Re: an anecdote who-is-at coercion

=?iso-8859-1?Q?JO=C3O?= BATISTA MARTINS (jbmartin who-is-at sercomtel.com.br)
Fri, 26 Apr 1996 15:58:52 -0300

At 07:09 26/04/96 EDT, Robin wrote:
> This is also the way I understand Vygotsky: children transform what they
appropriate, even while what they appropriate is initially framed for them
by the adults they are interacting with. I think BOTH are true, and I've
seen a great deal of emphasis on this list on the first part of this (that
is, the individual agency of children), but very little emphasis on the
second part (the
constraints of culture). Personally, I find that what's unique about
Vygotsky (from the perspective of the field of developmental psychology,
which has always tended to use the individual as the unit of analysis) is
the way in which the individual's constructions are viewed as embedded in
the constructions of the larger society; not that this translates into
cookie-cutter duplication, but simply that the constraints of culture are
present in the analysis. I've been surprised that the focus of this list
(and I don't know what discussions I've missed in the past) has been on
celebrating the uniqueness of the individual and speaking of culture
primarily as a negative, coercing influence. Again, I don't share the
history of discussion, I can only speak from my own disciplinary
history, but I am surprised at the individualistic, almost anti-social-order
tone of the discussion. Isn't there a way to validate both the transforming
power of the individual AND his or her given sociocultural constraints? I'm
rambling now, I'm sure...
> Robin

Robin and XMCA ers

I think what is necessary we discuss about how we are understanding
_constraints_. Nowadays I have discussing questions about pupils discipline
with any teachers in the school which I work. I noted what the teachers have
difficulties in the compreenshion of norms in the life of children. Any
teachers consider necessary the norms to transform the children in "educated
persons" (the question is: what is the reference to consider anyone
educated?). I insisted with the teachers what to impose norms by norms
conduce us to autoritarism. But if we take possible the space to the pupils
discuss the norms, make sense to it, we made the relations which base is the
autority, where there is mutual respect, respect to differences...
In these sense, the constraints (norms)acquire collective sense. The
objectives, the motives, the assessment of process, are clears, transparents
and shared by all. I feel what this attitude don=B4t express constraints but
negotiation of senses because it respect and retrieve the cultural and
individual differences.
The question to me is: when we - while teachers - talk about norms,
constraints, we will want to talk what? What their importance to the
relations pupil x teacher, pupil(teacher) x pupil(teacher), pupil(teacher) x
society, pupil (teacher) x humanity? What the significance what mediate
these relations?
If we - while teachers - believe what the individual have
possibilities what they change, we must acknowledge our participation and
influence in this process, and so to seek offer the conditions to what it=
occur.
JOAO BATISTA MARTINS
jbmartin who-is-at sercomtel.com.br
UNIVERSIDADE ESTADUAL DE LONDRINA

ADDRESS:RUA RENE DESCARTES, 349
LONDRINA - PARANA - BRASIL
CEP 86060-600