rationality (i.e. analytic philosophy), the basic principle is that if people reason better, they will see the same thing (a universal morality/truth/way of being/etc.). The philosophical tradition that is the basis of OSDE (i.e.continental philosophy) emphasises ethics and difference, the basic principle is that there will always be difference, that difference and conflict are extremely important for change/learning and that the better we reason, the more we understand that there are no universal parameters as at different periods of time, different cultures/peoples/individuals will invariably see things in ways that are based on different assumptions about reality and being. In practical terms, OSDE facilitation has the specific objective of developing critical literacy and an ethical relation to difference, therefore, the facilitator's main roles are: 1) to model respect for difference and b) to challenge the group to explore origins and implications of assumptions. P4C enquiry is more exploratory and the facilitation process has different guidelines. 28 How much should facilitators steer the process with young people? In order to create trust, safety and ownership of the space, there should be a balance in relation to the decisions related to the enquiry. This will vary according to context and should be negotiated with the group. In general terms, if facilitators choose the topic and the stimulus, they should allow participants to choose how they will interpret those and the angle/questions to be explored in the debate. If facilitators steer too much and participants feel they have a low degree of choice in relation to the topic, they will tend to participate less in the discussion or try to arrive at the 'right' answer they think the 'teacher' wants them to arrive at. The focus of the intervention should be on building skills/relationships, not on 'content': on how to examine issues rather than on what to think or do about the issue. As a general rule: the less you influence the choice of topic for discussion, the more effective the space is in terms of ownership, safety and participation. If you want people to arrive at (or agree to) a particular perspective (e.g. that we all need to be responsible citizens), creating a safe space for independent thinking is not the best strategy and participants may feel manipulated if you say it is open-ended when it is not (which may damage the relationship between you and the group). There are many other strategies that deal with critical literacy that do not require open-endedness, so a clear idea of what your goals are is necessary before you open a safe space. 29 How is OSDE different from other critical thinking approaches? OSDE is an approach to develop
critical literacy, which operates at two levels: a cognitive level
and a relational level. The 'magic' of the space is to discover
that you do not need to agree to an identity or ideology to be accepted
in a relationship/group. In certain cultures, this can be extremely
empowering. At the cognitive level, OSDE is not interested in the
search for one (universal) 'truth' but in how truths are constructed
and the possibilities opened by different 'truths'. This is a very
creative and rewarding process as well (at the same time that it
can be confusing and uncomfortable - depending on the individual's
stage in the process). Critical thinking approaches based on the
idea of objectivity tend to generate spaces where people compete
with one another for legitimacy. This should not happen in OSDE
spaces where there is a concern for an ethical relationship with
difference. * See, for example South Atlantic Quarterly, Volume 103, Numbers 2-3, Spring/Summer 2004, Human Rights in Cross-Cultural Perspectives: A Quest for Consensus edited by Abdullahi Ahmed An-Na'Im, or Human Rights as Politics and Idolatry by Ignatieff, M.published by Princeton University Press where Ignatieff argues that human rights can command universal assent only if they are designed to protect and enhance the capacity of individuals to lead the lives they wish. ** Chris Ann Moore is a project partner based in Honolulu. Her statement was part of an e-mail exchange on 16/09/05 ***This is based on an e-mail exchange between Andrew Robinson and Vanessa Andreotti on 4/09/06. |
...
Teachers in Parana/Brazil - 2005
There is no pressure to become or pretend to be like somebody else There is no obligation to agree with anything There is no need to reach consensus (as this is generally shaped
by those who are more articulate in the group) There is no pressure to ‘win’ a discussion or competition
to impose one’s perspective on another’s There is no fear of being denied recognition as a whole person
because you think differently There is freedom to express one’s views with respect and
to change one’s mind when one is faced with something new There is the possibility to say to a stranger or to a friend: I
don’t agree with what you say or with what you do, but I love
you anyway and I am learning with you (as we do with teenage children
or stubborn parents) There is safety for learning to live with conflict, uncertainty
and difference There is support for questioning and reflection on the origins
and implications of our assumptions without people feeling personally
attacked, delegitimised or silenced There is the opportunity to contemplate the inclusion of different
perspectives in the (continuous) construction of our own dreams
for the future There are relationships based not on ideologies or identities but
on a commitment to dialogue and to learning and reflecting together There is the possibility of ‘cross-contamination’ without
the pressure to become the other or to remain the same |