Kathy’s HW re: Palmer’s “Community of Truth”

Summary:

In the essay “Community of Truth,” Parker Palmer argues that the traditional model of learning—in which an “expert” conveys some “objective truth” to a group of passive “amateurs”—is problematic, given that all “truths” are subjective and are constantly evolving. Rather, he supports a “Community of Truth” model in which learners actively engage with the subject matter itself and share a diversity of viewpoints.

Letter:

Dear Mr. Palmer,

I teach composition at the University of Kentucky, and I’ve been using your essay, “The Community of Truth,” as the foundation of my course for the past three years. I want to thank you for the essential distinctions you make between education models that encourage passivity (namely, the “Objectivist Myth of Knowing,”) and those that encourage active, empowered engagement, i.e. the “Community of Truth.” When I first saw those diagrams, I was moved, and I vowed then to physically arrange my class in a “circle of knowers,” and to value, as much as possible, a diversity of viewpoints. My students have always commented on what a difference it makes to sit in a circle and actually see their peers; I credit you for the openness of discussion this arrangement affords.

The other concept in this essay that I find so useful is your unexpected definition of “conflict”: “the dynamic by which we test ideas in the open, in a communal effort to stretch each other and make better sense of the world” (117.) In my own life, I’ve found that I learn and grow the most when I am asked to consider another perspective, whether while living in small-town Japan or talking politics with relatives. Thus I try to help my students to value this sort of conflict, rather than to fear it, and to push themselves outside of their comfort zones. There is no way to change or complicate our ideas if we refuse to communicate across difference.

But I also have a number of questions about your essay. For example, one issue that always begs clarification lies at the very heart of your argument: What, exactly, do you mean by “truth”? Do you believe that there exists some sort of objective truth out there, but that we can’t ever reach it? Or do you believe, as many in academia do, that the whole idea of “truth” is damaging, and that it ignores and devalues the variety of ways people see the world? As a former history major, I tend to think of the impossibility of one historical truth—only one way to tell the story of what happened—so I tend towards the latter interpretation. But many of my students are thinking of scientific truths, i.e. laws of gravity and chemical properties and such, which we believe must incontrovertibly exist, even if we do not yet know or understand them. Thus we get confused, as a class, about how to think of truth—is it out there, or is it a myth? Perhaps if you gave a few more concrete examples as to how this abstract concept applies to the subjects my students encounter, we would better understand.

Likewise, I need some clarification about the “grace of great things” and your personification of these subjects as having “a life of their own.” To some extent, I understand the “life-force” of, say, a work of literature, or of art, and I recognize how I can learn from that subject itself, irrespective of what any expert has to say about it. No expert has the “correct” interpretation of a piece of art; indeed, the power of art lies in its ability to move each viewer in individual ways. But what of quadratic equations? Or models of standard deviation? Are they calling to me? How are we supposed to learn from the “inwardness, identity, and integrity” of those subjects themselves, exactly? Perhaps you are merely promoting good old active, hands-in-the-mud, experiential learning, which I thoroughly support. But I think I sometimes get lost in the loftiness of your language, the abstraction of your ideas, and I long for the very same thing I request of my students: concrete examples. Grounding. Saying it straight.

I hope my requests for clarification don’t offend you; honestly, I value your insights into education more than anything I’ve yet read, and this particular essay has revolutionized my approach to teaching (and learning, for that matter.) I hope instead that, per your Community of Truth model, we might learn from each other’s diverging viewpoints and nudge each other one step closer to a “truer”—i.e. more complicated, more humble—understanding of our world.

Best,
Kathy Crutcher