actually, Martin, I appreciate your sponteneity. ;-)
It isn't really a question of the role or place of theory, so much
as it is a question of what kinds of strands are being woven
into a theory...
>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 think here is where we may be thinking differently about theory:
for me,
theory comes from concrete experiences, which are then
translated/reflected/interpretted
into a language practice, which is then, [theoretically-speaking, of course]
aabstracted into a language-"tool" ; ideally, these theories hope
to inspire new directions or interpretations for practices, yes?
I mean, perhaps the tradition is to pull theory from the abstract,
and then enter into the real world with "it;" -
but certainly theory needs
to be informed from material realities in order for it to speak "with" those
who may benefit from understanding the theory? I tend to see it all as more
circular,
in that the material events which affect me, prompt me to seek ways for
explaining it to others,; as I theorize, I re-language the experience into
abstract concepts... as folks read these ideas, ideally, they are inspired
to re-think something about their reality, or practices. (back to the
material world
it goes/ and in this process of returning to practice, theory is
transformed again,
and re-abstracted, and so on, and so on, and so on...that is,
for me, the very life of a theory, the reason for theory, the purpose...but
i would
think you agree
with me on this, yes?)
>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.
I agree, but I think we need to theorize **WITH** these things, as well.
> 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
the biology-perspective is not so deterministic anymore,
but, as with all the "hard" sciences, is recognized as a cultural
artifact, and an institutional force...
I seriously do perceive this age as one of denied illnesses,
the denial of social disease, the denial of dysfunctionality,
and the ongoing repression of sexuality - as well as all that shame
that biology gives us for our bodies -
it seems to me that any kind of theory which would
hope to shed light on the complexitiesof these
social interlations & relations has to account for the
ways science - as a cultural artifact - controls much of
our lives and yet remains elusive in it language.
and the ongoing refusal of bio-culturalism reminds me, really,
and I am sure it isn't intentional, but if does ring of
the cartesian duality - mind/body separation.
The qualities you mention, the language of compassion ( care, love,
kindness, affection, attention)
is definitely crucial, but too abstract to account for the reality
of practice... I still maintain that the inclusion
of body-knowledge is essential for any theory which supposes
to inquire about leanring.
And i don't mean biology-HARD, but biology as information about the systems
within
which we live; and as the relation which interacts with learning/"mind"/
the world -
an example: fast food, like one burger at McDonalds, contains enough sodium to
feed twenty people - the result is that young people in NA are developing
high addiction levels to sodium doses - the cravings for Big Macs
are in fact responses to overdoses of sodium and the subsequent withdrawl.
What do overdoses of sodium do to the body? do we know? do kids know?
shouldn't they?
diane
(the important of bio-culturalism, in theory, does not mean
specifying the science, but articulating the essential relation.
diane
"Every tool is a weapon if you hold it right." Ani Difranco
*********************************************
diane celia hodges
faculty of education, centre for the study of curriculum and
instruction,
university of british columbia
vancouver, bc canada
snailmail: 3519 Hull Street
Vancouver, BC, Canada V5N 4R8