NOTES ON:
Olsson, L (2009) Movement and
Experimentation in Young Children’s Learning:
Deleuze and Guattari in early childhood
education.London:
Routledge.
[This
looks like the usual stuff with Deleuze and
Guattari used to critique oppression and
capitalism and all that, and then a process of
trying to use their concepts to validate
particular models of progressive education.There
are many ironies.For example, there is a recognition here
that Deleuze wants to break with conventional
thinking, including the processes of recognition
and representation.This
is used to critique conventional pedagogy: but
when applying Deleuze, the author uses exactly
the same flawed processes, recognizing in
progressive practice certain Deleuzian concepts
like rhizomes.
There are more concepts than the usual ones
though, and this poor person has struggled
with the real thing and with some
rather tricky micropolitics -- reconciling
researchers and touchy preschool teachers for
example.
There is a
particular oddity in using this heavyweight
analysis for preschool education—surely nobody
wishes to impose any nasty didactic models on
infants? It
is really weird to hear of kids having to
construct and pursue lines of flight from
conventional positions: doesn't this just mean
that teachers/researchers found a new
vocabulary to object to those positions? Any
version of progressive education might be useful
if these imaginative practices had to be
defended to anybody.If
Deleuze has had any benefits in this study, it
is probably in helping the author as a
postgraduate research student to engage in
critical thinking.That’s far more likely, because it is
years of secondary and post secondary education
that could be seen as oppressive, including the
developmental psychology Olsen probably had to
learn earlier..
However, I
have my suspicions about how this book came to
be written, and maybe how the earlier thesis was
shaped—Deleuze and Guattari just seem to be
necessary fashionable decoration, for what could
easily have been Foucault, had he not dropped
out of fashion.This poor person needs to grind through
an awful lot of Deleuze and Guattari, or at
least the commentaries, just to instrumentally
show her research bona fides? The
background is also clear -- there needs to be
more people with postgrad qualifications in
Swedish preschools, she tells us.]
Children
are very creative and they learn how to do
things like walking all on their own.Of
course, this is not just walking, but ‘the
question of exploring rhythm…[Exploring]
the potential of their bodies and encounters of
bodies and forces…Everything becomes movement and
experimentation’ (5).Children
apparently never just pursue immediate goals,
never imitate or search for solutions.Children
all have their own specific styles although we
usually ignore them by focusing on the goal.This
is a way of ‘taming subjectivities’ (6).The
creative potential gets forgotten and turned
into automatic behaviour.It is
not enough to critique if we do so
instrumentally.Looking at how children act ‘can bring
back some hope to us’, involving a trust in
movement and process.
These
views have arisen from experiences in Swedish
preschools and their collective experiments.Initially,
research was ‘inspired by’ Foucault (7), using
‘post structural discourse analysis’ to
challenge the dominant discourse of psychology
[which seems to involve some rigid
developmentalism, or a 'competent child' model
-- see below]. The schools in Reggio Emilia were
also inspiring [there are some videos about
them] .The
experimental empowering model spread throughout
Sweden.There
is thus ‘many years of experience of how to
question and deconstruct one’s own practice’
(7).However,
there is also been some rigidity emerging in the
mapping of children and their learning, which
ran the risk of becoming new predetermined
schemes.New
challenges have emerged to look at the forces at
work before they settle into patterns.
Practical
resources.Already, children teachers and parents
come together with the desire to experiment with
subjectivity and learning.Naturally,
these are intensive and unpredictable events.Ideas
are shared in a particular network based on a
universe research department.Ideas
are swapped with Reggio Emilia schools.The
work consists of continuous project work with
children and teachers collectively constructing
problems and knowledge rather than transmitting
and imitating.All sorts of perspectives are involved.Children’s
thinking is as important as any other.The
work is documented in photos, videos and various
other kinds of artefacts.Discussion
goes on at all sorts of levels, from
conceptualizations of children, questions of
ethics and politics, discussion and alternative
working.
Care is
taken not to let this work settle into
standardized notions of the competent child,
involving simply following the children’s
interests, although this is a constant tendency.Another
trend is for interdisciplinary work to become ‘a
somewhat confused and shallow trick of the
different disciplines’ (13).Pedagogical
documentation has a tendency to become the mere
telling of truths about children.Different
projects have emerged which attempt to
‘reactivate movement and experimentation’ when
thinking about teachers’ children and knowledge
The image
of the child has been rethought, to go beyond
the idea of gaining competencies: the emphasis
instead is on ‘the child as perpetually
becoming’ (14), and on the relations between the
individual child and aspects of the environment
which include bits of popular culture.Teachers
as co-researchers became a matter merely of
teachers following children’s interests, often
through their own predetermined ideas rather
than merely listening to children.Real
engagement with children is seen as the hardest
part of the work, so more preparatory work was
needed, trying to see what children are
interested in and then setting off a project
[the examples seems particularly naff—kids like
the overhead projector, so teachers prepare
material on theories of light in physics and
architecture].Teachers observe and attempt to
understand how children learn uniquely.Listening
has
been particularly important.Teachers
have a role here to propose knowledge to be
worked on rather than just following children’s
interests.This knowledge should fully grasp that
events in society outside schools are also
important [such as a local construction process]
Proper
co-construction involves teachers and
researchers as well [and this seems to have been
accompanied by a claim that preschool is
particularly important as a way of influencing
the world, as a political institution, perhaps
to allow a role for researchers].Project
work can be turned into transmission and
imitation, or rather confusing and shallow
dabbling in interdisciplinary work.As a
result, more focus has been given to the notion
of how problems get constructed—in mathematics,
for example and in other disciplines [Deleuze on
topological geometry would be especially
suitable for the under fives!].Teachers
have to say why they are working in this way,
and what kind of knowledge and learning might be
developed, what content of knowledge might be
suitable [apparently though this is not the same
as ‘defining preset goals for the children to
attain’ (17)].[the examples actually turn on using
language, incorporating multicultural encounters
and technology].
The main
thing though, is to start with the problem that
the children seem to be closest to, starting
with established problems and then allowing them
to go beyond, to construct the problem in
various ways rather just learning solutions, for
example using the creative potential of
language.Children
enjoy this process of construction.Children
also develop knowledge ‘from a wide range of
different perspectives’, for example seeing the
beauty of mathematics.This
is not the same as transdisciplinary work,
though and is aimed at constructing the problem
rather than ‘working with trivial universals’
(18).However,
and as well, children are pragmatic, for example
in mathematics, or in writing letters [the
latter activity apparently uncovered a problem
of understanding and reading each other’s work.The
teacher motivated the children by making letter
boxes for each child and providing lots of
material.It
was very successful, apparently, and ‘children
pushed and constructed the problem in many
complex and interesting ways’ (19).
Pedagogical
documentation tended to just state the obvious.A new
emphasis focuses on the ‘recognizing and
representative aspects’ of the documentation,
using it to see how a problem has been
constructed, revisiting the documentation with
the children.
A new
concept of subjectivity and learning ‘as a
relational field’ (20) emerged, with an
underlying emphasis on movement rather than
seeing problems or humans as fixed.Apparently,
each
child, teacher and researcher has their ‘own
unique ways of thinking speaking acting and
feeling’, but these [always?] develop into ‘a
collective culture of knowledge and values’.Children
do learn strategies from each other.They
can be encouraged to resolve possible conflicts
[the example is managing to maintain peace and
quiet for the youngest children when they were
sleeping, producing maps and suggestions about
how to move through the room: ‘these maps and
suggestions became part of a collective value
culture in the entire preschool and it worked
since it had been produced by everybody
involved’].
Happily,
all this can coexist with conventional
acquisition of the content of knowledge, since
problems are at the centre.This
is not a pedagogy where anything goes, it is
rigorous, although it avoids ‘nailing down
specific knowledge goals to serve as departure
points’ (21).Teachers do define important aspects of
problems, ‘related to ontological, political and
ethical features, but once they meet with the
children they are left with nothing but
experimenting’ [as if all the social differences
could be just left behind].
Needless
to say, the results are ‘quite astonishing’
judging by the documented material.Kids
have been creative and they have also learned
existing facts and codes.They
can act in surprising ways, but they also learn
what they are supposed to in traditional
educational codes. They
develop new kinds of relationships, which are
‘more singularized and absolutely unique and
still united’ (21).Each
child does contribute [in their own way, of
course—this might include silence and
withdrawal?], but the group develops a
particular culture concerning knowledge and
values.
So the
experience provides a number of useful
resources.[after a great deal of talk up]. [The
conventional notion of the subject as
unique,creative and providing meaning is also
unchallenged here? It is discussed a
bit later though, but the Deleuzian stuff is
used to justify the creative subject after
all?].
Theoretical
resources.Some of those from Deleuze and Guattari
have been valuable.We can
start to locate Deleuze and Guattari first in
the move away from structuralism: Deleuze
prefers to see structures as ‘open-ended and
unstable assemblages’ (24), never closed.Deleuze
is particularly interested in the nondiscursive
which escapes structure [sounds more like
Foucault].This leads to his critique, with
Guattari, of signifying regimes, including the
discovery of the asignifying sign.This
means that there is room for experimentation,
creation and pragmatism.Deleuze
and Guattari want to deconstruct the taken for
granted and habitual ways of thinking,
challenging recognition and representation,
including fixed ideas about the child [with the
first of lots of references to Dahlberg, who I
guess was Olsen’s supervisor, head of the
research unit and editor of the series about
childhood].Their conceptions ‘may be helpful to
preschools’ ongoing struggle with vitalizing
their practice’ (24), but their conceptions are
complex and wide ranging.The
task of the philosopher is to create concepts
[but of course in a particular sense which may
not be grasped here?].
Deleuze
and Guattari break with conventional philosophy
which is sedentary and grounded, and put forward
nomadic thinking, which deconstruct codes and
reconnects them.Any particular ground has to be laid out
and organized as an act of creation [as in
constructing the plane of immanence and all
that—possible only for advanced philosophers?].Thought
is constructed through encounters, which force
us to think, and this is vertiginous but also
joyful and creative [again this is really only
half the story, though.In
Spinozan terms, you first have to develop common
notions, then to encounter something really
difficult and paradoxical, like the nature of
God.Deleuze
himself talks about encounters with avant-garde
literature and film. Proust
apparently encountered a different notion of
time. For
most of us, encounters do not produce radical
thought like this, since we simply domesticate
them by seeing them as extensions of or
analogous with what we think already].
[And this
is where a nagging doubt surfaces. These
encounters describe adult learning. Deleuze
makes a lot of Spinoza's concepts of learning
(for example in his lectures
on Spinoza) -- which Olsen also cites in a
bit on what bodies are capable of. But Spinoza
is a stage theorist. Raw encounters produce affectios
--feelings of sadness and joy -- but not
notions. Until we develop notions we are at the
mercy of the encounters we randomly or
'automatically' bump into. Eventually - but
when? -- we realize that we have something in
common with the bodies that produce joy and we
form 'common notions', early understandings or
generalizations. Not until we have a lot of
those can we get start to maximise our knowledge
from encounters, and then get to the final stage
-- confined to the few and always adult
philosophers -- of getting to ideas of
essences, the infinite, the way the whole cosmos
works. Kids are surely confined to the first
stage. Swedish preschools seem to be devoted to
providing little kids with lots of encounters of
the kind they approve of, although encounters
with routine things that they meet outside in
their normal lives will do as well -- we did not
have yto wait for Swedish preschools before we
developed philosophy. So Swedish practice looks
like it is based on some cultural deprivation
theory that downrates experiences at home in
favour of those at school? They try to make
these joyful at least,although a purist might
say you need sad encounters too. At best, kids
do pre-philosophy at the first stage.
Swedish teachers also try to move kids on now
and then -- but they should really just leave
the automaton to do its work? A good study would
involve asking whether such kids proceeded to
the common notions stage earlier or better in
some way?]
So thought
is creatively developed through relations and
encounters, as a kind of experimentation, but
not as in the sense of controlling all the
variables: rather it ‘concerns the new, the
interesting and remarkable’ [when it is
Deleuzian philosophy that is].There
are many different applications of these ideas,
since it is so ‘abstract’.New
possibilities are raised, including accounting
for contradictions.However
‘This brings philosophy very close to what takes
place in everyday practices’ (27) [a fundamental
misinterpretation here in my view, based on some
notion that philosophy and every day practice
alike constructs reality—‘producing reality and
even producing itself as it goes on’ (27)].
This
approach is empiricist, but not in the usual
sense: instead there is ‘a wild kind of
empiricism that accounts for the unstableness
and continuous production into thought and
practice’ (28) [again, only half grasped in my
view, and implying a vitalism—‘Before thought
there is life, and life can never be totally
identified or systematized’].Again,
it is a matter of creating thought through
encounters, which permits practitioners to ‘use
[Deleuze’s] concepts in relation to examples
from practice’, where practice provides the
encounters.
This work
is clearly of interest for preschools who want
to experiment and introduce movement, and the
idea of encounters and relations as basic to
thought is clearly of interest to the idea of
learning as relational.It
also helps preserve unpredictable experiments.Because
it is empiricist, it builds relationships
between research and practice.[This
is where the whole analysis slides off into
identity thinking].
Particular
works have been useful, including Logic of
Sense and Difference
and Repetition, especially their
discussion of the event.Pure
Immanence... has helped define
unpredictable experimentation between theory and
practice.Guattari’s
Chaosmosis
[and an untranslated French volume] has helped
develop the connection with ethics.In
addition, ‘a few concepts have been chosen out
of Deleuze and Guattari’s vast philosophy.These
concepts are micro politics and segmentarity;
transcendental empiricism; event; assemblages of
desire.The
point is been not to apply concepts to
practices’, but ‘Rather, the concepts have been
chosen on the basis of their functioning
together with practices…The
four concepts listed above…seem
to be the ones that function best in relation to
preschools’ struggle with regaining movement and
experimentation in their practice’ (30).[ To be
fair, the notes to the chapter show the problems
of doing this --it risks 'overlooking and
misuse' (203). But there is no time to go too
far --a PhD student's plea]
Other
resources have also been important, including
Massumi on theory and practice, the focus on
process, the need to go beyond cause and effect
relations [apparently, he uses Spinoza to talk
about affects and how these are themselves being
regulated so as to control the production of
desire: he calls for more politicised
experimentation].Other commentaries have been helpful,
including those which see immanence as the
crucial theme.DeLanda has useful commentary, other
commentators focus on complexity theory and the
understanding of change especially self
organized change which has affected practice in
an unexpected way.
There are
other post structuralist deconstructors based on
Foucault, including Dahlberg again, especially
working on the gaze and systems of discipline.Apparently,
these researchers were the first to think about
early childhood education ‘as part of a wider
context of governing and subjectification’ (34),
especially in the form of classifying and
measuring the normal child.Two
models emerged, ‘”the child as nature” and “the
child as reproducer of culture identity and
knowledge”’, citing Dahlberg.The
first one sees childhood development as
predefined, and learning as decontextualised,
the latter is the familiar tabula rasa.Both
individualize.Both appear in current pedagogy in terms
of teacher supporting the right time to assist
development against some normal curve.In
practice, such definitions permit ‘an extension
of the state, a tool for governing and educating
citizens’ (35).[So this is the paranoid definition
against which modest alternative pedagogies are
going to be seen as generating lines of flight].
Societies
have changed, however in that they are more
decentralized and privatized, and this has
required ‘a new kind of subjectivity’—‘”the
competent, autonomous and flexible child”’ (35),
citing Dahlberg as usual.This
stresses problem solving and self reflection,
and ‘this child is presumed to have a desire and
capability to learn and is encouraged to ask
questions, or result problems and seek answers’
(36). However, this is only a different kind of
governing, this time aimed at the ‘child’s very
inner desires’.These competencies are still being
measured against predetermined goals and
standards, according to what is defined as
competency [necessarily haunts this project as
well?].Privatization
has encouraged this in the form of responding to
local definitions of competency.Individuals
are expected to design their own lives, and
there is supposed to be a continuous process of
learning—lifelong learning (37), extending
throughout a life and through all institutions.
Some
feminists [including Walkerdine] have insisted
that there are multiple discourses in play,
however, and also that it is possible to
reconstruct subjectivity, including through
preschools experimentation.This
then becomes a form that will ‘empower children
as well as teachers’ (37).Others
have used Foucault to criticise discursive
regimes of subjectivity found in pedagogy, but
the construction of events can still be
observed.In
the right environment, children get engaged in
an encounter which will lead to ‘a continuous
process of becoming’.We are
back to the resemblance to Deleuze and Guattari.
There is
more specific related work by Mozère [much of it
still in French] who is worked in early
childhood education and who collaborated herself
with Deleuze and Guattari in the 1970s.For
her, the key concepts are micro politics and
subject group.Her experimental practice did bring about
changes in the image of the child and the role
of the teacher, breaking from ‘a paradigm of
hygiene and hierarchy’ towards ‘collective
experimentation and magic moments’ (38), based
on collective desires between children and
teachers.Mozère
describes this as a new micro politics to
overcome passivity, and describes the emergence
of group subject [I've forgotten which way round
it is] , arising partly from local politics and
the events of May ’68.It
matches Guattari’s concepts where a group
pursues a project through encounter and
experimentation [and comes to self
consciousness].Mozère also refers to different sorts of
segments, rigid and supple ones.A key
role is played by ‘the arrival of the nomad,
such as a preschool teacher who refuses the
established power relations’ (39).Supple
ones never triumph totally, but they do permit
the emergence of lines of flight which permit
new forms of expression.
Mozère
says researchers should cooperate in these
transformations, rather than just intervening in
practice.They
need to overcome their own habits and
restraints.Singularized moments can bring about the
release of repressed energy, as in the emergence
of a group subject.Researchers
simply provide support.Mozère
has also explored some implications of the
control society and the idea of becoming child
[looks really useful—there are two references in
English, one in Contemporary
Issues
in Early Childhood,7 (2),
2006: 109-118, and one in Educational
Philosophy and Theory, 39 (3): 291-99,
2007].Olsen
intends to use the work on group subject in her
discussion of assemblage.
Dahlberg
has also done great work [!], seeing the
competent child in Foucaldian terms as a new
form of governing.She draws on among others Levinas on
absolute alterity to provide an ethical basis
for radical dialogue, dissensus and ambiguity.She
also likes Reggio Emilia and their pedagogy of
listening, which she sees as an ethical form of
encounter.And she likes the rhizome, which she sees
as ‘a different logic of knowledge where there
is no predefined progression’ (41).She
also sees the pedagogical documentation as a
form of construction, visualizing, to open the
possibility of transformation [which avoids all
the nasty stuff about having actually to prove
that the approach works in a conventional
sense,which I assume is the issue].For
Dahlberg, this is a form of political practice,
micro politics or minor politics.She
and her colleagues are keen to resist the
modernist narrative, to restore vitality of
thought and event and ethics.It
leads to an emergent, creative, cooperative and
democratic pedagogy based on encounters and
events.
She and a
colleague have apparently explicitly used
Deleuze to break with ‘the domain of
recognition, representation and regulation
expressed in practice through observing,
assessing and normalizing children’ (42), and
uses the term rhizome instead to guide struggle
and possibilities.They also take the term transcendental
empiricism, which they see as important in a new
conception of subjectivity, ‘a certain kind of
preindividual singularity, where…subjectivity
is considered a process of becoming’ (42) [ as a
habit!].Here
a wild empiricism focuses only on that which is
new and under creation, which matches Deleuze’s
image of thought which ‘constructs and
experiments through making new connections in a
pragmatic way’ (43) [but not at all for the
usual purposes of obeying convention and
reaching consensus, of course].This
is ‘an affirmative pedagogy’, leading to the
construction of a ‘”community of enquirers with
an experimental spirit”’ (43, citing Dahlberg
and Bloch).The community depersonalizes and
collectively produces.It
engages in forms of visualization to connect up
new forces and transformations leading to ‘”
difference – to lines of flight”’.This
practice [producing the documentation?] is
justified by transcendental empiricism.[another
rather drastic domestication—the point of
transcendental empiricism is to lead to the
discovery of the multiplicity, not to provide a
critique of the usual positivist ways of
recording kids achievements]
Wenzer
(2004) has also been inspired by Deleuze and
Guattari using the notion of
de/re/territorialisation, and how becoming is
made invisible by a territory.He
sees an abstract machine as producing specific
models of the child, including the current one
of competence, and this machine takes part in an
assemblage involving pedagogic, economic and
academic machines.The whole thing needs to be
deterritorialized, using Nietzschean concepts of
activity as opposed to reactivity.Active
analysis sees a specific subject as produced by
multiple assemblages in a state of constant
becoming.[Somehow]
this permits the child more freedom to become
what it wants to.Pedagogues should also remember Hardt and
Negri on the active manipulation of desire in
capitalism.Academics and researchers need to pursue
their own production of desire instead of just
reacting, and this includes not just following a
critical agenda but producing their own
subjectivities, adding new dimensions [looks
quite good—his contribution is in H Brembeck, B
Johanssen and J Kampman (eds) 2004.Beyond the
Competent Child: Exploring Contemporary
Childhoods in the Nordic Welfare Societies,
Frederiksberg: Roskilde University Press]. Olsen
sees her particular kind of interwoven research
as producing new subjectivity through
experimentation.
MacNaughton
(2005) [Doing
Foucault in Early Childhood Studies: Applying
Post structural Ideas.New
York: Routledge] likes the term rhizome and
practices ‘rhizoanalysis in relation to child
observations’ (46).This
involves connecting texts in the observation
with other texts, and questioning one’s own
activity ‘in closing or opening up for diverse
meanings’.In particular, this apparently shows how
gender stereotypes, and identities generally,
are more complex.She observes a play scene combined with
some feminist researchers, and some popular
culture texts, all designed ‘with political
intent’ (47), while not introducing her own
gendered stereotypes.The
result is a rhizome not a tree, and also uses
the empirical material differently.
Lind has
drawn on Grosz to see children’s bodies as
assemblages with organs but also many
‘processes, desires and behaviours’ (47).She
sees connections between these assemblages and
others in an environment.Apparently
‘everything interacts and connects: desires,
passions, behaviours, thoughts, materials etc.’
This also helps open up the idea of pedagogic
documentation which becomes more negotiable.She
uses the notion of the rhizome too in describing
children’s projects: ‘the project is read as a
collective process of the simultaneous creation
of lines of flight in between children and
teachers; lines of flight that permits not only
a creative approach to the material…But
also to the existing social and gendered order’
(47). [I
wonder what the kids actually did] The
pedagogical documentation became a social memory
of a collective process.The
processes of (de)territorialisation and how they
affect assemblages is particularly useful as an
alternative to linear ideas of progression and
an excessive focus on conscious thinking.
All this
led to the specific problem of how to work with
movement and experimentation.Following
Massumi,
three decisive points are identified, and texts
and concepts of Deleuze and Guattari are added.They
are:
1.There is already a
struggle in preschools to reintroduce movement
and experimentation, but this needs a
theoretical justification.We
must rethink positioning which does not allow
for movement [with a supportive quote from
Massumi on the need to reintroduce movement into
analysis].Thousand
Plateaus will help here [!] with its
emphasis on flow, desire micro politics and
segmentarity.Segments and positions are not stable but
depend on ‘flows of belief and desire’ which
precede them (49).These flows are never entirely
controllable, which raises alternatives and the
possibility of experimentation to regain
movement.‘This
seems to function well’ with experimental
pedagogy and poststructuralist research [so is
it practice or research which has the highest
priority?]
2.New methods need to be
used to study this ‘collective intense and
unpredictable experimentation…in a
relational field’ (50).Conventional
critique will not do, since this only registers
processes and immobilizes them as effects.This
stems from the claim that critical thinking
simply uncovers a reality, in the form of
representation [relying on a quote from Massumi
again—representation here means representing
reality in the form of concepts-- I bet she does
this though].This cannot grasp collective
experimentation and unpredictability.We
need to think instead of transcendental
empiricism.This involves drawing up the plane of
immanence instead of attempting to find some
transcendental ground: this is a horizon for
thought, created at the same time as thought
itself.‘This
plane is in itself transforming and connective’
(51) [it will be nice to see how this actually
works].[Then
she gets rather mystical, alas—it takes nothing
away from the world, it sees theory as another
practice, it focuses on the new interesting and
remarkable.However, this is domesticated again since
it immediately unites research with events in
practices, and threatens to become a kind of
action research—after all, we all construct the
world].We
can also focus on the notion of the event,
referring to Logic
of Sense.There
is denotation, manifestation and signification,
but this tends to treat empirical material as if
they were simple facts, and this misses aspects
of the event [this is quite good, but of course
these extra dimensions of the event are not
easily grasped by any form of common sense
understanding]. We have to examine other ways of
making sense, focused on problems rather than
solutions.Here, research is the same as pedagogy
again, since both are about making sense [but
not in a Deleuzian philosophical way --maybe
through the phantasm?].All
participants ‘construct and produce sense’ (53).It
therefore helps to focus on events [I bet these
are being conceived here as just everyday
occurrences, learning from experience and all
that rather than engaged in any deep
philosophical explanation of events as
singularities].
3.All participants in
preschools wish to experiment with subjectivity
and learning.A new theoretical understanding of the
relation between individuals and societies is
required.At
the moment, this is seen as a dualism and this
in turn sees movement and experimentation as a
matter of causes and effects, as in conventional
research.Essentialist
claims are also apparent in biological or social
models of the child.Instead
we need a multiplicity of discourses and a focus
on movements as ‘an attempt to valorize the in
between’ (54) [supported by Massumi again].In Anti Oedipus
and Thousand
Plateaus we find suitable work on
the individual and society through the idea of
assemblages of desire at different scales which
interact [sounds like DeLanda].Individuals
are assemblages as are groups.Desire
quickly becomes interactive.Freudian
psychoanalysis domesticates desire.Desire
is about the production of the real, and ‘This
seems to work well with the preschools that more
and more try not to bother about children’s
needs, by starting to wonder about what kind of
features of reality children through their
collective desires are producing.This
also seems to work well with how research now
tries more and more to bother not with what
practices are lacking [] so this is the negative
critique that upset preschool teachers?] ,
focusing instead on how movements…are
produced in practices’ (55) [it all seems to fit
together really nicely].Desires
have been territorialized but a subject to a
rhythmic de and reterritorialization, and this
helps us reject the idea of progressive linear
ideas of learning.There is also a bodily logic involved,
working through the Spinozan concept of affects,
which helps us not rely on conscious thinking.Instead,
bodies encounter each other, and situations have
different potentials.All
these ideas ‘seem capable not only to account
for how of desire in the preschools expresses
itself through new ways of thinking, talking and
acting…but
also…seem
to manage to keep the empirical material open
ended and in movement…[And]
invites one to engage in intense and
unpredictable experimentation into subjectivity
and learning’ (56).[Deleuze,
as Gramsci once did, explains everything and
permits progressive practice]
Micropolitics
and segmentarity.This
relates and expands the first decisive
point—regaining movement and experimentation.Deleuze
and Guattari say that there are different kinds
of segmentarity—linear, binary and circular [the
last one is pretty odd].The
segments can be rigid or supple.Segmentarity
clearly affects subjectivity and learning.However,
it is not a matter of making segments more
supple, since all segments are ‘intertwined and
simultaneous’ (58) [pretty well unresearchable,
then].There
are also lines of flight, and these sound
creative, since normally, segments are involved
in governing particular flows: this can never be
fully successful so ‘something always escapes’
(59).We
can apparently see lines of flight in the
practices of Stockholm preschools.[so
lines of flight do
not follow from analysis of organizational and
other constraints, specially not analysis
involving tracing actual organizations back to
the virtual and engaging in becoming—they simply
arise inevitably, as a form of complexity,
structural looseness].
An example
of a binary segment is shown in the way in which
children are separated from adults, especially
in the conceptions of childhood discussed above.Circular
segments can be seen in things like the
centralized state apparatus which surveys and
disciplines, governs and educates.Again,
‘society as a whole is going to be governed
through preschools’.Linear
segments can be over coded which makes them
rigid, as in the interest in predetermined well
defined tasks, and is in normal educational
careers.
Sometimes
segmentarity can be more supple, as in notions
of the competent and autonomous child, or when
there is no tight resonance with the state, as
in privatization of schools [a bit naive, and
needs Marxism].Educational careers can also be more
flexible, as in the case of lifelong learning.However,
this sort of suppleness does not make things
better, and can be just a new more flexible way
of governing.Deleuze predicted as much in his notion
of the control society.In
particular, he also identified four dangers: (A)
supple segmentarity can lead to invisible
governing, or governing through inner
dispositions and desires; (B) suppleness can be
individualised; (C) suppleness can be identified
with work in small groups, but these can still
be powerful and intense, especially if they do
not challenge the social field generally; (D)
supple and rigid segments overlap and coexist,
so there is no simple progression from bad old
rigidity to nice free suppleness.
In
Stockholm schools, there is ‘a wandering back
and forth’ (62) between old habitual rigidity
and new progressive suppleness.Sometimes,
the new seems to be merely a version of the old.Sometimes
the new doesn’t seem to work very well.But
sometimes something new and different does
happen—‘These are the moments of the lines of
flight’ (63), which zig zag [a clear problem of
tautology here—lines of flight simply describe
things that we like? See below].These
are never the result of rational planning, but
are instead ‘magic moments where something
entirely new and different seems to be coming
about.This
is recognized only by the tremendous intensity,
and very often, the physical expression of goose
bumps that take possession of participants’.
Example The
project had focused on the heart and its rhythm,
and the kids used drawings to show each other
their ideas.Teachers provided stethoscopes, paper and
pen.Kids
ran round and discovered their hearts beating
faster.They
tried to illustrate changes in rhythm.Teacher
documents and then they discuss what they think
has happened.Two girls used numbers to measure rhythms
[larger numbers mean faster rhythms rather than
anything actually metric], other girls draw dots
[of different sizes or density?].Kids
are fascinated by hearing their hearts and also
by the ‘mathematical logic of the rhythm and the
possibility to illustrate this in different
ways’ (65).They also swap ideas although they don’t
speak to each other -- communication ‘beyond the
spoken word’ then (66).Teachers
discussed
their documentation before suggesting any ways
forward.They
had been selective in their observations
according to what they ‘found most interesting’,
but this upset some of the children, and they
lose interest.This shows that what kids find of
interest is not the same as what teachers do.Teachers
rethink
and organize a discussion with the original
illustrations and all observations, and this
does lead to an agreement on what to do
next—work outside.This time ‘The
children are intensely engaged in the activity
and they find many different sounds that they
can start illustrating by drawing’ (67).This
time they try new borrowed techniques.Teachers
‘are fascinated and curious about the flow of
ideas, strategies and activities that are
exchanged’, although this is hard to observe
[and document?].They ask if kids want to continue, this
time working in pairs to make sounds with their
mouths that they can then illustrate and
playback as a charade—the kids do so
immediately, and ‘this creates an intense
atmosphere in the room with a lot of activity
and laughter, followed by many other related
activities over a period of time’ (69) [with
lots of photos and illustrations].
Olsen
describes this as ‘delicate negotiation…wandering
back and forward…continuous exchanging’, an example of a
line of flight.These are favoured in certain
conditions—for example when children are no
longer seen as individuals according to
psychological theory.There
is cooperative work for example in swapping the
strategies.Teachers and kids meet around a problem.The
problem is constructed.The
emphasis is on relational fields and flow rather
than rigid lines.The interests of kids ‘are treated like
contagious trends and they do not reside in each
individual.This is exactly where lines of flight are
born’ (71).The example also shows that despite
careful preparation, something actually escapes
in the encounter with children—so teachers also
have to follow a line of flight away from their
rigid organization and evaluation.This
is not just suppleness but ‘a delicate but
intense act of collective negotiation and
experimentation’ (72) [seems to be teacher
directed at crucial points in my view, hints of
the stage management of discovery. I'm not even
sure the idea of illustrating sounds is all that
original].
Lines of
flight emerge when preschools have been defined
as offering collective constructions rather than
transmission, including the right to question
knowledge and values, and an expectation of
continuous transformation.Nobody
knew the course of the actual problem, and
‘Teachers and children struggle with the ethical
features of the situation to reach a way of
acting in singular and unique ways, while still
being united’ (72) [nobody wanted to do anything
different?].The pedagogical environment encourages
lines of flight, because the entire day’s
content is negotiable, children can choose to
work in different groups, furniture and material
are accessible and can be changed, and some
furniture is been specially designed to be
flexible: such furniture ‘presents a divergence,
a zigzag crack in the interior of a preschool’
(73), enabling children and teachers to
transform classrooms [victim of designer PR
here?].
The
projects focus on process rather than outcome,
not even on supple ways to achieve the outcome
[I have my doubts].Where
there are no pre-existing solutions and answers,
we can consider projects as lines of flight [a
nicely contextual definition, that gets going by
setting itself up against a straw man].The
documentation assists the creation of a line of
flight, since it helps participants visualize
the problem: this contrasts with observations to
check progress along a predefined trajectory.In
this case, the documentation ‘does not rely on
any conscious or taming logic; it is a line of
flight in that it is unpredictably
experimenting’ (74).
However,
such lines of flight are in competition with
more rigid and supple lines, involving a
constant struggle to create them.Sometimes,
people are not aware of the impact of some
higher organizing principle—the ideas of the
leader, or control of resources—and so micro
political struggle cannot even emerge.For
Deleuze, this shows how the micro and macro are
always linked.Hierarchy actually depends on a flow of
micro political movements [or their absence—we
need Lukes on power].Preset
curricula, for example still have to be
implemented creatively. So we can see everything
as micro political, including the kids' refusal
to participate at one stage.
Molecular
and micro political movements are flows of
belief and desire, for Deleuze and Guattari, and
these have to be managed in order to supervise,
control or evaluate.Constant
adjustment
rather than top down rationality is needed.In
preschools, the micro political level is
crucial, leaving room for creativity and
struggle.Kids
are not expected to be regulated as much as
adults by the molar [she recognizes at last].Teachers
can governed by latching on to children’s
desires, even though this does not always work
[as above—but wasn’t the successful resolution
an example of teachers apparently permitting
children a voice, giving way to their specific
desire for a more total picture of their efforts
in order to persuade them to cooperate in a
teacher led extension of the project?] [There is
also a hint of revolutionary possibility and
optimism as always present, just as in Deleuze
and Guattari—and loose coupling somehow
guarantees a revolutionary upheaval].
Micro
political activity seems more applicable than
ever, although contemporary governing hijacks
affect.Nevertheless
schools can use affect to produce experimenting
and intensity, unpredictable encounters between
bodies.Feelings
are not the same as affect but ‘are the
actualization of affect’ (77), a guide, as in
the pursuit of joy.Massumi
is a pessimist about the penetration of
marketing and the media, as in the emotional
coverage of 9/11.Olsen sees this as ultimately
pessimistic, and sees her role as only
modulating these manipulations.
Massumi
recommends modulation, apparently, and Olsen
develops the idea in the context of an analysis
of Paris riots, and the use of violence in
politics generally.If
only politicians would do true listening
instead, before engaging in collective, intense
etc experimentation with would-be rioters!This
would be to create a space for affect, an
aesthetic politics for Massumi.This
requires an ethical stance, although, and again,
Massumi on Spinozan ethics is useful, instead of
morality.Overall,
liberation from constraints need not involve
breaking them.The politics of fixed identity is the
wrong way, and potential should be stressed
instead, ethics rather than morals, and this is
supported by Dahlberg: preschools are not just
technical institutions.Conceptions
of preschool are socially constructed, with
components that include instrumental
rationality.This in turn produces measuring
instruments such as various universal rating
scales.
These
routine uses stop proper thinking, for Deleuze,
managing the chaotic implications of thought.Pedagogical
orthodoxy does this, in the interests of common
sense.What
we need is a shift of paradigm, including
pragmatic rather than universalized ethics,
focusing on process.A
candidate would be Guattari’s
ethico-aesthetic paradigm.This
has been usefully applied to ecology.It is
based on a different kind of ontology.Moving
away from orthodoxy involves choices and
therefore responsibilities, ultimately political
responsibilities.However, we cannot rely on a fixed
morality, but teachers have to struggle with
ethical issues—in this way, preschools are
‘political in a larger sense’ (85).It
also adds insecurity.However,
we must be alert to potential in the moment.
Deleuze
and Guattari warn us of the dangers.They
include fear once rigid lines are abandoned,
residual beliefs, for example racist ones that
we fall back on, and anxieties if children do
not behave in the way in which they are supposed
to.There
is also the danger of clarity, which appears if
rigid lines becomes supple—the example is the
attempts to clarify the competencies of the
child [with a long quote from Deleuze and
Guattari, probably relating to the possibility
of fascism in black holes].Excessive
power is a danger, especially if it exploits
suppleness, but the main danger is in excessive
attempts to control, supervise and evaluate
young kids, trying to stop their lines of
flight.Deleuze
and Guattari remind us that lines of flight can
also produce a kind of despair if it leads
nowhere, and can even become self destructive
[turn to rioting violence in this case].
The real
problem is that children are now expected by
power to reflect upon themselves and their
competencies, while submitting to external
measurements and control.This
can produce a particularly lonely kind of
individuality, where even a line of flight might
not connect to any other lines.[classic
oscillation between optimism and pessimism, just
as in Deleuze and Guattari themselves].
Methodological
approach. This one turns on the concept
of transcendental empiricism in relation to
decisive point two—grasping the idea of
relational field and thinking out the new way to
study it that’s not just negative critique.
[The
political background is interesting].The
discipline of pedagogy emerged only recently and
is supposed to be about the scientific basis of
teacher education and an analysis of classroom
practices, to respond to social change.However,
so far, researchers are very few, especially
those with a post grad qualification.Hence
‘There is been a great need to create a research
field that permits a closer working relationship
between research and practice… where
teachers…formulate
questions and problems and… conduct
research that is closely connected to their
practices’ (92).This is been achieved by encouraging them
to undertake post grad work in special research
schools.These
are to extend basic teacher education and grow
out of pedagogical practice.At the
same time, a suitably complex theory on the
relation between theory and practice needs to be
developed: we want to avoid [politically and
commercially?] just colonizing practice with
existing theory, while leaving practices
insufficiently theorized leaves them
‘described no differently to the way that every
teacher can already describe them’ (93) [which
wouldn’t be proper academic knowledge].Practice
is at the centre, however.This
new approach is only just developing, and ‘it
seems quite legitimate to try out a new
theoretical perspective such as Deleuze and
Guattari’s’. Deleuze and Guattari seem to offer
a new relationships between research and
practice, and this emerges if we look at how
they discuss empiricism and transcendental
empiricism.This will help us in particular to
account for [collective, intense as usual]
experimentation.[So practice is really the dominant one
in the pair again, but Deleuze and Guattari will
also lend all sorts of academic gloss].
Deleuze
rejects the usual view of empiricism as offering
a series of sensations that needed to be
organized by thought.Life
itself produces thought as a result of
encounters.Something transcends the idea of thought
as a cause and organizer.However
transcendental does not refer to something
outside or above thought itself, but rather to a
transcendental field [and there is a nicely
mystifying quote about thought as duration of
consciousness about a self, which probably
really belongs to the further argument that
there is no thinking subject.Nevertheless,
Olsen thinks this means something positive about
‘the status and capacity of the human subject to
use his or her consciousness to comprehend and
act in the world’? (94)]
[But then] it is consciousness working in the
transcendental field that provides knowing
subjects and empirical objects.This
field is also the plane of immanence which
precedes the conscious subject [but there is the
ambiguity about whether consciousness is
required to activate this plane].Thought
self-creates, establishing its own grounds as it
thinks.There
are only different speeds and forces at work.As a
result, ‘everything becomes immanent’, and the
normal form of empiricism is replaced by a wild
kind of ‘that can account for the unstableness
and continuous production of the world’ (95).[So
perhaps I’ve been unkind in accusing Olsen of
still hanging on to the humanist subject?].
Research
and practice are also normally seen as a
dualism, where research explains practice as an
object and occupies a transcendental status from
which it delivers critique.It
implies that only researchers are subjects,
while practitioners are objects [very good!].Unless
this is challenged, we will end with colonizing
practice with theory, even if teachers are
allowed occasionally to become subjects to
reflect: ‘Self reflection is maybe the strongest
indication of a transcendent logic’ (96).At
least with Deleuze, we recognize that theory
itself is a practice, and its role is not to
speak about another practice, but to speak with
one [finished
with an astonishing quote from Deleuze in the
book on immanence, that seems to say that
science is an inquiry, following certain
practices and thus “The result is a great
conversion of theory to practice”.I have
not read this text, but it is interesting that
Deleuze is talking about science, and this could
be seen as an argument that says that science
and all conventional thinking is in fact closely
intertwined with common sense and good sense,
compared to philosophy that breaks with both of
them.If
this is so, the critique of conventional
relations of theory to practice is a good one,
but it seems to miss the point that Deleuze then
goes on to say it is perfectly possible for
philosophy to offer critique from its own
unusual vantage point of having merged with the
multiplicity, united with Being, or escaping
through the sheer effort of brilliant and
dedicated thought, or whatever it is that
Deleuze is claiming].
In any
event, we should not just critique practice on
the basis of a misunderstanding and limiting of
empirical data, and some implicit transcendental
claims which are never fully explicated.This
is a particular flaw when we use statistics or
‘intrinsic interpretation procedures…Methods
of categorizing, or attempts at critical
reflection’ (97).Transcendental empiricism on the other
hand is more modest and more open to the
complexities of empirical data [at the first
stage at least, before the transcendental
deduction is performed?].It is
a form of collective invention [sounds like a
slip back to social constructions of
reality?] rather than discovery, and it
involves a full acknowledgement of the inventing
role of the researcher.This
will permit a collective experimentation which
includes practitioners.[I
think this contrasts with the view that
scientists should be left to get on and do
sciences, while philosophers reserves the right
to theorise about the results, moving up and
down the chain respectively, as in DeLanda] This
openness also means it is unusually open to
unfamiliar encounters.[Actually,
the link only works if both theorists and
practitioners agree to do Deleuzian philosophy?Given
the aims of preschool pedagogy, this also means
that children must also be doing Deleuzian
philosophy?Apart from anything else, I don’t think
this describes the conceptual depth and
difficulty of Deleuzian philosophy—poor old
practitioners if they have to become Deleuzians
as well as experts in the classroom].
It is not
possible just to add theory to practice.There
should be an encounter instead, with no
hierarchy.Apparently Deleuze says as much [in the
book on desert islands], since both theory and
practice are fragmented: it follows that
practice can never be the origin of theory
either.Both
theory and practice need experimental procedures
to overcome obstacles, and one example is the
role of political practice according to
Foucault’s foreword—political practice
intensifies thought, while analysis multiplies
possibilities for intervention.This
will fit pedagogical matters as well.
We find in
the work of Deleuze and Guattari some concepts
which do not correspond in a simple way to
preschool practice, but which can be ‘put into
work together…in a reciprocal relationship, sometimes
in a very violent way’ (98-99) [I see no
violence so far -- maybe the teachers feel some
in the insistence on Reggio methods?].The
concepts themselves had to be stretched [ I
think Deleuzian concepts have to be actualized
or concretized, and cannot challenged by
practice as such – I have never found any notion
of an empirical test for concepts in Deleuze,
but rather a series of slippery evasions,
redefinitions, special uses of words and all
that].Olsen
admits that this stretching sometimes makes
Deleuze’s concepts ‘completely change their
function in the theoretical system’, while
concepts in practice similarly change and
transform into new ways of proceeding (99).
One
example is the notion of desire as the
unconscious production of the real, and this can
be seen in the practice of preschools in
‘permitting children to deploy their desires in
different ways’.This is the positive and productive
notion of desire, and it similarly involves the
teacher now looking for the positive aspects of
children’s production, and not what they lack.This
is revolutionary, changing the idea of the
teacher as an authority or judge, and the Idea
of normal development [but is it entirely
relativist?].Teachers try to see what sort of desires
are in operation, and see them as intense forces
producing learning [so every wish or preference
by a preschool child is seen as some intense
vitalist desire?].Situations have to be developed to
continue this process, as a part of more
productive planning.Desire
now seems to be a fundamental concept in
understanding preschool processes, [after she
did her PhD?] and it also stretches Deleuze
[presumably by giving it new concrete
context—but Deleuze actually uses terms like
becoming in the case of Little Hans?].
This
interconnection is typical of the whole process
she has been through.Preschoolers
have actually latched on to some of these
concepts.Deleuzian
desire is always relational, and this has helped
teachers to look at the relations between
children rather than the individual child, and
how these relations work, for example in
producing classroom work [I am sure the usual
cosy notion of cooperation as good would do
that, with no need to interrogate Deleuze] The
same encouraging results were found in the
inservice teacher training courses, where
participants are given observational tasks, they
return with their documentations, and these are
theoretically and practically analysed.There
is no fixed curriculum, but there are ‘several
important and decisive points and themes’ (101).Again,
concepts stretch and change their function,
while practitioners broaden their perspectives.A
construction of understanding takes place.
The most
important concepts here seem to have been
‘desire, micro politics and the event’. We've done
desire, but micro politics pointed to
the possible way of changing the teacher’s role,
questioning underlying assumptions about
authority, and therefore not exercising
excessive power over children.The
event raised issues about the child’s use of
language as meaning making.This
usually meant signifying and representing, which
made it difficult to understand how children
make meaning except as an inferior version of
adults.The
Deleuzian concept of sense offered an
alternative, especially its connection with
apparent nonsense: teachers looked for how
children are attempting to make sense.[Still
no mention of the phantasm, but there is more on
making sense later].It
became clear that children were always trying to
make sense even in their ‘oddest expressions’
(102).Events
therefore appear to be ‘filled with life’.
The
researcher also has a new role, based on
Deleuze's views about the role of the
intellectual expressed by Foucault, as having to
engage in struggle.Deleuze
apparently uses this to express a pragmatism
again, with theory as a tool box, which follows
from the crisis of representation [the example
is the book on Immanence again, which I must
get].This
led to a rejection of the idea of speaking for
other people, seen as an inevitable deployment
of power.Again
this permits constructive ways of working
between theorists and practitioners, involving
‘co production of research as well as practice’,
and an abandonment of the usual hierarchy (103).
So we all
do ‘add to and invent the world’ (104), but in
different [constraining] ways according to
different practices, including the practices of
research and practice. However
if we permit intensive etc experimentation, we
might produce something new.
Pedagogical
documentation as events.The
documentation consists of photographs with
written observations.The
intention is to treat documentations as events,
to relate to the second decisive point
above—understanding experimentation.
Deleuze
says that language works through denotation,
manifestation and signification, but all of
these close down the event [indeed, especially
the past and future notions of the event, and
its links with the virtual].We
have to be careful that we do not immobilize
events in documenting them.Making
sense offers possibilities here—‘the
unconditioned production of truth in a
proposition’ (106).[She
also notes the idea of non sense as something
relating to physical things outside of
language].Sense is linked to learning and culture,
and the intention is to try and see the
production of sense by the participants,
including a way of understanding nonsense as the
construction of a problem.In
this way, the conventions of documentation as
above can be supplemented [sounds a great idea!However,
I’m not sure that the nonsense deliberately
developed by Carroll or Artaud as a result of
playing with language is the same as the
nonsense produced by children who have not yet
learned the conventions of language].
The
conventional notions of making sense clearly
inform research of the conventional kind as
well.Denotation,
manifestation and signification arise there too.Denotation
in particular implies the notion of truth or
correspondence to things, and this idea
underpinned positivist documentation in the old
days, using developmental psychology.Manifestation
refers to the speaking subject and its desires
and beliefs, and this informed documentation in
terms of discussions of subjectivity and
interpretation.Signification and signifying chains in
structures were implied in those forms of
documentation which attempted to develop
particular truth regimes, and were revealed when
teachers began to deconstruct the assumptions.All
depend on assumptions concerning the relation
between language and things, or between language
and structures as grounding principles.We
need to keep the complexity of events apparent
instead.
When
Deleuze talks about making sense, he starts by
discussing something outside of propositions and
not conditioned by them.This
requires an additional dimension to making
sense, something which produces the more limited
operations in language.Turning
to pedagogical documentations, we need to treat
them as events, not just as ready made factors
which have been interpreted upon reflection.We
need to look at the sense in the events
themselves, something that is continually
produced.
In an
example, children measured time and speed of two
cars in a car race.Initially,
their racing track produced a bottleneck, since
the tube used to ensure a fair start was too
narrow.Discussion
revealed that the problem was ensuring both cars
start at the same time.One
solution was to put wings on one of the cars,
seeming ‘incomprehensible’ and ‘incorrect’
(111).However,
this is a rational solution in the sense that it
would permit one car to fly above the
bottleneck.[Was this the best rational solution,
though? Was it really a solution at all? Was
this followed through and what happened when it
didn’t work?].Documentations should account for this
thinking, adding something to the standard
linguistic conventions.
Deleuze
talks about Lewis Carroll and the snark hunt,
and uses terms like ‘greening’ instead of
‘green’ to insist on active attributes.Sense
has its own objectivity not expressed by the
proposition alone, although it must be expressed
in propositions.Similarly, things are the result of verbs
or processes, and this also has to be captured
by sense.Sense
focuses on becoming and should not be confused
with the empirical actualization.In
documentations, we should also not see qualities
as fixed events but stress processes.Reggio
schools talk about ‘the importance of the
invisible’ (112, which may be the same thing.We
should certainly not routinely document what it
is that we already know, but rather focus on
processes of becoming about.It is
not just a matter of representation, but should
be seen as helping the process of learning.[But
she still has not said how events in the full
Deleuzian sense should be depicted—how do we get
to those from the empirical actualizations? Kids should
diagram? Preschoolers have to become
Deleuzians again].
Sense
cannot be simply opposed to nonsense.Nonsense
words show something more complex, but all words
have to deal with nonsense in order to produce
sense.Sense
is never simply already determined but has to be
produced.Documentations
should
look for this happening, and so what appears to
be nonsense is just as important.Young
children often play with language, for example
and there should be seen as showing that
‘everything is potentially otherwise and not
static’ (114).[Very sensible, but do we need a
Deleuzian sledgehammer?]
Deleuze
sees problems as far more important than
solutions, and as not captured by their
solutions.Problems and events are ‘points of
singularities that express their conditions’
(115). The important thing about singular points
is that they cannot be captured in conventional
language, and a Deleuze quote is cited in
support, including the phrase that ‘the
singularity belongs to another dimension…It is
essentially preindividual, non personal and
aconceptual” (citing Logic
of Sense).[So
are these extra dimensions to be explored and
treated as real, or just seen metaphorically?].
Sense is
produced ‘on the border of language’ (116).Problems
not solutions are important.Pedagogical
documents should look at events and the
construction of problems [again not in the usual
way though, surely, but from following
additional dimensions, as in topology].Kids
enjoy constructing problems and often prefer
problems to solutions.They
also produce their own sense and truths.We
should not judge truth or falseness without
considering this production.
We should
go on to develop a specific view on learning and
knowledge, again based on Deleuze.We
should enter the field of singularities, as in
the example of learning to swim.This
is not just learning solutions.We
should not be misled by domesticated views of
processes of learning ‘because it is the
fashion’ (117), but which really aim at
attaining fixed solutions.Instead,
Deleuzian learning can never be predicted
planned or evaluated.It
takes place in the unconscious as in swimming
and its encounters [and again Deleuze is quoted
on the implications of this view, that there is
such a strong link between nature and mind—but
we are surely a long way away from the idea that
learning is natural as in say Rousseau?].Documentations
should somehow indicates that learning is
impossible and unpredictable, and that
predetermined goals are inappropriate.Documenters
themselves must enter the problematic field.
There are
implications with teaching methods, which are
often about attaining goals.Documentation
should not focus on the methods of learning,
which often involves a false universalization.We
need to remember instead that a whole culture
surrounds this process, and this cultural effect
on the problematic field should be documented.
Of course
we must use language conventionally, but then
add something to it, rather than just using
denotation and manifestation and so on.We
should attempt to find and construct sense [and
here, curiously, Olsen addresses the reader
directly to just to do something—‘do not look
for solutions…Do not look for knowledge’ (119)]. We get
further in the next chapter looking at
assemblages of desire, which include desire,
lines of flight, affect and language, treated as
sequential components, apparently detectable in
an actual project.
We began with
collecting lots of empirical material over 10
years, and the idea was to find a theoretical
perspective.One particular project has been chosen as
an ideal case study to be explored in more
depth.This
study itself aims at constructing problems
rather than arriving at solutions and deploying
existing methods.Problems have been contextualized,
practical and theoretical resources have been
summarized, and the contemporary political
debate has been discussed as an aspect of
surrounding culture that constructs problems.‘The
concepts have been picked out on the basis that
when confronting them with the empirical
material “something happened”’ (121).It was
not just a matter of ‘rational thinking or
conscious choice’ be included ‘a “feeling” of
expansion or limitation of the research body’.This
guided the research not a logical straight line
but ‘a continuous wandering back and forth’.
Putting
Deleuze and Guattari to work implies not just
finding the weak spots or undertaking a
comparative study, but thinking rather ‘what one
can do with this particular theory in relation
to this particular practice’ (122).Other
ways of treating the material were possible, and
these are discussed in the footnotes.This
study is been about pedagogy not philosophy as
such, and one implication is that all scientific
theories are based on suppositions and choices:
the point was to develop some of the choices
made in this study rather than criticizing or
comparing it.How valid was it?It was
aimed at formulating a problem rather than
arising out a solution, and Deleuze and Guattari
themselves say that it is not just a matter of
truth and falsity, but also whether work
is interesting remarkable or important.Instead
of
abandoning traditional notions of identity,
however, the choice was to change the
definitions slightly, to relate it to sense
making in a pragmatic sense.[Further
justified by reminding us again that it was
about pedagogy not philosophy—quite defensive
here in what must have been the rationale for or
conclusion to the thesis].
‘The
concepts have been used only exactly as much as
was needed in relation to the empirical
material’ (124).Some choices had to be made, and some way
of dealing with the complexity of the
presentation: ‘reduced to what was absolutely
needed in relation to the empirical material’.This
can look like just scraping the surface, she
admits.Deleuze
and Guattari themselves seem to recommend a
pragmatism, and Mozère says this is an aspect of
their style of doing philosophy, following 1968
[when Deleuze apparently adopted a much more
informal style addressing people who were not
always conventionally qualified—Deleuze was
trying to get people to use philosophy].
So they
already developed an experimental and creative
style, which implies that we should do research
in the same way, and not just imitate their
thought.We
should also not to be constantly negative, but
taking a more positive notion of desire.The
experiment is to see how this would work when
applied to preschool education and its empirical
particularities.As a result, it can be claimed that this
study offered an intensification of the concept
and the theory, and ‘broadened the means and
domains for intervention of the preschools’
(125).It
would be absurd to generalize, but Deleuze and
Guattari might be tried in additional areas.The
concepts are sufficiently open ended.Perhaps
other areas of education might use them, ‘Maybe
even academic education and writing’.
The
empirical material was collected by herself and
other teachers during fieldwork, and it was
analyzed collectively, although she worked in
particular on encounters with theoretical
resources.The example that follows is particularly
suitable for this encounter.The
teachers shared the analysis.The
ethical practices of the Swedish Research
Council were also followed, especially those
relating to the protection of the
individual—parental consent was sought,
including permission to publish photos.Photos
were essential ‘to capture the expressions on
the children’s faces’ (127).It was
also important to indicate the collective
process [why no video, given that process and
movement seems so important?].The
analysis is limited to the particular episodes,
seen as ‘the perfectly singular’ (128).It is
not a true representation but a constructed
story, and the processes of construction have
been indicated.
There is a
growing climate of fear in preschools leading to
new health and safety and regulations about
touching children.These could be ‘strategies for governing
through fear’ (128).Teachers
do have to be vigilant and careful, though, and
be aware of ethical and political issues.
Assemblages
of desire. This will deal with the last
point—experimenting in a relational field,
with implications for individuals and
societies. The focus will be a project
[lasting two years!], involving 15 children
between one and two years old when it started.
The main theme and the commentary on the
project will be desire as the production of
the real, and the way in which children
produce new realities. Assemblages of desire
and their components will be analysed.
The project. In the first year, five
kids worked with an OHP [making shadows with
themselves and with various objects projected
on to a sheet. Kids could go behind the
sheet]. It started looking at photos, but the
teachers decided, after observation, that
light and shadow seem to be of more interest.
Teachers are also taking a course at the
Stockholm Institute of Education, and
discussing it. Their worry was that they
wanted to move the children on, but not
intervene excessively—they decided not to
intervene but to do more observation.
Eventually, one kid moved an object on the
OHP, and another kid noticed the effect of
doing this. The whole group got excited, began
dancing and shouting "The Ghost, the Ghost!"
(136). Apparently, the expression on
children's faces showed this was a matter of
some intensity: whenever the ghost appeared
'The entire group was up and running, dancing
and screaming: "The Ghost, the Ghost!"
[Actually the picture shows one child of the
three apparently not very moved at all, 137].
The first, teachers imagined that ghosts were
scary, and thought about pursuing a line, but
again decided to wait and discussed the
photographs of the children—a possibility was
that the ghost was 'ritual for celebrating
when they have discovered something new, or
when they stand in front of something that
they do not understand but that interests them
and excites them' (138), and this was
supported by a further observations. The kids
developed an interest in comparing shadows of
different sizes, and then turned to dressing
up in costumes to make shadow effects and then
make stories. They use the OHP throughout the
year. Their behaviour became ritualised—they
put costumes on first. They negotiated with
each other and 'brought each other in all the
time'. Teachers observed and gave the
documents back to the children for discussion,
including displaying it—kids talked about the
pictures and sometimes reenacted what they
were doing.
Olsen says this shows that desire was turned
on its head. It was not a lack, but something
that emerged with teachers' help. Children's
questions and problems were 'considered as
possible productions of new realities and new
ways of thinking, talking and acting' (142).
They were not to be tamed. They revealed
intense etc. experimentation involving
everybody. The project was intended to 'hook
up' with children's desires. Desire is then
discussed further—it is usually seen as a
lack, something that we want to acquire, often
treated as a fantasy which is then coded in
Freudian psychoanalysis. The notion of lack is
also apparent in some practices in early
childhood education, especially those based on
developmental psychology, where desire is
replaced by a vocabulary of needs. However
these needs are also constructions, and also
'repress and tame' desire (143). Desire is
only used to motivate children to achieve
predetermined goals. This makes children look
needy and in need of redirection.
Deleuze and Guattari's notion of desire
apparently also applies to children. 'There
are no preexisting needs or lack within
children'(144). Nonconforming children are
produced as not normal. Children do have
different ways of managing and navigating.
Even those with 'certain illnesses or
handicaps' are included in this [and Deleuze
and Guattari's admiration of schizophrenics is
quoted as showing that 'the schizophrenic
identity is produced within the walls of the
institution' (144), and should be read instead
as desiring production]. In a [French]
interview with Parnet, Deleuze says that
people should experiment with their
assemblages instead of trying just to get
analyzed or cured [indifference to suffering
if not positive malevolence]. Overall, lack
and need are effects not causes: 'Since this
is a prevailing logic within most of society's
institutions, it is easy to see that the same
kind of desiring-repression that is at stake
within the walls of the psychiatric clinic
also functions in preschools' (145) [dubious
analogy to put it mildly].
The
same problems occur with the tabula rasa
view of childhood, that all they have to do is
imitate and repeat, and that their own desires
are not considered important. However,
desiring production occurs at birth, as do
relations with other people—Deleuze and
Guattari talk about a nonfamilial
experience[in response to Freud and Oedipal
suffocation] . Children have many sorts of
desire. However, they need to live in the same
world as us. Their desire to experiment
'should not be understood as a natural trait
inherent in children' (146)—instead, they have
not lived long enough to have been fully
oedipalized [which seems to contradict the
paranoia of repressive preschools]. In
Stockholm, there have been new ways of
developing children's desires 'away from the
institution's repression of desire'(147).
Children do realize subjectivity and learning
is a form of production, and this exceeds even
supple lines.
Desire comes in assemblages, which contain
desiring machines. Assemblages contain
machined assemblages 'material processes of
bodies and actions', together with
'corresponding speech and signs'. We have to
remember that the signs arise from a
collective assemblage of enunciation. In the
other direction the assemblage contains
reterritorialized lines that create
territories, 'functioning as systems of
habit', but also points of
deterritorialization, which allows to break
free of habits (147). Affect is a key term—'a
body's capacity to act'(148), and assemblages
either restrict or expand this capacity. These
effects appear as feelings such as joy or
intensity. The sort of experimentation into
subjectivity and learning in preschools arises
from an assemblage, certainly not from the
rational planning of teachers. We can see
desiring machines at work, 'forces not
connected to rationally thinking'. Individual
children can construct and produce their own
questions and problems, and teachers can talk
about them in new ways [this must be the
collective assemblages of enunciation]. Habit
and unthinking reproduction can occur as a
form of reterritorialization, as in the
reversion to conventional psychological
models. However, there are also points of
deterritorialization or lines of flight, and
these produce feelings of intensity, 'often
registered through having "goose bumps"'. We
can use the notion of assemblage to analyze
what happened in the OHP project.
Desire is always assembled or machined, never
just natural or biological. Desire is
assembled together with its complex objects of
desire this is constructivist not natural [and
apparently Deleuze actually uses the terms
constructing and constructivism in the
interview with Parnet, French edition. I still
don't think this means that social
constructivism, however.] An assemblage of
desire produces reality in this sense of a
machine [or diagram?]. It is not run by
conscious subjects. The collective assemblage
of enunciation also implies a [collective]
unconscious. We can see its effects in
indirect discourse, or the way in which words
also function as order words: Deleuze actually
uses the example of the school mistress
instructing her students in what looks like a
neutral and technical way. Language is nothing
but order words. It is the collective
assemblage of enunciation that produces them.
However, this is continually changing, for
example producing redundancy. 'All individual
statements and also subjective enunciations
are such, only to the extent that they are
needed and determined by a collective
assemblage' (151). This makes language
pragmatic, something internal to enunciation,
something which is more important than
structure, and something which exceeds
linguistic structures. Signs are asignifying
machines [always? The references here are to Logic of Sense].
Habit involves occupying a familiar territory,
but territory is always subject to
destabilising and restabilising forces in a
rhythm [the process of endless little bangs
becoming habitualized?]. All territories are
subject to this. Reterritorialization is
always likely.
Individual bodies and consciousnesses
represent wider and deeper realities and
thoughts. [Ordinary] consciousness cannot
grasp affect, but only affections in the form
of sadness or joy. Apparently, this 'can make
us focus on the specific potentialities in
every situation' (153), and we will use this
insight in our analysis of the project.
The project revisited. Kids were still
working with the OHP practically every day
even in the second year. They always have put
on their costumes. Teachers introduced some
new materials—construction blocks with images
of all the kids on them: they wanted to
investigate identity. Kids were initially
hesitant. They liked working only with blocks
that had photos of children in costumes. They
tried to use the blocks with the OHP. Olsen
thinks this shows that 'desiring forces are
set in motion' (155) between themselves and
with the machine. The important thing for them
seems to be the costumes. They are not
interested in the blocks themselves, only in
their possible usefulness in their interest in
the OHP. The OHP becomes 'organic material…
treated as if it had a proper life' (156).
Children are also machines, and even 'their
organic bodies also function at the same time
as non organic machines'.
Teachers
are also desiring machines, prepared to
abandon their projects if necessary.
Children's desires have emerged to overcome
the institution's repression. As a result
'Children are part of producing the every day
reality of the preschool in new ways' (157)
[massive talk up here -- nothing to that
below!].
Teachers pursue the issue of the importance of
the costumes. While listening carefully, they
hear the children saying that costumes are
necessary to make people visible. One child
who wishes to insist that they can be seen
without a costume is ignored. Perhaps they
just wanted to go on with their
investigations, and keep their problem going?
This problem of 'whether and when one is seen
or not' (161) is the real problem they are
working on. The costumes themselves work only
as part of an assemblage of desire, based on
the OHP. No one seems to own this assemblage.
Teachers document with the active involvement
of the children, as a self reflexive act [I
thought these were bad]. The emergence of the
problem shows how desire functions as a
machine. The documentation is the focal point
for the relations between the children and
teachers.
One of the children put a construction block
on the OHP, and this produced a renewal of the
Ghost ritual. This time there was a story—the
construction bloc was a letter sent from the
Ghost. The reappearance of the Ghost can be
seen as an asignifying machine with no
inherent meaning, but acting as a signal that
things have become intense. The children
appropriated this order word to their own
uses. It brings bodily activity as well. The
Ghost seems to be a nonsense work, but it does
make sense. Teachers do not denounce the Ghost
as nonsense, but use it to access sense
production and to see how kids use language
pragmatically and creatively, with no notion
of correct usage. Kids also showed they were
interested in returning to investigations they
have done before, for example trying to create
shadows even where the light is not directed.
This shows that knowledge is not directed in a
linear or logical way, but many things
are going on at the same time [and, for the
first time, this includes 'the importance of
the teacher documenting the process' (167)].
However, these are never simple repetitions,
since conditions change slightly. The
territory of knowledge is continually being
changed. It's possible to infer from all of
this that the real problem is the issue of
being seen [this is a transcendental
deduction? It is a way of the researcher
making sense of what is going on in Deleuzian
terms?].
This
can also be seen by further actions, when a
particular costume was not available. All the
children rallied round until they found a
suitable costume—one that would help the child
be seen. Olsen analyses this as showing that
costumes raise bodily potential, and the
anxiety about not having one is a matter of
'seeing one's affective potential being
decreased' (173). The reason the children
found experiment so joyful is that their
affective potential had increased, but this
was an emergent process, and repeating it
might not have had the same effects. By
bodies, she means children's bodies but also
the physical body of knowledge and learning,
bodies of light and shadow which are in a
relational field with children's bodies. The
project shows that there is more to rational
thought and the idea of a body, exactly as
above [not surprising really -- she reads and
likes Deleuze so she sees things in Deleuzian
terms].
Subsequent activity produced more insights,
this time by using two light sources. [This
confused the little bastards. I mean…] the
children were able to see what happened with
different combinations of light and shadow.
'They sing and dance' (175). Teachers
eventually saw that their own earlier efforts
to use multiple identities was on the right
lines after all [phew -- no nasty critique
needed] and had not been rejected by the
children. Instead all the activity we have
seen can be seen as 'an indication of the
children actually being in the middle of
living multiple identities' (177), and in a
much richer sense—they are living it, in a
bodily way, experiencing affect. The actual
teachers' project paled by comparison, because
they had too simple a sense of identity as the
construction of different parts which can be
consciously rearranged: instead, we need to
think about assemblages acting with
unconscious desires and being acted out. [a
bit of critique then] The kids stuck with this
conception [the kids had this conception??].
Eventually, their interest in whether they
could be seen or not 'is a fantastic creative
response to the problem of subjectivity and
learning that is normally treated as a problem
of being. The children resonate and vibrate
together with the phenomena of light and
shadow in a creative response' (178). It is a
response dominated by vision, an affective
gaze, showing that the kids were acting
'through the logic of immanence and affect
where their bodies as well as the bodies of
light and shadow pop up, and not as each
other's opposites, or as fixed entities
encountering each other, but rather as
inseparably joined and continuously moving in
a relational field' [Jesus -- fucking bright
2-year olds in Stockholm!].
Conclusions.
The problem has been to decide 'how to work
with movement and experimentation in
subjectivity and learning in early childhood
education practice and research' (179) [so
fully practice based now?]. Such movement is
already there. We can use certain concepts as
we have seen to engage in it. It must be there
if you argue that all changes and subjectivity
and learning depend on flows of belief and
desire that are already there' (179). The
alternative rational models do not work as
well, because something always escapes.
Schools therefore need to add to the idea of
listening and experimenting [a very modest
political proposal] and researchers can
deliberately look for those things that escape
[ so the main role of all this is critique
after all?].
We saw this in preschool practices in
Stockholm, where new features did emerge, and
where people were engaged. This could be seen
as a form of desiring production suitable for
academic and pedagogical institutions, a form
of modulation. All this activity takes place
in a particular environment characterized by
an ethics of listening, experimentation and
care. There is a danger that individual lines
of flight could become 'sources of demolition'
(180). Self reflection measurement and
evaluation do help us remember each
individual, but they are 'very dangerous
tools' and need to be complemented by an
interest in helping individuals connect lines
of flight to other lines. Many dangers exist.
The environment is unpredictable and messy.
Teachers and researchers must be listeners and
collective experimenters, fully engaged.
Theoretical concepts should not be applied,
'rather they have to be chosen simply on the
basis that they function in relation to the
practices or examples encountered' (181). The
relational field should be seen as an immanent
one, preconscious, permitting movement. We
should start by recognizing that movement is
already going on and the need is to
experiment, having latched on to kids'
desires. We need to be prepared for surprises.
We can rely on the idea that transcendental
empiricism sees life as being stronger than
thought [what a strange "philosophical" and
rather stoical comfort, helping no doubt to
stave off any feelings of inadequacy between
teachers and researchers?].
We need to see documentation as recording
events, or movements that are already there,
involving the on going production of sense,
which itself needs to be seen as connected to
nonsense, solutions, and cultures. Research
should not be just a matter of commenting,
interpreting and reflecting, which close down
the dimensions of the event.
Substantial preparation is required, however,
to facilitate experimentation. Teachers should
be highly knowledgeable in order to provide as
many perspectives as possible. [But how do
they hold on to acquiring formal knowledge of
the same time as having a Deleuzian critique
of it? It is the old problem raised by Kuhn of
commitment]. Teachers' choices should be
informed by ontology, politics and ethics, and
we can be guided by Spinoza [but see above].
Which theories are to be developed, and which
methods? This requires examining 'the entire
culture surrounding the problem'(184) [in
practice, adopting a particular take like the
Foucault-based position of the powerful
Dahlberg?]. However, encounters with children
should make us let go. Assemblage of desire
can help us see how reality is produced
unconsciously. We get a more complex notion of
change, not based on dualisms like cause and
effect or individual and society. We need to
turn conventional notions of desire on their
head and enter a collective assemblage of
desire, to see what new realities are being
continuously produced. We can do this by
asking children about their desires and their
assemblages [which means asking teachers what
they think children are desiring? Unless we
are to see childish answers about what they
want as an indication of what they desire, a
position already rebuked]. However, children's
desires should not be pursued to the extreme
[liberal cop out]. Children also sometimes
just want to play, although they are also
capable of picking up 'the focus and interest
for the teachers and they are prepared to go
into a construction of problems and questions
with teachers' (185), so teachers do have a
role. However, they must operate in a
'tentative and pragmatic way', and this can
clash with what the school system requires.
However, most children do manage to survive
formal schooling, even though we don't know
what they are actually learning, except
through formal descriptions. However, the
child should not be seen as a creature of
nature, more as a machine. We can see the
analysis of machinic desire more easily in
children, since they had not yet been fully
repressed or subjected to 'organized schemas
of desire' (186). The real desires probably go
on beneath the surface of formal schooling
[she is not prepared to see any positive
effect of formal schooling]. Nevertheless, the
notion of assemblage of desire could add to
the formalized school system, and even be
recognized as the starting point for a new
practice. We should not focus our enquiries on
children's language alone, especially if we
are judging it against a formal model and not
as a series of pragmatic acts.
Learning should be seen as billowing back and
forth, following different lines and occupying
different territories which are subject to
being reshaped. It is not just a matter of
consciousness, but one of involved bodies,
including inorganic ones, and their
potentiality. Pedagogy should create more
space to expand capacity rather than
announcing that we already know what children
or the resources they encounter can do. It is
not just a matter of emotions and moral
values—these can 'stop almost all affective
potential by taming children's desire'(187)
[the example turns on the insistence that
children say sorry].
The situations observed 'very often increased
the affective potential of the situation and
in turn created joyful passions'[among
teachers?], But there is no general rule.
Overall, this practice can coexist with the
formalized school and research system [not at
all like Deleuzian revolution here then? No
grasp of the power of the system to coopt and
recuperate?]. Formalised schools must not only
experiment but 'answer to what is expected',
and this even affects preschools.,however 'a
little bit of movement experimenting inventing
and adding to the world might be somewhat
beneficial, not least in relation to those
children who seem to manage to decode and
adapt to the system less well'(187)
[progressive methods for the less able as
usual]. Such children might not have been able
to connect lines of flight, or link them to
desire on the one hand and the world on the
other. When this does happen, it can become a
forceful encounter, reinforcing what children
are already living 'as an immanent
principle'(188). Most of the beneficial
effects have come from leakages and surprises,
processes and focuses on problems. This is how
children operate anyway, 'in assembled desires
all the time' (188) [but conventionally, of
course, and not philosophically]. This is what
lies behind Deleuze and Guattari's view that
'" children are Spinozists"'(180), apparently
a quote from Thousand Plateaus,
282. Children often outflank adult ways of
conceiving. This is not seeing children as
natural, nor is it 'putting Deleuze and
Guattari on to children' (188), but it does
help focus a different image of thought.
Overall, it means that we still have something
to learn from children [a further quote from Desert
Islands, 208 says that if children did
make their protests heard it would derail the
whole educational system].
Epilogue.
[More formal Deleuzian and rather lyrical
style]. The problems are constellation
of points of singularity and when we learn, we
join these points to create a problematic
field. This is what unites the child
learning to walk and the surfer learning to
surf, and it is also what happens when you
write a dissertation. Deleuze is right
to say something in the world forces you to
think, so you do not use a problem exactly,
and is not surprising that you don't come
across solutions, only extensions of the
problem. In this case, what is required
is no less than 'a reformulation and
reactivation of time and space' (189), and
some additional concepts: 'a-lives,
virtuality, crystal time and becoming'.
Full development requires another whole
project. A-lives refers back to the
example of the child and the surfer. It
is a way of realizing that people are not
individuals but 'processes of individuation'
(190), impersonal but singular. Objects
are also a-lives. Singularities mean
that children learn in a distinctive way, and
selves emerge. On a plane of immanence
'there are only forces and bodies'.
Bodies and forces are a-lives [which appeared
to be actualized singularities].
Children realize this because they always
insist on using the indefinite article—'a
person, a rhythm…'[massive generalization.
What happened to close observation?]
Virtuals actualize themselves into the
familiar forms. We often confine
ourselves to actualized forms as the only
dimension of reality, but pedagogues must
recognize the virtual dimension, which is
equally real. A virtual child is an
image, but not a copy and 'the virtual
actualized has no resemblance whatsoever to
the virtual' (191), reminding us of the
potential to be other. The notion of a
virtual child restores movement and
subjectivity. The virtual is not the
same as the possible, which is usually another
version of what we already know. We
should use the virtual/actual rather than the
usual notion of fantasy/real. Kids' play
is a form of actualization, and is usually not
taken seriously. 'The point is to play
joyfully and seriously' (192) [poor kids,
being forced to philosophize at every
moment—either that, or philosophy is no more
than children's play]. Virtual children
are real, just only on another plane.
They also function in another dimension of
time—not a linear development, the form of
time that divides the present into past and
future. The past is the virtual and the
present is the actual [this is a Bergsonian
reading, which can easily be seen us to do
with subjectivity or collective memory rather
than the full Deleuzian horror]. Present
and past are simultaneous [the source here is
Cinema 2 --
but this is a summary of Bergson as I
recall]. The point is to account for
movement in the present, and this is where the
idea of crystal time comes from, where we see
time splitting into the actual and the
virtual. 'This would also be
subjectivity and learning taking on the
features of becoming' (193) [I'm not sure
about this, I think this is a form of pedagogy
possibly confined to the cinema—how could
preschools display this crystalline form? Why
would they need the concept?]
Examples about surfing [and swimming] do not
indicate becoming in the usual sense, but they
do indicate what happens when particles
[points] connect to each other—a more
molecular notion of becoming. Becoming
is not an analogy, but a matter of extracting
particles enabling a process of becoming [the
reference is Thousand
Plateaus]. 'Children…
are capable of many more becomings than
adults… because they have not yet
decoded and adapted to the molar positions'
(194). They have a becoming specific to
every age. Children do not develop but
involve themselves in blocks of
becoming. Becoming imperceptible can be
seen as an alternate kind of becoming, total
immersion, 'when one is connected to
everything, dissolved in a continuously
changing relationship with everything' (194) [TP].
Conventional notions of children's development
just looks at stops on the road, the empirical
level. We cannot perceive real movement,
which is displayed [in thresholds between
stages]. On the plane of immanence there
is nothing but movement, principles of
composition, new kinds of perception.
It is hard to leap from this to 'every day
practice in preschools' [and why would you
want to -- pragmatically? The essentials are
all there already, surely, in the usual
progressive stuff --kids as bundles of
potential, play as learning, kids learning at
their own pace, teachers looking out for magic
moments]. We can use this notion of
immanence [to produce a suitable attitude in
teachers—'a certain amount of vigilance and
humbleness in front of subjectivity and
learning'(195)]. We should let children
persist in their own efforts, rather than
trying to plan and predict. 'Machines
function only when they break down, the order
is order only as a moment temporarily
stagnated from out of order. It is when
out of order movements moves' (196).