as an educator

The image is the graphical representation of my understandings on Wenger’s chapter 6. I couldn’t represent the ‘peripherality’ and ‘marginality’ because I coudn't figure out 'how', not 'what'.

As a student who studies education, this week’s reading reminded me again of the missions I have to accomplish; making the world a better place by providing “good” education. Many scholars have discussed about the kinds of “good” education that helps students develop their identities, which consequently lead them to be more self-actualized persons, from several different perspectives according to their domains.

I believe Wenger’s approach to the issues of identity development can be understood in relation with what the education policy researchers think.

Modern liberal societies contain not only groups with different cultures and different views about a good life but also groups with different ideas of how this is achieved. The plurality in a community permits the development of autonomy (coherent identity in Wenger's term) in three ways - 1) it enables individuals to question any particular value without a damage of identity, 2) it provides a non-idiosyncratic standpoint from which to critique one’s values and desires, and 3) we can understand the criticisms that others make of us with the plurality (Levinson, 1999). In this respect, plurality is a good because it contributes to the good, autonomy, by requiring individuals to defend their chosen conceptions of the good against a range of others available to them (this is exactly what Wenger says).

Levinson (1999) argues that to reap the benefits of social diversity, children must be exposed to ways of life different from their parents and – in the course of their exposure – must embrace certain values, such as mutual respect among persons, that make social diversity both possible and desirable.

So, the aim of liberal education is to teach children the skills, habits, knowledge, and dispositions for them to be thoughtful, mature, self-assured individuals who map their path in the world with care and confidence, take responsibility for their actions, fulfill their duties as citizens, question themselves and others when appropriate, listen to and learn from others, and ultimately lead their lives with dignity, integrity, and self-respect (Levinson, 1999).
 
Levinson also argues that the ideal liberal school should be common, with mutual language, common civic history, and some shared values. Schools should be a place where the private-public distinction of political liberalism is blurred (though not relinquished) through the minimally discriminatory incorporation of private commitments into the public identity cultivated in the school. Pluralism is the source of the energy for the social development and the policies should ensure the pluralistic culture in schools. This gives indications to the kinds of policies that a community (including an e-community) should facilitate for the members.