Edwards (separation of matter from meaning)
“A separation of matter from meaning, the object from the subject”
“Distinction made by Latour between matters of fact/objects and matters of concern/things”
(Edwards, 2010, The end of lifelong learning)
This is a problematic (and/or uncomfortable) paper…
Surely “a thing, a gathering around a matter of concern” (Edwards, 2010) inherently produces ‘concern’? Asking the question, or am I under-thinking this? Is Edwards only concern, is that Posthuman inherently (for the time being) separates meaning from matter, because Posthuman is incapable of concern, object based – and being related to degrees of virtuality. Virtuality being the descriptor of the lost body of information (Hayles). Then asking us to consider the impact of this debate on Life-long learning? Edwards argument set in this context is not new, but is simply wrapped in new clothes, that being the element of concern. What has concern got to with life long learning debate? Concern being in relation to doubt.
(one argument) I understand a separation of ‘Edwards’ subjects and objects, but am struggling with that concept in relation to learning. If Edwards is considering Life-Long Learning as an educational ‘policy’ then I agree. Or, maybe one day, knowledge will be able to be imparted without cognition. But until that day the act of ‘learning’ will require understanding, therefore teaching (imparting) of knowledge. If object driven or subject driven, teaching and learning will still be valid, but would need more sophisticated methods of assessment.
(another argument) So, the post-human condition does away with ‘human’ altogether. No need to have human subjects, only objects. This argument must therefore do away with ‘understanding’, unless understanding (learning) is immediate, but then why call it understanding (learning)? This argument must make the assumption that posthuman (cognosphere) is all knowing (God head), and has developed to an extent that objects are self learning/understanding. What then do we humans do? Go on holiday? Ho no, I can’t go to Italy and learn about renaissance art anymore!!!!!
(yet another argument) Problem solving (as opposed to learning?) – learning in the context of being taught outside of experiential learning? Creating new knowledge? “How to live with doubt?”(Mol, 2002: 165, emphasis in original). This argument leans towards studio based practice in Art and Design (been around since the dawn of time). Tim Hartford extends this concept in the God Complex >> (Tim Hartford, ted.com). But then how does this fit Posthuman?
I appreciate how you are grappling with the implications of the posthumanist critique for learning & knowledge in these posts, Phil.
I don’t think that Edwards is proposing that we will *become* something new, but rather that we are *already* something other than ‘human’ (as it is usually understood). He wants to problematise (which is different from “do away with”, though perhaps no less uncomfortable) our understanding of education as an activity that involves subjects learning about objects.
For Edwards, the first step is a rethinking of representation. It sounds like you are more interested in agency, and I think there’s loads you could do with that. A few possibly useful things, if you haven’t already come across them:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/2781283?seq=1
http://tcs.sagepub.com/content/19/5-6.toc
http://www.parrhesiajournal.org/parrhesia08/parrhesia08_diprose.pdf
And someone else thinking about this sort of thing at the moment:
http://dailyimprovisation.blogspot.co.uk/2013/02/educational-technology-and.html
I think I understand the object / subject debate, subjectivity being a personal (or agreed) perspective/interpretation of Object. I can see that this is problematic when we need to deal with different perspectives on subject, and how that problem plays out when subject becomes object – which I think is what Edwards is gunning for (as you say ‘Already’ something else).
Interesting that you use the term ‘representation’. I didn’t see that in Edwards (not to sure why), but I do see that (maybe) Object, if Edwards is correct, gains agency through representation (seen from a social science perspective, Ideas etc.). So, is Edwards debate regards Life Long Learning about the dismantling of subjectivity, leading to Life Long Learning having no immediate or obvious structure (or form)? Objects better relating to intersubjectivity?
How agency is acquired is important, can agency only be acquired by representation? I can see links to a Post-Human critique in this argument, a re-evaluation of connections (interesting when seen in relation to intersubjectivity).
I particularly like this: “Objects object, refusing representation, even as it is evoked by human
subjects as a necessary condition for knowing” (p.8)
and
“The concept of objects is seen as very much tied to a representationalist epistemology within which the world is made up of objects ‘out-there’ that we try to know ‘in-here’ – within the knowing subject” (p.10)
Instead: “in a post-human enactment of the world, practices gather different things as matters of concern through their own forms of experimentation” (p.10)
So, perhaps they can’t gain agency through representation, because they refuse representation. But they can experiment, and be part of experiments. Maybe what we are seeking is not a dismantling of subjectivity, but an understanding of what, in practice, these experiments might be like?
Ok – That has flipped my head
So are you saying that an object refuses representation because representation is inherently subject driven, and that only experiment as a matter of objective concern can produce a condition for knowing?
If that is the case where does agency stand? If I’m interested in ‘lets say’ an experiment related to objects of concern, the notion of interest must be related to agency. So objects, groups of objects, and results of experiments of objective concern must have agency as a core value. If this is not the case then why am I attracted to objective concern? This must mean that for an object to exist, representation must be present, even though it is not a condition for knowing, it must be a condition for process in understanding (understanding can be related to abstraction). So (maybe) representation of object has agency when related to understanding (therefore learning), and representation must be a precursor to knowing, even though representation is rejected in favour of ‘new knowing’.
Regarding subjectivity, maybe dismantling is not the correct term? But I do think that if the Subject / Object debate has any credibility, a critique of subjectivity is necessary.
I can’t find your citations? Must be overlooking them somewhere!
Phil, thank you for posting this. What a journey for us! I have been trying to grapple with these concepts too! And I have stopped to look at the premise of posthumanism, in hope that I will be able to find my way through the language used in posthuman education.
I Agree! Post-Human debate, as Post-Modern, can mean many things, to many people, on many levels. But as Jen points out, representation, must be a core value in this exploration. I don’t fully agree with the rejection of representation ‘wholesale’, in relation to object experiment (that makes no sense to me) – representation must be key to delivering new knowledge, object experiment then rejects representation at that point of new knowledge.