I suspect that transference is at the heart of the best=20
> teaching/learning situations and remains undertheorized in CHAT.=20
> What do others think?
I agree to you. I think that we can to stablish a comparation between
negative ZPD and regression (speaking psychoanaliticaly). In terms
therapeutics the regression can be considered as a process positive, a
moment at times necessary to the progress of treatment.=20
If the children have a negative transference and teacher have a negative
counter-transference the learning can be impossible.=20
I think that we must consider the several aspects which are implicates i=
n
the relation teacher -
pupils - knowledge: social, economics, pulsional, etc...
Jo=E3o Martins
=09
JO=C3O BATISTA MARTINS
RUA ANISIO FIGUEIREDO, 476
LONDRINA - PARAN=C1 - BRASIL
CEP 86065-630
TEL: 043 3385208
E-MAIL jbmartin who-is-at sercomtel.com.br
----------
> From: Judy Diamondstone <diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu>
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: negative ZPDs
> Date: Quinta-feira, 9 de Outubro de 1997 16:51
>=20
> The notion of counter-development is fascinating to me, too.
>=20
> >Perhaps most fascinating is the issue of negative ZPDs in the sense of
> >counter-developmental interpersonal interactions. 'Teachers' who are b=
ad
> >for us. Models of destructive or even of debilitating modes of action.
Are
> >these merely value judgments of activity types learned, or is there a
more
> >basic sense of negative learning? I think for example of Bateson's mod=
el
of
> >the genesis of schizophrenia in pathological double-bind interactions.
> >Whether this is an adequate model of schizophrenia in general (probabl=
y
> >not), it is still a fairly believable phenomenon in itself. Interactio=
ns
> >that drive people crazy, or diminish their capacity to functionally
deploy
> >mediational means. Various kinds of 'brainwashing' practices?=20
>=20
> What about
> >prolonged interaction with psychotics by younger developing persons?
> =20
> My guess is that, however destructive such interaction might be to
> a child's self-esteem, there are some developmental "advantages" to
> be acknowledged as well, assuming that there are others outside the
> interaction who can serve as the community of reference.
> What might it mean to be forced by way of a primary attachment=20
> to KNOW the artifactuality of experience when forging one's own primary
> identity? to know the fragility and yet inexorability of worlds?=20
> It's hard to even imagine a way to imagine it, but because somehow=20
> the child of a schizophrenic parent MUST imagine that and more, I=20
> would be reluctant to call=20
>=20
> >prolonged interaction with psychotics by younger developing persons
>=20
> negative learning.
> =20
> On the other hand, I readily accept that some interpersonal interaction=
s
are
> counter developmental. They would have to be 1. interactions that can't
in
> some sense be exited, and 2. interactions in which the more able or adu=
lt
or
> powerful other does undermine agency or does model "debilitating modes =
of
> action," and
> 3. interactions that are construed as normal (GB's model of the=20
> schizophrenogenic relationship).
>=20
> Is it
> >possible to actually reverse the course of socio-intellectual
development
> >in a negative interpersonal interactive ZPD? I suspect that it is, and
> >while knowledge about how to do this systematically is rather horrifyi=
ng
in
> >its moral implications, it might certainly tell us alot about how the
> >positive ZPD works that our present theories miss (e.g. the role of
power
> >relationships or emotional bonds, as in Bateson's hypothesis about the
> >double-bind).
>=20
> Yes, >=20
> Judith
>=20
>=20
> Judith Diamondstone=20
> * NOTE CHANGE OF AREA CODE * (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352=09
> MAILING ADDRESS:=09
> Graduate School of Education
> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
> 10 Seminary Place =09
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
> * NOTE CHANGE OF ZIP CODE *