Deborah Osberg

From representation to emergence: complexity's challenge to the epistemology of schooling

In modern, Western societies the purpose of schooling is to ensure that school‐goers acquire knowledge of pre‐existing practices, events, entities and so on. The knowledge that is learned is then tested to see if the learner has acquired a correct or adequate understanding of it. For this reason, it can be argued that schooling is organised around a representational epistemology: one which holds that knowledge is an accurate representation of something that is separate from knowledge itself. Since the object of knowledge is assumed to exist separately from the knowledge itself, this epistemology can also be considered ‘spatial.’ In this paper we show how ideas from complexity have challenged the ‘spatial epistemology’ of representation and we explore possibilities for an alternative ‘temporal’ understanding of knowledge in its relationship to reality. In addition to complexity, our alternative takes its inspiration from Deweyan ‘transactional realism’ and deconstruction. We suggest that ‘knowledge’ and ‘reality’ should not be understood as separate systems which somehow have to be brought into alignment with each other, but that they are part of the same emerging complex system which is never fully ‘present’ in any (discrete) moment in time. This not only introduces the notion of time into our understanding of the relationship between knowledge and reality, but also points to the importance of acknowledging the role of the ‘unrepresentable’ or ‘incalculable’. With this understanding knowledge reaches us not as something we receive but as a response, which brings forth new worlds because it necessarily adds something (which was not present anywhere before it appeared) to what came before. This understanding of knowledge suggests that the acquisition of curricular content should not be considered an end in itself. Rather, curricular content should be used to bring forth that which is incalculable from the perspective of the present. The epistemology of emergence therefore calls for a switch in focus for curricular thinking, away from questions about presentation and representation and towards questions about engagement and response.

The emergent curriculum: navigating a complex course between unguided learning and planned enculturation

This study uses the ‘logic’ of emergence to rethink the practice and purposes of modern Western schooling which, conventionally, is organized around a representational epistemology and aims to enculture the student into a particular way of being. The idea of ‘planned enculturation’ is, however, problematic for contemporary multicultural societies for it raises the question of which or whose culture should be promoted through schooling. The authors argue that emergentist challenges to representational epistemology have not released schooling from its problematic function of planned enculturation. However, if the logic of emergence is applied not only to knowledge but also to human subjectivity then the educational problem of planned enculturation disappears. When emergentist logic is applied in this double sense, it becomes possible to understand the primary responsibility of the educator not as a responsibility to promote a particular way of being, but as a responsibility to the singularity and uniqueness of each individual student. If this is what counts as ‘educational responsibility’ then this would distinguish ‘responsible’ educational practices from unguided learning on the one hand and practices of planned enculturation/socialization (training) on the other.

The end/s of education: complexity and the conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum

The conundrum of the inclusive educational curriculum is that the more inclusive a curriculum becomes in practice, the less inclusive it becomes in principle. In this paper we explain the conundrum and argue that its appearance is a product of what could be called ‘object‐based’ logic which is underpinned by a deterministic understanding of causality. As long as we employ object‐based logic to think about the curriculum, we cannot avoid asking what a curriculum is for. Whoever answers this question necessarily excludes other possibilities. We argue that a relational or ‘complex’ understanding of causality, which is shared by complexity theories, poststructural theories, deconstruction and Deweyan pragmatism, offers a way out of the conundrum by offering a different understanding of process and hence the guiding role of the curriculum in the educational process. In allowing the possibility of a guiding role for the curriculum, while dispensing with the need for a curricular ‘end’, complex logic can inform an understanding of curriculum which succeeds where humanistic education in its various forms has failed.