Here we are in the midst of a discussion of engagement versus coercion --
and then a Stone suddenly drops... I have still only had time to glance at
the paper, but I have followed the comments. The observation made by
Therese-in-Hamburg about her US college studies strikes a chord:
>In my experience, the system was not only infused
>with the so-called protestant work ethic, but creative thinking was also
>demanded. I.e. in order to succeed one had to be not just 'creative,
>problem-solving, puzzle-loving' but at the same time also 'rule-following,
>reproductive, routine-loving', i.e. 'dull and unattractive.'
So the system experienced by Therese demands that students are able to
'play' (in the sense of being committed, spontaneous, creative) on the
'playground' constituted by hard and regulated work.
In "Democracy in the kitchen. Regulating mothers and socialising daughters"
(London Virago 1989) Valerie Walkerdine and Helen Lucey -- both of working
class origin -- write about how middle class mothers, living their culture
and raising children into it, transform/ /reconstitute much of the
household work as 'play' -- so that the children get the opportunity to
enjoy learning to reason. The mothers, of course are also very much
regulated by this.
What is the connection? Well, in spite of the opposite positions of Stone
(with original sin) and the middle class culture as described by Walkerdine
and Lucey (with original goodness) the polarity of 'play' and 'work' seems
to be used for substantial disciplining, attempted or actual. Of the young
and of adults.
Eva