Michael,
I’ll try to clarify the issues further (hopefully without going too deeply into the arcana of materialist philosophy).
MG: Dewey was not a developmentalist -at least looking at development from the individual perspective - for a reason. If you make the assumption that human beings develop you also have to make the assumption that they are moving in the direction of some (pre-conceived) better understanding about how the world works.
VF-R (that’s me): With the exception of a considerable interest in play, GH Mead, and most certainly Dewey, did not focus much on the development of basic reasoning skills. This is in direct contrast to the research interests of Piaget, Henri Wallon, and – of course – Vygotsky, and it is this difference that contrasts their educational theory from that of Dewey. From my general acquaintance with the works of Mead and Dewey, I seriously doubt that they assumed that people were born with full reasoning skills or naturally acquired them in some extra-social fashion. For historical reasons, some of which you describe in your article; this aspect of learning simply did not interest them.
Mead and Dewey’s main theoretical and practical focus was on the use of reasoning skills to explore, innovate and evaluate the results of creative activity; a different issue entirely from the acquisition of reasoning skills. Incidentally, among their most powerful arguments for the encouragement of free inquiry and individual creativity was that scientific and technical progress, qua development of a better understanding about how the world works, is best served by free exploration and experimentation. This educational goal does not in any way contradict the utility in acquiring basic reasoning skills. On the contrary, the development of reasoning abilities only contributes to higher and broader creativity of free inquiry.
MG: Most important, if I am claiming that I know the object better than you (closer to its Platonic ideal or real nature or whatever you want to call it), and you question me about the nature of the object I can not only stifle debate on the subject (and any new ideas that might come from it) based on my proprietary claim to knowledge, I can ostracize you from the community by claiming that you are actually working at cross purposes with the community needs (because we need people who have a REAL understanding of the object, and those who argue for other understandings are not only outliers but actually detrimental to the needs of the community).
VF-R: Here we go again on the object question! A more dialectical approach to the matter of ideality on the part of AT (I’m now writing up a paper on this problem) show that there are many kinds of objects and many correspondingly different relations between ideation and objectification. The ideation involved in elementary tool production such as language learning, brush handling and operation of AutoCAD 16 is quite different from that of incorporating these basic skills in more complex levels of production; writing up an argument in educational theory, painting a picture, or designing a house.
Vygotsky’s educational theory was properly concerned with the development of reasoning as it is linked with the most basic kinds of production: mostly speech but also the use of other basic productive processes. The development of these ideational tools cost mankind as a whole over 2 million years of hard work and are not easily acquired even with the aid of optimistically helpful educators. True enough, much is learned in non-pedagogic milieus, but the learning environments for reasoning skills and tools that are generally less often used in everyday activity such as concept formation and management are for most people restricted to educational institutions. Again, as written above, recognition of the distinction between production of basic ideational tools and of the use of these tools for the production of more complex objects leads to the conclusion that the acquisition of basic production skills can increase the creative potential of students in their handing of more complex issues.
MG: This gets back to your point on creativity. My view is exactly the opposite of Victor's. I see Dewey have one of the few viable theories of creativity. The education system nurture's the individual's natural inclination towards novelty and the desire to make the human condition better through implementation of novel ideas. In order to do this you have to abandon the object model of education where experts know and what they know is transmitted to individuals (see above) and concentrate on the development of democratic dialogue where not only does the individual feel safe expressing these novel ideas (i.e. if well thought out they will be treated with respect and dignity), but other individuals are willing to listen to them and explore them.
VF-R: Pray tell, does this “natural inclination towards novelty and the desire to make the human condition better through implementation of novel ideas” have their origin in some bioorganic properties of humanity? Or are you referring to some a-priority category special to men that is somehow productive of this natural desire for novelty and improvement of the human condition (whatever that is)? Perhaps you’ve decided that the development of science threatens the creativity of free dialogue. Of course this position is impossibly paradoxical; after all, without science you have no creativity and without creativity you have no science.
Again, the identification of “ZEC’s” or outstanding contradictions in human practice is not necessarily a means for restricting inquiry. In fact a whole school of educational theory, critical theory, is in fact based on ZEC strategies. I’ve used it often to stimulate students to review and question thoughtless assumptions and conventional beliefs and to experiment with alternative ways of doing things. I can’t really take credit for the ZEC, there was a guy called Socrates who invented critical educational practices more than 2400 years ago. True, critical educational strategies demand active participation of the teacher in educational practice, but rather as a catalyst for creative thought rather than as its mentor: I see no reason for excluding the teacher from democratic educational process; do you?
There is always the possibility of the minority position becoming part of the majority position. As humans we have no shortage of novel ideas, what is lacking is the willingness to embrace them because (by definition) novel ideas take us off course. Every problem is unique, and the answer to any problem can come from any quarter.
VF-R: No disagreements here.
Highest regards,
Victor,
----- Original Message -----
From: Oudeyis
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 8:06 PM
Subject: Michael Glassman's response
Don, Phil, Steve, Bill etc.
Forwarding M Glassman's response (he's still not able to post direct to xmca).
Victor
Original Message-----
From: Michael Glassman
Sent: Tue 4/27/2004 10:49 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Cc:
Subject: RE: Michael Glassman's response
Victor, Don, Steve,
Here is the issue as I see it, and I am still (if you will forgive me) in the process of trying to understand this. There is a relationship between the casual comment that Dewey was not a developmentalist and Vygotsky was, and the rest of the article (one of the major points being the difference between facilitator and mentor). To be honest, I think I have a better grasp of that relationship now.
Dewey was not a developmentalist -at least looking at development from the individual perspective - for a reason. If you make the assumption that human beings develop you also have to make the assumption that they are moving in the direction of some (pre-conceived) better understanding about how the world works. I develop an understanding of how something works and can therefore use it to better control my environment making me a more worthwhile member of my species group. In my reading Dewey and Mead did not argue about whether this was right or wrong - they argued about whether it was the most worthwhile model for the human condition in general.
If I am teaching you about something that I know about and that you don't know about, and we are acting under the assumption that if you do know about this you will be a better and more productive citizen, who has all the power in the relationship? Of course the person who is doing the teaching has all the power.
If I am claiming that there is some object in the world that you must get to know, as I define it, because once you get to know it you will be a better and more productive citizen, this offers enormous power to whoever is defining this object in the world that you must get to know.
Most important, if I am claiming that I know the object better than you (closer to its Platonic ideal or real nature or whatever you want to call it), and you question me about the nature of the object I can not only stifle debate on the subject (and any new ideas that might come from it) based on my proprietary claim to knowledge, I can ostracize you from the community by claiming that you are actually working at cross purposes with the community needs (because we need people who have a REAL understanding of the object, and those who argue for other understandings are not only outliers but actually detrimental to the needs of the community).
It is these conditions that led me to understand why dualism is such a dangerous concept (I think on this very list a number of years ago I questioned why we should worry so much about dualism - now I think I have a better idea). But in order to avoid dualism you have to give up an enormous amount - that is what Dewey did. And one of the things that Dewey gave up was the concept of individual development.
But one thing that Dewey did not give up was the concept of progress. Instead he developed a metaphysics suggesting that human activity, when process rather than object based, naturally moves towards melioration of the human condition. This is where many post-modernists part company with Dewey (and in general I part company with the post-modernists). Rorty claimed the development of a metaphysics was Dewey's greatest mistake. But I think it is what makes his theory most meaningful and worthwhile. There is nothing mystical about this natural desire towards melioration, it is based I think in strong evolutionary arguments (Dewey had a strong affinity for evolutionary theory). The best discussion of this is Petr Kropotkin's Mutual Aid theory (disclaimer - there is not direct evidence anywhere that Dewey read Kropotkin, yet I am becoming more and more convinced that he must have read Kropotkin's work. In a lecture/debate somewhere around the 1920s he took the Kropotkin position in arguing against Huxley's theory.)
Interestingly enough, even though Dewey doesn't deal with individual development (and I have thought about this and thought about this and from where I am standing right now there is no way to discuss individual development and avoid dualism - I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm just saying that I haven't see it done yet) he is often referred to as dealing with the inidividual. This gets back to your point on creativity. My view is exactly the opposite of Victor's. I see Dewey have one of the few viable theories of creativity. The education system nurture's the individual's natural inclination towards novelty and the desire to make the human condition better through implementation of novel ideas. In order to do this you have to abandon the object model of education where experts know and what they know is transmitted to individuals (see above) and concentrate on the development of democratic dialogue where not only does the individual feel safe expressing these novel ideas (i.e. if well thought out they will be treated with respect and dignity), but other individuals are willing to listen to them and explore them. There is always the possibility of the minority position becoming part of the majority position. As humans we have no shortage of novel ideas, what is lacking is the willingness to embrace them because (by definition) novel ideas take us off course. Every problem is unique, and the answer to any problem can come from any quarter.
Michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 01:00:07 PDT