I have El'konin's 1971 article at
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/elkonin2.html
It seems to address many of the issues you mentioned in your post. It sees
the personality coming about out of the dialectics of the affective and
intellectual spheres of development. One could read affective as social
and intellectual as biological pretty safely. I see El'konin as
synthesising Piagetian, Freudian (Erickson) and Vygotskian ideas into a
unified developmental framework.
Nate
-----Original Message-----
From: Elsa de Mattos <emattos who-is-at magiclink.com.br>
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Friday, March 12, 1999 12:05 AM
Subject: Family microcultures
People tend to strongly rely on genetic/inherited or sterotyped aspects
when considering personality, I mean, they rely on personality traits and
other static aspects. But, in my opinion, we have to consider more deeply
the dynamic aspects. In the discussion with teachers, they were referring
to
the relationship between culture and personality in classroom practices.
They were considering personality in a very superficial/static way, talking
about how student's personality frame learning styles (a concept that I
don't like very much). I started to think and I want to bring them to think
together with me in a more dynamic way. I asked them to reflect on the
question: isn't that family microcultures that frame personality ?
What do you think about this question ? What could be a good development to
it ?
Hope someone can help me on this.
Elsa
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Timothy Koschmann <tkoschmann who-is-at acm.org>
Para: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Data: Quinta-feira, 11 de Margo de 1999 18:05
Assunto: Re: Functionalist Dilemma
>> What is the meaning of "functionalist" in this case ? Elsa
>
>Elsa,
>Several people have responded describing the functionalist in sociology
and
>I don't really have anything to add to that.
>
>Your question, however, brought to mind a discussion that I had with one
of
>my colleagues recently. We were reading a chapter by Bill Clancey on
>situated cognition. Clancey makes reference to the "functional
hypothesis"
>as discussed by Newell and Simon and also to "functional psychology" as a
>school usually associated with Dewey. I raised the question as to whether
>or not the two terms were related.
>
>My first position was that the terminological convergence was
coincidental,
>but I'm not so sure anymore. The argument hinges on what you consider to
>be scope of functional psychology. If, (as has been argued by people like
>Eric Bredo) you consider functional psychology to be a "once and future
>discipline" (to appropriate a phrase from Mike), then there is no
>connection between the "functional hypothesis" and "functional
psychology".
>On the other hand, if you accept the use of "functional psychology" as a
>term that can be broadly applied to virtually all research in psychology
in
>this country since Dewey (the way the term is used in later editions of
>Hilgard and Bower's "Theories of Learning"), they are (at least weakly)
>related since today's cognitive psychology can be seen as Dewey's
>functionalism in yet another incarnation.
>---Tim
>
>
>