On Appropriation & Internalization 

I am afraid a little that some are discussing 
the problems of appropriation, taking the idea
(not concept) of "pricvoenie" (appropriation) 
of A.N. Leontiev as, as if, one corresponding to 
(or comparing to) the idea of "internalization " 
of Vygotsky interpretted in the framework of 
A.N.Leontiev .

If we consider the both theoretical frameworks 
of A.N.Leontiev and Vygotsky, I think that we should
set the idea of " appropriation" of A.N.Leontiev 
againt the idea of "sign mediation" or more exactly
"genesis of consciousness(higher mental function) 
through mediation by signs(speech) and psychological tool"
Of course one origin of the idea "appropriation "
of Leontiev came from the idea of social-historical
origin of higher mental function of Vygotsky(or Marx), 
but A.N.Leontiev began to abandon or to think little 
of the idea "sign mediation" of Vygotsky, when he 
introduced the idea "appropriation" into psychological 
theory (A.R.Luria and his followers held this idea of
Vygotsky).

This difference of view points of both great scholars
appears also in the understanding of processes of 
internalization or of the role of internalization in
mental development.

Vygotsky analyzed fairly enough the process of 
internalization in the experiments on development
of selective reaction,attention and speech and so on,
and single out the four stages of development{
(1)primitive and natural stage,(2)the stage of naive 
psychology,(3)the stage of external sign and external 
operation, (4) the stage of evolution(or internalization;
in Russian "vrashivanie" (the stage of "rooting" in 
the translation by N.Minick)} and three type of 
internalization(see the chapter 4 of "Thinking and Speech 
" and the chapter 5 of " History of development of higher 
mental function").

It is very interesting that Vygotsky did not use the 
term "internalization"("interiozastuya" in Russian) and 
used term "vrashivanie", when he spoke of his own theory, 
although he used term "internalization" when he dealt with 
other theory of internalization. And "vrashivanie" for 
Vygotsky always designates either the process in the above-
mentioned stage(4) or the process of transformation from 
interpsychological functions to intrapsychological 
functions, that is, the process of reconstruction of 
higher mental functions by internalization of sign(speech).
Moreover,he stresses that higher mental function are 
qualitatively restructured by "vrashivanie".

Vygotsky writes: "On "vrashivanie", that is, on conversion
of functions insides, a complex transformation of all 
structure of functions takes place. As experimental analysis
shows it needs to mention the following as the important 
moments of it's transformation: (1)substitution of function,
(2)change of natural function( of elemental processes which
are the basis of higher mental function and become a 
component of higher mental function),(3)generation of new 
psychological functional systems(or systematic functions), 
which take a role played before by individual functions in 
the structure of behavior."(from "Orudie i znak v razvitie 
rebenka", Sobranie sochinenii,tom 6, p15 ). 

When we examine the idea of "appropriation" and the 
concepts "internalization" and "externalization " of 
A.N.Leontiev and his followers, we can easily find that 
the concept of "vrashivanie" of Vygotsky was enlarged to 
a great degree by them. Of course the long-term works of 
P.Ya.Galiperin, N.F.Talizina and others contributed much to 
elaboration and development of the concept of 
internalization. A.N.Leontiev writes; "The interiosations 
of actions,i.e.the gradual conversion of external actions 
into internal,mental one, is a process that necessarily 
takes place in man's ontogenetic development. Its 
necessity is determined by the central content of a child's 
development being its appropriation of the achievements of 
mankind's historical development, including those of human
thought and human knowledge. These achievements come to him
as external phenomena(objects,verbal concept,knowledge).".
As far as we consider that "internalization " is to be 
a psychological mechanism of realization of appropriation 
of the achievements of mankind's historical development 
for Leontiev and we take into account the theory of 
Galiperin, not only conversion of actions of external 
speech into internal, but also the transformation of 
objective (or materialized) action into verbal plane, 
and even the shaping or organizing actions in objective 
social action stage should be regarded as a process of 
internalization. This difference in understanding of 
internalization between Vygotsky and Leontiev is also 
refleted in understanding of the relationship between 
external and internal structure of activity(or actions). 
Leontiev's hypothesis on the isomorphism between external
and internal structure of activity does not agree with 
that of Vygotsky.

Now we can answer Denis Newman's question "when the baby 
appropriates the cup, is something also interiorized? ". 
(XACT, Yes, the action with a cup has been already 
internalized in the baby, as far as he/she can use a cup 
with him/herself for drinking milk or water. In the case of 
motor skills with a folk and a knife or with a bicycle 
etc.,, of course,the execution of an action always remains 
external, but orientation and control part of it are 
internalized in the process of acquisition of skills in 
the stage of objective social action according to the 
theory Galiperin and Leontiev. At the stage when a baby 
begin to observe how mama or papa use a cup and want to 
use a cup, it should be considered that something begin to 
be internalized. 

But the main problems seems not to be here. The problem 
seems to concern with whether theoretical framework of 
Leontiev with the concept "appropriation","internalization" 
and "internalization" is enough for explanation and for 
the study on psychological development from the point 
of view of activity theory or not.

I think much problems remain unsolved. For example,
problem of relationship between external and internal 
structure of an activity or an action. According to
the Leontiev's hypothesis on the isomorphism between 
external and internal structure of activity, all of
the content and structure of activity formed in the
social objective activity stage is to be kept in the
internal mental stage, when it is internalized into it's
stage. It may be possible, when the process of 
internalization is well organized. But is it not possible
that a some new moment will happen to arise in the process
of internalization when we change the condition of it ?
I suppose that it is possible.

The second example of problems is the relationship between
internalization and externalization. In the process of
internalization of an action or an activity does this 
process proceed without any externalization ? Or may the 
process of externalization appear also ? I can not say
anything about it, but this relationship may depend upon
the way of organization of activity. But how do they
relate ?

The third example of problems is one concerning the
relation of "internalization"(or appropriation) of
an activity (or an action) with the conditions of an actor.
According to the theory of A,N,Leontiev and Galiperin, any
one can acquire any activity created by people of proceeding
generations and can reproduce their activity and abilities, 
(on condition that he/she does not have a special damage in 
the brain) when we can organize their activity well. 
It may be right. But the effect of acquisition of the 
activity for the future development will be not same 
with different actors(for example, the effect of acquisitionof speech of a certain language by a child will be extremely
different from the effect in the case of an old man).
This third example reminds me of the discussion on the 
problems of human abilities between Leontiev,A.N. and 
Rubinshtein. Rubinshtein criticised the application of idea
"appropriation" of Marx into psychology by Leontiev in his
paper "Problem of abilities and problems of psychological
theory, Problems of psychology 1960". Now I have no 
time to explain his criticism in detail. I write here
only points of his criticism: (1) The concept "pricvoenie"
(appropriation) of K.Marx will not serve as the basis of
the idea that human abilities are the result of 
appropriation of achievements of human socio-historical 
development. (2) The idea of Leontiev of psychological 
development with the concept of "appropriation",
"internalization" and "internalization" is a sort of 
mechanical determinism in the sense that it always 
neglects the conditions of subjects of human activity.

Please some one, in Moscow or anywhere, would take a 
trouble to explain Rubinshtein's criticism to Leontiev's 
idea of "pricvoenie" ? 

I will put this mail into Xact, expecting that some
one in Moscow will responce to it. But if necessary,
please put it into XLCHC.
-------------------------------------------------
K.Amano, Chou University, Tokyo
.