I think Arne Raeithel's account of the theoretical differences between
Vygotsky and Rubinstein is excellent. I have seldom seen such a clear
statement.
Arne used the term 'product-oriented' to characterize the Vygotskian-
Leont'evian theory of activity. I would modify that term and say
'production oriented'. I think Arne is right when he says that the whole
approach attempts to transcend the dichotomy between structure and process.
It does this by taking external (and internalized) artifacts as truly
integral components of human psychological functioning. Moreover, these
artifacts are seen as something continuously produced and reproduced by
humans.
Arne analyzed differences between the theory of activity and Piaget.
I think it would be very interesting to analyze also differences between
the theory of activity and various text- and discourse-centered theories
of interpretation. I think that in these theories production tends to
be replaced by interpretation (or creation of subjective meanings).
In this sense, I think the debate concerning Vygotsky's possible
'signocentrism' is not very fruitful - and I think Dr. Amano has given us
good arguments a supporting the notion that Vygotsky was much more
balanced in his theorizing than is often assumed. In other words, I don't
think the most interesting line of theoretical debate goes between signs
and more outward-oriented material practice - it rather goes between
emphasis on self-contained interpretation and expansive, boundary-breaking
production.
When the latter is taken seriously, the research agenda brings us to
dangerous waters: out of the safe confines of the academia, into the
world where production takes place in its infinitely varied forms.
Yrjo Engestrom
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:31 PST