xmcamail.9907: A gentler, softer version of Vygotsky's genetic law

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BECFB3.D20B3CC0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="x-user-defined"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I decided to do a little archival digging and follow Vygotsky's argument =
to the genetic law. In relooking at my Collected Works, "Genesis of =
Higher Mental Functions" (1931) in *The History of the Development of =
Higher Mental Functions* we find that thing banned in the state of =
California, CONTEXT. =20

"Initially the sign is always a means of social connection, a means of =
affecting others, and only later does it become a means of affecting =
oneself"

"Research (Piaget) has demonstrated that there undoubtedly is a genetic =
connection between the child's arguments and his reflections. The very =
logic of the child confirms the basis of this. Conclusions initially in =
arguments among children and only later are they internalized by the =
child himself, linked to how his personality is manifested". =20

"For us to call a process external means to call it social. Every =
higher mental function was external because it was social behavior =
before it became an internal, strictly "mental" function; it was =
formerly a social relation of two people. The means of acting on =
oneself is initially a means of acting on others or a means of action of =
others on the individual".

"We can formulate the general genetic law of cultural development as =
follows: every function in the cultural development of the child appears =
twice, in two planes, first, the social, then the psychological, first =
between people as an inter"mental" category and then within the child as =
a intra"mental category".

"Formerly, it was assumed that the function exists in the individual in =
a ready, semi-ready, or rudimentary form and in the group it unfolds, =
becomes complex, advances, is enriched, or, conversely, is inhibited, =
suppressed etc. At present (1930 roughly), we have a basis for assuming =
that in relation to higher mental functions, the matter must be =
presented as being quite the opposite. Functions initially are formed =
in the group in the form of relations of the children, then they become =
mental functions of the individual. Specifically, formerly it was =
thought that every child was capable of reflection, reaching =
conclusions, proving, finding bases for whatever position. From the =
collision of such reflections, argument was generated. But the matter =
is actually something else. Studies (Piaget) show that reflection is =
generated from argument. The study of all other mental functions bring =
us to the same conclusion"=20

First, to be fair to Vygotsky I think we need to realize as Joseph Glick =
points out his emergence in the states was because of a perceived vacuum =
of the more structural Piagetian interpretations. So, like Marx, maybe =
both Vygotsky and Piaget would assert I an no Vygotskian or Piagetian. =
I found it more than interesting (I didn't catch it before) that he used =
Piaget's research to assert his genetic law. He casually mentioned =
Janet who historians (Van Der Veer & Valsiner) attribute the genetic =
law, but it was Piaget's research as well as his own that materialized =
it. =20

Second, I think as in Vygotsky's reference to gesture that he saw the =
individual very active in this process. To repeat the first quote "a =
means of affecting others and only later a means of affecting oneself". =
He saw the child active in both externalization and internalization. =
So, I think we need to differentiate somewhat the "Vygotsky we have =
constructed" and what Vygotsky actually said. So, for me the =
"deriviative" (1979) quote that Cobb offered was seen very differently =
than he probally saw it. Internalization for Vygotsky was a process and =
action ocurred within that process. The baby grasps for something (I =
think a case of intention can be made) and the act gets meaning because =
another responds (I think a case of intention can be made) and then the =
act becomes a gesture. I guess with the internalization/ transmission =
issue I get frustrated, because I do not get that impression from my =
Vygotsky texts. Sometimes I wonder if my text (in the Goodman sense) is =
just different from everybody elses, but the quotes above seem to convey =
the authors text (Vygotsky) may not be too far off from my own. I do =
know from searching for Vygotsky in different databases that most of the =
citings are from books that talk about him, rather than his actual =
texts. Friere talked about this in one of his books, something to the =
fact that when one asks a question, such as, in so and so's book they =
said you argued this or that, he refused to answer the question until =
they had read what he actually wrote. =20

Lastly, I think your point of primacy is important and may be a tension =
between 'Marxist' and pragmatist explanations of culture and context. =
The last quote seems to me to put Vygotsky with the former not the =
latter. Maybe its more of a philosophical than pragmatic =
differentiation. Personally, it becomes difficult to understand =
Vygotsky if I don't assume the primacy of the social/society/culture. I =
tend to like Holzman and Newman's differentiation 'tools for results' =
and 'tools and results'. The "and" being representative of a dialectic =
in that the two emerged together rather than seperately. In this sense =
neither has a primacy because there is no such thing as an 'individual =
without society' or 'society without individuals'. =20

People with great passions, people who accomplish great deeds,
People who possess strong feelings even people with great minds
and a strong personality, rarely come out of good little boys and girls
L.S. Vygotsky=20

------=_NextPart_000_0017_01BECFB3.D20B3CC0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="x-user-defined"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

"Research (Piaget) has = demonstrated that=20 there undoubtedly is a genetic connection between the child's arguments = and his=20 reflections. The very logic of the child confirms the basis of = this. =20 Conclusions initially in arguments among children and only later are = they=20 internalized by the child himself, linked to how his personality is=20 manifested".

"For us to call a process external = means to call it=20 social. Every higher mental function was external because it was = social=20 behavior before it became an internal, strictly "mental" function; it = was=20 formerly a social relation of two people. The means of acting = on=20 oneself is initially a means of acting on others or a means of action of = others=20 on the individual".

"We can formulate the general genetic = law of=20 cultural development as follows: every function in the cultural = development of=20 the child appears twice, in two planes, first, the social, then the=20 psychological, first between people as an inter"mental" category and = then within=20 the child as a intra"mental category".

"Formerly, it was assumed that the = function exists=20 in the individual in a ready, semi-ready, or rudimentary form and in the = group=20 it unfolds, becomes complex, advances, is enriched, or, conversely, is=20 inhibited, suppressed etc. At present (1930 roughly), we have a = basis for=20 assuming that in relation to higher mental functions, the matter must be = presented as being quite the opposite. Functions initially are = formed in=20 the group in the form of relations of the children, then they become = mental=20 functions of the individual. Specifically, formerly it was thought = that=20 every child was capable of reflection, reaching conclusions, proving, = finding=20 bases for whatever position. From the collision of such = reflections,=20 argument was generated. But the matter is actually something = else. =20 Studies (Piaget) show that reflection is generated from argument. = The=20 study of all other mental functions bring us to the same conclusion"=20

First, to be fair to Vygotsky I think = we need to=20 realize as Joseph Glick points out his emergence in the states was = because of a=20 perceived vacuum of the more structural Piagetian=20 interpretations. So, like Marx, maybe both Vygotsky and = Piaget would=20 assert I an no Vygotskian or Piagetian. I found it more than=20 interesting (I didn't catch it before) that he used Piaget's = research to=20 assert his genetic law. He casually mentioned Janet who historians = (Van=20 Der Veer & Valsiner) attribute the genetic law, but it was Piaget's = research=20 as well as his own that materialized it.

Second, I think as in Vygotsky's = reference to=20 gesture that he saw the individual very active in this process. To = repeat=20 the first quote "a means of affecting others and only later a means = of=20 affecting oneself". He saw the child active in both = externalization and=20 internalization. So, I think we need to differentiate somewhat the = "Vygotsky we have constructed" and what Vygotsky actually said. = So, for me=20 the "deriviative" (1979) quote that Cobb offered was seen very = differently than=20 he probally saw it. Internalization for Vygotsky was a process and = action=20 ocurred within that process. The baby grasps for something (I = think a=20 case of intention can be made) and the act gets meaning because = another=20 responds (I think a case of intention can be made) and then the act = becomes=20 a gesture. I guess with the internalization/ transmission = issue I get=20 frustrated, because I do not get that impression from my Vygotsky=20 texts. Sometimes I wonder if my text (in the Goodman sense) = is just=20 different from everybody elses, but the quotes above seem to convey = the authors text (Vygotsky) may not be too far off from my=20 own. I do know from searching for Vygotsky in different = databases=20 that most of the citings are from books that talk about him, rather than = his=20 actual texts. Friere talked about this in one of his books, = something=20 to the fact that when one asks a question, such as, in so and so's = book=20 they said you argued this or that, he refused to answer the = question until=20 they had read what he actually wrote.

Lastly, I think your point of primacy = is important=20 and may be a tension between 'Marxist' and pragmatist explanations = of=20 culture and context. The last quote seems to me to put Vygotsky = with the=20 former not the latter. Maybe its more of a philosophical than = pragmatic=20 differentiation. Personally, it becomes difficult to = understand=20 Vygotsky if I don't assume the primacy of the=20 social/society/culture. I tend to like Holzman and = Newman's=20 differentiation 'tools for results' and 'tools and results'. The = "and"=20 being representative of a dialectic in that the two emerged together = rather than=20 seperately. In this sense neither has a primacy because there is = no such=20 thing as an 'individual without society' or 'society without=20 individuals'.