About: 123 lines of embryology of play

Eva Ekeblad (eva.ekeblad who-is-at ped.gu.se)
Thu, 21 Aug 1997 20:53:31 +0200

Reading Mike, quoting Hamburger:

76 ...in embryology the
77. question of the function of early behavior is controversial.
78. Viktor Hamburger, in an article from the 1957 book on *The
79. Concept of Development* writes, "One can make the general
80. statement that organization and structure develop in forward
81. reference to functional activity, but without its participation
82. as a determining agent. Organs build up first, and thereafter
83. they are taken into use" (p. 54).

I think: oh-ho, this is the same idea as FIRST learning stuff at school and
THEN applying it. Planned actions and savings in the bank. Postponed
functionality: reality starts day after tomorrow... what a waste!! so when

85. Cole&Cole argue that early behavior IS functional

it comes as a relief: play is not just preparing for the future, but also
has functions in the present. Nothing is wasted, longterm functionality
emerges when present functionality is viewed on a different timescale --
that is, not just viewed, but also lived on a different timescale as every
present co-constitutes the life trajectory of a system.... I mean: a child!
I suppose that what Mike means by:

97. ...perhaps it is right here
98. that we find the crucial difference made by the cultural
99. medium; prolepsis acts as both anticipator and inducer.

=2E..is that there is a "dual" functionality to play (and other forms of
learning as well?).

So play as a certain way of moving-in-the-world anticipates future
competences but it also means moving in the here-and-now in a way that
brings a perspective into the present, relating the present to what is NOT
the here-and-now. As Ana M. Shane wrote at 02.07 +0000 97-08-21:

>Play
>is communication NOT of a direct relationship but ABOUT a possible
>relationship. It is a comment, and as such it requires a perspective.

and

>If you cross Bateson's theory with Vygotsky's it will immediately appear
>that PLAY is the first means by which ABOUT can become a quality of
>communication. A direct relationship, a direct communication of an attack
>or dependency of an infant or of a sexual attraction and mating needs or
>anything else, does not need to have an explicit ABOUT quality because it
>is a direct action of one being toward another being.

Bringing a perspective into the interaction through play puts co-regulation
into motion towards communication. It would all be there in the embryonic
stage of cultural interaction, too: in the "direct" relationships THIS
coincides with ABOUT THIS, and the shift beginning to pry apart the
here-and-now relationship and the imagined (suggested, desired, etc...)
relationship could be an ever so slight shift in perspective, an ever so
slight change in the way of moving-in-the-world.

89. Is a new mechanism involved?
90. Or might the embryological principles simply be playing themselves
91. out in a new medium?

Well, yes: they might.

Eva
cooking xmca stew...