Knowledge into Activism

In discourse surrounding the fashionable consumption of leadership education, and vocational education generally, the phrase ‘knowledge into action’ is regarded as axiomatic and unquestionable. I want to question the political naivety with which this phrase is generally used. This, in order to precipitate a sense of radicalized action (political ‘activism’) within leadership education that acknowledges the role of duty, moral obligation and right action of a form of education that has not, hitherto, accepted the role it plays in legitimizing dominant political regimes. The phrase ‘knowledge into action’ implies a mutually consistent set of ideas with which sense can be made of the world via a form of education, and as such I will call it an ideology. As a lexical device (to recognise the full semiotic contingency of the phrase ‘knowledge into action’) and as an ideology, the phrase has as its unstated claims that all knowledge is actionable; that the two components of knowledge and action are separable; that action is a better mode of existence for knowledge; and that action is founded on imparted ‘knowingness’. The sentiments of the phrase also imply that leadership education should be instrumentally opportune and real-world directed, as distinct from an intrinsically worthwhile education from, say, the liberal arts. Endeavours in the latter form of education, it is said, ‘merely’ cultivate in individuals a sense of mind and intellectual grace for a mutually respectful engagement with society. In sharp and ideologically nuanced distinction to this, proponents of vocational and instrumental educational endeavours side with Illich’s deschooling claim that individuals should learn from the world, not about it. For Symes and McIntyre (‘Working Knowledge, 2000, p.3) knowledge is no longer the product of idle curiosity, pursued in the spirit of open and disinterested inquiry, but is something which now invokes use-value and application. But what exactly is being applied? I think this model has run its course: it has run out of rails.

the practice fetish – educational voodoo

This post relates to my September 22nd ‘06 post of the same title. A fetish, a thing abnormally stimulating, is a concept picked up by Marx in volume 1 of ‘Capital’ (p.165) and related to capitalist commodity production and consumption. Usefully, we know the concept for its alllusion to attracting sexual desire in a particular object, often man made: useful since the currency of meaning of the term itself has a charge which is carried over in its signification. Far from being a transcendental signified, executivezen would like to re-spice the term within a Marxist and capitalistic frame on the commoditized products of leadership education labour – namely the sovereignty of ‘practice’ over theory and the practice (!) of theory. Following Lyotard, one key aspect of poststructuralism (and my practice) is the denial of the theory/practice distinction – executivezen does not believe that theory is separate from practice, nor that theories are applied to practical situations; rather that they emerge in them. There’s nothing radical in this: the Marxist concept of praxis stems from the ancient Greek designation of the term meaning ‘doing’ or ‘acting’. The general thrust of praxian dialogue is to undermine the traditional theory and practice split, where praxis-oriented endeavours “antedate both theory construction adn the construal of practice as mere application of theory” (Schrag, Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, p.731).

Now executivezen thinks a lot of leadership (and exec.ed) education has lost – has stopped practicing – this praxian discourse. This is manifested in the triumphal return of the bifurcation; of the hierarchical placement of practice over theory; of the boast to serve practicing managers not with abstract theory but with practical, pragmatic (doublespeak) practices! Executivezen is not demonizing practice: just reinstating the blur between the theory and practice. In short, executivezen is stating that we should stop fetishizing practice, in the same way we should stop fetishizing theory. We should stop using ‘practice’ as if it were a master-word, imbued with secret transcendental voodoo powers that draws, pied piper fashion, edu-consumers through the practice-hallowed halls of institutionalised education. We are not closer to an educational essence by chanting the litany of practice: education has no essence, no telos, no perfection by reference to proximity to such essence.

why Networked learning?

What if learning did not just reside within an individual? What if other factors (environment, friends/family/colleagues, deadlines) not only contributed to learning, but were the sites of learning? These obscure questions form the basis of the philosophy behind networked learning. Practically speaking, networked learning, learning that takes place amongst colleagues and in workplace settings (not specifically the classroom), is what we encounter every day in our organisations. We use and learn from networks all the time, be they computer-based networks (email, instant messaging, google, wikis) or people networks (team meetings, photocopier conversations, action learning sets). Networked learning does not refer specifically to e-learning, web-based learning or computers in general. Instead, it privileges the role that all types of networks have in our day-to-day learning processes. Thinking practically, networked learning moves beyond the classroom and the trappings of formal education. When business schools are about improving the practice of management, networked learning places business schools’ knowledge of management at the heart of the workplace through these networks.