Mike,
I can't find Mary's post that you refer to and don't know Bandura so I can't
answer specifically whether it would make any difference to your work
whether you used her ? his ? paradigm as a tool. But in general I do think
it makes a difference whose "paradigm" one uses. It does for me. For one
thing, Luria, Vygotsky, Leonti'ev and some of their cousins, nephews, nieces
didn't just develop "different paradigms" but rather consciously attempted
to develop their psychological theories as elements of a more comprehensive
theory of human society: the Marxist theory of dialectical and historical
materialism
Ilyenkov describes the fundamental method of this theory as the ascent from
the abstract to the concrete. He asks why Marx defined the ascent from the
abstract to the concrete as the only possible and scientifically correct
mode of theoretical assimilation (reflection). "The reason is that
dialectcs, as distinct from eclecticism, does not reason on the
'on-the-one-hand, on-the-other-hand' principle but always points out the
determining aspect, that element in the unity of opposities which is in the
given instance the leading or determining one. That is an axiom of
dialectics." (1977:138)
Vygotsky expressed a similar position when he wrote, "Two essentially
different modes of analysis are possible in the study of psychological
structures. It seems to us that one of them is responsible for all the
failures that have beset former investigators of the old problem we are
about to tackle, and that the other is the only correct way to approach it."
(1986:4)
As many xmca-ites know the first mode is the traditional analytical analysis
of wholes into elements, the approach that underlies both positivism and
idealism from different directions. In its stead Vygotsky proposed the
analysis into units which are further unanalyzable and yet retain the
properties of the whole. Units that Ilyenkov later theorized as examples
of concrete universals: e.g., the commodity in Marx's economics,
word-meaning in Vygotsky's psychology.
This theoretical methodology is not positivism, not idealism, and most
definitely not eclecticism. Furthermore it is supremely difficult to
understand and develop into a consisten practice in the everyday world of
capitalist society. I believe that this difficulty has less to do with the
theory itself (as I might say about tensor calculus ) than with the fact
that its premises are virtually impossible to internalize when our everyday
practice forces us to continually frame social relations in terms of
individuals instead of framing individuals in terms of social relations. I
don't think it was accidental that Vygotsky developed his ideas during the
brightest, most hopeful years of the Soviet experiment and while living in
basically communal relations with his colleagues. As Leslie White said,
"No invention or discovery can take place until the accumulation of culture
has provided the elements--the materials and ideas--necessary for the
synthesis, and, (2) When the requisite materials have been made available by
the process of cultural growth or diffusion, and given normal conditions of
cultural interaction, the invention or discovery is bound to take place."
Marx aimed to produce a science of history but labored most of his life
developing a theory of the economic system of one phase of history . He
developed his theory on the basis of empirical observation but this does not
mean he was an empiricist who applied the first of Vygotsky's modes of
analysis to individual sensory experience. "Empirical observation must in
each separate instance bring out empirically, and without any mystification
and speculation, the connection of the social and political structure with
the economic. The social structure and the State are continually evolving
out of the life-process of definite individuals, but of individuals not as
they may appear in their own or other people's imagination, but as they
really are; i.e., as they operate, produce materially, and hence as they
work under definite material limits, presuppositions and conditions
independent of their will."
So as to your question of paradigm, yes it makes a difference to me. Its
like the difference between chewing gum and bread. You ask that I show how
these ideas inform and produce results in my daily practice and I must admit
I can't do the latter too easily. Perhaps the results aren't there to show
at the present time. Perhaps the best I can do at the moment is point to
the soviet activity theorists and their relatives and ask, "What comparable
advances have come from approaches other than dialectical materialism?" In
such despairing moments I comfort myself in the knowledge that Copernicus'
model of the solar system couldn't account for the position of the planets
as well as the Ptolemaic model of Tycho Brahe until Kepler changed the
circles to ellipses. Something just told enough people that it made better
sense to keep it alive in spite of the church's repression. And admittedly
the ptolemaic model serves quite well for some purposes (e.g., terrestrial
navigation), just as the other "paradigms" in social theory serve quite well
for pursuing given ends in contemporary capitalist society. But Kepler's
break through wasn't accomplished by continuing to elaborate additional
epicycles to the geocentric model. I also find solace in knowing that
Galileo, who adopted Copernicus' model knowing that Brahe's apparently
"worked" better, spent a lot of his time refuting the Aristotelians. Look
at the price he paid. Have things changed that much?
Paul H. Dillon
"Today's mighty oak is yesterday's nut that held its ground."
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 11 2000 - 14:04:08 PST