When I think of breaking away, I think of adolescence. I suppose two
questions are when does this process begin, and what constitutes a
clean break?
A couple of things come to mind. First, the phrase "must be
enculturated" conjures an image of kids being fed culture by some
discrete and knowable agent. I know it doesn't sound useful to say
"culture's in the air"- but I think avoiding a reference to specific
culturizing agents is important. Sperber et al.'s research on how our
brains are wired to do certain things with the cultural information
we're exposed to is meant to specify how universal and relative
cultural similarities and differences happen. The analogue to this is
lanaguge development, in that kids learn languages- acquire lexicons,
grammars phonologies, etc.- and correct their own mistakes without
much help from those around them. So, enculturation happens. But though
it will happen, like language acquisition, whether we like it or not,
the extent of the exact roles of species-wide traits, personal genetic
makeup and environmental factors are still unknown.
The second thing that comes to mind is the usefulness of rituals. Van
Gennep's model of the rite of passage- separation, liminality
and reintegration- was explored by Victor Turner, who discussed the
feelings of otherness and togetherness of initiation groups. There is a
connection to Levi-Strauss's bricolage here, too, in that rituals might
bea kind of "tidying up" of the loose ends of experiences. Rituals put
a boundary to things, make the inchoate whole, give meaning to
meaningless experiences- irnoically through acts which in themselves
have no social meaning outside the ritual context (e.g. dance around in
a circle, clap three times, etc.).
So, the breaking away is facilitated in some way by the initiation
ritual. Perhaps this is why people look the other way when college
teenagers do "power hours" or the Skull and Bones rituals are guarded
so secretly- rituals are gleanings of meaning that solidify life
transitions and breaking away. But I'd like to know what other people
think- what about breaks that are less clean, that take place less
drastically and/or less systematically?
Andrew
Mike Cole wrote:
Your thoughts connect up with mine on this, Iraj. Glad it was relevant to a third party, so to speak. This is also related to Yrjo's idea of development as "breakikng away." There is a real dialectical dilema that Kris and I have started to discuss. One the one hand, a newborn is helpless and must be "enculturated" (using both strategies) in order for it to survive, but in order for there to be adaptive/transformative change to deal with an always changing environment, there must be creation of the new, a "going beyond" that destroys at least part of what nurtured it. Perhaps we need to add Freud and Luke Skywalker to the discussion? (A thought brought about by another of my kin, the 6 year old variety). mike On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 09:56:24 -0800, IRAJ IMAM <iimam@cal-research.org> wrote:"a stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly by the chain of thier own ideas....this link is all the stronger in that we do not know of what it is made and we believe it to be our own work." ----- Thanks Mike for sharing. This is a good example of utilizing [your] categories of 'physical' and 'psychological' tools, and evaluating their effectiveness from the stand point of ruling over people. Two social technologies of control: Capture their body by physical force and assuming that the mind is captured too (eg, use of torture). Or, capturing their minds and assuming that their bodies will follow (eg, advertisements/propaganda of all sorts). In fact, all social spaces use both technologies. Looking at it spatially, the question becomes 'where' to start--from the physical/real space or the virtual/imagined space of people. Since both spaces are interconnected in our activities, the question then becomes about learning (and performing). Perhaps similar 'learning' targets and social technologies are involved in empowering and in enslaving. One tends to destroy the old learning and produce a new one in an empowering social space. The other also tends to destroy the existing and substituting it with a new learning. the difference is the former is open and reflective--thus empowering and self-determined. The other has to remain seductive, hidden, and must produce a deceptive space in order to work. But it needs to produce two spaces: one that appears self-determined to the 'user' while the other is producing a captured (but hidden) social space (eg, The Matrix). This just seemed related to the prior discussion about 'empowering/enslaving' learning spaces in classrooms. iraj imam The Center for Applied Local Research 5200 Huntington Ave., Suite 200 Richmond, CA 94804 Telephone: (510) 558-7932 FAX: (510) 558-7940 e-mail: iimam@cal-research.org Web: www.cal-research.org "The defence of free speech begins at the point when people say something you can't stand. If you can't defend their right to say it, then you don't believe in free speech." Salman Rushdie, 7/2/2005
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 01 2005 - 01:00:05 PST