The comment, while provoking is logically safe, because by definition if it
is not universal it is not developmental. As a humanist, if its Piaget's
emphasis on constructive activity or Vygotsky's emphasis on play, Elkind
sees them very much as universal, natural aspects of childhood. As
Greenfield, in MCA v.6 # 2, implicitly hints at it takes capital or
historical change for this natural child to be found. The Mayan
mother/daughter interactions in the first generation research in some ways
challenge the universal view, yet when capital is introduced the natural
child, or myth of, which is consistant with developmental perspectives
emerge. For me, Gaskins response was real useful, because the narrative I
got from Greenfield was that somehow the natural, developmental child was
tied to capital in a rather direct unquestioned way.
In general, I would see Elkind as argueing for a natural, universal child
which goes through developmental stages in a predictable way, and culture
either supports the natural order of things (2nd generation Greenfield
research) or distorts it in fundamental ways (1st generation Greenfield
research). In contrast to Elkind, I would see "development" as having a
cultural bias at its core which for me was apparent in the Greenfield
piece.
Another approach, which I generally see CHAT pointing to, is the material,
contextual or activity situatedness of mind or "development" (change or
transformation) in which rather than taking similarity (accross cultures)
as its basis, focuses on difference of mind (within activity, culture etc.)
in its own right without incorporating the pathology of development. From
Mike's comments on Artin's book, which I have put my order in, my
inclination is the book takes the discussion in this direction.
/\ / /\ | /-----
/ \ / /__\ ---|--- /---
/ \/ / \ | /----
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
*******************************************************************
"Pedogogics is never and was never politically indifferent,
since, willingly or unwillingly, through its own work on the psyche,
it has always adopted a particular social pattern, political line,
in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its
interests".
L.S. Vygotsky
********************************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Barowy <wbarowy who-is-at mail.lesley.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, October 27, 1999 9:29 PM
Subject: Re: development question
> Hi Ricardo,
>
> David Elkind has produced a number of videos for teacher preparation that
> draw upon developmental approaches and his comment appeared in the one
> called "Using what we know". The video claims to address Piagetian
theory.
> The video seemed provocative, and at the same time, it made some good
> points that you don't expect to come from a pure Piagetian developmental
> perspective. Maybe good fodder for discussion next semester. I'm hoping
> that the "people in the know" on xmca ( recent discussions on play and
> development indicate that there are many) may have insights to what
Elkind
> is about.
>
> BB
>
> >Would you please tell where (book, article etc) did you picked it up
> >from him?
> >
> >
> >
> >Bill Barowy wrote:
> >>
> >> Folks,
> >>
> >> I am looking for a little background on Elkind. When he says
"development
> >> is universal, and not culturally biased" what does he mean exactly?
> >>
> >> Thanks in advance,
> >> BB
>
>
> Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
> Lesley College, 31 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
> Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
> http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
> _______________________
> "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
> and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
> [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
>
>