Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Introduction
Over the past few years, a range of key notions began to signal the shape, process and
content of the transformation project at the university. These are reflected in the
Vision 2020 Strategic Plan 1 around three sets of interrelated ideas: to define
NMMUs academic purpose and identity; revisit its strategic directional statements;
and determine [the following] strategic priorities that will secure the long-term
sustainability of the institution:
1. Formulate and implement an integrated strategic academic plan and
distinctive knowledge paradigm2.
Our Vision: To be a dynamic African university, recognised for its leadership in generating cuttingedge knowledge for a sustainable future. Our Mission: To offer a diverse range of quality
educational opportunities that will make a critical and constructive contribution to regional, national
and global sustainability. To achieve our vision and mission, we will ensure that: Our values inform
and define our institutional ethos and distinctive educational purpose and philosophy. We are
committed to promoting equity of access and opportunities so as to give students the best chance of
success in their pursuit of lifelong learning and diverse educational goals. We provide a vibrant,
stimulating and richly diverse environment that enables staff and students to reach their full potential.
We develop graduates and diplomates to be responsible global citizens capable of critical reasoning,
innovation, and adaptability We create and sustain an environment that encourages and supports a
vibrant research, scholarship and innovation culture. We engage in mutually beneficial partnerships
locally, nationally and globally to enhance social, economic, and ecological sustainability
2 See SARCHi proposal, 2012: The distinctive knowledge paradigm referred to in this priority area
requires critical thinking, open-endedness, and the primacy of rational discourse ...; it promotes
(t)he idea of the University as an open society of scholars committed to the production and
dissemination of knowledge that can have a liberating effect on our world; and includes a
commitment to the application of knowledge to advance democracy, social justice, public good and
liberation of the human condition from all forms of discrimination and injustice. The development of
this distinctive knowledge paradigm is critically linked to the pedagogy of those who teach. Thus it is
explicitly stated in V2020 that [w]e adopt a humanising pedagogical approach that respects and
acknowledges diverse knowledge traditions and engages them in critical dialogue in order to nurture a
participative approach to problem-posing and -solving, and the ability to contribute to a multi-cultural
society.
1
The strategic plan further elaborates on the multi-layered and complex spaces
within the university by arguing for an alignment between institutional strategic
planning and the following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Central to a humanising pedagogy is the responsibility of the individual to the wider society, as is
evident in the vision and mission statements of University as well as the Faculty of Education (see end
of this statement), and the Universitys stated values of responsibility, Ubuntu, and sustainability.
3
Vision 2020 goes on to specify that [b]y 2020, the teaching and learning environment at NMMU is
characterised by students and staff being challenged to strive for excellence and success through an
emphasis on a humanising pedagogy (emphasis added). Furthermore, it commits to Develop[ing]
an understanding of a humanising pedagogy and strategies to give effect to this approach (Strategic
Objective 2.1). The remaining four objectives of Priority #2 (2.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.5) further delineate
the teaching and learning challenges (i.e. effective teaching, learning and assessment practices;
seamless learning environments in and out of the classroom; professional and staff development; and
up-to-date learning teaching, and social environments) Each of these challenges fits within the
development of a theory and practice of humanising pedagogies and are obviously pieces of what the
Research Chair would undertake. Beyond this, however, and again in reference to Strategic Priority
#1, the Chair would strive to reach out to and learn from partners in schools, locally, nationally, and
internationally (see below under Partnerships for further details).
Page 32.
carefully considered academic and practical approaches that at once subject the
teaching and learning encounter (including supervision) to the demands of the
human; and, at the same time, de-authorise hierarchical knowledge systems within
the disciplines. Swartz (2011) is right to argue that NMMU operates against the
backdrop of new legal, employment and administrative arrangements, with little
attention given to the definitional parameters and nature of the academy and the
very idea of the University. This is probably true for most universities in South
Africa. The enkindled argument of Swartz (ibid) thus commits the academy to the
application of knowledge (across the disciplines) to advance democracy, social
justice, public good and liberation of the human condition from all forms of
discrimination and injustice. He, to my mind, is concerned about the
transformation of the social structure of the academic endeavour. These concerns
are shared by the university principals and communities of Fort Hare and the
Universities of the Free State and Stellenbosch, to name a few. It is interesting to
note that in all four cases, pedagogy emerges as a central leverage point; in the case
of Fort Hare and NMMU, humanizing pedagogies signal this position. Post-conflict
and reconciliation pedagogies do so at the UFS, whilst pedagogies of hope play a
similar role at SUN. In these cases the link between pedagogy and the academic,
engagement, intellectual and research project of universities is, at least at the level of
strategic intent, established. This is not the case in wider university communities
where so-called progressive discourses simply play themselves out as language
games; masking the real transformation required.
Freire, in his Pedagogy of Hope (1992: 9) captures one of the primary tasks of a
progressive educator as unveiling opportunities of hope which in the context of
critical theory, inhabits the space within contradictions that can only be exposed by a
reflexive dialectic. This is necessary, according to Freire (1993: xi) because we have to
recognize multiple constructions of power and authority in a society riven by
inequalities [and therefore] there must be a growing recognition of new forms of
subjectivity and new strategies of emancipatory praxis which are derived from non4
Western settings The teaching and learning encounter, in this scheme, is rooted in
the everyday-life of the university. Pedagogy thus exceeds the lecture rooms and
refers to educational, social and institutional encounters within and across all
university practices; inclusive of the curriculum as an institution. Jansens (2009)
notion of the curriculum as an institution in higher education suggest an
understanding of knowledge encoded in the dominant beliefs, values and
behaviours deeply embedded in all aspects of institutional life; the discursive
patterns that reflects an understanding by the institution dwellers of the particular
link between knowledge and authority, about who possesses knowledge to act on and
against others. The knowledge generation processes linked to research is in part the
formalised expression of embedded knowledge; which together with pedagogy
structures the universitys dispositions towards community engagement. If we add to
this an understanding of institutional culture as "the deeply embedded patterns of
organizational behaviour and the shared values, assumptions, beliefs, or ideologies
that members have about their organization or its work" (Peterson & Spencer, 1991,
p. 142), we are in a position to argue for a constitutive relationship between
pedagogy, institutional culture, teaching and learning, research and community
engagement.
Humanising Pedagogy
Humanizing pedagogy is a species of critical pedagogy (see xx, xx, xx), in the
Freirian tradition as intimated in the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. It is, today, located
amongst an infinite variety of pedagogies: pedagogy of hope; pedagogy of discomfort;
pedagogy of hospitality; pedagogy of hauntology; pedagogy of mourning; pedagogy of
reconciliation; pedagogy of possibilities; etc. In a sense, pedagogy is at risk of
becoming an empty signifier. However, if we think of pedagogy as embedded
practices across an institution, it escapes the narrow label with limits pedagogy only
to teaching and learning approaches, methodologies and techniques.
Salazar (2013) recently provided us with a thoughtful piece on humanizing
pedagogy, tracing its roots to Freires foregrounding of the notion of humanization.
She (Salazar: 2013) unearthed a number of movements within the literature on
humanizing pedagogy5. From her study it is evident that most authors focus on the
teaching and learning space as conventionally understood. She (ibid) identifies the
following five key tenets as prerequisites for the pursuit of ones full humanity
through a humanizing pedagogy:
1. The full development of the person is essential for humanization.
2. To deny someone elses humanization is also to deny ones own.
3. The journey for humanization is an individual and collective endeavour
toward critical consciousness.
4. Critical reflection and action can transform structures that impede our
own and others humanness, thus facilitating liberation for all.
5. Educators are responsible for promoting a more fully human world
through their pedagogical principles and practices.
The focus on the learning encounter in the literature reflects the intellectual
influences of Freire (xx) and that of the key proponents of critical pedagogy (Macedo,
McLaren, Giroux, xx). However, as some of the recent compilations (see McLaren, et
al. 2005) on critical pedagogy highlights: pedagogy is a much broader notion. In line
with this reasoning, we conceive of pedagogy as embedded practices linked to
teaching, learning, management, research, engagement, etc. This idea is supported
by one of the most intellectually pragmatic thinkers of our time, Martha Nussbaum.
In her work, Not for Profit (2010), she laments university education for not being
able to contribute to developing competent, knowledgeable, empathetic and
democratic citizens. The shortsighted focus on profitable skills has eroded our
ability to criticize authority; reduced our sympathy with the marginalized and
different; and damaged our competence to deal with complex global problems ... the
loss of these basic capacities jeopardizes the health of democracies and the hope of a
decent world. Nussbaum thus sees the universitys orientation as a space of
pedagogy that must cultivate humanity:
According to Nussbaum one cultivates humanity by developing three
capacities. The first is the capacity for critical self-examination and critical
thinking about ones own culture and traditions. The second is the
capacity to see oneself as a human being who is bound to all humans with
ties of concern. The third is the capacity for narrative imagination the
5
Freire, 1993; Bartolom, 1994; Huerta & Brittain, 2010; Keet et al., 2009; Parker-Rees & Willan,
2006; Rodriguez, 2008; Salazar, 2008; Schugurensky, 2011; Dale & Hyslop-Margison, 2010; Zinn &
Rodgers (2012).
Robeyns (2011): Nussbaum describes the capabilities approach as a new theoretical paradigm in the development and policy
world, which poses the questions: What are people actually able to do and to be? Put differently, the capabilities approach
asks which genuine opportunities are open to people. By starting from this question, we will shift the focus of policy and
development analysis from resources (incomes at micro-level, and GDP per capita at national level) to peoples capabilities: the
substantive freedoms or opportunities that are created by a combination of the abilities residing inside a person (like capacities
and skills) with their social, economic and political environment.
Nussbaum (2006) lists the central capabilities as follows: Life. Being able to live to the end of a human life of normal length; not
dying prematurely, or before ones life is so reduced as to be not worth living; Bodily Health. Being able to have good health,
including reproductive health; to be adequately nourished; to have adequate shelter; Bodily Integrity. Being able to move freely
from place to place; to be secure against violent assault, including sexual assault and domestic violence; having opportunities
revived the structure-agency debate in sociology in the previous century. The poststructuralist movement that took shape in the 1960s, though critical of Marxism in
general, aligned with anti-humanist thinking ... human beings are culturally and
discursively structured (xx). The human as a category is an effect of discourse (in
the case of Foucault) or formed in text (in the case of Derrida). They are not the freethinking agents of the enlightenment project. Critical pedagogy, especially through
the work of McLaren (xx) and Giroux (xx), took on insights from poststructuralist
thinking without abandoning the notion of human agency (see also James, 2004). A
new group of post-poststructuralist thinkers are reshuffling the pedagogical
encyclopaedia (see Badiou, Ranciere, Nancy, Malabou, Laruelle, etc.) by taking a
distance from the organising paradigms of discourse, text and writing. The new
materialism presented by these thinkers reject both neo-liberal capitalist
arrangements as given, as well as the political ontology implicit in it. From a
pedagogical point of view, to return to Nussbaums argument, an education for
economic enrichment view students and academics ontologically as homo
economicus. Against this, this new group of thinkers have renewal and
regeneration in mind; returning us ultimately to the agency inherent in being
human; this agency, in the logic of Freire and Nussbaum, is a humanizing agency.
The main proposition emerging from the argument presented here is that human
agency, in a variety of ways, has been central to the pedagogical interpretations of
Marxism, critical theory, poststructuralist and postmodern thinking; even in the
schools of thought clustered under the anti-humanist label. The trick here is to avoid
utopian and romantic notions of the subject and agency; acknowledge the structural
strictures placed on human agency; and acknowledged the possibility, however
limited, of human agency resident in even the most embedded of social practices. In
Badious (xx) case agency is linked to the processes that make the actor emerges
from an autonomous chain of actions within a changing situation and becomes a
subject. Rancires agency focuses on new forms of democratic actions. And for
Malabou, the agency is pre-inscribed in the plasticity of the brain. The point here is
that the possibility for agency stalks all social practices. This point has been proven
by those working within the frameworks of cultural capital and wealth perspectives
(see Yosso, etc.)
10
11
In what ways can humanizing pedagogy inform the social value and
relevance of research?
End
AK
13