Wow**2

From: Mike Cole (mcole@weber.ucsd.edu)
Date: Sun Oct 29 2000 - 14:36:57 PST


My head is spinning from reading through the remaining messages. To make
life simple, I think I'll start re-reading ch 4. :-)

Dot. I assume Zinchenko 1996 is:

Zinchenko, Vladimir P.
     Developing activity theory: The zone of proximal development and beyond.
   IN: Context and consciousness: Activity theory and human-computer
   interaction. Bonnie A. Nardi, Ed; et al. The Mit Press, Cambridge, MA, USA.
   1996. p. 283-324 of xiii, 400 pp.

Correct?

I feel as if it would be useful to go through the text and
seek out all the dangling questions and at least give a shot
at an answer. But there are a lot.

Concerning the context, Victor or Anna could help more than
I can in answering, for example, the question of the erasure
of Rubinshtein while the Vygotskians were in power and the
reciprocal erasure when the power started to shift in the
late 1960's-mid '70's. My strong suspicion that the quality of
ideas was not the main factor involved.

There is probably an entire book of relevant articles to be
brought together from Soviet Psychology/JREEP, some of which
have been mentioned.

In the Rubinshtein/Leontiev discussion, I keep wondering which
of the arguments have empirical consequences. Some of them
ought to, but perhaps only in a wider network of theoretical/
methodological considerations that make it hard to pin down
whether, for example, appropriation is an acceptable psychological
term and what it provides that interntalization (under its 101
spotted interpretations) does not.

I come away still bedeviled by the issue raised early on about
"activity of the individual" versus "individual activity" and
more convinced than before that CHAT is an INTERDISCIPLINARY
approach whose issues are not usefully reduced to existing
disciplines, whose crises have only gotten worse in the past
100 years.

So, back to ch4 and .....
mike



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:38 PST