To me, the presence of militia groups raises some very disturbing questions
for CHAT researchers. I think that CHAT perspectives do a very good job of
accounting for human development. Yet, because of a general disposition
towards cultural relativity (which is necessary for understanding
differentiated performances in schools, resistance to economic imperialism,
etc.), I don't think that CHAT has yet provided any kind of moral
perspective on human development. When I think of militia-type mentalities,
I start to wonder: how does one "develop" into a Nazi? a church-burner? a
racist? etc.? I think that activity theory can potentially account for such
"development" to some extent. For instance, militia members tend to
practice home schooling in order to restrict the zpd's available to
children. Thus, if a parent wants to create a belief within a child that
blacks, Jews, homosexuals, foreigners, etc., are evil and threatening, then
educating the child in those beliefs in an environment where the child will
never actually meet the demons can foster a genuine hatred and fear of them
and a belief that they should be exterminated like other non-human monsters.
Technology also serves as a tool for developing zpd's, particularly in the
form of the internet, which militia groups use in order to distribute their
ideas and methods, and to help bond diverse groups together.
On the other side of the coin, False Patriots recommends that one way to
fight militia values is the include attention to civic issues in schools, so
that students learn how to disagree in productive ways and learn how to
understand the ways in which arguments are constructed--that is, to create a
zpd within schools in which a civic education is fundamental to a democratic
society.
Yet accounting for "development" does nothing to address the problem of the
moral compass that guides militia activities. We've raised the question on
xlchc before: humans develop through cultural practices, yet develop towards
what? Does CHAT have a dimension that explores the moral side of
development? Are some cultural practices reprehensible? Can we be
relativistic *up to a point*? Is it OK to distribute information about how
to murder public officials, build bombs for exploding public buildings,
etc., because that's the way you've developed? Is the role of CHAT to
*account* for development, and not make some moral judgments about different
ways of developing?
These questions really perplex me, and disturb me greatly. Obviously the
bombing of the Murrah building in Oklahoma City is very close to me and
perhaps makes the dilemma particularly distressing. But according to False
Patriots, every state in the US (yes, even Hawaii) has practicing militias,
and so must confront the problems these groups present. Beyond militias, I
think that anyone who values CHAT principles must address development in all
its forms--the good, the bad, the ugly.
Peter
Peter Smagorinsky
University of Oklahoma
College of Education
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum
820 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, OK 73019-0260
office phone: (405)325-3533
fax: (405)325-4061
psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu