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
Post a Comment