I think this is done both innocently (perhaps lazily) and deliberately. For
instance, for a study of the discourse of character education I'm
completing, I've come across a book chapter by Christine H. Sommers
(Sommers, C. H. (2002). How moral education is finding its way back into
America's schools. In W. Damon (Ed.), Bringing in a new era in character
education (pp. 23-41). Stanford, CA: Hoover Press.) in which she dismisses
liberalism in general by lumping Rousseau and Dewey together. These two are
fundamentally different; Rousseau believed that society corrupts the
pristine child, Dewey believed that development is essentially social. But
for Sommers, the conservative ideology required a dismissal of both as a
conflated pair in order to reject and diminish anything remotely
relativistic in the realm of character development.
Peter
At 09:53 AM 10/21/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>AMEN!!
>
>Ben wrote:
>
>Vygotsky, like Ilyenkov, made wide contributions in the development of
>construct
>ionist social psychology. Like with Hegel, Marx and other really fertile
>thinke
>rs, there is so much in Vygotsky's work, that it is easy to grab a few
>ideas and
> use them without realizing that by doing so we distort beyond
> recognition the w
>hole contribution.
>
>
>Ditto Dewey and a lot of the other people discussed on this list.
>
>Ben-- Social psychology as practiced by those who publish in APA journals
>doesn't seem much like the intellectual enterprise you refer to as
>social psychology which would fit perfectly into our Communication Department.
>
>Is this a general US versus the Rest difference? Do you see the same
>schism?
>mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PST