"Just curious -- and I have to apologize for posting irresponsibly, as I
won't be around for the next few days to read any responses -- but is
there something to this brain-based idea? It just seems, at first blush,
to fit with the materiality of learning -- that ontogenetic developments
have a biological contribution, and to fit with the idea of the cognizer
being a material part of the world that is being known -- no duality there?
I'd like to avoid engaging in a reactant frenzy of postulating how future
developments will violate our extant norms and values, but to consider some
of the deep possibilities for understanding ourselves."
Bill,
I think your right in your argument, but I do not know if this is what's
implied by the brain based folks. One example from early education,
neuro-biology has affirmed to a large extent the work of Vygotsky, Luria
and others that the mind is dynamic and is not a simple unfolding. The
"brain" is a continual dialectical process in which "biological" and
sociocultural processes interrlate. Yet, as Phil's initial pointed how
this is being realized as a bio-political process is quite different. It
is on the verge of almost becoming an arms race in which in early education
their is a limited time for bio-chemical connections to be established. The
brain based research is not just biological, but social and political. For
example, in early education the research is seen as a way to gain
legitimacy and importance for the profession with the hope that additional
funding and support will be the outcome. Yet, in the end the child will
become even more of an object because the complex sociocultural processes
we tend to value become biologicalized or seen as part of the closed room
(Alterman - MCA v. 6 # 2)
Like the sociobiology group, it is not that biological and cultural
processes don't interrelate there seems be consensus on that issue. The
question is how do we theorize about that interrelatedness. Do we see this
complex interelatedness in the closed room of the brain or biology or do we
see it in complex cultural activity.
This becomes even more complicated because it now seems that drugs and
chemicals can counteract bio-social interrelations that are seen as less
than optimal - again related to politics and culture. The danger is not
simply biological determinism but what is seen as biology. We do know that
sociocultural forces impact the brain in a variety of ways, but does that
mean it should be seen as a biological as apposed to cultural, social, and
political problem in which the solution is seen in giving an "inner city"
child ritilin or some other drug rather than addressing the social and
political issues involved. Latour's opening of *We have never been modern*
with aids, points nicely the complexities that are involved in that things
seen as "natural" or "biological" involve complex interrelations. I have
deep concerns when these complex interelations become biologicalized, or
naturalized to use the language of the deconstuctionists.
While I agree that there are possibilities involved with neuro-biology
(brain based research), one being affirming the dialectics involved between
in bio-social interrelations, I do think we should not lose site that is
exactly that bio-social, bio-political etc. I tend to situate the thread
within this context.
PS: Bill, as a side note the Alterman article uses computer modeling to
challenge the "closed room" analogy (also a computer model).
/\ / /\ | /-----
/ \ / /__\ ---|--- /---
/ \/ / \ | /----
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
*******************************************************************
"Pedogogics is never and was never politically indifferent,
since, willingly or unwillingly, through its own work on the psyche,
it has always adopted a particular social pattern, political line,
in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its
interests".
L.S. Vygotsky
********************************************************************