Re: norming and coercion
Dale Cyphert (DXC20 who-is-at PSUVM.PSU.EDU)
Tue, 14 May 96 09:39 EDT
Phillip- I had not really anticipated the educational connotations of
"norming", although that probably should have been obvious. I was
speaking more generally in the rhetorical sense of ideology and cultural
formation. However, your description is an apt one. There is one
difference in the underlying purpose of schools, however. Where a
culture exhibits a complex set of ideologies to teach/constrain/coerce
individuals in a variety of endeavors, the public school system was
designed with a more narrow intent of selecting those who could/should
be given 'higher' education and entry into the ruling classes. As I
understand it, the purpose never was to TEACH anything in particular to
those students who couldn't learn to sit still and be quiet; sitting
still and being quiet was a sign that a student was able to participate
in what was (and in some cases still is) considered to be the "best"
sort of civil discourse.
Now that we have recognized that the discourse of the Other is valid,
and that the analytical/literate/linguistic/masculine discourse, so
valued by Western culture, is not inherently more ethical or useful for
public discussion, we are left with a school system that still guides
children toward that standard. In most cases, the aim is to create a
situation so that more children can learn the literate discourse, and
presumably gain access to the cultural/political capital.
Nowhere, however, do we bother to develop the skills of the Other; we
don't teach the discourses of narrative, of rhythm, of motion, of affect.
Those are just a child's 'background' or 'culture' that must be co-opted
in order for them the be acculturated. If a measure of coercion has to
do with the insidious nature of the 'norming' (in its broad, ideological
sense), then I'm not sure we're making much progress at all.
dale