[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: Sorry
I read the article by Enerstvedt and am left with more questions. In
particular the notion of both/and in the conjunction BOTH activity AND
I am left wondering first if there are clear differences between the
concepts [activity AND interchange] and if these concepts express different
aspects of human nature? For example learning conventional pre existing
forms of activity in contrast to the emergence of novelty within
inter-change, inter-subjective INTER-VALS?
The theme of the *between* AS *inter* and the gap that can never be
overcome within intervals as THIS gap IS the *beyond* which extends the
conventional AS the truth that the conventional can always be *otherwise*.
However without the conventional there does not exist the *potential* for
the *otherwise* to come into existence.
Both *activity* AND *interchange*
Internalization AS both activity and interchange
On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 8:13 PM, Greg Thompson <email@example.com>wrote:
> I was wondering if anyone has the original Russian for the paragraph that
> is the classic statement by Vygotsky on the concept (I'm not going to be
> able to do anything with it, but I know people who can...). It is on p. 113
> of the Enerstvedt piece, and is taken from Mind in Society, the chapter
> titled Internalization of Higher Psychological Functions. Here is the text:
> "An interpersonal process is transformed into an intrapersonal one. Every
> function in
> the child's cultural development appears twice: first on the social level,
> and later, on
> the individual level; first, between people (interpsychological) and then
> inside the child
> (intrapsychological). This applies equally to voluntary attention, to
> logical memory,
> and in the formation of concepts. All the higher functions originate as
> actual relations
> between human beings."
> Anyone have the Russian original and could send it to the listserve?
> I'm very interested in the Enerstvedt piece and particularly the discussion
> of internalization.
> On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 3:37 PM, mike cole <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > Hans--
> > It is clear from even a rapid scan of the book you sent that there is a
> > great deal there of interest to xmca readers. I for example, would warmly
> > welcome a discussion of the article by Theodor Enerstvedt about
> > and activity theory. Might he be interested in discussing these issues on
> > xmca?
> > Long ago as an even more naive beginner, I reviewed Payne's book on
> > Rubenshtein. I also noted that in the last decade, members of the
> > historical school have often included him in their discussions of
> > If it is not known to you, an article by Andrei Brushlinsky was published
> > in the precursor to MCA
> > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/ap83v5n2.PDF#page=1
> > Note that Leontiev himself has come in for some severe criticism for the
> > affinities between his theory and the Soviet state (In this regard, I
> > always found it odd that Rubenshtein received a Stalin prize).
> > Anyway, if only for the opportunity to discuss the variety of
> > understandings of the term, internalization, that appear on MCA,it could
> > helpful to discuss the
> > Theodor Enerstvedt piece.
> > mike
> > On Fri, Feb 14, 2014 at 5:47 AM, Hans Knutagård <email@example.com
> > >wrote:
> > > I am sorry, do not know whar happened to the link. Here it come again
> > >
> > > http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:696493/FULLTEXT01.pdf
> > >
> > > Yours
> > >
> > > Hans
> > >
> > >
> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
> Visiting Assistant Professor
> Department of Anthropology
> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
> Brigham Young University
> Provo, UT 84602