...psychological development, both in ontogeny and in history, can be
considered deterministically indeterministic. This deterministic (bounded)
indeterminacy guarantees the developing organism the possibility of
developing novel ways of acting *within a strictly determined range of
options* at every time in development. The flexibility of the developing
organism within that constrained range of possibilities may be of crucial
significance in situations where the organism has to continue existing under
changing environmental conditions (p. 238).
It seems to me that at some points in this discussion, any effort to provide
these facilitative channels of activity and development are regarded as
coercive, with negative connotations. The notion of an enabling set of
constraints instead allows for movement within guided participation in
cultural practices, which to me is what enables us to think, talk, and act
as a community.
Peter
At 11:02 AM 4/25/96 -0400, you wrote:
>I am new to this group, and I have missed much of this conversation,
>but I must respond to Franscoise's remarks about "coercion free"
>education. It seems to me that we are all being naive and idealistic
>when we talk about coercion. Can anyone give me an example of a
>truly "coercion free" interaction? Can anyone clearly tell me
>what damage coercion does? Is there some necessary coercion?
>If so, how do we define it? Where do we draw the line?
>
>Perhaps I'm being too pragmatic in a conversation that is meant to
>take place on a more theoretical level...but we are, ultimately,
>talking about education, which means we have to be pragmatic at some
>point--right?
>
>
> Pam Schulze
> School of Family Studies
> University of Connecticut
> PAS94003 who-is-at UCONN.EDU
>
>
Peter Smagorinsky
University of Oklahoma
College of Education
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum
820 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, OK 73019-0260
(405)325-3533
fax: (405)325-4061
smagor who-is-at aardvark.ucs.uoknor.edu
psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu