Theorizing the youth learning

In the following the main patterns in the previous analysis of the youth learning in relation to ‘food’

and ‘voice’ will be further interpreted and suggested theorized. Two patterns stand out: A) Youth learning as changing but integrated perspectives and B) Youth learning as ‘triggered’ through self-reflection, self-expression and storytelling. The two patterns will here be condensed, interpreted, theorized and combined.

The pattern of a changing - but integrated - perspective on learning can be identified in relation to how the youth describe their learning experience from the different program phases. The change is visible in the many reflections that compare the initial motivation to apply with the gradual emergence of a learning that is more identity transformative and by several of the youth described as ‘life changing’. The change can also be described as a move from initial learning goals that were related to e.g. the cooking and farming skills and resources and networks around job training to more confidence boosting and self-image related learnings that the interview examples in the analysis have shown. An important point to keep in mind in theorizing this is that these more confidence-boosting and identity formative learning perspectives do not exclude the initial skills oriented goals of learning but explicitly integrate them in reflections about how for example the hard work of farming or the practical work with cooking has been seen as important elements.

The pattern of youth learning as self-reflection, self-expression and storytelling draws especially on the analysis of ‘voice’ and thus an interpretation of the communicative practice in the program. This theorizing will seek to reconceptualize the learning processes around finding one’s voice and storytelling in relation to the changing but integrated perspective above.

The question is then how to theorize on a learning that is based on practical tasks, physical performance, acquisition of skills, farming and cooking and also based on a communicative, reflective and expressive practice that frames negotiation and construction of meaning and that is found to lead to a learning which the youth express as life-changing in the sense of having resulted in new ways of seeing themselves?

191

On one level this analytical finding can be said as reflecting the youth learning as related to one of the central pedagogical approaches in the program which is the emic formulation of using job training as a vehicle for empowerment. Focusing on interpreting and re-conceptualizing this connection – between ‘job training’ and ‘empowerment’ (and for a moment looking away from the complexities that the fieldwork and the analysis adds to this) we may ask if there here is a theoretical conflict that may be dissolved in the analysis? The theoretical conflict arises with reference to the earlier mentioned tension that was introduced as a part of the educational anthropological starting point, and being about education as reproduction or as change. This has been theoretically conceptualized within critical pedagogy where different analyses of formal school systems label these as predominantly concerned with social reproduction of a work force that does not question or challenge the power structures in the society – referring to the earlier mentioned critiques (McLaren 2009) of formal schooling as more concerned with test scores than in promoting critical thinking.

Can then, the learning in the program be interpreted as both reproduction AND change? An argument for the learning as reproduction finds support in the sense that youth to a certain degree are socialized to adapt to a work ethic and a set of behavioral standards that are expected by external employers in the local community and society at large, and thus positions youth as laborers.

An argument for the learning as change finds support in the sense that the transgression that results from the intentional push that is legitimized both in the strong focus on work ethic and in the contextualization of the program practice as contributing to social justice and food justice also is found to be clearly linked to the way youth express their learning from this as becoming both physically and mentally stronger and increasingly using a food-system framework for their interpretations - and thus positions youth as agents of change, leaders, managers and activists?

The social and political context of the program can also be argued to dissolve the contradiction between reproduction and change in the way the program’s activities, including the work ethic, is constructed as an alternative to the injustices that are found in the conventional food system – here concretely exemplified in the way several youth see the stigma associated with being a farm worker replaced by a sense of pride?

A recent discussion in relation to this is McLaren (2016) who with reference to his own research in schools argues for a dialectical understanding of schooling as sites of both domination and liberation.

McLaren expands on Giroux’ conceptualization of micro and macro objectives:

Macro objectives are designed to enable students to make connections between the methods, the content, and structure of the course and its significance within the larger social reality. This

192

dialectical approach to classroom objectives allows students to acquire a broad frame of reference or world view; in other words, it helps them acquire a political perspective. Students can then make the hidden curriculum explicit and develop a critical political consciousness”.

Micro objectives represent the course content and are characterized by their narrowness of purpose and their content-bound path of inquiry. Giroux tells us that that the importance of the relationship between macro and micro objectives arises out of having students uncover the connections between course objectives and the norms, values, and structural relationships of the wider society. (McLaren 2009:62)

The distinction between these two objectives are according to McLaren productive in order to pose the important question, that very often is ignored in the formal school system, which is why this knowledge is being taught in the first place? This distinction is also productive in understanding why the youth to such a high degree value what they learn in the program, which can be understood by the way the micro objectives are explained, contextualized and made relevant for the youth’s own life situations.

A further elaboration of which forms of knowledge that the objectives produce is according to McLaren also posed by Giroux. The micro objectives being concerned with the “organization, classification, mastery, and manipulation of data” (ibid:63) produce what Giroux calls productive knowledge. The macro objectives “center on the relationship between means and ends, between specific events and their wider social and political implications” (ibid). These objectives “foster a dialectical mode of inquiry; the process constitutes a socio-political application of knowledge” (ibid) and this is by Giroux called directive knowledge. The application of this dialectical perspective is according to McLaren helpful for students to “recognize the social function of particular forms of knowledge” (ibid).

Applied to the learning – and the knowledge – produced in the program these conceptualizations and distinctions adds further aspects to understanding the learning as being both reproductive and change or with Giroux’ words as productive and directive. The productive knowledge and learning as the learning related to the farming and cooking skills and techniques and the directive knowledge and learning as related to the way the actions are contextualized within a critical perspective on the food system and the framing of the practice as activism and contributing to food justice.

What is important to emphasize is that the way the strong focus on both perspectives is appreciated by the youth and can be seen as a reason why they see the program as a place where learning – contrasted to the high school context - suddenly makes sense in the way it is seen as ‘real life skills’

193

and as specific knowledge around food and eating that youth can relate to and make relevant also in their own life and family context.

According to McLaren a central influence on the way critical pedagogy conceptualizes knowledge is the works of Habermas and his distinction regarding forms of knowledge – technical and practical (that often are seen as in opposition to each other) and emancipatory (that attempts to reconcile and transcend this opposition. An important thing to note is mentioned by Kreber on the use of Habermas in education (Kreber, Cranton 2000) is that “Habermas has elaborated concepts and theories that raise significant issues for modern society and, in particular, for education as a social practice. Habermas has not directly addressed education as a social practice. In the few instances in which Habermas directly mentions education, he mentions it as an example rather than as a main topic. For this reason, the significance of Habermas' work for education is best viewed from the perspective of the educational literature that applies Habermas' theories and concepts.”

Turning back to McLaren and the influence of Habermas’ distinctions on critical pedagogy, a general position taken here is how the mainstream educators within liberal or conservative educational ideologies emphasize technical knowledge (also called instrumental knowledge) similar to Giroux’

productive knowledge. Knowledge that can be measured and quantified, based on natural science and evaluated through intelligence quotients, reading scores etc. by educators to sort, regulate and control students.

Practical knowledge (also elsewhere called communicative knowledge) “aims to enlighten individuals so they can shape their daily actions in the world” (ibid:64) and “helping individuals understand social events that are ongoing and situational” (ibid).

The third form of knowledge is the emancipatory which McLaren points is of what the critical educator is most interested in which “attempts to reconcile and transcend the opposition between the technical [instrumental] and the practical [communicative] knowledge. “Emancipatory knowledge helps us understand how social relationships are distorted manipulated by relations of power and privilege. It also aims at creating the conditions under which irrationality, domination and oppression can be overcome and transformed through deliberative collective action. In short, it creates the foundation for social justice, equality and empowerment” (ibid).

Especially emancipatory knowledge has been favored as an end goal for critical pedagogical learning processes and is defined by McLaren: “Emancipatory knowledge helps us understand how social

194

relationships are distorted and manipulated by relations of power and privilege. It also aims at creating the conditions under which irrationality, domination, and oppression can be overcome and transformed through deliberative, collective action. In short, it creates the foundation for social justice, equality, and empowerment” (McLaren 2009).

Vestergaard and Kyrstein also draw on Habermas’ distinction between the three different forms of knowledge as pedagogical positions that represent different ideals about the outcome of education – as earlier mentioned as one of the core tensions in educational anthropology. Vestergaard and Kyrstein interpret the three forms of knowledge as very different ideals about the outcome of education and thus highlight the existence of a basic conflict between them: the instrumental position, that stresses adaptation to societal needs; the communicative position that stresses how individuals understand and express their relation to the material and spiritual world; and finally the emancipatory position of critical thinking that stresses democratic participation and how to adapt society to human needs (Vestergaard, Kyrstein 2001).

This is in line with McLaren’s point on how the formal school system values the technical/instrumental knowledge and learning – and measures that where the communicative is not prioritized and thus the learning is more reproducing than bringing about social change nor encourage students to find their voices and participate in democratic processes?

Does this distinctive view on knowledge and learning open a door for a focus on the role of the communicative as the link between the instrumental and the emancipatory – as the second pattern data in the present study suggests? A suggestion is to focus on the communicative as where meaning is negotiated and here two main perspectives can be identified.

The first is the way a buy-in is established among the youth through making the farm work and cooking meaningful – what staff calls ‘giving context’ to the different tasks that need to be done or what youth express as motivating or with the example of how Marisol now understands ‘nutrition’

because it is not only ‘told’ but also ‘shown’?

The second is in the form of the way youth is pushed and invited to find their voices and over time experience what could be labeled as an emancipatory learning through the reflection, self-expression as well as through the feed-back they receive from other youth and staff construct identities informed by changed self-images and increased self-confidence.

The communicative is thus mediating the instrumental – to be able to perform well in the field or in an interview or to be able to do a presentation - and transforming it into a more emancipatory

195

learning through the way the storytelling gets more and more identity formative, with the continuing focus on the performance in the hard farm work that through the relation building AND the feed-back techniques produces meaning and motivation because it meets the youth’s craving for recognition.

An important analytical point is the way that the youth in the program express all the three forms of learning perspectives as important, not as oppositions in the way they both sees it as acknowledging their material living conditions and initial motivations to engage in the program because it was seen as instrumental to finish high school, get the money etc. - and how the program then to a high degree via the communicative practice succeeds in making the activities relevant, motivating and challenging in a way that invites for an emancipatory learning with informed by changing self-images and constructing new identities.

An additional concluding reflection in the analysis that will be taken up in the upcoming discussion is another implication that circles around the role of communicative learning as leading/contributing to an emancipatory learning because it is founded in contextualized experience and not (only) cognitive reasoning?

A factor that is important to include in this re-conceptualization of the learning process is the way it is related to the pedagogical intentions – the specific theory of change, the ‘increased leadership model’ and specifically the role staff plays in setting frames for youth’s agency in this process. This directs a number of questions to the other central research question in the study – the role of staff – that will be analyzed next.

4.3 Authority de- and reconstructed - professional perspectives as pedagogical paradoxes