Re: At a loss (Re:Piaget,local/global)

Dr. PedroR. Portes (prport01 who-is-at homer.louisville.edu)
Thu, 07 May 1998 16:12:07 -0400

At 11:01 AM 5/6/98 -0700, Diane)wrote:
>
>I think it would have to start locally - that is, it would have to emerge
from
>the contexts/communities themselves - for example,
>
>in areas of India & Africa, Western medical personnel are often dispatched
>to forcibly
>inject "third world women" with sterilization drugs to prevent
>pregancies, or, "control population" - many of these women are lied to,
>
>told that these injections are vaccines.
>
>As an issue of LEARNING, how could we find out more from
>the context/community itself, as opposed to imposing our interpretations?
>
>1. First, someone who is fluent in the language of the context/community
>would need to go and ask what is happening, find out what the
>women already know - and what they don't know.
>
>2. A community organization would need to be set up,
> involving the community folks, and an agenda is organized
>regarding what is known & not known about the visting medical personnel.
>
>3. What kind of information/language will help these people? Perhaps the
>responses need to come from them? What kinds of literacy support these
>languages?
>what kinds of access to literacy to these people have? Are the medical
>personnel local, or are they coming from outside the community? outside the
>country?
>who finances their visits? what is the efect of these vaccinations? what
>does it mean?
>
>4. Understanding the biology of the body, reproduction technologies,
>in this case, is crucial;
>understanding the politics of science & the social construction of
"population
>control" as a medial/political/economic practice - is the gov't supporting
this
>project? who funds the visits and provides the drugs?
>what can be done to intercept this practice?
>
>5. In my experience, folks usually know quite a lot about the structures
which
>oppress them; what they don't have is access to the authoritative languages
>& practices/genres which mediate these structures. I think here, the role
>of the "intellectual" is to listen to what is being revealed in terms of
>knowledge,
>and find ways to make available the kinds of knowledges which will
>
>enable an active intervention against more "vaccinations."
>
>It would have to be interdisciplinary - and it would most likely begin
>in the native languages of the community. In other words, it
>would, reasonably, take a few years to I think to complete this
>sort of engagement in a way which provided community-based knowledge about
>a global-event.
>
>>From that, however, is the importance of sharing what took place with the
>rest of the
>world,
> or, more importantly, with other communities in similar siutations.
>
>At this point, again, a kind of "activity" is offered which
>each community would re-shape for their own needs - beginning with the local
>lanaguage & interpretation of experiences,
>
>and slowly transforming into genre-knowledge, that there are many ways
>to communicate knowledge and many ways to reconstruct & claim knowledge,
>and many ways to deny/suppress/refuse knowledge -
>
>the question is not how do people learn, but what is important for
>folks to know? This changes in different settings. I think it
>would be presumptious to think that "learning" is the area of
>intervention,
>
>when clearly the issues are more complex than "learning"
>but are about actively engaging with existing knowledge structures
>in critical ways.
>
>Personally, I think local communication is more important at this phase of
>history
>than a global communication.
>And out of these locally-organized networks, global information emerges.
>
>I suppose I see it as something which must come out of the
>process, not something to be imposed upon a process.
>diane
>
>

This is really an interesting, critical problem which we tried to address
at AERA in P. Samgorinsky's session on the ethics of culturing others.
Local vs global became the issue as if to say that intervening (or any
other word less acute like taking action, promotion , don't want to get
hung up on terms, so let's just say 'organized action by one group that
affects another) here is more ethical than intervening there, or out there.
The latter seems to be not ok but close to home, ok. Mike agreed with the
local, particularly after revisiting some of the fiascos etc, yet the
problem I see is that there are also non-fiascos like the Brown decision,
or the Cuban literacy campaign, some Westerm aid programs to the 3rd world,
and some, within nation multicultural programs that are not malignant..
a. A problem with that sort of "conclusion" is that of where is "there"
exactly, or here for that matter, the external versus internal impositions?
b. another issue with the last statement in the above note is that it
leans towards the unidirectional when, of course mutual, reciprocal
influences is the std. semiotic, dialectical thinker's favorite observation
(the latter notion or prescription (ie. reciprocal relations) too could
indicate a cultural set or practice, or value in the academic circles in
particular, but is tangential..)
So,
The problem is where do you draw the line in the sociogenetic line between
the local and global?, (cf. I know long discussions have been recorded
along the internal/external thing" when adressing internalization of
concepts etc..along the ontogenetic),
Between the West and the rest of the world's cultures Within nation,
state, city, community or family? The most local level of course, is solo
with the individual in context acting with cultural tools..
My point is that Diane's example calls in question whether at the national
or say, state level, we can think "locally" enough to not be accused of
imperialistic, outside chauvinistic, imposing aims.

Whether we have an obligation to end sterilization there? To deal with
Nazi's before it was too late heps deal with the what is ethical?.
( i wont't touch that further to get to the original issue),

Do "we" (defined here as xmca etc, as a culture's thinker caste or as a
relatively empowered 'us'), have an obligation to seek and establish a
level playing field for children born to poverty?.

Well, yes if it is local enough, involves your children, perhaps not if not?
But Who is we, or who are our children anyway,
depends on how has one's identity has been constructed,(individually and
collectively),
Has it been developed locally or does it transcend boundaries?

.3.. concluding thoughts;
1 Desideratum-It seems to me that given that we are already intervening in
other people's business, that at least some proportion of those efforts be
aimed toward those "grays" areas between the local and less local, the
proximal zones that can be shown to improve the lot of those not having
choices or self-determinism regarding their bodies or minds (but there we
go again with that value thing again)..and perhaps ours.
2. Seems that as we expand the definition of who "we" are, the 'local'
reaches out further and further, so much for how we construct our social
identity..how far are we allowed to identify with the human condition?
3. Historically, we tend to intervene when our interests are threatened, so
the notion of what is ethical needs to be defined carefully (but will it be
a local definition or a universal one, ? are there really universals?/
if not, the ethics question becomes situated in context./ if so, (e.g.
love, hate,as universals...) then the quest for the ethical lives on..So
at what point does the ethical require action?
And I agree, it must come out of a process, of cultural development and
discussion, perhaps this is very discussion is part of that process. Yet in
retrospect, what emerges or comes out also from a process is often a
response to what others have imposed unto a group's (children's) process of
cultural development.

pedro