> But cultures and communities change.
and further on -
> In what sense? in the sense that _some_ unique events, idiosyncrasies,
> highly atypical behaviors, networks, etc. can play a role in the
> evolution and change of types. They can recur. They can attract
> recurrences (positive feedback). They can mediate existing practices
> in way that stably change them.
I have watched teaching methods and classroom student activities based on
whole language theory become common place within the elementary school I
teach in. As Jay points out about change, these methods and activities
appeared recursively over a specific period of time. Sometimes a strong
agent within the school espoused them. Sometimes a group espoused them.
Information came from central administration supporting the methods and
activities. The practice has become conventionalized. The teachers
identify themselves as whole language teachers, and refer to the school
as a whole language school. As Jay pointed out, what were first atypical
behaviors attracted recurrences, and through recursions there was greater
community practice of what was once an isolated case.
On May 13, Rolfe Windward wrote: "Models/ideas become materially embodied
and linked within the system(s) in which they become located." Rolfe
goes on to suggest that a "system can become leveraged by them".
However, the system can itself leverage the models and ideas that in time
become linked with the system.
Above I noted that it was the activities and methods of whole language
theory that became 'embodied' within my elementary school. Whole
language as a theory did not. Behavioralism is still the operating
theory, unspoken, as it ever was, but utilized as a descriptor for
learning. Teachers still speak of 'transmitting' knowledge, for example.
On May 12, Ken Goodman wrote: "The attacks on whole language are far
beyond the academic debates ...."
I deeply concur. I think of the Dreyfus affair of la belle epoque
France. That was a struggle for power between the liberal power blocs
and the conservative power blocs. Which bloc won, in this case the
liberals, gained leverage in the future trajectory of French politics.
And the liberals maintained power until Vichy France allowed an opening
for French conservatives.
These 'battles' over whole language, abortion, English Only, school
vouchers, civil rights for a multitude of minorities, affirmative
actions, etc. are all in the end battles over who is going to decide the
future trajectory of American politics - the conservatives or the
liberals. (The joke is that what's liberal in American is middle of the
road in Europe!)
I don't like reading it, because it unnerves me and I'd rather avoid it,
but Ken's final statement that "... in an atmosphere in which political
decisions marginalize professional and academic debate none of us is safe."
As I attempted to suggest in an earlier posting - 'norms' do
become politicized and as a result coercive.
New information does move into a system as Jay describes it, but
I'd like to emphasize that new information, like the whole language
example, while it can leverage a system as Rolfe explained, can also
become in turn leverage by the system to fit the systems needs. So,
whole language is translated through behavioral theory.
And, my job now, as I see it, is to teach whole language _theory_
to my fellow elementary staff members - introducing bit of atypical
information - and, recognize that the attacks against whole language, as
well as all of the other issues I mentioned, wouldn't be being attacked
if the conservatives didn't, rightly so, recognize them as threats to
their hegemony of practices that are so deeply rooted in this
culture/community/society/nation, etc.
Phillip
pwhite who-is-at carbon.cudenver.edu