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

[Xmca-l] Re: Resending LSV/ANL on crisis in ontogengy



Huw, what I think is distinctive about SSD for child development, as opposed to adult personality development, is that there is still a significant biological process of maturation and growth going on which constantly challenges social arrangements. This is not the case for adults. An adult can get a job when they leave school and stay in that job for life, except that the *social* arrangements keep challenging the individual.

Also, I don't think all this is best conceived in terms of *cognition* - there are a lot of other psychological processes involved.

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


Huw Lloyd wrote:
As a unit, 'SSD' should be referring to conditions which are necessary to go through for the subsequent 'unfolding'. But SSD as a referent to all important (and less important) stages can easily become overly abstract.

For the fundamental developmental situations, we are looking for conditions under which the nature of cognition changes, so milder situations like career progression are not in the same category.

The way I think of this is that the child's old form of social support is no longer suitable. Not only is the support deemed to be too restrictive, but the semantic interpretation that the child places upon the old form of support is experienced as being 'wrong'. When the two year old says "no", I suspect that s/he may sometimes be saying "no, you've got it wrong". The child certainly seems to communicate similarly complex expressions such as pushing an object out of sight, pulling it back and then smiling at an adult as if to say, "Isn't that amazing, it was still there!" or, perhaps "Look, I made it reappear!"

An adult version of that semantic difficulty is perhaps evident in the shift of meanings between formal and genetic/dialectical materialist logic. The terms abstract, generalisation, ideal, material, universal, concrete, unit all have different meanings along with many other differences, hence the old way of knowing may interfere with the natural progression.

Huw





On 21 March 2015 at 00:47, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:

    I think Huw put the alternative interpretation of Leontyev's words
    very well. There *is* a difference there, but it is not as
    profound as at first sight.
    I don't agree with the cast David has put on my view though. It is
    precisely in understanding the crises as being transitions between
    SSDs which is where SSD is invaluable as the unit.
    In general of course it is true, that a unit shed light on a
    specific problem, and is not the key to everything.
    Andy
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------
    *Andy Blunden*
    http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
    <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>


    David Kellogg wrote:

        ... he set out the necessity of different units of analysis
        for different problems (which is why I agree with Andy that
        the SSD is an
        adequate unit of analysis for SOME problems but not for the
        crisis). He
        says that even in kids like Huw's, who experience no apparent
        crisis, we
        can observe that particular periods appear to stand out
        against more stable
        periods in three respects: