Paul-
I believe that Judy's note indexes the tension between stability
and change that is part and partial of all our discussions re
internalization/externlization, learning/development, etc.
In so far as societies ENCULTURATE the young as a means of self
perpetuation (the accumulation of prior experience extrasomatically,
"in culture/history") the current adult generation treats itself as
the telos of the next generation. But times are always changing, so,
in Yrjo's phrasing, development must be seen not only as internalization/
mastery of the given culture, but superceding/breaking away.
Judy was picking up on the incompleteness of a discussion of
appropriation that did not problematize what should be considered
appropriate to suggest that I was being conservative because I was
not problematizing what is considered appropriate, e.g., the breaking away/
expanding/changing part of the process.
Nixon going to China is interesting to think about, but difficult
in the context of a discussion focused on ontogeny (perhaps inappropriately,
but given the world view that seems at least partially shared in this
ever-shifting group) we are always bracketing part of what we think to be
relevant aspects of the process of human development in every discussion but
rarely make a list of all the brackets, depending upon a sympathetic reading
grounded in prior interactions.
Kennedy could not go to China without being crucified. Nixon could.
He could also continue and expand the outrages of the Vietnam war and
simultaneously get us out, something Johnson couldn't do. Could Humphrey
have done it? We'll never know.
I hope this is helpful, or at least diverting. I gotta do a bunch
of work people pay me to do for the rest of the day.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:50 PDT