Marginalia

This potpourri issue contains articles including: *

the effect of acts of liturgical memory on the gathered assembly of worshipers in elucidating the past and reshaping the future (Belcher, et al.)

To be sure, Piaget’s work has received global acclaim for decades as well as positively affected areas such as parenting and school curricula. Still today, Piaget is regarded as one of the most seminal figures in developmental psychology. Though his work has undergone criticism, particularly for underestimating childhood abilities and the age at which cognitive development occurs, Piaget’s contributions to child psychology and cognitive development remain both trailblazing and significant.

Nevertheless, one of Piaget’s main critics was his contemporary and also a major seminal figure – the prominent Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934). He agreed with Piaget that experience with physical objects – tangibles – is a crucial factor in cognitive development, but Vygotsky disagreed with Piaget that he had captured the full picture.

Vygotsky emphasized the fundamental role of social interaction in the development of cognition, as he believed strongly that community plays a central role in the process of “making meaning.” So, Vygotsky sought the underpinnings of how people learn in a social environment and, therefore, created a unique theory on social learning. Culture was a primary determinant of knowledge acquisition for Vygotsky who consequently argued that children learn from the beliefs and attitudes and actions modeled by the historical and cultural influences around the child’s world – such as family, friends, teachers, coaches, and may we boldly add communities of faith – all of which aid in a child’s understanding of the world and play a paramount role in the child’s learning and development. For Vygotsky, the social environment – where he claimed higher mental functions originate – in which children grow up will influence how they think and what they think about. Underline the verb “think” as in “cognition.” In sum, Vygotsky's sociocultural theory views human development as a socially mediated process in which children acquire their cultural values, beliefs, and problem-solving strategies through collaborative dialogues with other members of society – thus, the “socializing of intelligence”.

In light of the above, permitting children’s admission to the Lord’s Supper based on their cognitive understanding of the sacrament would seem to both narrowly circumscribe and vastly underestimate the developmental abilities of young children as well as overrate adults’ fully comprehending the mysterion of bread and cup.

Worth contemplating is a parents’ account of an impromptu experience of overhearing the sounds of animated conversation and exuberant mood of their children engaged in sandbox play with other friends. Pausing for a few minutes to see what was happening, the parents observed the children joyfully shaping some forms from the sand and, then reciting the sursum corda, and bits and pieces of the semblance of a eucharistic prayer including the words of institution, replete with gestures of bread-breaking and cup-pouring followed by sharing of their imaginary bread and cup with each other.

Kind of seems like less a commemoration cognitively understood and more a Vygotsky-like, vicarious celebrative proclamation actively experienced. We adults have much to learn from children if we can open our eyes and ears to their world instead of trying to make them see and hear things the way we adults do. Maybe we adults need to grow up to become children again. Perhaps that is what Jesus was telling us when he said you have to be a child to enter the kingdom of God (Lk. 18:17) and, maybe, also the Lord’s Supper in the name of Christ.

–pcb, e-i-c