you asked,
.
>
>Is there a society known to XMCA members, either at present or in the
>past, where socialization/enculturation practices do not/did not relate
>social stratification, dominance, and all those nasty things associated
>with low social status? A good working counter example might clarify the
>discussion.
It seems the discussion has lost sight of the question of concerning
necessary socialization/enculturation and the reproduction of stratified
societies. Interestingly, I just listened to Terry Gross interview the
author of a new history of the SAT and other standardized tests called, "The
Big Test". He points out the original prime mover of the ETS viewed the
entire system as the means for breaking up elite stratification which it did
to a great degree, replacing it of course with another form of
stratification or at least allowing other patterns (cultural bias) to appear
as issues.
As to other societies, there are a lot of non-stratified societies whose
descriptions can be found in the Human Resource Area Files, conveniently
categorized by Murdoch's generations of workers. But how would we compare?
the kinds of schools we are talking about are the products of modern
industrial capitalist society, inherently stratified, and these schools
have always had a role in the reproduction of that society. What about
schools in the socialist countries?? How have they handled the issues of
progression through the different levels of competence and the specific age
cohorts. Does the statement "You're awfully big for a fourth grader!" also
have meaning there?
Eugene's or Bill's counter examples really convince me of very much. There
are all sorts of aberrant special cases strewn throughout the pages of
pyschological/educational experiments, ping pong playing pigeons, etc. And
there's the so-what factor anyway. I'd really like to know, for example,
what the senior's knowledge of one aspect of special relativity (perhaps
chosen for its self-contained character) helped them grasp further on down
the line or what happened after the first graders learned fractions and
algebra, did they go back for long division or just skip it? I wonder how
could they even do standard high school algebra before knowing how to add,
subtract, divide, or multiply? Did they jump straight into axiomatic
algebra and do proofs about sets? But what did this knowledge contribute to
their acquisition of further knowledge?
I think the question as to how and why the phylogenetically real stages of
knowledge (arithmetics precede algebras historically) are linked to the
ontogenetic reproduction of cohorts for stratified societies; the
exploration of the linking of learning to biological ages, and what the
alternatives REALLY are, that is an interesting aperture.
Paul H. Dillon