and Jay wrote:
>Coercion occurs when we use pain or the threat of pain to force
>people to act in ways they do not wish to, or when we do so to
>prevent them acting in ways they do wish to.
I guess part of the problem here is that the word "coercion" has
such negative connotations. Our first impulse is to think that
coercion should not exist--nor should using "the threat of pain
to force people to act in ways they do not wish to".
But disciplinary constraints are inherent in the childrearing
process--and not getting what you want is painful in and of
itself; communicating displeasure to a child over his or her actions
can also be a source of subjective pain to that child. Should
we then strive to make socialization pain-free? I'm not sure this
is possible. And what is "socialization" but learning how to
negotiate social interactions in culturally acceptable ways?
I would contend that the belief that we must be free from
external constraint and free from internal pain in order to
engage fully in a learning process is a cultural construction.
In my own research, I've asked mothers in northeastern Connecticut
and in San Juan, Puerto Rico, about their long-term socialization
goals for their children. One of the interesting differences to
emerge involves the idea of whether or not "the capacity to feel
shame" is a desirable and good thing for a child to come to possess. Our
Puerto Rican mothers do feel this is a good and desirable thing--
a child who possesses the capacity to feel shame is a child who will
be motivated to please others and to strive to live up to their
expectations, and what could be more important in interpersonal
relationships? Our Connecticut mothers, however, practically
grimace at the mere mention of the word "shame". They are quite
certain that they don't wish their child to have to experience
such a negative (painful?), self-effacing emotion.
I'm not advocating filling children with shame, nor adopting
highly coercive classroom practices--but where is this belief
coming from that the ideal is freedom from external constraint
and inner pain? Is it useful--or realistic--to conceptualize
"transformative appropriation"--whether it be of mathematical
concepts or of social norms--in this way?
Jay writes wisely that coercion is:
>a part of community's shaping of members' behavior, but that
>particular communities differ greatly in the extent to which
>coercion is used. Of course they also differ internally as to
>who is coercing whom (by social positionings).
I agree! I guess this brings us to the issue of what constitutes
"excessive" coercion?
>I believe our present system of schooling is excessively
>coercive (though often in rather baroquely indirect ways),
>and that this coercion is mainly a means of imposing certain
>adult views and interests on the younger humans of our
Which aspects of our educational system seem excessively
coercive to you, Jay? Should schools strive NOT to impose
"certain adult views and interests" on children? Which
adult views and interests do you believe should not be
imposed? I sense a tension here between the teacher's (or
larger group's) need to "impose" certain socialization goals
on children, and the child's perceived need to be "free" as
an individual. I'm struck by this because it seems to place the
needs of the individual in fundamental tension with the needs
of the larger group; this conceptualization of the individual's
relationship to the larger group strikes me as quite possibly
culturally bound.
Robin