THREE SENSITIZING CONCEPTS

I think that thoughtful study shows conclusively that the concepts of our discipline are fundamentally sensitising instruments. Hence I call them „sensitising concepts‟. A sensitising concept … gives the user a general sense of reference and guidance in approaching empirical instances. Whereas definitive concepts provide prescriptions of what to see, sensitising concepts merely suggest directions along which to look. (Blumer, 1954, p. 7)

Blumer (ibid.) argued that it was necessary, in social science where definitive concepts are difficult to find, to work with „sensitising concepts‟ in orienting research. In this study I worked with three sensitising concepts which weave together the theoretical framework, the research questions and the research process. The sensitising concepts are dialectics, reflexivity and agency and are discussed below in Sections 1.6.1 to 1.6.3.

1.6.1 Reflexivity

Reflexivity refers to self-transformative capacity (Delanty, 2005, p.120) and in the context of this study it means the ability of people in the workplace to develop their own capacity to

13

reflect on, review and change in response to contextual factors and improved understanding of practice (SADC REEP, 2002). Reflexivity also involves “the use of knowledge to generate further knowledge” (Delanty, 2005, p. 120). It makes a connection between knowledge, thinking and acting (ibid.). Abercrombie, Hill & Turner (2006) defined three aspects of reflexivity: the ability to look into oneself; to examine own practice and change it; and the ability to reflect on and talk about the social world. Beck‟s reflexive modernisation is tied to knowledge on foundations, consequences and problems of modernisation processes – which is also essentially linked to unintended consequences of modernisation, as well as unawareness (Beck, 2000). He defines unawareness as not-yet knowledge, or no-longer knowledge, which is essentially potential knowledge (Beck, 2000). When Giddens talks of institutional reflexivity he is referring to the development of knowledge rather than to „disembedding‟ and „re-embedding‟ which means employing knowledge to change structures and social forms of action (Beck, 2000). Wals and van der Leij (2007) likened reflexivity to cognitive competence, and noted that “cognitive competencies can only realise their full transformative potentials when they are embedded farther in a further development of social capital and social as well as emotional competencies” (p. 25). Wals et al. (2009, p. 9) described a reflexive society as one that “has the capacity to lay existing routines, norms and values on the table, but also has the ability to correct itself. A reflexive society requires reflexive citizens who critically review and alter everyday systems that we live by and that we often take for granted”.

In the context of this study reflexivity involves capacity to continuously and strategically reflect on, review, and change in response to internal and contextual factors, leading to an improved understanding of practice (SADC REEP, 2002). I was interested in finding out how everyday experiences could be reflected on so as to consciously build new knowledge to address agricultural concerns through assisting research participants to examine their learning and practice. This involved iterative learning, acting and reflecting along an expansive learning path as research participants navigated across their jointly defined zones of proximal development. My research journey was also informed by reflexivity in that I continuously sought to expand my horizons and capabilities as a researcher (see Section 4.8).

1.6.2 Dialectics

The Oxford Advanced Learners‟ Dictionary defines dialectics as a philosophy of discovering the truth of ideas by discussion and logical argument and by considering ideas opposed to each other (Wehmeier, McIntosh, Turnbull & Ashby, 2005). Abercrombie et al. (2006, p. 107) explained dialectics as “the view that development depends on the clash of contradictions and the creation of a new, more advanced synthesis out of the clashes”. Dialectics is influenced by Hegelian-Marxist thinking and its development begins with assumptions that reality evolves from contradictions between antagonistic and non-

14

antagonistic forces (Gadotti, 1996). Macey (2000) outlined three laws of dialectics as: the law of unity and conflict, which states that all phenomena consist of mutually contradictory elements, and that change is a result of addressing their internal contradictions; the law of the transition of quantity into quality, which argues that quantitative change leads to qualitative ones; and the law of negation of the negation referring to the fact that the new order is negated again as contradictions arise and new solutions are sought. I used contradictions as potential sites for stimulating learning and growth as proposed in Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) (see Section 3.6.4). Two of the most important forms of tension identified in social learning, which this study also encountered, were between need and competence; and between conflict and cooperation (Wals & van der Leij, 2007, p. 22). Dean (2006) identified a strong connection between dialectics and agency in capitalism:

Capitalist forms of agency are different in character and more various than those in pre- capitalist cultures. They are different in that they involve transformation rather than reproduction of existing repertoires of action. What this means is that capitalism is impelled to transform rather than reproduce modes of subjectivity if it is to reproduce itself. (p. 140). The discourse of sustainability within which sustainable development, and also sustainable agriculture are located, is built within the capitalism that Dean refers to above (see Section 1.7.4.2). In sustainable agriculture, it is necessary to constantly manage different and often competing interests of the environment, economy and social equity. In addition sustainable agriculture, being informed by both traditional and conventional knowledge systems, involves the coming together and possible clashing of different knowledges, perspectives and voices. This means that a suitable theoretical framework should enable me to both identify and work with contradictions.

1.6.3 Agency

“While philosophy seeks only to understand the world, the point is to change it” (Marx in Green, 2009, p.40). Agency is change oriented and can be perceived as the human will to act towards a given end in relation to something or some other people. It involves actors‟ engagement with structures to reproduce or transform them. It entails that the actors who exercise agency “enter into relationship with surrounding persons, places, meanings and events … a dialogic process by which actors immersed in the duree of lived experience engage with others in collectively organised action contexts, temporal as well as spatial” (Emirbayer, 1997, p. 294). Barnes (2000, p. 25) defined agency thus, “For an individual to possess agency is for her to possess internal powers and capacities, which, through their exercise, make her an active entity constantly intervening in the course of events going on around her” [emphasis in original]. These powers, according to Giddens in Barnes (2000), constitute the ability to make a difference by acting on or against external constraints and to transform the structures and systems from which they arise. Agency is therefore not passive.

15

Sibeon (1999, in Lewis, 2002, p. 17) explained agency as the „capacity to act upon situations‟ and that agency is a property of actors, an actor in this sense meaning the individual, group or organisation with the capability to make and execute decisions. Archer (1995) argued that agency leads to morphogenesis of two kinds: that of structures and systems and that of the actors themselves. “Morphogenesis of agency produces yet another kind of morphogenesis, morphogenesis of actors. When the agents regroup, an elaboration of roles will take place. The number of roles which can be attributed to persons increase” (Zeuner, 2000, p. 81). The study also draws on Engeström‟s (2008) notion of agency and links agency to causality built on interpretation and contradictions as the statement below reveals:

Eskola‟s realistic paradigm focuses on the fact that humans do not merely react as physical objects; they act based upon their activities, interpretations and logics. For the sake of simplicity, we may [call] this, the interpretative layer of causality. But there is more causality in human contexts. Human beings not only interpret, they also face contradictions between multiple motives embedded in and engendered by their historically evolving communities and objects. This is the layer that makes human beings look irrational and unpredictable…This adds another layer to human causality. It is called the contradictory layer. What is still missing is the human potential for agency, for intentional collective and individual actions aimed at transforming the activity. Thus I complete the picture by adding an agentive layer. (Engeström, 2008, p 16)

The table below (Table 1.1) summarises the place of agency in human activity.

Table 1.1: Three layers of causality in human action

Interpretive layer In the actor Takes into account according to this and that logic

If X, then Y Rule, law Contradictory layer As participant in

collective activities Is driven by contradictory motives Searching for resolution by often unpredictable actions Agentive layer As potential individual

and collective agent Takes intentional transformative action Inventing and using artefacts to control the action from the outside

Source: Engeström, 2008, p 17.

Agency has intentionality and can be either an individual or a collective process. This study is change oriented and therefore designed to support the development of agency among research participants. It also covers the quality of partnerships that exist between persons. I also draw heavily on Engeström‟s (2008, pp. 36-37) five forms of agency, namely:

a. Resisting and intervention through criticism, questioning and rejection;

b. Explicating new possibilities or potentials by, among other things, drawing from past positive experiences;

16

c. Envisioning new models of the activity, which may come in the form of suggestions; d. Committing to concrete action (agentive talk), where the speaker expresses his/her

intention to act in a specific way; and

e. Taking consequential action to change the way things are.

In this study I use agency to refer to individual, collective and relational abilities to purposefully transform themselves, other people as well as the structures within which they live and operate – transformative power and creative action. This study is primarily interested in enhancing the agency of individuals and their communities to take responsible action and achieve dual forms of morphogenesis discussed by Archer (1995). This therefore meant supporting the development of individual, relational and collective agency. In addition the study worked with agentive talk by analysing how language was used during Change Laboratory workshops to prepare research participants to exercise agency (see Section 8.2).