Genevieve cites a review article in the L. A. Times on cliques and the
reference expands in my mind to include implications for the anti
-"developmentalist" diatribe under discussion. The 400 year time span cited
in Stone's article and the almost medieval tone of righteous disapproval
strongly suggests that "developmentalism" is being constructed as a synonym
for secular humanism (SH) -- the main "out group" to those of the
foundationalist persuasion. The term SH itself has now been contaminated by
too many anti-scholarly associations for the American pragmatic taste and a
fresh metaphor is clearly required, to which project Stone applies
him/herself with vigor -- those in the requisite cliques will readily
recognize their adversaries in the new guise no doubt. Ah social identity,
what sins are committed in thy name.
The thread also winds around coercion in an interesting way. The
construction of the classes of teens and pre-teens has continued apace in
the 20th century and the growing economic power of these relatively new
categories is cascading into the ways adults view themselves and, in turn
respond to youth. For example, two days before the article Genevieve refers
to, there was a short article in the Consumer Briefs of the L. A. Times
business section, to whit: 1) children in America now account for more than
$20 billion in _direct_ annual sales and this is growing at 15-20% per year;
2) thanks in part to a baby boomer belief in self-expression, the emphasis
on children "having a say" is now seen by market researchers as having an
increasing impact on an array of family purchases that greatly exceeds this
amount (e.g. everything from cars to computers to homes); 3) some market
researchers now believe that children have an increasingly _direct_
influence on products they use themselves as early as the age of 4 and
marketing strategies are designed accordingly.
The question of whether moral certainty requires foundationalist assumptions
aside, what appears to be happening is: a) as older _forms_ of identity are
disintegrating others are emerging; b) these newer forms have not developed
sufficiently themselves, nor formed the interconnections available in more
mature systems, and thus appear fuzzy and full of conflict. For example, the
more traditional developmental sequence child >> adult (possibly with >>
elder) now becomes infant >> pre-teen >> teen >> adult >> senior; not only
this but rather than being seen as a single trajectory, the relationships
between the categories are somehow, at least in rhetoric, becoming
fragmented.
There are certainly undemonstrated assumptions to this as what data I am
aware of could either support or deny the thesis of great change but,
assuming there are indeed significant larger scale changes occurring (and
that, consistent with the definition of change, these are irreversible -- we
can not "go back"). How do children choose between multiplying ideal forms
(where is telos) when they encounter increasing numbers of adults who
themselves appear to be uncertain? Are children in fact adapting to forces,
changes in the trajectory of the larger scale system, of which adults (we)
are, by virtue of our own previous adaptations, unaware? If so, what
mediators do they seem to be selecting/using and how could we come to know
their significance other than by asking them? Or does this beg the "other"
question -- (many) children are bewildered and upset by the lack of
commonality they feel with adults and the lack of assistence they are
getting to resolve the problem.
Rolfe
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Rolfe Windward (UCLA GSE&IS, Curriculum & Teaching)
ibalwin who-is-at mvs.oac.ucla.edu (text)
rwindwar who-is-at ucla.edu (text/BinHex/MIME/Uuencode)
CompuServe: 70014,00646 (text/binary/GIF/JPEG)