Pedagogy of Hospitality: Educating for Deep Democracy The internal narrative (updated 2/6/2013) I.

Life-Worthy: Living and Learning are Synonymous The Pedagogy of Hospitality (POH) implies the learning of ideas and skills that are life-worthy. Life-worthiness implies the testing of the ideas and skills that one learns against the backdrop of ones own experience: this in turn points to the fundamentally existential, or phenomenological character of the pedagogy of hospitality. It further implies that any subject matter can be taught in a life-worthy way. This is to be contrasted with aboutism, i.e., subject matter taught from the object standpoint (this is about). This opens the door to the importance of lived experience in the educational process for authentic education to transpire. This distinction seems especially important in andragogic education, less important in pedagogic education aimed at children. In essence this means that the more adult the learning/living, the more lived experience of the learner factors into the learning process. In a pedagogic environment, the role of the teacher is emphasized and necessary for determining boundaries and structures. In the andragogic environment (space), boundaries and rules are less stringently enforced by the authoritative teacher. A key figure here is D.H. Lawrence. Note this description of his approach: Note the following quote from the OSHO Online Library concerning the key pedagogical thoughts of D.H. Lawrence:
D.H. Lawrence was very much against your so-called education it is not education, it is mis-education. Real education can only be based on love, not on knowledge. Real education cannot be utilitarian, real education cannot be of the marketplace. Not that real education will not give you knowledge; first, real education will prepare your heart, your love, and then whatever knowledge is needed to pass through life will be given to you, but that will be secondary. And it will never be overpowering; it will not be more valuable than love. Whenever there is a possibility of any conflict between love and knowledge, real education will help you to be ready to drop your knowledge and move with your love; it will give you courage, it will give you adventure. It will give you space to live, accepting all risks, insecurities; it will help you to be ready to sacrifice yourself if love demands it. --OSHO Online Library http://www.osho.com/online-library-love-energy-lawrence-education-b96cfe05-4b4.aspx

Although not using the term hospitality here, Lawrence seems to be addressing the hospitable environment. The interchangeability of living and learning implies that true learning is always moment to moment. To use Lawrences words, the focus is on this movement of learninga movement that takes one on a journey and gives one the courage and space to change. An important part of this process is permission that the hospitable environment allows the strange, outsider, unique, solitary voice to contribute to the learning experience. By tending

toward the dissolution of authority in the hospitable learning environment, the way is open to attend to each person as fully as possible in the movement toward authentic education. This is the entry point for the attribute of respect in the authentic learning environment. The pedagogy focuses on initiative, self-starting, student-centered learning that promotes the idea that everyone is a teacher. Similarly, as much as practicable, the students independently make their own decisions. This form of education is focused on fitting the student, rather than educating student to fit our ideals of what they should know. As such, it is thoroughly democratic; in fact, the teaching of democratic consciousness is a key goal of the pedagogy of hospitality; we may say that is anti-doctrinaire. If the goal of the educational experience is to change the world, then that change must be modeled in the learning environment itself. The ideal environment for the pedagogy of hospitality is a cross-generational one in which more mature students may assume something of a mentorship role for less mature, or advanced, ones. This mentorship is based on the wisdom of maturity, not the I.Q. or intellectual prowess of a particular student. Summarizing: The pedagogy of hospitality represents the de-absolutizing of rationality, what we might term the tyranny of the intellect over the body. This means that the pedagogy is not from the neck up, rather it is holisticand includes the intellect and emotions. As education moves more and more toward a rigid, impacting of facts, mode; the context of hospitality itself seems less and less important. An industrial form of education, designed for facts, rather than wisdom, lies mostly outside the scope of the pedagogy of hospitality. II. Living/Learning and the Inter-Connectivity of Authentic Education The connectivity component of pedagogical learning operates at different levels: (1) the teacher is connected to the students; (2) the students are connected to one another as a learning community; and (3) the learning community, including the teacher/students, are all connected to the subject matter of the class. We may say that POH is centered in three individual components: a kind of pedagogical triad the teaching subject, the learning object, and the material being learned. The key element here is to allow a space for the teacher to become a learner with the students, not afraid to say I dont know, or I, too, am a learner with you. In fact, we may term POH as learning with, rather than learning about. This learning with implies a crucial role for patience and humility in the learning process. We may say that these ideas replace mastery as defining elements of the learning environment. Here, the teacher becomes more a facilitator to new shared knowledge, rather than the authoritative figure who leads the students to a pre-determined outcome. It is noted that in the authentic community of learning which POH seeks to establish, cross-talk is discouraged. If and when it is allowed, it is done so under strict guide-lines. Cross-talk is defined as people speaking out of turn, interrupting someone while they are speaking or giving direct advice to someone in a meeting.

Being person-centered, POH remains suspicious of excessive cross-talking in the class because it can so easily, and prematurely, shuts off authentic learning. POH is directed toward the establishment of a welcoming and safe space whereby true knowledge may become manifest. It is about the establishment of this space, rather than being directed toward the presence or specific identity of the other. The orientation of POH is to build a viable and vibrant support system around the learning process that is as broad and inclusive as possible. It reaches for that wisdom/ knowledge that resides within each student that can make a meaningful contribution to the community of learning which is the class itself. This educational support system is designed to make the student feel at home in the class. Only if the student feels at home, can class ethos assume the character of andragogy, i.e., adult learning. This implies that the teacher is for the student, rather than adversarial. In this environment, for example, remediation is an ethical good, rather than a moral judgment. POH is a rejection of the idea of a covert curriculum in the class. The pedagogy only builds an overt curriculum with the aid and input of the class. The ethos of the class is open, rather than closed. It is caring, rather than deceptive. In this way, the pedagogy is to be distinguished from schooling. Schooling is characterized by an objectivist mentality that is either/or in mentality; e.g., you either get it, or you dont. In contrast, true education is characterized by an abundance of knowledge approach that sees all things as inter-connected, what we might term an ethic of connectivity. In the POH environment, the task of the teacher is to facilitate the movement of the students from their current state of knowledge to the connectedness of all knowledge. Wisdom refers to that reality of inter-connectivity that defines the character of true learning and knowledge. It is interesting to think of the religious term disciple in this context. Disciple comes from a Latin word meaning "learner" and discipline comes from one meaning "instruction, knowledge." From an educational standpoint, POH intends to affirm this key component of religious life, which is to assume the position of being a lifelong learner. From the Christian monastic tradition, one could point to the practice of the vow of stability in this regard, meaning that the disciple vows to stay the course in the learning community, and not run from either his/her own ignorance/inadequacies, or that of the community itself. III. Education as Midwifery: The strangeness element in real learning POH represents a rapprochement between objective and subjective components of education. This rapprochement is built on an understanding of the partiality of each of these components of the learning process. Neither a subjective or objective approach to knowledge-building is all inclusive; the two foundational approaches always remain something of a stranger to one another because neither should be allowed to be swallowed up by the other. Because any class intends to take the student beyond where they are at the class entry pointagain, it is a movementa

certain element of strangeness always exists. This strangeness is a key characteristic of what the student does not yet know. Key concepts here are: strangeness, estrangement, enstrangement, disstrangement. The metaphor here is: education as midwifery. Like a stranger called to deliver life in the home, the teacher helps maintain the balance between strangeness and familiarity. It is recognized that the overly familiar can be an obstacle to learning. Teaching is a kind of dance, or musical composition: moving between all the elements of the strange mentioned above. When new life comes into the world, it is insistent. The goal of the teacher is to capture this sense of the insistence of learning that may take place in the classroom, and over-coming the obstacles to this insistency. As mid-wife, the teacher facilitates this entire process to the greatest extent possible. The role of hospitality as openness to the stranger in education is to provide the context of welcoming for the student. In nearly goes without saying that this specific learning environment in which the learning takes place should be hospitable, open, and affirming. The learning community needs to be infused with a sense of optimism, patiently embracing the students as strangers, inviting the unique contributions that each has to make. A key requirement for success in this environment is patience. This is the embodiment of the statement: context is everything. In this way, the pedagogy focuses on initiative, self-starting, studentcentered learning that promotes the idea that everyone has something to teach. Similarly, as much as practicable, the students independently make their own decisions. IV. Hospitality: a means to an end, or the end itself? Hospitality is not an end in itself. It is a driver that enhances other goals and intentions. Within the educational environment, it functions to intensify the learning process: to be learning more real and accessible. It is not a stand alone value, but lies at the foundation of other agendas; e.g., service, socializing, worship, and education. It strives for the authentically human in all arenas of human life. In a sense, hospitality points to an open space or environment which other activities might take place. However, that does not imply that it is an empty space, but a rich, fecund one. It is, so to speak, pregnant with potential. V. Redefining assessment In schooling, assessment means assessing whether or not the student has mastered the objective material presented by the teacher. In POH, this element of assessment takes on a different meaning. The teacher still assesses the student, albeit in a different sense. Now the teacher assesses the readiness of the student to receive new knowledge, and how quickly. The teacher also assesses the capacity of the student to receive this new knowledge. Ideally, the teacher assesses the calling of each student in the class, and builds the curriculum around that calling.

Can we speak of a collective calling? In other words, in POH the teacher assesses the potential for learning, rather than what the student has already learned. In this key sense, POH is future-oriented (potential), rather than past-oriented (historical). This entire process is built on the idea of the unconditional positive regard that is afforded each student. It builds on what the student already knows, rather than her/his lack of knowledge. This process always includes a dimension of awakening, or the recovery of pathways of light that may have grown dim. VI. Learning Environment as True Unity, or True Believers The group dynamics implied in the hospitable environment implies a movement from false unity, through some rendition or version of chaotic interchange, and finally reaching group consensus. This is the deconstructive dimension of the hospitable learning environment. This group consensus is never complete, always open to amendment and change. This is especially true when strangers are added to the group. It may also be true when the group structure itself is altered. The distinction between group unity achieved by authentic unity and true belief can be summarized with these two terms: (1) Enstrangement; and (2) estrangement. The purpose of creating the hospitable environment is to welcome enstrangement into the group ethos, and to estrange the dynamics of false unity. The circular movement from the latter back to the former is characteristic of group dynamics and the inculcation of the ethos of hospitality. Therefore, one does not relinquish ones ability or need for discrimination in the welcoming nod to the stranger. As the embodiment of anti-alienation, the hospitable nod discriminates those aspects of the strange that militate against openness of anti-reciprocity. The initial posture of hospitality is universal openness, but the need and proper place for discrimination immediately surfaces: will this stranger disrupt the open, hospitable environment. How deeply can, or must, the host/teacher go in rejecting anti-hospitable impulses? Because the strangeness of the stranger must be maintained to some degree throughout the process of learning, the ideal classroom environment is amoral in the sense of never allowing any particular ethos to dominate beyond the ethos of hospitality itself. An element of enstrangness needs to be always included. This on-going process requires a finely tuned hospitable ethos operating under the aegis of continuous assessment, not waiting until the end of the term for the Big Assessment. VII. Future ideas to be explored and fleshed out A. B. C. D. E. Calling All pervasiveness of impermanence Beauty and love in education Words and representation in education Hospitality as metaphor

F. Hospitality as cessation of reciprocity G. The Host-Guest Interchange elaborated H. Are there different types of hospitality; e.g., hospitality as driver, hospitality as ice-breaker, etc. I. How does hospitality give the gift of allowing the other to be a gift-giver? J. Education as redemptive K. Mentors and Tormentors in education L. Beyond expertness