Introduction to Chapter 3
In this chapter, the author discusses the concept of pragmatism and its role in countering three other worldviews represented by Ernest, Hélène, and Karl. The author aims to identify common characteristics in these worldviews and looks for philosophies opposing all three to understand what they lack. Pragmatism is presented as an eclectic worldview that transcends debates between structuralism and post-structuralism.
The chapter introduces the idea of a fourth perspective, referred to as Mea-nui, which isn't separate from the others but provides a different viewpoint. The author acknowledges that the term "pragmatism" is one choice among many and that words are flexible in meaning. The chapter features an exhibit illustrating the emergence of this new model with Mea-nui as the fourth perspective.
The author struggles to name the four worldviews represented by Ernest, Hélène, Karl, and Mea-nui. The original three represent material, linguistic, and social perspectives, each with its own set of assumptions and beliefs. Mea-nui's worldview offers a different focus and isn't intended to have hierarchical status.
The author emphasizes the visual metaphor in their discussion, emphasizing the possibility of viewing phenomena differently based on assumptions, methodologies, and epistemologies.
Mea-nui's perspective is defined as one that focuses on selecting the best course of action based on a broad understanding of available options, adopting ideas from other worldviews. While the other voices debate and match theory to experience, Mea-nui listens and uses these debates as data, ultimately guiding actions based on pragmatic decisions.
The chapter draws on various philosophers and thinkers like Wittgenstein, Schrag, Latour, and Serres to support the idea of acting pragmatically informed by multiple voices and propensities.
Section 3.1 - first part
In this section, the author references Bernstein and Cherryholmes as background readings for their exploration of pragmatism. The author clarifies that their intention is not to summarize pragmatic theory but to use it as a vantage point to examine other theories.
The author discusses the concept of "pragmatic validity" and suggests that new knowledge emerges collectively when people work together on projects, both in real situations and through thought experiments. The author anticipates that real discussions may happen in the future to validate the emerging ideas.
They highlight a shift from earlier distinctions in pragmatism and introduce Cherryholmes' perspective that emphasizes the role of aesthetics in ordinary experience. This connection between power, aesthetics, and knowledge leads to the continual anticipation and rewriting of consequences.
The author recommends Cleo Cherryholmes' text as an introduction to pragmatism, particularly the exploration of what it means to be interested in consequence.
The author reflects on their solitary work on the thesis and the need to emphasize a more collective approach to knowledge construction. They use pragmatism to integrate the work of various theorists, including Wittgenstein and more recent philosophers, within their context.
The author argues for maintaining a balance between modern and postmodern thinking without undermining either and discusses how this balance can be used for revolutionary, emancipatory praxis in educational institutions.
They express their desire to understand more, catalytically and collaboratively, as part of a collegial research enterprise into classroom practice. The thought experiment aims to find a theoretical position for Mea-nui, with pragmatism emerging in the process.
Second part of 3.1
In this text, the author distinguishes between postmodernism and pragmatism, highlighting their differences and the emergence of pragmatism as a valuable approach.
Cherryholmes suggests that pragmatism may have been overlooked in the mid-20th century due to the influence of structuralism, which had both descriptive and prescriptive aspects but often fell short of its promises. Post-structuralism, on the other hand, excels in interpretation and criticism but lacks a forward-looking perspective.
Post-structural and postmodern approaches are investigatory, interpretive, and critical but do not focus on consequences and actions. Pragmatism, in contrast, looks toward actions and results.
The author relates these distinctions to the voices in their work, with Mea-nui being consistently pragmatic, and Hélène and Karl having complex relationships with post-structuralism and structuralism, respectively.
The author discusses how both structuralism and post-structuralism have moral, ethical, and political dimensions. The moral and ethical dimension is associated with Hélène, while Karl represents the political intent and collective action.
Pragmatism, the author argues, encourages democratic solidarity and values alternative voices. It does not rely on universal authority but fosters inclusivity.
The text refers to various authors and perspectives related to pragmatism, highlighting its compatibility with critical, postmodern, and complexity theories. It distances itself from coherence and correspondence theories of truth.
The text also discusses pragmatics, emphasizing its focus on discourse and social practices, allowing for both structural and post-structural elements in social research.
The author believes that pragmatism's approach to consequences and actions provides a fresh perspective. They recognize that pragmatism has a broad range of interests, such as questioning positivist interpretations of scientific methodology, emphasizing the value dimension of factual claims, and linking dominant discourses with domination.
The author mentions the decline of pragmatism in the past but notes its resurgence, especially in feminist thought, due to its strengths, including its critique of positivist interpretations of scientific methodology and its emphasis on concrete experience.
The text concludes by mentioning different interpretations of pragmatism, such as pragmatic liberalism, and reiterates the importance of pragmatism in understanding possible consequences of action while acknowledging its critique as a conciliatory instrument.
Section 3.2 part 1
In this section, the author explores the ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein and his contributions to various areas of philosophy, including philosophy of language, philosophy of logic and mathematics, philosophical psychology, epistemology, and philosophical methodology. The author finds Wittgenstein's work to be refreshing and aligned with their own ideas, particularly in challenging the presuppositions of traditional philosophy.
Wittgenstein's approach encourages conversation over argument and emphasizes the importance of the moment-by-moment emergence of appearances. The author connects this to the unpredictability of what a teacher might see or hear in a classroom.
Wittgenstein's view promotes the idea that philosophy should not aim to persuade others of the truth of its claims but should instead challenge assumptions and offer novel perspectives. He rejects scientism and maintains that philosophy cannot adopt the tasks and methods of science.
Wittgenstein's arguments regarding language games and their role in overlapping linguistic domains align with the author's perspective as a teacher and educator. The author must make sense of theory in the context of their own praxis, reflecting the dynamic nature of teaching.
The author introduces the concept of a "final vocabulary" discussed by Richard Rorty, which consists of words individuals use to justify their actions and beliefs. Rorty's work, building on Wittgenstein's ideas, challenges the realist assumptions of metaphysical philosophy and emphasizes the need for new vocabularies to achieve new understandings.
Rorty's concept of "ironists" who choose between different vocabularies by playing the new off against the old resonates with the author, particularly in the context of multicultural classrooms. In such settings, the goal is to create an understanding of and respect for differences rather than training all children into a pre-established social order. The idea of keeping the conversation going aligns with the author's approach to teaching and supports the development of attitudes and values emerging through teaching.
Overall, the author finds Wittgenstein's and Rorty's ideas to be valuable in their pursuit of a theoretical base for their investigation into praxis, particularly in the context of teaching and education.
3.2 second part
This section delves into the concept of pragmatism and its relationship to social openness and inclusiveness. Pragmatism, in recent iterations, is characterized by its emphasis on community, pluralism, and social openness. It is noted that pragmatism inherently requires democracy, and social openness, inclusiveness, tolerance, and experimentation are emphasized as generating more positive outcomes compared to closed, exclusive, and intolerant deliberations.
The text mentions Putnam's observation regarding the moral purpose of Wittgenstein's work, which includes a call for empathetic understanding and the appreciation of cultural differences. The idea of appreciating different forms of life and their values is discussed. The author emphasizes the importance of understanding how people in networks and groups construct meanings, both personally and socially.
The text continues to draw connections between Wittgenstein, pragmatism, Marxism, and postmodern/poststructuralist theorists, highlighting the shared emphasis on historical practice. The emphasis on understanding how patterns of practice and series of discourses are articulated is noted.
The author's decision to pause and reflect on their thesis purpose is also acknowledged. They express a desire to move beyond individual writing and into the lived domain of teacher practice, aligning with the principles of performativity. The text grapples with the challenge of being both a contributor to a system of power and an advocate for emancipatory discussions and alternative forms of knowledge creation.
The role of language games in legitimating knowledge is emphasized, suggesting that knowledge is legitimized through linguistic practices and communal interaction rather than through a positivist view of science and philosophy. The text underscores the importance of building a shift in meaning, where knowledge emerges in praxis rather than being generated in the academy and applied to practice.
The text closes with the author identifying themselves as an "ironist" at times, reflecting the influence of various philosophical orientations in their work, such as irony, strategy, and commonsense. Each of these elements plays a role in guiding their actions and theoretical arguments.
Overall, this section provides insights into the author's philosophical orientation and its relevance to their research and the broader discussion of knowledge creation and practice in education.
3.3 Strategy
In this section, the author explores the concept of "praxis after postmodernity" through Schrag's work. Schrag argues that he is writing "after postmodernity," which the author interprets as a perspective that transcends or looks beyond the dominance of postmodernism and modernism. Schrag's discussion focuses on the self in the context of praxis, emphasizing that the rejection of traditional metaphysics and epistemology doesn't entail the rejection of every sense of self.
The text highlights Schrag's opposition to postmodernism, particularly how postmodernism stands in opposition to reason by emphasizing heterogeneity, multiplicity, diversity, difference, incommensurability, and dissensus. The author is interested in moving beyond debates about the definition and meaning of postmodernism and instead seeks to create a philosophical vocabulary relevant to their work in education.
The term "praxis" is explored as a contested term, carrying the idea of an emancipatory ideal linked to social justice. It denotes both action and word and represents a quiet revolution within education, fostering an ongoing, contested conversation.
The section emphasizes the importance of engaging in discussions that focus on real-world problems, such as addressing educational inequalities. The author seeks a discourse of praxis and pluralism, which keeps conversations going across different forms of difference.
Schrag's discussion of pluralism in contemporary thought is noted, and it is seen as a move into a postmetaphysical age that focuses on diversity and social practices rather than traditional metaphysical and epistemological issues.
The author aims to strengthen the discourse of educational praxis and advocates for avoiding the identification of one theoretical thread as superior to others. They stress the need to move beyond ideological positions and embrace a pragmatic perspective that allows for creative insights and fresh possibilities for knowledge and understanding.
The text also touches on Schrag's opposition to modernism and how the differentiations of culture into the spheres of science, morality, and art are viewed as contrived. Postmodernists like Lyotard are said to reject grammars of unity, totality, identity, sameness, and consensus.
Overall, this section explores the idea of praxis beyond postmodernity, focusing on a more comprehensive understanding of the self and the importance of dialogue, action, and collaboration in the context of educational praxis.
3.4
In this section, the author explores the concept of "praxis after postmodernity" through Schrag's work. Schrag argues that he is writing "after postmodernity," which the author interprets as a perspective that transcends or looks beyond the dominance of postmodernism and modernism. Schrag's discussion focuses on the self in the context of praxis, emphasizing that the rejection of traditional metaphysics and epistemology doesn't entail the rejection of every sense of self.
The text highlights Schrag's opposition to postmodernism, particularly how postmodernism stands in opposition to reason by emphasizing heterogeneity, multiplicity, diversity, difference, incommensurability, and dissensus. The author is interested in moving beyond debates about the definition and meaning of postmodernism and instead seeks to create a philosophical vocabulary relevant to their work in education.
The term "praxis" is explored as a contested term, carrying the idea of an emancipatory ideal linked to social justice. It denotes both action and word and represents a quiet revolution within education, fostering an ongoing, contested conversation.
The section emphasizes the importance of engaging in discussions that focus on real-world problems, such as addressing educational inequalities. The author seeks a discourse of praxis and pluralism, which keeps conversations going across different forms of difference.
Schrag's discussion of pluralism in contemporary thought is noted, and it is seen as a move into a postmetaphysical age that focuses on diversity and social practices rather than traditional metaphysical and epistemological issues.
The author aims to strengthen the discourse of educational praxis and advocates for avoiding the identification of one theoretical thread as superior to others. They stress the need to move beyond ideological positions and embrace a pragmatic perspective that allows for creative insights and fresh possibilities for knowledge and understanding.
The text also touches on Schrag's opposition to modernism and how the differentiations of culture into the spheres of science, morality, and art are viewed as contrived. Postmodernists like Lyotard are said to reject grammars of unity, totality, identity, sameness, and consensus.
Overall, this section explores the idea of praxis beyond postmodernity, focusing on a more comprehensive understanding of the self and the importance of dialogue, action, and collaboration in the context of educational praxis.
Section 3.5
In Section 3.5, the author presents a pragmatic approach to understanding the self and its relationship to theory and practice. The central idea is that a pragmatic orientation can help move beyond the debates between modernism and postmodernism, and beyond metaphysical discussions, to focus on praxis, which transcends and includes these debates.
The section discusses three bodies of literature that challenge dominant, modern, commonsense notions of human nature and combine them into a flexible model that highlights interactivity, connectivity, and relationship. These three perspectives are social constructionism, Wittgenstein's view on the "Inner," and Schrag's discussion of the self after postmodernity.
Social constructionism questions the idea of the self as a separate, individual entity with personal emotions, suggesting that personality is the product of social encounters and relationships. Wittgenstein's concept of the "Inner" highlights the shared aspect of human experiences, while the meaning of concepts like consciousness depends on their use within different discourses.
Schrag's construction of the self, emerging after the deconstruction of traditional metaphysics and epistemology, is presented as a praxis-oriented self, defined through communicative practices in discourse, action, community, and transcendence.
The author introduces their own model of a pragmatic self, called Mea-Nui, which incorporates various ideological and strategic positions, allowing for the use of different epistemologies and orientations depending on the situation.
The section discusses how a pragmatic approach might affect the practices of teachers and teacher education, highlighting the importance of expanding students' possibilities for future actions. The model is seen as a tool for challenging common sense, fostering agency, and enabling the critique of structure.
The text touches on the concept of pragmatic acceptance, where individuals comply with social norms and power structures due to a lack of options, knowledge, resources, or oppositional vision.
The section concludes by suggesting that the model of a pragmatic self can be adapted for a collective or community, with the voices of individuals guiding collective choices. It acknowledges the challenge of reconciling different perspectives and the need for a theory of communication beyond the scope of the thesis. The author's overarching goal is to explore how groups of people can come together to raise questions, investigate meanings, and develop collective momentum to support social change in the field of education.
--------------------------------------------
Summary of Summaries - wording is slightly different where I asked "please summarise" as opposed to no request where chat GBT assumed I was the author
Chapter 3 of your thesis is a comprehensive exploration of the concept of pragmatism and its significance in the context of various worldviews represented by Ernest, Hélène, Karl, and the emerging perspective of Mea-nui. This chapter serves as a bridge between modern and postmodern thinking and highlights the dynamic nature of philosophical perspectives in education.
The introduction sets the stage by emphasizing the importance of pragmatism as an eclectic worldview that transcends debates between structuralism and post-structuralism. Mea-nui's perspective is introduced as a fourth voice, emphasizing its focus on pragmatic decision-making informed by multiple voices.
In Section 3.1, you reference the works of Bernstein and Cherryholmes as a backdrop to discuss pragmatism and its concept of "pragmatic validity." You anticipate real discussions in the future to validate emerging ideas, emphasizing a shift from earlier distinctions in pragmatism. You aim to maintain a balance between modern and postmodern thinking, particularly in educational institutions, and express your desire for collaborative research.
In the second part of Section 3.1, you distinguish between postmodernism and pragmatism, highlighting their differences and the importance of pragmatism's focus on consequences and actions. The section discusses the moral, ethical, and political dimensions of both structuralism and post-structuralism, emphasizing pragmatism's encouragement of democratic solidarity and inclusivity.
Section 3.2 delves into the ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein and his contributions to philosophy. You find Wittgenstein's work refreshing, particularly in challenging the presuppositions of traditional philosophy, and relate it to your role as a teacher and educator. The concept of "final vocabulary" is introduced, reflecting Richard Rorty's work and its relevance to your approach to teaching and multicultural classrooms.
The second part of Section 3.2 explores pragmatism and its relationship to social openness and inclusiveness. The emphasis on community, pluralism, and social openness is discussed, along with Putnam's observations regarding the moral purpose of Wittgenstein's work.
Section 3.3 discusses "praxis after postmodernity" through Schrag's work. The rejection of traditional metaphysics and epistemology is highlighted, and Schrag's opposition to postmodernism's emphasis on heterogeneity is presented. You seek to create a philosophical vocabulary relevant to education and emphasize the importance of discussions focusing on real-world problems.
Section 3.4 continues the exploration of "praxis after postmodernity" and challenges common notions of human nature. The section presents the perspectives of social constructionism, Wittgenstein's view on the "Inner," and Schrag's discussion of the self after postmodernity. It introduces your model of a pragmatic self, Mea-Nui, which allows for the use of different epistemologies and orientations depending on the situation.
Finally, in Section 3.5, you discuss the significance of pragmatism in affecting the practices of teachers and teacher education. The Mea-Nui model is presented as a tool for challenging common sense, fostering agency, and enabling the critique of structure. The concept of pragmatic acceptance is introduced, along with the idea of adapting the model for a collective or community.
Overall, Chapter 3 provides a thorough exploration of pragmatism and its relevance to the broader field of education, offering a bridge between different philosophical perspectives and emphasizing the dynamic nature of knowledge and understanding in practice. It's clear that you're striving for a more inclusive, open, and collaborative approach to education and knowledge construction.
the author
Chapter 3 of the book explores the concept of pragmatism and its role in addressing other philosophical worldviews represented by Ernest, Hélène, and Karl. The chapter introduces the idea of Mea-nui, a fourth perspective that complements the other three. The author discusses the flexibility of words and their visual metaphor for viewing phenomena differently.
In Section 3.1, the author references background readings by Bernstein and Cherryholmes, clarifying that their goal is not to summarize pragmatic theory but to use it as a vantage point to examine other theories. They discuss "pragmatic validity" and the emergence of new knowledge collectively. The text touches on Cherryholmes' perspective, emphasizing aesthetics in ordinary experience. The author advocates for a balance between modern and postmodern thinking, aiming for a revolutionary, emancipatory praxis in education.
In Section 3.2, the text delves into the ideas of Ludwig Wittgenstein and how his philosophy aligns with the author's approach. Wittgenstein's focus on language games, conversation, and the rejection of scientism resonates with the author's perspective in teaching and education. The concept of "final vocabulary" and Richard Rorty's work are discussed, emphasizing the importance of keeping the conversation going and respecting differences.
Section 3.3 explores the concept of "praxis after postmodernity" through Schrag's work. The text highlights Schrag's opposition to postmodernism and the importance of creating a philosophical vocabulary relevant to education. It discusses Schrag's view of pluralism and the need to move beyond ideological positions.
Section 3.4 continues the exploration of "praxis after postmodernity," focusing on Schrag's perspective. The text emphasizes the rejection of traditional metaphysics and epistemology and the importance of dialogue, action, and collaboration. It advocates for a pragmatic perspective that allows for creative insights and fresh possibilities for knowledge and understanding.
In Section 3.5, the author presents a pragmatic approach to understanding the self and its relationship to theory and practice. They discuss the three bodies of literature that challenge common notions of human nature and introduce their own model of a pragmatic self, Mea-Nui. The section concludes by suggesting that this model can be adapted for collective decision-making in the field of education.
Section 3.5 in the original is perhaps a pretty accurate summary of it all
ReplyDelete