A question about Sociogenetic Approaches

dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
Tue, 13 Jul 1999 17:39:27 -0500

Lightfoot & Cox (1997), in the introduction to their edited volume,
make a useful (for me) distinction between sociogenetic theories that view
the individual as "part of a larger social or cultural whole" and those
in which the individual "is seen as an ensemble of social relations" (p. 7):
"The first of these encourages a dissolution of boundaries, whereas the
second insists on their centrality" (p. 7).
In the former category, they include theories of Shotter, Rogoff, and Packer:

Those who are inclined toward a view of the child as part of a larger
whole deal typically with the issue of boundary management by
avoiding all talk of inner mental life, if not dismissing it outright, in
favor the more material and publicly accessible plane of action. (p. 9)

In the latter, they include theories of Rommetviet, Valsiner, Bruner, and Harre:

Proponents [of this latter approach] have insisted that to
neglect intramental processes is to collapse psychological
development onto social contingency. Instead, it is typically argued
that individuals are separate from their environments, although
interdependent with them, and that the intersubjective world that
they forge together by way of transcending subjectivity, and to
which we refer as common or collective, is in fact only partially
shared. (p. 9)

My question has to do with the classification of the notion of appropriation.

According to the authors, the latter approach is "largely sympathetic to
Leont'ev's (1959/1981) proposal that internalization constitutes the
process in which the internal 'plane of consciousness' is formed" (p. 9).
In this they see Leont'ev as "following a more constructivist tradition" (p. 9).
Yet they find Rogoff (1990) as "motivated to locate competence in concrete
action" (p. 8):

Her theory of "appropriation" is one for which development is
understood as a process that tends toward extended participation
...placing emphasis on intersubjectivity and shared meanings. (p. 8)

If I put these last two pieces together, I must conclude either that Leont'ev's
notion of appropriation does not quite connect up with his ideas of the
"plane of consciousness," or that Rogoff does not use all of the implications
of Leont'ev's notion of appropriation in forging her own usage of the term.
As I read Newman, Griffin, & Cole (1989), constructivism and appropriation
stand in contrast with one another. The former involves continuity (through
transformation) of the cognitive system, whereas the latter "emphasizes the
productive intrusion of other people and cultural tools in the process of
cognitive change" (p. 68). Thus I want to follow Rogoff in seeing appropriation
as supporting the dissolution of boundaries between the individual and
the social context. But then, how does this reconcile with Leont'ev's general
contribution to establishing such boundaries? ...help appreciated.

David Kirshner
dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu

Lightfoot, C., & Cox, B. D. (1997). Locating competence:
The sociogenesis of mind and the problem of internalization.
In B. D. Cox & C. Lightfoot (Eds.), Sociogenetic perspectives
on internalization (pp. 1-21). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates.

Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction
zone. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. New York:
Oxford University Press.