Re: philosophies of practice

Judy (diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu)
Thu, 28 Dec 1995 20:52:06 -0500

I much appreciated Chuck's linking of Bourdieu/Bakhtin discussions
to his own practice/philosophy of practice - a set of issues that
Eugene invites us to treat as the unit of analysis in our research
on classroom discourse. I'm interested because I'm an inexperienced
classroom teacher and face each question of
ethics/authority/control/difference as uncharted territory, wherein my
charting/decision-making helps me to
formulate an educational philosophy at work. Several different philosophies
of practice have been introduced in the recent strands of XMCA discussion.
At one level, they all can be thrown into two different bins:
1. Eucation as service to students (the _next_ generation).
The educational project might be to empower students academically,
in the acquisition of cultural capital via the school, or it might
be to empower students in some broader sense, in the acquisition of
resources to reproduce/resist/remake culture on their own terms
2. Eucation as service to a profession, a field of practice.
The educational project would be to specify the field to newcomers
so that they can participate and the field can flourish.
I'm wondering if these approaches are always separable, if they
don't overlap, intersect, in actual practice, at least at the
university level. I'm wondering what XMCA participants' classroom
practice looks like.

_Serving_ is an ethic in itself that allows one to suspend or defer
whatever other ideals might get in the way. Chuck reminds us that
in the classroom, we intersect with the "trajectories of many people
who are not just our allies" and Gordon writes, "In the 'real' world of
public schools... there are inescapable constraints.... that necessarily
temper the 'ideal' that they, or we, might envisage." But it makes a
difference whether we serve _students_ or a project that is "owned"
by a community the students don't yet fully participate in (and we
supposedly do). I've worked with lots of other graduate students
on their writing, all of whom were different from me in background
and disciplinary interests, but I ask myself if I could teach
composition to someone whose interest in writing was in the service
of some project of _theirs_ that I not only disagreed with but objected
to. I could only do so by subscribing totally to a service ethic of
helping THEM in their pursuits. I would not be able to do so if I
defined service in terms of a profession, then I would be responsible
for "specifying a field of practice," as Gordon recently wrote, for
defining the terms of participation, for specifying, in fact, the
ethics of the profession. And I also would not be able to do so
because I would not want to do so.

I've written myself into a silly knot of issues. Certainly what guides
one in the classroom are shifting sets of guides. There's also issue
of a metaphysic of practice that Rolfe discussed in his last posting,
which may be the key I need. But if it is so intuitive, so much
"more than what one knows" then one can hardly make a metaphysic
of practice a "unit of analysis," which is what Eugene would have
us make of a philosophy of practice.

What I like about this topic is that it invites attention to our
own classroom practices.
- Judy
Judy Diamondstone
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University