[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Resending LSV/ANL on crisis in ontogengy



I think that cultural forms of child-rearing and the corresponding expectations placed upon the child have been developed by communities over centuries and part of that process is the collective experience of the relevant practices. Doubtless all sorts of crazy practices have been tried out at different times, but if the children do not respond as expected, the idea is dropped or modified. I think this is the point at which the biological limitations and predispositions of children comes in. But the present-day child is presented with a finished, working system.
I seem to recall that Barbara Rogoff has written about this.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


mike cole wrote:
I find it a little odd to think that SSD has little to do with biological
maturation.
So few 6 month olds get married these days.

However, the "structuring of forms the child does not yet 'have' " is
certainly central
to the sociocultural organization of human development. Among other things,
mismatches
in timing between adult normative expectations and child behaviors
associated with, say,
the maturation of bowel control or the ability to sit quietly at a desk for
several hours at a time
might just give rise to the kinds of phenomena that lSV refers to as
crises.

I am not sure. What are the criteria for a crisis? Are they generally
agreed upon and to be found
in practice-guiding texts for, say, professional pediatricians?

It seems that the attached may be relevant to several of the remarks in
this thread.

Uncertain-in-so-cal
mike

http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2013_01.dir/pdf5I3He7qyRQ.pdf


On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think I agree with that (that SSD has little to do with biological
maturation).

This is actually, to my reading, a subtle yet very appropriate passage that
Peg has unearthed or recollected.

These things that the child really does need, wherein the child conveys "I
cannot get on without this", is a reference to materials that enable the
structuring of forms that the child does not yet have, i.e. they are
necessary (but perhaps insufficient on their own) means to their
development of neo-formations, or, indeed, transformations in their way of
knowing.

The sense I get is that this imperative is not derived from a need to
comply with bureaucratic processes (e.g. black shoes must be worn at
school), but with a recognition that something objective and fundamental
cannot be achieved without it.

Huw


On 22 March 2015 at 00:38, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

p. 365, "The Child's Psyche":

"A child may or may not be bought a toy, but it is impossible not to buy
it a textbook or an exercise book. The child therefore requests a
schoolbook to be bought for it quite differently to how it asks for a toy
to be bought. These requests have a different sense not only for its
parents but above all for the child itself."

I was thinking, in relation to Huw's issues, that really SSD is little to
do with "biological maturation." It is to do with the normative series of
roles, and these are found in bureaucracies as well as the modern life
of a
child.

Andy

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Peg Griffin wrote:

Thinking of growth which challenges social arrangements, Andy, am I
mistakenly remembering an anecdote like the following in Leontiev's
"Problems in the Development of Mind:"  A child not yet going to school
and
a child going to school have different "calls" on the family to buy
pencils
or crayons -- might be nice for the younger one but absolute need for
the
older one.   I hope this scenario is really there (or somewhere not
just in
my internal constructions] because in it socio-cultural institutions
impact
one another and pull in the individual's growth while doing it and then
there's a wonderful arabesque rebound to the individual.
[Sorry I don't right now have a copy and a way to get to where this
might
be in the Leontiev book.  Hint:) I'm really pretty sure it's far away
from
the part about trying to teach forearm cells to recognize light! ] Peg