I started this week’s reading with week three’s reading, chapter ten. I thought that it would be important for me to have a least a familiarity of Davis’ initial descriptions of interobjectivity. On page 101, I found a description that reads, “the mutually affective relationships between phenomena and knowledge of phenomena”. Does this sound familiar to anyone, considering the use of the term, “mutually”? If you were thinking it sounds like mysticism, I was too. I’m glad that Davis helps clarify the difference, though. Throughout chapters ten and fourteen through sixteen, the author reminds us that a mysticism views Knowledge (big K) as “out there”, predetermined, and ideal, whereas interobjectivity views knowledge (little k) a product (or productions) of interactions -- and we get to participate! Davis states, “Knowledge...is understood to inhere in interactions”, and “what we do contributes to the unfolding of the cosmos” (101). Equally as important is the idea that mysticism deals in the non-physical realm where as interobjectivity deals in the physical world.
To better understand the idea of complexity science, it helped me to think of other areas that I’ve personally studied, ones that seem to be self-organizing and self-transformative. I thought of certain genres of music, like Baroque and Classical music. In my study of these two styles, it seems that no one in particular made the announcement, “Now henceforth, upon the death of J.S. Bach and in accordance with the stylistic musings of W.A. Mozart, this period will be no longer be know as Baroque, but rather as Classical.” According to my readings and observations, Bach and Mozart did not initially label their works as being part of a certain musical period. Instead they were part of an emerging style, affected by socialization with other musicians, previous musical stylings, and even other art forms. As a side note, music genre titles typically mimicked titles found in visual art and literature genres.
In reference to the modern day classroom, Davis explains that there are four components that are necessary for the formation of a complex system: a certain level of diversity among the body of students to promote novel innovative responses, a certain level of redundancy so that structural coupling can occur based on familiar activities or experiences, liberating constraints to guide but not stifle production, and decentralized control so that everyone, including the teacher, becomes a learner. My thought is that these four components are critical to avoid the top-down hierarchical structure found in empirical models. (I’m over-simplifying Davis’ explanation, so can anyone help expound on these components?)
In chapter ten, Davis specifies the origin of the term ‘ecology’ as ‘oikos’, Greek for ‘household’. In chapters fourteen and sixteen, he describes ‘ecology’ as a model for the reincorporation of humans into a larger collective body, as in a household or something greater than the individual parts. He explains that, as opposed to the complex science metaphor, which is in part concerned with how intertwining in the cosmos occurs, ecology focuses on the ethical question of why it is important that such intertwining occur.
I think this model is appropriate given the vastly different demographic in today’s Western society, and in the United States in particular. The idea of teaching as conversing and mindful participation with and between students is, in my opinion, vital in consideration of not only nature but race, class, gender, and sexuality. The idea of teaching as conversing initially prompted me to think of a graduate level classroom. I’m reminded, however, of an appropriate application in the 1968 documentary ‘A Class Divided’, addresses race discrimination. Does anyone know of other examples of proper applications of teaching as conversing, or did anyone notice other interesting aspects of interobjectivity in general?
In reference to the modern day classroom, Davis explains that there are four components that are necessary for the formation of a complex system: a certain level of diversity among the body of students to promote novel innovative responses, a certain level of redundancy so that structural coupling can occur based on familiar activities or experiences, liberating constraints to guide but not stifle production, and decentralized control so that everyone, including the teacher, becomes a learner. My thought is that these four components are critical to avoid the top-down hierarchical structure found in empirical models. (I’m over-simplifying Davis’ explanation, so can anyone help expound on these components?)
In chapter ten, Davis specifies the origin of the term ‘ecology’ as ‘oikos’, Greek for ‘household’. In chapters fourteen and sixteen, he describes ‘ecology’ as a model for the reincorporation of humans into a larger collective body, as in a household or something greater than the individual parts. He explains that, as opposed to the complex science metaphor, which is in part concerned with how intertwining in the cosmos occurs, ecology focuses on the ethical question of why it is important that such intertwining occur.
Reginald,
ReplyDeleteI appreciate your thinking of complexity science in the terms of the musical periods. That makes sense to me and really helps me understand the way complexity science works. Another thing that helped me establish interobjectivity from intersubjectivity was Davis' description of the birds outside his window in Chapter 14. I found the bird analogy to be very good for how I feel interobjectivity works. I found it interesting that he pointed out the rise and fall of the birds and that no one/bird said "we will rise and fall" but yet they interpreted the movements of the others of the whole and they moved together. Davis said that one thing that sets humans apart from nature is the language of humans, how we can invite others to what he called the "dance" and that we can borrow others narrations and learn from their experiences with out actually having the experience our selves. (pg. 148)
I am not familiar with "A Class Divided" but I do see the teaching as conversing as an aspect of higher education and in particular my post bachelors work. I see it as an "ideal" of pre-k through 12 school and even undergrad work but it seems all too often the teacher acts as in religion, or mysticism of "I have the knowledge to give" rather than teacher being an active learner and seeing what they can learn from the students. I feel that the complexity science model with the 4 components that Davis explained and Reginald brought up would be the "ideal" learning environment but my question is that if one of these components are not met then is the complexity science model completely lost all together or can it even evolve from the actions of the group that is present? I would say if I had to use a metaphor for complexity science it would be evolution. For ecology I think that evolution could still be used but I see a better metaphor being emergent. Would anyone agree or disagree. Do you see other metaphors as appropriate?
As I was reading through the interobjectivity discourses I kept thinking of the example of the "butterfly effect." I kept reading over and over how one action basically can make a huge change on the whole. And with the butterfly effect the wings of a flapping butterfly in South America can supposedly effect the weather in Colorado. I see this in the way that Davis points out that everything (language, knowing, learning, and being) is emergent and constantly changing and when we react then a new phenomenon immediately arises that then everything can then change again to.
I personally like the discourses of complexity science and ecology, I like the participation of the individual in their own learning and I also like how these discourses seem to intertwine well with each other and almost dare I say circularly evolve around and about each other.
Reginald & Alana,
DeleteAnother thing to consider is that in p. 153 Davis states that the conditions for a complex system to arise: systems must have considerable redundancy among agents (to enable interactivity), some level of diversity (to enable novel responses), a means by which agents can affect one another, and a distributed, decentralized control structure.
If these conditions are not meet the system is not a disordered system but and ordered system. Our current educational system is a well-ordered system and the system itself tries to maintain equilibrium. In a complex system the agents are disorganized and in a state of chaos. These systems will seek to self-organized themselves.
Reginald, Interobjectivity is fascinating as science involves scientists/ learners interacting with the physical world as one they observe /measure it, instead of objectively not interacting with it. So we do contribute to the unfolding of the cosmos as we interact and are interconnected to the rest of universe.
ReplyDeleteAlana, that is an interesting question. I don't know if three out of four components are enough for the complexity science model to continue to evolve. I'm not sure that today's school reform is self-correcting as it keeps repeating without improving the education system.
YES! “THE BUTTERFLY EFFECT” I think that’s a great example. I will admit, I initially read the title “bohemian wax-wing” as “bohemian wax-ing”. In my effort to assimilate the new term to a previous life experience, all I found in the back of my brain was an old video of Freddy Mercury and Queen, followed by an image of a car wash. I’m sorry. Once I “Google-ed” the term, however, I saw an image of a beautiful tan, red, and yellow colored bird, prevalent in the northern U.S. and Canada, but not unlike birds we might see here in Oklahoma. The idea of a birds flocking from tree to tree in negative 23 degree weather did scare me, though (too much Alfred Hitchcock for me), but I can certainly relate to Davis’ swaying as affected by the birds and vice-versa.
DeleteConcerning Alana’s question about the four components of the complexity science model, my initial thought was, “Surely it would depend on each individual classroom”. I imagine that new components could emerge, but my question would be,” Is the complexity science model approach universally appropriate, or would a more modernist (rationalist, empiricist) approach be most productive at certain grade levels?
Also, I think you make an important observation, Steve. Somehow, in my short time of teaching (and only in the “post-modernist” 21st century era), I find myself drawn to empiricist, and even behaviorist modes of teaching. Maybe my inclination to lecture from “on high” instead of conspire among my students is simply a reflection of the way I was taught in the late 80s, 90s and early 2000s. Then again, it could just be that I don’t know what I’m doing - so I’m taking education courses at OU.
As a side-note, I’ve noticed an element of ecology in this class, which is both new and very challenging for me. The focus, it seems, has become production of ideas and conversations instead of "right" or "wrong" answers.
I found my self-wandering about the concept of complexity science and how it relates to learning and teaching. As I understand Davis’ evolution of episteme knowledge grows from the simple (a few variables), to a complicated (a few more variables), to complex (all variables in the universe). He suggests that with the advent of complexity science some of the episteme procedures will require a whole class of new methods. Maybe one of the key ideas is self-organizing system and how they may play in learning and teaching roles. For example, the use of conversation in learning. On page 177 Davis documented the work of Sylvia Ashton–Warner her work seems to follow Davis’s notion of emergent of structures. Ashton’s use of conversation deviates from the rigor of educational systems. This deviation causes a variety of conversations that make the process more complex. Therefore, new structures must emerge. The conversation model has the affect on students’ expanded working memory, ability to handle more complex subjects and individual attention and awareness. This interlocking subjectivity with some polish could be a new paradigm for teaching. The modifications would be to bring the teacher into a role to achieve complex emergence. Do you agree?
ReplyDeleteMaru,
DeleteI like the way you describe "complex (all the variables in the universe.)" I had not thought of it this way but I think this nicely sums up the complexity science and ecology discourse. Davis states on page 154 "knowing is doing is being," (for complexity science) and then on page 176, "knowing, doing and being are inseparable" (for ecological discourses). Both of these I feel can only take place when all variables, some of which are: acquisition, processing, storing, emerging, collective, redundancy. diversity, exploration, adapting, conversing, nature, and attentiveness. I think that as Reginald suggested that we as educators probably grew up in an educational system that was not quite as focused on this "complex idea," but more than likely on the basis of rationalism or empiricism structures. Thus we tend to copy or recreate what we know. This thought process must be broke and changed for a different poststructuralist discourse such as complex science, ecology, or something yet to be defined to take hold and grow into a new discourse for educational practices in today's schools.
I absolutely agree, Maru. It seems to that the complexity science metaphor is fitting for today’s more complex classroom. I sense a sincere anti-empiricist approach in these last few chapters, especially fourteen, fifteen, and sixteen. I recall Davis mentioning that the field of complex science has been approximately a mere 30 years, but does anyone think that J. Brunner and Freire would identify more with and interobjectivity view or an intersubjectivist view?
ReplyDeleteI would say that the the introduction of new cultures and socio-economic backgrounds into traditional classroom settings merits conversation, one about race (as in the documentary “A Class Divided”), a second conversation about poverty and affluence, a third about gender, a fourth about ageism (for the “non-traditional college student”), yet a fifth about gender-preference, and so on.
I can remember having this type of complexity, where in there varied ages (teens to near eighties) and non-traditional gender-preferences were present in the same classroom - and I had to teach and maintain a level of respect for everyone and between everyone. YIKES! As I reflect on those particular groups of students, I think a new question has emerged for the study of Spanish, and for Latin-based languages in general: Do we need to reconsider the male vs. female model for nouns, verbs, adjectives, and some pronouns? I see this as a real point of contention in the not-so-distant future.
Reginald,
DeleteI have to say I have very little knowledge of the Spanish language, but from my high school days I remember always questioning why the table was a "female" but the pencil was a "male" (hopefully that is correct), but in French both are considered "male." I always thought who gets to decide and why? I can see with some of the evolving thoughts from interobjectivity where this might be questioned on a much deeper level than my high school mind. I would say from the ecofeminism role that we would be concerned not in the actual pronouns being male vs. female, but would ask the deeper question of is this a dominant male view or in other words were the male population in charge of or responsible to giving the pronouns to each thing vs. it being a collective of all individuals.
Another thing that this reminds me of, is some standardized testing questions back in the 60's that ask the elementary students what the mom was supposed to do/ what was the dad supposed to do with the correct answer for mom to be cooking/cleaning/tending to the house and dad to be working... I know this falls out of our 30 year timeline for interobjectivity but some shift had to evolve/occur to have questions like these removed.
In thinking about the interobjectivity discourse I am wondering if the new wave of technology (especially the internet) has been a behind the scenes driving force of complexity science and ecology? With the internet it is much easier to connect to people all over the world and be able to "see for ourselves" either their progress or tragedies. Within in minutes of a world tragedy, (Paris shooting, World trade Center, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.), not only does a good majority of the world know about it but almost instantly online donation accounts are set up so that people everywhere globally can contribute. I think this exemplifies both the complexity science and ecology discourse, because the human race is forever attentive, using enactivism, being conscience (whether they realize it or not), conversing, and having great participation in issues beyond their immediate surroundings. I feel like the internet in itself has created its own language, a language that can unite all different cultures around the world. Am I thinking too deeply about the internet/communications aspect of interobjectivity?
I think that’s a fair question. The advent of the Internet has certainly caused languages and a new ways of life to emerge. I remember how, around the year 2000, my brother’s friend would say “dot-com” after every sentence. He was, no doubt awed by the rapid rise in use of the phrase which has today become part of our everyday speech. It’s now a rarity to hear or see an ad on radio or television without hearing or seeing the sequence “dot-com”. I think it bears mentioning, too, that our current act of ‘blogging’ is a product of the Internet evolution.
DeleteI wonder, though, if the emergent language brought about by the Internet would fit more so under intersubjectivity. I admit that I need to go back and study chapters eleven, twelve, thirteen. I just remember Davis mentioning the treatment of language often concerning the views of Piaget and Vygotsky. I’m sincerely interested in knowing.
I think languages and the internet is an interesting topic. Texting and tweeting have oversimplified communication to the point of losing richness in written language. On the otherhand resources to learn a dying language that have been posted on the internet such as recordings of native speakers can help others learn that language and keep the richness of languages alive in society.
DeleteAlina,
DeleteYour writing made think about the complex science discourse on the Internet. I agree that the new social media is a tremendous source of information and knowledge. The problem is that the information must be verified and sourced; otherwise it may become misinformation. A modern example is the Arab Spring.
Did anyone else detect bit of passion from Davis in this week’s reading. I admire his mostly straightforward, “objective” approach throughout most of the book. The first sign of disgust for rigid non-participatory teaching appears, I think, in chapter nine in his description of positivism and, eventually, behaviorism. He asserts that, “behaviorism is less and less useful as learnings become more and more complex...it is of limited use for making sense of children’s early mastery of language, much less for making sense of the complex webs of association and meaning” (Davis, p. 90). It seems that Davis waits until chapter fourteen before divulging more of his preferences. There, in chapter fourteen, he uses the terms “neglect”, “ignorance, and later “dupe” in reference to the modernist approaches instead of a more participatory, or ecological, approach. After spelling-out a long list of empirical atrocities, Davis explains, “It wouldn’t be difficult to extend this list.”
ReplyDeleteOn a more superficial note, did anyone notice that our little tree in the bottom right corner is now in bloom by the time we arrive at chapter sixteen? I think it makes sense if, in fact, Davis is allowing his opinions and biases be know. It sounds to me like he’s in his element when he shares is final list of synonyms for teaching on page 178: “mindful participation, conversing, caring, pedagogical thoughtfulness, eco-justice, hermeneutic listening, and meaning”. The outstanding common sentiment seems to be that teaching, in order for learning to occur, must not be strictly hierarchical but participatory between all parties.
Lastly, did anyone notice the gigantic tree on the book cover (not to mention the angle of the snapshot)? A literature professor once told me, “There are not mere coincidences in good literature.” I think the photo is a reflection of Davis’ approval of a more ecological approach to the classroom in a democratic society. Does anyone agree or disagree, or are there any other superficial observations that you’d like to share?
I think the internet is a tool which had enhanced people's lives and also distracted them from focusing on what is important in their lives. For instance it has enhanced peoples' ability to communicate with each other, to be connected, but it has also trivialized some types of communication so that people can fall victim to gimmicks such as spending a lot of time communicating with people who are not truly present in their lives. Critical thinking is always necessary despite what technology is used to truly enhance people's lives. I think intersubjectivity can be a trap so people spend too much time and money on status symbols such as the latest smart phone.
ReplyDelete