I'm a bystander in this discussion--I didn't read Igor's paper, sorry to
say. But what Mike is calling a "copy theory" sounds like what is
translated as "imitation" in Thinking and Speech. There's got to be a
translation problem with these terms--to Vygotsky, imitation is an active
and eventually reconstructive process. I posted something on this awhile
back, but can't find the text now. Peter
At 08:49 PM 7/22/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Thanks for the additional comments, Igor. I learned a
>lot from the whole discussion.
>
>One thing that impresses me in all these disussion is
>how difficult it is to pin down a real disagreement,
>as opposed to a failure of understanding, but which I
>mean that following further discussion, it turns out
>that different people are using the same words in
>different ways so that they are not, in effect,
>talking about the same thing.
>
>the phrase about following objective laws is a good
>example. I didn't think that Galperin adopted a copy
>theory. But he did seem to believe that adults know
>things that kids should learn, and in this sense, are
>more developed than young children. Eugene, if I read
>him correctly, has his doubts about this point of
>view, but I am not sure where the boundaries of any
>of these arguments are!
>
>It came as a surprise to me, for example, to read
>that Leontiev endorsed a copy theory. So, by your
>interpretation, when he writes that internalization
>creates the intra-psychological plane, he thinks the
>internal is a copy of the external quite generally?
>Earlier I gave the case of abacus experts where such
>a conclusion may seem warranted, but in general, the
>nature of mediated knowing is such that I seriously
>doubt all such claims and it is difficult to imagine
>Leontiev, and his many sophisticated German and
>Scandanavian followers, believing such a thing.
>
>In a way, this discussion is an unexpectedly
>interesting lead into rommetviet, our next topic of
>discussion. I wonder how his ideas will play out with
>respect to concepts of development, internalization,
>and education.
>
>mike
>
>
>
> > I very much enjoyed the discussion and think that
> > everyone had a point in
> > it. Galperin’s writings are always thought
> > provocative, often too condensed,
> > sometimes quite vague, and unfortunately, in some
> > English translations,
> > almost incomprehensible like in the fragment about
> > attention quoted by
> > Bill (Of course, there is nothing like almost
> > Freudian “Ego” in the
> > original: It is the “subject”, the individual who
> > mentally monitors and
> > controls the content and the flow of the activity.)
> >
> > To me, the central issue in the discussion was the
> > one raised by Mike:
> >
> > “…I worry about the idea that “"Understanding
> > human action in any of its guises, including "mental"
> > or "internal," as
> > following objective rules of the outer world,”
> > because I am not sure of what
> > it means. The “outer world” is experienced as a
> > culturally mediated reality,
> > that mediation is polysemic in the extreme. So what
> > does “following
> > objective rules” mean? Presumably no one wants a copy
> > theory.”
> >
> > A very important point, but I don’t think that
> > Galperin’s reasoning suggests
> > a copy theory. I do agree, though, that there is a
> > challenge here for CHAT
> > to avoid such an interpretation. My vision is very
> > similar to Steve’s:
> >
> > “Part of the solution may be seeing mental actions
> > not as identical to
> > physical, but as emergent “internal” realities
> > following the operative
> > objective laws of nature and activity that spawned
> > them that indeed
> > “appropriate” and “think,” and then act back upon
> > these “external” realities
> > as the person(s) involved interprets and reacts to
> > them.”
> >
> > In fact, part of Galperin’s project was to construct
> > something different
> > from a copy theory. In dissatisfaction with Janet’s,
> > Leontiev’s and similar
> > views that the structure of mental activity copies
> > the structure of external
> > activity, he sought to explain the specifics of the
> > structure of mental
> > activity through its function in the individual’s
> > life. Actually, I see the
> > whole Galperin’s stepwise model of mental actions
> > formation as an attempt to
> > illustrate how actions get transformed
> > (appropriated!) and therefore acquire
> > the property to guide the individual’s activity in
> > novel situations.
> >
> > Generally, it resonated with James’ functional stance
> > (“A reasoning animal
> > can reach its ends by paths on which the light of
> > previous experience has
> > never shone.”) but with the idea of
> > cultural-historical content and mediated
> > structure of the activity in mind.
> > It is also similar to the question posed by Bob (in
> > relation to Mabel’s
> > thought that "the inner world steps forward and
> > builds an "ideal" (an idea
> > which is born in
> > this "inner") to pursue…”):
> >
> > “How indeed do we explain this "step forward"?
> > Perhaps this
> > stepping forward involves an important element of
> > creativity in the way
> > that we deal with the world.”
> >
> > In no way am I sure that Galperin completely
> > succeeded in resolving those
> > questions but I do think that the rich conceptual
> > framework he developed is
> > worth exploring.
> >
> > As to “following the objective laws”, I again find
> > myself in agreement with
> > Steve:
> >
> > “In Mike’s example of thinking about his
> > grandchildren, their father, July
> > 4th fireworks, Chicago, London, etc., his thinking is
> > clearly
> > object-related. Distances between places, locations
> > in time, certain
> > activities and specific people are key features of
> > the thinking process he
> > describes…. All thinking is object-related, and
> > therefore,
> > part of the objective world and in compliance with
> > objective laws.”
> >
> > Also, I tend to think that Galperin’s reference to
> > the “objective laws” is
> > not in the sense that those are constant or
> > immutable, but more in the sense
> > in which Piaget referred to logic (in the
> > introductory passage of “The
> > Psychology of Intellect”) as being able, by contrast
> > to physiology, to
> > explain why two plus two is four. To be sure, even
> > the sun and seemingly
> > solid rocks are changing, and in human relations two
> > plus two can often be
> > five or anything else, but every human practice and
> > culture more or less
> > “knows” (or thinks that it knows) how things work
> > right now, and this
> > knowledge is also an “objective reality” for an
> > individual within that
> > culture (even when the individual is fantasizing
> > about some Wonderland).
> >
> > For a more substantive discussion of these issues, I
> > refer those interested
> > to my article (with Van der Veer) “The Role of
> > Non-Automatic Processes in
> > Activity Regulation” in the May 2004 issue of History
> > of Psychology.
> > Galperin’s ideas are presented there by comparing
> > them with those of Lipps,
> > Groos, Claparede, Stern, James, Dewey, Pavlov,
> > Vygotsky, and Leontiev.
> > Galperin’s stepwise model itself is discussed in
> > detail in my upcoming
> > article (with Haenen) “Connecting Sociocultural
> > Theory and Educational
> > Practice” in Educational Psychologist.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Igor
> >
> > Igor M. Arievitch, Professor
> > Department of Education
> > The College of Staten Island, CUNY
> > 2800 Victory Boulevard (3S-215)
> > Staten Island, NY 10314
> > Tel: 718-982-4006
> > Fax: 718-982-3743
> > E-mail: arievitch@mail.csi.cuny.edu
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:43:00 PST