Replying to LO28944 --
AM and LO'ers,
AM writes,
> Through studies of the learning organization based on Peter Senge's book,
> other articles and the observation of behavior of students in graduate
> level courses I have developed the term "obedient learning society". It
> strikes me how many people in general and students especially crave to be
> told in every little detail what to do, when to do, and if possible how to
> do it.
I've come to know this as "received knowing" (Belenky et al), where people
become so used to simply having information given to them that they become
unskilled in creating knowledge and meaning for themselves. I see it as
an unintended consequence of a society that values efficiency above all
else -- it is, afterall, more "efficient" (if we define that in terms of
speed) to simply give information to learners rather than to draw out
knowledge via active and experiential approaches that challenge one's
thinking skills. The problem, then, is not simply within the individuals
(whom we tend to view as being somehow deficient -- fix the person,
then!), but within the larger systems they live within.
I accept periodic assignments with area universities to work with graduate
students, and am always struck by how difficult many learners find it to
spend our first evening together creating the course outline based on what
they know, don't know, and want to know about our topic. When i first
propose that we create the syllabus together, I am typically faced with
stunned and puzzled expressions, as though the learners were struggling to
figure out just what I could possibly mean by that (or as if they were
trying to figure out what I really wanted them to be saying). A similar
thing occurs -- though to a lesser extent by then -- when we later in the
term create a rubric for defining how "quality" will be determined for
their major projects. These people have spent 2 decades within a system
that by-and-large has never encouraged them to explore learning and
knowledge for themselves, nor to take the time to consider what
constitutes "quality" in their work. Because of years of received
knowing, supported by other systems --such as the workplace -- that
reinforces similar behavior, many people have trouble thinking for
themselves. This is particularly frightening when I remind myself that
these adults are also voters!
> Combined with the behavior in the workplace to do what one has been
> told, follow all the rules and regulations and make no noise so the next
> paycheck is secure, I ask myself how much creativity can be expected from
> students and employees alike? ..... Have we forgotton to identify with the
> goals and vision of the organization we spend out time with and for? Do we
> really only go to work or learn to make money?
Again, the received knowing is here. Welton describes this as learned
helplessness, again an unintended (or perhaps intended?) consequence of
the larger systems in place over the past century or so. Typically, our
life systems as they are present at least in the US do not support adult
development -- rather, they serve to restrict and distort our development
(miseducative). That's a generalization, of course, but one I find more
dominant than not.
As AM's question, we cannot expect much creativity from people who have
not had the opportunity to fully develop. In Iowa, I see many
organization leaders who, for example, describe attempts at cultivating a
more participatory workplace, only to be frustrated by people who won't
participate. The leaders fail to see that this is a developmental
challenge, one that can be worked through by the system if done properly.
They also fail to see the connection between informed participation and
open communication at work. Instead, the thinking tends to be "that just
won't work here," -- there must be something wrong with the individuals,
that deficit approach to learning.
In some places, I even see them attempt to correct this deficit by giving
people more training programs in which they can somehow "learn" to
participate by being told what how to do it -- right back into that
received knowing cycle.
With AM's last comment, I am reminded of a person who took part in some
research of mine a few years back. He commented that in a former
workplace, money was the only reason he was there. It was all that was
really offered by the workplace, as they did not encourage him to be fully
human at work, to think, to challenge, to explore, to create, to be
curious. With opportunities for such things taken from him, all that was
left was the money. I think when this happens enough to us, the logical
step is that we simply equate work with money. Why else would we subject
ourselves to some of those environments?
It also doesn't help when we have too many within our school systems (and
outside it) who tell growing minds that the primary purpose for a good
education is to get a good job. In Iowa, we even had a former governor
who, while in office, made several public statements concerning how the
purpose of education was to "train" young people for tomorrow's workplace.
Like it never occurred to him that the purpose of education was to prepare
people to participate fully in their society.
If we really want to be creating learning organizations -- for workers,
for students, for any organization -- we have to discourage received
knowing (that obedient learning society) and become willing to hold the
many tensions created through a more active rather than passive approach
to learning. For many, that will demand a change in our assumptions about
the human at work (finally, move away from that classical, Newtonian
mindset). Perhaps even let go of our belief that "experts" can solve our
problems.
Best to all,
Terri
-------------------------------
Terri A. Deems, PhD
WorkLife Design
tadeems@aol.com
"There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof
against all arguments and which cannot fail to keep [a person] in everlasting
ignorance--that principle is contempt prior to investigation." (H. Spencer)
--Learning-org -- Hosted by Rick Karash <Richard@Karash.com> Public Dialog on Learning Organizations -- <http://www.learning-org.com>
"Learning-org" and the format of our message identifiers (LO1234, etc.) are trademarks of Richard Karash.