tangentes paedagogiam : To Ruskin on his Birthday



                This week saw a flurry of #HigherEd activity on Twitter. I have enjoyed the discussions on the Coursera MOOC that shut its doors (so to speak) and the repercussions. One of the smartest comments I read on Twitter was how what happened with the #foeMOOC should be a true lesson in teaching, educational design, and pedagogy; for only in failure can educators understand what truly imparts and creates knowledge and what works in terms of design.

                One of the idioms being passed around in relation to this MOOC was how Coursera was “out of touch” with the learning needs. As someone who studies tactility this struck a cord. What does being "out of touch" really mean in relation to educational design and pedagogy. The brief research I have done on the origins of being “out of touch” seems to date the idiom to 18th century military drills and the necessity of proximity and keeping ranks. If one does not keep ranks or keep close, one was “out of touch” and thus a liability to the whole regiment. These hand/ tactile idioms have persisted for centuries and are very fascinating. Even the satirical representation in Punch of the hand in relation to phrenology and the mention of the great thinker “a-wristotle” demonstrates how tactility has resonated,  and will continue to resonate.

 In some ways Coursera (or in particular the #foeMOOC)  is being highlighted as “out of touch” and a liability to the MOOC movement (whatever nebulous thing that is) but truly what this experience emphasizes is that as much as MOOCs, well specifically cMOOC’s a la Downes and Siemens, are supposed to be underpinned by a connection, a sharing of learning, resources, and pedagogy, there is still an overwhelming undercurrent of fear of the organic or rhizomatic education (see Dave Cormier’s amazing presentation on rhizomatic education from #etmooc here). Of course the larger questions started to swirl:

Is it our responsibility as pedagogues to be “in touch?” What are the perils of being in touch? Is it necessarily more productive, is it necessarily more effective?

                In true rhizomatic style, and since it is Ruskin’s birthday, it seemed only normal that I would reflect further on what being “out of touch” in relation to pedagogy would mean to him.  I have written and presented on Ruskin’s use of the tactile and the performative in “The Ethics of the Dust” but the spectre of Ruskin reared its head again last week when I was at a talk hosted by the William Morris Society of Canada. In his talk, William Blissett, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, mentioned Ruskin’s concept of “illth”. As Ruskin outlines in Unto Its Last that illth, causes “various devastation and trouble”(89). Illth is the opposite of wealth, it is the changes which have a negative impact on society.  What I am interested in is if this idea of illth could be an appropriate term to describe pedagogical or educational disappointments.  Tangentially I am working to developing a theory of Ruskinian illth in relation to tactile pedagogical practices.

                I have turned to an interesting source to try to trace this illth and wealth argument in relation to touch and pedagogy. Having revisited John Napier’s Hands this week, I have directed my thought to the hands as source of cognition. As Napier states "a lively hand is the product of a lively mind […]When the brain is empty, the hands are still" (4). This echoes the type of hands-on training and education that Ruskin advocated for most of his later life through the Guild of St. George.  Not only are our hands and touch important to artistic or architectural work, touch and "hands have one further important function: they are part of our communication system; and in the extent to which they are used to communicate, not only words but also emotions and ideas" (Napier 8).  We can communicate, or to borrow a term that has been floating around in Facebook discussions this week with a former graduate school colleague, touch allows us to communicate through communion. Though I am still working through the religious connotations of the term “communion,” I feel it is a relevant way of thinking about touch and education. 


 Some Final Thoughts (for now) on Touch as Part of Communication in Education


                As John Bulwer proposes in his 17th century text Chirologia (you can see the interesting frontispiece and chart here)  touches, and more importantly gestures, are an “integral part of our communication system. Sometimes they serve to replace speech, sometimes to augment and elaborate it” (Napier 155).   I argued in my dissertation that touch and the way one touches (the motions, pressure, etc.)  is way to communicate without speaking, and is a way of expressing things that would be difficult to express orally. Napier supports this theory in his work for he states: "If language was given to people to conceal their thoughts, then gesture's purpose was to disclose them." (Napier 157)


Next month at NeMLA in Boston, I will be presenting a paper on the representation of tactility and sexuality in George Egerton’s short stories.  In Egerton, like in Ruskin, and in many other Victorian works, touch is a means of communication, but more importantly touch teaches and is teacher. It is my hope that my work on tactility as a totality will demonstrate that touch is the wealth and not the illth, that a pedagogical design without touch (without an attempt to engage with the haptic in some way) can cause difficulties in the learning environment.  Being “out of touch” just might bring about the organic and rhizomatic processes necessary for learning and collaboration;  possibly a more ethical way to learn. 



Work Cited


Blissett, William.  “In the Wake of John Ruskin, from William Morris to Northrop Frye.” The William Morris Society of Canada. January 28, 2013. Trinity College, Universtity of Toronto.

 
Bulwer, John. Chirologia: Or The Natvrall Langvage Of The Hand. London: Thomas Harper, 1644. Web.


Cormier, Dave. “A Talk on Rhizomatic Learning for ETMOOC.” YouTube. Jan 30, 2013. Web.


“Handy Phrenology.”  Punch. Vol XIV (1848):104. Web.


Napier, John. Hands. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1993. Print.


Ruskin, John. The Ethics of the Dust. Works. Vol. 17. Ed. E.T.Cook and Alexander Wedderburn. London: G. Allen, 1912. Print. 18.

Comments

Popular Posts