"If instead we see education or even socialization as a "boundary
object" or maybe a farmers market=85" This is not an exact quote because it
is cut right in the middle) but I do like the words "FARMERS MARKET" in it.
As many psychologists who like interpretations and psychoanalysis, I will
allow myself to argue that a word sometimes discloses more than a whole
paragraph.
"It also implies education as a process that only affects one particular
and not others, and my experience is socialization is much more dynamic
than that."
"Should society fund "particular" projects in education such as choice?
If we see education as an enlightenment project whose primary goal is self
actualization then ideas such as consumer choice have a sense of logic. If
on the other hand, we see education as a stage in which different
particulars perform it is very destructive."
Let's try to understand the worldview Nate is referring to. On one hand,
there is a bunch of illiterate, conservative farmers, like those in Silicon
Valley who grow Apples and use every opportunity to suck their children
into their business denying them an enlightening potential of education. On
the other hand there is the Universal -- represented by US government. It
is so universal that it brings enlightenment to Iraqi children by starving
them to death; enlightens Yugoslavia by bombing them, enlightens developing
countries by pressing them to cut expenses on education and enlightens
American schools by installing metal detectors and putting heavily armed
guards in every classroom. Recently the universal has invented the Internet
but plans to put it under strict control to be used only for good (multi
million dollar instructions how to use cigars) and business.
There is quite a "dialectics" between these hands. And I suspect that even
Nate is one among those conservative farmers. Actually, the word "even" was
extra, because, as I pointed out in my previous posting, I strongly believe
that the universal -- mainstream education is based on brainwashing(out)
needed for kids to turn them into consumers; consequently, is supported by
we know whom. So what is this discussion about then?
Philosophically, I think Nate makes a mistake by reducing a triad to a
dyad. As far as I remember from my readings of Hegel, he was talking about
a triad -- the universal, the particular, and the unique (I don't know the
exact term that is used in English). So to make the dialectics work one
more element is to be added (and supported). I personally would never
(never say never) argue against the need of universal which I envision as a
policy issue and constructive support from the state to all schools that
exist in a country (setting up universal bottom line requirements is a form
of it). Every school, including public schools, is a particular realization
of the universal and systemically represents it. In a drop of water one may
see the whole world. But unless there is sufficient uniqueness of some of
the elements of the system, things are boring, homogenous, gray, and in an
urgent need of metal detectors. Only the unique makes dialectics work,
according to Hegel's philosophy, Moscovici's social psychology, my common
sense, Bill Clinton' political declarations. Whatever paradise you have
imagined, Nate, or think that you see ("best ever teachers in the world"),
it will never work until vouchers are there.
Politically, I believe, Nate's mistake is in accepting hierarchical
semantics of the universal-the unique. No doubt that Hegel saw it
hierarchically also, but this was a mistake that prevented Hegel from
becoming the God. Though I am clearly not mature enough (with all my joking
around) to address educational issues, I would never agree that even Eugene
Matusov knows better than me how to educate my kids. Even less Bill Clinton
in his spare time between having sex and bombing someone. I would trust Al
Gore a little but he should be too busy inventing something new and=
important.
Pragmatically=85 The system is so big that it is hardly manageable. Students
feel so abandoned that they have to orchestrate shooting to attract
attention (a bad joke but with some truth, I believe). I know that parents
are able to do a lot through their involvement in boards of education, etc.
I personally prefer to be more involved directly with my kids. I don't
really feel I need an extra system that will pull me out of my home monthly
(weekly, daily). I am a therapist, and in my work I don't try to make
everyone happy, only to help those who want to achieve this.
If you want to make everyone happy, intensify bombardments of Yugoslavia.
Nuclear weapons work the best. This is my position, Nate.
P.S. My apologies if my style has offended someone. No intentions of that
kind. Honestly.
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Matvey Sokolovsky <sokolovs who-is-at uconnvm.uconn.edu>
>To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 7:38 PM
>Subject: Re: Campaign Against Public Schools
>
>
>"I do not think that my situation is unique. There are many parents who
>have
>an idea what they want their kids to be taught and who are doing similar
>things as we do. There is no doubt that parents' visions are very diverse.
>Those who have close ideas could have organized schools provided the
>government gives back the tax money for this and provides support for
>independent school movement (like continuous training for the teachers,
>educational materials, etc). Who is against it?"
>
>This comment from Matvey very much sums up what I meant by argueing choice
>is very much a product of progressive education. Education being a service
>that is carried on behalf of the student or parent which gives things like
>vouchers a sense of logic. This view of education is based on the
>interactive notion of individual and society that has a long history in the
>liberal tradition of the United States. It also is based on the idea of
>"childhood" as ownership in which the parent is the sole socializer of the
>child. A product of the liberatarian idea of "freedom" as long as it
>doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, as if any freedom does not
>infringe on another.
>
>If instead we see education or even socialization as a "boundry object" or
>maybe a farmers market in which a diverse society with complementaty and
>conflicting aims come together to carry out this process, we can see it
>differently. It is not an attempt to resolve or synthesize those tensions,
>but rather a place in which the drama of those tensions can take place.
>Laclau and his reference to the particular and universal seems pertinant
>here. He argued against the modernist idea of universality which he saw
>based in Christian philosophy in which a particular (ideology) was reified
>as a universal. Universal/particular was a dialectical unity in which the
>universal only existed within that unity, but existed nonetheless. The
>universal was something that was dynamic and changed because of the
>interaction with complementary and competing particulars. Two roads that
>were unacceptable in a democratic society was a universal that was socially
>reified and one in which the universal no longer existed.
>
>Two approaches in regard to education that seem unacceptable would be a
>socially refied universal (non-challenged dominant culture) and jumping
>into the arena of particulars without a universal which I see choice as
>argueing; although this most likely would not occur (a more likely scenaria
>is another reified universal). Yes, parents views are diverse, and
>children, communities, societies, business etc. but it seems to me by
>subordinating education to any of these particulars has a degree of danger.
>It implies ideas, values, beliefs as a noun that do not become transformed.
>It also implies education as a process that only affects one particular and
>not others, and my experience is socialization is much more dynamic than
>that.
>
>Should society fund "particular" projects in education such as choice? If
>we see education as an enlightenment project whose primary goal is self
>actualization then ideas such as consumer choice have a sense of logic. If
>on the other hand, we see education as a stage in which different
>particulars perform it is very destructive. Public education in the U.S.,
>and elsewhere I am sure, have reified a particular as a universal in which
>the universal only transforms other particulars and is not transformed by
>them. Personally, I lean toward a vision of public education that is
>organized in such a way that the universal and particulars are both
>transformed. This is not possible in many current practices in public
>education or the particulars of choice and other reforms. In answer to the
>question, who is againt it? Me.
>
>Nate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Matvey Sokolovsky