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 <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Organization: Reviewing Skills Training
Reply-To: Roger Greenaway <[log in to unmask]">[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 18:00:15 +0000
To: <[log in to unmask]">[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 <[log in to unmask]">[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