I’m not much on ideologies, no. For me, they repeat the problem they agitate against. That said, I do not believe debate slows change. Not at all. If I did I wouldn’t have debated Jim. I do believe that an us vs. them argument (and I’m not sure Jim is making that argument, at least not all the time) gets things bogged down very quickly and will typically turn ugly.

I’m caught on the horns of a dilemma here, of course: how can one attack practices without attacking the practitioners and their rationales (or rationalizations)? I think it can and must be done, but I may be wrong, and my ideas of how to do it may result in too much talk and not enough action. I guess I’m willing to accept that risk, until the options are exhausted. I don’t think they’re exhausted yet. I think there’s plenty of room out there to make our case (I truly do believe it’s “our” case–a common cause shared by many more than we might imagine) that education needs significant, systemic reform and it needs it now. That EDUCAUSE and its leaders gave us a platform and an occasion for the discussion makes me feel very hopeful (it’s a great example of the freedom of inquiry we all support). I just don’t think that making the case necessarily means identifying an enemies list–yet–though that’s not to say that there are not powerful enemies of this kind of reform out there. There are, and both Jim and I know this all too well. We’ve both lived through some pretty ugly times along those lines.

I hope it’s clear from the debate and the conversation around it that I passionately agree with every single part of the final paragraph from your post, the one Jim rightly singles out for praise–except for that word “traditional.” There are many traditional structures in education. Some of them are not only worth preserving, they’re the very thing we’re pinning all our hopes on. I think the word “traditional” frames a dichotomy that can throw the baby out with the bathwater. I think the appeal of the word “tradition” as a target for those feeling frustrated and rebellious–as we all are–finally risks the superficial rejection of possibility that we’re all so opposed to.

I know my calls for companionship and conversation run the risk of keeping the current power structures intact. I worry about that risk, a lot. At the same time, I also think that the current power structures we’d like to see changed would welcome and co-opt the wrong kind of resistance. It may be that by trying to evade this possibility, one runs the risk of being co-opted in the other direction. I don’t know.

Jim and I do disagree about the nature and necessity of leadership. I suspect that argument will go on for a long time. I just can’t embrace anarchy. But I’ve learned a great deal from Jim, and from the Edupunk discussion, about the nuances of leadership possible in a rebellion. I’m seeing connections between reform and rebellion that I hadn’t seen before, and I’m really happy to be learning from all sides of the discussion.

It’s interesting and entirely appropriate that you bring up Thoreau in this context. I yield to no one in my admiration of HDT, but in the end, the writer of that era who means the most to me is Hawthorne. For me, “The Scarlet Letter” and especially “The Custom House” go deeper than “Civil Disobedience” or even “Walden.” But I wouldn’t want to be without any of them.

What a thought-provoking post. I have been thinking about the common wealth and deference of late. I think I have enormous freedom at present to explore the differentiated environment you consider here. I have been thinking too about the Obama phrase leading by “the power of example rather than by the example of power”. You are a beacon of power by example!

best wishes

Keith

You’re too kind. I have to say that you have played a very important part in my intellectual journey so far. You are an inpiring leader by example and your work and vision is critical to the ongoing evolution of new media and participatory culture. I don’t think you give yourself enough credit really

Cheers,

Mike

Quite true about the power of networks. My main emphasis was on the notion that people are willing to go it alone if necessary – fortunately as we know, it isn’t necessary.

I benefit tremendously and continuously from the amazing network of people we associate with – you and Jim are both influential and appreciated in that respect.

So thanks very much to you both for the valuable insight you both bring to the discussion!

Cheers,

Mike

Mike, I endorse Jim’s kudos – you write very well about this stuff.

I wonder about that last sentence, though. None of us in this loose network of troublemakers is alone – that’s the essence and power of the network. It may be illusory, but I feel supported in my wacky experiments in the classroom by a small number of colleagues within my institution, but also a much larger number beyond – including you and Jim and many others.

Ed Webb