Re: Vygotsky as individualist

From: Keith Sawyer (ksawyer@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 10:50:44 PDT


In reply to Eric, Ricardo, and Mike,

Mike wrote:
>I simply don't agree with the notion that Vygotsky ignored the individual
>and if I were retired witha lot of time on my hands, would be prepared to
>argue the case in extenso.
(and Eric and Ricardo also noted different ways that Vygotsky talked about
the individual.)

I agree with you, Mike. Vygotsky clearly did not ignore the individual.
What I wrote in my last posting was that Vygotsky gave "priority to social
and cultural processes" which I think you would agree with. In my
"Unresolved tensions" article I say that Vygotsky is NOT an inseparability
theorist, because he theorizes internalization of the social by the
individual--a process which is completely disallowed in inseparability
theory (both by Rogoff and by Giddens). This is why Eugene Matusov,
writing within Rogoff's framework, disavows Vygotsky in his recent HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT article (1998).

Mike also wrote:
>What work is the current division of people into emergentists or
>non-emergentists doing by those doing it?

"Those doing it" perhaps include Paul Cobb and Margaret Archer. In
"Unresolved tensions" I focus on each theorist's position on inseparability
and do my best to propose a way to bring everyone together; I am a "joiner"
by nature, not a "splitter." My goal in the article is to identify some
problems with a strict inseparability stance, and to show that empirical
work always assumes analytic separability, even for those theorists who
claim to hold to inseparability (for example, Rogoff and Hutchins).

I think it's interesting that such foundational theoretical divisions have
existed among us for so long and have not been explored that much in print,
even though I have had many informal conversations about them and it seems
we're somewhat aware of these differences. I was inspired to write
"Unresolved tensions" after I discovered that there was a parallel
debate--with a LOT in print--going on between Giddens and Archer. In
social theory, people feel the discussion does a lot of "work"; who knows
what work it will do for us?

R. Keith Sawyer

http://www.keithsawyer.com/
Assistant Professor
Department of Education
Washington University
Campus Box 1183
St. Louis, MO 63130
314-935-8724



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:49 PDT