-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Sunday, March 05, 2000 12:26 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: what is community?
"While I don't doubt that one can use the term community in
a faux, controlling fashion, what makes that normative and why
go along with it?"
The argument has been made in Rose (1999) and Popkewitz's article on
Vygotsky and Dewey that community is about "control", "governing". Both come
from a Foucaultian perspective in which community is seen formost as
answering the liberal problematic of how to govern.
I think the normalization comes in when its a specific object if it be
called community, identity, participation etc. I would say we go along with
it because it offers us certain benefits. If we take the guilt trip of the
census commercials, they are very much about invoking community to govern.
If we fail to fill out the form our community will get nothing. If we want
money for daycares, schools or whatever we better make sure the form is
filled out. The Dean just sent me a message so the University can make sure
it gets its piece of the pie.
I welcome Diane's statements because its time the object of community became
unromantisized a bit. We often talk of community as if it is essentially
good, I think Bronfenbrenner's classic *Two Worlds of Childhood* gives us a
more explicit look at community as a way of governing. Community Centers in
every neighborhood to reinforce the values of school/state. The U.S. case is
a little different with community being seen oppossitional to school or the
state yet in many ways that is what makes it so efficient.
Rose (1999) sees "community" as a way of governing in an affective rather
than geographical space. For me, this would imply a problematic in that we
start talking/thinking about community as this natural state where one moves
through a ZPD, identity formation, participation etc. These processes, like
internalization, always occur to some extent, but what changes is they
become an explicit object. This is not all bad in my view, but when
community, identity, participation become a good in themselves that becomes
very problematic.
If community is this natural or authentic space and one does not adjust to
this natural state then certain normalizations occur. For example, one
school in our district is a "Community of Learners School" that has received
various awards for nation excellence. It of course had this problem where
certain children - African American and children of poverty - did not fit
this community ideal. With much lobbying and motivation to stop LIBERAL
flight a plan was designed to change bussing so it could be representative
of the community of the ideal. Ken's recent forward demonstrates the natural
(NOT) aspect of community so beutifully, yet so sickingly.
"Beecher is Flint's dump. It is where you go when you have nothing left to
your name. 60 percent black, 40 percent white. No municipality in Genesee
County wants to govern Beecher, so it exists as a No Man's Land on the
northern city limits of Flint. It covers a small portion of two different
townships (one of which is where my wife Kathleen is from). But folks, when
you hear the word "township" used in the case of Beecher, those of us from
Flint mean it in the way the word was used in South Africa."
All for an ideal.
And Diane's message comes in with a reference to the majority looking after
the minority with a HA HA HA. Diane, but they do. Madison, Hamilton and the
other goons were very explicit about who this minority was - capitalists.
The evil fractions (the majority) were the populas, working class and the
like. The task of creating a Republic was to devise a system where the
minority - capitalists could be protected. At least that part has tended to
work efficiently.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 23 2000 - 09:20:34 PDT