Uh, I said something about this earlier... Here it is.
Pardon the Jargon; hope it doesn't suck?
The readings introduced to me some really interesting ideas and concepts, challenging the way I looked at development. The Overton chapter was something I had to read at least 3 times to get the gist of, but I gleaned that the importance of a definition of development is crucial to the inquiry process and that we frequently err and must reevaluate what that is. Overton emphasizes the importance of recognizing transformational and variational changes in the expressive-constitutive and instrumental-communicative features of behavior. The dichotomous ways of considering behavior can be integrated by taking them as lenses of equal importance. We do Brigance tests out here as a way to operationally define and quantify the progress we seek, though it is based on observed behaviors and there is little expressive-constitutive consideration. This can be found in our conversations with one another and within our records and case studies to a certain degree, but we have little training in the collection of data and so are prone to attributing our findings to our own perceptions, which can be skewed by our love for the kids or how much sleep we got last night. We tend to want simple answers to the silent questions posed by our orphans. How do I help (insert name of child) with (insert maladaptive institutional behavior or disciplinary issue)? And we are infants ourselves in the understanding of normative/non-normative development; ignorant of the intricate multivariate reciprocal relationships and multisystemic processes in play. Let’s go back to changes and developmental lenses, though.
On a personal level, my work with Alex is an attempt to produce a man-made transformational change in his communication by teaching him to use technology that opens his capacity for learning. The initial change is happening as is a variational change in building his vocabulary. I realize a little each day to a certain extent that the technology is not the change, but it has been a means of making the staff at section 2 more aware of his development from an expressive-constitutive perspective (his cognitive potential) by allowing a greater amount of observable behavior through the instrumental-communicative lens (his assisted communication). On a global level, I can compare this to what was mentioned in the Horowitz article about the assistance of neuroimaging technology. It states the growing consensus that “…the regularities of development are constructed as a result of the transaction of the individual with the seemingly big, buzzing, confusing, noisy environmental surround…” (p. 5). This technology gives greater insight into the internal workings, whereas the outer behavior was once a sealed vault. It allows new data to be produced where once theory was the only alternative in some cases.
The Hinde article had a wealth of content, but I chose to focus on the conclusions of questions related to cross cultural values of biological predispositions and adaptation. It is difficult to see a worker in the orphanage here implementing parenting strategies far different from those I’ve experienced in my own home and been made aware of in the classroom. I’ve placed value on them, because in the cultural context within which I live, the behaviors and attributes that lead to success are supported. Initially the contrast can spur feelings of anger and confusion. The ambiguity lies in the fact that I have not spent enough time within this cultural context nor do I have the language skills to understand what normative parenting values are here, and I assume that they are the same as my own, especially if I do not identify and acknowledge my own biases. My inquiry will then be tainted by my lens that seeks to “fix” this behavior and reconcile it with my truth. Furthermore, if I seek to discipline the children in a different way than is prevalently employed in an institutional setting, perhaps I may put them at a disadvantage within their social demographic when placed in another setting. Common sense and human decency suggest otherwise, but whose common sense and human decency? What is the result we are striving for? On the other hand, a strictly observant stance seems to illicit the feeling that I am cruelly permissive, like watching a person fall down the stairs.
The lifelongings article struck a chord with me. It emphasizes in my mind, the wild card aspect of development, which is that drive toward some life pursuit and ultimate happy ending. This statement reverberated for me, “Development is a process that strives toward optimality, that in human reality, however is never completed and perfect.” It explains in a way, the function of tricking our minds at times, to get to something we value highly. Finding and continually adjusting the balance of fantasy and realism seems to be an aspect of successful development. I can take the quest for marriage and a happy family as a Sehnsucht, for instance: In my mind I see myself marrying someone for love who shares my core values and with whom I can develop sexual, creative, emotional, intellectual, aesthetic, recreational, work, crisis, and conflict intimacy, avoid the four horsemen of the apocalypse, maintain appropriate differentiation, raise obedient children who follow normative development as constituted by the cultural context (and many other things I’ve learned from various classes). I see a story from my time before, I see where I am now and I can create a story of us growing old and happy. I feel incomplete and ambivalent about this fantasy, especially if I pull someone else into it. I am hopeful, but incomplete. I am eager, but restrained, because they say you can chase it away. In my career path, this (a happy marriage and family) is a symbol of reassurance of my legitimacy to future clients. In my sub-culture, this is a symbol of victory over a major stage of life. It is a symbol of resolution to some conflicts to stories I’ve created and represents to a certain degree even ultimate success in life and eventual godhood. Being outside of that can seem like staring up from the terrestrial kingdom at times, especially when this tri-time focus is present. I’m also aware that when it happens (I came back to this after writing it and realized that I said “when it happens,” which is further evidence of the hold this personal utopia has on me) , I will be part of the world of people who understand that it is never perfect (and how). As we grow old, we don’t all become astronauts and fire-fighters (nor do we want to usually). We realize that our life functioning is a bell curve and not an endless graph of positive correlation and we must make adjustments to our life longings or depress/live in a fantasy world. This longing however is a sustaining internal motivator. It needn’t be a source of depression. All of these concepts have initiated some paradigm shifts, and refueled my fascination with human development. And I’m happy to be at development camp again, which drives things home for me.
Pardon the Jargon; hope it doesn't suck?
The readings introduced to me some really interesting ideas and concepts, challenging the way I looked at development. The Overton chapter was something I had to read at least 3 times to get the gist of, but I gleaned that the importance of a definition of development is crucial to the inquiry process and that we frequently err and must reevaluate what that is. Overton emphasizes the importance of recognizing transformational and variational changes in the expressive-constitutive and instrumental-communicative features of behavior. The dichotomous ways of considering behavior can be integrated by taking them as lenses of equal importance. We do Brigance tests out here as a way to operationally define and quantify the progress we seek, though it is based on observed behaviors and there is little expressive-constitutive consideration. This can be found in our conversations with one another and within our records and case studies to a certain degree, but we have little training in the collection of data and so are prone to attributing our findings to our own perceptions, which can be skewed by our love for the kids or how much sleep we got last night. We tend to want simple answers to the silent questions posed by our orphans. How do I help (insert name of child) with (insert maladaptive institutional behavior or disciplinary issue)? And we are infants ourselves in the understanding of normative/non-normative development; ignorant of the intricate multivariate reciprocal relationships and multisystemic processes in play. Let’s go back to changes and developmental lenses, though.
On a personal level, my work with Alex is an attempt to produce a man-made transformational change in his communication by teaching him to use technology that opens his capacity for learning. The initial change is happening as is a variational change in building his vocabulary. I realize a little each day to a certain extent that the technology is not the change, but it has been a means of making the staff at section 2 more aware of his development from an expressive-constitutive perspective (his cognitive potential) by allowing a greater amount of observable behavior through the instrumental-communicative lens (his assisted communication). On a global level, I can compare this to what was mentioned in the Horowitz article about the assistance of neuroimaging technology. It states the growing consensus that “…the regularities of development are constructed as a result of the transaction of the individual with the seemingly big, buzzing, confusing, noisy environmental surround…” (p. 5). This technology gives greater insight into the internal workings, whereas the outer behavior was once a sealed vault. It allows new data to be produced where once theory was the only alternative in some cases.
The Hinde article had a wealth of content, but I chose to focus on the conclusions of questions related to cross cultural values of biological predispositions and adaptation. It is difficult to see a worker in the orphanage here implementing parenting strategies far different from those I’ve experienced in my own home and been made aware of in the classroom. I’ve placed value on them, because in the cultural context within which I live, the behaviors and attributes that lead to success are supported. Initially the contrast can spur feelings of anger and confusion. The ambiguity lies in the fact that I have not spent enough time within this cultural context nor do I have the language skills to understand what normative parenting values are here, and I assume that they are the same as my own, especially if I do not identify and acknowledge my own biases. My inquiry will then be tainted by my lens that seeks to “fix” this behavior and reconcile it with my truth. Furthermore, if I seek to discipline the children in a different way than is prevalently employed in an institutional setting, perhaps I may put them at a disadvantage within their social demographic when placed in another setting. Common sense and human decency suggest otherwise, but whose common sense and human decency? What is the result we are striving for? On the other hand, a strictly observant stance seems to illicit the feeling that I am cruelly permissive, like watching a person fall down the stairs.
The lifelongings article struck a chord with me. It emphasizes in my mind, the wild card aspect of development, which is that drive toward some life pursuit and ultimate happy ending. This statement reverberated for me, “Development is a process that strives toward optimality, that in human reality, however is never completed and perfect.” It explains in a way, the function of tricking our minds at times, to get to something we value highly. Finding and continually adjusting the balance of fantasy and realism seems to be an aspect of successful development. I can take the quest for marriage and a happy family as a Sehnsucht, for instance: In my mind I see myself marrying someone for love who shares my core values and with whom I can develop sexual, creative, emotional, intellectual, aesthetic, recreational, work, crisis, and conflict intimacy, avoid the four horsemen of the apocalypse, maintain appropriate differentiation, raise obedient children who follow normative development as constituted by the cultural context (and many other things I’ve learned from various classes). I see a story from my time before, I see where I am now and I can create a story of us growing old and happy. I feel incomplete and ambivalent about this fantasy, especially if I pull someone else into it. I am hopeful, but incomplete. I am eager, but restrained, because they say you can chase it away. In my career path, this (a happy marriage and family) is a symbol of reassurance of my legitimacy to future clients. In my sub-culture, this is a symbol of victory over a major stage of life. It is a symbol of resolution to some conflicts to stories I’ve created and represents to a certain degree even ultimate success in life and eventual godhood. Being outside of that can seem like staring up from the terrestrial kingdom at times, especially when this tri-time focus is present. I’m also aware that when it happens (I came back to this after writing it and realized that I said “when it happens,” which is further evidence of the hold this personal utopia has on me) , I will be part of the world of people who understand that it is never perfect (and how). As we grow old, we don’t all become astronauts and fire-fighters (nor do we want to usually). We realize that our life functioning is a bell curve and not an endless graph of positive correlation and we must make adjustments to our life longings or depress/live in a fantasy world. This longing however is a sustaining internal motivator. It needn’t be a source of depression. All of these concepts have initiated some paradigm shifts, and refueled my fascination with human development. And I’m happy to be at development camp again, which drives things home for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment