This Forum (discussion) is about my own excitement to see signs of growing interest in the field of Fearology. Of course, it is all very tentative and in the early stages of manifesting with more precision and confidence in the world. Kalu's (2017) book, see recent FM blog post (above), is one indication of a healthy and vigorous "fearology" just waiting to unfold onto the planet and show that there is indeed a 'real' contingent of edge-futurist thinkers convinced that we need to understand evolution and the history of humanity as being fundamentally and intimately shaped by fear (and, what I call the Fear Problem). This energy of late has led to my various imaginings of first a "Fearology Training Institute" (see earlier FM blogs), and what I now prefer to re-name as simply "The Fearology Institute."
There are some reasons for the name change I'll discuss below. There are also reasons behind the image I chose to play with here (above): that is, using an image of a real building that postmodern architects no doubt had real fun with designing and building at this location (unknown to me) where the old and new (past and future; traditional and contemporary) enjoin in a creative way that truly is both exciting and weird; but has its own 'beauty' and speaks its own 'truth' on the way to an awakening of consciousness of the 'good.' The image provokes metaphorically, I think, just how radical it is that we have to change/transform the "building" (foundation) of our old dominant worldview (that predominates still) --and, to do so in a major way, based on transformational premises and new integral (post-formal) principles of guidance and organization--both concrete and in the abstract world of ideas. I submit this image (imaginary), with my text I placed on it in photoshop, as if I was already advertisting to take on new quality students and bring in new quality faculty to serve them. To serve them in what? To get a "Diploma" or "Degree" or something like that in "Fearology" so they will be qualified (at least, as beginners) to step up and out into the world as "Fearologists" for hire! There is this new profession waiting to emerge. However, beyond that professional interest in what The Fearology Institute offers, there is also the academic/research and behind the scenes operations all of which complements the teaching/learning to be a "Fearologist."
The Fearology Institute: Global Critical Thinking About Fear in a Postmodern Era
With this new imaginary lingering now amongst us, or at least significantly it does in my soul... I proceed now for the rest of this blog to articulate around some of the bolded words above and in particular to focus on something called "postformal thinking" [1] (part of the postmodern turn)--part of the awareness many researchers and critical thinkers are suggesting is a basic critical thinking capacity required by any future-type thinker and professional and person on the globe--especially, if they are attempting to solve some of the world's "wicked problems." I have said before that the Fear Problem is one of the wicked problems that unfortunately most all people are not yet acknowledging--they, rather prefer to use global warming, poverty, wars, racism, mass migration, etc. as typical wicked problems. This latter term has been used by many, including my fav. philosopher Ken Wilber. Wicked problems are those that are so global and complex, so difficult to solve, that they are forcing us as a species to think entirely in new ways--just like the postmodern architecture that you see being "added-on" to the old building above--these buildings that represent say "modernist" thinking (i.e., formal thinking using cognitive science and psychology terminology).
So what kind of thinking is foundational in the curriculum and pedagogy of The Fearology Institute?
That's exactly what I have been thinking about off and on, and this morning it is very relevant to me in particular because of reading an intriguing chapter in a book by the eminent critical pedagogue/theorist Dr. Joe Kincheloe (and Dr. Shirley Steinberg). These educators I respect and so do many around the world because of their influence. You can search them on the Internet if you want. The Fearology Institute is going to be many things, but it will ultimately be an educational institution and so I want the best educational philosophies, theories, and technologies brought into its core design. And, yes, all for the purpose of re-thinking how to think about fear (and 'fear') in the new postmodern era!
Because my formal education (Ph.D.) is in the field of Education, I have to come out strongly in suggesting the ways that the curriculum for the training (and educating) of the future Fearologist ought to be for the kind of world that we face, and for the kind of wicked problem that is the Fear Problem.
I'll just touch on some of Kincheloe & Steinberg's ideas they have published on [2], which are part of critical thinking and critical education--each of these approaches have a very unique and formal arc to them. One doesn't just teach or learn, according to Kincheloe & Steinberg, one comes into the learning with a whole lot of prior learning and social conditioning. I argue, further, a good deal of the cognitive learning (as I'll focus on here, and not on emotional, somatic, moral learning etc.) that children, youth and adults receive is actually fear-based or fear-conditioned learning. Educational psychologists are actually not shy to admit this latter point. They have rationalized and normalized fear-conditioned learning as "useful" for lots of tasks. I won't go into my long critique of this set of assumptions and the kind of Cartesian-Newtonian paradigm and epistemology of functionalism, pragmatism, etc. that lies behind that agenda. My interest, as is the critical thinking and education behind Kincheloe & Steinberg, is to ask serious questions about "cognition" and "cognitive" and how they are conceptualized within larger contextual frames. And, now, to quote K & S (rather long)... I want readers of this blog to get at least the bare minimum of what they are saying, as they introduce the limitations (if not pathology) of our current views of cognitive learning and development... I want readers to ponder their points, realizing I am only giving the smallest slice of their full pie of ideas and critical philosophy of teaching/learning.
Again, my point is, that The Fearology Institute is going to necessarily be about "thinking about fear"--for that's a major part of the way we do philosophy, do fear management, fear education, etc. So, I want The Fearology Institute to really critically reflect on the thinking about fear that is going on everywhere in our world--and, ask tough questions about the "thinking" itself that is going on around the topic fear--or fearism, or fearology, etc. Why? Because I wish to see this postmodern Fearology movement and Institute really become a leader in teaching and applying new ways to think critically about all kinds of things, but to learn to do so through the study of fear(ism) or "fearist lens" as Desh Subba calls it and/or as I call a "fearlessness" lens. That is really a unique creative curriculum I'd love to see and be educated within. My point is that I am looking how best to nourish the most holistic-integral full-spectrum Intelligence through intelligent critical thinking to be brought to the Fear Problem and so much more.
On that note, let me begin the quote (later, I'll follow-up and respond to a few things, but the best way is to join in study and discussion with others about this all):
[Abstract from K & S] In this article, Joe Kincheloe and Shirley Steinberg critique and challenge the reductionistic conceptions of intelligence that underlie cognitive developmental theory. The authors formulate a post-Piagetian cognitive theory that is informed by and extends critical, feminist, and postmodern thought [I would call my own version of extension, going further beyond even K & S, to a critical integral thinking that Wilber calls "post-post-formal" or "integral" for short]. By delineating the features of what they refer to as a "post-formal" way of thinking, the authors provide practitioners with a framework for reconsidering both curricular and pedagogical practices.
Postmodern analysis, though diverse in the ways it is conceptualized, has consistently laid bare the assumptions of Cartesian logic by exposing the ways that the structure of traditional science [e.g., modernist psychology as well] constructs imaginary worlds. Science, like a novel, is "written"; both the novel and science operate according to the arbitary rules of a language game [a la Wittengenstein]. Such postmodern [critical] understandings confront us with a dramatic socio-educational dilemma: how do we function in the midst of such uncertainty?
The contemporary debate over postmodernism is often framed [dualistically] in all-or-nothing terms--we can either completely accept or completely reject Western modernism [or postmodernism too]. In our work, we have sought a middle ground that attempts to hold onto the progressive and democratic features of modernism while drawing upon the insights postmodernism provides concerning the failure of reason, the tyranny of grand narratives, the limitations of science, and the repositioning of relationships between dominant and subordinate [i.e., marginalized] cultural groups. In such complex and changing times [1990s], we, as critical educators, turn to our emancipatory system of meaning [i.e., critical pedagogy/theory], grounded as it is in feminist notions of passionate knowing, African-American epistemologies, subjugated knowledges (ways of knowing that have been traditionally excluded from the conversation of mainstream educators), liberation-theological ethics, and the progressive modernist concerns with justice, liberty, and equality. As we temper our system of meaning with a dose of postmodern self-analysis and epistemological (or maybe post-epistemological) humility, we move to a new zone of cognition--a post-formal way of thinking. (pp. 53-54)
[Interlude: I would agree with so much of the above as to say, almost, it is much of how I think about what is important and essential to where we have to move in our thinking as "critical thinkers" of all kinds. This is just good futurist education in my mind, and theirs. In particular, I wish to note the multiperspectival nature of their grasp of meanings, truths, and ways of knowing... that is, their methodological foundation with pluralistic epistemological complexity and sensitivity in the ethical domain of reality. I so appreciate this, including the mention of "post-epistemological" possibility in this advanced form of post-formal thinking they are positing and reflecting on here--and, it is "tentative" as they say in the title of their essay. These qualities and epistemic humility and integrity are appealing and resonant with my own construction of a critical integral fearology approach overall--following a similar sensibility in the Integral Philosophy/Theory of Ken Wilber--which goes further into post-post-formal (and beyond that too? [3])... see his spectrum of consciousness theory; okay back to the quote from K & S who... as I jump a page or two in their text, dive into "liberation" as part of critical thinking at the post-formal level]
Liberatory outcomes are far from the consciousness of many curriculum makers who ground their work in the discourse of child development. Liberatory intent is also betrayed when we fail to address the critical constructivist [and contextualist, and integral] concern [4] with the social construction of mind. In the same way that Cartesian-Newtonian science strips away the layers of the social from our analysis, cognitive development is essentialized [and reductionistic]. The social features (race, class, gender, place) that influence patterns and definitions of development [i.e., cognition, that is, thinking] are ignored, allowing what are actually social constructions to be seen as natural processes. Here rests the practical value of the postmodern critique with its decentering of the subject [i.e., knower]. (p. 57)
There is so much more I could quote and bring forward in K & S's essay. This is good enough for now, and so let me point out relevant issues to the study of Fearology and becoming a Fearologist. First, these critical educators and theorists point out implicitly that "training" is not adequate because "education" is so much deeper a liberation process. That's why I have changed the original title of The Fearology Training Institute to The Fearology Institute. Post-formal thinking and critical pedagogy that goes with it require us to fully critique merely "skills" and "attitudes" and "talents" in training operations--to something, that always raises contextual and constructivist issues about what is being perpeturated (potentially) as value-neutral 'norms' which are upon closer examination oppressive within so-called "skills" training.
Secondly, they guide us in their postmodern (post-formal) critique that we cannot just do experiments, be they empirical and concrete or even philosophical thought experiments without taking into account epistemologically the very "social" and "cultural" (and political) embedded history of the discourses that flow through and around us as experimenters/researchers/thinkers/knowers. And, of course, this all applies to us as learners and teachers too. They challenge "individualism" and humanistic "liberalism" architectures of the solid "self" (agent) who can be or think freely--as if not in context, not in social construction, and as if not in process of change constantly as well because of the contexts and situations, events, of a dynamic life (ecology of being).
Now, mostly, I am wanting to leave you with the notion of applying some of the post-formal thinking (i.e., critical integral thought) to the study of Fear (and, concomitantly, and dialectically) and Yourself (i.e., as a Fearologist in the making and becoming... ongoing). If we are doing post-formal thinking as we theorize and philosophize, that is, we are teaching a way to come into relationship with "fear" in a way not usually done--in fact, rarely. "Fear" becomes a part of the unit of analysis for the postmodern Fearologist that includes the historical, social, cultural, political dynamics of Power/Knowledge/Fear (a la Foucault)--and, post-formal critical thinking adds on "Self" to that unit, which is part of the ongoing self-analysis (i.e., I call fearanalysis)--of the investigator themselves as they attempt to understand "fear" across the complexity and contexts, and social and epistemic constructions. I would highly recommend the curriculum of The Fearology Institute have basic courses of study in the foundational years of at minimum the following domains of research and theorizing: that is, "social linguistics," "social-cognitivism," "epistemology" and "epistemic-cognitivism" and "social epistemology" and "integral-aperspectivism"--basically good understanding of how our thinking and how our mind is shaped by these complex forces. K & S wrote, "Liberatory intent is also betrayed [by educators] when we fail to address the critical constructivist concern with the social construction of mind" (p. 57).
Now, add "fear" and its role in the social construction of mind/thinking (and visa versa) [5]... and, things get really interesting for curriculum at The Fearology Institute. I think this is a good place to stop for now. I will say, to remind you, that Kincheloe & Steinberg (as one e.g.) are finding that postmodernism has more to offer (as long as we don't get trapped in its extreme worst rebellious sides, e.g., narcissism, nihilism, relativism)--we ought to look at integrating its best sides and that's what my critical integral Fearology is all about.
Notes
1. "post-formal" (or postformal) is a term used by some to extend beyond to the next stage of thinking/cognition where Jean Piaget, the great cognitive development psychologist/researcher, did not go and ask about (or, if he did, only later in his career apparently). Piaget identified stages of cognitive development in his empirical research (using value-neutral modernist assumptions) from pre-concrete, to concrete, to formal operations. This he advanced as essential in development of intelligence. This model of his has had great impact on all forms of formal education and beyond across the world for decades.
2. The original essay here comes from a 1992 draft of a paper, so it is about 25 years old. Reprinted in some form as: Kincheloe, J. L., and Steinberg, S. (2011). A tentative description of post-formal thinking: The critical confrontation with cognitive thinking. In k. hayes, S. R. Steinberg and K. Tobin (Eds.), Key works in critical pedagogy: Joe L. Kincheloe (pp. 53-76). Netherlands: Sense Publishers.
3. More closely aligned to what I am speaking about re: post-formal to post-post-formal integration of thinking can be found in a good synopsis in Gidley, J. M. (2016). Postformal education: A philosophy for complex futures. Switzerland: Springer International Publsihing.
4. I follow Wilber's direction and philosophy which says that "postmodern" (despite all the controversies in defining it) is most universally accepted as having made a significant advance to thinking/cognitive processes and knowledge--that is, it has included (while also invented) (a) contextualism, (b) constructivism, and (c) integral-aperspectivism. Indeed, the latter, called "integral" here for short, is the least acknowledged as part of the postmodern revolution.
5. I refer to this dialectical or "two-way" traffic in understanding the transformation of fear (see Fisher, 2016, p. 22). Fisher, R. M. (2016). Transformation of fear: A critical look in educational philosophy and contexts. Technical Paper No. 63. Carbondale, IL: In Search of Fearlessness Research Institute.
Replies
Well, FYI, the Fearology Institute (TFI) has been on hiatus since 2020 and, of late there are plans now to re-introduce TFI as a 'center within a center' -- stay tuned in early spring 2023 when this is going to happen. I'm looking forward to Directing this venture once again.
Institute of Art and Ideas- (IAI) is an interesting place for free access to philosophy courses from some of the best thinkers in the world today, at least this is how IAI spins its advertisement. This is part of a growing set of new institutions and old ones setting up 'alternative' life-long learning opportunities. You may find it an interesting place to explore. [Thanks Desh Subba for sending this along: And note there is a course on Kierkegaard's "Fear & Trembling" revised]. Typically, even these so-called 'leading-edge' learning websites do not venture all that far away from the tried-n-true academics who are for the most part still very institutionally traditional academics in academic culture. But, who knows, I share the IAI vision (from their website) as in some ways, not others, it has a higher educational philosophy like my own:
Our Vision
There is little that we can be certain about, but we can be confident that a time will come when our current beliefs and assumptions are seen as mistaken, our heroes - like the imperial adventurers of the past - are regarded as villains, and our morality is viewed as bigoted prejudice.
So the IAI seeks to challenge the notion that our present accepted wisdom is the truth. It aims to uncover the flaws and limitations in our current thinking in search of alternative and better ways to hold the world.
The IAI was founded in 2008 with the aim of rescuing philosophy from technical debates about the meaning of words and returning it to big ideas and putting them at the centre of culture. Not in aid of a more refined cultural life, but as an urgent call to rethink where we are.
That rethinking is urgent and necessary because the world of ideas is in crisis. The traditional modernist notion that we are gradually uncovering the one true account of reality has been undermined by a growing awareness that ideas are limited by culture, history and language. Yet in a relative world the paradoxes of postmodern culture has left us lost and confused. We do not know what to believe, nor do we know how to find the answers.
The IAI was founded to help address this intellectual crisis. Our research and editorial teams have worked around the clock to face up to this challenge and unearth fresh ways of thinking that might guide us in an uncertain world.
2016 has brought new impetus and urgency to this pursuit. 'Post-truth' was named word of the year, and the chaos in the world of ideas was reflected in the media and in politics and society more generally. At first 'post-truth' was used by the mainstream media to criticize a politics of emotion and a casual attitude to objective facts. It was not long before the attack rebounded and those with radically different perspectives claimed the same lack of neutrality in their critics. Each side regarding the other as the provider of 'fake news'. Each supposing that their truth was the only one.
When, with the founding of the IAI, we declared that philosophy and big ideas should be at the heart of our culture, we did not do so out of reverence for ideas or an attachment to the academy and intellectual life. We did so because it is these core thoughts and ideas that determine the character of our world and our lives.
It is our vision that philosophy and big ideas are not a pleasant reflective addition to our everyday lives but an essential determinant of who and where we are and of what is possible. At the IAI we are committed to finding new and better ways to make sense of the world so that we can navigate a brighter future in an increasingly dangerous world.
What is profound is that these critical thinking frameworks and ideas were being synthesized by academics such as Kincheloe and Steinberg decades ago. Your reinvigorating this work with the vision of The Fearology Institute is important. If there is a time for this, it is more than ever now.