I think there is probably no doubt that Veneer advocated a more objective
conception of "sensory standards". What I do think he offers at least for
me is sociocultural role in schemes/standards. For example a Piagetian
emphasis on schemes gives the impression that they become acquired more or
less naturally. What I take from Veneer is the importance of the
sociocultural context in explicating the schemes-standards. With such an
interpretation, which of course deviates from Veneer quite a bit, it can be
more dynamic as in utilizing the child's strengths. Personally, I am a
skeptic of the so called natural unfolding acquiring of sensory standards
schemes. We (U.S.) have as many objective standards of cultural schemes as
anyone else, but if children don't acquire them we see it as a
developmental lag. What I get from Veneer is that these schemes are not
solely in the head, but can be seen in models, venn diagrams etc. if the
objective standard in important. Veneer to a certain extent de-naturalizes
the idea of schemes coming out of "natural development".
As for what this denaturalization means, I have many of the same question
as you. Whose standards and whose benefit do these standards serve? At
least with Veneer unlike Piaget we are not fooled to think the standards do
not have a political connotation. Many of the aspects of Piaget's stuff -
classification etc.are naturalized so the political agenda is hidden. If
classifying, serration etc. is part of natural development then there is
not to much the question. If a child can't or won't classify we see them
as developmentally delayed not resisting or creating as exception to a
standard. As you, I find the tension between standards-exceptions
interesting and find the tension itself important. I kind of see it as a
child on a see-saw going to one side and the other but never really getting
to the point of balancing (equilibrium). Equilibrium is death!
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: Leigh Star <s-star1 who-is-at uiuc.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 1999 10:26 AM
Subject: re: sensory standard
> Dear Anna and Nate, Thank you very much for clarifying the term "sensory
> standard." I think I understand the gist.
>
> Part of my interest is that I am working on the cultural and political
> aspects of standardizing. My area is not within developmental psychology
> per se, so I have primarily been interested in knowledge-mediating
devices
> that people standardize, such as formal classification schemes and
metrics.
>
> In looking at those artifacts, it's clear to me that there are questions
of
> power and voice in who determines the standard. As I read your
explication
> of Venger's work, it sounds more culturally specific. Is it also perhaps
> less rigid than the standards inscribed into, say, computers? What
happens
> with children who develop alternative standards -- such as those who
belong
> to more than one community? Or who resist the dominant standards, or
can't
> cope with them (being color blind?)? I'm poking at the edges of this as
> I'm fascinated with the interplay between standards and exceptions.
> Perhaps this links to Nate's point about how these standards are learned
in
> more and less authoritarian societies.
>
> Thanks again.
>
> Leigh
>