As I continued to read Vygotsky's text on defectology more
closely he did appear to endorse inclusion as the way of the
furure. The dielemna with inclusion for Vygotsky was how
children with disabilities were treated in the regular school.
He argued it dialectically as follows; children with
disabilities integrated in the old school was the thesis,
special education as the antithesis, and inclusion being the
synthesis. (my words) He saw the future as every teacher being
a special education teacher. I think part of my confusion was
the chronological order of the text. In one chapter he was
argueing for special education, later on he was argueing for
inclusion, and still later on he appeared to be accepting of
Binet who he strongly attacked earlier in the book. After I was
able to move away from the chronological way I normally read a
book, I was able to make more since of his progression of ideas.
I remember being attacted to Vygotsky because of my impression
of the value he placed on context. In Thought and Language he
tells a story of the drunks to have an indepth conversation
using only one word of profanity. He further argues against the
German phonics method because it takes away from the meaning
from the text. For me, context takes a on a socialcultural
significance, while meaning has a person solo significance.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole <mcole who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Monday, June 01, 1998 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: Vygotsky and Inclusion
>Hi Nate-- Your questions about Vygotsky and heterogeneous
>grouping of kids is an excellent one and your puzzlement seems
>perfectly normal to me.
>
>Following a cultural tradition that is part of my personal
history,
>let me respond to your question with another question.
>
>In many places, including intro texts on developmental theory,
>Vygotsky is characterized as a contextualist. How did this
reading
>come about? Is it findable in, for example, *Thinking and
Speech?*?
>
>Your question and my question bring us back to a point
discussed
>earlier: when we "read Vygotsky" how much of what we read did
LSV
>actually write (as opposed to what his students said he said
when
>they took notes?). How much of it is deliberate selective
appropriation?
>
>Thanks for the good questions.
>mike
>