More thoughts about development and in response to Nate:
It is interesting to think about dimensionality (linearity) and growth.
Certainly growth is collapsed to two dimensions easily. I think about growth
in space and time measuring change against an historical marker (artifact).
I think that when we increase the number of artifacts that we index our
'growth' to we create a multidimensional model for growth but we still 'see'
it through our 'normal' space/time limited dimensional lens. This is what
practice does - it anchors us in the space/time dimensionality of
physical/sensory and local phenomena. I like it this way. I remember in math
how n-dimensional spaces use to twist me around. I wanted to see them and
feel them. I couldn't. And when one is able to understand and use tools in a
space where few can follow we have a recipe for the psychological, cultural,
and economic imperialism of our just gone century.
I agree that it's about how we see change. And it is disingenuous to think
that I can use a biological model of development in all its scientific
fineness (e.g., embryology) and not be implicated in the critique of
phenomenoligic 'seeing'. I mean that of course what I see is connected to
the 'way' I see it and to the history of my 'seeings'. But I like to think
that there are tools for use in different domains with a greater or lesser
chance of being resonant with the thing worked on. That's why I think using
traditional understandings of the concept 'development' can be fruitfully
applied to biological systems. They leave such neat historical records that
are patterned in ways that are clearly not human centered. But when we get
to human centered systems (like culture, or work, or schooling) we can't use
the same way of seeing patterns (the biological developmental lens). I think
of Piaget's Biology and Knowledge as an effort in that direction. But even
there it is clear to me that we are using metaphor explicitly and saying
things like "human learning is like adaptation". And that's ok too as long
as we don't get to carried away.
I think that "invoking development" in say a school situation is a dangerous
thing and does constrain the complex and dynamic processes of "_" that
occurs. But it also gives people a handle to hold on to. It gives people a
way to talk about change that doesn't vector into chaos. And as you know -
chaos is a mighty force in schools and one that scares the daylights out of
most parents and teachers.
I agree Nate that there is an 'ideology' associated with the word/concept
development. It is part of the growth for the sake of growth mania that
fuels our "booming economy".
By the way.. this word 'development' made me think of a book I read last
year on the strange mutability of language. The book is called: Plastic
Words: The Tyranny of modular language. by Uwe Pörksen, Pennsylvania State
University Press 1995.
Chris
ps. development is considered by Pörksen a Plastic Word.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nate Schmolze [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 2:02 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: What is "development"
>
>
> But isn't it about how we see change. If its
> historical, child, or cultural
> development it tends to see change in linear terms. We
> of course can talk
> about growth, development retrospectively without a
> predetermined telos of
> sorts, but it still influences how we see the subject matter.
>
> Children embody complex experiences but when
> development is invoked it
> contrains the way we look at those processes. If its
> biological, children,
> culture, or historical time, development is thought
> about in rather linear
> terms. There seems to be some rejection in
> cultural-historical theorizing of
> looking at time in this fashion which I see as
> anti-developmental.
>
> If we take the ZPD, artifacts, community or Jay's
> model of time they do not
> seem to be linear by any means. For me development is
> more than to merely
> grow but to grow in a linear manner. Jay uses identity
> in his paper from
> awhile back which for me brings up the question when
> we say "development"
> are we simply talking about identity formation or
> something different.
> There are of course biological processes at work but I
> wouldn't call them
> developmental. They are more like tools in the double
> meaning of affordance.
>
> I guess what I'm getting at is development is an
> ideology for looking at the
> world in a particular way that does not seem
> consistant with most thinking
> about activity or culture although it is often utilized.
>
> Nate
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --Original Message-----
> From: Chris Francovich [mailto:cfran@micron.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2000 10:40 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: What is "development"
>
>
> 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 - 01:01:46 PST