Re: sociocultural-historical genesis of Vygotsky's theory

nate (schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu)
Fri, 12 Nov 1999 17:09:43 -0600

Eugene and others,

Why is this only a Russian view? I guess my point is that while that
connotation of culture bothers me greatly, I think there is a risk in
assuming that it is a Vygotskian or Russian view of culture. Cole's
diversity paper comes to mind as a case in point of how culture and
diversity are still very much current struggles. Bi-lingual education is
not getting rid of because its seen on equal par to English. It is very
much about preserving the better "culture" for when European Americans are
no longer the majority.

Without sounding too Foucaultian, how does appropriation take us beyond the
problems of internalization. The assimulationist project was not only
concerned with skills, but also identity formation. I find appropriation
as useful, but it also has its risks. I think Rogoff, Wertsch and many
others work in wonderful in pointing towards culture, education being a
dynamic process that involves intersubjectivity. But, it is also important
to remember that this process makes "internalization" more efficient. Yes,
the child is more active in this process but that doesn't in itself make it
any less assimulationist. One example from Rogoff's manuscript on guided
participation, a mother responds to her daugter playing with an object
(doll) "is that the eyes, did you kiss the baby". Its a nice example of
appropriation in that a certain intersubjectivity is involved between
mother and daughter, yet it also is about appropriating gender roles.
Without sounding too ironic is there much difference in having the girl
internalize gender roles vs appropriating them.

Nate