RE: context/development

From: Nate Schmolze (nate_schmolze@yahoo.com)
Date: Thu Aug 31 2000 - 10:54:19 PDT


Mike,

Rogoff in particular was what I had in mind. I was not argueing against her
work or similarily minded works by any means but rather if talk of
development is actually needed in such a framework. Other than lets say the
"cultural capital" issue that "development" plays as far as getting
published and all. As long as "diciplines" like "development" exist I think
the work of Rogoff, you, and many others who are engaging in that dicipline
with ideas of culture, context, zpd is of the utmost importance, I was only
questioning is we de-biologize the term, (unfolding priori) if the term - at
least as I have come to understand it - loses some of its meaning.

I tend to see "development" primarily as a form of inscription with the
object of normailization. It is much more about making experience than
describing it perse. In an Activity system it could also be seen as the
rules of let's say preschool activity. We could maybe even look at it as
replacing the more "explicit" notion of rules coming from the gestures and
words of the teacher. Development then would be a form of social control
that we are not given at birthright, but rather a form of social control -
similar to liberalism - in that we must prove our worthiness of it. If a
child refuses to be governed by development, more explicit measures always
emerge. It is always those children who "don't" or "won't" develop
"naturally" where more external social control emerges.

My question to Alfred was mainly how development would be approached in the
framework he is developing. I would assume without an assumed seperation,
its role would be minimal.

Lastly, while I'm not a big fun of development perse I think a CHAT (open
system) response is essential, the biological and individual reductioners
should not be the only contenders on the stage. As always it is not an
either - or.

Nate

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Thursday, August 31, 2000 9:39 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: context/development

Nate-- Valsiner has written extensively on the issue of organism/context
relations -- contra Rogoff who goes for "inseperable" with a notion
of something like "inclusive separation." The 1998 Handbook of Child
Psychology, vol 1. He also deals there with different ways of thinking
about development that might prove useful.

C.S. Waddington: " Each new level of developement is a new relevant
context."

Overall, psychology might be diminished, but development is enriched by
taking some sort of "co-constituting" conception of organism/envi relations.

Alfred-- Are you familiar with Latour's actor network theory and have you
perhaps written about it?
mike



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 01 2000 - 01:00:57 PDT