2
Q
uantum thinking means looking at the world in a new way, based on the century-long work of physicists and other scien- tists who moved beyond classical or Newtonian mechanics to the new paradigm of quantum physics. In this chapter I will show how I see dialogue education and quantum thinking working together.Since September 11, 2001, we are living in a new world where the search for practical new paradigms in every discipline is urgent.
As a septuagenarian educator, I see the need to revise and reform educational practice and policy as even more urgent. How we work and live in an educational setting is a powerful force in developing how we live and work in the world.
Classical Newtonian physics has touched and formed all our in- stitutions: economic, educational, organizational, political. We have been brought up to accept hierarchy, certainty, cause-and- effect relationships, either-or thinking, and a universe that works as a machine—in short, mechanistic thinking. It is a shock for most of us to consider a universe composed of energy that is patterned and spontaneous, the certainty of uncertainty, “both/and” thinking, and the connectedness of everything. This is quantum thinking.
I appreciate the application of such quantum thinking by Mar- garet Wheatley and Danah Zohar to organizational development and management practices. The more I read in quantum physics and quantum theory, the more I saw the connection between what
Quantum Thinking and
30 LEARNING TOLISTEN, LEARNING TOTEACH
I call quantum thinking and the humanistic, integrated approach of dialogue education. In the 1994 edition of this book I called this approach popular education, building it from the foundation laid by the Brazilian educator, Paulo Freire. In this revised edition, I want to show how dialogue education is congruent with the kind of thinking about the universe and about men and women and so- ciety that emerges from the study of quantum theory. In this chap- ter I will show some connections between the principles of dialogue education and selected concepts from quantum thinking. My in- tention is not to teach quantum theory, of course, but to excite you about the usefulness of quantum thinking in the design and imple- mentation of dialogue education. The six quantum concepts I have selected relate to dialogue education.
Newton’s view of the universe and all it contains as a vast machine with many parts, some of which are more important than others, emerged from seventeenth century Europe, where an incipient indus- trial revolution was changing society. The machine was central; there- fore, a universe that was a vast machine was a congruent concept.
That worldview has an alternative, however, since physicists split the atom and discovered within it, not more matter, but en- ergy. The measure of energy is a quanta. Quantum physics offers a radically new perception of the universe and our role in it.
Dialogue education, as I perceive it and have taught it, is in- formed by quantum concepts—ideas that emerge from the world- view of quantum physics. I have selected these six:
• Relatedness:All that we do in design and teaching is related. Each of the twelve principles is related to all the others.
• A holistic perspective:The whole is far more than the sum of its parts. Learners learn more than we teach!
• Duality:Embrace opposites, use both/and thinking.
Open questions invite both/and thinking and dialogue.
• Uncertainty:Every theory is constantly being con- structed by application to new contexts.
• Participation:The observer is part of what she observes.
Each person’s perception of any given reality is differ- ent, dependent on their context and culture. We evoke the world we perceive.
• Energy:Learning demands energy. Many of the princi- ples and practices of dialogue education are designed to raise and sustain the energy of learners.
Throughout this revised edition in each of the stories teaching the principles, I will show how the twelve selected principles of di- alogue education mesh with these six selected concepts from quan- tum thinking.
Classical, hierarchical education uses classical concepts: not re- latedness but separateness, for example. Think of education, where science and art are separate, research in one discipline is hoarded and not shared with others, and forty-five minute “periods” separate out the disciplines. A mechanistic world view holds an “atomistic” per- spective, which sees the whole as merely the sum of its parts. Con- sider a testing system that is based on closed questions. That is what emerges from an atomistic perspective. An educational philosophy that is based on rigid black-and-white norms and that presents either- or data reflects classical Newtonian thinking. Such thinking precludes a constructionist perspective that invites learners to develop the the- ory they are learning in light of their own context.
Consider the absolute certainty of many educational systems:
This is the way it is! Uncertainty is an anathema. Such an educa- tional system says: What I am teaching is doctrine, indisputable,
Quantum Thinking and Dialogue Education 31
32 LEARNING TOLISTEN, LEARNING TOTEACH
sure. Instead of the participation that honors the effect of context and culture on a learner’s perspective, this mechanistic approach demands a strict objectivity. Consider how educational systems are affected by such a seventeenth century, materialist perspective, which stresses product over process. It is the source of an educa- tional curriculum that prepares young men and women merely for the world of work, not for the work of the world, which is discov- ery, creation, integration, peace making.