Teaching Anthropology as Troublesomeness: Notes on instruction and the notion of Threshold Concepts Lee Wilson and David S.

Leitner
Presented at the Transforming Perspectives Seminar Series B: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Threshold Concepts
St. Johns College, Cambridge, 15 January 2007

Thank you for having us here today. There are a number of reasons an anthropologist might concern him or herself with the notion of Threshold Concepts. The most obvious is that, as members of the academy who are often called upon to fulfill a duty to teaching undergraduates, any ideas which might affect how one goes about teaching have potential applications. However, the notion of Threshold Concepts provides us as anthropologists with an interesting opportunity to reflect on the relationship between the assumptions anthropology often makes about knowledge and the ways we teach anthropology. Briefly, what is it that anthropologists do? Generally, our work consists of unpacking ideas and underlying assumptions and trying to understand them in the context of human social action. As such wed like to turn this anthropological gaze onto the notion of threshold concepts in light of some ethnographic examples of teaching and learning to see what questions might arise. There is not enough time here to unpack the entire notion of a Threshold Concept, nor even raise every implication for learning in anthropology. However, one aspect of the model has particular resonance with and demands more attention from an anthropological gaze namely, the notion of a concept as a threshold and the treatment of the attendant troublesomeness of the knowledge which this produces. Following Perkins (1999), Meyer and Land (2003) suggest that a threshold concept can of itself representtroublesome knowledge knowledge that is alien or counter-intuitive or even intellectually absurd at face value.(p2) As such the attendant troublesomeness of Threshold concepts is written about as a site of significant pedagogical importance (p5). But

Page 1 of 7

this importance seems largely due to the way that troublesomness is assumed to get in the way of fully understanding a concept. The counter-intuitive nature of a concept, while seen as integral to a threshold concept, is simultaneously something to be overcome something which different students seem differently capable of. But such a position does not hold up well in our experience. This characterization of troublesomeness is troubling in light of what anthropologists do and how they think about knowledge. Troublesomeness as an obstacle does not square well with a discipline, which, as we will argue, attempts to teach making things troublesome as a guiding principle of scholarly practice and general inquiry about the world. What we want to do with the notion of Threshold Concepts isnt to do away with it, but rather to take the notion of a threshold seriously. That is, not to marginalize it, but to open it up and recognize it as a locus for the generation of troublesomeness and to recognize the work that troublesomeness does. Perhaps even to say that it is the troublesomeness a concept seems to produce, and not the understanding of it, which can sometimes be the index of value of an educational encounter.

Teaching Troublesomeness One of the main aims of teaching an anthropology undergraduate course, as we see it, is to get across to the students a mode of inquiry and investigation that lies at the heart of anthropological analysis. Anthropological inquiry is a model of knowledge that is based upon asking open-ended questions, underpinned by a conception of knowledge not as a cumulative resource, but as a practice. As such anthropological knowledge practices are given to

reflection and critical examination, argued from a body of evidence that is primarily qualitative and experiential. Through the use of anthropological monographs we attempt to challenge the preconceptions students might have and demonstrate that there are different ways of thinking and being in the world. The aim then is to encourage reflexivity and critical

Page 2 of 7

engagements with the literature, to bring into question categories and concepts in relation to other models of knowledge and ways of engaging critically with the world. However, reflexivity (as the ability to reflect not just on others assumptions and preconceptions, but to simultaneously use them to reflect on ones own) is not only a technique anthropologists use to interrogate ethnographic literature. It underlies anthropological approaches to research and knowledge production in general. Previously (see the poster in the lobby), we have tentatively identified this as a possible threshold concept, but have noted that it does not fit comfortably with the qualities of being integrative, irreversible, or bounded (3 of the 5 criteria). It also poses a challenge for the position of troublesome knowledge in the threshold concept model. producing troublesomeness is the point. After an earlier discussion in this seminar series it was suggested that our views on troublesome knowledge in relation to the practice and pedagogy of social anthropology, while perhaps valid, might well differ from those of our students. Our failure to identify a tangible threshold concept in our teaching practice other than reflexivity was down to the fact that our reflection on and concerns with Threshold Concepts were those of expert practitioners. In an attempt to investigate whether this was indeed the case, we convened a focus group with students in their first year of an undergraduate archaeology and anthropology degree. We attempted to identify what it was that these students felt In anthropology,

characterized social anthropology after their first terms instruction. Interestingly, of the issues and points raised, the group all agreed on the following as how social anthropology might, in their experience, be summarised: that social anthropology was involved an attempt to identify levels of bias; that the discipline tries to be aware and critical of preconceptions and points of view. They stressed that it was about critical

thinking, made clear their anxieties over where they might ground their own interpretations in

Page 3 of 7

light of this, and asked ultimately whether social anthropology as a discipline is itself necessary! As far as one can take this single focus group as a vindication of ones teaching objectives, there did seem to be some correlation with our attempts to introduce troublesome knowledge not as an obstacle or barrier to be surmounted, but as a desired end in itself. In order to further elaborate the case we are making here, we will now do what anthropologists supposedly do best and turn to a rather more geographically distant locale in order to develop this argument further. We want briefly to consider an extremely

sophisticated form of pedagogy and knowledge transmission from West Java, in Indonesia. That is, the practice of Pencak Silat, a martial art prevalent throughout Indonesia and much of the Malay speaking world. Traditionally, training in Pencak Silat takes place through

apprenticeship to a master, and instruction in the art is often inalienable from the genealogical relationships that link it to person and place. The fundamental pedagogical tool in the instruction of Pencak Silat in West Java is the jurus. A jurus is a short sequence of specific movements learnt by rote. Each particular jurus is not a specific technique or response to an imaginary attack; rather jurus are ways of moving the body. Through the constant practice of these short sequences of movements certain habitual responses or specific bio-mechanical principles are inculcated within the practitioner. The student practices the series of jurus sequentially, and the amount of time spent in learning a particular jurus is dependent upon the students ability. The teacher will not pass on the next jurus in the series until he is satisfied with the competency of the performance of the current jurus that is being learnt by the student. Recalling his own experiences as a student, one teacher explained that he had been made to practice each jurus day in and day out for three to six months before his teacher would pass on the next in the series to him. Crucially, for a student to understand the meaning of the movements practiced constantly in the jurus, the jurus must be opened (dibuka) by the teacher. That is, when the

Page 4 of 7

teacher considers it appropriate, he will provide an illustration of a possible interpretation of how the learnt movements are relevant in response to a particular attack. This understanding of how the movements learnt could be used in application is referred to as the key (konci). Without this critical insight into the ways in which they might be applied, the jurus remain meaningless. It is only by critical reflection upon the ways of moving the body that the habitual knowledge learnt through practicing the jurus becomes relevant in application. Just when this critical insight, this opening of the jurus by the teacher, takes place is contingent upon the teachers appraisal of the students ability and character. One teacher explained that he had practiced a particular set of jurus for five years before his teacher had opened them and he had at last begun to understand the ways of moving that he had spent so long perfecting. The important thing here is this moment of critical insight and reflection on practice. That is, knowledge of the jurus, acquired through bodily practice, is habitual in the sense that it is pre-reflective, and requires explication and direct reflection if habitual response is to become equal to any given moment of generative performance. The corpus of knowledge that is contained in the jurus is far more than a mere repertoire of techniques. Learning jurus is not to commit to somatic memory some set of pre-programmed responses. Rather, jurus, once understood, provide the basis for a potentially limitless adaptation to circumstance. Moreover, practicing the jurus does not just pave the way to understanding. Practicing jurus is a space of forming understanding, part of a continuum of changing understandings. As one becomes more accomplished in the practice of the jurus one begins to cultivate sensitivity in application through practice with a partner. In West Java this kind of interaction with another player is referred to as usik, a kind of controlled sparring. While the term usik may be translated as to move, it also implies to disturb. The aim of usik, of disturbing ones partner or of being disturbed, is to develop sensitivity to an opponents

Page 5 of 7

intentions. In engaging in usik the two players square off facing one another, and the interaction usually begins with them in contact with one another. The hands are extended in front of the body, one in front of the other, touching each others forearms, and either party may initiate the engagement, the aim of which is to unbalance the opposing player, to throw them, trap them or lock their limbs. The sprit in which usik is conducted is that of mutual enquiry, of both players presenting the other with problems in order that they may develop their abilities in a way that they could not do practicing alone. The opening of jurus and their further practice through usik is a transformative moment, a movement from one state of understanding to another and another, which is brought about by the introduction of new knowledge or a key insight into what the student may have been practicing for some time. As such, we think there are some important implications for the notions of threshold and troublesome knowledge. First, the moment at which the Pencak Silat teacher might choose to open the jurus varies from student to student. No one student is the same as any other, and the interaction with the student reflects this. Some move on very quickly, others spend a long time learning a particular jurus. The capacity of students to perform certain jurus varies in accordance with their physique, agility, temperament, and so on. There is no one size fits all approach to learning Pencak Silat in this way. In a similar fashion, the idea that one might locate a threshold concept in a theoretical landscape that is invariable for all students, or negotiated by the majority, can be seen to neglect particular needs and subjectivities. Second, the student is far from passive in the process of learning. While it may be an intervention on the part of the teacher that initiates the beginning of greater understanding on the part of the student, the student is far more than just a passive receptor of objectified knowledge. We feel that the idea of a threshold concept in this sense neglects inter-

Page 6 of 7

subjectivities.

It assumes a broadcast model of knowledge, an agent or producer of

knowledge and a passive recipient. Third, and here perhaps most importantly for our present discussion, the idea of usik, of disturbing, of agitation, of always being troublesome, is a generative space. In the sense that it leads to new insights, the opening of the jurus never stops. They are constantly

emerging, a fact borne out on a number of occasions. Sometimes, while training with very senior teachers, they have stopped to think about the way in which a jurus might be applied, and exclaimed their surprise and excitement at seeing something new. Without saying that anthropologists teach with the equivalent of jurus, there is at least one very important parallel to highlight. Our objective as instructors of anthropology is to move students into a space where they are no longer simply asking questions to clarify concepts, but rather are actively questioning the answers they are given. Indeed one of the indexes which other anthropology supervisors and instructors have identified to us as how they know a student will do well on an exam is whether the students supervisions have moved from being instructions, to conversations. And it is improbable that a student will score a first on an exam if they dont, in some way, turn the exam question back on itself. We would suggest then that the notion of a threshold as just the space one passes through on the way to understanding is perhaps the wrong focus to have. The places in which troublesomeness might be found are not somewhere to move quickly beyond, but are those places in which generative potential might be constantly realized. We advocate hanging out in troublesome spots a bit longer. Often this is where the most interesting times are to be had.

Page 7 of 7