Nate:
Here are some of my thoughts on 'development'.
I think that the concept of development should stay rooted in
biology. From there I think it can be useful in understanding
aspects of both psychological and social systems. Where it does
not appear useful in the social sciences is when 'determinism' is
trotted out as a sequella of development (it happened because is
had to happen). I understand development as synonymous with
'grow'. Things do grow.
What it's like to grow, what we grow to, whether we have grown
'right' are all questions that require a shared communicative
space of commonly understood values (as in affordances) but do
not obviate the fact that things do grow or develop. I think that
all the stumbling over the concept of 'development' occurs
because we try to use the concept to clarify the normative issues
that _appear_ to result from the said development.
Sometimes it seems to me that scientists (including social
scientists) ignore the overwhelming fact that we are nested
within a large mystery. We seem to have to be able to 'know' what
and where every border and region lies. It is enough for me to
feel, see, and think about development - and observe that change
is ubiquitous. And now I am at change as a synonym for
(grow(development)). We can grow up or down - development goes in
and out. Sort of the breathing of the universe. We are in this
space. Doing it.
Chris
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nate Schmolze [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, January 03, 2000 2:20 PM
> To: Xmca
> Subject: What is "development"
>
>
>
> I have recently been going through the archives,
> rereading Artin's papers,
> reading critiques of the whole conception of
> development and am left with
> the question, what is development?
>
> I guess what is troubleing me is how it is used by
> cultural psychology,
> activity theory, community of practice etc. tends to
> take all the meaning
> out of the term. Looking through the x-practice
> archives it appeared the
> dialougue was aimed at developmentalists. Personally,
> I am more in line with
> Mary when she states "but I don't believe in
> development". Alot of the
> literature I have been reading makes a strong case
> that development is a
> political, ethnocentric, gender loaded, ideological
> concept to begin with.
>
> Another take on development that both Piaget and
> Vygotsky supported was
> "qualitative changes" be it evolution or revolution.
> Most literature I have
> read does not seem to adhere to this definition
> either. In making our
> approaches more culturally appropriate (an important
> move in my view) we
> have moved away from the qualitative component of
> various activities such as
> play, education etc.
>
> I am probally using the word "our" and "we" too
> loosely, but what is meant
> by saying development occurs in a cultural context?
> Development as a concept
> appears to come from 1) a biological unfolding and 2)
> qualatative change and
> niether seems to capture how I see it being used by
> most cultural-historical
> theorists.
>
> In many ways it seems the trend is more
> anti-developmental in the true sense
> of the word. A move away from either abstracted
> biology or particular
> activities facilitating some sort of qualatative
> change. An emphasis on
> either would tend to support some form of
> universalization that would
> transend activity or practice.
>
> I quess a question that emerges for me is how is
> development in a cultural
> context different from learning or identity formation
> in a cultural context.
> I am not making a case to resurrect the classical
> conception of development,
> but rather questioning if the concept has outlived its
> usefulness.
>
> Nate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:01:42 PST