RE: enculturation, ethnemes, pedagogy, research

From: Eugene Matusov (ematusov@udel.edu)
Date: Wed Oct 08 2003 - 11:21:52 PDT


Dear Steve and everybody–

 

I'm very-very sorry of not replying to you, Steve. We have some technical
emergency at UD and I try to help my colleagues to handle it. I thought that
I couldn't reply over xmca because I did not read Barbara's article yet. I
obviously couldn't discuss an article that I did not read. I was provoked by
a quote out of its context. It was "inappropriate" but I'm glad that I did
that because this "inappropriate act" threw me into interesting reading and
discussion :-)

 

I went on AERA website and read the article:

Cultural Ways of <http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol32_05/AERA320505.pdf>
Learning: Individual Traits or Repertoires of Practice
Kris D. Gutiérrez and Barbara Rogoff

 

I like the paper a lot! I agree that multicultural teacher education very
often promotes a view willingly or unwillingly that people are containers of
their cultures. I think it is very important to reveal practices beyond
cultural patterns. Kris and Barbara are right on targets about that. This is
not easy to do. Just consider well-documented cultural patterns of talking
and writing and think of what practices may be behind of these patterns. For
example, why is Russian writing is so contextual and “parenthetic” in
comparison with Anglo? What are communal practices behind that?

 

I also find the authors’ call to move from categorical, factor-like,
membership to participatory descriptors in characterizing participants of
research or practice very helpful. This may help to address a problem of
elusiveness of such notions as “middle class” (or “French Canadian”) –
everybody uses these notions but nobody can give their definition that can
generate a consensus.

 

Now, I’d like to take several issues with the article. I’m not sure that the
authors would disagree with my issues but let’s them reply.

 

1. From reading the article, I got an impression that the authors define
“culture” as dynamic patterns of people’s “doing things” rooted in communal
practices. If my impression is correct, I have a problem with this
definition because it is not sufficiently relational and dialogical for me.
Following Bakhtin, I see culture as a certain conflict (dramatic event). I
agree with Bakhtin that culture does not have internal territory. I his own
words,

 

“One must not, however, imagine the realm of culture as some sort of spatial
whole, having boundaries but also having internal territory. The realm of
culture has no internal territory: It is entirely distributed along the
boundaries, boundaries pass everywhere, through its every aspect, the
systematic unity of culture extends into the very atoms of cultural life, it
reflects like the sun in each drop of that life. Every cultural act lives
essentially on the boundaries: in this is its seriousness and its
significance; abstracted from boundaries, it loses its soil, it becomes
empty, arrogant, it disintegrates and dies” (Bakhtin & Emerson, 1999, p.
301).

 

According to this dialogic framework, culture is born out of boundary
conflicts and has to be described as such. Notice that all specific examples
that Kris and Barbara use in article are coming from such conflicts.
However, I did not find conceptualizing the conflicts in the article
(because of a lack of space?) that make the cultures born expect pointing
out that some people (educators?) view cultural differences as deficits and
thus make an epistemological mistake. It is not an epistemological mistake
but a certain manifestation of a conflict giving birth cultures.

 

2. Bateson defined information as “difference that makes a difference”. One
difference, such as difference in patterns of doing things, is not enough.
There are zillions and zillions similarities and differences in ways how
people do things. But only those are cultural that produce recursive
conflicts between and among communities recognized as such. Culture is a
social construction that is born out of a conflict. For example, until
people in US started moving away from me when I was talking with them
causing our mutual discomfort and a certain degree of conflict and
hostility, the communicative distance that I participated back in the USSR
was not cultural. My colleague and I developed this culture-in-action
approach in the following article accessible via Internet:

Matusov, E., Pleasants, H., & Smith, M. (2003). Dialogic framework for
cultural psychology: Culture-in-action and culturally sensitive guidance.
Review Interdisciplinary Journal on Human Development, Culture and
Education, 4(1), Available online:
http://cepaosreview.tripod.com/Matusov.html

 

3. Overgeneralization is a birth mark of social construction nature of
culture. We can’t avoid it by self-policing our language and thoughts
(although it can have some limited help) but we can manage it through a
dialogue with “culturally constructed” others involving in the
culture-generated conflict with us.

 

This comment is to response to Kris and Barbara’s statement,

“To avoid making overly general statements based on research,

it helps to speak of the findings in the past tense—“The

children did such and such”—rather than the continuing

present—“Children do such and such” (Rogoff, 2003). Using

the past tense marks the findings as statements of what was

observed rather than too quickly assuming a timeless truth to

what is always a situated observation. Summary statements

that refer to activities or situations in which observations were

made are likely to help avoid generalizing too quickly about

populations. Only when there is a sufficient body of research

with different people under varying circumstances would

more general statements be justified.” (p. 23)

 

I think that there is a limit of how much we can preemptively manage
overgeneralizations. We should trust in others to correct us. In this
regard, I like much more their 4th point with its emphasis on multiple
points of understanding,

“To avoid overgeneralizing, statements based on single observations

should be made very cautiously, limiting generalization

of simple observations of test performance or behavior

under restricted circumstances beyond the situations observed.

The aim is to ground observations across multiple settings

and communities and to assume various vantage points

to understand the complexity of human activity. The intent,

especially in regard to poor children and children of color,

would be to identify a course of action or assistance that

would help ensure student learning, rather than to define who

a child is or that child’s future potential (Berlin, 2002).” (p.23)

 

 

4. The parties involved in culture-generating conflicts are often not equal
(this was not addressed much in the article). The surplus of power
translates into surplus of cultural discourse. Deficit approach is not an
innocent epistemological mistake but an act of power that can be go beyond
good intentions of involved individuals. For example, all our preservice
teachers want minority children to succeed in school. However, after heated
debates in our multicultural classes, many students become to participate in
and appreciate the discourse of cultural differences as rooted in communal
practices. They become recognize that, let’s say, Ebonics is not “incorrect
form of English” as they thought before but rather another ways of talking
rooted in some other practices. They are interested in practices and history
of why Ebonics (and Standard Spanish and Standard Russian) evolved in a way
allowing double negation while “the Standard English” was not. However, as
teachers they more worry about the fact that if kids are not proficient in
“the Standard English”, they would be handicapped in their future. My
students agree that African-American kids using Ebonics are not naturally or
culturally deficient but my students see clearly that these AA kids are
institutionally and politically deficient. It is OK for members of a
dominant community with dominant hegemonic practices not to study language
and practices of minority communities but it is NOT OK for members of a
disenfranchised community not to study language and practices of the
dominant community. Our students raise their voice about this injustice that
they started noticing for the first time. They asking, “How come school so
congruent with our home culture and not with home culture of minority
kids?!”

 

Our students become understanding the “double bind” that many minority
children are involved: success in school and other mainstream institutions
often means betrayal of their home communities, practices, and ways of
talking while loyalty to local communities often means institutional
failure. Through this understanding they also become engaged in their own
“professional double bind”: by focusing on how to provide minority kids
access to mainstream institutes they perpetuate the existing unfairness and
inequality and facilitate disrespect and betrayal of non-dominant cultures.
They realize that unless mainstream institutes do not accept Ebonics as
“appropriate way of talking” (as, let’s say, music industry recently did)
Ebonics is a deficit and handicap for the kids’ access to many mainstream
institutes (but not music industry anymore). The white middle class
preservice teachers start feeling powerless and paralyzed (welcome to the
club!)

 

5. Finally, I want to comment our “famous” quote about dexterity and
appropriateness :-)

 

“By “linguistic and cultural-historical repertoires,” we mean the

ways of engaging in activities stemming from observing and otherwise

participating in cultural practices. Individuals’ background

experiences, together with their interests, may prepare them for

knowing how to engage in particular forms of language and literacy

activities, play their part in testing formats, resolve interpersonal

problems according to specific community-organized

approaches, and so forth.

An important feature of focusing on

repertoires is encouraging people to develop dexterity in determining

which approach from their repertoire is appropriate

under which circumstances (Rogoff, 2003).” (p. 22)

 

Again, for me cultural repertoires are cultural only when they are
conflictual and on boundaries. The same is true about dexterity and
appropriateness.

 

In gust, I like a lot Kris and Barbara’s move from “individual traits” to
“repertoires of practices” but I think it is not far enough. I’d like to
see “practice repertoires in conflict and dialogue” or something like that…

 

What do you think?

 

Eugene

 

 

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Steve Gabosch [mailto:bebop101@comcast.net]

> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 5:21 AM

> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

> Subject: RE: enculturation, ethnemes, pedagogy, research

>

> Hi Eugene,

>

> Oops, I replied to your recent xmca post to me but sent it to your
personal

> e-mail, not xmca. When time permits, I would like to understand better

> your critique of Kris and Barbara's notion of "appropriateness" in the

> context of cultural ways of meaning, repertoires, dexterity, etc. Here is

> what I wrote the other day to egg on this discussion ...

>

> ************************************

>

>

> Hi Eugene,

>

> Continuing on repertoires and appropriateness ...

>

> you say:

> >... being Barbara's students I'm a bit familiar with her use of the

> >term "appropriate" (and "appropriation"). And I have still a problem
with

> >that.

>

> This is very interesting to me, Eugene. I really appreciate you helping
me

> understand these issues.

>

> You continue about Kris and Barbara:

> >... in my view, they objectivize and finalize appropriateness

> >(and competence) as a state rather than a boundary and a struggle.

>

> This would imply a one-sided view on the part of these authors, who
perhaps

> sees the *static* (the conforming) dimensions as the norm, while

> incorrectly understating and diminishing the *dynamic* (the challenging)

> dimensions of appropriateness and competence.

>

>

> but then you say:

> >Ontologically, "appropriateness" (and competence) exists only as a
problem

> >of disrupting power relations of "we" recognized as such through

> >oppositional solidarity.

>

> Now, I would argue (hopefully, in an "appropriate" way! :-) ) that
*both*

> dimensions - the conformist and the oppositional - of appropriateness and

> competency are needed to get the entire dynamic picture. Don't you

> agree? We need to think in terms of both states and also struggles; of

> conformity and also challenge; of the static and also the dynamic. To be

> sure, everything is in constant conflict and change - this is an

> ontological truth I would certainly subscribe to - but not at the same
rate

> or in the same way. Sometimes the appropriate thing to do is

> conform. Other times, to be disruptive and

> oppositional. "Appropriateness" in this view is relative and situational,

> and based on the intents and interests of the individual at the time.

>

> My reading of Barbara and Kris is they are including this full range of

> conforming as well as oppositional behaviors as potential repertoires for

> people - they are being relativist, not absolutist, and being concrete and

> specific, not overgeneral and abstract, about what repertoires are

> "appropriate." I would see this as another aspect of their notion of

> dexterity. Or am I reading something into their writing that is not
there?

>

> And you say

> >Moreover, I think that it is at best an illusion or

> >at worse coercion to claim that appropriateness (and competence)
pre-exists

> >the conflict I refer to.

>

> If I am reading this idea right, I agree. Determining in advance what is

> appropriate would indeed be illusive and even coercive. Researcher's and

> teachers using such pre-conceived notions of what is appropriate would be

> using abstract criteria, not concrete analysis, to understand any given

> situation.

>

> I certainly agree that every situation must be taken concretely, and only

> in that way can we understand why and how individuals make their
particular

> moves. Acting disruptively, for example, may very well be in a person's

> self-perceived interests, and could be understood as appropriate and
competent.

>

>

> Eugene, your next point is especially thought-provoking:

> >

> >Bruno Latour wrote about science-in-action (in my words, I do not have
the

> >book with me for the exact quote) "machine works when relevant people
are

> >convinced that it works". I would paraphrase him as "children
competently

> >employ a variety of repertoires in the numerous contexts they deal with
WHEN

> >relevant (and powerful) adults are convinced that they do so."

>

> However, I don't understand your point! Please explain ...

>

> You continue:

> >For me the

> >most interesting and thought provoking part of Barbara's statement is at
its

> >beginning "we would then be able to characterize a child's..." as an

> >opposition of powerful "we" to less powerful "child" who supposed to be

> >"characterized" ("finalized" in Bakhtin's term) for a certain, probably

> >institutional, reason.

>

> Well, yes, Barbara and Kris here are speaking of an important "we" -

> social science researchers, who generally are employed by institutions,
and

> who busy themselves making characterizations about everything, and
children

> are of course a major topic. But characterization is just one of the

> facets of social science, is it not?

>

>

> However, I definitely need to read the article to

> >move any further.

>

> I understand. Hopefully we will be able to continue this discussion. I

> find many of the themes in the Carol Lee series very valuable to think and

> talk about. I really appreciate your remarks.

>

> What do you think?

>

> - Steve



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PST