Sometimes I feel that it would be useful to be an anthropologist. I’ve spent the past day oscillating between organizing two different kinds of horizontal learning projects, one with Occupy, the other in academia. It would be great to be able to analyze why and how the projects get constrained. So here’s my amateur take. Both are trying to work horizontally with different sets of constraints. In academia, there are some financial resources but a lot of vertical bureaucracy. In Occupy, there is the possibility to do whatever we want but it all must be done in the gaps of people’s personal and professional lives. It’s not as simple as Occupy: good/Academia: bad. The question in both instances is really: why do we do all this anyway?
Yesterday was the beginning of OWS Summer Reboot. If that sounds a little familiar, there was indeed a similar process back in January. If the sense then was that different groups needed more autonomy within the architecture of the movement, now people are concerned that we lack co-ordination. Without a GA or spokescouncil, and with announcements of events coming over Facebook and other social media to which not everyone has access, it can be hard to determine what’s going on–as we shall see!
There was an impressive run-down of all the activities people are involved in now. OWS may not have the mass movement of Quebec but there is so much interesting work happening. Facilitation broke these activities down into breakouts and there was one on education and the student movements that I attended. While some of us had been involved for a long time, there were also people from Occupy Latin America (yes, I know it’s already been occupied but these people are from there, can we move on?) and Canadian students brought in by the recent events.
The result was a great meeting in which we talked about connecting all the different actions going on around our areas by means of a hemispheric emphasis and talking about education as a whole from K-21 (ie kindergarten to grad school). In practical terms, we discussed an aggregating website to pull together all the different threads of education activity, and it turns out OWS Tech Ops has already made tools we can use. We decided to hold assemblies to begin a discussion as to what values we place on learning as we go forward. There’s been so much negative talk about debt and unemployment that it sometimes can feel unclear why we do this at all. And then we want to start planning for September so that when the school year begins we have plans in place.
Everyone left with great enthusiasm for the new project. I had a flashback to the moment when back in September I went to the Liberty Plaza information tent–there was one! next to the Red Thing–and asked where the Education meeting was, and the slightly scary looking person gave me excellent directions to 60 Wall Street. Only eight months ago, it feels a lot longer. Anyway. We all then went off and organized three separate events for this Sunday in Washington Square Park. A mad round of emails and calls later, the assemblies were consolidated for 12pm Sunday and it’s going to be very interesting. There’s some serious co-ordinating and web work to be done to prevent this kind of organizing chaos from recurring–it was not a disaster but it took a lot of time, which is a resource most of us don’t really have.
My academic project on the current state of visual culture is a participation event, meaning a conference that emphasizes participation over papers, no keynotes, lots of short presentations, workshops and discussions. There are sessions on debt and academic labor and a general assembly, none of which would have happened before the Occupy movement. There’s training in digital skills, which, as we can see, we definitely need.
The real question hovering over us is more substantial. For a long time we got credit, or gave ourselves credit, for being “interdisciplinary,” which is not that hard to do, and even more so for being “political.” This usually meant saying things hostile to the Bush administration that troubled them not very much at all–again, this is self-criticism, yes.
Now we face a dual challenge. On the one hand, conservatives have started open calls to shut down departments that don’t send students into well-paid jobs. This is close to government policy in the UK. At the same time, debt model of financing has become unsustainable and immoral. On the other hand, we need to be taking part in the messy, horizontal discussion of what we now mean by politics and by education, a conversation in which our hard won credentials don’t count for much. We’re going to need some humility and openness, qualities not often associated with academia. Nonetheless, the thousands that are demonstrating across the hemisphere believe in the value of what we do, and it’s time to reclaim that from the bureaucrats.
Will either of these projects work? Watch this space over the next couple of days.
First, this:
“On the one hand, conservatives have started open calls to shut down departments that don’t send students into well-paid jobs. This is close to government policy in the UK. At the same time, debt model of financing has become unsustainable and immoral. On the other hand, we need to be taking part in the messy, horizontal discussion of what we now mean by politics and by education, a conversation in which our hard won credentials don’t count for much. We’re going to need some humility and openness, qualities not often associated with academia.”
I agree.
And it’s refreshing to see an academic point it out.
During my years running a university career center, I spent a lot of time translating (for parents and students) the skills sets found in various majors (mostly arts and humanities). These intellectual pursuits are vastly under appreciated and “hidden” by things like “college placement statistics”–the kinds of things that are trotted out to “prove” the “value” of a degree. In an advising setting, the exercise proved illuminating for all parties. Curiously at the time there was resistance to it by some faculty when I was working in higher ed because, to them, the idea seemed “degrading.”
However, I think something similar, on a larger scale–looking at whole departments and disciplines, would be wise now.
Second, the use of the term “unschooling” is interesting to bump into it here on your blog, Dr. Mirzoeff, especially as I am very familiar with it in in the context that Astra has discussed it: K-12 homeschooling.
In our home, we are “secular homeschoolers,” a small but growing demographic.
Many of us modern homeschoolers (including the hardcore unschoolers) are technology-savvy and see a world of opportunity opening up to us (our children included) that transcends the standard model of K-12 education. The established one has roots that run back to a desire in the Industrial Age to create workers for factories. Homeschooling, for us at least, is more centered more on nurturing creative, entrepreneurial souls–fostering “lifelong learning.” Rather than focusing on outcomes like the “perfect” job, families like ours seek to prepare our children for rich, fulfilling lives.
Come to think of it, that’s the same reason I was a liberal arts major in college.
If you’re interested, Sandra Dodd runs a highly popular website on “radical unschooling.” Also, note that Astra may use the term, but “unstopping” dates back to John Holt and the 1970s. So it’s not really “her” term per se–though she’s certainly raised the profile in certain circles.
(Note that we would not yet fit Dodd’s rather strict definition of “unschooling” in our own home, we do draw heavily from ideas shared by unschooling families and authors.)
Hmm… spellcheck seems to have played with one sentence, which should read: “Also, note that Astra may use the term, but “unschooling” dates back to John Holt and the 1970s. So it’s not really “her” term per se–though she’s certainly raised the profile in certain circles.”
Whether you’re a local version of Occupy claiming the commons as a forum for discussion, or an indigenous nation defending its sovereignty and right to self-determination, getting organized is the hardest part. Everyone has opinions, and many feel compelled to express them as a sort of right of passage; airing them is a necessary element of bonding and commitment. But at some point — if we want to be successful — we need to get organized by taking on tasks that lead to more intelligent use of the resources at our disposal–energy and morale being two important ones.
Both Occupy assemblies and indigenous councils benefit from getting organized in their own ways, but one feature they have in common is the need for specific functions to be performed–those functions being Research, Education, Organizing and Action. When someone assumes the role of director of one of these functions on behalf of a council or assembly, the political entity they serve then knows who to bring relevant information and concerns to. As these leaders recruit others to assist them in these vital tasks, areas of special focus previously neglected can receive greater attention, thereby increasing the effective capacity of the group.
Although these functions often overlap, the aptitude and skill sets they attract usually vary enough that the synergy from functional interaction brings a diversity of perspectives that enhances the quality of each. At its best, it becomes a holistic experience.
“Unschooling” is a great term, I agree: thanks for that–and I agree!
These twin projects illustrate an important truth: that when learning is under siege by reactionary politics, “unschooling” (to use Astra Taylor’s term) and formal academia are not competitors, but allies. It’s perfectly consistent to advocate strong state support of learning for its own sake, and for the sake of an informed self-governing citizenry, while simultaneously operating in an alternative space.