RE: rules of the game

Eugene Matusov (ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu)
Wed, 4 Nov 1998 19:42:35 -0500

Hello Ricardo and everybody--

In my observation, those who have less power (e.g., students) can't afford
to be intolerant or deaf to the position of those who are more powerful
(e.g., professors). They just can't survive otherwise (some don't). As to
more powerful (in the relationship), in my view, it is only moral
obligation, genuine interest in others, and deep care can push them to be
tolerant and receptive to less powerful and dependent. Thus, more powerful
have more freedom and responsibility.

I see the progress in my teaching in reducing harm that I'm doing to my
students... -- although it is up to them to judge.

What do you think?

Eugene
----------------------
Eugene Matusov
School of Education
University of Delaware
Newark, DE 19716
Office (302) 831-1266
Fax (302) 831-4445
email ematusov who-is-at udel.edu
Website http://ematusov.eds.udel.edu/
-------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ricardo Ottoni [mailto:rjapias@ibm.net]
> Sent: Saturday, October 31, 1998 4:02 PM
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: rules of the game
>
>
> I'm only a master student...
> So, consider my unpretentious deposition.
> But I'm a regular professor in a university and I believe I can
> feel and see things since two perspectives: from the perspective
> of role-student and from role-professor/teacher.
> I do not think academic (doctoral/master) students expect to change
> the world using a thousand of words... This sounds an ingenuos
> point of view.
> I understand that PHDs teachers (not every one - of course)use their
> "power",legitimated by assimetric power relations in Education, to
> control "new" knowledge construction, to constrain students to "watch"
> and "see" things guided by their traditional teoric references over
> witch the line of research they advocate are sitting on.
> And a "drama" (conflict) rises when in a line of research someone
> with no traditional legitimation (titled)proposes the use of some other
> "diferent" teoric reference to approach an issue. Of course - I think -
> this is a political and simbolic action (or better, activity) like a
> jew and a cristian trying to explain Christ's life and significatiom
> to their different cultures. Who's right? Who's wrong? Who is more
> "developed" that the other? How give own space to so different ponts of
> view about a common "object"? Their relation to the "object" necessarily
> will be mediated by their culture, their different way of thinking the
> world and they themselves.
> Tolerance is the keyword. But wich group is motivated to tolerate an
> "invasion" like that? Wich group has more power or space in academic
> knowlwedge? Who rules whom? Witch group governs Other action?
> Globalization X Cultural Diversity
> MCDonald's X Jhihard
>
> Why give peace a chance is so difficult? What peace means?
> Who has the truth?
> Only one God and one flock of sheep or politeism (many gods and many
> different flocks of sheeps)?
>