[Xmca-l] Re: Objective and Subjective ZPDs

[Andy Blunden]

Great article by Seth, David. So thoroughly researched and 
clearly explained.
I think the problem with the notion of subjective and 
objective ZPDs is that like many others before him Seth has 
mixed up the subjective/objective distinction with the 
categories of universal, individual and particular, which is 
also why we get the "more or less" entering into what is 
supposed to be objective. A N Leontyev does the same thing 
with meanings which are "more or less objective".
The culturally and historically normative is universal; that 
is what "universal" means. Like "normative" it does not mean 
"objective", as if every individual had the same one. They 
don't.
What Seth calls the "subjective" ZPD should be called 
"individual." It is no more subjective than the so-called 
"objective ZPD.
What is missing is that the universal it only manifested in 
the "particular" conditions of each family, school, etc., 
and it is this particular which is actual (=acting) for the 
given child, and not "more or less" active.
ZPD is best retained, I think, as the concept which is both 
subjective and objective and inseparably so. Talking about 
subjective *and* objective ZPDs may have heuristic and 
pedagogical value, but I think it can, in the end, also 
contribute to confusion.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 6/09/2015 9:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
> Sure, Andy. I think there's a copy on the lchc discussions 
> site. But here's a pdf of an early draft from Gordon 
> Wells' course pack.
>
> David Kellogg
>
> On Sun, Sep 6, 2015 at 6:56 PM, Andy Blunden 
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     David, do you have a PDF of an article which explains
>     this double-barrelled concept?
>     Andy
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     *Andy Blunden*
>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>     On 6/09/2015 6:26 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
>         Martin, Andy, Mike...and Others:
>
>         I've been trying to make sense out of Seth
>         Chaiklin's distinction between
>         the "objective" ZPD and the subjective one. He's
>         obviously got in mind
>         exactly the material we are now translating:
>         Vygotsky's attempt to render
>         the ZPD as a "next zone of development", where the
>         next zone of development
>         is either
>
>         a) given by the social situation of development
>         (and therefore more or less
>         the same for a whole age group of children).
>
>         b) given by the "ripening functions" in the lines
>         of development (and
>         therefore different for every individual child).
>
>         So here's what I've got in chart form. As you'll
>         see, it's very different
>         from the chart that Andy had in his 2009 article,
>         and also somewhat
>         different from the very elegant formulations that
>         Martin had (which to my
>         chagrin I can't remember very well).
>
>         I've added a column of linguistic indicators taken
>         from Halliday's 2002
>         volume on early childhood language, because I have
>         to be able to apply all
>         this to data some day very soon.....
>
>         This is a very sketchy schematicky sort of
>         preliminary draft, and
>         criticisms, objections, imprecations, and even
>         just gutteral mutterings
>         would be most welcome.
>
>         David Kellogg
>
>
>