Bowline, identity formation and the exclusion of others

In my last blog, I explored how the identity of an individual influences what they learn or are unable to learn. Etienne Wenger (2006), in his web brief introduction to communities of practice, explains that the existence of such communities revolves around the concept of a “shared domain”. The goal of each individual within this shared domain corresponds to the collective goal of the community and thus, the ultimate goal of any community of practice is the perfection of the mutual learning taking place within this “shared domain”.

In his analysis of social theory of learning, Wenger (1999) highlights four crucial points: learning for the purpose of experience formation, learning as a way of active engagement, learning as mean of belonging (identity formation) and learning as a tool for becoming accepted within the shared domain, as part of the vital components of this theory. He further explains identity formation occurring in social theory of learning as “a way of talking about how learning changes who we are and creates personal history of becoming in the context of our communities” (p. 5).

Identity connection to a bowline

I am convinced that my initial reaction to the bowline knot exercise, as demonstrated by Dr. Plumb, would have been different from the rest of the class. Naturally, it was an unexpected illustration, and intuitively, it left us all wondering about the relevance of knot tying exercise to a study in learning process (apart from just learning to tie a knot), and some, I believe might have even felt insulted that Dr. Plumb came into the class with pre-conceived notions that we knew nothing about bowline, that we did not know how to tie the knot, and that it was his duty as the teacher to teach us the bolt and knot – no pun intended – of tying a bowline. While a part of me shared this sentiment, I was nonetheless excited about the prospect.

My excitement emanated out of having had the privilege of learning how to tie different knots (including bowline) as a member of the Boy Scout of Nigeria, I immediately saw myself as having something in common with Dr. Plumb. While, it is true that I have been away from active participation within the Boy Scout organization for almost three decades, it didn’t take too long to reactivate my sense of belonging within the community of knot connoisseur. At that moment, the knot became a connection to the learning process I was about to embark on and while the learning experience was formed a long time ago, all I needed was a presentation of that connecting piece, and my identity as a member of that particular community of practice was reaffirmed.

While Dr. Plumb and I acquired our learning experiences probably at different points in time, and evidently on different continents, it didn’t prevent me from identifying myself with that learning experience. As Wenger explains, community of practice has “an identity defined by a shared common interest” and he further explains that there is a “shared competence that distinguishes members from other people” (Wenger, 2006). Since I considered myself  to be a part of this community, swiftly – though without any clue what the underpinning teaching principle was with the bowline knot – I felt at home in the context of Dr. Plumb’s presentation of the bowline knot.

Identity formation and learning resistance

            While I may say, though reluctantly, that I eventually understood the allegoric learning embedded within the bowline, and furthermore that I immediately developed a rapport and settled into my comfort zone with the concept of using a knot as part of a learning process, I wrestled with the fact that, my method of engagement as part of that community of knot experts differed from Dr. Plumb’s. I allude to the river illustration employed during the session, in which Dr. Plumb invited everyone to step into the river and swim along. In spite of the simplicity of the invitation, it however struck me that as much as I wanted to jump into the river, partly because of my connection to the bowline illustration, and because I was fully confident that I had been in that river before, I chose to stay on the shore. My hesitation can be explained using Wenger’s assertion about the sense of belonging within social theory of learning. He explains that belonging to a community is,

a way of talking about the social configurations in which our enterprises are defined as worth pursuing and our participation is recognizable as competent (Wenger, 1999, p. 5).

On this premise, I suddenly doubted my membership in the community of practice that I have, up until now thought I was a viable member. My doubt arose from seeing Dr. Plumb tied his bowline. How dare he tie a bowline like that? In my experience tying a bowline, I have never done it that way and neither have I seen anyone used that method before. Immediately, and in order to validate my learning experience which overtime has become an identity, I unconsciously put a roadblock to the learning experience occurring before me as I refused to tie the knot the way Dr. Plumb was showing the class. Even more interesting is the fact that I created a dissention within the class as I rallied those around me proving to them that my method of tying a bowline was better and easier than Dr. Plumb’s. It didn’t take too long before I won a few of my classmates to my side as they effortless agreed with me that my method was better than Dr. Plumb’s.

            I explained in my first blog that a learner essentially becomes antagonistic to learning if he or she feels that his or her identity, within the process of learning, is not being validated (Aladejebi, 2011). Bracher (2006) explains that the individual will become resistance to learning if the identity validation they crave is being provided by sources outside of the learning process with little or no effort (p. 5). As a result, the acknowledgement of my knot tying skills by my classmate further strengthened my resistance to Dr. Plumb’s attempts at showing the class how to tie a bowline.

Social formation and identity creation

One interesting learning experience acquired from the bowline adventure lies in its practical, probably unintentional demonstration, of how those, who are not part of the communities of practice, can be alienated. I made this conclusion based on my first hand experience and my keen observation of the group as Dr. Plumb introduced the idea of tying the knot. It was a familiar territory for me, and I eagerly welcomed the challenge, however, for the rest of the group, they were venturing into an unfamiliar territory and without making any assumptions, the atmosphere around the classroom spoke volume.

Wenger’s explanation of the theory of identity as a “social formation of the person, cultural interpretation of the body, and the creation and use of markers of membership such as rites of passage and social categories” (Wenger, 1999, p. 13), corroborates my observation.

Since learning is a tool for the creation of “practice and the inclusion of newcomers”, (p. 13). I can only wonder if the bowline experiment was after all, a rite of passage to initiate the group into a community of practice and welcome the once alienated into the shared domain.

References

Aladejebi, A. (2011). Africentric learning process: an undertaking in radical pedagogy. GSLL 6206 (08), Lifelong Learning Process, Blog #1

Bracher, M. (2006). Radical pedagogy: Identity, generativity, and social transformation. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Wenger. E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity. Cambridge, Mass.: Cambridge University Press.

Wenger. E. (2006). Communities of practice: a brief introduction: retrieved January 24, 2011 from http://www.ewenger.com/theory/index.htm