Luria is being cited more within neuropsychology lately and often in ways I
think totally devalue the spirit of his work. In a recent piece he was
cited and Pinker was used to justify his work. While a lot of work in
neuropsychology has great potential for cultural-historical theorising, at
present it is being used to biologicalize the cultural-historical processes
of development. One being an article by Smith, Patalano & Jonides in which
it goes from Luria's research on the brain to make the argument for rule
based "reasoning" and ends up with Pinker and an innate rule based approach
to language.
As far as Vygotsky, in *Child Psychology* he went to great pains to explain
that what he meant by internal was not biological. While Vygotsky was very
concerned with a child's interests and motivations, and argued for a
particular developmental progression, I don't think that is synonymous with
biological. Vygotsky's use of higher/lower mental processes was not
interactionist as Ratner points out. The biological processes were replaced
by the cultural ones. The cultural was not only mediation by artifacts or
signs but also the functional system. In this sense, there in no such
thing as the biological interacting with the sociocultural because the
functional system in which the biological is realized is a cultural one.
Elkonin, who is rather consistant with Vygotsky's developmental ideas
argues for the system "child in society".
Vygotsky spoke of an individual and social plane, an intermental
(psychological) and intramental (psychological) plane, but I have never
interpreted it as biological or social one. Vygotsky consistantly argued
for the individuals active role in this process, and that tends to be seen
as synonymous with the biological for various bio-political reasons. In
*Thinking and Speech* Vygotsky argued that word meaning was part of the
"zone of sense", again pointing to his interest in the individuals sense of
the word, but that sense was not biological.
/\ / /\ | /-----
/ \ / /__\ ---|--- /---
/ \/ / \ | /----
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
*******************************************************************
"Pedogogics is never and was never politically indifferent,
since, willingly or unwillingly, through its own work on the psyche,
it has always adopted a particular social pattern, political line,
in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its
interests".
L.S. Vygotsky
********************************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: Victoria Yew <v.yew who-is-at edfac.usyd.edu.au>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, October 28, 1999 6:51 PM
Subject: Re: A question of selves
> Hi all,
>
> I too think that Lakoff's work is highly provocative and indeed may be
> rather un-nerving
> for many CHAT followers.
>
> But in my recent reading, though not much yet, of Lakoff and Johnson's
> lastest book, I cant help but feel a sense of harking back to the work of
> Luria and his studies on brain damage.
>
> In trying to relate Lakoff's claims to my work, perhaps, there's heaps on
> the basic genetic/physiological aspects of human development that affect
our
> sociocultural functioning. Didnt Vygotsky speak of an interweaving of the
> biological development plane with that of the sociocultural plane. What
do
> you think?
>
> Victoria
>
> At 03:13 PM 28/10/99 -0700, you wrote:
> >Vera,
> >
> >That was beautifully expressed and provides an answer to my question
insofar
> >as it reduces the status of the selves that Judy named to facets of a
> >system. I suppose that any facet itself, etc. would be capable of
becoming
> >a system of similar facets, holographic or fractal reproduction, etc.
But .
> >. . is the body that is born, lives and dies an encompassing system
that we
> >inevitably presuppose and whose trajectory demarcates the domain of all
that
> >can occur as experience of self? Higher mental functions still
embodied
> >mental functions?
> >
> >Paul H. Dillon
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Vera P. John-Steiner <vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu>
> >To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>; Vera P. John-Steiner
> ><vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu>
> >Date: Thursday, October 28, 1999 2:38 PM
> >Subject: Re: A question of selves
> >
> >
> >>It seems to me that the selves of which Judy writes are different
facets
> >>of the functional system of self. When focusing on a coherent account
> >>of one's life, one aspect of remembered experiences is mobilized. In
> >>conversational contexts an other facet emerges, that of a very
immediate
> >>awareness of the otherwith whom one co-constructs utterances,
thoughts,
> >>and opinions. These govern the practice of voicing. Audience,
> >>artifacts, purpose all contribute to mobilizing the subset of
> >>possibilities that are part of the dynamics of the "self,
> >>or what Wenger refers to as "identity as a focus of social selfhood."
> >>In my class on collaboration, students speak of the simultaneously
> >>experiencing mutuality and autonomy; they embrace Penuel and Wertsch's
> >>statement about the irreducible tension of the individual and the
> >>social.
> >>Vera
> >>---------------------------------
> >>Vera P. John-Steiner
> >>Department of Linguistics
> >>Humanities Bldg. 526
> >>University of New Mexico
> >>Albuquerque, NM 87131
> >>(505) 277-6353 or 277-4324
> >>Internet: vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu
> >>---------------------------------
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> Victoria Yew
> Doctoral Candidate
> School of Educational Psychology, Literacies & Learning
> Faculty of Education (A35)
> University of Sydney
> NSW 2006
> AUSTRALIA
> Telephone : (02) 9351 6326/ International +61 2 9351 6326
> Fax : (02) 9351 2606 / International +61 2 9351 2606
> E-mail : v.yew who-is-at edfac.usyd.edu.au
>