Good post, Roger - and now we have also confirmed that the political leanings of academics remain stable - on both sides of the Atlantic and probably in both hemispheres. ;)
Within all the party-political spin, I found one of the most interesting points hidden at the bottom of Tony's post:
".....maybe one lesson the corporate disaster might teach us all is that risk taking is not always for the good.
It seems to me, we already know this in the field of outdoor learning.
I see some parallels between incidents where risks taken in the outdoors have been just as devastating as those perpetrated by the banking/financial industries over
the last 10-15 years. It also seems to me that in many cases where things go disastrously wrong, the risk is not actually taken by those who suffer the consequences.
A kind of vicarious risk-taking if you like.
Using the GFC as an example, the so-called 'financial wizards' seemed to be motivated by greed, driven by a complete disregard for the well-being of those whose money
they were losing through their incompetence. When things went wrong and whole institutions came tumbling down, most still got their bonuses and many simply moved to equally profitable jobs and roles. Very few were sanctioned.
The parallels I see include taking yachts into the North Sea in storm conditions against the advice of wiser heads, taking kids canoeing offshore without regard for weather and conditions, taking young people
up mountains in atrocious conditions and a host of other examples. This suggests to me that we may need to differentiate between risk taking on our own behalf and risk taking where 'others' are adversely affected by our decisions.
Which brings me back to part of Roger's initial post, about safety and support. In each of the above examples, support (in the form of wiser counsel, Risk Assessments or Operating Procedures) was probably available but not heeded and
safety was compromised to a fatal extent. Again, the parallels with the financial crises seem striking: support and safety (and in some cases regulation) were available but went un-heeded or 'rules' were simply broken.
Not sure if my musings have moved the original questions forward but I sense that there is a whole new question around the ethics, values and intellectual ability to make decisions on the part of those who take risks on behalf of others?
Cheers,
John
Nice to read from those of you on the other side of the Atlantic, but don’t make the mistake of assuming things are any
better here in the UK. Behind the cloak of coalition - between Conservatives and Liberal-Democrats – we have a national government pushing through neo-liberal policies that neither party held in its pre-election manifesto. Education and Health services are
being privatised along a US style market model that has been shown not to work – but hey, they are still pushing these so called ‘reforms’ through.
Alongside all of this are the savage cuts being made in public services to pay the cost of the borrowing that was done to bail-out the
private sector banks two or three years ago. The more moral face of capitalism seems to me to be making individuals such as Hestor scapegoats, so that the system that produced them is never held to account.
And here’s the best shot – we are still recoiling from the selling off of most of our once public utilities (water, gas
electricity) by the Thatcher-Major regime of 1979-97. The costs of these utilities has rocketed over the past five years. These particular privatisations went so far that now we have electricity sold to us by German and French based multi-nations
(EON, EDF), we buy Russian gas from a French owned company, German, Dutch and US based companies run our public transport DHL (run by the Bundespost) rivals the Royal Mail to deliver our post. And most people here seem to think this is a fine state of affairs.
Now, don’t get me wrong – I have nothing against our European cousins – I just think essential public utilities should be back in public ownership. OK, brand me a simpleton I don’t care!
Question. How do we get this discussion back to risk in outdoor learning? Not sure, but maybe one lesson the corporate disaster
might teach us all is that risk taking is not always for the good.
Dr Tony Rea FRGS FHEA
INDEPENDENT ACADEMIC AND EDUCATIONAL CONSULTANT
websites www.gambia-extra.co.uk and
http://independent.academia.edu/TonyRea
email [log in to unmask]
+ 44 (0) 7544622822
+ 44 (0) 1752 896994
The White House
Erme Road
Ivybridge
PL21 0AB
UK
Follow my work on
www.academia.edu
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 15:56:58 -0500
From:
[log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rethinking Risk and Adventure
To:
[log in to unmask]
In response to Jayson’s post (from the point of view of another American): Hear, hear!
It’s really quite depressing to observe the political and economic landscape in the United States right now. Unfortunately, the last election
cycle tilted the political landscape throughout much of the United States toward the Right in reaction to the Obama Administration’s ambitious agenda during Obama’s first two years in office. Unfortunately, the consequences of that election will persist for
at least a decade. Congressional district boundaries and State legislative district boundaries are redrawn every ten years following the national census in the United States. New boundaries are written by State legislatures, which became predominantly Republican
following the last round of legislative elections at the State level throughout the United States. While there have been legal challenges to attempt to moderate the political zeal of the Right in redrawing district boundaries, to the victors have gone the
spoils. The level of gerrymandering in States like Ohio, Virginia and others to give particular political parties an electoral edge is absurd.
In Virginia, the Republican party has gained control of both houses in the State legislature for the first time since the Era of Reconstruction
following the American Civil War. They control the majority of U. S. Congressional seats throughout the State. And, in partnership with a Republican governor, the Virginia state legislature has already begun to enact a series of laws that reflect the conservative
social and cultural agenda of the religious right in American society. These Republicans are not Republicans from the party of Abraham Lincoln. These are the old Dixiecrats (conservative Democrats) who stood in the way of the Civil Rights Movement of the
1950s and 1960s. These are the politicians who today malign President Obama as a “Food Stamp” president who cultivates a culture of dependency among the underprivileged in American society. These are the politicians who have demonized immigrants who have entered
into the United States illegally and who have shown themselves willing to tear apart families and communities in response to the problem of illegal immigration. Texas Governor Rick Perry, once a darling of the Tea Party movement, put it best when he called
people who held these views on immigration heartless. That comment largely contributed to the demise of his prospects of becoming the Republican nominee for the presidency in the upcoming presidential election.
In short, the climate that Jayson describes in his note below is one in which we will likely be operating for the next ten years. The
scene will become even scarier if Republicans win control of the United States Senate (which is likely), maintain control of the U. S. House of Representatives (which is almost certain), and win the presidency (which is possible).
I apologize for the political rant, but this is all too close to home. I’ve learned in the last 10-15 years that it really does matter
who we elect to public office. Unfortunately, it seems that most Americans don’t fully appreciate that point.
From: Outdoor and adventure education research [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Seaman, Jayson
Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2012 2:07 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Rethinking Risk and Adventure
Roger – good to hear from you. I don’t have the ‘bandwidth’ right now to take in or reply to your main questions (sorry!), but was
so struck by something you said that I wanted to respond to it.
You wrote: “a less risky and more moral kind of capitalism is being talked about.” I’d be keen to hear from other Americans about their perception of this statement, but it isn’t my view of the social and economic landscape in the US. What I see prevailing
is a totally rapacious unleashing of the market piled on top of an individualistic ideology of negative freedom (negative freedom meaning the removal of governmental constraints rather than their use to achieve broad social goals). The right is clamoring for
fewer regulations just three short years after the economic collapse of 2008, which was propagated by unregulated financial activity, and the people seem to be buying it – in spite of what you hear about the 99% movement (which has largely been decimated).
In NH, this is resulting in a bizarre and contradictory consolidation of legislative power while at the same time demolishing state institutions (e.g., public schools, environmental agencies). For evidence of what I’m talking about, check out the educational
legislation now being proposed in the great state of NH:
http://www.dnhpe.org/bills-in-the-2011-legislative-session
In contrast to what you say, the climate in the US is this: When a more moral kind of capitalism is talked about, it is immediately sent to the hinterlands of discourse as the intrusion of European socialism on American values. Nevermind that the best place
to achieve the American dream right now is actually Europe, but truth doesn’t prevent the ideology from functioning.
That adventure and capitalism are essentially related is incontrovertible in my view, yet how these links play out in practice is a very interesting and important question – I agree that we might be experiencing an evolutionary transition and am keen to hear
what others think.
By the way, have you read the following?
Lynch, P., & Moore, K. (2004). Adventures in paradox. Australian Journal of Outdoor Education, 8(2), 3-12.
Or the text they cite a lot from,
Nerlich, M. (1987). Ideology of adventure: Studies in modern consciousness 1100-1750, Volumes 1 & 2. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Jayson
--
With regards,
Jayson Seaman, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor and Graduate Program Coordinator
Department of Kinesiology, Outdoor Education Option
Affiliate Assistant Professor of Education
UNH NH Hall 202
124 Main St.
Durham, NH 03824
603-862-1162
On the web:
http://www.chhs.unh.edu/kin_oe/
Also check out Democracy & Education - a journal for people who can't imagine two more important things. Online at:
http://democracyeducationjournal.org/home
"To define democracy simply as the rule of the many, as sovereignty chopped up into mince meat, is to define it as abrogation of society, as society dissolved, annihilated." -John Dewey, Ethics of Democracy, 1888
From:
Roger Greenaway <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "urlblockederror.aspx" claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "[log in to unmask]" claiming
to be [log in to unmask]>
Organization: Reviewing Skills Training
Reply-To: Roger Greenaway <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "urlblockederror.aspx" claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "[log in to unmask]" claiming to be [log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:00:15 +0000
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Rethinking Risk and Adventure
Outdoor researchers,
I don't pretend to understand what's happening in the world economy, but risk seems to be going out of fashion, and camping seems to be on its way back - in places like Wall Street and the precincts of St Paul's Cathedral. Adventure capitalists were getting
too risky. And a less risky and more moral kind of capitalism is being talked about. Risk was getting out of hand.
I do know that risk and adventure in OAE has been explored and discussed from many different angles but there always seems to be an underlying assumption that risk and adventure are desirable and fundamental to OAE and to personal growth and development.
It seems that both in the economy and in psychology risk is helpful - but only up to a point because it is part of a larger system that collapses if there is too much risk, and stagnates if there is not enough of it. Don't get me wrong. I am a supporter of
the Campaign for Adventure here in the UK - but I see that as a shorthand for an approach to education in which adventure has a key role
in balance with other elements that are not in the campaign's title - and perhaps get a little lost along the way.
So I wonder what the whole system looks like to other OAE researchers. How is that system modelled? When individuals takes risks in an OAE setting, a classic story is that people would not have taken risks without support. Support seems to have an equally important
role in OAE even though the word is not in the title. Should the Campaign for Adventure be renamed the Campaign for Support if support is of similar value? Is OAE a system in which individuals find themselves receiving higher levels of support than they are
likely to have experienced in their lives so far? And perhaps young people at risk have more than the usual need for support and less than the usual need for adventure?
I suspect that in many forms of OAE, the brand has become the model ('adventure is good for you'). However, the values of adventure and risk are not so free-standing in their merits that more is better. Just as in the financial world, risk and adventure are
elements of a larger system. So what is the OAE system and how has it been modelled? What is in the system apart from safety and support?
Your thoughts are welcome - and especially any thoughts attached to research about the limits of adventure (or similar).
Roger
Roger Greenaway, Reviewing Skills Training <MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "urlblockederror.aspx" claiming to be MailScanner has detected a possible fraud attempt from "[log in to unmask]" claiming to be [log in to unmask]>
<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
9 Drummond Place Lane, Stirling, Scotland FK8 2JF
Phone: +44 1786 450968 Skype & Twitter name: roger_review
