Re: All the way with Piaget

diane celia hodges (dchodges who-is-at interchg.ubc.ca)
Sun, 3 May 1998 14:18:43 -0700

At 9:15 AM 5/3/98, Martin Packer wrote:

>We end by claiming that learning has three faces. First, becoming a member
>of a community--which causes splitting and division in the human subject.
>Second, building expertise in the ways of that community. Third, taking a
>stand on the culture of ones community. Socioculturalism has focused on
>the first (while missing the splitting); constructivism on the second. But
>the third face holds the others together: it shows how the person can be
>both an active agent and a member of community. Community membership sets
>the stage for an active search for identity, the result of which is that
>both person and community are transformed....
>
>Martin

this is very interesting, and yet I wonder how you
are making use of the "three faces"

as a move away from "dualism" -

I mean, obviously, all dualisms suppose oppositions (1st face/2nd face)
but it is always
from these interactions of alleged "twos" that "tranformations" take
place, the two-in-relation produce a "third" which,

invariably, has its new opposite; this is what allows the repition to
be maintained without fixing the "subjects" invoked in the dualities... that we
neglect to articulate the "third" doesn't mean it isn't emergent, and

is actually what works to support the dualistic mechanisms which structure
so much of the social;

it seems as though you are suggesting that blending one perspective
with the other will produce a third perspective which is

more encompassing? perhaps this allows us to
consume more of the what might be taking
place in participation, but of course "more" is not what we are after, is it?

it seems to me that "constructivism" depends so heavily on
the concept of "cognition", that it is impossible to to avoid

deploying "cognition" as though it were an entity,

or a box-full-o' operations which "tell" us something

about the very thing we cannot possibly understand,

which is "what goes on inside our heads"...

I mean. no one knows what's in the head, besides a brain. I personally
think a radical science is needed, to start making connections between
biochemistry and the social; the biological/biochemical
effect of addictions, for example, from parents to babies born
with fetal alcohol syndrome, crack babies, the recent
"rise" in diagnosed cases of ADD, girls' eating disorders, drugs, alcohol,
cigarettes, caffeine, chocolate, antidepressants, antianxities, codeine,
valium, and on and on and on...

as a largely narcotized society, (and this is about the only aspect of the
social which crosses class/race/sex/gender/age/ boundaries freely) I really
think
we need to be looking at ways to make biology more
relevant to the social.

I do appreciate what you wrote very much, but I still can't
understand how this is a "progressive" move... which may very well be
due to my own biases about Piaget and constructivism, and "cognition"

and the ongoing desire to find meaning-making in the brain of
the person(s)... unless I'm missing something?

diane

"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada

snailmail: 3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8