Wandering Through the Ruins
Be forewarned: a lesson in how not to do things
Greetings all, especially those who attended the International Council of Adult Education (ICAE) post-conference this past weekend (June 4, 2000 ) following the Adult Education Research Conference (AERC).
The following is for your edification and amusement.
Warning: this is long and not for the faint of heart.
It seems to me that the ICAE post conference presented us with an excellent example of how not to organize and run a conference. I'm having trouble continuing to attach the "conference" moniker to this sad event. Host Daniel Schugurensky from OISE had posted a fairly clear description of the purpose of the event, but obviously left it at home. For those who missed the write-up, the purpose of the event was listed as two-fold: to critically examine the nature and connections between university-based adult education and popular education, and to further the development of a global university-popular education network. We were promised discussion and exploration, with a six-person panel to get things started.
Budd Hall spoke briefly about the concept of civil society and the role of popular education; I do appreciate what he has published on the subject, but then he went on for far too long about the history of ICAE. From there, the event didn't just go down hill, it went over a cliff and plunged straight to the bottom level of Dante's Inferno, taking all of us with it. Let's follow the bouncing ball through the ruins.
Keeping score
The panel did not materialize and instead we were subjected to a steady stream of rambling nonsense from people who had either prepared much too much material, like Peter Mayo, or who had not prepared at all (the speaker from Brazil: "I was asked to speak today, after a few beers last night in the pub").
Academic arrogance 1, attendees 0.
Ian Martin from Edinburgh told us he had invented a new definition of popular education, but he was not willing to share it with the audience (we were not participants in this event - a fact we became painfully aware of as the travesty dragged on). He was also clear that his definition had little to do with the practice of popular education elsewhere in the world. It was his definition, and anybody who didn't like what he and his merryband were doing could essentially take a flying leap into the Atlantic Ocean.
Demagogic academic arrogance 2, attendees 0.
Lydia from Spain took the time to go up to the microphone and tell us she had nothing to add to what Ian had said. Thankfully brief but pointless.
Self-indulgent academic arrogance 3, attendees 0.
Sheila Walters, from a South African university, talked at length about the challenges of working since the fall of apartheid in a traditionally, all-black student university. I'm not sure she actually mentioned the term "popular education" - her understanding of the concept seemed to involve teaching her students to juggle so they could amuse family and friends with what they learned at university.
Cheesy academic arrogance 4, attendees 0.
The woman from Brazil contributed nothing, which was sad considering she was the only speaker from Central or South America. We might have expected her to provide some insight into the practice of popular education, from where it was "invented," and about how universities are or might be supportive. Giggling academic arrogance 5, attendees 0.
Sometime around here the host read a note from Andrea Kastner questioningthis parade of stilted and ill-conceived academic posturing (my words,not hers!) and wondering if there would be an opportunity for discussion,as was promised on the web site. But there were still several ICAE peopleleft to speak. The cheese and crackers had arrived, so only a break inthe set agenda was allowed. There was no acknowledgment that the programformat was problematic and needed adjustment.
Insensitive academic arrogance 6, attendees 0.
Many people did not return following the break. Dr. Phyllis Cunningham spoke first after the break. She agreed that the format was flawed but made her report anyway, observing that few academics know what popular education is (an understatement considering what all the ICAE-ordained speakers had to say). She then introduced Larry, who was not on the agenda but did go on at great length, accompanied by an overhead from hell, about a struggling North American alliance of popular educators (do we still wonder why it is struggling?).
Overbearing academic arrogance 7, attendees 0.
The host was about to invite more speeches from ICAE representatives, but the crowd made it clear it was time to move on. Unfortunately, he was not yet interested in hearing from the unwashed masses, and, insisting that his academic friends had priority. He invited Peter Mayo to talk abou this web-posted paper.
Peter Mayo wins the prize for missing the point. He ranted and raved about not being asked to actually present his paper. He proclaimed that there was no room for discussion, because discussion only leads to "shared ignorance," comparing the audience with university students he obviously does not hold in very high regard. He went on and on. And on and on. And on and on. Little of what he had to say, if any of it at all, had to do with the nature or possibility of establishing relationships between universities and popular education practice.
At 3 p.m., two-and-a-half hours into this twisted-aberration of the conference format of adult education, Jane Armstrong got up near the back and asked Peter how much longer he was going to speak, because people were leaving and there had been absolutely no opportunity for the audience to participate or for any discussion related to the stated purpose of the event. Peter huffed and puffed and finally relinquished the podium. Peter Mayo gets an academic arrogance hat-trick, bringing the score to:
Temperamental academic arrogance 10, attendee 0.
Although the host clearly wanted some more of his friends to speak, he finally relented and suggested it was time for discussion. This was too little, too late. I got up and left while he was talking. I felt defeated, rather like leaving a game where the team you're passionately routing for is losing quite badly, because the rules were changed and no-one told them until the game was already underway, and now there was simply no time or way for your team to catch up. You want to save the team from the embarrassment of knowing you are witnessing their final humiliating moment of defeat. The remaining attendees may have scored a point or two (in my admittedly cheesy sports metaphor), but the handful that stayed on after I left were frustrated and angry and I doubt any useful work was accomplished.
Reflecting on Fiasco
It is extremely unfortunate that after 2-1/2 days of excellent and often intellectually challenging AERC presentations and symposia, the post-conference on popular education presented us with such a shining antithesis of bothsound conference planning and the practice of popular education as thoseof us in adult education have come to understand the two concepts.
I have often thought of the journal "Convergence" (http://www.web.net/~icae/converge.htm) as a good source of voices and topics that are not given much space elsewhere. So it is doubly disappointing that the organization behind that publication is unable to present a forum that would foster discussion on the relationship between universities and popular education practitioners. The central question that was supposed to be on the table was around linking university resources and research with popular education practice and vice versa. I suspect there were no popular education practitioners in the audience because I'm sure they would have run screaming from the auditorium much sooner than did I (I was only screaming on the inside). As for furthering a global network, who wants to put energy into working with such an arrogant lot?
On Abuse of Power
One of the AERC sessions I attended was with Michael Newman from Australia. His presentation examined education for activism in opposition to control, and the three levels of control that exist. He also looked at the learning methods and action outcomes appropriate for each level. I understand this framework as follows:
Control by ideas requires critical/emancipatory learning, resulting in conventional action - voting, community activity, petitions, lawfuld emonstrations and the like.
Institutional control requires interpretive/communicative learning, that fosters confrontational action such as invading a meeting, blockading a road, unlawful demonstrations and strikes.
Physical force requires instrumental learning that results in damage to property or violence against people.
Based on Newman's taxonomy of control, I would place the ICAE fiasco at the level of institutional control - commanding the audience into passivity through the weight of its international status. There needed to be a confrontational response to this institutional abuse of power. However, the post-conference audience -- I, like many others -- chose by default, what Newman would call a conventional response -- passively walking out.
I could meekly defend myself by saying I'm new to the field, new to academic conferences, and reluctant to speak out in such an unfamiliar environment. But the situation cried out for someone to speak out, as soon as the host proclaimed the ill-conceived agenda and format.
Conclusion
I know that there is no way a conference organized by adult education students at UCFV could ever be as poorly conceived and badly executed as was thistravesty. This is not to say that such an offering would be perfect. The AERC conference was not perfect either - some rooms were ill-chosen for presentations, some of the session timing was tough, there were sound system issues, and the roundtable concept suffered with such a large turnout.I also understand some of the presenters simply read their papers, while others were in a frisbee-throwing training-mode, the way they whipped overheads on and off the screen. Nevertheless, none of these fairly ordinary conference glitches comes close to matching the cruel hoax that was played on us by the representatives of the ICAE, who should be utterly ashamed and embarrassed. They may have begun with the idea of identifying friends and building connections, but all they did was create a room full of new enemies, ready to put the torch to any ICAE bridge that comes their way.
Don Wright
June 6, 2000
