Wals et al. (2009, p. 9) pointed out that social learning was, among other things, inspired by the transition from industrial society to the present day risk society which is characterised by globalisation and individualism, insecurity, uncertainty and unpredictability – where past solutions are no longer enough: “Social learning is often referred to as a way of organising individuals, organisations, communities and networks, that is particularly fruitful in creating a more reflexive, resilient, flexible, adaptive, and indeed, ultimately, more sustainable world” (Wals, 2007, p. 37). Wals associated social learning with education for sustainability. The learning of sustainable agriculture is one form of education for sustainability. Similarly Fennessy et al. (2006) pointed out that social partnerships constitute new learning spaces. Wals (2007) argued that the basic aim of education for sustainability is to help support individuals and communities to understand the complex nature of natural and built environments resulting from the interaction of their biological, physical, social, economic and cultural aspects and to obtain the necessary skills, knowledge and attitudes to anticipate and solve the problems responsibly (pp. 35-36). Another aim of education for sustainable development is to show the interdependence between the economic, ecological and social (Wals, 2007). This aim alone underlines the dialectical nature of the purpose of education for sustainability, which has also been identified in sustainable agriculture learning and practice by Pretty (2002) and Pimbert (2009). Wals (2007) further argued that the other role of education for sustainability is to build a sense of responsibility and solidarity and this resonates with the zenzele concept (Dube, 2002), as well as farmer and citizen participation peer reviewed networks located in the field of sustainable agriculture and food sovereignty (Pimbert, 2009). It also resonates with the concept of partnerships discussed in the Promotion of Local Innovation (PROLINNOVA, 2009). Scott (in Pimbert, 2009) called the kind of learning that comes from social learning mêtis, meaning:
Mêtis, with the premium it places on practical knowledge, experience and stochastic reasoning, is of course not merely the now superseded precursor of scientific knowledge. Its mode of reasoning is most appropriate to complex material and social tasks where uncertainties are so daunting that we must trust our (experienced) intuition and feel our way. (Pimbert, 2009, p. 56)
79
This approach to social learning is further supported by Bradbury and Reason (2001, in Pimbert, 2009) who argued that social learning for food sovereignty should enable farmers and other citizens “to shift the dialogue about validity from a concern with the idealist questions of search for truth, to a concern for engagement, dialogue, pragmatic outcomes and an emergent, reflexive sense of what is important” (p. 56). Similarly Wals argued that sustainability education “should bring about a closer link between sustainability problems that are faced by particular communities and focussing analysis of these by means of interdisciplinary, comprehensive approaches which will permit proper understanding of sustainability problems,” (Wals, 2007, p. 36). This study set out to seek sustainability issues being faced by particular communities in Lesotho, South Africa and Zimbabwe, and worked with different stakeholder groups in each case to understand the problems better and to jointly develop model solutions to some of them (see Chapters 7 and 8).
Drawing on the work of Capra, Wals (2007, p. 37) suggested that the creation of a sustainable world requires systems thinking, which refers to things like “seeing connections and interrelationships, fine-tuning functions and roles, utilising diversity, creating synergies”. The concept of activity systems, which the study worked with, provided a mechanism that enabled such systems thinking (see Section 3.4.1).
Social learning tends to take place when divergent interests, norms, values and ways of seeing reality meet in an environment that is ideal for meaningful collective learning and in social learning, what to learn is at least partly determined by the community of learners itself (Wals, 2007). This approach in social learning suggests that contradictions are potential sources of learning, which resonates with critical realism‟s position that these are fertile ground for learning (see Section 3.2) and with Engeström (2005) on contradictions as potential sources of learning in the context of CHAT (see Section 3.6.4).
Wals (2007, pp. 39-41) proposed that the goals of social learning include addressing such questions as:
How do people learn?
How will the people recognise that they have learnt and transcended their social norms, group thinking and personal biases?
What knowledge, skills and competencies are needed to cope with new natural, social, political and economic conditions?
How can learning build on what exists among participants?
How can dissonances created by different values, views and ways of looking at the world and of trying to understand it, stimulate learning, creativity and change?
80
Is the nature of change oriented learning desired emancipatory or instrumental?
Bawden, Guijt and Woodhill (2007) preferred to call bigger social learning processes, „societal learning‟ to show the shift from group based learning to “the capacity of societies and communities to be more learning oriented in the way they tackle important issues related to a more sustainable world” (p. 134). This makes sense when many networked activity systems intentionally interact to cause change and can resonate with some extended peer communities and larger processes of people-centred learning and innovation. However, in this study I will work with the concept of social learning partly because it is more widely used and also because the focus of the research was much more localised. Meanwhile Wals et al. (2009, p. 13) underlined the importance of linking the macro and the micro processes in social learning. They argued that this can be achieved through the following steps:
Contemplating whether social learning is the way to go.
Orientating: exploring issues at stake, assessing the playing field, determining instrument mix, establishing core organisation.
Activating: selecting key actors, expanding core organisation, exploration of available relevant perceptions and imaginable futures, and utilising dissonance.
Selecting: exploring possible solutions, creating shared vision, choosing options, and developing action plans.
Implementing: ensuring that the selected plan is executed.
Evaluating: the adequacy of the solution, and that of the process used.
This conceptualisation of steps in social learning follows essentially the same steps as expansive learning (see Section 3.6.5) and makes provision for „miniature cycles‟ (see Section 4.4) of learning at each stage, which is consistent with micro processes of learning as discussed later in this study (see Sections 8.2-8.4). Wals et al. (2009) further underscored the importance of communicating with stakeholders not represented in the core group as well as with peripheral actors and this resonates with the critical realist notion of presenting the absent (see Sections 8.2.4 to 8.2.6) and with the emphasis on boundary crossing in third generation CHAT (see Sections 3.4.2.3 and 3.6.4).
Pimbert (2009) also recommended a shift from focusing “less on what we learn, and more on how we learn and with whom” (p. 27). He recommended that a good deliberative process in a social learning situation should include diverse actors “in deliberative processes and safe spaces … a set of carefully designed safeguards to ensure quality and validity of knowledge and actions generated” (p. 32). The implications of these recommendations for this study was to work with a methodology which would enable different actors to speak out freely and to have a rigorous methodology for arriving at potential solutions to issues being experienced by
81
research participants (see Change Laboratory Workshops and Expansive Learning in Section 3.6.5).
Wals (2007) concluded that because social learning builds on the fertility of conflict and dissonance, it is important to pitch learning just outside people‟s comfort zones; if it is either too comfortable or too far outside the comfort zone, no meaningful learning happens. This is very much similar to the notion of zone of proximal development discussed later in Chapter 3 (see Section 3.6.1)
2.7 CONCLUSION
This chapter has examined the notion of risk and how it plays out at global levels as well as in the field of agriculture in southern Africa. What appears necessary to deal with risk is what Ravetz and Funtowicz (in Pimbert, 2009) called post-normal science, which is “the sort of inquiry in which the facts are uncertain, values are often in dispute, stakes are high and decisions are urgent” (p. 51). These insights are also discussed by Wals (2007) in his conceptualisation of social learning. The chapter also discussed some of the risks and uncertainties being faced in (southern) Africa and proposed that these require ways of knowing and doing that draw on different knowledge systems, which means dealing with dialectical matters. The dynamic nature of challenges and risks and the need therefore to be reflexive in dealing with them was also discussed. The chapter has further highlighted some of the structural constraints that are faced by those intending to learn in potentially transforming ways and those who want to practise sustainable agriculture, which suggests the need for agency and the formation of farmer and citizen networks.
The chapter also discussed the evolution of agricultural research and extension, underlining the need for valuing different perspectives and ways of doing agriculture. The Ndebele concept of zenzele, which foregrounds interdependence and reciprocity, not isolation, dependence or individualism in rural development, exemplified how some of the local cultural traditions are potentially usefully in people-centred development. This resonates with the African philosophy of ubuntu – „I am because you are‟ – which underpins the African Renaissance and the philosophy of relationalism (see Section 3.3). The Ndebele concept of
qogelela „little by little, one day at a time‟, suggests an awareness of the notion of individuals‟ zones of comfort discussed by Wals (2007) and the zone of proximal development discussed in the next chapter (see Section 3.6.1). The idea of making progress gradually was also captured by Wals et al. (2009, p. 5) who concluded that in social learning processes, “there are ideas regarding which direction the participants want to go and there are even recurring patterns, but the ultimate success comes about little by little”. This resonates with Archer and Bhaskar‟s theory of morphogenetic social change (see Section 3.2).
82
The notion of extended peer review communities is consistent with the idea of enhancing reflexivity in a risk society. The evolving conceptualisations of what constitutes agricultural extension and farmer learning seem to have implications on what may constitute the farmer‟s workplace. Whereas in the technology transfer phase, this place would largely have been the field, garden or pasture, in the farmer first approaches, the site appears to have expanded to include the nearby communities and landscapes. But the people-centred learning and innovation approach seems to extend the horizon of the workplace to faraway places such as the offices of policy makers, the market place and symposia. These conclusions suggest the need for a theoretical framing that embodies dialectics, reflexivity, structure and agency. The next chapter (Chapter 3) discusses the main theories that were used in the research consistent with the research questions and the issues and opportunities arising from the contextual analysis as presented in this chapter.
83