A Dialectic of Trust

By Sydney Gurewitz Clemens

I read this phrase somewhere in Jack Zipes' writing recently. It has stopped me often since ... I think it describes what is present in Reggio Emilia schools, and mostly absent in ours.

To be different, not to be twins, not to have the same experience, not to believe in the same strategies, to come from two different places: To discuss a difference and see where we can go, with each party listening closely and trying to bridge the gap, a kind of zigzag communication between two people with a difference -- a difference, for example, about caps and gowns for preschool graduation, about the role of holidays in the school, about phonics.

That's the `dialectic' part.

And:

to do this knowing ... really knowing ... that you both want what's best, that between your truth and the Other's is something truer than either, that complicated problems do not have simple solutions and that you will still be friends after the discussion.

You are two people trying to make sense of the world, together. That's the trust part. Why do the Italians have this? Why do we lack it? I have this dialectic with Dee Epps-Miller, my teaching partner. We have different histories and appearances, we have different styles and gifts ... but she knows I am for the children in the ways that matter to her, and I know she is for the children in the ways that matter to me. The big ones. In detail, we diverge ... and when we discover a divergence, we are interested in it. We explore it.

Sometimes one of us modifies her opinion, sometimes both, sometimes neither. We find it worthwhile.  Neither of us needs to defend against the other ... the Work is what matters, and the searching.

How come we can and others, so many others, can't? The perspective of each strengthens the knowledge base of the other. How come we can do this with each other, while others, so many others, can't? What's that about? Why are people turf-y and why do they take a different "hit" on a subject as a threat? Why are some teachers apparently unconcerned with making sense of the world? Why do some teachers always cling to what they have been doing, unwilling or unable to think in terms of children and their needs and modify what they have been doing based upon that analysis. Why are so many early childhood work situations characterized by rule-making and coercion rather than by problem solving?

I have no illusions that it will be easy to find solutions to this problem. Why do so many caregivers feel so much apathy? Why so many instances of resistance and passive-aggression? As educators we have taken on the important work of raising children to be caring and thoughtful and responsible and knowledgeable and skillful and wise.

If we don't work together, if we don't learn from each other and help each other improve our work, we cannot rise to a high level, the level that has been exemplified for us in Reggio. How can we make each other safe enough to do the job we set out to do?

If we cannot trust one another, how can we teach children to trust? If we do not trust one another, why should children trust us?

(C) Copyright Sydney Gurewitz Clemens, 1997

E-mail:  sydney@eceteacher.org, www.eceteacher.org • (C) Copyright Sydney Gurewitz Clemens, 2007