Thank you Maarten. I am all for agreeing on the criteria for mutually beneficial disagreement, and I don’t think identity politics should be allowed to trump knowledge production. We do however also need to recognise that whatever rational rules we may have agreed to, power dynamics can exclude or distort particular voices and points of view. Power determines what difference makes a difference and can even privilege certain unconscious biases to devalue particular personal experiences. Rational consensus is more likely when there is a shared solidarity of purpose. In other words, when it is more important to me to know what is really going on than it is to be right. My commitment to knowing what is really going on can benefit from the insight that productive dialogue is ultimately about sharing power. This is what making knowledge production public means. When issues of power obstacle dialogue we need to stop whatever else we think we are doing and listen, because conclusions that are reached by excluding or ignoring the voices of some of the stakeholders are not rational, sustainable or just. We need to listen (and watch) in a way that makes the process of the dialogue itself more self-reflexive, self-problematising and open to change. Our dialogues need to be inclusive and value diverse dispositions, abilities, languages, knowledge systems, interests, and identities – without suspending any rational criteria for assessing claims, explanations, arguments and solutions. I would even go as far as to say that no one should be excluded on the basis of some irrational assumption or prejudice. These points of view need to enter the dialogue in order to be engaged and changed. In addition, those who recognise that they were wrong and need to change their minds need to be able to do so with dignity. Our rational rules for dialogue and disagreement need to be complemented by ‘diversity literacy’ that enables us to ‘read’ the power relations between participants. This doesn’t change any of the criteria for disagreement. Agreeing to criteria for disagreement is after all not intended to exclude anyone, but to create a common ground for evaluating claims, explanations and arguments – and expose fallacious arguments made by the privileged to maintain their positions of power.
Thank you Maarten. I am all for agreeing on the criteria for mutually beneficial disagreement, and I don’t think identity politics should be allowed to trump knowledge production. We do however also need to recognise that whatever rational rules we may have agreed to, power dynamics can exclude or distort particular voices and points of view. Power determines what difference makes a difference and can even privilege certain unconscious biases to devalue particular personal experiences. Rational consensus is more likely when there is a shared solidarity of purpose. In other words, when it is more important to me to know what is really going on than it is to be right. My commitment to knowing what is really going on can benefit from the insight that productive dialogue is ultimately about sharing power. This is what making knowledge production public means. When issues of power obstacle dialogue we need to stop whatever else we think we are doing and listen, because conclusions that are reached by excluding or ignoring the voices of some of the stakeholders are not rational, sustainable or just. We need to listen (and watch) in a way that makes the process of the dialogue itself more self-reflexive, self-problematising and open to change. Our dialogues need to be inclusive and value diverse dispositions, abilities, languages, knowledge systems, interests, and identities – without suspending any rational criteria for assessing claims, explanations, arguments and solutions. I would even go as far as to say that no one should be excluded on the basis of some irrational assumption or prejudice. These points of view need to enter the dialogue in order to be engaged and changed. In addition, those who recognise that they were wrong and need to change their minds need to be able to do so with dignity. Our rational rules for dialogue and disagreement need to be complemented by ‘diversity literacy’ that enables us to ‘read’ the power relations between participants. This doesn’t change any of the criteria for disagreement. Agreeing to criteria for disagreement is after all not intended to exclude anyone, but to create a common ground for evaluating claims, explanations and arguments – and expose fallacious arguments made by the privileged to maintain their positions of power.
https://mindburstwork.com/posts/21st-century-schools-are-communities-that-grow-and-build-knowledge-together/