[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky ["Sense and meaning" really means consciousness, which really means intellectualism]



I would have said that this criticism is a deliberate misrepresentation, except that Lydia Bozhovich makes the same charge of "intellectualism." The charge hinges on phrases like "the significance for the child" and "the meaning for the child," etc., which etymologically suggest the use of signs and words. Thinking with signs and words is intellect. But the thing is that it is almost impossible for us to describe the relationship of a person to their environment psychologically without using words which evoke sign-relations. The relation is a psychological one, not a conditioned-reflex, and the words we have for relations which are mediated through consciousness tend to be words like "meaning" and "significance" which have intellectual connotations. The preintellectual stages of psychological development which Vygotsky himself theorised are not built into the common language.

Andy
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/


Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
This continues and extends from my original post concerning Andy's breakdown of ANL vs. LSV.

There are about 8 points total... [copypasta is a starch of art]
---------------------------------------------------
4. ["Sense and meaning" really means consciousness, which really means intellectualism] (see original post below)
---------------------------------------------------

Again a pothole. You say:
"The child's relation to the environment is whatever is appropriate at their level of development, not necessarily if at all, an intellectual relationship, that's all that Vygotsky claims."

I think know this, but what is ANL's critique against this? Is it that it is too "intellectual," which is possibly code for elitism or class? Sorry if I wasn't clear.