Transformative Learning: Rational or Divine?
Transformative learning changes the way we approach adult education. Jack Mezirow, who is widely known as the founder of the concept of transformative learning, defines it as the positive change in behavior through a shift in meaning perspectives. Meaning perspectives is shaped by one’s past experiences and it determines the way we look at ourselves in relation to the world and other people. By recognizing and changing faulty perspectives, learners may adopt new roles and behaviors that can improve well-being both in an individual and social level. This change is facilitated through a rational process called critical reflection.
Mezirow’s transformative education was crystallized in his study of women returning to community colleges in the United States. He observed that these women learn differently by restructuring their perspectives and not by obtaining more information. Through this change in perspectives, they were able to adopt new roles that are productive and empowering. Mezirow and his team documented these phases of ‘personal transformation’ and in 1978 he introduced his theory to the world in a paper titled “Perspective Transformation”.
Mezirow’s concept of transformative learning is composed of ten stages. In summary, it starts with disorienting dilemma where learners identify inaccurate ways on how they see themselves in relation to the world and society. These perspectives are then explored through critical reflection of past experiences. Enlightened with this new self-knowledge, learners will decide to change these beliefs and assumptions. This leads them to create a plan on how to integrate the new “meaning perspectives” in their lives. In consequence, they adopt new behaviors and practice decisions that improves self-efficacy.
Mezirow’s transformative learning equips learners with rational abilities for taking control of their lives. It gives rise to the examination of problematic ideas through discourse. In an individual level, this means freedom from oppressive ideas that prevents personal growth. Learners become autonomous thinkers who are empowered to negotiate their own values and meanings instead uncritically following that of others. The approach also appreciates and recognizes the potential of human beings to solve problems and pursue progress. Because of this, Mezirow’s idea was used not only in social empowerment initiatives but also in training employees in the business world.
Some scholars, on the other hand, were critical on Mezirow’s concept of transformative learning. One major criticism pointed out his overemphasis on rationality. They believe that Mezirow’s idea is ‘one-sided’ since it biases towards the ego (rationality) trying to free itself from the static unconscious part of the psyche. These critiques argue that transformative learning is not entirely rational, and the use of critical reflection is only one part of ‘personal transformation’.
Given the above limitations on Mezirow’s concept, Robert Boyd develops an alternative view. He rejected the idea of transformation through rationality and proposes a more holistic one. Grounded by Jung’s analytical psychology, Boyd believes that transformation occurs with the expansion of one’s own consciousness to the other parts of the unconscious. Since the unconscious is treated as dynamic rather than static, the ego needs to have a dialogue with it. This results to the integration of emotional, intuitive, and ‘spiritual’ drives in the process of personal growth.
Boyd’s process of transformative learning happens through discernment and not by critical reflection. The first stage of discernment is receptivity, and it involves paying attention to information from the unconscious. The second stage is recognition where one acquires self-knowledge on the nature of transformation that ought to occur. At this stage, no evident transformation yet is happening, but one is now aware of what needs to change. The third and final stage is grief where an individual responds to the messages derived from the recognition and receptivity stage. This prompt them to feel an inner turmoil, a sense of disorder, that is somehow similar to an existential crisis. Grief stage is accompanied with a feeling of loss — a loss of tightly-held ideas, both conscious and unconscious, that was once a source of personal security.
Boyd’s view provided a new perspective on how we see transformation. It goes beyond acquiring more reason into a greater social-psychic journey. This was demonstrated in a study about how HIV patients make sense of their lives. The researchers noted a change in personal perspectives that include ‘making a contribution, experiencing a heightened sensitivity to people and being of service’ (Courteney, Merriam and Reeves, 1998). Scott (1991) strengthened Boyd’s view when he concluded that unconscious collective motivation and desires transcends egocentric needs in driving transformation. When this transformation happens, people’s perspectives seem to become universal that they start to reach out generously into alleviating other’s needs. In essence, transformation does not only make individuals autonomous but also inspires them to contribute and play a meaningful role in the society. Several studies on ‘spiritual’ experience, community compassion and interrelatedness also support this view.
Conclusion
Although the two views on transformative learning differs in many aspects, their essence are similar — to help people make positive changes in their lives. Transformative education is a great tool in facilitating personal growth both as an individual and as a community. As a learner of these concepts, I have a particular bias on Boyd’s views. This is not to say that rationality has no place in transformative education. But one should be aware that the human psyche is dynamic and there is a danger in confining transformation as merely rational mechanism. You might agree with me that many of our awe-inspiring personal learning occurs not in thinking alone but in immersing to an experience that is somehow similar to what is ‘divine’. These phenomena cannot be explained or dismissed by reason. Probably because what we learn subjectively and ‘spiritually’ are more real to us than the world of facts.
