I have a "long" history of dislike the notions like "appropriation",
"internalization", "mastery" and so on focusing on what an individual "got"
from the activity. I think that these concepts are very narrow, misleading,
and ethnocentric (I can continue the list of "bad" words :-). I really like
an alternative developed by Lave, Wenger, and Rogoff, namely "transformation
of participation in a sociocultural activity" exactly because it does not
implies an individual "out of" the activity. See for a full argument my
article in the recent issue of Human Development:
Matusov, E. (1998). When solo activity is not privileged: The participation
and internalization models of development. Human Development, 41, 326-349.
I also think that the notion of resistance is overused to describe students'
participation in an activity. For example, in both Ken's case of girl
saying, "we all wish Anne Frank would die already" and my son's hating the
book, I'm not sure that "resistance" is an accurate description of kids'
participation in the classroom activity. I like Dostoevskii and Bakhtin
portraying the phenomenon as "podpol'e" (literally "underfloor" in
Russian -- it can be translated as "underground" but I think that in English
it may have a different, much more proactive, connotation). I think
Orwell's doublethought and doublespeech can be also appropriate here. The
kids have to carefully develop and maintain a double discourse: one for
themselves and one for the teacher (they should never cross in time and
space). By the way, in my view, kids' discourse for themselves often is
very reactive and uncritical (and unguided). I also think that in practice,
these two discourses are much more intertwined and interdependent than it
seems and thus the notion of "resistance" only mildly describes the
phenomenon. For me, this is an indicator of the totalitarian nature of
traditional public schools (it is not surprise that ALL totalitarian [but
not authoritarian!] regimes LOVE mass public education).
As to the notion "communities of learners," I think that its interpretation
as "cozy" "homey" "nicey" "domestic" communities is not very useful (and,
probably, very biased toward middle-class utopias). I think that Nate
definitely has touched the nerve. I don't think that COL is a necessarily
continuation of home environment and communities. Otherwise we should
accept that traditional mainstream schools are COL for middle class families
because there is well-documented match between middle class homes and trad.
mainstream schools. I don't think so. I think the core of COL is critical
thinking and acting. Louis Holzman points in her recent books on radical
schools that the notion of COL is too passive (why we so much prioritize
learning over acting?!) and she introduces the notion of "revolutionary
activity." I think that she makes a very good critique of COL.
What do you think?
Eugene
----- Original Message -----
From: nate <schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu>
To: XMCA <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>; Eugene Matusov <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 7:14 PM
Subject: Re: some joint activity re contextless reading?
> Eugene,
>
> You may have misunderstood, I am not sure. My argument was more or less
> appropriation, emphasis on every day knowledge, interests, etc. can be
> internilation in disguise or worse yet internalization that is more
> successful -cultural reproduction. The author I was referring to was Nick
> Rose in his Death of the Social. Particularily the emphasis on community
> etc as being in opposition to the social state. His argument or my
> interpretation of it was the danger of this perception that community etc
> as necessarily being oppositional. For class we read House's article as
an
> example of community being put into that oppositional space.
>
> My point on resistance was more or less COL has the potential of making
the
> relationship between school and students to cozy in which resistance is
> less likely. For me, its a warning to myself , because I like the
> community of learning stuff, that it doesn't become a wolf in sheeps
> clothing. I don't think this is in contradiction of your critique of
> appropriation, but I may be wrong.
>
> Nate
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Eugene Matusov <ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu>
> To: XMCA <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 1:29 PM
> Subject: Re: some joint activity re contextless reading?
>
>
> > Hi Ilda, Nate, Ken, and everybody--
> >
> > Ilda asked,
> > >As for your view as a parent, I am not certain I have understood the
> part
> > about
> > >Diary of Anne Frank, did you mean that your child hates Anne Frank for
> some
> > >reason?
> >
> > My son studied the Diary of Anne Frank twice in California public
> schools.
> > Once in an innovative elementary public elementary school (5th grade)
> where
> > whole language was wholehearted educational philosophy of the teacher.
> Then
> > he studied it in a traditional public Junior High school where whole
> > language was mandated. I don't know how and what exactly the teachers
> from
> > did in the classrooms but I observed and experienced my son's reaction
to
> > these two instructions.
> >
> > Whole language as wholehearted teacher's philosophy with genuine
> > institutional support from the school (e.g., no grades, no homework).
> > It was time of discussion of the antiimmigrant California Proposition
> 187.
> > My son asked my wife and me, "If a family of illegal Mexican immigrants
> asks
> > us as for refuge, will we allow them to live in our car garage?" We
> replied
> > with a question of asking him how we should act and what he expected
from
> > us. He said that he thought we would accept the family. He added that
he
> > would play with the Mexican kids and would not tell about the refuges
> even
> > to his closest friends. I asked him why he wanted to put people in the
> car
> > garage -- would it be better to put them in one of our rooms? He
replied
> > that it would be more dangerous for them because our neighbors might
> report
> > on them to police like in the Diary of Anne Frank book. (It was
> interesting
> > that my son identified himself and us -- US legal immigrants, Jews from
> > Russia -- with Dutch and not with Anne Frank's family).
> >
> > Whole language as mandate.
> > Once I asked what they did in school and my son replied that they
studied
> > fractions and the Diary of Anne Frank book to death. I expressed my
> > surprise because I knew that he used to like that book in the other
> school.
> > "Not anymore. I'm sick and tired listening about how brave Anne Frank
> was
> > while the only thing she did was hiding and writing a stupid diary." I
> > asked him why he didn't share his opinion in the class that he didn't
> think
> > that Anne was brave. He looked at me as if I came from another planet
> and
> > said that he did not want to get "F." Ken's message below reminded my
> son's
> > reaction.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Ken Goodman <kgoodman who-is-at u.arizona.edu>
> > To: Eugene Matusov <ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 25, 1999 1:01 PM
> > Subject: Re: some joint activity re contextless reading?
> >
> >
> > > Here's a story to confirm Eugene's fear;
> > > A teacher meets a girl on the playground who was in her fifth grade
> > > class the year earlier. "what are you reading now", she says. "We're
> all
> > > reading the Diary of Anne Frank" says the girl- "and we all wish she'd
> > > die already".
> > >
> > > Mandated whole language is and was an oxymoron.
> > > --
> > > Kenneth S. Goodman, Professor, Language, Reading & Culture
> > > 504 College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
> > > fax 520 7456895 phone 520 6217868
> > >
> > > These are mean times- and in the mean time
> > > We need to Learn to Live Under Water
> >
> > Nate wrote,
> > > Your comment reminded me of what Vygotsky said of teaching literature.
> It
> > > was something to the fact that if we want children to appreciate
> > literature
> > > to worst thing we can do is explicit teach it. If school is as much
> > about
> > > resistance as it is about appropriation/internalization then what we
> teach
> > > is also about what a child resists or appropriates. Some of the
> > literature
> > > I have been reading questions some of the more contextual-local
> approaches
> > > for its lack of resistance. At a certain level I like resistance
which
> is
> > > part of my attraction to the Vygotsky sig. In a more contextual -
> > > community of learners approach the insider/outsider is more difficult
> to
> > > distinguish which in turn makes resistance less likely. Don't get me
> wrong
> > > I like the more contextualist-local approach as in COL but it does
> bring
> > up
> > > the question if its assimilation that works.
> >
> > I think that the innovative school that I briefly described above
> promotes
> > much more critical thinking in kids that resistance promoting
traditional
> > school because it focuses on critical negotiation of meaning (rather
than
> > "appropriation/internalization"). I'm absolutely sure that the teacher
> from
> > the innovative school would support kids challenging the idea that Anne
> > Frank is not brave. I respectfully disagree with Nate that, "If school
> is
> > as much about
> > resistance as it is about appropriation/internalization then what we
> teach
> > is also about what a child resists or appropriates" only choices
> available
> > (Nate, if misunderstand your position, I'm sorry). I think with all
this
> > focus on "appropriation/internalization" there is too much interest in
> > culture reproduction.
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Eugene
> > ----------------------------
> > Eugene Matusov
> > School of Education
> > University of Delaware
> > Newark, DE 19716
> > office: (302) 831-1266
> > fax: (302) 831-4445
> > email: ematusov who-is-at udel.edu
> > WWW: http://ematusov.eds.udel.edu
> > -------------------------------------
> >
> >
> >