In some sense maybe I do, but then some appropriation always occurs. I have
no problem with either concept as a life process and believe appropriation
better characterizes that process in that it is never just skills that are
at stake but ways of thinking, feeling etc. Where I have concerns is that
internalization or mastery of skills is questioned somewhat such as whose
knowledge etc., yet appropriation seems to be seen as a good in itself.
The seperation of internalization and appropriation was looking at it from
an educational process rather than a life process. As an educational
process internalization would tend to be seen as overly cognitive as in
mastering facts, content etc. Appropriation as a educational process would
be more concerned with seeing it as a unitary process in which motivation,
cognition, affect was not severed.
In that context I have problems with seeing appropriation unproblemized as
if it was value free and not from positions of power. The differentiation
between the two is probally not useful because they always occur as part of
a life process. For example, Archie and others from Cole and Traupmann
(1979) definately appropriated or took as their own something (identity,
competence) and that something changed when the dynamics of the activity
changed as in Archie being given an easier question than expected which
changed his evaluation of himself and others of him (Walkerdine 1998).
Both contexts included appropriation but what was appropriated were
entirely different.
Nate
---- Original Message -----
From: Judy Diamondstone <diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Saturday, November 13, 1999 8:04 AM
Subject: Re: sociocultural-historical genesis of Vygotsky's theory
> I have not been following all the rich & interesting conversation lately;
I'm
> trying to work my way backwards this a.m. -- doubt that I'll make it as
far
> as I wish to -- I hope my q. isn't made moot by the previous exchange:
>
> Nate wrote
>
> 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, do you see "appropriation" as what follows prolepsis (taking as
> one's own, and "internalization" as what follows explicit instruction
> (taking "in" as something one is SUPPOSED to do) --? [That seems like
> an interesting probability but not a reliable distinction]
>
>
> Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
> Graduate School of Education
> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
> 10 Seminary Place
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
>
>