Suchergebnisse

.The subject of my thesis has as its starting point a didactic aim: that of the qualitative improvement of the teaching/learning of French to/from an audience of Reunionese children. In pursuit of this goal, I have set myself the goal of developing a benchmark for assessing the morphosyntactic skills of children in Reunion Island's large kindergarten section. Enriched in particular by recent research related to the theme of the contact of languages in Creolo-French-speaking lands, my work as a didactician has tried to reconcile, or at least to confront, a sociolinguistic variationist posture with that, classically more structuralist, of a grammarian "standard-setter" in a school setting. I thus deal, from a theoretical and pragmatic point of view, with the problem of a binarized grammatical evaluation, in a diglostic context of close language contacts, where interlectal practices are legion. By considering, from a holistic perspective, questions relating to the development of reference standards and the collection of oral data from small non-reading schoolchildren, my research is actually at the crossroads of sociolinguistics, language didactics, educational sciences but also psycholinguistics and descriptive linguistics. The report of my work is divided into four parts. PART 1: Following a general introduction, the first part of my typed text shows the need for an assessment of the linguistic skills of Réunionese pupils at the end of nursery school. It also describes the general objectives, postures and intentions underlying this evaluation. The gap between the language of the school and the language of the home is considered on Reunion Island as an aggravating factor in the educational difficulties encountered by many Reunionese pupils from the very beginning of their schooling. It would seem that to become good readers, many of them do not have sufficient skills as speakers of the French language. Among the remediation proposals proposed so far by researchers who have dealt with the subject, it is often recommended that the skills acquired by students in Creole, considered their L1, be used as a basis from kindergarten onwards to compose a strategy for teaching French as a second language. Recently, the educational policies officially posted for the Academy also suggest, in a more or less vague way, the need to take into account Creole. In this perspective, which is certainly commendable if one refers to the work of didacticians and psycholinguists on strong forms of teaching in a bilingual context (e.g. Baker, Hamers and Blanc, Cummins), two central questions nevertheless appear which should therefore be raised, but which until now have hardly been asked: -What is the quality of Creole spoken by "Creole" children today? Do the little schoolchildren from Reunion, and especially those who encounter difficulties in French, really master Creole? The analysis of recent sociolinguistic works relating to language contacts and the expansion of the use of interlecte in the Reunionese community (Prudent, Ledegen, Watin, Souprayen-Cavery, Rapanoël.).), taking into account the remarks of local primary school teachers on the shortcomings of young pupils not only in French but also in Creole, and the results of surveys declaring an increase in the "transmission" of French by Reunionese mothers, led me to think that doubt on this subject is permitted or at least that the assumption "Creole L1" is to be qualified. In order to better situate the purpose and goal of my work, I therefore began by demonstrating that the situation in terms of language practices is complex and, consequently, that the didactic orientations would become more sensitive and anchored in the local situation if they were based on concrete points of reference concerning the actual degree of mastery of the two codes in question by the students. How, in fact, can we claim to be able to exploit the knowledge acquired in one language (a priori L1-créole) in order to better appropriate the other (a priori L2-français), without having taken full measure of the degree of mastery of the two languages involved? While work has begun on the communicative skills of kindergarten students (Fioux and Marimoutou), my research on local "assessments" conducted so far reveals that researchers have no relatively detailed assessment of the current language skills of Reunionese children, on the one hand in French, before the transition to written French, after three years of schooling explicitly focused on acquiring the basics of oral French, and on the other hand in Creole. Equally disconcerting, given the educational challenges, it appears that there are also no assessment tools designed for the local situation, and therefore adapted for the collection and analysis of these oral language skills among young children, whereas we are in a former French colony with a sociolinguistic situation rooted in diglossia. On what basis can we then rely to affirm that the Reunionese students of today, who are referred to en masse as "Creolophones", possess solid language skills in Creole and gaps in French when they engage in the systematic process of learning to read? It is on the basis of these questions and observations that I draft a first constituency of the objective of my work. It is a question of asking the prolegomena of an assessment assessment, linguistic, comparative, in Creole and French, whose methodological foundations would be explained, argued, but also contextualized and updated for a public of learners at the end of a large nursery section in Reunion. The aim is to provide teachers of languages working for and with small schoolchildren in Reunion with a tool that is sufficiently detailed to enrich reflection on French teaching/learning strategies, "possibly" based on the knowledge of these pupils in Creole. Although the delimitations I am proposing to establish are an integral part of the evaluation process, they are upstream of the act of evaluation. More specifically, it is a question of building an operational evaluation frame of reference presenting evaluation criteria, reference standards and pre-tested tests with a sample of children of large section, in French and Creole. Once this purpose has been clarified, I set the initial parameters of this evaluation process. Understanding it above all as "a reflection on relationships to values", I then position myself, after an epistemological approach to this not insignificant act, in favour of an evaluation that makes sense. Following in particular Hadji, Lecointe, Bonniol and Vial or Ardoino and Berger on their questioning of the technicality of docimology in search of an illusory objectivity, I undertake, like them, to shift the priority of the correctness of the results towards the logic and transparency of an objectivized process, leading to a relevant result that can be understood, located, relativized according to a transparent reading grid and the intentions underlying it. To do this, I then borrow from the educational sciences, and in particular G. Figari, the concept of referentialization, with its triple status, operational, methodological and scientific. If they were originally designed to carry out evaluations of systems (schools, training systems, curricula, etc.), I show that the general principles of referentialisation are in fact entirely transposable to the study I am conducting. Having this common thread, my referentialization begins, in a first step, with a work of reflexivity, to try to explain and situate my own posture as an evaluation designer, which engages me in an ethical responsibility. It is above all a question of taking a step back from the power held and to which I am subjected in this work of gathering and using information of social value. I therefore strive to pose and understand the social and individual issues related to this act, but also, in reference to the subjectivity inherent in any research in the humanities (de Robillard), to self-position myself in relation to my own representations and inclinations regarding the choice of a referentialization activity. A second step arising from the first also allows me to clarify my intentions in this evaluation. After a review of the pathways available to me, I conclude that in relation to the objectives, they are closer to evaluation-appraisal than evaluation-measurement and lead me to favour a qualitative approach. PART 2: The second part of my thesis, which relates the exploratory phase of my referentialization, is entirely dedicated to the modelling stage of my evaluation object. First, I report on the theoretical investigations I conducted in order to define the object to be evaluated, namely the object language. The first step is to position myself in the debate on the (im)possibility(s) of delimiting boundaries between Creole and French, which opposes structuralists and variationists, and even variationists between them. To do this, I approach the history of the contact of the languages of Reunion, from the plantation society to the departmentalized society, and compare the concepts that served as filters to describe the contact of Creole/French languages (diglossia, continuum, interlecte, macrosystem). Finally, I come to find in de Robillard's arguments, in his broader reflection on the definition of a language, the bases that push me to adopt, for the precise needs of the evaluation I am aiming for, a solid conception of the language, leading me to see Creole and French from a binarized angle. For all that, I do not abandon the study of the phenomena of mixtures noted by the Reunionese teachers among their pupils and that some (didacticians and pedagogues) praise as an asset or, on the contrary, criticize as a handicap, or even associate with the manifestation of a "semi-linguism", compared to the speeches of monolinguals. If my inclination for sociolinguistics leads me to see mixtures as some kind of discursive mode in their linguistic repertoire and to refute a treatment of mixtures from the point of view of parasitages, the question I ask myself as a didactician seeking to improve the teaching/learning process of French is the following: in the end, how can evaluators be allowed to determine, independently of recognition of the linguistic and pragmatic ability of these young pupils to "juggle" with two codes to arrive at communicating, whether the mixtures made are indicative of a) tactics of "compensating" for gaps in one language and/or the other (the skills then being better in one language than the other or insufficient in both languages), or b) relatively good "mastery" of the two codes (the skills being good in one language as well as the other), which calls for different remediation and/or teaching methods? With this in mind, I have decided to draw up an inventory of research focused on the language and linguistic evaluation of "bilingual" people. I am particularly interested in the treatment of the problem of mixtures, from the most "closed" (cf. the works of Titone, Fioux, Genelot et al.), to the most "open" (cf. the works of Moore, Cavalli, Stubbe and Peña.). By weighing them against my objectives, it seems to me that, for my type of comparative assessment, requiring quite distinct target languages, the binarized approach that can answer my initial questions proves to be relevant. Continuing my theoretical investigations, I refine my research framework by determining what a good speaker of a language implies. By approaching the notions of competence vs performance, by reviewing the points of view of language didacticians (Canale and Swain, De Pietro, Cuq, Beacco, Springer, Castellotti,.), interactionists (Hymes, Vasseur), psycholinguists (Lentin, Florin, Gombert.), pedagogues (Boisseau), researchers specializing in language evaluation (Rondal, Comblain, Piérart, Muller.).), but also by taking into consideration the directives concerning the mastery of language (Ministry of National Education) and the recommendations concerning the appropriation of foreign languages (Council of Europe), I decide to focus my reference frame on the evaluation of morphosyntactic skills, and to privilege as well the collection of samples of induced language as of spontaneous language. My exploratory phase also includes field investigations. I begin by describing the places of investigation (located mainly among Benedictine pupils of large nursery section but also at Tampon and Pau), the sampling (choice of schools, classes, children) and the means I used (ethnological approach, filmed interactions, activities carried out, protocols followed). In addition to providing me with a better knowledge of the characteristics of these young witnesses, thanks in particular to a participant observation, and to testing the relevance of different supports, tasks, evaluation approaches and inter-electoral speech transcription systems, I show that this field work allows me to make several observations that corroborate the hypothesis I had formulated during my theoretical investigations. By crossing various salient factors that I was able to identify, such as language practices (which I label without hierarchy "bi-linguisme", "mix-linguisme", "dominance in Creole" and "dominance in French"), linguistic representations, attitudes towards the school norm and the ability to discriminate between the two linguistic codes, both by the witnesses and by myself in the role of evaluator, I was indeed able to measure, in parallel with promising results, the complexity and the limits of a binarized evaluation in terms of data collection and analysis, particularly when the evaluator is faced with certain language profiles of children in this context of close language contact. Indeed, if a binary apprehension, deliberately and "classically" smoothed for teaching purposes seems appropriate for assessing and comparing the quality of children's skills in Creole and French, the local context of contact of close languages, marked by diglossic representations and far from being limited to well delimited and delimitable binary practices, leads me to think that a reference of this type is likely to have a limited scope. It is a hypothesis that it will then be up to me to verify in the continuation of my work. PART 3: Informed by a better knowledge of the potential, limits and concrete constraints of a binarised approach, the next stage of my referentialisation begins with the choice of criteria and indicators that will make it possible to evaluate young children who are not readers, orally, in French and Creole. This is the subject of the third part of my typewriting. Before getting to the heart of the matter, I begin with an indispensable preamble, it seems to me, on the balance of power at stake in normative activity (between prescription and description, priorities, relativity and arbitrariness, legitimacy(ies).). On this sensitive subject, subject to strong polemics, as well in the scientific community in general as among speakers evolving in the Reunionese community, I present in a double posture of sociolinguist and didactician, my own positioning in relation to the notion of "norm(s)". In order for my approach to be better understood and because I consider it essential to step back from a concept that often marginalizes those who use it (outside practitioners), I explicitly state the relative, constructed and yet necessary character, in my case, of the standard for this frame of reference. I also explain my legitimacy as a designer of normative references from a variationist point of view, within the theoretical framework chosen for this evaluation work. To construct the normative references of my tool, the methodological protocol that I decide to borrow is the following: 1. from already recorded descriptions of uses, - in Creole (then exist only scientific articles, grammars, dictionaries that describe only the norms of adult use (Staudacher, Watbled, Chaudenson, Ramassamy, Cellier.)), - and in French (including work on standard French (Riegel et al., Arrivé et al.)), Wagner and Pinchon.), spoken French (Gadet, Blanche-Benvéniste, Sauvageot.), regional French (Carayol, Ledegen, Béniamino and Baggioni), French spoken by children (Florin, Boisseau, Comblain.), 2. synthesize and compare these works, not only with each other but also with my own research and native speaker skills on the morphosyntactic items in question, 3.in order to be able to then proceed to a choice of criteria, whose relevance will be justified each time, for the language provoked and the spontaneous language, 4. to propose reference standards (indicators) making it possible to evaluate these criteria. For Creole, at this stage it is a question of provisional standards, 5. adjusting and updating the latter for an audience of young children, by analysing the spontaneous speech in Creole of Reunionese kindergarten children ("reference informants"), dominant in Creole or in two languages. A little more than three hundred pages of my typewriting report on the development and choice of these criteria and indicators. They quickly reveal a clear qualitative and quantitative imbalance between the state of knowledge in Creole and French. In a grammatical work, descriptive but also prescriptive, which must sort and complete, for Creole, existing descriptions certainly interesting but often contradictory, relieved of emerging varieties and completely incomplete as regards child forms, I approach the updating of the verbal theme (flexional system, analytical system, index i, truncation rules), personal pronouns, the valence of verbal themes, interrogative modality and negative modality. PART 4: The fourth and last part of my referentialization is first devoted to measuring the general parameters of designing assessment tasks and collecting data for and from children. Following a review of the literature on the subject (notably the work of Rondal, Moreau and Richelle, Khomsi, Florin, Brédart, Gombert, Marquillo.), I then put forward two considerations relating to relevance and validity criteria in an evaluation, when collecting data. They concern the types of activities generally proposed in language assessments (comprehension, production, detection and correction of statements), and the tasks making it possible to collect observable behaviours (with a focus on their scope, bias, supports and instructions). I close this review with my own remarks, criticisms and impressions on the experience of developing data collection tools that I was able to develop on the ground in Réunion. In a second step, I present and comment on the pilot tests I pre-tested with a hundred children of large section, during individual evaluation sessions, filmed and analyzed. This test bank is composed of 39 sheets classified according to whether it is a question of assessing competencies in Creole, competencies in French or "bilingual" competencies (translation, codic discrimination). These sheets present the evaluation tasks I have developed and pre-tested for feasibility, relevance and sensitivity. They detail, for each syntactic item evaluated, the criteria taken into consideration, the type of activity chosen, the expected performances, the supports of the test, the indications on its organisation, the instructions, but also the primer statements possibly provided for the evaluator, an analysis of examples of "correct" and "incorrect" answers collected from the pre-tested witnesses, and finally general comments on the test in question (difficulties, variants, precautions.). CONCLUSION: my typewriting ends with a general conclusion. First of all, it summarizes the different steps of my referencing as well as their results, and comes back on the improvements that could be made. It then presents the contributions of this research work, which also raises questions and allows proposals to be made. The contributions include in particular : -Theoretical but also field research with a hundred Reunionese children which allows the provision of an operational assessment tool, adapted to the characteristics of small Reunionese schoolchildren of large nursery section and proposing detailed tasks, tested and concrete normative benchmarks. These cards can be used as they stand, in the end as much by researchers in language didactics as by practitioners, who assess the oral grammatical skills of young children in Reunion Island. - In general, a methodological perspective concerning the collection and analysis of oral data from young non-reading schoolchildren in a diglostic context, and in a situation of contact with nearby languages. - An enrichment of the work of synchronic description of the peripheral French morphosyntax, but especially of the Creole of Reunion Island, in particular, a) by taking into account the intrasystemic and intersystemic variations (the current emerging forms due to the internal dynamics of Creole and to the contact with French, the childlike forms, the language of the young people), b) by the synthetic approach adopted (comparative analysis of work, elaboration of summary tables). But this work of referentialization also raises questions for research, on several points: On the didactic level : - This study showing the essential consideration of linguistic representations, language practices, pragmatic skills of students during the process of collecting oral data, what validity, what relevance can have smoothed evaluations, hermetic to the situation of contact of close languages and the specificities of children in Reunion, such as academic evaluations in French, duplications of a-contextualized metropolitan evaluations, designed for an already French-speaking monolingual public? What relevance do the proposals of didactic and explicit use, "as is", of Creole "L1" as a springboard to reach French L2, whereas the pre-tests carried out during my research already show a majority of witnesses presenting basic grammatical skills in French deficiencies, but also schoolchildren (even dominant Creolophones), encountering difficulties of expression, even comprehension, in Creole? Wouldn't most of the grammatical descriptions currently available hardly take into account the intra- and intersystemic variations of Creole, have repercussions on the scope of the didactic proposals for teaching French in partnership with Creole?In terms of research on language assessment: -The binary perspective chosen in this work, considered relevant for comparing language skills in Creole and French, has limitations and cannot, in particular, take into consideration, as it stands, all children's language profiles (for example, non-discriminatory mix-linguals). Beyond a Creole/French assessment, what alternative do we have to assess the language skills, especially morpho-syntactic, of these children whose (a)meshed speech and without a target "language" cannot be analysed in this framework? Should these "bilingual" skills be measured for themselves, without reference to Creole and French, as some researchers try to do relatively marginally in other linguistic contexts (e.g. Stubbe and Peña for American-Hispanic bilinguals in the United States)? But is what seems possible for "non collateral" languages possible for genetically and structurally related languages? Indeed, is a bilingual evaluation taking as a normative reference the morphosyntax of the entire Reunion macrosystem, thus a "fluid" language, where the evaluator does not have explicit/explicable reference standards a priori and therefore justified/justifiable, conceivable? Although it allows its pedagogical relevance to be seen, and meets the search for meaning criterion, how would it justify its objectivization when the evaluator only"feels" that it is being said and thus holds within himself "moving" rules, elusive as a native speaker of the interlecte? How can this unavoidable involvement, which derogates from the basis of any evaluation, be managed when normative references are internalized and a priori not externalisable?This research work finally makes it possible to make recommendations and proposals for areas of work concerning the teaching of French in partnership with Creole: - To endeavour to identify the conditions of awareness of codes by currently discriminating children (without school guidance), for the study of ways allowing schoolchildren, from the small section, to discriminate prototypical traits of Creole and French. - To take greater account of the heterogeneity of the language profiles of Réunionese children, who should not be considered as a linguistically homogeneous mass (even in schools in so-called disadvantaged neighbourhoods), and to continue the reflection on taking into account the Reunionese language macrosystem. – To complete the research on Creole currently spoken by the Reunionese population (children, youth, adults) and open these descriptions to all variations. - To make current the grammatical description books and to encourage the publication of scientific works (not purist), "accessible" to the public of students (future teachers) in training but also to that of teachers already in post. – To take more into account and change the negative representations of the local population (especially the parents of pupils) concerning the partnership (direct or indirect) with Creole. This subject being the object of strong tensions on the school ground, to study possibilities of alternative approaches (exploitation of the television medium, creation/exploitation of parallel educational structures as associations of the "ti lékol maron" type or leisure centres), privileging the mastery of language with a playful aspect, in a "calmed" context. ; Le sujet de ma thèse a pour point de départ une visée didactique : celle de l'amélioration qualitative de l'enseignement/apprentissage du français à/par un public d'enfants réunionnais. Dans la poursuite de cette finalité, je me suis fixé pour but l'élaboration d'un référentiel d'évaluation des compétences morphosyntaxiques d'enfants réunionnais en grande section de maternelle à La Réunion. Enrichi notamment des récentes recherches liées à la thématique du contact de langues en terres créolo-francophones, mon travail de didacticienne a tenté de concilier, ou du moins de confronter une posture de sociolinguiste variationniste à celle, classiquement plus structuraliste, de grammairienne « poseuse de normes » dans un cadre scolaire. Je traite ainsi, d'un point de vue théorique et pragmatique, la problématique d'une évaluation grammaticale binarisée, dans un contexte diglossique de contacts de langues proches, où les pratiques interlectales sont légion. En considérant, dans une perspective holistique, des questions relatives à l'élaboration de normes de référence et au recueil de données orales auprès de petits écoliers non lecteurs, ma recherche se trouve en réalité inscrite à la croisée de la sociolinguistique, de la didactique des langues, des sciences de l'éducation mais aussi de la psycholinguistique et de la linguistique descriptive.Le compte rendu de mon travail se scinde en quatre parties.PARTIE 1 : suite à une introduction générale, la première partie de mon tapuscrit montre la nécessité d'une évaluation bilan des compétences linguistiques des élèves réunionnais à la fin de l'école maternelle. Elle décrit également les objectifs généraux, les postures et les intentions qui sous-tendent cette évaluation.L'écart entre la langue de l'école et la langue de la maison est considéré à La Réunion comme un facteur aggravant des difficultés scolaires que rencontrent de nombreux élèves réunionnais dès les débuts de leur scolarisation. Il semblerait que pour devenir notamment de bons lecteurs, beaucoup d'entre eux ne disposent pas de compétences suffisantes en tant que locuteurs de la langue française. Parmi les propositions de remédiation proposées jusqu'à présent par les chercheurs ayant traité du sujet, il est souvent préconisé de prendre appui, dès la maternelle, sur les compétences acquises par les élèves en créole, considéré comme leur L1, pour composer une stratégie d'enseignement du français, qualifiée de langue seconde. Depuis peu, les politiques éducatives officiellement affichées pour l'Académie laissent entendre également à leur tour, de manière plus ou moins floue, la nécessité de prendre en compte le créole.Dans cette optique, certes louable si on se réfère à des travaux de didacticiens et de psycholinguistes sur les formes fortes d'enseignement en contexte bilingue (ex : Baker, Hamers et Blanc, Cummins), apparaissent cependant deux questions centrales qui devraient dès lors être soulevées, mais qui jusqu'à présent n'ont guère été posées : -Quelle est la qualité du créole parlé par les enfants « créolophones » d'aujourd'hui ?-Ces petits écoliers réunionnais, et notamment ceux qui rencontrent des difficultés en français, maîtrisent-ils vraiment le créole ? L'analyse des récents travaux de sociolinguistique ayant trait aux contacts de langues et à l'expansion de l'usage de l'interlecte dans la communauté réunionnaise (Prudent, Ledegen, Watin, Souprayen-Cavery, Rapanoël.), la prise en compte des remarques d'enseignants locaux du premier degré sur les lacunes des jeunes élèves non seulement en français mais également en créole, et celle des résultats de sondages déclarant une augmentation de la « transmission » du français par les mères réunionnaises, m'ont amenée à penser que le doute à ce sujet est permis ou du moins que le postulat « créole L1 » est à nuancer. Afin de mieux situer la finalité et le but de mon travail, j'ai donc entrepris dans un premier temps de démontrer que la donne en matière de pratiques langagières s'avère complexe et par conséquent, que les orientations didactiques gagneraient en sensibilité et en ancrage dans la situation locale, si elles s'appuyaient sur des points de repères concrets concernant le degré de maîtrise effective actuelle des deux codes en question par les élèves. Comment, en effet, prétendre pouvoir exploiter les acquis dans une langue (a priori L1-créole) pour mieux s'approprier l'autre (a priori L2-français), sans avoir pris la pleine mesure du degré de maîtrise des deux langues impliquées? Si des travaux ont été entamés concernant les compétences communicatives des écoliers en maternelle (Fioux et Marimoutou), mes recherches sur les « évaluations » locales menées jusque-là révèlent en effet que les chercheurs ne disposent d'aucun bilan relativement détaillé des compétences linguistiques actuelles des enfants réunionnais, d'une part en français, avant le passage au français écrit, après trois années de scolarisation pourtant explicitement axées sur l'acquisition des bases du français oral, et d'autre part en créole . Tout aussi déconcertant, eu égard aux enjeux scolaires, il apparaît qu'on ne dispose pas non plus d'outils d'évaluation pensés pour la situation locale, donc adaptés pour le recueil et l'analyse de ces compétences linguistiques orales auprès de jeunes enfants, alors qu'on se trouve dans une ancienne colonie française présentant une situation sociolinguistique ancrée dans la diglossie. Sur quelle base peut-on alors s'appuyer pour affirmer que les élèves réunionnais d'aujourd'hui, qu'on qualifie en masse de « créolophones », possèdent de solides compétences linguistiques en créole et des lacunes en français lorsqu'ils s'engagent dans le processus d'apprentissage systématique de la lecture ? C'est à partir de ces questionnements et de ces constats que j'ébauche une première circonscription de l'objectif de mon travail. Il s'agit de poser les prolégomènes d'une évaluation bilan, linguistique, comparée, en créole et en français, dont les soubassements méthodologiques seraient explicités, argumentés, mais aussi contextualisés et actualisés pour un public d'apprenants en fin de grande section de maternelle à La Réunion. Le but est de doter les didacticiens des langues œuvrant pour et auprès de petits écoliers réunionnais d'un outil suffisamment fin pour permettre d'enrichir la réflexion sur les stratégies d'enseignement/apprentissage du français, « éventuellement » à partir des acquis de ces élèves en créole. Bien que s'inscrivant en amont de l'acte d'évaluer, les délimitations que je propose d'établir font partie intégrante du processus d'évaluation. Plus précisément, il s'agit concrètement de construire un référentiel d'évaluation opérationnel présentant des critères d'évaluation, des normes de références et des épreuves pré-testées auprès d'un échantillon d'enfants de grande section, en français et en créole. Une fois ce dessein explicité, je pose les paramètres liminaires de ce processus d'évaluation. Le concevant avant tout comme « une réflexion sur les rapports aux valeurs », je me positionne alors, après une approche épistémologique de cet acte non anodin, en faveur d'une évaluation qui fasse sens. Suivant notamment Hadji, Lecointe, Bonniol et Vial ou encore Ardoino et Berger sur leurs remises en cause de la technicité de la docimologie à la recherche d'une objectivité illusoire, j'entreprends, comme eux, de déplacer la priorité de la justesse des résultats vers la logique et la transparence d'un processus objectivisé, amenant à un résultat pertinent qu'on peut comprendre, situer, relativiser en fonction d'une grille de lecture transparente et des intentions qui la sous-tendent. Pour ce faire, j'emprunte alors aux sciences de l'éducation, et notamment à G. Figari, le concept de référentialisation, au triple statut, opératoire, méthodologique et scientifique. S'ils ont été pensés originellement pour mener des évaluations de dispositifs (établissements scolaires, dispositifs de formation, curricula, etc.), je montre que les principes généraux de la référentialisation s'avèrent en réalité tout à fait transposables à l'étude que je mène. Nantie de ce fil rouge, ma référentialisation commence, dans une première étape, par un travail de réflexivité, pour tenter d'expliciter et situer ma propre posture de conceptrice d'évaluation, qui m'engage dans une responsabilité éthique. Il s'agit avant tout de prendre du recul sur le pouvoir détenu et auquel je suis soumise dans ce travail de recueil et d'utilisation d'une information à valeur sociale. Je m'attèle donc à poser et comprendre les enjeux sociaux et individuels liés à cet acte, mais également, en référence à la subjectivité inhérente à toute recherche en sciences humaines (de Robillard), à m'auto-positionner par rapport à mes propres représentations et inclinations concernant le choix d'une activité de référentialisation. Une deuxième étape découlant de la première me permet par ailleurs de préciser mes intentions dans cette évaluation. Après une revue des cheminements qui me sont offerts, j'en conclus qu'en rapport avec les objectifs visés, celles-ci se rapprochent au final plus de l'évaluation-appréciation que de l'évaluation-mesure et m'amènent à privilégier une approche qualitative.PARTIE 2 : la deuxième partie de ma thèse, qui relate la phase exploratoire de ma référentialisation, est entièrement dédiée à l'étape de la modélisation de mon objet d'évaluation. Je rends tout d'abord compte des investigations théoriques que j'ai menées afin de circonscrire l'objet à évaluer, à savoir l'objet langue. Il s'agit dans un premier temps de me positionner dans le débat sur la/les (im)possibilité(s) de délimitation de frontières entre créole et français, qui oppose structuralistes et variationnistes, et même variationnistes entre eux. J'aborde, pour ce faire, l'histoire du contact des langues de La Réunion, de la société de plantation à la société départementalisée, et confronte les concepts qui ont servi de filtres pour décrire le contact de langues créole/français (diglossie, continuum, interlecte, macrosystème). J'en viens finalement à trouver dans les arguments de de Robillard, dans sa réflexion plus large sur la définition d'une langue, les bases qui me poussent à adopter, pour les besoins précis de l'évaluation que je vise, une conception solide de la langue, amenant à voir le créole et le français sous un angle binarisé.Pour autant, je n'abandonne pas l'étude des phénomènes de mélanges relevés par les enseignants réunionnais chez leurs élèves et que d'aucuns (didacticiens et pédagogues) encensent comme un atout ou, au contraire, fustigent comme un handicap, voire associent à la manifestation d'un « semi-linguisme », comparativement aux discours de monolingues. Si mon inclination pour la sociolinguistique m'amène à voir les mélanges comme un quelconque mode discursif dans leur répertoire langagier et à réfuter un traitement des mélanges du point de vue de parasitages, la question que je me pose en tant que didacticienne cherchant à améliorer le processus d'enseignement/apprentissage du français est la suivante : en fin de compte, comment permettre à des évaluateurs de déterminer, indépendamment d'une reconnaissance de la capacité linguistique et pragmatique de ces jeunes élèves à "jongler" avec deux codes pour arriver à communiquer, si les mélanges effectués sont indicateurs :-de tactiques de « compensation » de lacunes dans l'une et/ou l'autre langue (les compétences étant alors meilleures dans une langue que dans l'autre ou insuffisantes dans les deux langues),-ou d'une « maîtrise » relativement bonne des deux codes (les compétences étant bonnes dans une langue comme dans l'autre), ce qui appelle des remédiations et/ou des pistes pédagogiques différentes ? Je décide dans cette optique d'établir l'état des lieux des recherches axées sur l'évaluation langagière et linguistique de « bilingues ». Je m'intéresse notamment aux traitements de la problématique des mélanges, des plus « fermés » (cf. les travaux de Titone, Fioux, Genelot et al.), aux plus « ouverts » (cf. les travaux de Moore, Cavalli, Stubbe et Peña.). En les soupesant en regard de mes objectifs, il m'apparaît alors que, pour mon type d'évaluation comparée, requérant des langues cibles bien distinctes, l'approche binarisée qui peut répondre à mes questions de départ s'avère pertinente. Poursuivant mes investigations théoriques, j'affine mon cadre de recherche en déterminant ce que sous-entend être un bon locuteur d'une langue. En abordant les notions de compétence vs performance, en passant en revue les points de vue de didacticiens des langues (Canale et Swain, De Pietro, Cuq, Beacco, Springer, Castellotti,.), d'interactionnistes (Hymes, Vasseur), de psycholinguistes (Lentin, Florin, Gombert.), de pédagogues (Boisseau), de chercheurs spécialisés dans l'évaluation du langage (Rondal, Comblain, Piérart, Muller.), mais aussi en prenant en considération les directives en matière de maîtrise du langage (Ministère de l'Education Nationale) et les préconisations concernant l'appropriation des langues étrangères (Conseil de l'Europe), je décide de centrer mon référentiel sur l'évaluation des compétences morphosyntaxiques, et de privilégier aussi bien le recueil d'échantillons de langage provoqué que de langage spontané.Ma phase exploratoire comprend également des investigations de terrain. Je commence par décrire les lieux d'enquête (situés en grande partie auprès d'élèves bénédictins de grande section de maternelle mais également au Tampon et à Pau), l'échantillonnage (choix des écoles, des classes, des enfants) et les moyens dont j'ai usés (démarche ethnologique, interactions filmées, activités réalisées, protocoles suivis). En sus de me fournir une meilleure connaissance des caractéristiques de ces jeunes témoins, grâce notamment à une observation participante, et de tester la pertinence de différents supports, tâches, approches d'évaluation et de systèmes de transcription de la parole interlectale, je montre que ce travail de terrain me permet de faire plusieurs constats qui corroborent l'hypothèse que j'avais formulée lors de mes investigations théoriques. En croisant divers facteurs saillants que j'ai pu relever, tels que les pratiques langagières (que j'étiquette sans hiérarchie « bi-linguisme », « mix-linguisme », « dominance en créole » et « dominance en français »), les représentations linguistiques, les attitudes face à la norme scolaire et la capacité à discriminer les deux codes linguistiques, aussi bien par les témoins que par moi-même dans le rôle d'évaluateur, j'ai pu en effet mesurer, parallèlement à des résultats prometteurs, la complexité et les limites d'une évaluation binarisée en termes de recueil et d'analyse de données, notamment lorsque l'évaluateur est face à certains profils langagiers d'enfants dans ce contexte de contact de langues proches. En effet, si une appréhension binaire, volontairement et « classiquement » lissée pour des besoins didactiques semble convenir pour évaluer, comparer la qualité des compétences d'enfants en créole et en français, le contexte local de contact de langues proches, empreint de représentations diglossiques et loin de se restreindre à des pratiques binaires bien délimitées et délimitables, m'amène à penser qu'un référentiel de ce type est susceptible d'avoir une portée limitée. C'est une hypothèse qu'il m'appartiendra alors de vérifier dans la suite de mon travail.PARTIE 3 : éclairée d'une meilleure connaissance du potentiel, des bornes et des astreintes concrètes d'une approche binarisée, l'étape suivante de ma référentialisation s'engage sur le choix des critères et des indicateurs qui permettront d'évaluer de jeunes enfants non lecteurs, à l'oral, en français et en créole. Ceci fait l'objet de la troisième partie de mon tapuscrit.Avant d'entrer dans le vif du sujet, je commence par un préambule indispensable, il me semble, sur les rapports de force en jeu dans l'activité normative (entre prescription et description, priorités, relativité et arbitraire, légitimité(s).). Sur ce sujet sensible, soumis à de fortes polémiques, aussi bien dans la communauté scientifique de manière générale que parmi les locuteurs évoluant dans la communauté réunionnaise, je présente dans une posture double de sociolinguiste et de didacticienne, mon propre positionnement par rapport à la notion de « norme(s) ». Pour que ma démarche soit mieux comprise et parce que je juge essentielle cette prise de recul face à un concept marginalisant souvent celui/celle qui y a recours (en dehors des praticiens), je pose explicitement le caractère relatif, construit et pourtant nécessaire, dans mon cas, de la norme pour ce référentiel. J'explique par ailleurs également ma légitimité de conceptrice de références normatives d'un point de vue variationniste, dans le cadre théorique choisi pour ce travail d'évaluation. Pour construire les références normatives de mon outil, le protocole méthodologique que je décide d'emprunter est le suivant :1.partir de descriptions déjà consignées des usages,-en créole (n'existent alors que des articles scientifiques, des grammaires, des dictionnaires qui ne décrivent que les normes d'usage d'adultes (Staudacher, Watbled, Chaudenson, Ramassamy, Cellier.)),-et en français (comprenant les travaux sur le français standard (Riegel et al., Arrivé et al., Wagner et Pinchon.), le français parlé (Gadet, Blanche-Benvéniste, Sauvageot.), le français régional (Carayol, Ledegen, Béniamino et Baggioni), le français parlé par les enfants (Florin, Boisseau, Comblain.)), 2.synthétiser et confronter ces travaux, non seulement entre eux mais également à mes propres recherches et compétences de locutrice native sur les items morphosyntaxiques en question, 3.afin de pouvoir procéder ensuite à un choix de critères, dont la pertinence sera à chaque fois justifiée, pour le langage provoqué et le langage spontané, 4. proposer des normes de références (indicateurs) permettant d'évaluer ces critères. Pour le créole, s'agissant à ce stade de normes provisoires,5.ajuster, actualiser ces dernières pour un public de jeunes enfants, en analysant le discours spontané en créole d'enfants réunionnais de maternelle (les « informateurs de référence»), dominants en créole ou bi-lingues.Un peu plus de trois centaines de pages de mon tapuscrit rendent compte de l'élaboration et du choix de ces critères et de ces indicateurs. Elles laissent rapidement voir un déséquilibre manifeste tant qualitatif que quantitatif entre l'état des connaissances en créole et en français. Dans un travail de grammairienne, descriptive mais également prescriptive, qui doit trier et compléter, pour le créole, des descriptions existantes certes intéressantes mais souvent contradictoires, délestées des variétés émergentes et complètement lacunaires en ce qui concerne les formes enfantines, j'aborde l'actualisation du thème verbal (système flexionnel, système analytique, indice i, règles de troncation), les pronoms personnels, la valence des thèmes verbaux, la modalité interrogative et la modalité négative. PARTIE 4 : la quatrième et dernière partie de ma référentialisation est d'abord consacrée à prendre la mesure des paramètres généraux de la conception de tâches d'évaluation et du recueil de données pour et auprès d'enfants. Suite à une revue de la littérature sur le sujet (notamment les travaux de Rondal, Moreau et Richelle, Khomsi, Florin, Brédart, Gombert, Marquillo.), je mets alors en avant deux considérations relatives aux critères de pertinence et de validité dans une évaluation, lors du recueil de données. Elles concernent les types d'activités généralement proposées dans les évaluations langagières (compréhension, production, détection et correction d'énoncés), et les tâches permettant de recueillir des comportements observables (avec un centrage sur leurs portées, biais, supports et consignes). Je clôture cette revue en apportant mes propres remarques, critiques et impressions sur l'expérience d'élaboration d'outils de recueil de données que j'ai pu développer sur le terrain réunionnais.Dans un deuxième temps, je présente et commente les épreuves pilotes que j'ai pré-testées auprès d'une centaine d'enfants de grande section, lors de séances d'évaluation individuelles, filmées et analysées.Cette banque d'épreuves est composée de 39 fiches classées selon qu'il s'agit d'évaluer des compétences en créole, des compétences en français ou des compétences « bilingues » (traduction, discrimination codique). Ces fiches présentent les tâches d'évaluation que j'ai élaborées et dont j'ai pré-testé la faisabilité, la pertinence et la sensibilité. Elles détaillent, pour chaque item syntaxique évalué, les critères pris en considération, le type d'activité choisi, les performances attendues, les supports de l'épreuve, les indications sur son organisation, les consignes, mais également les énoncés-amorces éventuellement prévus pour l'évaluateur, une analyse d'exemples de réponses "correctes" et "incorrectes" recueillis auprès des témoins pré-testés, et enfin des commentaires généraux sur l'épreuve en question (difficultés, variantes, précautions.). CONCLUSION : mon tapuscrit se clôt par une conclusion générale. Celle-ci synthétise tout d'abord les différentes étapes de ma référentialisation ainsi que leurs résultats, et revient sur les améliorations qui pourraient y être apportées. Elle présente dans un deuxième temps les apports de ce travail de recherche, qui soulève aussi des questionnements et permet de faire des propositions.Les apports comprennent notamment : -Une recherche théorique mais également de terrain auprès d'une centaine d'enfants réunionnais qui permet la mise à disposition d'un outil d'évaluation opératoire, adapté aux caractéristiques de petits écoliers réunionnais de grande section de maternelle et proposant des tâches détaillées, éprouvées et des repères normatifs concrets. Ces fiches sont utilisables en l'état, au final autant par des chercheurs en didactique des langues que par des praticiens, amenés à évaluer des compétences grammaticales orales de jeunes enfants à La Réunion.-De manière générale, un éclairage méthodologique concernant le recueil et l'analyse de données orales auprès de jeunes écoliers non lecteurs dans un contexte diglossique, et dans une situation de contact de langues proches.-Un enrichissement des travaux de description synchronique de la morphosyntaxe du français, mais surtout du créole de La Réunion, notamment :»par la prise en compte des variations intrasystémiques et intersystémiques (les formes émergentes actuelles dues à la dynamique interne du créole et au contact avec le français, les formes enfantines, le langage des jeunes), »par l'approche synthétique adoptée (analyse comparée de travaux, élaboration de tableaux récapitulatifs).Mais ce travail de référentialisation soulève également des questionnements pour la recherche, sur plusieurs points :Sur le plan didactique : -Cette étude montrant l'indispensable prise en compte des représentations linguistiques, des pratiques langagières, des compétences pragmatiques des élèves lors du processus de recueil de données orales, quelle validité, quelle pertinence peuvent avoir des évaluations lissées, hermétiques à la situation de contact de langues proches et aux spécificités des enfants réunionnais, comme les évaluations académiques en français, duplications d'évaluations métropolitaines a-contextualisées, conçues pour un public monolingue déjà francophone ?-Quelle pertinence ont les propositions d'exploitation didactique et explicite, « en l'état », du créole « L1 » comme tremplin pour atteindre le français L2, alors que les pré-tests menés lors de ma recherche laissent déjà entrevoir certes une majorité de témoins présentant des compétences grammaticales de base en français lacunaires, mais également des écoliers (même dominants créolophones), rencontrant des difficultés d'expression, voire de compréhension, en créole ?-La plupart des descriptions grammaticales actuellement disponibles ne prenant guère en compte les variations intra- et intersystémiques du créole, n'y aurait-il pas des répercussions sur la portée des propositions didactiques pour l'enseignement du français en partenariat avec le créole ? Sur le plan des recherches sur l'évaluation linguistique : -La perspective binaire choisie dans ce travail, jugée pertinente pour comparer des compétences linguistiques en créole et en français, présente des limites et ne peut notamment prendre en considération, en l'état, tous les profils langagiers d'enfants (par exemple, les mix-lingues non-discriminants). Au-delà d'une évaluation créole/français, quelle alternative avons-nous pour apprécier les compétences linguistiques, notamment morpho-syntaxiques, de ces enfants dont la parole tellement (a)maillée et sans « langue » cible ne peut être analysée dans ce cadre ? Faut-il mesurer ces compétences « bilingues » pour elles-mêmes, sans référence au créole et au français, comme tentent de le faire de manière relativement marginale certains chercheurs dans d'autres contextes linguistiques (ex : Stubbe et Peña pour des bilingues américano-hispanophones aux Etats-Unis) ? Mais ce qui semble possible pour des langues « non collatérales » l'est-il pour des langues génétiquement et structurellement proches ? En effet, une évaluation bilingue prenant comme référence normative la morphosyntaxe de l'ensemble du macrosystème réunionnais, donc une langue « fluide », où l'évaluateur ne dispose pas de normes de référence explicitées/explicitables a priori et donc justifiées/justifiables, est-elle envisageable ? Bien qu'elle laisse voir sa pertinence sur le plan pédagogique, et réponde au critère de recherche de sens, comment justifierait-elle son objectivisation lorsque l'évaluateur ne fait que « « (re)sentir » que ça se dit » et donc détient en lui-même des règles « mouvantes », insaisissables de locuteur natif de l'interlecte ? Comment gérer cette incontournable implication dérogeant aux bases de toute évaluation, lorsque les références normatives sont intériorisées et a priori non externalisables ?Ce travail de recherche permet enfin d'émettre des préconisations et propositions pour des pistes de travail concernant la didactique du français en partenariat avec le créole : -S'attacher à identifier les conditions de conscientisation des codes par des enfants actuellement discriminants (sans guidage scolaire), pour l'étude de pistes permettant aux écoliers, dès la petite section, de discriminer des traits prototypiques du créole et du français.-Prendre davantage en considération l'hétérogénéité des profils langagiers des enfants réunionnais qui ne sont pas à considérer comme une masse linguistiquement homogène (même dans les écoles de quartiers dits défavorisés) et continuer la réflexion sur la prise en compte du macrosystème langagier réunionnais.-Compléter les recherches sur le créole parlé actuellement par la population réunionnaise (enfants, jeunes, adultes) et ouvrir ces descriptions à toutes les variations.-Briser le caractère ésotérique des ouvrages de descriptions grammaticales actuels et encourager la publication d'ouvrages de vulgarisation, non puristes, « accessibles » au public des étudiants (futurs enseignants) en formation mais également à celui des enseignants déjà en poste.-Prendre davantage en compte et faire évoluer les représentations négatives de la population locale (notamment les parents d'élèves), concernant le partenariat (direct ou indirect) avec le créole. Ce sujet faisant l'objet de fortes tensions sur le terrain scolaire, étudier des possibilités d'approches alternatives (exploitation du médium télévisuel, création/exploitation de structures éducatives parallèles comme des associations de type « ti lékol maron » ou des centres de loisirs), privilégiant la maîtrise du langage avec un aspect ludique, dans un contexte « apaisé ».

Karen Litfin on Gaia Theory, Global Ecovillages, and Embedding IR in the Earth System




This is the third in a series of Talks dedicated to the technopolitics of International Relations, linked to the forthcoming double volume 'The Global Politics of Science and Technology' edited by Maximilian Mayer, Mariana Carpes, and Ruth Knoblich 






Many debates in International Relations concern struggles regarding what should be the autonomous limits and focus of the discipline itself. However, increasing environmental and climate concerns challenge the self-contained nature of IR on discrete political phenomena, because what IR considers it's exogenous context is threatening to destabilize the premises of the content of international political practice itself. While such concerns often lead to a securitization and politicization of the environment and climate in IR, some scholars argue we should work towards the exact opposite. In this Talk, Karen Litfin—among others—elaborates on the kind of theory in which IR is embedded in, rather than applied to, natural systems; discusses examples of social arrangements that try to translate that theoretical insight into practice; and engages with questions of secularism and mysticism that irrevocably accompany those efforts.






Print version of this Talk (pdf)




What is, according to you, the biggest challenge / principal debate in current IR? What is your position or answer to this challenge / in this debate?



The fact that we can today truly speak of something of a global economy, the central problem now is to formulate the political institutions that are commensurate to these globalized economic institutions. We have far to go on that project. It also means doing so within the carrying capacity of the earth—that is, politically configuring that global economy in such a way that it doesn't exhaust ecological resources. So I would say that the challenge, in terms of actual politics, is to find those institutions.



The challenge for the discipline of International Relations is to do the necessary thinking to facilitate that institutional transition, but few IR scholars even acknowledge that political institutions must attend to the carrying capacity of the earth. In general, the discipline of International Relations, Political Science and even most of social sciences more generally behave as if there are no natural constraints to our behavior. Yet our freedom to even be able to theorize about the international system is completely dependent upon a vast web of life, other people growing our food, and a whole technological infrastructure that we had nothing to do with creating. International Relations talks a lot about interdependence, but do we really take it seriously?





How did you arrive at where you currently are in IR?



I've always been interested in science and technology. As an undergraduate, I studied physics and astronomy, but I didn't finish those majors because I realized, that if I graduated with those degrees I would most likely be working indirectly or directly for the military. I got politicized and I began to see that the political agenda drives the scientific agenda. This was in the 1970s and it was possible at that time that we were going to have an all-out nuclear war. I did not want to be a part of that.



I began to see that there is a dialectical relationship between science and politics. Because science facilitates the technological changes, which make the basic backdrop for politics, it's very important. For instance, the defense department was funding DARPA, which led—without them fathoming that at the time—to the development of the Internet—now a key site where global politics plays out.



Science also provides metaphors through which we understand politics. I did my Masters thesis on the mechanistic worldview and the devitalization of nature in the 17th century—that is, taking living nature out of our systematic theorizing. While others had written on this, I traced it back to the ancient Greek philosophy. A reductionist and mechanistic worldview underpins a lot of IR theory, as well most of our political institutions. We need to really start questioning that. Another way this plays out is that the notion of the global really had a huge jump when we got the image of Earth fromspace. The idea of Earth Day was really closely aligned to the fact that the image of the earth from space just had come out. Gaia Theory came about because James Lovelock was looking for signs of life on Mars. We were interested in extra-planetary life, but weren't looking at our own system or planet. So basically it turned all that science back on the Earth and said 'Oh my Gosh, we do have this kind of atmosphere that has the telltale science of life in it', which tells us that life is hoping to create the atmosphere. Then to have the human mind to conceptualize that is really huge. The idea that we are the Earth becoming conscious of itself is basically what science is telling us. These monitoring systems are one means by which we have the possibility of becoming conscious of that fact.



In terms of personal trajectory, when I started teaching International Relations back in the early 1990s, I started realizing that petroleum holds the whole thing together, the whole global system was held together by petroleum. (You could also say fossil fuels, but coal and natural gas don't power that much transnationally; it's really the petroleum.) Yet hardly anybody in IR talks seriously about petroleum—or energy or biodiversity or soil or the atmosphere. That's what I mean about getting to the material basis. But having said that, I think how we interact with the material basis is a reflection of our consciousness. So I'm not a material reductionist. Rather, I'm looking for a wholeness that understands our approach to material reality as being a reflection of our consciousness.



So this was why I have become interested in biological metaphors. I still think the leaning edge of human thought is understanding human systems as living systems. From this vantage point, we can begin to reshape our institutions in ways that mimic, sustain, and regenerate living systems. There's a long history of natural law and I don't exactly put myself in that camp, but I think there are ways that we need to understand ourselves as thoroughly embedded in natural systems and then move consciously from that place.





What would a student need to become a specialist in IR or understand the world in a global way?



To my mind, these are very different questions because, at least at many universities, becoming an IR specialist often entails ignoring some fundamental global realities. For one, even though most of humanity lives in so-called developing countries, most IR theory pays attention only to the Global North. Likewise, IR is fairly blind to the fact that the lifestyles of the Global North, if globalized, would require between three and six Earths, depending upon whether you are looking at Europeans or North Americans. Again, there is only one Earth! Fortunately, an important subfield has emerged with IR—global environmental politics—that is helping to rectify the situation.



The question I would prefer to answer is: what would a student need to know in order to understand the most pressing challenges facing the world system? To this, I would advise three things. The first would be to dive deeply into a broad and critical reading of the history of modernity, including the interpenetrating scientific, political, commercial, theological and industrial revolutions that characterize the modern era. The second would be to learn about the primary international institutions (the WTO, World Bank, IMF, EU, UN Security Council, etc.), and ask what is working, what isn't, and why? The third would be to do all of this learning while simultaneously learning to think systemically. Take at least one good course on systems theory; one that specifically offers a strong grounding in living systems, and start making connections. Why, for instance, do 'ecology' and 'economics' share the same root (oikos, Greek for household)? What would it mean to consider the international system as a living system and a subset of the Earth system? If we think this world system that we've created of a globalized economy and rudimentary international law is not a part of a living system, we are living in a big delusion. So to actually understand how living systems function, we need the literature on system theory that of course has been used in biology and ecology, but has also been applied a lot in the business world and organizational development. I think it's making its way into IR.





The world is full of technologies and technological systems (and getting more so each day). Could you elaborate on how this is relevant for IR?



I think that's a huge gap: IR doesn't pay nearly enough attention to technological systems—and when they do, it's generally from an uncritical and mechanical perspective. Even though much of the constructivist critique of liberal institutionalism is that the latter is overly materialistic, it actually isn't as if institutionalists talk about economics as if that were a material reality. Economics is a secondary human system overlaid on, but abstracted from, material systems. I think that IR needs to get really serious about understanding the actual material basis for politics. Climate change will probably be the issue that drives that.



So what kinds of technologies and institutions are we going to have to facilitate a global civilization? Now that's a worthwhile question! As I indicated, we now have a more or less globalized economy, but we don't have a global polis; we don't have the institutions that are commensurate to the economy that we have got. So the question is: can we sustain current civilization on the energy budget that is available to us and not wreck the climate?



Technological systems are driven by energy; energy is the master resource. Some energy analysts say that in order to have a global civilization, we need to have an energy return on energy investments of something like 5 to 1—meaning, for instance, that for each barrel of oil we put into getting more oil, we need to get five back. Right now petroleum is getting—depending on where you find it and how it's getting to you—somewhere between 15 and 25 to 1. That's the Middle East. It used to be 100 to 1 at the beginning of the 19th century. And now we are getting, say, 20:1. I've seen analyses of tar sands that put that energy source at somewhere between 3 and 5 to 1. Solar panels, if they work well, they are maybe getting 5:1. So the trend is worsening and we are starting to push that envelope of 5:1 energy return on investment. And if we exploit some of the new unconventional hydrocarbons—like fracking and, worse, methane hydrates—to their maximum potential, we'll fry the planet.



My question is how we can leverage existing technological, economic, financial and political resources to sustain a global civilization. I dearly wish more people were putting their attention on that question. The underlying assumption for most people is that business as usual can continue. Maybe, but not for long.



I'd like to throw in one little term coined by Stephen Quilley, an environmental sociologist: 'low energy cosmopolitanism' (read the paper here). I think this is a huge challenge for us. If it's possible to have a global civilization on the energy budget that we have available, it's going to be some form of a low energy cosmopolitanism, where we make some very conscious choices about what we are going to globalize. For instance, Germany probably wouldn't be importing grapes from Africa and none of us would be going on luxury vacations. We would be making a lot of conscious choices, but if we want to have a global civilization we have to be globalizing something, so what is it that we are globalizing?





How do you see the question of technological determinism when studying technologies?



This is really important to note, because if you just look at human systems as living systems there can be a kind of materialistic reductionism there. People who think like William Connolly, the new materialism understands that we should not be materialistic reductionists and that there is this wildcard of human consciousness. The fact of the matter is, we can assemble all the data we want but we don't know where we are going. But what we do know is that we've created a tremendously complex and complicated world that nobody can actually understand!



I think we need to address that question in a very specific way with respect of specific technologies, but if we stick to one example—satellites—I think the technologies do have certain properties embedded in them. I have written a feminist theoretical critique of earth observing satellites, where I argued that this kind of gaze from space actually does downplay or preclude certain perspectives. But as I thought about it more deeply, I saw very concretely that a lot of people are using those technologies to do what they want—not what the centralized political and scientific institutions that gave rise to the satellites wanted. So I would say the wildcard here is consciousness and human inventiveness, because that's what will shape how people deploy the technologies once there are on the ground.



For example, satellites were devised for spying and are certainly still being used for spying, but they are being used for so much else, such as Google Maps. I think some people might have been able to foresee that kind of development, but most of us didn't have a clue that this sort of thing could come about. Or that you could have indigenous people mapping their traditional lands in order to make land rights claims. So the wildcard really is human consciousness and that's why nothing really is deterministic. The greater the complexity in a living system, the more surprising its emergent properties. Seven billion human brains linked together in global technological and ecological systems are bound to yield surprises!





You indicated that you use biology and living systems as a reservoir for metaphors. Could you elaborate on that?



If I speak about living systems I usually do so through work called Gaia Theory. Looking through the lens of Gaia Theory, we would first understand that we exist within certain spheres such as biosphere, atmosphere and hydrosphere. We have taken geological time and inserted it into human time by digging up fossil fuels. As a consequence, we have kind of checkmated ourselves and are now forced into having to think in geological terms. We have to start thinking in geological time scales, which was never the case before. If we are going to find a way of inhabiting this planet sustainably, particularly if we are going to have anything approaching a global civilization, we have to understand that we live within a living system and then go about the rather daunting but exciting project of developing international law and institutions that reflect that reality.



There is a whole subfield of earth system governance in which Earth system scientists, IR theorists and international legal experts are coming together to think through these questions. The literature on earth system governance starts from the premise that the Earth is a living system and draws heavily on earth system science, which draws heavily from Gaia theory. You cannot separate atmosphere, oceans, lithosphere, and biosphere: they are all intertwined as one big living system—and now humanity is functioning as a geophysical force on a planetary scale. That's the meaning of the Anthropocene, and it will require an entirely new way of going about politics and economics.



So how can we bring the concept of Gaia Theory into practical reality? Besides the emerging field of Earth system governance, we can also do this in a very personal way by beginning to really internalize what it means being a human being at this time. A few years back, I came to the point where I decided that I did not want to theorize about anything I could not live. That turned out to be a huge challenge. After I wrote the 'integral politics' piece (see links below)—and I really do love that piece!—I saw that I couldn't fully live it. It was so big. For me, one of the most important implications of Gaia Theory is that we are the Earth becoming aware of itself. That's a huge implication. If you merely think of it conceptually, it is wonderful mind candy; but if you actually take it to the heart and try to live it, it changes your life. I challenged myself to do this and, at some point, it occurred to me that there must be other people who have traveled farther down that road than I had—in other words, people who had radically changed their lives to reflect their growing awareness that human beings are the Earth becoming conscious of itself. So I found myself traveling around the world to ecovillages which, for me, helped to tie it all together. Why is somebody who's teaching international environmental law and politics wandering around the world visiting these little tiny micro-communities? Because these people are taking the radical implications of Gaia Theory to heart (even if they've never read about it) and collectively changing their material, economic and social lives. That's why I spent a year on the road living in ecovillages. It's a strange thing to be an IR theorist who doesn't want to theorize about anything that she can't live!





Bringing up the issue of how to live your research, could you elaborate on what kind of outlook is necessary to live in accordance to Gaia Theory?



So this leads to the importance of humility for me. The value of humility is that it comes naturally as a consequence of understanding. You do not have to value it in advance; it comes automatically from understanding ourselves as part of this larger living system. In my experience at least, as soon as you grasp that, you automatically have an enormous sense of humility and gratitude. Those two qualities just spontaneously arise from truly grasping that reality. Going back to ecovillages, I asked myself who is living in ways that can actually work for the long run. The result became the eponymous book. I wanted to see collective efforts and particularly larger communities that were generally at least a hundred people, because you can do a lot more collectively, than you can on your own. Some of these communities are reducing their ecological footprint radically. In some cases, we are talking about per capita reductions in material consumption and waste production of 80-90% as compared to their home country averages.



This is very big news—especially given that these communities are still tied to the larger system. They are not tiny isolated enclaves. For instance, they're still using the mass transit of the larger society; most of them have Wi-Fi and high-speed Internet. They're not living in caves and many of them are very much globally engaged. On a material level, they're much closer to living within the Earth's carrying capacity. So in that way, I was very interested in just seeing what are their physical systems. But I began to see that their physical systems were only made possible because of the degree of trust and reciprocity that they have created.



That entails doing a lot of personal work. Diana Leafe-Christian, who has written a number of books on communities, says that 'community life is the longest and most expensive personal growth workshop you'll ever take'. It's true! If you're willing to do the personal work and hang in there through the difficult times and conflicts, you can develop the kind of self that's willing to do some very deep sharing. I would add, though, that this level of sharing is done best when it is respectful of the individualism that we have developed. I don't think that communities should be running roughshod over individualism. There needs to be some balance of privacy and communal life. The communities that work well have figured out a way to do this. To my mind, the communities that work really well are the ones who are working on developing collective forms of consciousness. Which means actually I think going beyond the separative rational mind: it doesn't mean demeaning those qualities, it means using them, but using them in the service of something larger. As I said earlier, progressive change entails transcending and including. Individualism, for all its negative consequences, is a genuine historical achievement.



And I would say on a very practical level, one of the ways that they reduce their footprint is by withdrawing to some extent from the global economy. Having very low consumption and being fairly energy efficient and self-reliant, reliance on food self-sufficiency, but withdrawing from global society. To me, they are answering the question I raised earlier: What would a low-energy cosmopolitanism look like? And they are doing this not just because they consume less and live more simply but because by and large ecovillagers actually have a cosmopolitan identity. They might be growing their own food and composting their shit, but they're also tied into the global system. They're actively engaged in the Internet, sometimes attending global conferences and many of them are politically active on issues such as genetically modified organisms and nuclear waste disposal and human rights.



They are little nodes of positive examples, but they're very small. In fact, hardly anybody lives in an ecovillage, which is why the last chapter of my book is called 'Scaling it up'. I basically look at the underlying principles of ecovillages and talk about how these principles could be scaled up to the level of cities, regions, national government and international norms. I realize this is a big stretch, but I felt that as an International Relations scholar, I at least need to try it. The important misconception you run into that moment is the idea that sustainability needs to be expensive—the idea that somehow we can consume our way into sustainability. Actually, the most sustainable form of consumption is no consumption! Yet this is not what all ecovillages do. There is one community that I visited in up-state New York, in Ithaca, this is the same city that Cornell University is in, where two thirds of the residents have masters degrees or PhDs and their homes are worth more than the average in the area. They have a pretty middle class lifestyle, yet their average ecological footprint is about half the American norm. So they're not sustainable, but they are definitely moving in the right direction. They hired architects and have nice homes, which is a very different approach than that of most rural ecovillages.



In the Global North, the smallest footprints that I saw tended to be in the rural off-grid ecovillages that were more or less self-sufficient in food, energy, and water. In some of these communities, residents were living on as little as 25% of their average national incomes. This is impressive because it tells us that people in affluent countries can live well on far less money and with far less environmental damage than is considered normal in those countries.



Yet the fact of the matter is that most people today live in cities, so it was important for me to also look at urban ecovillages. Los Angeles Ecovillage, for instance, has a very small footprint because it is high-density and automobile use is discouraged. If you lower your transportation footprint by not driving or sharing vehicles, and if you grow your own food or rely upon locally produced food and have and passive solar construction and renewable energy for your buildings, you can dramatically reduce your energy consumption. You can have a much smaller footprint and still have a very comfortable life. People think that you need money in order to live. It seems that we need money in order to live, but actually what we need is food and shelter and transportation and relationships. So if you figure out ways of getting those things without money, you've made a huge step to getting out of the global economy. In a nutshell, that's what ecovillages are doing.





So are ecovillages all the same across the globe? Is it a new 'social form' emerging?



It is different in the developing countries and in the affluent countries, and I think it's important to clarify that at the outset. I visited a number of ecovillages and ecovillage networks in both developing countries and affluent countries. In the latter, there is a greater possibility for what I consider 'post-individualist' that both transcends and includes individualism. A very simple 'post-individualistic' approach to property rights, for instance, would be co-housing, where the land is owned in common and people own their own homes. But their private homes would be a lot smaller because so many amenities are shared. The common house would have a community kitchen, so that, depending upon how much people are willing to share, private kitchens can be very small. If there's a collectively owned guest space, then you don't need a guest room in your house. And if you do a lot of your socializing together, then you can do that in the common house. So your own house could be quite small but you would still have access to all the comforts of a private existence and more. The more people are willing to share, the more will be collectively owned. And that really does require trust, because it's a big problem if the relationships blow up and you have your finances entangled with those people! This is just one example of how property rights can coexist with the softening of boundaries between individuals.



The flipside of this is occurring in developing countries, where the post-individualistic arrangement that I've been making doesn't really apply. And this is important because that's where most people in the world live. There you have cultures where people already have much more of a collective orientation. So we really need to pay attention to what's happening there. Actually, in many cases, their developmental task is to become more individuals. And the question is: how do they become more highly-individualized rather than being subsumed by traditional moral codes—how do they that without over-consuming. In the west, we had a fossil fuel subsidy that enabled us to become highly individualized, as I said before, the only reason we can be having this interview is because somebody else is growing our food.



In developing countries, the real task is to find a way for people to become more individualistic without over consuming. And so this is why I was impressed by the model I saw in Sarvodaya, a Sri Lankan participatory development network that belongs to the Global Ecovillage Network. There, fifteen thousand villages are trying to apply ecovillage principles to create what they call a "no-poverty/no-affluence society." Their programs in micro-finance and women's literacy, for instance, give villagers—especially women—an incentive to stay in the village because they have a livelihood. And when people stay in their villages, they tend to live a lot more sustainably. As the women becoming literate, they begin making choices for themselves and therefore becoming more individualized. So it's a way of hopefully leap-frogging urbanization in order to sustain rural village life.



I should say that you can apply these principles anywhere you live, in cities as well as rural areas. I visited quite a few ecovillages in cities. One of the most important things that the Global Ecovillage Network is doing is training people, wherever they live, to apply ecovillage principles in their urban neighborhoods or wherever they find themselves. There have been some amazing projects coming up in the Brazilian favelas and in China. GEN has developed a course called 'Gaia Education' that's being offered all over the world and especially in developing countries. There's now a Global Ecovillage Network for Africa. There are basic principles of sustainability that, if you live in an ecovillage, you can apply more intentionally, but they are applicable everywhere.





In a way, 'Gaia theory' sounds very spiritual—and for that reason the Gaia concept was initially very much opposed by many physicists and climate scientists. In a way, Gaia theory entails a critique of modernist secularism and faith in technology; how do you see that in your work?



I have mentioned the critique of mechanization in the early modern era, but in fact the early modern scientists, such as Newton, were all looking for God. Now many of the hard sciences are moving in the direction of mysticism—I would speak of mysticism rather than spirituality—but it's not a mysticism that is simply a projection of the human psyche onto the cosmos; rather, it is empirically derived. I think that's a kind of postmodern development that would have been impossible in the pre-modern era. That's what I was saying about transcending and including, that the ideas that we have of who we are in the cosmos are so different as a consequence of modern science. We can transcend those ideas but also include them. From the Big Bang and the evolution of species, we came out of all of that! And implicit within this fact, if you take it deeper, is that there is a secret oneness to it all. I think that the lessons we have to learn politically and economically now are about interdependence. But if you take interdependence to its depths, it too implies a secret oneness. Most importantly for the current evolutionary crisis: that oneness is embedded in our consciousness and we can access that. That is the reason why I don't want to theorize about anything that I can't live; I'm working at that level as well.



It's interesting, because that also has implications for my teaching. I teach in a fairly direct way when I have living bodies and inquiring minds right in front of me and can engage them at a personal level. I give them my big picture view of politics as a subset of living systems and also being a kind of living system. I get them to inhabit that in themselves through doing contemplative and reflective exercises in the classroom. For instance, I'm teaching a class called political ecology of the world food system and we talked about the globalization of different food commodities and where chocolate comes from for instance, where it originally came from, who processes it, how much do the farmers get from all of that. I brought in raw cacao nibs, which most of the students had never tasted before. We talked about where these came from and how expensive they were even though cacao is not processed, because raw cacao is a something of a delicacy. Then I gave them this very highly processed chocolate without sugar and with alternative sweeteners in it. I invited them to really be present to tasting each of these things as I talked about them and I left some significant gaps of silence, they could actually be present to experience of themselves inhabiting the living system and now being the beneficiary of a world food system. How did we come to have cacao from West Africa and stevia from Paraguay in our mouths? What are sociopolitical and biotic networks that have made this possible? And can we allow ourselves to truly experience what it means to be the beneficiary of these living systems? And what of our own as living system? When I am in the classroom it is actually quite easy to teach what I call person/planet politics. I never teach anything as if it is just 'out there'. Whenever I teach anything, I want the students to inhabit it in their bodies, in their experience. And I try to do that as best as I can by living what I teach as best I can.



It is a little embarrassing, but I don't know how all of this applies to IR; I am just trying to do it as best I can in my own life, as it is presented to me. And I write about it and I publish things—I have a piece coming out on localism that basically makes the case for what I call organic globalism, which is a globalization that is premised upon the earth as a living system and international institutions being designed very consciously on that basis. I don't quite know what it looks like but I have a sense of its rightness. To be honest with you, I am better with that in the classroom that I am at the level of large-scale institutions. Because I am beginning to inhabit this in my own being and I can communicate it to students. Maybe the next challenge is to be able to communicate it at a larger level.





So isn't there a tension between living sustainably and participating in a globalized world that is hard-wired in terms of technology?



Consciousness does not at all preclude technology. For example, I think us having this dialogue is on some level contributing to a certain kind of consciousness and it's completely facilitated by technology. Without Skype we wouldn't be having this conversation. What's helpful to me, about what I call E2C2 (ecology, economics, community and consciousness) is that these are four lenses through which to view any phenomenon—and that includes technology. For instance, we can view our Skype conversation through the lens of ecology in terms of the amount of energy that's used. Economically, we might consider what is being produced and what its value is. It's probably a pretty good economic deal since you and I are virtually paying nothing for it! So economically it's a good deal. In terms of the communitarian lens, we are developing a dialogue that will hopefully be in a relational field with many other people, perhaps thereby also contributing to a certain growth of consciousness.



E2C2 offers four lenses through which we can look at technology; they are not mutually exclusive. For me, the question is: to what extent are our technologies beneficial in terms of each of the lenses. Denis Hayes, the guy who started Earth Day, said the basic principle of sustainability is that you leave your molecules at home and export your photons. This brings us back to the concept of low energy cosmopolitanism. It's a huge question: what are we going to globalize? If we are going to have a global civilization we need to have global communication. The Internet is a tremendous achievement in that regard, and could to function as a kind of global brain, though its roots are in its military applications and today it is primarily dominated by commerce. (And I understand that pornography is a big part of it as well.) Despite its limitations, the Internet provides an infrastructure that could enable us to be in communication globally, which is very important if you want to develop a global consciousness and a global civilization. But we need to understand that our technologies must operate within the limits of the Earth system. In other words, technologies—like all human systems—are also living systems.





Last question. So how can we relate this back to IR?



I think one of the ways this is happening is that some pockets of IR are actually returning to foundational concepts. For instance, Alexander Wendt (Theory Talk #3) has started this Journal International Theory. People are seriously looking at the bigger and deeper questions, so uniting more with political theorists for instance. This idea that we are coming up against real limits is a very frightening idea from the perspective of a certain idea of freedom rooted in liberal politics. We really need to rethink the meaning of freedom in an era of limits. My own feeling is that human beings are kind of hard-wired towards unlimitedness—but the world is now pressing us to interrogate this impulse. We don't do well with limits. But the fact of the matter is, we are not evolutionarily adapted to abundance, we don't even know what to do with abundance. We are squandering resources in the most absurd ways. So we really need to rethink what freedom is in a world of limits.



It's not all together a bad thing that we are facing these limits. Those of us who have at least the privilege of being well fed and reasonably comfortable, can actually turn our attention to this question of consciousness. Because this question of 'what is freedom' is a problem of human consciousness. Rather than turning our desire towards mastery—I think as human beings we have an innate desire towards mastery – rather than turning that desire onto the external world, we've pretty well mastered it; except turns out that we live in it so it's coming back to bite us and we are facing huge climate change most likely. When we shift the focus of this desire for mastery to our own psyches, then lots of things open up. And I don't think only people who live in industrialized countries need to do this or are doing this. One of the things I saw in my ecovillage book is that people living in developing countries are also quite aware of it and are doing it at the places they live as well. There is a global awakening, at least in small pockets, to the fact that we live within a limited Earth system and a serious inquiry into what it means to be a human being at this juncture between modernity and the Anthropocene.





Karen Litfin (Ph.D., University of California, Los Angeles, 1992) is an associate professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Washington. She specializes in global environmental politics, with core interests in green theory, the science/policy interface, and what she calls "person/planet politics." Her first book, Ozone Discourses: Science and Politics in International Environmental Cooperation (Columbia University Press, 1994), looks at the discursive framing of science in the ozone treaties. Her second book, The Greening of Sovereignty in World Politics (MIT Press, 1998), explores how state sovereignty is being reconfigured as a consequence of global environmental politics. Some of the topics of her recently publications include: the politics of earth remote sensing; the political implications of Gaia Theory; the relationship between scientific and political authority in the climate change negotiations; the politics of sacrifice in an ecologically full world; and holistic thinking in the global ecovillage movement. 





Related links





Faculty profile at the University of Washington
Read Litfin's Thinking like a planet: Gaian politics and the transformation of the world food system (2011 book chapter) here (pdf)  
Read Litfin's Towards an Integral Perspective on World Politics: Secularism, Sovereignty and the Challenge of Global Ecoloy (Millennium, 2003) here (pdf) 
Read Litfin's The Status of the Statistical State: Satellites and the Diffusion of Epistemic Sovereignty (Global Society, 1999) here (pdf) 
Read Litfin's The Gendered Eye in the Sky: Feminist Perspectives on Earth Observation Satellites (Frontiers 1997) here (pdf) 








Print version of this Talk (pdf)