Here we go again... I finished reading the book and I think that it has a lot of great content and references to different fields of study, but I feel like this effort has been obscured by the advocated existence of an alleged "collective thinking". Of course, this is my personal point of view and interpretation. Probably I am lacking some underlying concepts and theories, but from what I found in the book, I feel like I cannot agree with its main thesis, and I still have the sensation of the author continuously trying to support his idea with exemples that are exceptions and with paradigms that are related to his "interthinking theory" by mostly unjustified and disconnected "therefore's".
"The development of print, and subsequently of telecommunications, [...] made it possible for people to link their thoughts together." (p. 104)
This is true, but we may also reflect on the fact that it actually divided thought in separate "items", like books, as opposed to the "old" oral tradition.
In the paragraf titled "How communities enable collective thinking" (p. 106), the author cites as community resources for "joint intellectual activity": 1) history, 2) collective identity, 3) reciprocal obligations, and 4) discourse. I think that:
1) history: can be an obstacle to the evolution of a community, a "ball and chain" heritage that limits its otherwise natural progress and modernization.
2) collective identity: isn't the claim for a collective identity one of the most common causes for conflict and war?
3) reciprocal obligations: well, there is a "community of practice", based on reciprocal obligations, that comes into my mind. It is commonly known as Mafia...
4) discourse: it is defined by the author as "the specialized language of a community", which may be an isolating and self-confirming factor.
About the research carried out by Julian Orr (pp. 108-111), I think that his study on photocopier repair technicians focuses more on the importance of storytelling as an "unveiling tool" of tacit knowledge, rather than on its "social" and "community" qualities. Furthermore, the importance of the "war stories" shared among the technicians, is significantly increased by the fact that they have been collected and spread on a large scale. And I would not define storytelling as “an important tool in the language tool-kit” (p. 111). In my view, Storytelling is a natural expression of life through language.
On p. 112 the author explains that:
"Soldiers in special units responsible for torturing "opponents of the regime" went through initiation procedures which included the learning of a special in-group jargon. [...] By using language this way, members of military communities are thus able to use language to jointly redefine the moral significance of their actions and emphasize their joint identity." (p. 112)
Actually, I see it like a technique imposed "from above", which may have worked for individuals as well.
In the paragraph titled "The nature of CMC as a medium for collective thinking" (p. 126) the author quotes exceptions to the differences between synchronous and asynchronous CMC (like instant messages answered hours or days later) and presents them as a basis for a "happy" blending of speech and written communication.
On p. 140 the author quotes Vygotsky to sustain his theory:
"Vygotsky suggested that the usual measures of children's intellectual ability, such as IQ tests, are too static and decontextualized to be of real educational value. [...] By measuring the difference between the original independent capability of each child and what they were able to achieve when given some intellectual guidance and support, educators could make a more useful, dynamic assessment of these children's educational potential and needs."
Then, on p. 165, he proudly speaks of the success of his "Talk Lessons" and notes:
"The lead school in our project was specially congratulated by the Secretary of State for Education on its improved educational standards (as measured by the performance of our "target" children on national tests)."
I see no coherence in these statements. How can he invoke a "dynamic assessment", and then speak of "educational standards", praising his project on the basis of high scores "on national tests"?
This is a pity, because I think his vision of the teacher as a "community builder" (p. 161) could be a good starting point to rethink the classroom and the relationship between the teacher and the students. In my opinion, the ideas of "continuity", "comprehensible purpose", and "active participation", are all important for a new paradigm of social-reflective education.
Thanks for pushing my thinking on some of these issues. Hm, I wonder if part of what bothers you about Mercer's writing is that he can seem uncritically optimistic about features and developments, such as the four community resources for collective thinking. As you point out, those resources can just as easily be used in a negative way as in a positive way. Writing isn't necessarily always better than speaking, nor does CMC inherently support collective thinking. Good point about the contradiction between measuring the success of Talk Lessons with a metric that he also argues against.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if part of the problem is that this book is written for a practitioner audience and not a scholarly audience, and in making complex ideas accessible he missed the mark (hence the incoherence and contradictions and overly rosy picture you point out.)
To me, the importance of having a theory of language that includes reframing thinking AS language (and reframing it as collective as well) is that it allows us as analysts to make claims that we couldn't make otherwise (but maybe those are claims that you would be uncomfortable making anyway). If we continue to ascribe to the notion that thinking is an individual activity that takes place in the head, then language becomes "just" a tool for communication, and anything we understand about discourse can be dismissed as not being "real" - what is "real" is only in our heads, and can't be accessed through analyzing language.
If, instead, we relocate what is "real" to the dialogue that is visible between us, the claims we can make are much greater. But yeah, that's definitely not a move most researchers are willing to make (or buy into!)