HI Nate,
Been away for a while but now can respond to you:
>It seems to me that 'development' in practice is an insitutionalized version
>of Mike's reference to prolepsis. It naturalizes that process as a
>biological not a cultural process. I don't deny that there are biological
>processes that change through time, but I don't think they have logic or
>structure in themselves.
We are thinking about different things i think. When I think of 'development', i think of the changes that people undergo with time. 'Change' in itself seems a neutral enough term, and in contrast it also seems that 'development', as often used, is culturally charged -- implying that certain changes are more valued than others. I find this to be important though, in recognition of culture in development. Where, for example, it may be considered acceptable to count on one's fingers in one culture, it may not in another, and this helps to highlight and understand change with it's cultural connections.
I'd like to discuss the connections with such things as curriculum later.
bb
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:01:26 PDT