Wenger (1998) defines communities of practice as “places where we develop, negotiate, and share theories and ways of understanding the world (p. 48). We negotiate meaning within and between overlapping as well as distinct and separate communities of practice. I find his theory both compelling and problematic.
On one hand, the theory gives me an understanding of the formal and informal spaces of learning and meaning making that I encounter in my personal and professional lives. On the other hand, I find his lack of an analysis of power makes the theory irrelevant in a world where wealth is concentrating in the hands of the one percent while the 99 percent experience increased poverty and oppression.
I am compelled by the theory as I find it hard to read Wenger without beginning to examine my own participation in communities of practice. I now question how and when I participate in these spaces of negotiation of meaning, both formal and informal. It is easy to think about all of the ways that I interact with colleagues, friends, and even strangers that influence or change the way I think about myself and the world around me. I now see communities of practice everywhere, as processes of chance encounter, spheres of influence, and sacred spaces of deep dialogue and transformation. Indeed, I think communities of practice can be any or all of these, based on Wenger’s definition and elaborated through our class discussions.
I have also questioned how privilege and power fit in the theory and praxis of communities of practice. We live in a society that is profoundly shaped by privilege and oppression, which looms large in our personal, community, learning, organizational, and institutional spaces. Communities of practice are also shaped by power, operating as privileged spaces where some are welcome and spaces of exclusion when others are left out. I believe that unless we apply an analysis of power to communities of practice, Wenger’s theory remains apolitical and decontextualized from the real world.
Since I believe that all education and meaning making is political, the lack of analysis of power leaves me wondering how relevant his theory really is to a world in which power influences, defines, and underlies all meaning making. All of our personal experiences of learning and meaning making occur within a context of socio-political forces that extend well beyond our individual selves. This echoes the feminist claim that the ‘personal is political’, that we can’t separate our personal experiences from the socio-political world around us. Indeed, socio-political forces extend into the places, families, communities, and nations into which we are born, and through which we come to make sense of the world and our place in it.
In our class discussions, Donovan challenged us to think about the role of power in negotiation of meaning given that Wenger doesn’t bring an explicit discussion of power, and he focuses on capitalist business contexts in describing and defining communities of practice. While Wenger talks about the role of influence in how participation and reification take place, he fails to apply an analysis of power that would make his theoretical approaches much more relevant beyond the narrow scope of capitalist education. For example, I’m interested in discussing how race, ethnicity, sexuality, ability, gender, education, and class impact negotiations of meaning. I know that I encounter the communities of practice I participate in as a result of my identity, and both the privilege and oppression I live.
But what does adding an analysis of power really mean? The literature on power is complex and marked by deep, widespread disagreements over how the term power should be understood. There are multiple, contrasting definitions. To me, in the context of communities of practice, an analysis of power means looking at who benefits from meaning negotiation. It means asking the questions: Who is present? Who is missing? And, who has something to gain from the process?
Power can be used to explain and justify the status quo or to raise awareness to make social and political change imaginable and urgent. By leaving power out of the equation, Wenger’s theory offers a nice framework for thinking about meaning making, but fails to acknowledge the complexities and contexts in which meaning is negotiated in an unjust world.
Do you have any power-full reflections to add?
