Matvey wrote,
>Though I am clearly not mature enough (with all
> my joking
> around) to address educational issues, I would never agree that
> even Eugene
> Matusov knows better than me how to educate my kids.
Well, it depends how to define "better"... :-) I may know better what is
"better" for you kids whom I did not see for two years already (your faul=
t!)
than you do... :-) I'm a professor (although just assistant) and you are=
a
farmer -- JPF -- Just Plain Farmer --(although literate, you can read boo=
ks
and fill out taxes for yourself)... :-) or :-( depending on your take... =
So,
Matvey, you should accept that sometimes I know better than you how to
educate your kids! (Besides, you are parent -- you are biased.)
Do your kids know better how to educate them than you? I think at some
point (and it is difficult point out when) they do, no?
Say, hello to your kids from uncle Eugene (sounds "better" than "Uncle
Sam" -- more melodic),
Farmer Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matvey Sokolovsky [mailto:sokolovs@uconnvm.uconn.edu]
> Sent: Friday, May 21, 1999 5:48 PM
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Campaign Against Public Schools
>
>
> Quotes from 5/19/1999 Nate's message:
>
> "If instead we see education or even socialization as a "boundary
> object" or maybe a farmers market=85" This is not an exact quote becaus=
e it
> is cut right in the middle) but I do like the words "FARMERS
> MARKET" in it.
> As many psychologists who like interpretations and psychoanalysis, I wi=
ll
> allow myself to argue that a word sometimes discloses more than a whole
> paragraph.
>
> "It also implies education as a process that only affects one
> particular
> and not others, and my experience is socialization is much more dynamic
> than that."
>
> "Should society fund "particular" projects in education such as choi=
ce?
> If we see education as an enlightenment project whose primary goal is s=
elf
> actualization then ideas such as consumer choice have a sense of
> logic. If
> on the other hand, we see education as a stage in which different
> particulars perform it is very destructive."
>
>
> Let's try to understand the worldview Nate is referring to. On one hand=
,
> there is a bunch of illiterate, conservative farmers, like those
> in Silicon
> Valley who grow Apples and use every opportunity to suck their children
> into their business denying them an enlightening potential of
> education. On
> the other hand there is the Universal -- represented by US government. =
It
> is so universal that it brings enlightenment to Iraqi children by starv=
ing
> them to death; enlightens Yugoslavia by bombing them, enlightens
> developing
> countries by pressing them to cut expenses on education and enlightens
> American schools by installing metal detectors and putting heavily arme=
d
> guards in every classroom. Recently the universal has invented
> the Internet
> but plans to put it under strict control to be used only for good (mult=
i
> million dollar instructions how to use cigars) and business.
>
> There is quite a "dialectics" between these hands. And I suspect that e=
ven
> Nate is one among those conservative farmers. Actually, the word
> "even" was
> extra, because, as I pointed out in my previous posting, I
> strongly believe
> that the universal -- mainstream education is based on brainwashing(out=
)
> needed for kids to turn them into consumers; consequently, is supported=
by
> we know whom. So what is this discussion about then?
>
> Philosophically, I think Nate makes a mistake by reducing a triad to a
> dyad. As far as I remember from my readings of Hegel, he was talking ab=
out
> a triad -- the universal, the particular, and the unique (I don't know =
the
> exact term that is used in English). So to make the dialectics work one
> more element is to be added (and supported). I personally would never
> (never say never) argue against the need of universal which I
> envision as a
> policy issue and constructive support from the state to all schools tha=
t
> exist in a country (setting up universal bottom line requirements
> is a form
> of it). Every school, including public schools, is a particular
> realization
> of the universal and systemically represents it. In a drop of
> water one may
> see the whole world. But unless there is sufficient uniqueness of some =
of
> the elements of the system, things are boring, homogenous, gray, and in=
an
> urgent need of metal detectors. Only the unique makes dialectics work,
> according to Hegel's philosophy, Moscovici's social psychology, my comm=
on
> sense, Bill Clinton' political declarations. Whatever paradise you have
> imagined, Nate, or think that you see ("best ever teachers in the world=
"),
> it will never work until vouchers are there.
>
> Politically, I believe, Nate's mistake is in accepting hierarchical
> semantics of the universal-the unique. No doubt that Hegel saw it
> hierarchically also, but this was a mistake that prevented Hegel from
> becoming the God. Though I am clearly not mature enough (with all
> my joking
> around) to address educational issues, I would never agree that
> even Eugene
> Matusov knows better than me how to educate my kids. Even less
> Bill Clinton
> in his spare time between having sex and bombing someone. I would trust=
Al
> Gore a little but he should be too busy inventing something new
> and important.
>
> Pragmatically=85 The system is so big that it is hardly manageable. Stu=
dents
> feel so abandoned that they have to orchestrate shooting to attract
> attention (a bad joke but with some truth, I believe). I know that pare=
nts
> are able to do a lot through their involvement in boards of
> education, etc.
> I personally prefer to be more involved directly with my kids. I don't
> really feel I need an extra system that will pull me out of my
> home monthly
> (weekly, daily). I am a therapist, and in my work I don't try to make
> everyone happy, only to help those who want to achieve this.
>
> If you want to make everyone happy, intensify bombardments of Yugoslavi=
a.
> Nuclear weapons work the best. This is my position, Nate.
>
> P.S. My apologies if my style has offended someone. No intentions of th=
at
> kind. Honestly.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: Matvey Sokolovsky <sokolovs who-is-at uconnvm.uconn.edu>
> >To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
> >Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 1999 7:38 PM
> >Subject: Re: Campaign Against Public Schools
> >
> >
> >"I do not think that my situation is unique. There are many parents wh=
o
> >have
> >an idea what they want their kids to be taught and who are doing simil=
ar
> >things as we do. There is no doubt that parents' visions are
> very diverse.
> >Those who have close ideas could have organized schools provided the
> >government gives back the tax money for this and provides support for
> >independent school movement (like continuous training for the teachers=
,
> >educational materials, etc). Who is against it?"
> >
> >This comment from Matvey very much sums up what I meant by
> argueing choice
> >is very much a product of progressive education. Education
> being a service
> >that is carried on behalf of the student or parent which gives
> things like
> >vouchers a sense of logic. This view of education is based on the
> >interactive notion of individual and society that has a long
> history in the
> >liberal tradition of the United States. It also is based on the idea =
of
> >"childhood" as ownership in which the parent is the sole
> socializer of the
> >child. A product of the liberatarian idea of "freedom" as long as it
> >doesn't infringe on someone else's rights, as if any freedom does not
> >infringe on another.
> >
> >If instead we see education or even socialization as a "boundry
> object" or
> >maybe a farmers market in which a diverse society with complementaty a=
nd
> >conflicting aims come together to carry out this process, we can see i=
t
> >differently. It is not an attempt to resolve or synthesize
> those tensions,
> >but rather a place in which the drama of those tensions can take place.
> >Laclau and his reference to the particular and universal seems pertina=
nt
> >here. He argued against the modernist idea of universality which he s=
aw
> >based in Christian philosophy in which a particular (ideology)
> was reified
> >as a universal. Universal/particular was a dialectical unity in
> which the
> >universal only existed within that unity, but existed nonetheless. Th=
e
> >universal was something that was dynamic and changed because of the
> >interaction with complementary and competing particulars. Two roads t=
hat
> >were unacceptable in a democratic society was a universal that
> was socially
> >reified and one in which the universal no longer existed.
> >
> >Two approaches in regard to education that seem unacceptable would be =
a
> >socially refied universal (non-challenged dominant culture) and jumpin=
g
> >into the arena of particulars without a universal which I see choice a=
s
> >argueing; although this most likely would not occur (a more
> likely scenaria
> >is another reified universal). Yes, parents views are diverse, and
> >children, communities, societies, business etc. but it seems to me by
> >subordinating education to any of these particulars has a degree
> of danger.
> >It implies ideas, values, beliefs as a noun that do not become
> transformed.
> >It also implies education as a process that only affects one
> particular and
> >not others, and my experience is socialization is much more dynamic th=
an
> >that.
> >
> >Should society fund "particular" projects in education such as
> choice? If
> >we see education as an enlightenment project whose primary goal is sel=
f
> >actualization then ideas such as consumer choice have a sense of
> logic. If
> >on the other hand, we see education as a stage in which different
> >particulars perform it is very destructive. Public education in
> the U.S.,
> >and elsewhere I am sure, have reified a particular as a
> universal in which
> >the universal only transforms other particulars and is not transformed=
by
> >them. Personally, I lean toward a vision of public education that is
> >organized in such a way that the universal and particulars are both
> >transformed. This is not possible in many current practices in public
> >education or the particulars of choice and other reforms. In
> answer to the
> >question, who is againt it? Me.
> >
> >Nate
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Matvey Sokolovsky
>