[Xmca-l] Re: Nissen on working with youth

[Larry Purss]

Greg,
I would answer "yes" that everywhere peoples "care" about "forming persons".

So from this recognition of multiple centers of "care" [and also multiple
standards] how do we embrace "bildung" but avoid ideological imperialism??

I would suggest the notion of "places" as "spaces of formation" that are
exploring "situated care" and "situated agency".  This involves ethical
questions of "care"  to be explored and developed within novel formations
[places].  I would point out that many of these places are using notions
such as "hybrid" places that are not merely subjective and not merely
objective but "third spaces" of transformation. I would also suggest they
are imagining certain "kinds" of persons with certain "dispositions" that
abide within these formative "places" [or spaces]

Places where we can [with care] bring our notions of "bildung" and ask
questions of who decides, about what, in which situations.

The Places [zones, clearings, fields, circles, etc] from which we form
hybrid cultural forms.
Places not as "literal" but "imaginal" could be ... places, possible
places, which in creating/discovering THIS "scene" [as an instantiation of
the possible]  is realizing and articulating "our culture".  [and making
"real"]

Does this forming places always have to be a dialectical struggle?? Is my
question a pastoral utopian type question which will not be able to breath
and come "to life"??

Interpretive community is another way to picture or figure this "place".

How powerful are "models" for showing or indicating the possibility of
bringing to form an ethical kind of "approach"??  Not standards but a
different notion of "facets" [as faces of the possible] Always situated,
never re-producible but using "models" to show the possibility.

Always in full recognition that one person's utopia may be another's
ideological imperialism.
Never going beyond the ethical [as the piety of questions]. De-constructing
the Eurocentric notion of "bidung" and opening a place for hybrid forms
neither purely subjective nor purely objective.  Third spaces.



On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Greg Thompson <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
wrote:

> And note that this piece articulates very nicely with the issues on that
> other thread about the transferrability of pedagogy across socio-cultural
> contexts, or as Nissen says:
>
> " the question whether and how standards of educational practice can be
> transferred across great spatio-temporal and socio-cultural distances is
> far from straightforward
> ​ ​
> and simple: addressing a Brazilian audience with Danish experience, I was
> impelled to reconsider it."
>
> I would add that this piece also articulates with Martin Packer's issues of
> "constitution" in that Nissen suggests that pedagogy is the "forming of
> persons".
>
> That also takes us back to bildung - is this ideological imperialism?
>
> I would argue, with Nissen (I think), that it is not, but rather approaches
> a cultural universal. The particular forms vary dramatically from one
> cultural context to the next but it seems to me that peoples everywhere
> care very much about "forming persons".
>
> No?
>
> -greg
>
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:17 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
> > Morten's article from J. Dialogical Pedagogy, "Meeting youth in movement
> > and on neutral ground" attached. I thought this had been posted before as
> > part of the discussion. Apologies.
> > mike
> > PS-- Check out the journal. Open access, interesting, or so I think.
> >
> >
> > --
> > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
> object
> > that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602
> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>