Re: Reducing activity theory to politics
Robert Bahruth (rbahruth who-is-at claven.idbsu.edu)
Mon, 2 Feb 1998 10:28:09 +0100
Mike, I would have to say that language has a long history of (to risk
another either /or observation) being used either to seek truth or to lie.
Noam Chomsky has stated that the most powerful act in the world is to name
something. I agree that grassroots efforts have had awareness to the point
that they have re-written both history and the language used to represent
themselves. What I would say is we need more of this. In a line from
Ruden Blades (translated from Spanish) If you don't use your head someone
else will. I don't wish to appear paranoid, but we have seen manipulation
of public opinion through media which does not belong to the people. NBC
is owned by GE which is a proliferator of nuclear energy. ABC belongs to
Disney, etc. Whose interests do they have in mind? Perhaps the most
political dimension of education is more what we leave out of the
curriculum rather than what we include. Also, I would not wish to reduce
everything to politics, although the presentation of history, the direction
of the economy, and social engineering all seem ideologically driven. Why
do we feel warm and nostalgic about the terms "settlers" and "pioneers" yet
there are clear negative connotations about "migrants?" I think discussion
needs to be pursued in all areas of education, my interest is in the
political and ideological because I feel teachers must first become aware
of a hidden curriculum before they can act consciously to level the playing
field for all learners in their care. Perhaps I am just one of the 6 blind
men attempting to define the elephant? Would you wish to define it without
including one of the parts? I am interested in any other person's meaning
making of the whole context as it enriches my own understandings.