Contemplative Approaches: Shared Purpose, Meaning, Goals

Over the past two weeks I’ve had several opportunities to give descriptions of Contemplative Pedagogy and Contemplative Approaches in, say, two minutes or fewer.

I’m enjoying distinguishing “Contemplative Inquiry” from “mindfulness” and bringing the conversation beyond meditation and stress-reduction to the confluence of the critical, creative, and contemplative approaches to problem-solving.

While I can talk broadly about contemplative practices, when it comes to ontology, goals, and outcomes, I find myself wondering how broadly—if at all—my positions are shared by contemplative educators.

Please allow me to brainstorm-blog on my way to articulating something substantial. Please also share with me your comments and feedback!

With colleagues I’m currently drafting a series of General Education courses entitled “Contemplative Approaches to…” and developing shared pedagogical aims of “Contemplative Approaches to Scientific Inquiry,” “Contemplative Approaches to the Past and Present,” “to the Self and Society,” and “to Creative Thought.”

Here are some of my initial musings that I’m carrying with me into a round of collaboration, research and note-taking:

  • Contemplative inquiry complements (it does not replace) critical and creative capacities and approaches.
  • Contemplative inquiry arises from dispositions of humility and curiosity.
  • Contemplative approaches consider interconnectedness in epistemology as well as in approaches to problem-solving and decision-making.
  • Contemplative approaches share a service-driven purpose.
  • Contemplative inquiry illuminates habit and prevents mission-drift by re-evaluating and articulating the purpose or the meaning of the endeavor, which may change as problems and issues arise and are addressed.

This brainstorming grows out of some beliefs that inform my pedagogy, beliefs I need to re-examine and re-assess.

Ontology, Goals, and Outcomes:

I believe in simultaneous interconnectedness and emptiness.  This “belief” is (of course) subject to scrutiny, reflection, and revision by myself and others, but it’s certainly impacting my pedagogy.

Right now I’d say a major goal of my pedagogy is to develop capacities for living with intention and agency.

A core outcome would be a more ethical, just, and (dare I say) happy life.

The next step for the coming weeks is for me to probe how other contemplative educators and researchers articulate ontological beliefs and positions. (Nudge nudge! Be a guest blogger!) I’m also gathering data on the stated goals and outcomes of my fellow contemplative educators and researchers.

Lastly, for now, I’m wondering: How might the ontological positions, goals, and outcomes of contemplative pedagogy constellate with those of the Mind and Life Institute? With Contemplative Studies? Contemplative Inquiry? With good old fashioned Philosophy?

Share your perspectives!

 

 

Let’s Talk Pedagogy

This evening, like many evenings, I am curious about pedagogy. As our university reorganizes from departments into Clusters, I am curious to see where and how our pedagogies—the philosophies that drive our teaching practices—evolve.

We are highlighting the importance of “kindness.” We are identifying as “connected.” We are encouraging “interdisciplinarity.” As we develop practices to encourage kindness, to be connected, and to do interdisciplinarity, we must also articulate the philosophical foundations that drive these practices. (See initial musings on “interdisciplinarity” by Plymouth colleagues here, about ¼ down the page).

Commitees, task forces, working groups and Faculty Meetings need to stay on-task, vote, and produce. Where do we have conversations that help identify and refine our pedagogies? (As we seek a new director for the emerging Center for Transformation through Teaching, Leadership, and Lifelong Learning, I hope we will have a home for meaningful investigations of pedagogy. And I hope that we all step up to investigate together!)

Our campus Contemplative Education group works explicitly with pedagogy and practice. We read, write, teach, experiment, and refine our pedagogy together. I find that the more I explore the foundations of what I hold to be true and valuable (or, some might say, the more I explore my ontologies and epistemologies,) the more integrity and intentionality my teaching has.

I know there are a few other people on campus pairing the contemplative (reflective) and the active (teaching) in community with one another. (I see you at Chase Street Market, Reflective Practice peeps!). But I’m wondering if there are more, and how we can find each other.

Lastly, I’ll just put out here that there’s a lot of overlap in philosophy—maybe not yet in practice– between Open Education and Contemplative Pedagogy. They both rest on an ontology of connectedness. They both care deeply about access and inclusion. They both are rigorously self-critical and self-aware.  They both value process and require alternatives to traditional, empirical assessments or evaluations.

And so, I’m adding to my ongoing projects (on teaching medieval literature, on Yoga as a NRM in the West, on mysticism & consciousness studies, etc.) an exploration of the connections between Open and Contemplative. If any ACMHE people want to join me, reach out! If any Plymouth peeps want to invite me to pedagogy-centered events or conversations you’re having in clusters, departments, or offices, reach out! Let’s connect.

 

 

 

 

 

 

The philosophy that drives the practice

Greetings from the ACMHE Conference at UMass Amherst!

Yesterday, in a session on Contemplative Writing, a presenter talked a bit about reflective writing, brainstorming, and free-writing. Noting that these exercises have a long history, particularly in literacy education, an attendee asked “What makes these activities “contemplative?”

It’s a good question and we had a vigorous, though brief, discussion about it. For me: I don’t think that “brainstorming” or “free-writing” are “contemplative writing” in themselves. Rather, they are writing activities that we can use in support of our contemplative pedagogy.

We, I think, share an underlying teaching philosophy that draws from centuries of human wisdom, from “the contemplative life” of various traditions.

Yes, “contemplative pedagogy” means using meditative practices from these traditions, but it also takes as its basis some ontological, or even cosmological, beliefs. Our teaching techniques cultivate dispositions, develop skills, and convey content in service of a larger philosophy—our pedagogy.

We borrow tips, tricks, and techniques from a variety of educational realms. We are not the first teachers to use reflective writing, to attend to the non-cognitive attributes of our students (i.e. their inner life). It’s important that we recognize our own indebtedness to the many educators who do not identify as “contemplative,” and that we have our own robust sense of the pedagogy that inspires our praxis.

This morning at 9:20 I’ll be attending “Embracing diverse cosmologies and practices in contemplative education,” a session described as taking a critical look at the primary routes (mindfulness, Buddhism) that we’ve, so far, used into contemplative inquiry. I’m hoping this session will help us articulate the individual and collective theories and philosophies that drive our teaching.

Historical Diversity and “Reality”

In the British Literature survey, we move through texts from the Anglo-Saxon, medieval, and Renaissance eras. Sometimes, when comparing and contrasting medieval and Renaissance texts, students will claim that the medieval texts, particularly the romances, are “surface-y” and “fake,” while the Renaissance literature presents more “realistic” and “truer” versions of, say, love.

The idea that the concepts, aesthetics, and forms of the Renaissance are more “realistic” is problematic for a few reasons.

First, it ignores how our own ideas about and experiences of the phenomenal world are themselves constructed and lensed. Why do we think that our version of love is the “real” or “true” one and not merely our own experience and perception of it at this particular moment in time and space? People lived within certain paradigms in the past and will (presumably) live within others in the future. I don’t believe their experiences or articulations to be more or less “true” or “real” than our own.

Second, calling Renaissance perspectives “real” or “true” hides the extent to which our own contemporary cultural norms are influenced by that era, which is, significantly, also called the Early Modern era. Religious toleration, separation of church and state, and freedom from press censorship have been central tenets of liberal bourgeois thought for centuries. It’s perhaps be more accurate to say that the aesthetics and articulations of seventeenth century texts are more familiar to us and our perceptions and values, not objectively “truer”.

Third, when we dismiss medieval aesthetics as something untrue that “we” transcended, we can be blind to the less savory or shameful aspects of our own aesthetic field.

Sometimes students denigrate the romances of the Anglo Norman period because they feature elaborate descriptions of the material world and its beauty: clothing, castles, and women. They’ll say things like: “Back then, people were all about surfaces and the external. That’s so unlike today where what’s inside matters.”

What a delightful delusion! Look at how much appearance matters in our contemporary media. From magazines, commercials, and products to television shows about makeovers and remodeling, we are all about externals.

We also must remember that we are dealing with literary representations, not historical truths. But I won’t go into that here.

I’ve written earlier about how studying literature from the past can make the familiar unfamililar. Here I suggest that it also encourages us to see our lived experiences and tastes as constructed, historically informed, and sometimes “backwards.”

These ideas have implications for encounters with diversity. Sometimes my students deride the European historical “other” as unreal, false and infantile in a way I hope they wouldn’t deride a cultural other.

Reading historical stuff can get us more sensitive to not only our own environment but also to all kinds of diverse environments. As I’ve written about here and here, I invite students to see what is familiar about the past but also to play with and within that which is distinctly different, to take it seriously as a worldview with merits as well as demerits.

Medieval texts are more than curious artifacts from before we rightly “discovered” the self, and my teaching, I hope, provides the opportunity for us to read in ways that help us imagine, respect, and even adopt alternative worldviews.

Our pedagogy can do this no matter what the content of the field. What does it look like in your realm?

Integral Education and PSU’s Graduate Program Hallmarks

As we move deeper into the study of Integral Theory and Contemplative Pedagogy and their applications in our classrooms, I have been considering, again, the hallmarks of our graduate programs that were developed by program faculty almost a decade ago. “The graduate programs foster inquiry and critical thinking through a commitment to the following hallmarks: Leadership and Advocacy; Scholarship and Application; Reflection and Innovation; Professionalism and Service; Global Awareness and Social Responsibility.” (page 7 of the Graduate Catalog)

The Graduate Faculty have begun a discussion of these hallmarks and their application across disciplines and departments and colleges now that we have expanded far beyond our small group of Graduate Coordinators, and I am intrigued by the possibility of discussing them in the context of Integral Theory and Contemplative Pedagogy. How might these hallmarks be mapped onto Wilber’s quadrants? Is is important, or possible, to discuss each of these hallmarks as they apply to each of our courses by framing them with Integral Theory? Contemplative Pedagogy? My experience has been that many faculty in the graduate programs integrate these hallmarks naturally, if not explicitly, into their courses, but I wonder what a powerful experience it would be for graduate students to engage in a discussion of them in most if not all courses they take, and to have that conversation in the context of Integral Theory. Guiding contemplation of these hallmarks as they apply to “I, We, It and Its” might create opportunities to engage students on deeper levels with course content and expectations.