Jay wrote recently:
>I was a bit surprised to hear Eugene sound so conservative in his
>reply to Judy about a mother who is also analytically
>sophisticated.
Well, Jay, my conservatism should not a surprise at all taking into
consideration my background as being one of many victims of huge social
experiment at the beginning of this century in Russia, namely Soviet
socialism :-)
Seriously, however, I'd like to make four "conservative" points:
1. I'm personally against attacking traditional middle-class European styles
of parenting and cultural values. It is important to stress that other
cultural styles and values are not worse than traditional middle-class
European. It is also OK not wanting to perpetuate these styles and values
for your own kids. But I think it is not OK to show that they are
"scientifically" or "morally" more deficient than other cultural styles and
values. I'm sorry, Jay, but I don't see any "analytical sophistication" in
switching between observant and participant positions for the mother in
parenting. But maybe, I did not get your point. Jay, can you elaborate on
this a bit?
2. I also have some reservations against social engineering that disregards
environmental ecology and safety net of individuals involved. Let's
consider Jay's example,
>I am sure he [i.e., Eugene -- EM] did not mean to remind me of one of men's
classic
>arguments from the 18th and 19th centuries against the education
>of women: that it would divert their energies from the essential
>business of being mothers, that it was dangerous to the success
>of their natural and essential role as mothers (of their sons).
I think that this controversy is not over yet, Jay. If a century ago many
women did not have choice as only being housewives, now many women do not
have choice as only being both working women and housewives at the same
time. In may view, the issue is not about what is better for women to be: a
professional or housewife -- it is business of each woman to decide -- but
for the society (including husbands) to support these choices (when these
choices become real for women). I also think that such choice should be
supported for men as well.
3. This point is both for Judy and for Jay. I don't see why the congruence
of the observant and participant positions in an activity (or the espoused
theory and the theory-in-use using Argrys & Schon's terms) is better than
discontinuity of them. It seems to me that this is a very rationalist and
individualist position (folks, I don't want to label but only to
characterize). If we believe Vygotsky's approach and his notion of ZPD, the
contrary should be more the case. I'm not saying that any discontinuity
between what people say they do and what an observer notices they do is
good. But it is not automatically bad. I also don't think that the
congruence is desirable stage at all. Otherwise, people would never learn
from their own experience. What do you think?
4. I still want to reserve to consider the "doubled mothering" style (as
switching between critical self-observing and participation) a possibility
for "nervous breakdown" of any parenting style (of course, I'm talking about
this possibility for some mothers practicing this style not for all). Let
me give an example to illustrate this point.
Barbara Rogoff and her colleagues observed the phenomenon of simultaneous
attention pattern in Mayan community in Guatemala. They talk about
advantages this type of attention for parenting where adults and children
can attend several activities at once. However, physicians in North America
consider attending several different activities at once in the US as a
cause for heart disease. I pretty sure that psychological and even
physiological processes involving in attending several activities at once
are different in the US (i.e., mainly middle-class European-decent
professionals) and Guatemalan Mayans. I suspect that middle class US folks
try to alternate their attention very quickly to keep eye for several
activities at once, while Mayans use different channels of communication
(e.g., verbal and non-verbal) to follow what is going on in several activities.
The middle-class culture is mainly based on attending one thing at once
(just remember traditional schooling where the teacher control's students
attention on one activity). For people socialized in the mono-attention,
switching to simultaneous attending several activities can be dangerous and
destructive. Meanwhile, for people who socialized in multiple attention, it
is switching to mono-attention may be unhealthy as well (I don't have
evidence to know if it is true).
Of course, I don't want to say that people can not cross their cultural
styles of socialization. I just argue that this crossing should be careful
with full focus on changes in ecology and safety net.
Eugene Matusov
------------------------
Eugene Matusov
UC Santa Cruz