In class I discussed Richard Whately's view on truth: There is an absolute truth, but men don't have access to it. God is the only possessor of absolute Truth and men have assess to it through the gospel, which they inevitably interpret wrong. Whately believes that men (and I have to include women) will always be imperfect, but that should not stop them from seeking out the truth. Raymie McKerrow states: "Whately argues that just because men reason imperfectly, even with logic training, that is no reason to abandon the attempt to generally improve the reasoning of individuals, and more than one would abandon the study of grammar even though applied imperfectly once studied" (178). So, how does Whately apply to Kenneth Bruffee's article "Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind'?" Well, let me tell you.
Brufee argues that class discussion, especially in English classes, is effective in getting the students involved as well as generating new ideas, and promoting individual learning. But, he questions it's use for three reasons. One, the teacher is usually the one doing the discussing, all the while randomly calling on inattentive students to respond to a question and usually sitting in silence waiting/wishing for a student to say something (at this point anything!!). The second shortfall he mentions is the lack of actual discussing. Bruffee states that in most cases there are two arguments: a pro and a con, no real discussion of an in between, a completely different solution, or any other creative ideas.
But, the main point he focuses on, and the connection to Whately is his link to Thomas Kuhn, who focuses on knowledge. He states: "To say that knowledge is indeterminate is to say that there is no fixed and certain point of reference, no Arnoldian 'touchstone' against which we can measure truth. If there is no such absolute referent, then knowledge must be a thing people make and remake" (554-555). Though Kuhn and Whately have some major connections, they also have a difference in opinion as to how they get there. Just because Whately believes that knowledge is "indeterminate" doesn't mean that there is no fixed point. For Whately God and the gospel are the unreachable fixed points of knowledge/truth. Yet, the two scholars actually come to the same overall conclusion that knowledge is what man decides it to be.
Whately argues that man gets his truths from the bible, while Kuhn argues that collectively men come up with it on their own. In a classroom setting (and probably in any setting) it is the concept of the blind leading the blind. Richard Rorty calls it socially justifying belief. Bruffee continues: "Knowledge must be a social artifact. But to call knowledge a social artifact, Kuhn argues, is not to say that knowledge is merely relative, that knowledge is what any one of us says it is. Knowledge is maintained and established by communities of knowledgeable peers" (555). OK, so not any random person can make up their own knowledge and expect people to go along with it, it is the job of "knowledgeable people" (how they became knowledgeable in the first place is questionable) to decide what our absolute truths can be. Of course, this is a perfect seg-way to bell hooks.
"Knowledgeable people" are clearly the educated white man, or in bell hooks' terms: the white supremacy, racist, sexist, capitalist, patriarchal society. The head leaders in this society she hates so much. Well no wonder the world is dysfunctional, we are lead by a bunch of idiots who think they are smart, but who can only learn something if it's collaboratively agreeable. But, is there any other alternative? How could we possibly know, because none of us really know the true answer to anything. Even laws are just mere theories.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I too found Bruffee's concept of collaborative learning quite interesting. It's hard in a classroom where you have a limited amount of time. The efficient teacher in you wants to say, "It takes too long for students to arrive at answers on their own. I can just give them the answer and we can move on with our lives." It is sometimes painfully frustrating to watch a group of students engaged in discursive dialogue and take a short eternity to arrive at a conclusion. The important thing to remember is that the process by which they arrive at conclusions is as important as the conclusions themselves. It's my job to guide them through the process, help them streamline discussion and interact more efficiently to make the best use of their time.
ReplyDeleteI have to wonder at the usefulness of a truth that is unknowable. If the only truth we are capable of understanding is a collaborative effort, then that is the only truth that is practically relevant. The Bible, as many would argue, is just such an example of a collaborative truth. I agree that "the blind leading the blind" is a spot on portrayal of our quest for knowledge, but it doesn't follow that that truth is then devalued by its method of construction. How we choose the "knowledgeable" and who they are is part of that truth we are seeking and bell hooks has offered her own viewpoint to that collaboration. Why shouldn't students be allowed to do the same?
ReplyDeleteI took the collaborative learning argument differently. I saw it as collaboration to seek an answer, not necessarially the capital TRUTH, but different minds combining to construct an answer that all within the group can benefit from. That group, for a long time was the patriarchy, but has since changed. Obviously if people with the same interests join together to find a solution, they will find one that fits them. The challenge is making different minds sit down and work to find a logical truth -- it's kinda fun to watch this in action!
ReplyDeleteYour discussions remind me of my man the skeptic, David Hume,who stated all we can ever know is what we have experienced through the senses. And, that since we cannot experience God through our sense, we cannot prove the existence of God. In fact Hume (always the gentleman) would have had amiable disagreements with Whatley's position. Hume urged us to question everything, including ancient sources. Again, critical thinking is the key. First and foremost, the ancient Greeks and Romans valued rhetoric because it fostered critical thinking. One cannot argue effectively if one cannot think logically. While we try to capture logic on paper through the genre of essay writing, reliability of sources and logic are the foundation of truth with a capital "T".
ReplyDelete