Paradox in Contexts of Learning
Delving into paradox is like jumping into rabbit hole. The further we go down the more we find ourselves in a maze of paradox tunnels. While the everyday meaning of paradox is that of a counterintuitive statement, the meanings extend from the common “official” definition as a self-contradicting statement. However, and here comes the rabbit hole, it’s never so simple. Each discipline and domain has their very own criteria and lists of examples of paradoxes, ranging from philosophy (logic, etc.) to mathematics to biology to economics and so on. A concise summary of these can be found on Wikipedia. These lists, if you dare to explore them, will certainly keep you busy for quite some time. You may want to note that the Wikipedia treatment of paradox does not include Gregory Bateson’s notions. Although Wikipedia does describe paradoxes of logic, Gregory distinguished logical paradoxes from cause and effect paradoxes[1].
Although it may be interesting to delve into these differing senses of paradox, I am not going to do so. Of course, paradoxes that fit many of the other types will undoubtedly be included. However, for the purposes of this paper, the emphasis is on paradox in the general all inclusive sense.
Before we get started I do have to include the following type of paradox, because of its timeliness:
“Prevention Paradox — For one person to benefit, many people have to change their behavior — even though they receive no benefit, or even suffer, from the change.” (Under “Decision Theory” at Wikipedia)
How is this paradox manifesting in your particular contexts of the pandemic at this time? How are different people dealing with this paradox? What kinds of epistemological features (e.g., worldviews, beliefs, knowledge, emotions, etc.) affect people’s reactions and actions?
In this brief exploration of paradoxes, the primary focus is on contexts of learning. I was thinking of saying “contexts of education,” but that in itself is paradoxical. How does one educate another? The entire notion is based on the premises and assumptions of mechanistic paradigms, where an “educator” can “educate” someone else in clearly delineated linear sequences of presenting knowledge. Such an idea is akin to the notion of students as empty vessels into which a teacher can “pour” knowledge. Most of schooling, from early childhood to university and training in corporate settings, are based on such ideas. There are discrete periods of time allotted for the learning of a certain content area. Teachers lecture and tell students what to do, even in hands-on, laboratory-type settings, as well as in assignments to do outside of class time. Everything is linearly sequential, and almost always going from the simplest concept to the most complicated.
I’m not saying that learning doesn’t occur in such paradoxical settings, but student learning is never identical to the learning expected and envisioned by the teacher. Much of the learning that occurs is not at all related to the specific content being taught, but involves learning the “game plan” for surviving or succeeding, whatever that means, in the classroom. In addition, each student, no matter the age, comes out with very different learning or knowledge. Even though certain ideas may have similarities, the vast majority of knowledge has very different sets of connections.
Contained within this notion of teaching and learning is the idea that knowledge is structured and not readily changeable. Constructivism, the philosophical sense of epistemology, “knowledge frameworks,” and so on are all based on this assumption of structure and solidity.
On the other hand, learning, knowledge, and epistemology, as a personal and social notion of the whole contexts of an individual’s or culture’s knowledge, is fluid and intricately intertwined with prior knowledge, experiences, emotions, value, aesthetics, imagination, and so forth. In addition, all living systems are sets of complex systems, and as such learning is a complex system — a self-initiated, self-maintaining, self-regulating, self- transcending system.
The statement — “Invite chaos, trust complexity”[2] — is paradoxical from the perspective of mechanistic paradigms of learning, but not from the perspective of complex systems. How can we invite chaos in a classroom? In the institutions of schooling and the people who have grown up in such institutions, such an idea is almost blasphemous. However, from a complexity perspective, it makes perfect sense and is not paradoxical at all.
A related paradoxical statement can be phrased as “learning should start with the complex.” Such a statement is contradictory to just about every notion of learning in the current contexts and institutions of education.
Raising teaching and learning standards, decrease student learning. This paradoxical statement is contrary to the claim that raising standards increases student learning. Both are paradoxical depending upon the epistemological perspective one holds. The first statement is essentially what John Taylor Gatto (1992) discusses in his book, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling. Politicians and the top of the education hierarchy contend that by raising standards we will increase student learning. But, the hidden agenda described by John Gatto is one where the political and educational elite come up with ways to keep the general population dumbed down enough to be easily manipulated and controlled. It is really a zombie approach. We need workers who have learned enough to function in work settings, but who have not be given the cognitive approaches to think more deeply and critically. And, they sell this approach to the populace under the guise of standards, testing, accountability, mandated curriculums, and so forth, while downplaying the arts and humanities. But, even the teaching of science is corrupted by fragmenting and de-contextualizing the content, by emphasizing reading about science rather than doing science, and, if “doing science” is occurring, it is controlled by the teacher, while taking away student problem solving, questioning, decision-making, exploration, and authentic inquiry.
“Classroom management” is another paradox that fits nicely into the framework of mechanistic approaches. Classroom management is about control, about conformity, about not questioning authority, and, more insidiously, about dehumanizing students of all ages[3]. Although there is a very small part of the classroom management literature devoted to approaches that are not dehumanizing, the vast majority of approaches that are emphasized by institutions of schooling are fundamentally dehumanizing. As opposed to The Police song, “Rehumanize Yourself,” and Pink Floyd’s “Another Brick in the Wall” (here’s a great short video with the song and dramatic representation), the corporate, political, and educational elite want to promote an inhuman, zombie-like workforce and populace. As a result, the following list of more specific paradoxes contains some of the common approaches taken by teachers:
- Teach students respect and to respect the teacher. Of course, respect is not something that can be taught. Respect arises from the authenticity (for lack of a better word) of the relationships.
- Teach students to take responsibility. A code word for promoting conformity, subservience, and obedience. Like “respect” responsibility arises from relationships of trust.
- Teach students to be independent learners. Independent learning runs contrary to the now widely held view that learning is a social process[4], as well as an interdependent set of intertwining processes within social contexts of various sorts, which is referred to as “symmathesy” by Nora Bateson[5].
- Control student behavior. Efforts to control student behavior more often than not result in pushback from students that comes in many forms[6], in avoidance and withdrawal, and in an assortment of other psychosocial reactions.
- Teach students to be good citizens. Of course, the subject matter of civics in the United States is not taught any more, which makes this statement even more paradoxical. The notion of “good citizen” is just another example of a code word for being obedient, for conforming to the social norms of the school and corporate world, for not questioning those in positions of authority, and for being compliant. These traits are what should not be valued in democratic societies. However, they are currently the traits promoted by most schools in democratic societies.
In addition to the approaches of these paradoxes of classroom management, schools for the most part avoid any actions to promote personal and social growth and development. Empathy, compassion, negotiation, caring, self-confidence, vulnerability, and so forth are not addressed except in small number of schools and scattered individual classrooms around the world. And, if these “ideas” are discussed, they often end up as paradoxes, where the talk does not correspond to the intent, and they become talking points that are really about control.
In this brief peak at paradoxes involved in the contexts of learning, most, if not all, of the examples involve paradoxes that arise out of conflicting epistemologies. If one is listening to a school principle or other person of authority in a school say something like, “our school really emphasizes personal growth, character development, and intensive academic knowledge development,” you may very well may think that it sounds just like the kind of school you want for your children. Of course, the intentions and assumptions behind what the principle is saying may very well mean the opposite of what you assume she has just described. Such epistemologically-situated paradoxes often just slip right by us, since we often default to our own expectations and assumptions, rather than critically questioning what someone else is saying. However, for many people the hidden intentions and meanings may very well be what they expect, since their own experiences in schools have involved those very intentions.
I’ll end this exploration with a few questions to ponder as we interact with contexts of schooling and the contexts of our personal, but socially-intertwined and interdependent learning.
- Can you think of any paradoxical ideas, assumptions, expectations, etc. that arise in our own experiences of learning in our everyday lives?
- Can you think of ways of clarifying the paradoxes and conflicting epistemological views that you encounter in various learning contexts?
- Can you think of some current or past paradoxes in learning contexts or any other context that you’ve encountered? What are some possible ways to work with these paradoxes or ways to mitigate the effects of such paradoxes on your children or your self?
- How does the “Prevention Paradox” presented in the introduction compare to paradoxes in the contexts of learning, which can be those described here or those you’ve encountered.
Footnotes
[1] Bateson, G. (1979/2000). Mind and nature: A necessary unity. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
[2] •••Bloom, J. W. (2001). Discourse, cognition, and chaotic systems: An examination of students’ argument about density. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 10(4), 447-492. •••Bloom, J. W. (2006). Creating a classroom community of young scientists (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
[3] •••Marshall, J. D., Sears, J. T., Allen, L. A., Roberts, P. A., & Schubert, W. H. (2000/20007). Turning points in curriculum: A contemporary American memoir (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson. •••Sears, J. T., & Marshall, J. D. (1990). Teaching and thinking about curriculum: Critical inquiries. New York: Teachers College Press.
[4] •••Lave, J., & Wenger, E. (1991). Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. •••Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York: Oxford University Press. •••Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.
[5] Bateson, N. (2016). Small arcs of larger circles: Framing through other patterns. Axminster, UK: Triarchy Press.
[6] Lemke, J. (1990). Talking science: Language, learning, and values. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
