But in order to get to this analysis, we need to make the case that every
setting has a predominant motive (or set of motives) that suggests a
developmental path. Hence my question about notions of ideal endpoints,
which involve the concepts of prolepsis and telos that have been discussed
on xlchc/xmca in the past. The discussion also takes into consideration
the questions of "culturing the children" Mike raises in Cultural
Psychology. What we're looking at in the small group analysis is the ways
in which students, for better or worse, act within these goal-structured
contexts.
Peter
At 10:02 AM 10/17/97 -0700, you wrote:
>
>Hi Peter, I don't have any reference to suggest regarding the
>ideal adult except for perhaps a case study by Spindler and
>Spindler about Roger Harker which covers a situation that is less
>than ideal. Thinking back to the ZPD discussion, I realized that
>in wanting to factor in the people, I was no doubt stepping back
>to the character of interactions. But, I cannot factor it out
>either. Sorry, (and somehow I sense that you you may agree), but
>what happens when the one-caring does not like the cared-for, is a
>racist, has pre-conceived ideas, does not see the cared-for as an
>equal, thinks negatively about the cared-for as a group type
>(e.g.; I work with adolescent girls, but to tell you the truth, I
>hate them) etc... I know it sounds dreadful, but what of reality?
>To me these are huge spurious variables... Vygotsky and his school
>no doubt have already changed the world, but what of Rumanian
>special children hospitals, prior to intervention, for example.
>And on a tiny scale, closer to home, what of people who don't like
>it when others slurp their coffee or soup?
>
>Francoise Francoise Herrmann fherrmann who-is-at igc.apc.org
>http://www.wenet.net/`herrmann
>
>