I would like to be able to engage in dialogue with another subject but I am
forced to understand that subject's history, personality, assumptions,
knowledge, and power. If I can't meet or match my fellow subject on these
criteria our communication breaks down and one of us becomes "marginal" to
the other (we cease being co-subjects). Whichever one of us is most
powerfully affiliated with other linked subjects gets to define what is
whole and what is part. And I am not making a purely political argument
here; I understand these functions to be essentially "hardwired" into our
consciousness.
Or am I looking at the efforts to synthesize the social and the individual
through a structuralist lens that forces a mundane categorical analysis?
Chris Francovich
> From: James Wertsch <jwertsch who-is-at artsci.wustl.edu>
>
> For [Vygotsky], the point was that the _same_ mental functions appear
> on the intermental and intramental planes. Furthermore, the fact that
> mediational means, or cultural tools inherently shape processes on both
> planes means that the connection between individual and social processes
> is even closer. From this perspective, the important point is to view
> neural, mediational, social, economic, and other such processes as
> _moments_ in human action rather than stand-alone entities.
>
>
>