[From Bruce Gregory (960515.1300 EDT)]
Note: This posting does _not_ refer to recent exchanges on CSGNet.
Since I spend approximately three hours a day commuting (usually in
very light traffic) I get to "read" a number of books on tape that
otherwise I would be forced to pass up. I am currently listening to
Henry Kissinger's book, _Diplomacy_. Whatever one's view of Henry,
the book is fascinating, and I recommend it to anyone who has any
interest in twentieth century geopolitics. "All very good," you say.
"But what has this to do with PCT?" Thanks for bringing me back to the
point of this post.
Kissinger makes a very effective argument that, in its foreign
policy, the United States has abjured Realpolitik in favour of
ideological commitments. It seems to me that this anti-pragmatic
strain runs very deep in the American psyche (despite the efforts
of my heroes, James and Dewey). Kissinger argues that Americans think
conflict arises from misunderstandings rather than from incompatible
goals that must somehow be accommodated.
("What about PCT?" you ask. Oh, yes, thanks for reminding me.)
PCT is based on the principle that living systems are goal-directed.
This very pragmatic notion (James and Dewey) flies in the face of the
conservative/liberal position that everyone ought to have the same
goals and that these goals are manipulable using punishments and
rewards (the primary message of Christian fundamentalists, who
attribute this insight to God's methods). The "sin" of PCT may have
more to do with its focus on the goals of autonomous agents than
with its model of how such goals can be achieved. I say this because
I have noticed how absent the goals of students are from any
discussion of education or educational "reform". ("Change" is
clearly passe; every change, no matter how regressive, is a "reform"
in the United States.) Administrators, teachers, and parents have
goals, but the goals of students are of little or no import.
Education is something we "do" to students. Educational reform is
about how we can "do" it better. The results are disappointing, but
this only means we have to do more (with less). Trying to convince
science educators that students have legitimate goals is almost as
difficult as trying to convince psychologists of the importance of
closed loops. Trying to convince science educators that what we
can't see (goals) is more important than what we can see (behavior)
may be impossible. But when has that ever discouraged us?
And Now For Something Completely Different
When we chose to be responsible we are empowered; when responsibility
is imposed on us we are disempowered. Ed Ford is the master of that
distinction. I find his book _Discipline for Home and School_ a
marvelous guide even if one has no great interest in discipline
problems for what it says about the power of choosing responsibility
and how to make that choice possible.
Bruce G.