921361

research-article2020
AEQXXX10.1177/0741713620921361Adult Education QuarterlyNote et al.

Article
Adult Education Quarterly

A Novel Viewpoint on
2021, Vol. 71(1) 3­–19
© The Author(s) 2020
Article reuse guidelines:
Andragogy: Enabling sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0741713620921361
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741713620921361
Moments of Community journals.sagepub.com/home/aeq

Nicole Note1 , Free De Backer1 ,

and Liesbeth De Donder1

Abstract
While andragogy varies in meaning and practice from one country and context
to another, it usually refers to the field of educating or guiding adults. This article
reflects on a novel viewpoint and role for andragogy, taking as its starting point the
broader European tradition that includes social welfare and community development.
Central to its analysis is a new conception of community as moments of community
that has been discreetly advanced in anthropological and continental–philosophical
sources. It is argued that by contemplating and building on the great relevance of
such moments andragogy can be made to play an innovative role in enabling moments
of community in organizations, educational systems, neighborhoods, and society in
general.

Keywords
additional paradigm, community as moments of community, andragogy as inducing
flow, Emmanuel Levinas, Jean-Luc Nancy

Background
This article discusses a novel vision on andragogy, abandoning existing views that
associate it with adult education and learning. Existing views vary between countries
and only an outline is presented here, necessarily doing injustice to their complex
nature. We will then introduce the novel vision.

1
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

Corresponding Author:
Nicole Note, Department of Educational Sciences, Faculty of Psychology and Educational Sciences, and
Center Leo Apostel Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Pleinlaan 2, Brussels 1050 Belgium.
Email: nicole.note@vub.be
4 Adult Education Quarterly 71(1)

In Europe, the term “andragogy” was coined by the German educator Alexander
Kapp (1833), referring to adult education. It was only from the 1960s that its use
started to gather momentum, due to the professionalization of adult education within
the universities in Europe (Hake, 1992). In the Anglo American setting, andragogy
made its first appearance in the writings of Eduard Lindeman (1926) but did not
become widely known until the 1970s, when the interaction between Malcolm
Knowles and European scholars created the tipping point in academic discourse for
the term (Peterson & Ray, 2013). The field of andragogy thus developed both in
Europe and the United States, albeit with different meanings. In the Anglo American
models, Knowles’s vision of andragogy has been generally adopted. The concept has
been applied rather uniformly, focusing on the emancipation of the individual. It high-
lights key principles for adult learning, such as the adult’s understanding of the impor-
tance of learning, the freedom to do it each in their own way, at the right time and at
their own pace, and the importance of an experiential, positive, and encouraging learn-
ing process (Knowles, 1973).
In Europe, in addition to adopting Knowles theory, andragogy is not only more
divergent but also more comprehensive, incorporating the social welfare domain
(Kessels, 2015; Notten, 2002). The andragogical field is as much related to the micro-
context of individual intellectual emancipation as it is to a change in the individual’s
societal macro-structural context (Van Gent, 1991). Benefits of this extension are
deeper theoretical reflections on macro-structures, communities, and the role and
practices of andragogy in these contexts. A negative effect is a less clear identity, with
the discipline sometimes described as seeking its “disciplinary identity” (Hake, 1992)
or as an “undisciplined discipline” (Plecas & Sork, 1986). For example, in the Dutch-
speaking part of Belgian, the boundaries between andragogy, social pedagogy, educa-
tional sciences, and agogical sciences are somewhat diffuse, without, however,
adversely affecting the richness of their content.
In this article, a new vision on andragogy is introduced. It differs from existing
visions in the sense that its focus is neither the individual nor the individual’s emanci-
pation. Addressed are group processes in society at large. Describing community
as community, the article explores the conditions for how community at bottom,
comes about.
Instead of a new “vision,” a new “paradigm” might have been a more accurate word
choice, were it not that paradigms usually imply shifts away from supposedly outdated
views toward more promising ones (Kuhn, 1962). Our approach is to enlarge the spec-
trum. Yet, as in a paradigm shift, new meanings will be added to existing concepts. On
the one hand, “community” will be reinterpreted as moments of community, while on
the other hand, “andragogy” will be understood as “inducing flow” additionally to
leading and teaching. The latter is prompted by the very etymological roots of “com-
munity” and “-agogy.” Regarding community, in the late 14th century, community
referred to “having dealings with others” and “to make common, that is, to share.” The
roots of communis are *moi-n-, “to change, go, move” and *ko-, meaning “together.”1
Community, to make common, can be read as having an affinity with a move toward
togetherness. What such an interaction entails will be examined below.
Note et al. 5

As for “-agogue,” this is deduced from both agōgós (i.e., leading) and ágein (i.e.,
to lead). A person performing andragogy—the andragogue—is thus leading others in
learning. However, “-agogue” also signifies “promoting the expulsion of; stimulates
the flow of.”2 An example can be found in the term copragogue, a medication
employed as a purging medicine. Amusing as this may be, stimulating flow, for
instance, at moments when meanings are blocked or rigid, can be one of the outcomes
of andragogy.
The body of the article is structured around these two changing concepts. First, a
new web of interrelating notions is developed around community. In doing so, we
build on anthropological observations which we deepen with continental–philosophi-
cal insights. Two philosophers are central: Emmanuel Levinas and Jean-Luc Nancy.
Levinas is renowned for having advanced a phenomenology of intersubjective respon-
sibility, drawing on, and responding to Heidegger. He wishes to understand what hap-
pens in the lived immediacy of the encounter with the other, developing what Derrida
(1978) rightly observes as an ethics “before being determined as concepts and laws”
(p. 111). What matters to our line of thought is not a new idea on ethics; rather will we
use the notion of lived immediacy and Derrida’s assertion that it is something before
being determined as a concept (or a meaning in general). The shift from community to
a moment of community, is for a large part indebted to these insights.
Jean-Luc Nancy continues along the line of Heidegger, Derrida, and Levinas. He is
mostly regarded as a political philosopher. Of interest to this article is his search for an
understanding of what community entails.
The second notion—andragogy as inducing flow—will serve to advance the practi-
cal role of the andragogue, in particular its focus on the emergence of moments of
community.

A New Way of Comprehending Community, That Is, as Moments of

Community
The notion of community as commonly used has many associations. In its broadest
sense, community refers to “a group of people living in the same place or having a
particular characteristic in common.”3 A community may, for instance, be rural, eth-
nic, religious or scientific in nature. Because of its diversity, the term can also refer to
a body of nations or states unified by a common interest.
Theoretically, two archetypes can be drawn to allow gaining a better grip on the
term. There is a liberal-oriented perception on community, historically related to the
French Revolution of 1789 and, counterpointing the latter, there is a perception origi-
nating in preromantic times and greatly influenced by the ideas of Burke, Herder,
Fichte, and other contemporary thinkers. Subsequently, these ideas and their practices
were first systematically developed into two analytical concepts, “Gemeinschaft”
(community) and “Gesellschaft” (society; Tönnies, 1887) and then used as ideal types
(Weber, 1968).
In the social sciences, the idea of community has been extensively reflected on,
with its genesis being associated with different dimensions, including locality or place
(Bernardo & Palma-Oliviera, 2016; Frankenberg, 1966). Others have emphasized the
6 Adult Education Quarterly 71(1)

importance of traditional symbols and rituals (Back, 1996), pointed out its function as
a means to resist change (Day, 2006) or highlighted the significance of systems of
meaning as a collective property (Geertz, 1973). Moreover, there is a political dimen-
sion to community: the forming of communities of identity or interest—“peg commu-
nities” (Bauman, 2001). Another way to approach community development is to
regard it as a process of creating or increasing agency—the capacity of a people – and
solidarity (Bhattacharyya, 2004; Hustedde, 2009). While there are those whose sense
of belonging will be restricted to one particular community, others may feel part of
several communities simultaneously (Sen, 2006). In the social sciences, the term
“social capital” (Bourdieu, 1986; Hanifan, 1916; Putnam, 1993) has a similar function,
expressing that relations—no matter how diverse—are extremely valuable to both the
individual and society.
As indicated, we will elaborate an additional understanding of community based on
a view that developed at a time when the semantics of traditional concepts were chang-
ing and classic dichotomies and archetypes were surmounted (Lofland, 1988, p. 58).4
Scholars argued that community should be thought of, not as a collective identity, but
as a real social form, an interaction (Amit, 2002). Of particular interest in this regard
is the observation by the anthropologist Ruth Soenen (2006) that people have experi-
ences of community that in no way relate to “the making of a new group of likeminded
people, a collective identity” (p. 7). Her aim is to gain a profound understanding of this
phenomenon (Soenen & Verlot, 2002).
Drawing on micro-oriented research on connectedness and social relationship
building, Soenen (2006) focuses on what it is that binds people in diversified neigh-
borhoods. She is inspired by Granovetter’s distinction between weak and strong ties
(Granovetter, 1973). Weak ties are potential relationships with different small groups
that can be activated when necessary or desired, such as colleagues at work or acquain-
tances at children’s day care centers. Strong ties consist of deep relationships with
homogenous groups. Soenen pays particular attention to a footnote in Granovetter’s
work about “absent ties” (p. 1361). This footnote refers not only to the absence of any
relationship but also to ties without substantial meaning, that is, where interactions are
negligible. Contrary to Granovetter though, in her own research, Soenen is able to
revalue these ties without substantial meaning by conceiving of such ties as ephemeral
relations or moments of community.
Soenen’s research focuses in particular on the mobile reality of public transport.
The space that users of public transport find themselves in, is subject to a number of
unwritten rules, for example, the civil inattention rule (Lofland, 1988, p. 58). This
implicit politeness rule is applied when people notice each other but turn their atten-
tion away to not offend their fellow citizens. Soenen, looking closely at these relations,
observes that at times the civil inattention rule is broken, usually as a result of unex-
pected events. For instance, when a train or bus stops abruptly, the resulting imbalance
may cause passengers to have eye contact or touch each other. Car accidents on a
tram’s itinerary are known to start people sharing their views of the situation. And
dogs and children in public transport are also often food for conversation.5
Note et al. 7

It is interesting to the line of thinking set out in this article that Soenen (2006) dis-
tinguishes a number of elements in these ephemeral relations and that she regards such
relations as providing moments of community. The author points to the politeness rule,
and how it is suspended. Based on interviews, she asserts that during these small talks
there is no longer “us” or “them.” Participants are transformed into something in
between, less than the same and more than simply the other. At these particular
moments, a previously imperceptible string of small talk and gestures surfaces, called
“a relational web” (p. 7), also described as there being an “orientation towards the
unknown other” (p. 6). These relations clearly are “salient as a means of affiliation”
(p. 7), which is considered extremely valuable as it provides people with “a temporal
experience of being “at home”” (p. 7). The sense of community is described in terms
of “moments of community” (p. 7), endorsed as “emergent situations” (p. 10). Soenen
(2006) asserts that the importance of these moments is not taken seriously enough.
The author is definitely right in emphasizing the pertinence of such experiences of
being together, despite their ephemeral nature. Perhaps these interactions are not suf-
ficiently valued precisely because their full impetus is not yet well enough known and
recognized. Due awareness of their significance is also key to any attempt at pointing
to their relevance for andragogy, so that further investigation is required. A philosophi-
cal point of view is favored since so far, to our knowledge, French continental philoso-
phy has been the only source to reveal in a profound way how in these moments the co
of community is revealed.

Increasing Our Understanding of Moments of Community

To examine what precisely happens in moments of community, we will mainly turn
to the abovementioned philosophers, for example, Levinas and Nancy. Their spe-
cific philosophical terminology is rather unusual, and access to their thinking, at
times a challenge. We will therefore select from Soenen’s exploration discussed
above, the most significant constituent elements and consider them from a philo-
sophical stance.

Suspension of the “Us–Them” Distinction

One of the constituent elements of the interaction at hand is that the distinction between
us and them disappears. This is a peculiar phenomenon, because, as Heidegger (1927),
Levinas (1969), and other philosophers have explained at length, people’s minds have
the innate urge to imbue with meaning everything they sense as “world.” Also influ-
enced by continental philosophy, Charles Taylor (1989) further demonstrates that a
meaningful world cannot exist without distinctions. Zooming in on moral categories,
he explains how people always distinguish between hyper goods and goods, making
use of an array of nuances in between. So, in its most general and standard sense, it is
by using distinctions—often as basic as cold–warm and them–us—that people appear
to create a coherent world in which they can function. As inevitable as such distinc-
tions are, though, Soenen (2006) points to the concrete possibility of their becoming
8 Adult Education Quarterly 71(1)

disrupted. Her view is quite intriguing because she does not claim that, in the example
given above, the other person in the tram—one of “them”—has become one of “us,”
for in that case, she would have referred to a switch of categories. Instead, Soenen
(2006) suggests that the person is transformed into something in between, belonging
to neither category. This is the very reason why such situations may concern forms of
community that have not been captured in traditional terms.
The aforementioned philosophers also refer to this dynamic of opposites, albeit in
more abstract terms. Nancy (1997b) describes the interruption of distinctions as a sus-
pension of thinking, for it is through thinking that distinctions arise. Considered from
this perspective, at such moments, thinking takes a step and performs the impossible,
distancing itself from a meaningful frame that it likewise creates.
This may appear utterly strange, for how can we stop thinking and making meaning?
The matter is even more nuanced, however, and highly intricate: in the words of Nancy
(2013), such an interruption is about “ . . . an interruption in communication. . . . Not
an interruption of communication, but an interruption that is communicated in the midst
of the uninterrupted flux of our communication” (p. 157). Applying this to our example,
since we cannot live without distinctions, it is an interruption of the us–them distinction
communicated in the mid of the uninterrupted flux of the categories us–them. They are
interrupted, while paradoxically they continue.

Suspension of Innate Goal-Orientedness

Before continuing Soenen’s line of thought, in order to understand the deep implica-
tions of this interaction, we will introduce a nuanced Levinasian interpretation of the
ego or subject. Levinas points to the ego’s conatus essendi or the effort of being: an
ego has a perfectly healthy attachment to itself and uses its reason to become more and
more itself. Its identity is a striving for identity, a making the world into its own world,
with the sole goal of creating its proper ego. Its objective is the incessant attempt at
becoming itself (Levinas, 1969). In more common language, a subject is a reasonable
being striving for personal development, emancipation and improvement of its situa-
tion, a person that in an independent way fully develops its potentialities, goals, and
dreams.
Next, Levinas (1969) introduces the possibility of this innate goal-orientation being
interrupted, which is invariably provoked by the other. This interruption opens within
the ego a response ability for the other.
Levinas’s observation about the ego’s innate goal-orientation being interrupted is
not very familiar, not even in mainstream philosophy. Nancy (1996) following Levinas
in this, rightly observes that in our current worldview interruption of the self is still
predominantly judged as “pathological” (p. 6).6 However, as will be discussed in fur-
ther detail below, the idea of interruption offers interesting new insights, for it is only
at moments of the ego’s interruption that the co of community can be sensed. In line
with the above, this interruption is always an interruption of the ego in the midst of its
uninterrupted continuation.
Note et al. 9

Above, referring to Nancy, it was claimed that at the moment of community, the
thought process of making distinctions is interrupted. Next, we presented how such
interruptions cause the ego’s attempts at creating its identity to be interrupted. These
changes have repercussions on how the person experiencing the moment of commu-
nity will understand the moment of co. The moment of co is neither understood by
thought—thought has been interrupted—nor experienced with the senses, for accord-
ing to Levinas and Nancy, the actual experience is a characteristic of the ego. That is
why Nancy (1997a), in his very occasional use of the notion, refers to “a limit-experi-
ence” (p. 76). Sensing community is an experience—it is not a concept—but one we
can hardly sense with the senses, because it remains at the limit. During the interaction
as described by Soenen, people thus do not develop an idea of what community is all
about, nor do they experience community in the proper sense of the term—like they
experience swimming, for example; what is happening is a limit-experience, an expe-
rience that escapes the ego.
Last, from a philosophical viewpoint, the interaction is not part of chronos time and
thus cannot be a “moment.” We will nevertheless use “moment of community” as a
synonym for the interaction-as-interruption.

“Salient as a Means of Affiliation”

Soenen (2006) not only points out the particular nature of the encounter, she also
emphasizes its genuine value. Empirical evidence gathered by way of interviews leads
her to conclude that ephemeral contacts taking place in a narrow time and space slot
appear to be “salient as a means of affiliation” (p. 7), providing people with “a tempo-
ral experience of being ‘at home’” (p. 7). To thoroughly understand the issue, we will
have to focus on the co in community. Its etymology tells us that it concerns a move
toward togetherness or, more specifically, a move from the ego experience toward a
sense of togetherness where the ego’s goal-orientation and thinking have been
suspended.
This means that we will have to explore and comprehend in greater depth the inter-
action between people: the action that brings about the inter, the co, which gives peo-
ple a feeling of being “at home.” For this purpose, we will draw on Nancy’s attempts
at providing a description of its conditions.
In one of his articles, Nancy (2014a) refers to a “decision [ . . . ] for the neither real
nor possible” (p. 258). What we are concerned with here, is his use of the term “deci-
sion,” which we will need to deconstruct. While in everyday situations, a decision is
taken to refer to an act performed by a fully responsible subject, Nancy’s use is more
sophisticated. He first parses the term, pointing to the meaning of its constituent ele-
ments de and scission, namely an undoing of the act of “cutting” or “dividing.” In
Soenen’s case, this would be an undoing of “us” and “them”; the scission between
both is annihilated. Nancy then uses the same wordplay to reveal a second condition.
While the term “decision” may be analyzed as de-scission, its semantical meaning—
making a choice between two things—remains the same, in this case the choice for a
yes or no to the interruption. Even so, a no is not within the range of possibilities. A
10 Adult Education Quarterly 71(1)

person’s decision to say yes to the moment is not a deliberate act. Indeed, it is quite the
contrary. With both goal-orientation and thinking having been suspended, the affirma-
tive answer just happens, the moment being agreed to without the ego’s involvement.
From a Levinasian viewpoint, in such situations of interaction, we are open to the
other—or to reuse and deepen Soenen’s wording: we are oriented to the unknown
other, despite our selves, that is, our egos. In the example about the person on the tram,
the moment of community thus is something beyond their control.
Both Nancy and Levinas use such terms as “imperious” and “command” to high-
light the uncontrollability of the act by a “subject.” However, to further zoom in on the
etymological move toward a togetherness, and drawing on Derrida, we will tone down
this wording and introduce the notion of gift.
This too is a notion requiring deconstruction. As a rule, a gift involves an act where
the giver is fully aware of making the gift, in the hope of satisfying the receiver and
thus implicitly expecting some sort of appreciation. In interactions as described by
Soenen, the gift is recognized as such neither by the receiver—say, the “us”—nor by
the giver—say, the “them.” Rather, the gift is something that happens in between
“them” and” us,” experienced as the gift of being at home (with the other), without
any direct obligation or claim ensuing between the two. It is an instance of involuntary
affirming. The question then arises what it is that is being affirmed. According to
Nancy, the answer is that it is no less and no more than a shared existence, coming
about at the moment of co. When the ego is suspended—within its continuation—
there is no longer any single subject but a becoming of sharedness. A sense (not an idea
nor an experience) of co emerges, as in community, which Soenen refers to as the
coming into being of a relational web between both. As such, the importance of
the encounter can only be appreciated “in community and as community” (Nancy,
1992, p. 383).
Emphasizing the move toward togetherness, risks suggesting the idea of a unity, a
merging of two or more subjects into a co. Although there is undoubtedly a bond, it is,
as Levinas (1969) is keen to observe, “a bond that is established between same and
other, without constituting a totality” (p. 40, italics added). There is also, and illogi-
cally, a distance toward the other, since, as already established above, the subject can-
not get hold of the other through any form of classification, or as any kind of experience
of the ego.
Theoretically, this illogical dynamic can be described as a simultaneity of proxim-
ity and distance. In the case of Soenen, the other (them) cannot be put into a category,
which creates a distance, while at the same time there is, paradoxically, a move
toward togetherness, which makes strangers feel at home with each other (proxim-
ity). In summary, there is an emergence of togetherness-in-distance, out of nothing,
an ephemeral wink, lightly to be disregarded. Still the trace it leaves behind is not
light, making us feel at home, making us sense that existence is first and foremost
about just that: a move toward togetherness. These instances of co, which we onto-
logically are, are foundational to the individual and to each concept that helps shape
community (Nancy, 1996).
Note et al. 11

Andragogical Relevance
At this stage, we can leave aside the philosophical reflections and go on to discuss the
relevance of the above account to andragogy and its novel role. For, what has been laid
bare is nothing less than the foundational point giving rise to orientation toward the
other. Community happens when a step is taken from the linguistically constituted ego
toward nonlinguistical togetherness, technically formulated as the paradox of merging
(proximity) and yet remaining at a distance. It discloses the first and foremost human
condition for commitment. Soenen thus (2006) rightly observed that these moments
are not taken seriously enough. However, as Levinas strongly emphasizes, there is no
straightforward relation between ontological affirmation - the experience of c­ ommunity
- and actual engagement toward each other. Then why would this moment be so sig-
nificant? The crux seems to lie in the reversal, in that, without such moments happen-
ing, any involvement would eventually cease to be. In other words, the interactions are
imperative to keep involvement going by sparking a nonlinguistic understanding of its
ultimate importance. Perhaps this is why Levinas (1969) at times uses the expression
“experience par excellence” (p. 112).
In view of all this, the novel role for andragogy can be said to be challenging, if not
steep. The first task to be completed would be to develop an ability, or rather, an alert-
ness, to recognize moments of community. This is harder than it might seem, not only
because of the illogical nature of the dynamic of the interaction, or the lack of general
familiarity with the matter, but perhaps even more so because moments of community
can come about in innumerable ways. In the field of anthropology, the constituent ele-
ments identified above—the interruption of distinctions, thought and goal-orientation,
with the interaction being considered salient as a means of affiliation—are not always
manifested in the same way. Some elements may prevail over others, and some may
even be barely noticeable at all.7 The constellations can differ considerably, as will be
shown in a case study below.
In addition to developing the alertness to recognize a sense of community there is a
second major task integrally interwoven with the first. To clarify what this entails, we
will turn to the professional habitat of andragogy. Andragogical sciences, at least in its
broad European comprehension, are expected to prepare their scholars to be employed
in a wide variety of organizations and institutions, ranging from educational, social,
cultural and artistical to organizations and institutions on a local, regional, national, or
international level, of a formal or nonformal nature, and funded by public or private
sources. Enabling moments of community in these highly diverse contexts, implies
understanding any processes that might possibly prevent such moments from happen-
ing. Andragogues should therefore pay attention to both the recognition of these
moments and hindering factors.
In the following section, we will briefly discuss how moments of community are to
come about in such organizations, and then zoom in on one organization, the not-for-
profit Local Exchange Trading System (LETS), as developed in a town in Belgium, to
identify rigid visions or structures as the main impediments for moments of commu-
nity. Last, it will be demonstrated what role andragogy can play to overcome this.
12 Adult Education Quarterly 71(1)

A Novel Way of Acting for Andragogy: Enabling

Moments of Community
Recognizing Moments of Community
As indicated, moments of community may manifest themselves in multiple ways. The
andragogical professional, working in organizations, will have to be aware of and
attentive to this. Nevertheless, in organizations set up to strive for a better world, there
is a particular manifestation that appears to be recurring.
When a not-for-profit organization is created, its members are usually eager to
bring into practice their ideals. Aspiring to attain a common goal, colleagues form a
collective, a “we.” They constitute a community in which a sharedness can be
­experienced. Although this sharedness should not be confounded with the moment of
community, situations of shared ideals are propitious for moments of community to
happen. Moments of community are bound to occur as uncontrollable intensifications
of the we-as-towards-the ideal. A comparable situation is when people form a group, a
“we,” to play music together. During their performances, at rehearsals or in concerts,
they will go through moments beyond their control when they feel they are connected
in a more intense way. This prompts an ontological yes to what has are already been
undertaken with enthusiasm and considered valuable.
People are not likely to give expression to such limit experiences because there
is no clear-cut vocabulary available to them. This lack of expressive means may
prevent professionals in the field of andragogy from identifying such moments in
their daily practice, even if, paradoxically, it is their task to enable them. The previ-
ously constructed network of concepts and insights may be helpful to recognize
these moments and their utmost importance, to recall the interruption of the ego,
the paradox of being close to the other (proximity) and yet at a distance, and the
interruptions of distinctions. It should be noted that in the case of an organization,
we point to an encounter, not between people but between people and their shared
ideal.
As asserted above, it is only through the interruption of the ego that a co of com-
munity can come about. How is this element theoretically distinguishable? In organi-
zations aiming to put into practice the idea of a better world, ideally, any orientation
toward personal goals (e.g., trying to push through hidden agendas or subjective con-
victions) has already been left aside in favor of a common goal shared by all. If this is
not the case, the co of community cannot occur. The genuine orientation toward a
common goal can be regarded phenomenologically as an interruption of the ego’s self-
interest, within its uninterrupted continuation.
As for the illogical dynamic of proximity and distance, the process of converting
the organization’s ideal into concrete actions can bring about feelings of coming closer
to achieving the ideal as a group, feelings that may be intensified during moments of
community. In spite of these feelings, the members always remain at a distance from
the ideal. Ideals are by definition something to be attained in an unspecified future.
Note et al. 13

People can only strive toward ideals, but they can never reach them. There is a coming
closer to something that inherently always recedes.
Interruptions of distinctions is the third important element and this is precisely the
role to be played by andragogy in organizations. Above, we conjectured that if an
ontological yes cannot be renewed, involvement will cease to be. Now, and this is
essential, in the process of fleshing out and articulating their initially vague ideals,
not-for-profit organizations run the risk of their ideals becoming rigid. As Nancy
(2014b) puts it in a different context, there seems to be a natural tendency for “a solidi-
fication of meaning” (p. 15). This will negatively affect the organization’s enthusiasm
for the shared ideals, and if enthusiasm disappears, the required condition for moments
of community to happen, will also disappear.
In the following, some examples of this phenomenon will be provided through a
case study on the LETS, highlighting the role andragogy can perform to open up rigid
articulations of the ideal, namely by inducing flow. The case study serves to concretize
the theoretical reasoning, not to prove the perspective scientifically.

A Case Study: The LETS: Meaning Rigidified

In 2013, a group of active citizens decided to start a LETS in their hometown. LETS
is officially defined as a “local community-based mutual aid network in which people
exchange all kinds of goods and services with one another, without the need for
money.”8 For the Co-ordinating Committee (COCO), the local LETS was to become
much more than an a-political exchange platform, however. Aspiring to make the
world a better place, the LETS was set up as a first initiative toward transition. Its main
goal can be summarized in the following three phrases: “trust rather than distrust,
being rather than having, co-operation rather than competition.” The two cases dis-
cussed below serve to illustrate how the network’s ideal was articulated, and how
subsequently its articulations became rigid, affecting the participants’ enthusiasm and
thus making it harder for moments of community to arise.

Case 1. In the initial phase of the set-up of the LETS, there was joint enthusiasm about
the project and the citizens set about it with vigor. To initiate the LETS, they needed a
structure and decided to adopt the policy of the LETS in adjacent municipalities. They
thought this policy was exemplary and would make it possible for the structure to
grow organically. Gradually, though, norms and rules became more established, even-
tually even tending toward rigidity. For example, one of the rules they had established
was to hold general assemblies every year. While the COCO held one the first year,
one of its members started to question its usefulness because it required a considerable
amount of preparation and left little to no time for more substantial tasks such as invit-
ing new members and stimulating exchange between members. Most COCO mem-
bers, however, felt obliged to continue holding annual meetings. This illustrates how
an initially appealing articulation of the shared ideal transformed into a rigid structure,
with practicalities and rules holding sway.
14 Adult Education Quarterly 71(1)

Intriguingly, the members in favor of annual meetings did not have any substantial
reasons for their position, merely stating that “it was in the Charter.” Despite being
volunteers, despite being the architects of the rules, the group submitted to these self-
imposed rules rather than critically reflecting on their necessity, and flexibly adapting
them when needed. The effect quickly became visible: with the ideal out of sight,
enthusiasm shrank and the COCO saw itself reduced to half its size in the second year.

Case 2. In organizations, including volunteering organizations, it is only natural for

people belonging to the same group to form a sense of “we.” Yet often, and in a subtle
way, within this apparent unity of the group, the “we,” distinctions arise between “us”
and “them.” There will always be someone who does not fit certain presumptions that
the “we” group may have about specific ideas or ideals, making him or her “the
other.” This phenomenon also played a part in the LETS, to the point of becoming
counterproductive.
In the initial phase, it was assumed that several people would subscribe to the LETS
and that, once involved, they would be actively participating. A blooming and active
LETS was envisioned, with frequent and numerous exchanges amongst its members.
While more and more people joined the organization, a few members of the COCO
were more sceptical. As they saw it, the number of really active citizens was but lim-
ited. Over time, this led to a distinction being made between “active” and “passive”
members. Gradually, passive members garnered most attention at COCO meetings,
and the majority of COCO members started to conceive of the LETS as not function-
ing properly overall. The general spirit grew increasingly dark, with frustration and
cynicism becoming the bottom-line in every meeting even though no one really wanted
this to happen.
Both cases provide a tangible illustration of how an initially meaningful manifesta-
tion may become “rigid.” The ideal itself was never questioned and yet a change
occurred, a change best described as a disconnection from the ideal. The shared goal
moved beyond reach and became tainted, losing its luster, which in turn prevented any
moments of community from arising. In the first case, this was caused by structural
changes, while in the second, the decline was the result of a changed perception of the
nature of members, but in both cases, the underlying cause was distinctions being
voiced too rigidly. Both situations called for an interruption of these rigid structures,
which could be brought about by inducing flow. Andragogy played an important role
in this, as we will see below.

Practically Enabling Moments of Community

In outlining the role of practically enabling moments of community, it is presumed that
the andragogue works within the system. In the case of the LETS, the relevant prob-
lems were identified and subsequently appropriate interventions were selected.
Most cases of rigid articulations were approached using communication techniques,
particularly adapted versions of the Socratic dialogue. The main goal of a Socratic
dialogue is to question strong beliefs. This method starts from the idea that even a
Note et al. 15

seemingly very true conviction is no more than one of many potentially valuable per-
spectives. It makes deliberate use of two processes. The first is elenchus, an experi-
ence of shame caused by not knowing. It is derived from the Greek word elenkhein, to
put to shame, refute. It is thought that this experience helps people listen to others. As
long as people are convinced of their own truth, they will only try to persuade others.
The second is the protreptic element, from Greek protreptikos, to urge on, to turn to.
The idea is that, through this process, a person will open up to the other and adopt an
attitude of constructive doubt and constant investigation (Van Rossem, 2018).
In the case of LETS, the dyadic structure of a Socratic dialogue runs parallel with
the dynamic of interrupting (elenchus) and enabling a reconnecting to the ideal (pro-
treptic). First, through the elenchus experience, it was possible to put into question the
necessity to submit to self-imposed rules (Case 1), and the distinction between pas-
sive/active members (Case 2). Unlike the Socratic dialogue, in this case ideas were not
targeted openly—that is, no shame about not knowing was provoked. Instead, a soft
approach was chosen, the challenge being to make people realize for themselves that
it is not about being right or wrong in absolute terms, by letting them experience that
each situation can be viewed from different perspectives, some of which will be more
appropriate in certain contexts than the others. The aim of this approach is to “inter-
rupt” people’s strong convictions in an implicit way.
Second, there is the protreptic element or openness. In the case of the LETS, the
technique, cautiously employed, helped increase the likelihood of participants reori-
enting toward the shared ideal. In Case 1, a collective yet implicit awareness of the
possibility of rigidification emerged. This resulted in the participants abandoning their
submission to rules and rearranging their foundational setup, more or less intuitively
opting for a flexible structure. Concretely, the LETS switched from being a formal
nonprofit organization to taking on a less constraining structure. The practice of flex-
ibility was then transposed to other features of the LETS. For example, whereas before
the change, COCO had opted for a balance between debit and credit, this rule was
discarded in favor of the use of a virtual bottomless pit of credits.
Andragogues are free to use any other methods in addition to communication tech-
niques, as long as they aim their interventions at opening rigid ways of thinking. For
example, in the case of the LETS, what proved problematic in Case 2 was the change
in perspective of a small subgroup, resulting in more generalized negativity during the
meetings. After analyzing the situation to pinpoint the problem, the andragogue
decided to use the monthly meeting of the COCO to suggest writing a New Year’s let-
ter. She presented what such a letter could look like, and the initiative was welcomed
and further elaborated by the group during the meeting. One major characteristic of the
letter was its inviting rather than reproachful wording: it thanked the citizens for par-
ticipating and thus for subscribing to the main ideals as expressed in the three sen-
tences; it expressed gratitude to the members for their contributions to the exchanges,
specifying that it did not matter whether they responded to only one or two exchanges
a year, as long as they continued striving after the group’s ideals. Last, it invited the
members to persuade others to join so that as many people as possible would adhere to
the ideals and alleviate the tasks for all concerned. The letter thus emphasized the
16 Adult Education Quarterly 71(1)

potentials of the LETS and, more importantly, merged the organization’s current prac-
tices in a renewed way with its ideals, retuning the minds to its ideals, and thus implic-
itly rectifying the prevailing discourse of perception of discontent. This effect of the
letter was apparent not only at the level of the COCO but also at the level of partici-
pants, with some members expressing their renewed engagement.
More in general, a deliberate choice was made to intervene for pragmatic reasons
only, opting for an approach that seemed to work best in that particular situation. Also,
special attention was paid to whether relations would be blocked by such or such
move. The primary focus was on reconnecting people or groups of people toward their
ideals. Theoretical explanations about the viewpoint on moments of community were
deliberately avoided. Not only because the issue is subtle and difficult to transmit but
also because it could—and was bound to—become a new concern for the coordinators
to live up to. In becoming a goal to achieve, its formulation would paradoxically lead
to rigidity. In view of this, this aspect of the approach will have to remain within the
nonspoken.

Conclusion
The term andragogy typically refers to the context of learning situations. Its focus is
usually on individual emancipation and autonomy within a specific context. In Europe,
andragogy includes an interest in the quality of the social macro-structure of society.
Drawing on this tradition, an additional perspective on andragogy has been introduced,
using as a central theme not society, but community. The prevailing meaningful frames
conceive of a community in terms of various individuals living side by side and, from
this position, forming a group. Drawing on anthropology, the focus switched to com-
munity as “moments of community,” that is, of interaction where the co is created
between people.
To properly appreciate its great relevance, it was necessary to tread relatively unfa-
miliar paths. It was explained how, in such moments of co, the subject, in mainstream
thinking still very much considered a Cartesian detached observer, a thinking thing, a
goal-oriented being, can be interrupted in the mid of the uninterrupted flux of its being
a subject. At these moments, a sense of co can come about—a saying yes to the other,
prior to any engagement, without the subject controlling it. This orientation towards
the other was considered preconditional for actual involvement.
Once the moment of community had been established, and its relevance, the novel
perspective on andragogy could be advanced. A first main task for andragogy, rather
obviously, is the recognition of moments of community, a mission not to be underesti-
mated, considering the multiple ways in which they can come about. Even so, in many
organizations and institutions—the working domains of andragogy, one particular
manifestation is—or ideally should be—recurrent, namely a subject’s or group’s ori-
entation toward an ideal.
A second major undertaking, intrinsically related to the previous, is creating the
right conditions for moments of community to come about. Drawing on an analysis of
Note et al. 17

a volunteering organization, it was demonstrated how rigidity in meaning construc-

tions will lead to a sense of disconnection from the ideals and, with it, the right condi-
tions for moments of co to come about.
The examples given in this article are about small-scale contexts but a bird’s eye
perspective reveals how rigid meaning formations are an inevitable part of a larger
worldview dynamic. While ideals inspire people everywhere, making them experience
moments of community, their articulations are inevitably subject to rigidity. This
means they need to be reopened to allow people to reconnect to them.
From there, a new circle begins. New, appealing meanings will start to surface,
which, inevitably, will also grow into prescriptive tendencies, eventually becoming
rigid as well. They will then be opened again, either by accident, as in Soenen’s exam-
ple, or by indirect intervention (andragogy).
Many organizations need their structures to be opened. Andragogy, by being atten-
tive to this, through well-selected communication techniques or other means, has an
important role to play, also in the educational context. In the ever-closing tendency of
structures and meaning, it can increase the chances of an ever-new beginning.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.

ORCID iDs
Nicole Note https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9182-8422
Free De Backer https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4196-5082

Notes
1. https://www.etymonline.com/word/common?ref=etymonline_crossreference#etymonlin
e_v_17239
2. Collins English Dictionary: Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition. Retrieved February 16,
2018 from Dictionary.com website (http://www.dictionary.com/browse/-agogue).
3. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/community
4. Examples include a shift from viewing cities as fixed geographical spaces to flexible social
and public realms, and a shift from defining the “stranger” as a cultural other to “a person
with whom one has had no personal acquaintance” (Lofland, 1988, p. 7).
5. The civil inattention rule can also be deliberately broken, according to Soenen. A frequent
example is macho behavior displayed by men staring at others, especially women.
6. Foreword to the 2nd edition, 2013 (Nancy, 1996).
7. Further research needs to be performed on this.
8. http://www.letslinkuk.net/index.htm
18 Adult Education Quarterly 71(1)

References
Amit, V. (2002). Reconceptualizing community. In V. Amit (Ed.), Realizing community:
Concepts, social relationships and sentiments (pp. 1–20). Routledge.
Back, L. (1996). New ethnicities and urban culture: Racisms and multiculture in young lives.
UCL Press.
Bauman, Z. (2001). On mass, individuals, and Peg communities. Sociological Review, 49(S2),
102–113. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-954X.2001.tb03552.x
Bernardo, F., & Palma-Oliviera, J. M. (2016). Urban neighbourhoods and intergroup relations:
The importance of place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 45(1), 239–251.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2016.01.010
Bhattacharyya, J. (2004). Theorizing community development. Journal of the Community
Development Society, 34(2), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/15575330409490110
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and
research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). Greenwood.
Day, G. (2006). Community and everyday life. Routledge.
Derrida, J. (1978). Writing and difference. University of Chicago Press.
Frankenberg, R. (1966). Communities in Britain: Social life in town and country. Penguin
Books.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic Books.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6),
1360–1379. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-442450-0.50025-0
Hake, B. (1992). Remaking the study of adult education: The relevance of recent developments
in the Netherlands to the search for disciplinary identity. Adult Education Quarterly, 42(2),
63–78. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848192042002001
Hanifan, L. (1916). The rural school community centre. Annals of the American Academy of
Political and Social Sciences, 67(1), 130–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/000271621606700118
Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and time. State University of New York Press.
Hustedde, R. J. (2009). Seven theories for seven communities developers. In R. Phillips & R.
Pittman (Eds.), An introduction to community development (pp. 20–37). Routledge.
Kapp, A. (1833). Erziehungslere, als paedagogik für die enzelnen und as staatspaedagogik
[Educators, as pedagogy for the individual and as state pedagogy]. Ferdinand Essmann.
Kessels, J. (2015). Andragogy. In R. Poell, T. S. Rocco, & G. Roth (Eds.), The Routledge com-
panion to human resource development (pp. 13–20). Taylor & Francis.
Knowles, M. (1973). The adult learner: A neglected species. Gulf Publishing Company.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. University of Chicago Press.
Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and infinity. An essay on exteriority. Duquesne University Press.
Lindeman, E. (1926). Andragogik: The method of teaching adults. Workers Education, 4, 38.
Lofland, L. (1988). The public realm. Aldine de Gruyter.
Nancy, J.-L. (1992). La comparution/The Compearance. Political Theory, 20(3), 371–398.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0090591792020003001
Nancy, J.-L. (1996). Être singulier pluriel [Be singular plural]. Galilée.
Nancy, J.-L. (1997a). The gravity of thought. Humanities Press.
Nancy, J.-L. (1997b). The sense of the world. University of Minnesota Press.
Nancy, J.-L. (2013). Notes on the sacred. Theory, Culture & Society, 30(5), 153–158. https://
doi.org/10.1177/0263276413486840
Nancy, J.-L. (2014a). Dies Illa. British Society for Phenomenology, 32(3), 257–276. https://doi.
org/10.1080/00071773.2001.1100
Note et al. 19

Nancy, J.-L. (2014b). Hatred: Solidification of meaning. Law Critique, 25(1), 15–24. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10978-013-9129-x
Notten, T. (2002). Ambition and ambivalence, or: Is there any system in andragogy? System
Research and Behavioral Science, 19(2), 137–144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10978-013-
9129-x
Peterson, C., & Ray, C. (2013). Andragogy and metagogy: The evolution of neologism. Journal
of Adult Education, 42(2), 80–85. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/277709288_
Andragogy_and_Metagogy_The_Evolution_of_Neologisms
Plecas, D., & Sork, T. (1986). Adult education: Curing the ills of an undisciplined discipline.
Adult Education Quarterly, 37(1), 48–62. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001848186037001005
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work, civic traditions in modern Italy. University
Press.
Sen, A. (2006). Identity and violence: The illusion of destiny. Issues of our time. W.W. Norton
& Co.
Soenen, R. (2006, September 19–20). An anthropological account of ephemeral relationships
on public transport. A contribution to the reflection on diversity [Conference presentation].
Paper presented at the Second EURODIV conference, Leuven, Belgium. http://citeseerx.
ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download;jsessionid=E4253D39B0E1DBE753FD71F13C3B4C60?d
oi=10.1.1.488.2161&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Soenen, R., & Verlot, M. (2002). The study of community development in the dity: Diversity
as a tool. In M. Marco & B. Piquard (Eds.), Diversity in the city (pp. 95–110). University
of Deusto.
Taylor, C. (1989). Sources of the self. The making of modern identity. Cambridge University
Press.
Tönnies, F. (1887). Gemeinschaft und gesellschaft. Fues’s Verlag.
Van Gent, B. (1991). Andragogy. In A. Tuijnman (Ed.), International encyclopedia of adult
education and training (pp. 114–117). Pergamon.
Van Rossem, K. (2018). How to lead a Socratic dialogue. In D. Staude & E. Ruschmann (Eds.),
Understanding the other and oneself (pp. 67–80). Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Weber, M. (1968). Economy and society. Bedminster Press.

Author Biographies
Nicole Note has a background in Cultural Anthropology (MS) and Philosophy (PhD). Main
research topic is the development of a new paradigm on meaning of life, drawn on French phe-
nomenology, with special attention on encounters of being moved. Department of Educational
Sciences and Center Leo Apostel, Vrije Universiteit Brussel.
Free De Backer is professor at the Department of Educational Sciences of the Vrije Universiteit
Brussel. Her teaching and research focus on arts and cultural education and participation in vari-
ous learning environments and at different ages, socially engaged art, and the dynamics of life-
long learning.
Liesbeth De Donder is associate professor Adult Educational Sciences at the Vrije Universiteit
Brussel. Her research focuses on social participation and inclusion, caring communities, safety
and elder mistreatment, with a particular interest in participatory methodologies.