Quote from: PseudoephedrineMarxists didn't invent the term "political correctness". A bunch of university students and administrators broadly on the left, but holding a fairly wide variety of theoretical and political commitments did.

Various sources I've looked at trace it back to Marxist, Stalinist, and/or Maoist documents going back to the 1960s even before left-leaning university students and administrators got a hold of the phrase.  

The Wikipedia entry claims "The term "political correctness' is said to derive from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the 'party line'."  The Answers.com version says, "Originally used by old-guard communists to mean toeing the party line[...]".  If you have a better description of the phrase's origins, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThey probably do. This doesn't seem particularly relevant to our discussion though.

It's relevant (A) because it describes the concept you were talking about and (B) it's development shows how a term or phrase coined in earnest and with positive intentions can turn into a pejorative because of how people react to what it describes and those who promote it.

Quote from: John MorrowVarious sources I've looked at trace it back to Marxist, Stalinist, and/or Maoist documents going back to the 1960s even before left-leaning university students and administrators got a hold of the phrase.  

The Wikipedia entry claims "The term "political correctness' is said to derive from Marxist-Leninist vocabulary to describe the 'party line'."  The Answers.com version says, "Originally used by old-guard communists to mean toeing the party line[...]".  If you have a better description of the phrase's origins, I'd be happy to take a look at it.

The wikipedia entry you cite continues "...By the 1970s this term, re-appropriated as a satirical form of criticism, was being used by some on the Left to dismiss the views of other Leftists whom they deemed too doctrinaire and rigid. It was in this sense that the popular usage of the phrase in English derived"

The Answers.com disagrees only insofar as it says that "political correctness" was appropriated as a satirical term by members of the Right to attack progressive causes.

Both seem to trace the origin of the phrase's ordinary use in English to this period (the 1970's-80's), rather than back to Stalinism or whatnot, and in both cases, the ordinary use is an appropriation intended to assist one in demeaning various viewpoints and causes associated with the Left, rather than a term used seriously by people described by others as "politically correct" to self-label.

QuoteIt's relevant (A) because it describes the concept you were talking about and (B) it's development shows how a term or phrase coined in earnest and with positive intentions can turn into a pejorative because of how people react to what it describes and those who promote it.

I must admit, it's still unclear how this bears on the discussion, which is about socialist paedogogy and more generally, education that teaches students controversial political opinions. I don't deny that it might, but can you explain further why it is? The students were being taught something that might fall within the broad umbrella of "political correctness". This isn't intrinsically bad.

For example, I don't call black people "niggers" because I realise that to do so is politically unacceptable (both to me and to others), and I realised so from being taught that conducting myself in this way was unacceptable. That sort of thing is hardly some nefarious Bolshevik plot we have to protect our kids from.

It's unclear why learning about alternative economic arrangements is worse than learning not to call people "niggers", except that most of us agree that calling people "niggers" is a bad thing to do, while we do not agree about which economic arrangement is best.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineBoth seem to trace the origin of the phrase's ordinary use in English to this period (the 1970's-80's), rather than back to Stalinism or whatnot, and in both cases, the ordinary use is an appropriation intended to assist one in demeaning various viewpoints and causes associated with the Left, rather than a term used seriously by people described by others as "politically correct" to self-label.

The relevant point is how it went from being a Marxist term and a term used seriously and then self-mockingly by people on the left to such an effective way to demean the Leftist obsession with language and terminology.  Perhaps you think that was all accidental and inexplicable, but I don't.  And I think the explanation will explain how terms like "collectivism", "indoctrination", and so on can be both accurate and pejorative.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineFor example, I don't call black people "niggers" because I realise that to do so is politically unacceptable (both to me and to others), and I realised so from being taught that conducting myself in this way was unacceptable.

I do find it curious that you do apparently find it politically acceptable to toss it out a racist word to make a point in fairly trivial Internet discussion when eluding to it would have been sufficient.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThat sort of thing is hardly some nefarious Bolshevik plot we have to protect our kids from.

No, but I also wouldn't say that teaching children not to use that term or various perspectives about racism has no agenda nor would I say that using examples of the sort described in the article to illustrate the problems with racism was "exploring" the issue in a neutral way or letting the children "discover" racism is bad on their own.  Let's call it what it is instead of pretending that it's something else.

Quote from: PseudoephedrineIt's unclear why learning about alternative economic arrangements is worse than learning not to call people "niggers", except that most of us agree that calling people "niggers" is a bad thing to do, while we do not agree about which economic arrangement is best.

That is a large part of why it is problematic.  It's also problematic because they claimed they were doing something that they weren't and because they were emotionally jerking around 8 year-olds.  And I don't think anyone who disagrees with what these teachers were doing have hidden the fact that they disagree with their political, social, and economic perspective or, at the very least, their methods.

Quote from: John MorrowThe relevant point is how it went from being a Marxist term and a term used seriously and then self-mockingly by people on the left to such an effective way to demean the Leftist obsession with language and terminology.  Perhaps you think that was all accidental and inexplicable, but I don't.  And I think the explanation will explain how terms like "collectivism", "indoctrination", and so on can be both accurate and pejorative.

Then please provide such an explanation.

QuoteI do find it curious that you do apparently find it politically acceptable to toss it out a racist word to make a point in fairly trivial Internet discussion when eluding to it would have been sufficient.

I am not "politically correct", if that's what you thought. I am not even on the left. I think the word is problematic when you are hurling it at someone as an insult, or using it to classify and demean an entire group of people. It has no magic power. Mentioning it in an example does not sour milk or cause women to miscarry. Are you implying I am a racist because I mentioned teaching children not to use the word "nigger" is a beneficial but politically-charged task of educators? That seems a rather silly interpretation.

Also, to head off something at the pass - I am using the words "use" and "mention" here as the terms are used in philosophy of language, where they are means of referring to different referents a term's utterance might point to.

QuoteNo, but I also wouldn't say that teaching children not to use that term or various perspectives about racism has no agenda nor would I say that using examples of the sort described in the article to illustrate the problems with racism was "exploring" the issue in a neutral way or letting the children "discover" racism is bad on their own.  Let's call it what it is instead of pretending that it's something else.

No one is pretending it is anything than an attempt to persuade the children of a particular political viewpoint. The authors haven't and I haven't. I stated quite some time ago that if someone wants to assert that the authors were dishonest in teaching the kids about socialism, they should provide some evidence that the authors were dishonest.

So far as can be discerned from the evidence of the article, they seem to have made it clear through their discussions with the students that they preferred resource-sharing and consensus-based societies. They prefer these kinds of societies, and they made the class play games that would model certain problems with current economic arrangements and highlight the more persuasive elements of the economic models they prefer. You might disagree with the message the teachers are teaching, but they don't seem to've taught it dishonestly.

QuoteThat is a large part of why it is problematic.  It's also problematic because they claimed they were doing something that they weren't and because they were emotionally jerking around 8 year-olds.

It should be pointed out that neither James J Skach nor Spike think that emotionally jerking around 8 year-olds is wrong. As Spike said, he disagreed with the way they were jerked around (not that they were jerked around), and Skach has revealed that he feels his children are his property and should hold the same viewpoints he does.

Now, the claim that they were emotionally jerking around 8 year-olds, but it's unclear that they were. They were certainly persuading the children and putting them in situations where the teachers' preferred political viewpoint was the optimal one, but that isn't really "emotionally jerking [them] around", unless you consider any attempt at persuasion as such.

QuoteAnd I don't think anyone who disagrees with what these teachers were doing have hidden the fact that they disagree with their political, social, and economic perspective or, at the very least, their methods.

I never claimed that they did. I claimed that they did not provide sufficient justification for their positions. I think the teachers are just as open about their disdain capitalism as anyone else has been in their disdain for "collectivism". I don't think that makes either group dishonest.

Pseudo, if you want to defend sophomoric armchair communism, you might as well package it more nicely, maybe even entertaining or with any artistic value. Like Pete Seeger.

Quote from: SettembriniPseudo, if you want to defend sophomoric armchair communism, you might as well package it more nicely, maybe even entertaining or with any artistic value. Like Pete Seeger.

Er, I realise English isn't your first language, but you do realise I'm not defending communism, right? I'm actually defending just about the most standard classical liberal position in existence (and one of the few that I like) - the right of all opinions to be voiced in the public sphere, whether we agree with them or not.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine[...] you do realise I'm not defending communism, right? I'm actually defending just about the most standard classical liberal position in existence (and one of the few that I like) - the right of all opinions to be voiced in the public sphere, whether we agree with them or not.

No, you're not.

When you're J. Random Geek on a forum, then you're voicing an opinion. When you're teaching children, then you're imposing an opinion.

Compare:

• JimBobOz speaks to the chef next to him in the kitchen, "Americans are stupid." That's voicing an opinion, my fellow adult is well-equipped to decide whether they think I'm wrong or right, they've the mental faculties to decide for themselves.
  
• JimBobOz speaks to his five year old nephew, "Americans are stupid." That's imposing an opinion, because a five year naturally looks up to me as their uncle (or teacher), and will assume what I say is true.

It's not right to impose my opinions on children, whether they be opinions in favour of communism or capitalism or Christianity or whatever. Children should be provided with varying opinions so that as they mature and come to understand them, they can choose what the think is good for them.

So, you're not defending the teacher's right to free speech, you're defending their right to impose their ideas about society on children under their care - their communist ideas. You are, thus, defending communism.

Bollocks. How should children be "provided with varying opinions" if anyone with any authority telling them about those opinions counts as "imposing" the viewpoint onto them? If anything, the teachers imposed less than in an ordinary classroom. They don't mention testing the kids for marks on their ability to share or giving detention to the ones who disagreed, or any other punishment or loss being inflicted for disagreement. If discussion without punishment counts as "imposition" then what doesn't? How are these opinions provided to children so that they can make choices about them?

Besides that, I'm not so sure that just because the teachers try to convince the kids that consensus-building and resource-sharing (the teachers aren't "communists", Kyle, at least not based on any information we have about them) are good that the kids will adopt those positions as true.

As an example, I was told all sorts of things by my teachers that I disagreed with, even as a child. And despite whatever "imposition" they made on me then, I still disagree with much of what they believed. I imagine it's the same with you, and with most everyone else on this forum.

Because children are most accepting of the opinions of their parents and their teachers; it's their opinions which are imposed, rarely than merely voiced; context matters. The context of the home or the classroom is of imposition, the children have no choice.

Marks and punishment are not important to a child, except in that they reflect approval or disapproval. Approval and disapproval were well-expressed by these teachers without any need for grades to be given or bottoms smacked.

Notice also that when some children were excluded from the Lego in the beginning, there was no consideration as to whether the children were choosing to exclude themselves - not every child likes Lego. The teachers could have offered these children other toys, but instead they insisted that everyone play with the Lego. Nobody could choose not to involve themselves in the imaginary Lego society. Child Thoreaus were not permitted their Walden Ponds, child intentional communities were not permitted their Ithaca Villages. Why? So the teachers could experiment on them.  

Consensus wasn't built in the classroom, a mode of behaviour was imposed on the children. Resource-sharing was likewise imposed. The children were forced, not encouraged or given suggestions. The teachers did not simply try to convince the children that consensus-building and resource-sharing are good, they imposed them on them. Imposing unanimity of expressed opinion and equal sharing of resources is communism in its practiced form. Note for example how the teachers expressed approval of the student who said that everyone's house should be exactly the same - that's not simply equal share of resources, that's uniformity - you can have equal resources but build different things with them - and uniformity, too, is an example of communism as practiced.

Don't underestimate the influence of parents and teachers. Our parents' and teachers' teaching does not determine us, but it does shape us. Imagine for example a child brought up as Amish; they may not grow up to be devoutly Amish and live that lifestyle, but it's very unlikely they'll convert to Wahhabi Islam. When considering our parents and teachers, we focus on our differences from them, and are often unaware of our similarities. If a third person were to view us both, they'd see our similarities. Don't underestimate the influence of parents and teachers.

No parent or teacher can avoid imposing some views on the child - shaping them in some way. But beyond certain universally good things like basic courtesy and honesty, we should minimise our shaping.

Your last statement, before descending into the attempt to paint me as ranting to avoid the discussion, is that I responded to you, not the other way around.  This is true.  What is interesting is that before this discussion evolved into an argument over the meanings of words, I asked you a series of questions. Those questions and your answer for review:

Quote from: James J. SkachSo, are you of the opinion that these teachers didn't set out to teach that collectivism is the opitmal system of social organization?

Quote from: PseuduephedrineThere is no system of social organisation called "collectivism". They certainly set out to teach the children that developing consensus within a community about issues that affect that community and sharing resources within that community are superior ways to act to asserting ownership claims and confronting or excluding others when they attempt to trespass on one's ownership claims.

The authors of the article are the most likely authority to legitimately characterize their own efforts.  This way, there doesn't need to be a discussion as to whether or not descriptions are accurate according to whom.

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra Pelojoaquin Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.

Quote from: James J. SkachAre you of the opinion that it's OK to attempt to indoctrinate 8 year olds in the ideology of the teachers (there is no mention that this is a particular ideology of the school - something that parents would expect to be taught)?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe words "indoctrination" and "ideology" here are pejorative. I do think the teachers intended to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, and specifically, the ones I stated just above. I think that activity of this kind, even if not these specific positions, is not just something teachers do, but something everyone does. We constantly try to persuade others that our opinions are correct. So long as we don't try to dishonestly persuade them, there is nothing wrong with this.

Leave aside whether or not they are pejorative or if they are accurate.  Combining your language with the teachers provides the following:

The teachers intended to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, specifically the superiority of collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.
 
The remainder of your response as to whether or not this practice (in the pervious sentence) is OK, and I'm paraphrasing so please correct as you see fit, is that it is acceptable as everyone does it. As long as the attempt to convince is honest, there's nothing wrong with it.

So now we're up to:
It's acceptable for the teachers to cause the pupils to develop certain viewpoints of a political nature, specifically the superiority of collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation, as long as the attempt is honest - as it is a common human practice to convince others.

Quote from: James J. SkachWould you have the same reaction if the teachers had seen the kids spontaneously creating a collectivist approach to Lego City, but after a disaster were taught capitalism as the optimal system of social organization (under the guise of "exploring power")? To eight-year-olds?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineYes.

Perhaps the most straightforward answer in the entire thread.

Quote from: James J. SkachIf they were truly attempting to explore power, wouldn't they have covered more than just their preferred ideological bent?

Quote from: PseudoephedrineNow that's a good point (except for the "ideology" part). I don't agree that it makes what the teachers did dishonest though. They clearly were trying to persuade the children that their viewpoint was correct - they were not dishonestly claiming to be presenting a dispassionate viewpoint of both system.

To tie it all together, I'll sum up a bit.

• The teachers set out to instill a certain set of beliefs in the children.
• In your opinion, this is acceptable as long as it's honest because everyone does this.
• You would defend the teachers just as strongly if the sets of beliefs were flipped.
• While a true examination of power probably should have covered more than the set of beliefs of the teachers, it's still not dishonest because they did not claim to be presenting a dispassionate viewpoint.

Only, the teachers were dishonest. As JimBob points out, the first problem is in the position of authority these teachers have over the children.  It might not be overtly employed, but to paraphrase "it's inherent in the system."

Now one might argue that this could be mitigated by making it very clear to the children that the authority of the teachers should in no way influence the children's decisions. In fact, the authors appear to make this attempt (whether for the children's benefit, the audience's, or the teacher's own guilt is unclear):

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinAfter nearly an hour of passionate exchange, we brought the conversation to a close, reminding the children that we teachers didn't have an answer already figured out about Legotown. We assured them that we were right there with them in this process of getting clearer about what hadn't worked well in Legotown, and understanding how we could create a community of fairness about Legos.

This is dishonest at best, an outright lie at worst. They did have the answer, at least with respect to the characteristics of the system they believed should be used in rebuilding Legotown:

Quote from: Ann Pelo and Kendra PelojoaquinWe saw the decimation of Lego-town as an opportunity to launch a critical evaluation of Legotown and the inequities of private ownership and hierarchical authority on which it was founded. Our intention was to promote a contrasting set of values: collectivity, collaboration, resource-sharing, and full democratic participation.

You may not like the terms used to describe the teacher's beliefs or there actions. Based on common definitions and usages (including the authors' use of one of the words in question), they are accurate; but you can feel free to argue otherwise.  Whether or not "collectivism" is what the teachers wanted to promote or if "indoctrination" should require a dogmatic approach, attempts to focus on this aspect completely miss the point.

The teachers, in a position of authority, set out to cause the children to develop certain political viewpoints. To do so, they told the children that they didn't already have the answers figured out. This is dishonest. If you wish to disagree with that, I'd be happy to discuss it further – to see your counter argument that this was simply an exercise in learning that led the children to a conclusion not influenced by the teachers' preconceived outcome. We can discuss how the games created depicted ownership as a product of sheer good luck and exchange of onwership as a zero-sum game. We can explore whether those are valid excercises for a group that claims to the children to be exploring issues of power and ownership without prejudice.

If you want to argue about the meanings of words, that can be done elsewhere.

When did I say that I supported emotionally jerking children around?

Quote from: JimBobOzBecause children are most accepting of the opinions of their parents and their teachers; it's their opinions which are imposed, rarely than merely voiced; context matters. The context of the home or the classroom is of imposition, the children have no choice.

Then why is the ordinary imposition of the classroom acceptable, but this imposition isn't? After all, history lessons in ordinary classrooms have specific political viewpoints which they attempt to convince the children of. Should children not be taught history because it, under your view, necessarily involves imposition? That seems to follow from your position.

QuoteMarks and punishment are not important to a child, except in that they reflect approval or disapproval. Approval and disapproval were well-expressed by these teachers without any need for grades to be given or bottoms smacked.

It's unclear why merely expressing approval and disapproval alone now counts as imposition. If the children were made to suffer for dissenting, by being shamed, by losing marks or by being punished with things like detention, it would be clear how the teachers are imposing on them. But for someone, even someone you respect, to say "I disagree" or "I disapprove" is not an imposition. It's part of the give and take of public discussion.

I agree that if imposition were going on, it would be bad, but I think that you're stretching here to call this "imposition", and to show that what the teachers have done is wrong. I don't like the position they did advocate in the classroom, but I don't think their methods of advocating it were pernicious.

QuoteNotice also that when some children were excluded from the Lego in the beginning, there was no consideration as to whether the children were choosing to exclude themselves - not every child likes Lego. The teachers could have offered these children other toys, but instead they insisted that everyone play with the Lego.

Only in the sense that they looked at some issues they thought were involved in the LEGO situation and then led a classroom activity based on them. Teachers setting up activities that involve the whole class might be an imposition, but it doesn't seem like a particularly nefarious one.

QuoteNobody could choose not to involve themselves in the imaginary Lego society. Child Thoreaus were not permitted their Walden Ponds, child intentional communities were not permitted their Ithaca Villages. Why? So the teachers could experiment on them.

Your first statement there is unsupported by evidence. The children were all involved in the LEGO game, but nobody says anything about mandatory participation in LEGOtown beyond that.

As to the little Thoreaus and Ithaca Villages, once again, this does not seem to be a specific charge against these teachers so much as a rejection of teaching as such. Is your critique meant to be a general critique of modern education? Because it seems like it is over-general, applying to any attempt by a teacher to coordinate a classroom, to persuade students of a viewpoint, or to get everyone involved in an activity.

QuoteConsensus wasn't built in the classroom, a mode of behaviour was imposed on the children. Resource-sharing was likewise imposed. The children were forced, not encouraged or given suggestions.

That's contrary to what is stated in the article. Do you have information about this situation outside of the article? According to the article, the children discussed things extensively with the adults.

QuoteThe teachers did not simply try to convince the children that consensus-building and resource-sharing are good, they imposed them on them.

What sort of activity is this "convincing" that does not also fall under "imposition" as you've defined the term? How does it work if it doesn't involve discussing things openly with the children without threat of punishment?

QuoteImposing unanimity of expressed opinion and equal sharing of resources is communism in its practiced form. Note for example how the teachers expressed approval of the student who said that everyone's house should be exactly the same - that's not simply equal share of resources, that's uniformity - you can have equal resources but build different things with them - and uniformity, too, is an example of communism as practiced.

Once again, it's unclear how they "imposed" on the students except by approving and disapproving of certain opinions the students had, or how this differs from any other sort of education.

QuoteDon't underestimate the influence of parents and teachers. Our parents' and teachers' teaching does not determine us, but it does shape us. Imagine for example a child brought up as Amish; they may not grow up to be devoutly Amish and live that lifestyle, but it's very unlikely they'll convert to Wahhabi Islam. When considering our parents and teachers, we focus on our differences from them, and are often unaware of our similarities. If a third person were to view us both, they'd see our similarities. Don't underestimate the influence of parents and teachers.

I'm not. But it's a far stretch from "we are influenced by our teachers and parents" to "Communist teachers produce communist children" especially when those kids live in an otherwise semi-capitalist society. Your own example turns against you here. Just as the Amish are unlikely to convert to Wahabbism, children raised in a capitalist society are unlikely to convert to violent Marxist-Leninism (which seems to be the fear here, with all the mentions of communism and Stalinism).

QuoteNo parent or teacher can avoid imposing some views on the child - shaping them in some way. But beyond certain universally good things like basic courtesy and honesty, we should minimise our shaping.

This doesn't seem to leave any role for education, once again. We certainly shouldn't try to make children in our own image by any means possible, but I fail to see why it's bad to try to persuade them in all the same ways we try to persuade a reasonable person. Honesty and rote custom don't seem like a firm foundation for moral character just by themselves.

A child needs to learn how justification and judgment work, what kinds of arguments are good ones and which bad, what kinds of things are good and bad and why they are, and so on. We can teach them these things in a reasonable and dignifying manner, and that's what education, ideally, does. If we can't do those things without doing something bad in the process, then we can't teach kids.

Quote from: SpikeWhen did I say that I supported emotionally jerking children around?

When you stated that the adults should have stepped in and started shouting and issuing commands and using threats of punishment to get the children in line. That shit is terrifying to kids, and doing it just involves using fear to get them into line with what you want.

What the teachers didn't say :

 "Those damn kids !! They were having fun! How dare they.(!) Next thing you know they'll want add rules and maybe even dice.  We don't want them addicted to anything  RPG -like . Oh no!! "

 
 - E.W.C.

Quote from: KoltarWhat the teachers didn't say :

 "Those damn kids !! They were having fun! How dare they.(!) Next thing you know they'll want add rules and maybe even dice.  We don't want them addicted to anything  RPG -like . Oh no!! "

 
 - E.W.C.

But they would have, if they knew what an RPG was. They would have stopped the bad-wrong fun before 'brain damage' set in.