Bergman, R. (2011). Catholic social learning: Educating the faith that does justice. New York: Fordham University Press.
This book discusses Catholic social teaching, especially active service learning, as an element of Catholic education, in accordance with the Catholic commitment to social justice and the poor.
Bergman notes that discussions of Catholic education have little to say about Catholic social teaching (CST) and “CST has almost nothing to say about Catholic social pedagogy” (p.3). His book aims to connect the two. His main point as that the best way to do this is through “personal encounters” (with poor and otherwise marginalized individuals), rather than the “top down” tradition of CST being “initiated by popes and bishops” and “reduced to principles from which are supposed to deduce action principles” (p. 15). [This seems to correspond to an emphasis on “the way of achievement” vs. “the way of heritage”, in Crowe and Lonergan terms]
He provides background to the Jesuit (Ignatian) commitment to social justice, described as “at the heart of Ignatian pedagogy” (p. 25), as articulated in “the characteristics of Jesuit education” (1986). This document called for justice to be included in the curriculum, reflected in institutional policies and programs, and include “actual contact with the world of injustice” (p. 27). However, Bergman notes it included little practical guidance. A subsequent (1993) document “Ignatian pedagogy” provided some guidance, based three overlapping components, experience, reflection and action. [A combination of the “from above down” and experiential “from below up”, with clear parallels to the Generalized Empirical Method]
Bergman draws on MacIntyre’s concepts of moral education (which he equates with “justice education”) for the common good, but particularly asks what this means for “the social practice which is moral education”? (p. 48, italics mine). He gives examples from Creighton, notably a field “service learning” trip to Haiti during a “semester abroad” program in the Dominican Republic. He refers to this type of deep immersion with the poor as “a pedagogy of transformation” with a list of characteristics that include “a radical change of environment”, “commitment”, “risk” and “reflection” (p. 64-65). A valuable part of the students’ experience was their realization of inequality, and guilt that they had so much while their hosts had so little (“developmental guilt”) and to identify with the pain of others – “moral anguish” (p.72).
In addition to extensive descriptions of student responses to service learning, Bergman links practice to theory and particularly to Aristotle’s views on virtue and moral development. He notes that
“the invitation to transformation that is implicit in service-learning with a focus on social justice calls for a certain trust on the part of the teacher that the dynamics of human nature, as understood by Aristotle, to indeed include the capacity of the self to grow through disruption, and even psychic, moral and spiritual distress toward a more discerning, expansive and vital self and relationship to the real world” (p. 90-91).
Chapter 6 describes a three-semester (one credit each) course “Faith and Moral Development” which focuses on “exemplars” of social justice such as Martin Luther King, and noting that service learning can be achieved locally as well as through (expensive) trips abroad. In the final chapter in this section, he argues that “justice education is proper to a Catholic University” and it should not be limited to an elective course in theology or campus ministry activities, but “a perspective that pervades the culture and ethos of the entire university in its teaching, its research and its way of proceeding” (p. 120). This tradition was evident in the educational models of St. Ignatius and Cardinal John Henry Newman so is nothing new, but Bergman suggests that the missions of modern Catholic universities are more focused on “truth” than justice, but that this should not be “an either/or proposition”; “the transmission and pursuit of truth .. converge with commitment to moral formation and social uplift” (p. 121). Justice education should be for the poor and marginalized (to improve their situation) and for the “non-poor” on their behalf, both for the common good.
Of particular interest, Bergman dissects Newman’s argument that “the object of a university is intellectual, not moral, and that moral education is equivalent to religious education” (p. 123). He suggests that in pressing for higher education for Catholics, Newman was promoting “liberation of the oppressed and upward mobility of the robbed, the exploited poor” through “the cultivation of the intellect that is only available through a university education” (p. 124). Furthermore, the benefits of such education in “improving people” would filter through to society as a whole. Bergman thus reconciles Newman’s ideals with Catholic Social Teaching, St. Ignatius’ view of education to foster “the ideal of service to the common good” (p. 130) and Pope John Paul II’s 1990 Ex Corde Ecclesiae “promotion of solidarity and its meaning in society and in the world” (p. 131).
Again stressing the need for personal encounters, Bergman notes that
“The pain of privilege meeting poverty is visceral. It’s all about discovering who we are and where we are, relative to the pain of other people’s lives, a pain of which we had previously been blissfully unaware, and which now almost mocks us with its stare” (p. 140).
He relates this to the positive role of “healthy shame” in “personal conversion and education for justice” (p. 143), followed by an interesting discussion of different forms of healthy, “unhealthy” shame, and destructive shamelessness.
Finally, Bergman describes the curriculum at Creighton, where immersion-based service learning is provided through courses in the department of Justice and Peace studies (an elective minor) and cross-listed in theology, education and political science “where the instructors are located” (p. 151). There are also courses focused on social learning themes and “exemplars” that support the “pedagogical circle” of “immersion, social analysis, theological reflection and vocational discernment” (p. 154). He concludes with some very moving extracts from student responses to their immersion experiences and “eleven theses on student vocational development in the Catholic University”. These include the statement that
“To the extent that [Catholic] universities bring their resources into critical dialog with the dominant culture and contemporary world, a world of massive suffering and injustice, they provide a mentoring model and context for their young adult students. To the extent that they do not, they have no Catholic reason to exist” (p. 162).
Questions
- How important is it to incorporate social justice into the curriculum, and how might this best be done?
- How do we find the resources to do it in the face of limited resources and competition between departments?