The presentation
was enlightening and it gave us areas to think about or consider when it comes
to developing or researching on socially just pedagogies. Vivian encouraged
dialogue among us so that we can think about the projects in relations to social
justice, the capability approach and ethics of care.
Three areas of
interest were presented:
1 .
Social Justice: Nancy Fraser
2 .
The Capability Approach: Amartya
Sen, Martha Nussbaum
3 .
Ethics of Care: Joan Tronto
The premise that Vivienne started from in her
presentation:
“It important to examine moral and normative framework, which put
forward, how things ought to be, as well as the values that underpins policies
and practices in order for us to consider issues of social justice, difference
and care”
Vivienne pointed
out that the analysis of normative framework is important because it
·
points out to what is important
in social arrangements particularly with social justice, difference and care.
The SOTL@UJ project can be guided by focusing on social arrangements that can
enable socially just pedagogies, ethics of care and the capability approach.
·
Social Justice
Socially just
pedagogies in Vivienne’s view means that students and academics should be able to
interact as equals and social arrangements need to be made to make these
interactions possible. Vivian advised the seminar that socially just pedagogies
should not be restricted to teaching and learning only. The SOTL@UJ project
should consider looking at the entire context of higher education policies and
structures. The goals of social justice should be located around participatory parity, human flourishing and abilities to give and receive
care.
There are 3
aspects that Vivian presented on Nancy Fraser’s views
1 .
Redistribution of resources (economic
dimension). This aspect of justice might be problematic because it does not
include difference. This is something
that needs to be unpacked and find ways to make this aspect applicable to
socially just pedagogies.
2 .
Recognition of status (a
cultural dimension): how people are valued or devalued because of their attributes,
distinct characteristics and cultural capital. In the social sphere, economic
and political sphere, teachers might not be valued because the teaching career
it is associated with women or with care or it is a career that does not yield
strong economic benefits.
3 .
Cultural capital and
recognition: These aspects are intertwined but they need to be analysed and
understood separately in an affirmative and transformative way.
4 .
Social belonging and social
inclusion. This is the political
dimension where students can be devalued, misrecognised or excluded and they
cannot claim their rights. Globalisation and technological advances are some of the aspects that highlight who is
valued, recognised and belongs.
Vivienne came up with the 4 R’s that are essential for social justice:
1 .
Resources
2 .
Recognition
3 .
Responsibility: Lotter (2011)
argues that there has to be a justice of accountability and enablement. These
are instances where an academic accounts for students who are under their care
and create enabling environment so that students to can gain capabilities and
flourish in their learning.
4 .
Representation: This is
giving students voice. The feedback practice for instance is a dialogical
practice which gives students voice. Academics however need to be aware of how
their power can supress student voice.
The Capability approach: Amartya Sen, Martha Nussbaum
This approach is
concerned with human flourishing. In this view students’ particularity,
plurality, context and concrete others as opposed to generalised others, is
important and valuable. Socially just pedagogies need to enable students to gain
abilities, choose the lives they want, do what is valuable and achieve valuable
states.
The capability
approach takes into account where people are positioned and what they are able
to do with their personal, social and material resources. It does not assume
what people need nor decide for them what their needs might be. In the context
of higher education, students bring along cultural capital which must be valued
and built upon, for example their indigenous knowledge’s. The capital that they
bring can only be enhanced to enable them to participate on par with others.
For me the
capability approach however, involves all students; those who are prepared and
under-prepared, who come from diverse socio-economic and schooling backgrounds.
This holistic approach aims to cultivate and ensure students’ flourishing and their
well-being during and after higher learning.
Vivienne shared
a few ideas with us with are worth considering in the capability approach,
social justice and politics of care
·
What are students and academics
able to be and do?
·
What capabilities can they
exercise?
·
How privileged or disadvantaged
are they?
·
What implications does this
have on their lives?
·
Are they able to interact on
par?
Ethics of care: A social practice in Joan Tronto’s
view
Vivienne gave the seminar questions or pointers to think about
regarding the ethics of care
1.
what sort of work is being
done,
2.
which responsibilities
constitute giving of care or caring,
3.
how do power relations affect
the work of caring and
4.
what kinds of practices are
used to ensure that those who need care actually get it.
I found these
questions important because it clarifies what ethics of care mean for higher
education and for the project. Ethics of care are exercised when learning needs
can be identified (Waghid, 2007; 2010) by both the students and academics.
The world does
not always have people who are self-sufficient, independent and equal. Dependency
is an inevitable condition in human life. In higher education students come
with learning needs and social arrangements can be made to enable pedagogies of
care to enhance their learning. Social arrangements can be feedback which
reflects caring and ensuring that capabilities, flourishing and wellness in
learning can develop.
The ethics of
care sees human beings as having a relational ontology which is connection
based rather that individual. In higher education caring for learning needs is academic
discipline specific. A lecturer at engineering might not be able to give
learning care to a student in the humanities. The ethics of care are negotiated spaces; they
consider familiarity and the context of the care giver and receiver. “Care
consist of everything we do to care and repair our world so that we may live in
it as well as possible”
There are 5 phases of care
·
Caring about is noticing that people
have needs. It is an injustice to ignore that people need caring
·
Caring for is taking responsibility to
ensure that people’s needs are met
·
Giving care: the work of giving care and
competencies that go with it.
·
Responsiveness: taking responsibility in
giving care where it is needed. This can be done however within the means of
the care giver.
·
Caring with: Caring is a process and in
this habits and patterns of caring emerge gradually, moral qualities of trust
and solidarity develop and continue.
We need to note
that there is always care that is not always good e.g. bad teaching. In order
for caring to be done well, attentiveness, responsibility, responsiveness,
iteration of the process of care is needed.
The moral
integrity of care means that participation and principle is co-constructed,
dialogical and negotiated. Care also has notions of power e.g. assuming that
you know more than the others, patronising, assuming that you know what people
need. Good caring practices require good practices and dialogue between those
giving and receiving care rather that pointing out what is right and wrong.
It is wrong to
assume that
1 .
misfortune causes care: when
care is regarded is belonging to the needy and the vulnerable. The ethics of
care believe that all people are need of caring
2 .
care givers can determine what
kind of caring is needed. This amounts to patronising, imposes power on care
receivers and unfairly determines who needs care and how responsibilities should be allocated
3 .
Care is a commodity (a
neo-liberal argument). Students are not consumers and should not be viewed in
terms of corporate pedagogy. Student learning is more important than giving a
service. Care should rather be a process than a commodity
4 .
Care receivers can be excluded
because they lack expertise and therefore cannot make judgments. Attentiveness
and responsibility is needed in the giving and receiving care Management
structures need to be close to the requirements and the recommendations of the
ethics of care to avoid being disconnected from needs of students
No comments:
Post a Comment