Non-violent responses to the perceived structural violence of being forced to overcome shyness

Describe 4455 (agencies). Describe 8843 (crim) Glean other examples.

Violent responses to the perceived structural violence of being forced to overcome shyness

Use examples of two who were angry and hostile. compare to 7701 and 8843. Use 0713's example of why did others get As?

Let us know you exist.

Ask for help when you feel the need for it. But give clues so we will know exactly what you need. 8843's request for "help" didn't give me a clue. So my response couldn't help very much. I didn't learn that she could communicate by e-mail until after the fact. Maybe someone wrote that for her. Think about letting your teacher know what context you are working in.

Start with explicit exercises until you get used to the dialog. Then branch off to add your own creativity and tell more about you and your learning.

Some theoretical background on shyness. U.S. News and World Report, June 21, 1999 on "social anxiety." We tend to give "names" to conditions we once perceived as within the range of normal variation. But, in fact, naming the condition brings it to the forefront of our collective thought. In earlier years it would never have occurred to us to consider a student's shyness as a factor in measuring learning, even though we were quite familiar with the idea that some people "freeze" at the mere thought of taking a test. It was a "named condition." We never thought to vary our measurement procedures so they would fit such conditions.

One of the advantages to dialogic curriculum sharing, is that students have the opportunity of presenting claims and of finding cooperative ways around the differences in measurement styles.

Include here Australian piece on Foucault and dialog, with emphasis on difference from Habermasian dialog.

Again, U.S.News and World Reportreported extensive problems with "cheating" at all levels, "from grade school to graduate school." (November 22, 1999) We would like to suggest that part of the confusion and the perceived drop in ethical behavior amongst students at all levels has to do with the structural violence of an educational system that has not adjusted to new technologies and contexts. "Cheating was not nearly as prevalent before the explosion of knowledge in recent years, and when classes were smaller and permitted more in depth measurement of learning.

"Cheating" is harmful to other students, since those who choose the ethical option of not cheating are placed at a disadvantage, especially since many, if not most, cheaters are never caught. As an activity which harms others, we would consider it a violent response. But we also consider the dependence of computerized grading (scantron) and the refusal to acknowledge the explosion of information and the limits on discretionary time as structurally violent on the part of the educational system.

The solution of "cheating" to the structurally violent educational system is one of many responses. Another is despair and rejection of the whole system. But there are other responses midway between these two, which represent anger at the system, and anger at self for inability to survive within the system. We consider shyness, as we are describing it here, as an alternative less extreme response to the structural violence.

Some display shyness by maneuvering dialog to their own territory, and withdrawing when dialog is in a territory alien to them.

Some display positive affect, making gestures, engaging in activities that indicate a willingness to participate, but an uncertainty about how to do that.

Some display negative affect, acting out their frustration at not knowing how to go about effective participation.

Some make poor choices in trying to find acceptable ways to participate and compete.

Some struggle with transferring lessons on how to compete against all others, as in sports, to how to cooperate with others to produce team results, as in sports. When they make poor choices we tend to "blame" them, even though we do not have the answers to how this new teamwork should take place.

Mostly, this is the academy's task to turn its research efforts to understanding the false light in which we have "protected" standards. In reality we have protected only the context of academic climate experienced long ago, and tried to impose that on a completely different world in which it doesn't fit as a mathematical model.

This analysis of problems in dealing with the measurement and authentication of learning is founded on the concept of discourse in social theory. We have presented Habermasian discourse, since Habermas takes the more conservative position of depending on some universal foundation for rational discourse. Foucault's position is more radical, insisting that there is no universality possible. Like Calhoun, we believe that most of us are comfortable not making that ultimate choice. Foucault's dialogue demands a great tolerance for ambiguity. Habermas' leaves some vestige of universal reason for those less comfortable with such ambiguity. We have relied for this analysis on Christopher Falzon, Foucault and Social Dialogue: Beyond Fragmentation, 1998, Routledge, London and NewYork.

We are particularly interested in the application of Habermasian and Foucauldian theories of dialog to the exchange that is not taking place in the academy between the academy elite and those whom it serves. One of the first conclusions we are drawing from this study is that what has been termed cheating by so many of the academy elite is primarily an overreaction to students' attempts to manage new contexts to which the academy has not yet adapted.

More to come. . .