ABSTRACT
It is indeed curious that the popularity of postmodern discourses in academic disciplines hasn’t facilitated a fruitful dialogue among professionals whose teaching and scholarship are motivated by deeply held values. Though the departure from positivistic assumptions has created a space for the expression of one’s values and identities, we are still unsure how to personally relate to the diverse values and identities others bring to the classroom. Even more curiously, though values are acknowledged now in education, we are still unsure how to deal with moral and spiritual values. The academy seems to be uncomfortable with spirituality. It is good to remind ourselves of the road we have traveled so far to understand the new bases for teaching and scholarship, and to map the territory we still have to cover in order to grapple with the new challenges raised for all of us. The positivistic tradition, which accompanied modernity, imposed a valuesneutral and somewhat controlled orientation to learning and knowledge. This tradition was founded on the idea that we live in a closed universe whose mysteries are open to the mind and senses of those who could separate themselves from their predisposition, feelings, and values. The questioning of that tradition has ushered a new outlook into the educational domain. In a post-positivist education (see Scheurich, 1995), there are spaces for a broadened scholarly discourse, inclusive professional orientation, and expansive pedagogical resources. Scholars from different cultural traditions and geographical regions find more spaces for practicing their knowledge. Diverse identities find expression in scholarly
discourses. Scholars from different philosophical traditions are compelled to negotiate their differences. The aim of this book is to facilitate a more fruitful dialogue among two specific groups of TESOL professionals who occupy some of the most divergent discourses and intransigent positions on the place of moral/ spiritual values in the profession-i.e., critical practitioners (CP), who bring a keen sensitivity to the pedagogical negotiation of power, and Christian English Teachers (CET) who bring a keen sensitivity to spirituality in learning and scholarship. If we meet with the appropriate attitude, religion doesn’t have to be a “conversation stopper” (Rorty, 1994, p. 1) anymore, whether in TESOL or in the academy generally! There is already a dialogue-of sorts-in TESOL circles relating to the expression of spirituality in English language teaching. The problem is that it has produced more heat than light. Scholars of both spiritually based and politically based perspectives feel that their discourses are too disparate for a dialogue to be possible. The point is expressed loud and clear even by some contributors to this book. If modernist assumptions still influence one’s thinking, the discourses of CP and CET will certainly seem incommensurate. On the other hand, if the developments of post-positivistic inquiry are taken to their logical conclusion, the differences in discourses of any school shouldn’t keep one away from dialogue. Incommensurate discourses are the norm in the post-positivist academy. Perhaps, as Morgan points out in his contribution to this book, there is a “blind spot” relating to spirituality in TESOL (p. 193). The confusion in TESOL circles regarding moral/spiritual values reflects the uncertainty more broadly in popular discourse and academic discussions as to the framework guiding such a dialogue. As the platform for discussion is shifting, making space for a constructive dialogue, there is a search for footing by all parties in this discussion. Signs of the renewed epistemological search are evident in the popular debates on spirituality unleashed by a wave of new books.1 In the confusion, the volume against spirituality has been turned up in some quarters. Paradoxically, this vitriol is itself spawned by the renewed interest in spirituality in many circles. The recent books by Richard Dawkins (2006) and Christopher Hitchens (2007) show a continuation of stereotypes relating to the connections between spirituality, politics, and rationality. Though this attitude is not surprising, what is remarkable is that these books have been roundly criticized by even non-religious reviewers for being so clichéd. The Chronicle of Higher Education has culled some of the reviews on Dawkins in the scholarly community. No other than the Marxist theorist, Terry Eagleton, argues:
Card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins, who is the nearest thing to a professional atheist we have had since Bertrand Russell, are in one sense the least well-equipped to understand what they castigate, since they don’t believe there is anything there to be understood, or at least anything worth understanding. This is why they invariably come up with vulgar caricatures of religious faith that would make a first-year theology student wince. The more they detest religion, the more ill-informed their criticisms of it tend to be.
