Re: an anecdote who-is-at coercion

=?iso-8859-1?Q?JO=C3O?= BATISTA MARTINS (jbmartin who-is-at sercomtel.com.br)
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 00:22:54 -0300

At 13:45 25/04/96 EDT, Robin coments Philip

> Philip, I appreciate your anecdote and your sensitivity to this little
>girl. From a Piagetian perspective, however, we are constantly
>accommodating our schemas to the external world, even as we are
>constantly assimilating the world into our schemas. From a Vygotskian
>perspective, the child's introduction to the world is constrained
>by parameters set by adult actors. To hope for otherwise is to
>imagine that the child exists without culture or prior to culture.
>I am for humaneness in our dealings with others, but the search for
>coercion-free interactions strikes me as irreducibly individualistic
>in its orientation. I am going to go teach a class of college
>students in about ten minutes. I will give them the option of whether
>they want to go outside today or not. I will let them set much of
>the agenda for discussion. I don't believe that the students in the
>class generally consider me "cruel". Yet, our interactions are
>constrained by cultural norms regarding what constitutes a "class".
>We could not interact with one another intelligibly if we did not
>share some understanding of the cultural norms in question. I think
>for many people, the constraints of the lecture course are not helpful;
>for others, the constraints of a discussion seminar are not helpful.
>Some people can learn well in either context, others are not helped
>by either. But it doesn't illuminate anything for me to label some
>practices as "coercive" and others are not. Perhaps this is partly
>because I'm not thinking of the gross instances of "coercion"
>involving what most of us would consider abuse; instead, I'm thinking
>about the constraining interactions of everyday life. Some people
>thrive in the constraints of a given sociocultural group, others do
>not. I don't believe that constraints per se are the culprit,
>because I think that constraints per se are inevitable. Perhaps it's
>a "goodness-of-fit" issue. Perhaps it's the issue of recognizing
>the unspoken expectations in the constraints we operate by (very
>difficult for most of us to do). A group consensus that "constraint"
>is bad in education is itself a kind of constraint.
>
=20
I will like to make any comments over mail=B4s Robin

Robins wrote:

"I'm thinking about the constraining interactions of everyday life"=
=20

but the everyday life is circumscribe by social conditions (political,
cultural, economic, simbolic, etc...). I think what we don=B4t can to shelve
of relations between the plane macrosocial (ex. society) and microsocial
(ex. school). In the sense, when we see the everyday relations in the
school, we must consider the relations between these two planes.

Robin also wrote

>Yet, our interactions are constrained by cultural norms regarding what
constitutes a "class". We could not interact with one another intelligibly
if we did not share some understanding of the cultural norms in question.=20

I think what the cultural norms what mediate the relations aren=B4t
perpetual: there is possible change it. In the process the norms must be
discuss by all - pupils, teachers, parents, school manager, etc...
But we can not be hiprocritical. I have noted what much teachers
solicit the participation of pupils in the important decisions in the
school, but the vindications of pupils aren=B4t consider.=20
I think what the relations teacher x pupils must create news
possibilities to both, and both must be implicate (engaged) in these social
construction, both must be conscience of their possibilities. I understand
what the norms aren=B4t dice, but built by social agents.

Robin too wrote=20

>From a Vygotskian perspective, the child's introduction to the world is
constrained by parameters set by adult actors.

I understand the Vygotsky position diferently. There is the
parameters and it constrained the children, but the exercice of
significances what mediate the relations take possible the children change
theirs positions in these relations. In this exercice the children can give
new meaning and same to change the rules, norms, social values, etc...
(example exercice is the play).

I think too what the social ambient don=B4t _determines_=
completely
the ours lifes, we also re-make, re-create our position in the social
reality. In the case of norms, I think what it must be negociated between
the persons envolved - this possibilite the pupils and teachers overcome the
needs imediate, related to the persons individually, and consider the
collectivity

I agree with Robin what the humans relations constrains, but we must
ressearch the "How" these constraints are presented in the children life?,
what the significances what mediate these relations? is authority? is
authoritarism?
is possibility? is impossibility?
JOAO BATISTA MARTINS
jbmartin who-is-at sercomtel.com.br
UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE LONDRINA

ADDRESS:RUA RENE DESCARTES, 349
LONDRINA - PARANA - BRASIL
CEP 86060-600