melaniemcbride.net

“To agree to learn from a stranger who does not respect your integrity causes a major loss of self. The only alternative is to not learn and reject the stranger’s world.”

- Herbert Kohl, from “I Won’t Learn from You”

American educator Herbert Kohl’s “I Won’t Learn from You” is a compelling essay about the complex relationship between a learner’s social context and their motivation to learn. This piece was one of the first, and most important, texts of critical pedagogy I read for my Bachelors of Education and I’ve come to believe it has far reaching application far beyond the classroom. I thought I’d share something of an introduction to Kohl and the enigmatic reasons why we sometimes choose not to learn.

Beginning with evocative anecdotes and reflections of his personal and professional experiences of teaching and learning, Kohl outlines the tensions that emerge when a learner consciously refuses to engage. According to Kohl:

“Not-learning . . . tends to strengthen the will, clarify one’s definition of self, reinforce self-discipline, and provide inner satisfaction. . . . Not learning tends to take place when someone has to deal with unavoidable challenges to her or his personal and family loyalties, integrity and identity. In such situations there are forced choices and no apparent middle ground. To agree to learn from a stranger who does not respect your integrity causes a major loss of self. The only alternative is to not-learn and reject the stranger’s world.”

On a conscious level, our belief systems, values, life contexts, politics, prior knowledge and experiences all play a role in our readiness or willingness to engage a new concept, process or task. The more attached we are to those contexts, the more it effects our learning – for better or worse. This defies the simple logic of the so-called “attitude problem,” which trivializes and misapprehends not-learning as sheer ignorance, inattention or whim. Kohl establishes an important distinction here between cognitive or biological impediments and social conditions. Unfortunately, when the basis for not-learning is personal or emotional, it is often more difficult (and sometimes impossible) to get to the source of the barrier and that’s where trust, compassion and social consciousness is critical to understanding.

We can all remember a teacher we loved just as easily as we remember a teacher we didn’t trust. If we were very young, it may have been a strong feeling – something we couldn’t quite articulate but simply felt. For secondary or college learners, the reasons might be more specific. For example, a teacher who dotes on favourites is less likely to inspire the trust of other students because the teacher doesn’t appear to possess professionalism or objectivity (i.e., if you are a teacher, you care about and respect ALL of your students. It’s your job). Why should anybody want to learn from somebody who doesn’t take their power or their job seriously? A student may not be able to articulate the above, but it may be understood and experienced quite exquisitely.

We’re all “not learners”

Everyday we are presented with learning opportunities. Whether we recognise them as such, whether we accept or reject them, is up to us. The outcome of these opportunities, according to Kohl, is a loss or reward of knowledge. Most of us would be inclined to say that the rational response is to choose knowledge over ignorance. But this is easier said than done. And that’s where Kohl’s humanity and social conscience really illuminate the heart of “not learning.”

In order to make the apparent“choice,” to will learning, the individual must be willing to accept the authority of an educator, text or context that contains within it the very sources of their alienation or oppression. Trust plays a very important role here as well. Kohl argues that it is the educator’s responsibility to thoughtfully identify and assess these issues rather than blaming the student for an inappropriate response. He also validates the impulse to not-learn as a product of strongly held convictions, survival, dissent and defiance. In some cases, a student is willing to “fail” as a conscious act of dissent, which is connected to empowering her or his identity. This is especially apparent in situations where racism, classism and other forms of oppression are present – or perceived to be present.

What appeals to me most is Kohl’s defiance of the traditional “strict father model” attitude towards dissent. Those who subscribe to this simplistic “tough love” attitude reject nuanced or sophisticated social conditions. This system is about power, reward and punishment, not understanding. While this may be effective as a measure of behavioural control, it avoids negotiating important conditions that will support life long empowerment rather than temporary obedience. Kohl illustrates that “choice” is not divorced from social context and that social contexts are so deeply internalised as to effectively inhibit potential opportunities to “choose” to do or not do something – in this case, learn. How can you “choose” to learn/accept something that you deem offensive or toxic to your being? The only expression of personal agency in this context is one of pure will. It is not so much a choice as it is an imperative. The answer? Kohl suggests probing the sources of “not learning” and creating a context that may validate and/or illuminate the learners context. This opens up learning opportunities for teacher and student and provides a dynamic space of exchange where previously there was only silence.

In addition to it’s pedagogical value, this piece is also a truly splendid bit of writing and an inspiring read for anyone interested in teaching and learning.

Get the book: I Won’t Learn from You: And other thoughts on creative maladjustment