Stony Brook University - SUNY Digital Repository

But this is a somewhat vague answer to that “How?” and to
that “Why?” This is owing, without a doubt, to the fact that
Perry’s study at Harvard consisted solely of interviews with
students who had been exposed to that “diversity” and “pluralism
of values and points of view.” There was no analysis of
pedagogy or observation of classroom practice. As Perry himself
admits towards the end of his report, “[T]he steps between [his
developmental scheme’s] generalities and practical educational
applications will remain many and arduous” (209). This
admission made very clear, he does offer, from what he had taken
away from those students’ experiences with relativism, some
conclusions about their motivation and about the “administrative
and instructional implications” for stoking that motivation. Of
motivation, Perry concludes that, because “[a] student’s
movement from one Position to another involves the
reorganization of major personal investments” (49), progress or
not towards relativism was utterly dependent upon “some urge,
yearning, and standard proper to the person himself” (51).
Despite a “press” from the environment, whether from instructors
or family or peers, movement towards or away from relativism did
not happen unless the students themselves were prepared to move.
As Perry concludes: “A student’s movement, or lack of movement,
could therefore be conceived as the resultant of […] the urge to
progress and the urge to conserve. These forces would be
153