you wrote:
For example, if Vygotsky described that a middle
>class European mother treats her baby "AS IF" the baby fully understands
>her, it does not mean that the Vygotsky's description is "the true one" and
>"out there." Definitely the mother would disagree with Vygotsky as a
>participant of the communication having specific goals in mind and comfort
>perceived. Moreover, Vygotsky's description can be a real danger for the
>specific middle class communication if the mother starts believing Vygotsky
>and becomes doubtful in her baby reciprocity and understanding. On the
>other hand, Vygotsky's description "AS IF" is an observant model (i.e., a
>"theory-in-use" using Argys and Schon's term) of his observation of the
>communication. The mother's participant model (i.e., an "espoused theory")
>is "BABY UNDERSTANDS AND GUIDES ME." It is impossible for the mother to
>remain participant as she is and agree with Vygotsky's model "AS IF."
>
>The mother is correct for the purpose of her own activity (i.e., of
>communication with her baby, socializing the baby in middle-class
>interactional style, having fun, and so on). Vygotsky is correct for the
>purpose of his own activity (i.e., of observing the communication,
>presenting his finding to the academic community, developing a
>sociohistorical theory, and so on). What unites both Vygotsky and the
>mother is that they produce models (i.e., semiotic mediations) of the same
>phenomenal process of mother-child communication. However, this uniting
>phenomenal process is a "boundary object" using the term of Lee Star --
>there are common boundaries and different contents.
>
>But still who is right: does the baby really understands her mother in the
>communication? Whose model of communication is more correct? Again the
>answer to this question depends on the context (and background activity) of
>the question. If Vygotsky would invite the mother to watch a videotaped
>observation of her communication with the baby, I guess he might convince
>the mother that he is right and the model "AS IF" is the true model of the
>communication. But if mother give her baby in Vygotsky's hands and let him
>to play with the baby, I guess he would play with the baby in the
>middle-class European way in accord with the mother's model "BABY
>UNDERSTANDS AND GUIDES ME." In this case, the mother is correct and her
>model is the true model of the communication.
>
>We should probably accept that in some cases two dramatically different
>models of the phenomenon are both right without a tempting attempt to build
>a compromising third model. The circumstances for the two truths are
>different: participation in activity vs. observation of the activity. Each
>activity has its own reliability and verifiability power and criteria. It
>seems that we can only jump from one to the other even when we are
>participant observants. I know that this sounds a bit like the quantum
>physics, like Heisenberg's uncertainty principle but so it be.
>
>Finishing on a humorous note, I'd summarize in the following way: Jay asks
>how an individual research can describe supra-individual (Mike's term)
>phenomena -- I'd answer -- simply by jumping from one activity to another.
>
>Eugene Matusov
>UC Santa Cruz
>------------------------
>
>------------------------
>Eugene Matusov
>UC Santa Cruz
>
>
>
Judy Diamondstone
diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu
Rutgers University
.................................................
Eternity is in love with the productions of time. -- Wm. Blake