Crash was an excellent movie that depicted the interaction of members of various communities of practice and the effects they have on each other. After watching the movie in class and reflecting on the impact of communities of practice in the movie, my mind continued to wander to Ryan Phillippe’s character of Officer Tom Hansen and his experiences.
In the beginning of the film Matt Dillon’s racist cop character, Officer John Ryan, warned Officer Hansen that he had yet to find out who he really was and how we would react to certain situations. When you consider this conversation within a community of practice, Officer Ryan could be seen as the master warning the apprentice that he has yet to fully establish his identity within their community of practice due to his lack of experience.
Wenger (1999) states,
An identity, then, is a layering of events of participation and
reification by which our experience and its social interpretation
inform each other. As we encounter our effects on the world and
develop our relations with others, these layers build upon each
other to produce our identity as a very complex interweaving of
participative experience and reificative projections (p.151)
Based on Wenger’s definition of identity in communities of practice, I can understand Officer Ryan’s advice to Officer Hansen. As an apprentice in his community, he has yet to fully engage in participating in facets of what a police officer does as part of his duties. As well, he has not had the time to experience and utilize all the various forms of reification that allows him to operate in the culture and geographic community he serves. Until he has the 17 years of experience that Officer Ryan has accumulated, who is he to pass judgement based solely on observing one experience.
Officer Hanson’s interaction with his Lieutenant also provides an example of the importance of tacit knowledge within a community of practice. He approaches his supervisor to request a transfer as he no longer wants to partner with Officer Ryan due to his racist and inappropriate actions. His Lieutenant provided Officer Hanson the options to make his transfer happen, along with warnings of what the repercussions could be if he approached his request in a certain way.
Based on his previous experiences, the Lieutenant recommended an avenue in which Officer Hanson would receive an approval for his transfer without causing unnecessary issues for the Lieutenant and Officer Ryan. While this was a very selfish act on the part of the Lieutenant, he is providing a learning opportunity for Officer Hanson that he would not have the opportunity to learn from through the normal structures of participation and reification of the community of practice.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gzdmSL-i8gg&feature=related
This link will take you to a youtube video of CRASH. Forward to the 4:42 mark to review the scene between Officer Hanson and the Lieutenant
This link will take you to a youtube video of CRASH. Forward to the 4:42 mark to review the scene between Officer Hanson and the Lieutenant
I believe that Officer Hanson also experienced issues with boundaries as a result of being a member of a community of practice of police officers. Wenger (1999) comments that,
In a world complexly structured by interlocked communities
of practice, we are constantly passing boundaries – catching,
as we peek into foreign chambers, glimpses of other realities
and meanings; touching, as we pass by outlandish arrangements,
objects of distant values; learning, as we coordinate our actions
across boundaries, to live with decisions we have not made. Not
all that we encounter becomes significant and not all that we meet
carries our touch; yet these events can all contribute in their own
ways to our experience of identity (p.165)
As a result of his membership as a police officer, I believe he had issues participating in the realities of other communities of practice that he came into contact and communicated with throughout the movie.
An example of his boundary issues can be identified in his interaction with one of the car jackers he picks up hitch hiking at the end of the film. He assumed the worst about this person due to his membership in a community of practice as a police officer. When the car jacker went for his pocket he assumed he was reaching for a gun. Instead, the car jacker wanted to identify with Officer Hanson as a member of another community of practice of safe travelers with the statue of Saint Christopher.
Unfortunately, Officer Hanson shoots the car jacker as his instincts as a police officer kick in as he assumes the car jacker is reaching for a gun. Due to his participation in a police officer community of practice, he developed a boundary that made him unable to fully relate with a member of another community of practice that he is passing through. Wenger (1999) suggests that boundaries are not only used to keep out outsiders, but to keep insiders in.
Officer Hanson’s interaction with the car jacker is an example of a boundary keeping an insider in the community of practice. He solely refers to his experience as a police officer during his engagement with the car jacker and reacts accordingly. He only identifies as a police officer in this instance and does not allow his memberships in any other communities of practice factor into his reactions and decision making in that moment.
This character is one of many characters in the movie that interact with several communities of practice. Their experiences are based on their various memberships, along with the effects of culture, tools and artifacts of participation and reification. Crash shows us how we identify ourselves and the boundaries we choose to keep affect our interactions within communities of practice.
References
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of practice: Learning, meaning, and identity (1st ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Lindsay,
ReplyDeleteAmazing Blog! It enabled me to reflect on my own experiences. I worked at the same bar for eight years-I was what Lave and Wegner would describe as a "master" of my trade. After I read your blog, like a flood, memories started to come back to me. I remember while training new staff I would often feel the need to explain situations to them and many a time they probably thought I was crazy. For example, a nice man would come in, sit at the bar, and strike up conversation with one of the new girls. I would pull them aside and explain that you cannot go overboard talking with someone drinking and alone at a bar; In many experiences I've learned this the hard way...
We had many regulars at this particular bar as well. I would "brief" the new staff regarding which ones tried to drink and drive, how they liked their drinks, who had to be cut off, who had a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde complex etc. I watched them all make the same mistakes I did when I first started, but eventually (most) got it. I suppose I left the whole bartending gig because I felt so confined by those invisible boundaries: I started to assume the worst in people, make assumptions about how people were going to act upon entering the bar establishment, and was no longer happy.
When I look back on how I interacted with the "new-comers" I could have been more understanding- I had just done the job full time for so long, I found it frustrating (we also had a very high turn-over rate).
Community boundaries are a funny thing; I feel like they sometimes hinder us from connections with other people, as Crash demonstrated so well. Your description of the Master/Newcomer relationship between Hanson and Ryan enabled me to further understand what Lave and Wegner's theory of situated learning, as well as reflect on my own experiences! A+!
-Tressa