In a message dated 6/10/2001 10:05:31 PM Central Daylight Time,
diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu writes:
> To understand how such forms of behavior change, he shifts to the deeper
> temporal scale of cultural history, where rudimentary forms change over
> time to "higher' more complex ones. Its on the historical model of change
> that he bases his experimental method of intervening in child development.
> What is learned about child development then becomes the lens for
> observing children in 'natural' settings.
>
I certainly apologize for the latency in the response but my brain processes
information at a different rate then others, (an example of time?).
I have not seen a reference to the difference between phylogenesis and
ontegenesis. As I understand this phenomenon I take phylogenesis to be the
development of a specific culture and ontegenesis to be individual
development. Scribner certainly extrapolates from this split and then uses
the modification for her own purposes. By this I mean the way in which she
attempts to dismiss sylogism from the scientific horizon by discounting how
cultural anthropologists attempted to vanquish the difference between
Vygotsky's ideas of spontaneous and scientific thought by conducting studies
in human literacy (a discussion I would very much like to see on XMCA).
Back to my highlighted quote from Judith; the historical model of change is a
result of the phylogenesis of scientific study. Vygotsky did not separate
science from psychology so if modern resaearchers are going to reference
Vygotsky I would reccomend that they keep this fundemental concept in mind
(and society).
Thanx,
eric
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Jul 01 2001 - 01:01:27 PDT