By Prof.
Susan T. Gardner (PhD)
sgardner@capilanou.ca
Published in Childhood and Philosophy:
https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/childhood/article/view/86718
There is no doubt that we are living in a time of extraordinarily discord that
seems atypical to recent contemporary life. It is for that reason that, without
hesitation, I wholeheartedly recommend that Arie Kizel’s book: Enabling
Students’ Voices and Identities: Philosophical Inquiry in a Time of
Discord (2024) be embraced by all educators. The central argument that
makes this book unique is that educators are ethically required to create a
dialogical space in the classroom with the view to legitimizing multiple personal
narratives thereby allowing children and teachers/practitioners to
engage in self-construction and the broadening of existing
identity/narrative constructions and boundaries.
Though “narrative” has become a common theoretical reference, the suggestion
that educators ensure that students’ personal narratives have
a prominent place on the educational agenda, despite the mainstream educational
framework that focuses on “educational advancement,” “striving for
excellence,” and “learning achievements as the basis for a better future,” is
quite revolutionary. And though the author sometimes seems primarily focused on
the negative impact that the typical sterile and de-differentiating academic
environment has on students from marginalized communities, it is clear that a
homogenizing and irrelevant educational experience that typifies the learning
environment of elementary, secondary and post-secondary classrooms does a
dis-service to all students. Kizel’s radical suggestion is
that we actively invite young people into the classroom as they are,
i.e., how they define themselves through their own personal narratives, and
thereafter invite them to engage in dialogue with those who might not share the
same vision and so, in this way, are offered the opportunity for personal
growth. Personal growth becomes possible through authentic dialogue precisely
because narrative discourse opens up the possibility of
freeing individuals from the stories that fetter them, constrict their
personality, and prevent them from realizing their potential (pp. 96-7).
In his discussion of the “politics of identity,” Kizel notes authentic
narrative discourse can be rare since “othering” groups endow themselves with a
privileged status of being morally superior and hence often, even if
inadvertently, silence those who they have been “othered.” And though Kizel is
particularly concerned with typical mainstream versus marginalized groups, this
“othering” tactic is true of virtually all the various tribes that see
themselves as representing various contemporary agendas, as was evident, for
instance, of the shockingly certain but utterly one-sided perspective of recent
university student protests with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian war.
Through the discussion of othering, Kizel makes the interesting move of
suggesting that we discard our mostly unhelpful focus on diversity and instead
embrace the notion of “other” as valorized by Levinas who urges us to meet the
other as they fully are, with a sense of responsibility, rather than mere
acceptance (p. 27).
In aid of establishing a rich environment of “plurals” (Manji, 2019), Kizel
offers a 3-stage strategy for ensuring that none of the members on the
community of inquiry feel sufficiently privileged to embody a “voice of
authority” and so surreptitiously silence others, which therefore enables a
sufficiently democratic interchange that allows stereotypes to be shattered and
so nurtures a sense of trust that invites all the members of the community to
bring themselves to the encounter. Thus, rather than formulating their queries
so that their peers will like them, participants begin to ask questions that
reflect their own identity, which, in turn, opens up the way to inter-narrative
reflection and personal growth (p. 65). Identity-based communities of philosophical
inquiry (CPIs) thus create the agar for the birth of empowered philosophical
selves who develop the power to take charge of their trajectory of their
own lives via independent evaluation and judgment and close attention to their
desires, tendencies, and surroundings. As well, since relevant often
contentious social issues are raised and challenged in an atmosphere that
makes room for diverse perspectives, this serves as an ideal forum for
preparing young people for life as active citizens in a democracy (p. 78).
All of this, of course, requires that facilitators are thoroughly trained so
that s/he is “pedagogically strong but philosophically self-effacing; isn’t
teaching what to think but how to think;
exchanges content expertise to procedural expertise” (Gregory, 2008, 10
[original italics]). Or as Michaud notes: “The function of the facilitator in
P4C is not to teach these skills as in a traditional pedagogy nor is it to
transmit specific knowledge regarding the subject discussed, but rather to
create a space in which the students can practice these skills and engage in
inquiry on subjects that interest them” (Michaud, 2020, 36).
On the other hand, Kizel warns us that privileging developing thinking skills
over identities creates an educational space that is liable to allow the
mainstream discourse to dominate and hidden violence to grow, acting like an
elephant in the classroom. Facilitators must thus meet the almost impossible
challenge of finding a balance between the two. The best model in this regard,
Kizel suggests, is a two-stage scheme, in which they first free themselves and
then enable the community (p. 86)
Kizel also adds that facilitators must seek to participate openly and
critically within the community, though humility is a prerequisite for
respecting identity within the group. Facilitation thus demands a strong faith
in others—in their ability to create and re-create. Dialogical pedagogues must
believe in the O/other before they even meet him or her face to face and must
avoid condescension or rank-pulling so that all the participants perceive
themselves on an equal footing. Rather than artificial, such egalitarianism
constitutes a balance of power that encourages mutual trust, enabling the
community members to form close ties as they act together to change the world
(pp. 92-3).
Kizel warns us, though, that educators must always beware of the very natural
attitude of protecting children as this impedes dialogue and identity
expression. He argues that educators should turn their backs on “saving” and
“rescuing” even young participants on the grounds that they know what is best
for them in favor of engaging in a mutual learning process. They ought to, in
other words, foster a secure rather than custodial atmosphere (p. 93).
Kizel admits that inter-identity discussion can often arouse fierce reactions,
bringing feelings and emotions to the surface and he notes that some would
claim that this heightens tensions within the philosophical community of
inquiry. Nonetheless, Kizel argues that while this may be true at first glance,
when undertaken in the service of making room for, rather than excluding,
identity, it actually reduces tension, allowing members to be truly, fully, and
authentically present. Facilitators who take this route foster a feeling of
being at home in an “open village” rather than a segregated house (p. 95).
In the last chapter, Kizel presents the results of studies of communities of
philosophical inquiry run by facilitators who have adopted his 3-part strategy
of enabling identity in groups in which marginalised students are obviously
part of the mix, e.g., groups of German and Turkish students and groups of
Israeli and Palestinian students. This affords the reader a fascinating look at
how, when difference is not “invisiblized,” identities rise to the surface in a
way that allows students to communicate from a place of authenticity, e.g., “As
a Palestinian, it seems to me that. . ..” This chapter also includes a
fascinating description of how participants in a CPI handled discussions on how
poverty might impact identity and how, through authentic dialogue, those in
poverty can be transformed into being perceived as living humans who might not
be totally responsible for the position that they found themselves in.
Aside from potentially altering the othering tendencies of those who are
privileged, Kizel reminds us that philosophical discussion can also be
extremely beneficial to those who feel victimized. His notes that
pupils who embrace the view that their fate is predestined and “such is life”
are unlikely to hold out any hope of change. They thus become paralyzed and
develop a sense of self-blame (p. 95). However, philosophical dialogue can, on
the one hand, give birth to the knowledge that, rather than aiding pupils to
escape their underprivileged position, self-oppression fosters a sense of
victimization and lack of belief in the possibility of change, and on the other
hand, foster the capacity to become “agents of resilience.” Authentic
philosophical dialogue enables individuals to understand that they can change
the world in which they live; that even if hope currently lies beyond the
horizon, they will not relinquish it. Hopeful thinking is the order of the day
(p. 95).
All of this, of course, takes time and can be tricky when identities are wedded
to positions. It is for that reason that Kizel warns us, again, to beware of
what he refers to as the “pedagogy of fear” (see also Kizel 2016; Kizel 2022).
Kizel rightly describes the presence of fear as the major
challenge in education today, but reminds us that since learning, by
definition, requires a journey into the unknown, it inevitably engenders fear,
while learning from others who think differently will seem particularly
perilous. It is for that reason that Kizel argues that it is the educator’s job
to acknowledge the fear that arises when learning something new but,
nonetheless, model the taming of that fear through intellectual discipline.
Kizel emphasizes that this “self-liberating education” rests on recognition rather
than the transfer of knowledge, and reminds us that Freire (1970) calls this
form of education “radical pedagogy” by which he means “freedom from
certainty.” This requires, however, that teachers free themselves from logic of
capitalist globalization and instrumental rationality (pp. 88-9) and transform
themselves from objects that merely pass information into autonomous thinking
subjects, thus partnering with students to create a space for questions that
interrogates the status quo.
Educators, of course, will be suspicious of many of these suggestions. As long
as students arrive in the classroom with unchallenged narratives, certainty,
safety, and stability reign. By contrast, engaging young people in
“inter-narrative dialogue” can trigger emotional responses and hence create an
uncertain context which will deprive students and educator/facilitators alike
of their armour of safety. This may seem particularly treacherous in this “age
of discord” when “cancelling” those who seek a deep and complex understanding
of the wicked challenges we face has become a sport for many. All of
which is precisely why educators need the voice of this courageous
identity-enabling educator at their side. We need to remind ourselves that if
any of us can do it, all of us can do it. Individual student growth and
democratic survival requires that we all learn to dialogue across difference
from the place we find ourselves in, i.e., from our identity, and in so doing
open up the possibility of personal and societal growth.
Works cited
Freire, Paulo (1970). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New
York: Herder & Herder.
Gregory, Maughn Rollins (2008). Philosophy in Schools: Ideals, Challenges
and Opportunities. Critical and Creative Thinking: The Australian
Journal of
Philosophy in Education, 16 (1): 5–22.
Kizel, Arie (2016). Pedagogy out of Fear of Philosophy as a Way of
Pathologizing Children. Journal of Unschooling and Alternative
Learning, 10 (20), 28–47.
Kizel, Arie (Ed.) (2022). Editor Introduction. In: Philosophy with
Children and Teacher Education: Global Perspectives on Critical, Creative and
Caring Thinking. New York: Routledge.
Manji, I. (2019). Don’t Label Me: How
to do Diversity Without Inflaming the Culture Wars. New York: St.
Martin’s Griffin.
Michaud, Olivier (2020). What Kind of Citizen is Philosophy for Children
Educating? What Kind of Citizen Should it be Educating? Philosophical Inquiry
in
Education, 27(1): 31–45.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה