1. Pender: Post-techne
CCR 711 ::: 9/3/13
Saturday, September 7, 13

2. Hawk’s definitions of
techne
Saturday, September 7, 13

3. What are the
implications for the
subjects relation to the
object?
Saturday, September 7, 13

4. For the subject’s
intention and agency?
Saturday, September 7, 13

5. For techne’s relation
to kairos? tuche?
Saturday, September 7, 13

6. 1.Pender writes: “Hawk, unlike Biesecker, isn’t redefining techne in
order to ‘do away with intention’. Rather, he wants to add ‘a layer
of complexity beneath it’” (100). She’s quoting Hawk on page 383
where he continues on to claim that “it adds an ambient level of
cognition. Both action and enaction, thus, become coreponsible.”
How do you understand “action” and “enaction” to be functioning
co-responsibly? What does that mean? Look like? Lets map it in
relation to post-techne.
Lindsey asks:
Saturday, September 7, 13

7. What does it mean to
move this to the
classroom?
Saturday, September 7, 13

8. Hawks references the work of Jim Henry which places “student bodies
in specific institutional contexts” in order to support his call for
teachers to place their students in an “institutional context and start
remaking pedagogies specifically from/for those occasions” (389).
1.I appreciate Henry’s work as an example of Hawk’s call to remake
pedagogies, but I still wonder what this looks like in terms of
remaking pedagogy?
Lindsey also asks:
Saturday, September 7, 13

9. 1.Furthermore, (and I am not contending for the instrumentality use of
writing that Pender explained) how realistic is it for teachers to
remake pedagogies continually?
2. How do these teachers, who already maxed out, make time to
remake pedagogies—again and again and again?
Saturday, September 7, 13