Learning communities for the next century are more about harmony than solidarity or unity. They are, quite simply, collections of individuals who are bound together by natural will and a set of shared ideas and ideals. In his work titled Nichomachean Ethics, Aristotle explains that community is not so much about unity as it is about harmony (Aristotle, trans. 1980). Harmonious groups of people are frequently described by social, religious, political, scientific and moral philosophers and scientists as groups within organizational, political or moral frames. Empirical, modern and post-modern philosophical perspectives root theory and practice in community study to present a sometimes bewildering array of definitions. Our definition is simple and embodies post modern thinking in a modern technological environment.
Philosophers will notice that the teleological nature of our definition is partly weaved from Kantian principles that accredit people with the capacity to embody a rational, autonomous will (willpower). Quite simply, we believe that learners and everyone within a learning community (including teachers and administrators) has a will to do what is "right" and "good" in accordance with group-set values and ethical principles, for example, such as to "do no harm" to each other. These relationships exemplify moral reasoning, not instrumental reason. We contend with Kant that the will manisfests in a developed learning community when the "I" considers the "We" (Honderich, 1995, p. 439). To support discourse within the community we consider "the power of (virtual) technology to reconfigure social space and social interaction (Stone, 1992, p. 86). Interaction is key - and interaction depends on many modes of face to face and mediated (electronic) communication.
Our view of a learning community depends not on libertarian constructs but on autonomous, independent individuals engaged by influencing each other within a learning process. This view depends a new concept of community, technology and learning. Relationships occur via many non-traditional (electronic) or non-mediated language discourse(s) within environments. For example, we have all experienced developing a telephone relationship with someone in another office and only much later put a face to the voice. "The problem is to create a system in which people can enter into relations that are determined by problems or shared ambitions rather than by rules or structure (Heckscher, 1994, p. 24). Community requires a highly interactive, loosely structured organization with tightly knit relations based on personal persuasion and interdependence:
The networking of individuals from technically [and artistically] separate areas [happens] to the extent that clear external boundaries of the organization [community] become faintly magical (Nohria and Berkely, 1994, p. 115).
We hold this concept of community in contrast to the 'closed' community of 'empowered' individuals currently espoused in much current management theory rhetoric. Closed communities emphasizing organizational cultures embody a set of corporate values "that restrict the range of strategic flexibility to anchor the community (Heckscher, 1994, p. 30). We maintain that, unlike most oranizational cultural communities, a learning community must be open&emdash;allowing learners and educators to engage in any learning opportunity with whomever they choose, from among many sources. This will permit everyone to develop relationships with other learners and educators outside the traditional boundaries of the school.
|
|