My own interest in this article concerns its application to schooling.
Generally speaking, I'd say that the orientation to order and harmony
characterizes the Asian students I've taught over the years (keeping in mind
that "Asian" includes multiple ethnicities, including groups that have
ruthlessly engaged in war with one another over the centuries). I'd say it
also describes some non-Asian cultural groups within the US. The
orientation to order would seem to me to work against the ideals expressed
on xmca over the past few months in the discussion on coerciveness--I would
say (without sounding patronizing, I hope) that such students view the
constraints of order as *facilitative* in the sense described by Valsiner.
Yet Western discussions of how education should ideally be would appear to
involve the same imperialism that Mahathir finds in American international
politics--imagine, for instance, how we'd respond if a Malaysian lectured us
on the need for greater teacher and administrative control over Western
schools.
Back to the article: Some important quotes: "Dr. Mahathir has led Malaysia
with a firm hand for a long time. What Dr. Mahathir and the rulers of
Singapore, Indonesia, and China have to back their claims of "Asian-style"
representative government is economic success." One perspective on Mahathir
is that, by defending "order", he keeps himself firmly in power--yet this
may be a Western perspective on a different type of society. A second point
is that, in some way, the arrangement "works." But then so did the
antebellum American South.
I find these questions so interesting because I see no immediate way to
think about them. Any thoughts?
Peter
Peter Smagorinsky
University of Oklahoma
College of Education
Department of Instructional Leadership and Academic Curriculum
820 Van Vleet Oval
Norman, OK 73019-0260
office phone: (405)325-3533
fax: (405)325-4061
psmagorinsky who-is-at uoknor.edu