Executive Summary
The late king of Tonga once referred to education as a basket within a basket. This has been interpreted to mean the knowledge, skills, and values that we learn because of our various journeys and which are stored, interpreted, and shared within wider, all embracing cultural contexts which are defined by ourselves and others (Andreotti, 7). Through other eyes (TOE) is a free online study program that aims at educating teachers with a native / aboriginal view of worldwide issues. It emphasizes the importance of self-reflexivity and commitment with diverse worldviews in schools. TOE has four pillars; development, education, poverty and equality. Its aim is to support educators to develop a set of tools to reflect on their own knowledge systems and to engage with other knowledge systems in different ways (Andreotti, 3). TOE addresses issues in current research in the area of global, intercultural and development education that bring about questions about the implications of softer learning approaches in these areas.
According to TOE initiative, there has to be a relationship between indigenous and non-indigenous people in order for culturalism to be present, Marie Battiste defines culturalism as a scholarly posture inherited from colonialism that homogenizes western and aboriginal cultures. TOE was concerned with a pedagogy that could support learners over socialized in ethnocentric ideologies of unexamined Universalism and an accord to connect morally with other knowledge systems. The methodological framework of the TOE is based on ego-, ethno-, human and world centric nested domains of engagement. First, egocentric domain spells out one’s own framings, narratives, and representations; secondly, ethnocentric emphasizes framings, narratives, and representations of one’s social group; thirdly, human-centric highlights framings, narratives, and social representation of other social groups; finally, world –centric gives way to other possible framings, narratives, and representations (Andreotti, 10).
Strengths of TOE
Metaphors tend to build up knowledge, while indigenous cultures tend to rely on stories. Various scholars have tried to make a distinction between rationalistic mind and metaphoric mind: the most famous one being Gregory Cajete (2000). He portrays the rational mind, unlike metaphoric mind as, “describe, imagine, and create from the animate world with which we constantly participate bringing forth the descriptive and creative story of the world by humans” (Cajete et al 2000). Other scholars like Yvonne Dion-Buffalo (1990) portray metaphors as “seeds of thoughts and arrows of change” which are used “to create change moods, form patterns and evoke various mental and physical changes”. TOE arranges a series of visual metaphors that invites teachers and learners to engage with its academic concerns. Metaphors are used as educational tools that explain different forms of reading that go beyond deliberate use (Shira, 143).
One of TOE’s mandates was theorization of identity construction. It proposes that identities are written in a particular communal context; this means we are conditioned by combined configuration of power and ideologies in our background (Spivak, 523). We not only construct and reconstruct ourselves but also those of others through relating and communicating with them. As a result, TOE has assisted learners develop tools that enable them examine their own perceptions and relations, think more independently and examine the effect their writings have on others (Andreotti, 3).
According to the consensus of the European Union on development, development education plays various significant roles in the societies of European countries. The most crucial role is that of enabling the public to participate in decision making about development, creating, and maintaining a sense of personal and communal belonging and identity based on global citizenship in a changing interdependent world and TOE makes use of these principles (Spivak, 513).
Another function of TOE is the innocent projection of one’s deduction when trying to assist others or “walking in the shoes of others”. The metaphors of “trying to help”, “coming to know” and “trying others shoes”, sets out the problem of engaging and standing for other’s knowledge without understanding their own deductions. The metaphor pinpoints the importance of looking at different people’s circumstances even though we cannot walking in them, that is engaging with different people, despite obstacles in putting up with them, might help us understand where our own come from.
Past and present inequalities in power, distribution of resources, and the value attributed to knowledge, cultures and individuals are a concern to colonized people. It outlines the intricate negotiation of power on the part of indigenous groups. TOE uses the metaphor of the eagle, the serpent, and the cougar to illustrate favoritism of knowledge production and value of the contribution that other ways of knowing may offer. TOE uses the metaphor of a river crossing to provide a framework for a process of enquiry that engages mainstream with other perspectives. The framework consists of five stages; the first is where teacher and learner are request to become aware and socially, culturally, and historically locate their prejudgments about a target issue. In the second stage, it entails a critical analysis of political production of knowledge in a given milieu while in the third stage; participants are requested to examine the debate by looking at different voices about the issue in different settings. In the fourth stage, teachers and learners examine the implication of each examined view in terms of power relations, environmental impact, economic and cultural settings. Lastly, teachers and learners choose the most viable option with respect to implications in their own social or professional background (Andreotti, 12)
TOE conceptual framework is structured into; learning to unlearn, learning to listen, and learning to reach out. First learning to unlearn is concerned with bridging the gap between social and historical processes and encounters that have shaped our background in the construction of our knowledge and identities. Learning to listen is about learning to keep our opinions regularly under scrutiny in order to open up to different possibilities of understanding and becoming conscious that our interpretation of what we hear says a lot about ourselves. Learning to learn is to obtain new perspectives to rearrange and enlarge our own and to deepen our understanding by creating different possibilities of understanding and avoiding the tendency to want to turn the other in to self or the self in to the other. Therefore, it allows learners to feel comfortable about crossing the boundaries of the comfort zone within themselves and engaging with new concepts to rearrange their understandings, relationships, and desires (Andreotti, 11).
TOE’s main framework consists of six components. The first component was designed to elicit a brainstorm of individual perspectives and to invite learners to relate these perspectives to dissenting perspectives in their social groups. This component is associated with learning to learn the ego/ethnocentric domains of engagement. This enables the learners to think about whether education is reflected by the society and also allows them to reflect on different understandings of education in their own social groups (Beck, 1). The second component is the mainstream perspective, which exposes learners to heterogeneity. In the TOE unit of education, learners are invited to examine the assumptions and implications of different mainstream perspectives on education such as who should be involved in the decision making process about the type of education and the effects of trying to impose a standardized curriculum and qualifications worldwide. The third component is the different logics perspectives, which employs metaphors to enable comparisons between two different logical ways of thinking about the target issue. The case study component focuses on the complexity of issues related to colonizer-colonized relationships. The last component is reading the world again which invites learners to examine the definition of education.
Apart from making the learners feel good about themselves TOE encourages learners to have the quality of active citizenship which associates good practice with empowerment of learners to take actions for the creation of a more just and sustainable world. TOE helps in resolving environmental and development issues by helping to raise the standards of development and global education. It intends to support a pedagogical process to move people away from one-dimensional, uncritical, and patronizing practices in development and global education that tend to produce inequalities in power relations, dialogue, and the distribution of resources and labor. This change in thinking is important in creating a context where the future of the human race is negotiated in dialogue with others and where the cultural roots of historically created inequalities in power, representation and the distribution of labor and resources are addressed (Andreotti, 12).
Developmental education is a key pillar of TOE. According to the book by Pike and Selby (1988), they suggested that the human potential is one of the keys in global learning. This is because the well-being of the individuals and the global society are mutually dependent. If learners value their potentials, their worldview would encompass other species, races, cultures, and generations. Developmental education is about encouraging the learners to unfold their unexplored and unpredictable identity in order to appreciate other people and things in the globalised world (Bourn, 6).
TOE promotes the freedom and autonomy of learners (Gilbert, 1). Freedom of learners should be maintained during the learning process (Sterlings, 5). Practitioners cannot always be the ones to tell the learners what they should think or do. The learning process should be learner centered and they should have an opportunity to share their needs, worries, ideas, existing knowledge, and experience.
The notion of equality is regularly supported by TOE. TOE is about questioning the instrumentalism; functionalism of the mainstream perspectives in the era of globalization, education should be valued for its own sake, (Andreotti and Souza et al, 6).
TOE has been reincorporated in the re-conceptualization of development learning as it creates a link between theory and practice and poses key questions linked to both the aims and purpose of this field of learning. TOE as part of development education promotes the development of globalization. Whilst many academics would agree that globalization is about connections and linkages across the world, Giddens (117) suggests that globalization could be defined as the “intensification of worldwide social relations which link distant localities in such a way that local happenings are shaped by events occurring many miles away and vice versa.” Harvey further suggests that globalization should be seen as being about the interdependence of societies on a world scale, the links that are and can be made globally between people, nations, organizations, and communities. This has led to making training longer rather than shorter and to loosening or doing away with links to a particular job or occupation, gearing instead to key qualifications that can be widely used in practice. Beck notes that learning within the framework of globalization, poses questions about where, what and how people learn. Education for whatever age group needs to recognize the impact of globalization in a global society (p.8).
Global learning is understood as an educational mandate for the promotion of mature world citizens who are aware of their responsibility and able to participate in it. It aims at transferring key qualifications and competencies to deal sensibly and effectively with the conditions of a global society Hertmeyer and Dobson argues that globalization of trade creates ties based on “chains of cause and effect that prompts obligations of justice, rather than sympathy, pity or beneficence.” He argues that acts grounded on moral basis are easily withdrawn, end up producing unequal power relations, and increase the vulnerability of the recipient (Dobson, 12) making a distinction between being human and being a citizen; being a human raises the issues of morality while being a citizen raises political issues (Dobson, 13). TOE advocates for the unity of cultures based on respect and understanding of each culture this promotes globalization, which can be used as a platform for improving relations of countries that were once enemies.
TOE was created to enable educators develop an understanding of how language and systems of belief work. It also enables them identify how different groups understand issues related to development and their implications for the development agenda. Educators are also able to identify an ethics for improved dialogue, engagement and mutual learning (Andreotti and Souza et al, 8).
Like OSDE, TOE is based on scientific knowledge that is objective and neutral. TOE implies testing to produce a universal truth that is complete. TOE has provided a platform in which developing countries can acquire education which is badly needed to eliminate poverty and promote development. The fact that, TOE allows the learner to have the freedom to think critically and develop their own perspectives on education; it grooms the learner to develop creativity skills, creativity is the hallmark of technology. Unique ideas help to improve the level of technology because better and efficient methods of technology are established (Andreotti, 17).
Weaknesses of TOE
Fear of cultural essentialism and identity politics emerged during the development of TOE. The opposition of the two perspectives provoked readings based on hierarchical binaries where learners refused to engage in the exercise because a middle ground was not established. Another challenge of TOE was the ability of the project to draw attention to the existence of the nature of knowledge and reality without losing sight of diversity and complexity inherent and external to these different logics.
Romantic aboriginal views occur when the indigenous views did not match expectations, which lead to the triggering of a defensive response. TOE project did not address this issue as the authors thought they had no position that they could safely place themselves. The resource downplays the effect of the violence of non-indigenous people hence romanticizing non-indigenous knowledge (Andreotti, 217).
TOE has does not offer a balance of perspectives this is because the authors thought that no educational practice or theory is balanced. They argued that every educational practice is rooted in theoretical/ philosophical assumptions with frames of references that are embedded within specific cultural logics. According to the authors if an educational practice is presented as neutral, it is unaware of its theoretical roots and hence it is uncritical and unaccountable (Apple et al., 260).
TOE encourages the feeling of guilt according to the authors of TOE this could be seen as a natural first stage of the learning process as its focal point is on sanctioned ignorance and historical violence and how the next stage of the learning process could transform this guilt in to something more productive. The authors believe that learner should be provided with the skill to negotiate conflict in dialogue with others as it forms the foundation for the educational processes (Andreotti, 27).
A challenge that has been replicated in the TOE project is inability to develop a pedadogy that is committed to go beyond culturalism. According to Max Webber (1967), people are emotionally bound to their culture and this culture creates their identity and dictates what they should do. A culturalist is considered as a hard liner and puts the norms and values of his or her own culture above everything to engage with such an individual to convince them to consider multiculturism is hard. TOE relies on the concept of diversity in culture and the exchange of viewpoints hence the project found it hard to engage with cultures that do not tolerate the existence of other cultures.
A broad range of participants beyond the initially intended target group uses the resource, no adaptability or accompanying measures are proposed. This one-size-fits-all format can lead to variable results in the learning process (Gilbert et al., 41).on the other hand, Venro, suggests that an educational resource should illustrate and reduce complexity of global processes while avoiding over-simplification and reinforcement or creation of stereotypes (Gilbert, et al., 42). The complexity of identities is a prominent topic in the methodology section of TOE, where the complex and fluid process of social construction is illustrated through various hands that write one’s identities. However, the outlined complexity of both indigenous and western groups and opinions remain limited. The group of indigenous people is defined in opposition to the colonizers. This seems problematic not only regarding the negative and victimizing perspective of this group, but it leaves other groups that have been colonized.
Conclusion
TOE attempts to provide a pedagogical framework informed by postcolonial theory that supported the commitment with epistemological pluralism among the non-indigenous learning communities in ways that challenged both absolute universalism and absolute relativism. The project revealed the problem of maintaining theoretical consistency in pedagogical work. There was also a crisis in trying to merge the application of theory and the theorization of practice. The general view is that TOE has generated a universal tool that can be used by learners irrespective of their race. Andreotti specified that critical literacy is based on the assumptions that all knowledge is partial and incomplete, constructed in our contexts, cultures and experiences.
Therefore we lack the knowledge constructed in other contexts, cultures and experiences. So we need to engage with our own and others perspectives to learn and transform our views, identities and relationships to think otherwise. However, there is no universal recipe that will serve all contexts, it’s therefore important to be aware that global learning is appropriate to certain contexts and in order to understand it, a complex web of cultural and material processes needs to be scrutinized.
According to Dobson (2006) any educational framework has its challenges, as discussed above the weaknesses of TOE are intricate and cannot be avoided. The authors of TOE lament that if they were to focus on maintaining equilibrium, very important concepts of the project would have to be omitted. While TOE has a strong potential to open people’s minds to various and possibly new viewpoints on development issues, it can highlight binaries between what might be regarded as westerners and indigenous among some participants, as can be observed in certain learning journal entries. Andreotti’s conception of development education, based on historical “western” colonization and the individual learning process tends to reinforce a worldwide view of a separated and divided humanity, which leaves little space for collective change and action.
Works Cited
Andreotti, Vanessa. Soft versus critical global citizenship. Policy and practice, 2006, P. 3
Andreotti, Vanessa. Theory without practice is idle, practice without theory is blind. Developmental education journal, 2006, 12(3) p7-10
Andreotti, Vanessa. The contributions of post colonial theory to development education. DEA think places London; DEA, 2007, Retrieved from www.dea.org.uk/thinkpleces accessed December 2013
Andreotti, Vanessa. Engaging with other knowledge systems; the through other eyes initiative. 2011, Pg 217-239. Palgrave Macmillan. London
Andreotti, V, and Souza, M. Learning to read the world through other eyes. The development education journal, 2006, 12(3) 6-10.
Apple, M, Kenway, J. Singh, M. Globalizing education; policies, pedagogies and politics. New York. Peter Lang. Journal for international relations, 2005, 19(3); 259-273.
Beck, U. What is globalization? Cambridge; polity press, 2000.
Bourn, D. Development education. Towards a reconceptualisation. International journal of development education and global learning, 2008, 1; 5-22
Dobson, A. Globalization, cosmopolitanism and the environment, 2005.
Gilbert, J. Catching the knowledge wave? NZCER: Wellington, 2005.
Shiva, V. The greening of global reach. The geopolitics reader: Routledge, 1998, pg143-230.
Spivak, G. Death of a discipline. New York: Colombia university press, 2003.
Spivak, G. Wrighting wrongs. The south Atlantic quarterly, 2004, 103(2/3); 523-528.
Sterling, S. Sustainable education; revisioning learning and change. Green books. United Kingdom, 2001. Accessed on December 2013 www.throughothereyes.org.uk/freecourse.php.
