Send message to Author

Paper short abstract:

Understandings of learning in social movement learning (SML) research share much with those in the anthropology of learning, but these traditions have yet to intersect. Here I make the case for an anthropology of SML with illustration from ethnographic research on a US pro-public education movement.

Paper long abstract:

Renewed interest in the anthropology of learning over the last several years has led theorists into new areas of inquiry (multimodality, posthumanism, etc.). An area that has remained untouched, however, is social movement learning. The term “social movement learning” was coined around the same time as the “anthropology of learning,” but the two inquiry traditions have remained disconnected. This is notable because they share much in common: an understanding of learning as social, an interest in informal and nonformal education, a refusal to ignore power and politics, and emphases on identity and change, among others. Still, my read of social movement learning scholarship suggests that anthropological perspectives could deepen and enrich this work.

In this paper, I first attempt to make the case for an anthropology of social movement learning and, second, illustrate its value through an application to my ethnographic research on a pro-public education movement in the Midwest U.S. In the first half of the paper, I outline the rationale for and elements of an anthropology of social movement learning. Specifically, I identify what an anthropological perspective could add to (as well as what anthropologists could learn from) scholarship on social movement learning. In the second half of the paper, I draw from my recent ethnographic study to discuss the value of an anthropology of social movement learning. Specifically, I explore learning among social movement actors advocating to preserve public education in a U.S. state hit particularly hard by neoliberal attacks on public education.