Rhizo 15 -- thoughts on an online course
Dave Harris
In May and June 2015, I participated in a MOOC
called Rhizo15, ostensibly embodying 'rhizomatic
education'. This was the 2nd iteration of the
course (thanks to participants who pointed this
out) , which lasted 6 weeks (although some
participants carried on discussing the material
and clearly had done so before).
I had encountered the term 'rhizomatic education'
before, and was aware that for some people it
represented a real breakthrough in online
education, dispensing with educational hierarchies
and empowering learners to pursue their own
'rhizomatic' paths. I wanted to see what this
looked like in practice, and to explore some of
the basic sociological criticisms of MOOCs, which
are that participation is actually largely
confined to people with considerable economic and
cultural capital which can support their
explorations and interests. Following a long
interest in the links between openness and closure
in distance education (dating from my PhD in 1985
and the subsequent book
in 1987 on the UK Open University), I wanted
to see how openness and closure of discussion and
exploration was being managed by the participants
in practice.
I was also interested in any links with the work
of Deleuze and Guattari (D&G), and the
discussion of the rhizome in their book A
Thousand Plateaus (ATP) (Deleuze and
Guattari 2004) and elsewhere. I had always
found puzzling the enthusiasm for D&G in
'progressive' educational circles. I read them as
offering a sustained and densely-argued ontology
turning on what might now be termed 'complexity
theory', with the customary French rejection of
categories like 'the human subject', 'personal
expression', 'individual creativity' and the like.
I was aware of considerable debate about what the
work entails, both in terms of concrete analyses
of, say, organizations (Fuglslang)
and politics (compare Hardt
with Badiou) (links
refer to my own summaries). I have read enough of
Deleuze and Guattari (see menu
page) and their commentators to be aware
that there is no agreed reading of texts like ATP
(see my own summary here),
and I wondered how advocates of rhizomatic
education would manage these intense and complex
debates.
I should say here that I think the work by D&G
is so fearsomely dense (and elitist, expressing a
classic French academic elitism of the 1950s and
1960s, and written in a private language) that
anyone must try to manage it by making parts of it
more familiar. I suggested in a Facebook post that
it was like Weber's analysis of Puritanism -- too
stark, uncompromising and other-wordly
unless 'managed' by turning it into a more
familiar work ethic. I am aware that I have
managed D&G at times by reading them as
offering an undeveloped protosociology: in other
sections I have just resigned myself to never
understanding the arguments, which no longer
matters now I am retired, or struggling to puzzle
out what they might mean, with varying degrees of
success, sometimes having to revisit earlier
summaries. It is a matter of maintaining relative
openness to their work.
While we are here, the readings offered by Deleuze
and Guattari of others are also clearly managed in
the most general sense. Our heroes develop their
own perspectives on encountering the work of
others. These perspectives are challenged by
others, of course: Badiou
accuses Deleuze of 'managing' the huge number of
films he cites in the name of validating certain
concepts of time and movement Deleuze has
abstracted from Bergson;
Zizek is outraged by the D&G
reading of Lacan. While D&G both see Proust as
a (proto)philosopher,
Bourdieu reads him as an ethnographer.
Commentators disagree of course.
There are no absolutes, and D&G (1994) begin
by saying that a
concept is never simple but a combination,
‘it is a multiplicity’ (15). No
single concept can express all the components of
chaos, even universal ones, by trying to
reduce chaos by exercising contemplation,
reflection or communication. Concepts
articulate, cut and cross cut through elements
among the mental chaos which threatens to absorb
them. D&G acknowledge that their own concepts
are never general or universal, that concepts have
a specific time and place, a history and a context
linking them to other concepts that makes them
appropriate, that the point is to press on and
create new concepts, that concepts as related to
the virtual, to the multiplicity, can only be
expressed as ‘the
proposition deprived of sense’ (1994: 22), that their philosophy is ‘in a perpetual
state of digression or digressiveness’ (23) -- and
has many other aspects that mean they are never
complete and comprehensive. However, this does not
mean that they are purely subjective, since they
are created not by human subjects but by
'conceptual personae' who name parts of the
underling reality that is being disclosed, and
pursue implications on a 'plane of consistency'.
Nor can the value of concepts be resolved by
intersubjective discussion and agreement: 'For this reason philosophers have
very little time for discussion' (1994: 28). No-one
ever talks about the same thing, and the point is
to go on and create concepts—'when it comes to
creating, conversation is always superfluous'
(28). Philosophy
is not endless discussion. 'To
criticize is only to establish that the concept
vanishes when it is forced into a new milieu'
(28). Those who advocate debate and communication
are 'inspired by ressentiment. They speak
only of themselves when they set empty
generalizations against one another (29). There
are clear implications for the 'learning
community' here, of course as we shall see.
D&G are not saying that anything goes, however
(to link to a discussion later).
They admire discussion driven by philosophy, but
are aware of pseudo-philosophies in modern
society (which they see as a simulacrum): there is
thus a need to dispose of ‘shameless and inane
rivals’ (11), and oppose ‘functionaries who, buying a ready
made thought, are not even conscious of the
problem and unaware even of the efforts of those
they claim to take as their models’ (51). The
challenge is to identify these rivals and
functionaries, and, in particular, to make sure we
are not supporting them by our readings of
D&G.
Encountering other educational enthusiasts
had led me to suspect, to be frank, that much of
the complexity, and any challenging readings, were
simply being ignored or managed so that nothing
was to be allowed to contradict the 'personally
liberating' or 'progressive' reading. I think that
in some cases, 'progressive' readings had been
already joined on to 'post-structuralism' in a
limited way, without challenging much of the
cognitive structures of progressive thought (see Hodgson
and Standish), and that Deleuze and
Guattari, especially the two books in the project
on capitalism and schizophrenia ( AntiOedipus
and A Thousand
Plateaus) had been added on, possibly
after
Foucault had expressed his admiration for
Deleuze.
You can see how these themes panned out during my
participation on Rhizo15. I should say immediately
that I joined the course a week late. I
participated only through the public Facebook
groups Rhizomatic Learning -- a Practical
Discussion and Rhizomatic Learning -- a
Theoretical Discussion. I also received
standard emails from the co-ordinator, Dave
Cormier, some of which listed blogs by
participants, and other resources: I read most of
them. There was also discussion on Twitter, which
I did not follow at all. Personal communications
also seem to have taken place between
participants. Even tracking the limited resources
chosen proved difficult since some online
materials linked to others which linked to others
and so on. There clearly can be no claims that my
sampling of the material was 'typical' -- I am
merely 'exampling', with all the threats to
validity that entails. I was able to make some
limited comparisons with participating in another
Facebook public group on Deleuze and Guattari,
though.
There is an ethical issue too, turning on whether
it is acceptable to cite the work of others
without asking their permission. This is acute
with online materials: is it acceptable to
cite Facebook posts, for example? It could
be argued that these are in the public domain,
except that membership of the groups has to be
approved. There could be an undoubted form of
'symbolic violence' in taking these posts as
'data', however. Bourdieu's
use of this term extends especially to those who
claim they are using 'data' to do 'science', which
would obviously deepen symbolic violence. I am not
claiming this and am happy to see my contribution
as but one in the more obscure aisles in the great
supermarket of ideas. I claim to have treated the
responses of others as 'data' only insofar as
anyone does when reading the comments of others
and trying to make sense of them in their own
critical terms. Here, I think being a sociologist
can help in making us aware of the thin basis
for any claim that we are doing 'science' -- we
can criticize ourselves just as well as, if not
better than, any outsider and probably
have fewer illusions about the status of our
work!
I have pursued immanent critique, based on
issues raised by the discussion itself, without
claiming any superior external basis for
critique in, say marxism, or, for that matter,
in any superior reading of Deleuze and Guattari.
I have mostly quoted from these posts
without naming contributors, except for Dave
Cormier: I couldn't think of any way to refer to
the coordinator of the course without identifying
him. I have at least been honest in posting my own
doubts and criticisms as I went, but there is a
major difficulty in critiquing contributions as I
explain: some participants adopted a highly
personalized stance in their contributions and in
their responses to the posts of others, which
possibly made any criticism seem hurtful and
unwelcome. I know of no way to counter this stance
while pursuing critical analysis at the same time
but I want to insist that I was not making
criticisms of persons but of arguments, and then
not for any malicious personal reasons of my own.
If this is not permitted, than I can see a serious
limit emerging to the claimed openness of
MOOCs.
I have divided my comments into fairly short
sections as follows:
Rhizomatic Education --
definitions
Definitions from Wikipedia, Siemens, the UK Open
University, 'dac-marlee-anne', Wheeler and
Gerver -- all of them mention Dave Cormier and
include his definitions . Connectivism
and constructionism from Bali et al. A
collection of definitions of the rhizome from A
Thousand Plateaus as
additional stimuli for thought. An early critical
discussion of community learning (see week 5).
How to 'manage'
Deleuze and Guattari
Various readings which cope with the fearsome
density and complexity of D&G writing.
Everyone has to 'manage' the work somehow.
Readings briefly discussed: 'personal', 'toolbox',
'pragmatic' 'take-it-or-leave it', 'fascist or
liberal', 'selective', 'metaphorical', 'poetic'
and 'instrumental'. Discussions of the
difficulties include reading the ambivalent work
on children as creative.
Discussion of learning and
subjectivity -- week 1
Unpacking 'subjectivity' in D&G to get to
subjectivation as a process. Critique of the usual
limited bourgeois notions of the individual
subject (as sovereign consumer, homo economicus
etc), maybe including Dewey's. Critique of
learning by objectives as a line tracing, needing
to be put on a map -- a concept map initially,
then a rhizome. The virtual as the opposite of the
objective AND the subjective, so we can escape the
old tired binaries.
Discussion of counting
and measurement --week 2
Assessment as a case study of counting, showing
the deleuzian analysis of the tendency towards
metrication of the intensive. A possible
devastating critique of universities asking if
their own systems are fit for purpose (no).
Numbering among the nomads building a war machine.
So, there are some good aspects of numbers. Try
some examples of scales of emotions etc.
Discussion of educational
content -- week 3
Indirect discourse and collective enunciations --
'content','order words' and 'power'. Have all your
suspicions confirmed -- and maybe deepened.
Adventurous encounters with the unknown is what
'forces us to learn'.
Discussion of the role of
the pedagogue --week 4
Deleuze on pedagogy in the 'society of
control' and the artificial nature of pedagogic
problems and solutions. Guattari on
psychiatric group therapy as pedagogy.
Learning as an encounter that forces us to think
(philosophically). Pedagogy in the cinema.
Learning to swim as a bodily exploration of the
virtual. You thought it was just exercise?
Discussion of community
learning -- week 5
Discussion of community learning on some
participant blogs (some usefully critical).
Deleuze's suspicion of the 'common sense' of
communities and advocacy of 'misosophy' instead of
philosophy. Brief reminder of Guattari on
therapeutic communities. Macro and micropolitics
in communities. Again, a deeper critical
evaluation is promised.
Discussion of artefacts as
guides to Rhizo 15 -- week 6
Art and artefact by the participants of Rhizo
15,including 'the untext' as collaborative writing
, a collective sestina, a radio play and song, a
treatment for a video mashup. Deleuze on art as
philosophy, especially art house and
avant-garde cinema, including examples like
Beckett's Film and Godard's Six Fois
Deux (both available online). Rediscover
Citizen Kane! Some of my own parodies as
examples. What Deleuze said about working with
Guattari specifically (including that there are no
general principles in favour of collaborative
writing with just anyone, or with friends who
think like you do). An aside on visual ethnography
and indirect free discourse via the films about
Africa by Jean Rouch (also available online --
some of them. Not for the squeamish).
* I know there are only 8 files not 42 -- but
there weren't a thousand plateaux either.
|
|