I agree completely with the cultural/historical roots of any here and now
situation but I don't see how recognizing the history in any here and now
situation (context) detracts from the necessity to first (and last) locate
yourself in this local space. Doesn't a preoccupation with history become
historicism? And feed the tendency to explain the now as a consequence of
history as opposed to a backdrop for the creative transformation of history
(making history in the here and now)? I realize I am now
connecting/conflating situation to context. But I think I will stand by
that.
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: Peter Smagorinsky [mailto:smago@peachnet.campuscwix.net]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 1999 3:50 AM
To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: contextualist(s)
My understanding of Vygotsky would suggest a more cultural/historical
notion of context, rather than here-and-now. That is, a context is a
consequence of, to borrow some of Bakhtin's phrases, "the great historical
destinies of genres" (1981, p. 259) and the "primordial dialogism of
discourse" (p. 275).
Peter
At 04:53 PM 3/18/99 -0700, you wrote:
>Eva,
>
>Not to put words into anyone's mouth but it seems to me that a
contextualist
>is one that holds context (the here and now/the local) as the primary
>beginning and ending point of all analysis and speculation on phenomena.
>
>Chris
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Eva Ekeblad [mailto:eva.ekeblad@ped.gu.se]
>Sent: Thursday, March 18, 1999 2:00 PM
>To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: Re: what silence?
>
>
>At 11.49 -0800 99-03-18, Mike Cole wrote:
>>Why is it that in a variety of textbooks, Vygotsky is referred to as a
>>contextualist?
>
>Mike, I know what context is
>but what is a contextualIST?
>
>Eva
>
>