Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
2013-‐11-‐06
1
S t e p h e n K e m m i s R e s e a r c h I n s t i t u t e f o r P r o f e s s i o n a l P r a c t i c e ,
L e a r n i n g a n d E d u c a t i o n C h a r l e s S t u r t U n i v e r s i t y
W a g g a W a g g a , N S W , A u s t r a l i a
Communicative space and the public sphere
Overview
1. Communicative action and communicative space 2. Public spheres 3. Education 4. Creating a public sphere and identifying a shared
felt concern (from Kemmis, McTaggart & Nixon [2014] The Action Research Planner: Doing critical participatory action research. Singapore: Springer.)
2013-‐11-‐06
2
Research within practice traditions Avaliable from Springer January 2014 (maybe earlier)
http://www.springer.com/education+%26+language/learning+%26+instruction/book/978-981-4560-66-5
Jürgen Habermas
� On communicative action ¡ Habermas, J. (1987) Theory of Communicative Action,
Volume II: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (trans. Thomas McCarthy). Boston: Beacon.
A short version of the argument of Volume II can be found in: ¡ Habermas, J. (1987) The Philosophical Discourse of
Modernity: Twelve lectures, trans. F. Lawrence. Boston: MIT Press, Lecture XII: The Normative Content of Modernity (pp.336-367).
� On public spheres ¡ Habermas, J. (1996) Between Facts and Norms (trans. W.
Rehg). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. (Especially Chapter Eight, especially Section 8.3)
2013-‐11-‐06
3
(1) Communicative action
� Communicative action occurs when we interrupt what we are doing to ask “What is going on here?”
� Communicative action is action directed towards reaching (1) intersubjective agreement about our ideas and the language we use, (2) mutual understanding about each other’s perspectives and points of view (= recognition), and (3) unforced consensus about what to do in the situation in which we find ourselves.
(1) Communicative action
� Communicative action occurs when we interrupt what we are doing to ask “What is going on here?”
� Communicative action is action directed towards reaching (1) intersubjective agreement about our ideas and the language we use, (2) mutual understanding about each other’s perspectives and points of view (= recognition), and (3) unforced consensus about what to do in the situation in which we find ourselves. Four validity claims: (a) Is it comprehensible? (b) Is it true (in the sense of accurate)? (c) Is it sincerely stated (i.e., non-deceptive)? (d) Is it morally-right and appropriate?
2013-‐11-‐06
4
(1) Communicative action
� Habermas distinguishes ‘communicative action’, guided by communicative reason, from ‘strategic action’ (or ‘success-oriented action’) guided by functionalist reason.
� (Communicative action is like a social, rather than individual, form of Aristotle’s praxis, guided by the disposition of phronēsis. Strategic action is like an organisational form of Aristotle’s ‘technical action’, poiēsis, guided by instrumental reason, technē.)
Using the notion of communicative action critically
1. Have people reached agreement about the meaning of key ideas in their conversation – that is, have people reached intersubjective agreement about the language they are using in their action and in their research?
2. Have differences of perspective been recognised and respected – that is, have people reached mutual understanding of each other’s points of view about their action and their research?
3. Have people agreed on actions that could be taken in their situation, both as a step in the action for the group to take, and as a step in the research to be done to investigate their practices and their consequences – that is, have people reached unforced consensus about what to do?
2013-‐11-‐06
5
Communicative space
� In Between Facts and Norms (1996), Habermas identified a previously unnoticed feature of communicative action, which communicative action presupposes: the opening of communicative space (1996, pp.360-361)
Communicative space
� “the public sphere distinguishes itself through a communication structure that is related to a third feature of communicative action: it refers neither to the functions nor to the contents of everyday communication but to the social space generated in communicative action” (1996, p.360).
2013-‐11-‐06
6
� “Unlike success-oriented actors who mutually observe each other as one observes something in the objective world, persons acting communicatively encounter each other in a situation they at the same time constitute with their cooperatively negotiated interpretations. The intersubjectively shared space of a speech situation is disclosed when the participants enter interpersonal relationships by taking positions on mutual speech-act offers and assuming illocutionary obligations. Every encounter in which actors do not just observe each other but take a second-person attitude, reciprocally attributing communicative freedom to each other, unfolds in a linguistically constituted public space. This space stands open, in principle, for dialogue partners who are present as bystanders or who could come on the scene and join those present” (1996, pp.360-361).
Communicative space
(2) Public spheres: Ten features
1. Public spheres are constituted as actual networks of communication among actual participants.
2. Public spheres are self-constituted, voluntary and autonomous.
3. Public spheres come into existence in response to legitimation deficits.
4. Public spheres are constituted for communicative action and for public discourse.
5. Public spheres are inclusive and permeable.
2013-‐11-‐06
7
Ten features of public spheres (continued)
6. In public spheres, people usually communicate in ordinary language.
7. Public spheres presuppose communicative freedom (to speak, to listen, to observe, or to leave).
8. Public spheres generate communicative power. 9. Public spheres generally have an indirect, not
direct, impact on social systems. 10. Public spheres are often associated with social
movements.
Public spheres under threat
� By administrative and economic systems ¡ (Between Facts and Norms, 1996, p.369)
� By lobby groups � By the media
2013-‐11-‐06
8
� Education is a lifeworld process (as well as occurring in the context of the system process of schooling).
� At its base, education occurs not just through strategic action, but also, crucially, through communicative action.
(3) Education
Education
� Education, properly speaking, is the process by which children, young people and adults are initiated into (1) forms of understanding that foster individual and collective self-expression, (2) modes of action that foster individual and collective self-development, and (3) ways of relating to one another and the world that foster individual and collective self-determination, and that are, in these senses, oriented towards both the good for each person and the good for humankind.
2013-‐11-‐06
9
ON THE SIDE OF THE INDIVIDUAL: THE PERSON
Education is an initiation into
Practices are interactionally secured in
In intersubjective space and the medium of
Practice architectures: the arrangements and
‘set-ups’ that enable and constrain
interaction
ON THE SIDE OF THE SOCIAL:
THE WORLD WE SHARE
Education fosters
(1) Forms of understanding
People’s ‘sayings’ - and thinking (the ‘cognitive’)
In semantic space, realised in the medium of
language
Cultural-discursive arrangements
found in or brought to a site
(e.g., language, ideas)
(1) Individual and collective
self-expression to secure a culture based on reason
(2) Modes of action People’s ‘doings’ (the ‘psychomotor’)
In physical space-time, realised in the medium of
activity and work
Material-economic arrangements
found in or brought to a site
(e.g., objects, spatial arrangements)
(2) Individual and collective
self-development to secure a productive and
sustainable economy and environment
(3) Ways of relating to one another and the world
People’s ‘relatings’ (the ‘affective’)
In social space, realised in the medium of
power and solidarity
Social-political arrangements
found in or brought to a site
(e.g., relationships between people)
(3) Individual and collective
self-determination to secure a just and
democratic society
The project: Education and the good for each person
Education for living well
which are bundled together in the projects of practices, and the dispositions (habitus) of practitioners.
which are bundled together in
characteristic ways in practice landscapes
and practice traditions.
The project: Education and the good for
humankind
Education for a world worth living in
A theory of education
ON THE SIDE OF THE INDIVIDUAL: THE PERSON
Education is an initiation into
Practices are interactionally secured in
In intersubjective space and the medium of
Practice architectures: the arrangements and
‘set-ups’ that enable and constrain
interaction
ON THE SIDE OF THE SOCIAL:
THE WORLD WE SHARE
Education fosters
(1) Forms of understanding
People’s ‘sayings’ - and thinking (the ‘cognitive’)
In semantic space, realised in the medium of
language
Cultural-discursive arrangements
found in or brought to a site
(e.g., language, ideas)
(1) Individual and collective
self-expression to secure a culture based on reason
(2) Modes of action People’s ‘doings’ (the ‘psychomotor’)
In physical space-time, realised in the medium of
activity and work
Material-economic arrangements
found in or brought to a site
(e.g., objects, spatial arrangements)
(2) Individual and collective
self-development to secure a productive and
sustainable economy and environment
(3) Ways of relating to one another and the world
People’s ‘relatings’ (the ‘affective’)
In social space, realised in the medium of
power and solidarity
Social-political arrangements
found in or brought to a site
(e.g., relationships between people)
(3) Individual and collective
self-determination to secure a just and
democratic society
The project: Education and the good for each person
Education for living well
which are bundled together in the projects of practices, and the dispositions (habitus) of practitioners.
which are bundled together in
characteristic ways in practice landscapes
and practice traditions.
The project: Education and the good for
humankind
Education for a world worth living in
The theory of practice architectures and a theory of education
2013-‐11-‐06
10
A critical use of the definition of education
� Do our current practices, and the practice architectures of our educational institutions, unreasonably limit and constrain ¡ the way people understand things (or who gets to understand what),
and their opportunities for individual and collective self-expression? Do they help secure a culture based on reason?
¡ the way people are able to do things (or who gets to do what), and their opportunities for individual and collective self-development? Do they help secure productive and sustainable economies and environments?
¡ the ways people are able to relate to one another and the world (or who gets to relate to whom and what), and their opportunities for self-determination? Do they help secure just and inclusive societies?
(4) Creating a public sphere and identifying a shared felt concern in critical participatory action research
� It’s hard to decide who should be in the public sphere until you know what you want to investigate, and
� it’s hard to decide what you want to investigate until you know who will be involved in the investigation (in the public sphere).
� So: we need to decide these things together, iteratively, through conversation conducted in the form of communicative action – oriented towards intersubjective agreement about the language they use, mutual understanding of one another’s points of view, and unforced consensus about what to do.
2013-‐11-‐06
11
Public spheres in critical participatory action research
� ‘Participation’ in CPAR not solely determined by who participates in the action, but by who participates in both the action and the research – in the public sphere in which a shared felt concern is investigated.
� In the new Planner, we have encouraged the formation of public spheres that include the variety of those involved in and affected by a practice, rather than groups with the same roles (not groups composed only of teachers, or only of students, for example). Thus, we give examples of public spheres that include students, teachers, principals and others (district consultants, school custodians and parents, for example).
We encourage teachers, students, principals and others to begin by making critical use of our definition of education to identify legitimation deficits
� Do our current practices, and the practice architectures of our educational institutions, unreasonably limit and constrain ¡ the way people understand things (or who gets to understand what),
and their opportunities for individual and collective self-expression? Do they help secure a culture based on reason?
¡ the way people are able to do things (or who gets to do what), and their opportunities for individual and collective self-development? Do they help secure productive and sustainable economies and environments?
¡ the ways people are able to relate to one another and the world (or who gets to relate to whom and what), and their opportunities for self-determination? Do they help secure just and inclusive societies?
2013-‐11-‐06
12
Who participates in what?
� Teachers teaching, and reflecting on their teaching practices.
� Students learning, and reflecting on their learning practices.
� Professional learners learning, and reflecting on their learning practices.
� Leaders leading, and reflecting on their leading practices, � Researchers researching, and reflecting on their
researching practices. Frequently, the same people occupy two or three or more of these roles…
Practices are sometimes interdependent in ecologies of practices – e.g., in the Education Complex of practices
Educational leadership and administration
Educational research and evaluation
Professional development/
learning
Teachers’ classroom
educational practice!
(teaching)
Students’ academic and
social practices (learning)
2013-‐11-‐06
13
The interdependence of practices suggests the interdependence of practitioners: candidates for joining a public sphere
A university researcher, academic partner
Some students
Some teachers
Some leaders
Some professional developers/ professional learners
along with others affected by the practices involved – parents? employers? community members? graduates? past students? people who left the program?
The public sphere for the Braxton High School (Canada) recycling project
Rhonda Nixon, lead researcher for the district critical participatory action research program
Ten Grade 11/12 science students
Jane, a science teacher and
other teachers
The school
principal
Rhonda Nixon, district consultant
along with others affected: school custodial staff (janitors), Students’ Council, other students (surveyed, interviewed), district consultant in science and environmental education, parents (invited to comment).
2013-‐11-‐06
14
The public sphere for the Braxton High School (Canada) recycling project
Rhonda Nixon, research facilitator and lead researcher for the district critical participatory action research program
Ten Grade 11/12 science students
Jane and two other science
teachers
The school principal
Others affected: Students’ Council, other students (surveyed, interviewed), district consultant in science and environmental education, parents (invited to comment).
School custodial staff (janitors)
Questions? Comments?
1. Communicative action and communicative space 2. Public spheres 3. Education 4. Creating a public sphere and identifying a shared
felt concern
![Can Public Spheres at Risk ally with Public Spheres Yet to ... · Dispute to Revolution; Debating Muslims: Cultural Dialogues in Postmodernity and Tradition [with Mehdi Abedi]; Mute](https://img.dokumen.tips/doc/110x75/5f7ae3f7247deb605840894d/can-public-spheres-at-risk-ally-with-public-spheres-yet-to-dispute-to-revolution.jpg)
