Diane says:
>I'm sure we need to understand children in the contexts
>of these social relations; again, this is why I am not clear on how the
>notions discussed here (which are fascinating in-themselves; but in terms
>of historical practicality, I suppose I am ...yes. I'm still at a loss...)
>I find many fascinating perspectives described in Martin's writings; but
>again I am not sure what can be realized about "learning" if there is no
>inclusion
>of ...well, the grit'n'shit that is really really out there.
...and I take this to be a question about the role of theory; its place;
its value. I agree so strongly with what you say, Diane, that I'm tapping
this off without hesitation--perhaps something I'll regret. But... In the
type of work I do (most of the time; most recently; at least) theory is not
the product but the starting place. A theory is an abstract interpretive
scheme with which to enter into real world contexts. I still savor painful
memories from michigan of a young boy coming down from Ritalin in the
classroom, going under the table; of children eating all the popcorn at
snack time because they come to schol so hungry, of a meeting with a group
of first graders who began to chant "No more work!!!" And many other more
positive less grabby images.
To understand these types of event, as academics with all the limitations
and obligations that imposes, we need to be able to think about the cares,
concerns, desires, etc of the children. To see their attempts to find
recognition in the eyes and acts of others; to notice prejudice when it
operates behind our backs, too recognize and appreciate the striving for...
identity, wholeness, belonging, that children, like the rest of us, are
continually engaged in. We need to theorize about these things. Notions
of "knowledge-structure" fail to do this, in my view. But so do notions of
"activity." Hence the effort to dig a little deeper, into care and
concern, into splitting and division, into identity--into who and what we
are as humans. Not biology--because we are not, at the end of the day, i
think, biology. We drug and drink and hit and starve and exercise not
because we are biological (though of course we are) but because we care,
and love, and lose, and die.
On that happy note... :)
Martin
================
Martin Packer
Associate Professor
Department of Psychology
Duquesne University
Pittsburgh PA 15282
(412) 396-4852
fax: (412) 396-5197
packer who-is-at duq3.cc.duq.edu
http://www.duq.edu/liberalarts/gradpsych/packer/packer.html