3 ms·
We Banned Legos (2006)
- Tomte 3y agoBecause only Legos are capable of ownership? That social dynamic won‘t exist with other toys? And if it isn‘t inevitable, couldn‘t a new Legotown be different than the old?
- ColinWright 3y agoI found it ... interesting ... when I read right to the end. It's not an easy read, it's quite turgid and something of a slog, but I found some of the discussion intriguing.
- AlexandrB 3y ago> We met as a teaching staff later that day. We 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. Communist nonsense. And the ultimate irony is that, just as in communist regimes, an ultimate authority simply removed all the goodies from "the people" so they could all be equal in their lack of legos. Edit: > hierarchical authority Another thought about this: would these teachers have accepted a decision/outcome from the kids that was not some variation on the communal ownership model they eventually arrived at? I suspect not. Ultimately the kids were free to make decisions "democratically" as long as those decisions didn't threaten the power or ideology of the only real power in the room: the teachers.
- quantified 3y agoAnd as long as the kids could claim ownership of resources that they found or were offered and actually belonged to someone else (the school).