In terms of what I understand to be
the initial conception of living theory as a way of enhancing the practice
of individual educators, the primary question: 'how do I improve what I am
doing?' makes a lot of sense. But with that as
its focus, most attention is bound to be primarily on the individual educator
and what she/he is 'doing'. As that focus deepens, so the importance of context
becomes more evident - but only in so far as this affects the practice of the
individual as an inclusion of his/her neighbourhood. Enormous effort is also
taken up in justifying the inclusion of the 'I' within the research enquiry, in
the face of predominant cut-space (rationalistic) theory that either
excludes the 'I' from consideration or treats it as a 'contradiction'.
In itself, I see this as a very important and
creative contribution to educational theory and practice. The inclusion of
the 'I' is natural and vital to any realistic kind of enquiry.
But I also increasingly feel I am seeing
a danger of this form of enquiry becoming self-limiting and vulnerable to
abuse.
To avoid this danger, I think questions of the
kind, 'Is what I am doing a good idea?' could be helpful both in broadening the
remit and avoiding getting carried away with getting better at doing something
that may not be a good idea.
It was asking that kind of question that led me to
develop natural inclusional enquiry. I realized that what I was doing when on
the crest of my career wave back in the 1990s was not a good idea. I was helping
to perpetuate - both in myself and others - a way of thinking, founded in what I
now refer to as 'cut-space logic', which I now consider to be socially,
psychologically and environmentally damaging.
In asking myself questions of the kind, 'Is what I
am doing a good idea?', I ask other questions, notably:
1. Is it consistent with evidence?
2. Does it make consistent sense?
3. Does it do any good?
The last of these questions is especially
problematic.
Above all, what these questions elicit is a
painstaking enquiry into my and others' underlying assumptions about the nature
of Nature and Human Nature. Through that enquiry, I have discovered a huge
number of common assumptions, both in myself and others, that answer none of
those questions in the affirmative. Most, if not all of these assumptions appear
to me to arise in the supposition that it is possible to cut space into discrete
localities. They engender opposition and conflict (not just natural
incompatibility, diversity and tension, but WAR). I don't regard war
as a good idea: from a natural inclusional view it is anti-natural. By the same
token - and as an illustrative example of an idea that isn't a good idea - I
regard Darwinian selection as 'anti-natural'. But I equally don't think it is a
good idea to oppose such ideas, because that only reinforces them with a taste
of their own medicine. So, through a natural inclusional understanding
(which I express but do not claim sole authorship of), I can
neither accept nor reject such ideas, but may try to find ways to help transform
them into 'good ideas' if given the opportunity.
Asking the question, 'Is what I am doing a good
idea?' explicitly calls for sound theory to engender sound practice and vice
versa.
Warmest
Alan
PS I do think that what Jack is doing is a good
idea, but I am not so sure about all that congregates under its umbrella.