RE: goals, agency, and interplay of forces

Date: Tue Mar 23 2004 - 15:49:05 PST

Thatīs a quite cool answer, Iraj. I agree with most of what you say.
Still, I canīt help but think of the disciplinary nature of the
schooling process (also a la Foucault...) Second, and assuming
schooling as a given, I wonder how can a minority student to challenge
the cultural routines without breaking up with the system as a whole
and, because of that, to loose the benefits associated to his/her
paradoxical belonging. Of course, thatīs an issue that does not have a
definitive answer and where, I guess, there is a huge space left for
creative, idiosyncratic answers. What I understand as non violence is
simply stated what Gandhi and Martin Lther King taught about it. I
believe in its transformative power and I believe thatīs the best way
to act within a disciplinary context, as school, as well. Of course
what you defined below as transformation fits nicely with my own
thinking, so far the teacher is committed to the change.

Quoting IRAJ IMAM <>:

> Quoting IRAJ IMAM <>:
> > Is this process any similar to that of 'expansive learning' where
> a
> > new space of learning has to be produced for the learner?
> >
> David asks:
> "I was wondering whether there are non violent ways to break with a
> shared
> situation of domination and if they exist, which are they?"
> I am not sure if I am clear on what you mean by 'non-violent.' Coming
> from
> spatial and social theory background, I can not imagine any activity
> that
> its process (and outcome) does not include transformation, and that
> involves
> breaking the old up and producing something 'new'-- even if the new
> is the
> old maintaining itself by eliminating other alternatives.
> If I understand 'expansive learning' correctly, it seems to me that
> is what
> supposed to happen in the ZPD. I imagine that ZPD is a supportive
> social
> space where the learner can take small risk and make mistakes until
> she gets
> is right. The teacher/parent/coach/counselor scaffolds for the
> learner to
> learn. This condition points to a non-violent social space. or, does
> it?
> Learning or any other transformative process, by definition, is
> about
> identifying, acknowledging, and engaging with opposing forces.
> Since
> contradictions are mediated, one seems to have to face and experience
> the
> tension and anxiety of the interplay of conflicting forces (at
> individual
> and group levels) and participate in them. This process of change, in
> a
> general way, seems to involve some form of 'violence' --not
> physical
> violence, but perhaps mental violence (changing of the mind).
> David, I may have missed your question. Here is another try with help
> from
> spatial philosopher Henry Lefebvre (Production of Space, 1997).
> According to
> him, if one wants to create something new, one has to create a new
> space for
> it.
> A new mental space (learning), then projecting in into the physical
> space to
> produce new social space (activity). It is all about production of
> new space
> (mental, physical, social). Because this has to occur in an already
> produced
> existing dominant space of the past, 'violence' is already present in
> the
> form of existing domination and yet the new force has to produce its
> own
> space through interplay with the old (a la Foucault) --and the
> outcome
> depends on the balance.
> Cheers!
> iraj imam
> The Center for Applied Local research

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:24 PST