William James on Experiential Learning

A few months ago I read Robert Richardson's William James: In the Maelstrom of American Modernism, and I'm still absorbing the lessons to be learned from this incredibly rich intellectual biography.  In the book's penultimate chapter, Richardson quotes from James's Some Problems of Philosophy:

The intellectual life of man consists almost wholly in his substituting a conceptual order for the perceptual order in which his experience originally comes.

The profound meaning of this quote for me is rooted in the fact that my work hinges upon the unique ability of experiential learning to expand both our self-awareness and our behavioral repertoire, and (by extension) upon the inability of conventional modes of instruction to achieve the same results.  Richardson continues:

For this aspect of his later thinking, James has been called anti-intellectual.  A better description of his real position would be anti-abstraction; best would be to recognize it as the culmination of a lifelong protest on behalf of experience.  This is not a new position for James, of course.  It is the same clear opposition to Plato, who denigrates perceptual knowledge as mere sense impressions, and contrasts them with ideas, which are true and eternal.  Jame's life work had been to reverse this polarity, to answer Plato.

From Wikipedia (as of today, anyway):

Plato...argues...that knowledge is always proportionate to the realm from which it is gained. In other words, if one derives their account of something experientially, because the world of sense is in flux, the views therein attained will be mere opinions. And opinions are characterized by a lack of necessity and stability. On the other hand, if one derives their account of something by way of the non-sensible forms, because these forms are unchanging, so too is the account derived from them.

I appreciate Plato's appeal to the instructor: If real knowledge is based on constant universal truths and unaffected by individual sense-impressions, the process of imparting knowledge suddenly become much more efficient.  As an instructor, all I have to do is tell you what you need to know.  And I can tell everyone the exact same thing.

But that model is much less useful in a field where there are few (if any) universal truths, which is the case in my areas of expertise: executive coaching, leadership development and group facilitation.  I can't tell anyone anything and have confidence that real learning will occur.  I can disclose my own sense-impressions, but the choice to view them as relevant and meaningful remains in the hands of the learner.  Ultimately all I can do as an instructor is act on hunches, ask questions, and make observations, and hope they register with the learner as lasting sense-impressions and that the learner infuses them with meaning.  And that meaning must be created out of their own, personal experiences as a leader or in a group.

I don't want to overstate the case against Platonic ideals; after all, I propose pseudo-universal truths all the time with the intention of using them as teaching tools.  But I realize that the map is not the territory, and the purpose of these tools is simply to help us better understand and make meaning of our own sense-impressions, our own experiences.

Comments

[Andrew Wojecki]

Hi Ed,
I enjoyed your post. You got me thinking back to the time when I made the realization that as a facilitator/adult educator it was less important about what I 'taught', as opposed to the learning environment I was able to shape and facilitate amongst the group.

There is a great paper by David Hansen in the journal Curriculum Inquiry 32(3) pp. 267-280. In it he draws upon the work of John Dewey and his ideas on the role of the environment/space/context in education. Taking a non teacher-directed perspective in formal learning. As Dewey writes, "We never educate directly, but indirectly by means of the environment."

I enjoy checking in with your thinking. Hope work and life is swell.

[Ed Batista]

Thanks, Andrew--and thanks for the reference to Hansen. He sounds like someone I should know more about.

I think a question that's related to this discussion and one that all instructors should ask is, "Do I trust these learners--and how much do I trust them?" Experiential learning has to be based on trust that learners will draw their own conclusions, make their own meaning from their perceptions. I'm not suggesting that trust should be absolute--"Trust but verify," right?--but I think ultimately the more we trust our learners (and the environment we co-create), the more successful we are as instructors.

[Andrew Wojecki]

Hey Ed,
Sorry I haven't visited your blog for awhile. I've gotten my head back above water after starting a new job.

I think you're spot on in thinking about trust, for me, even more specifically, is the notion of 'relational trust.' I think that within this 'space between' both facilitator and learner there is an invitation of vulnerability: not having to be certain or know the answers. Rather, being present and mindful to help guide reflection and narration. This invites alot of questions and discussion, but I think this is why particular pedagogical approaches create particular educational outcomes. If there isn't trust I am not sure how much teaching is actually going on.

cheers,
andrew

[Ed Batista]

Great point, Andrew. It's very true that the more my clients or students and I trust each other, the more we learn (and the less we trust, the less we learn.) I'm glad you mentioned vulnerability--I think all effective leaders, teachers and coaches make themselves vulnerable because they're genuine, they're authentic, and they care too much to fake it--and that vulnerability is essential to establishing trust. I try to model this in my own work, but I know I can do better.

Ed