Bill, I am currently transcribing Seve and I think it has more to do with
"unit of analysis" or "human essence". Piaget took a very civil society
approach in my view - individual (essence) "and" society where of course the
social is emphasized. If however, one placed this essence in practice or
human relations it no doubt is very different.
In the Wallon book there is a piece by Piaget where he takes a similar
approach to W&P - argueing for the compatibility of their ideas. Wallon, on
the other hand, felt it was more fruitful to explicate the disagreements in
which a mutual friend commented that discussions between the two was like
"two deafs having a conversation" (quotes in both senses). Piaget is less
optimistic by the end of his essay - partly because IMHO an awareness
emerges that it went deeper than ones starting point - analytic. It was not
simply that Piaget started with the individual and Wallon with social
practice and these are two sides, but something deeper involved.
So, I would disagree with W&P it is more than simply analytic - it is very
much an ontological problem. I would also say this problem has
social-political ramifications no matter what side one is on. Piaget's ideas
on development are very much related to a particular type of society he
envisioned - one where through nature a rational, scientific, humane society
would emerge. Wallon's of course had his own view of society in mind. My
point being I do not think "unit of analysis" or "human essence" can be
though of as an analytic problem because they are very much political
stands. Maybe a better word be ethical choices.
Nate
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Barowy" <wbarowy@lesley.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 8:36 AM
Subject: Re: Henri Wallon Archive
> Thanks for the Wallon information Nate. It seems as if he locates
primacy in the social, which brings to mind an chapter by Wertsch and Penuel
in the handbook of education and human development. W&P make the point that
many "bogus" arguments arise when investigators do not make explicit where
they have located primacy. Drawing from Lotman, they note that primacy
might not be so dichotomized (Imagine us, who shun dichotomies for good
reason, to fall prey to it in believing what is!) if it is thought as an
analytic move rather than an ontological assertion.
>
> W&P also do not make claims of Piaget denying social practice, but seem to
find evidence of this recognition in some of his works. Piaget, like any
others, I suppose, who learn from their work, was a moving target. It'll be
useful to see what insights Wallon has to offer.
>
> bb
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:50 PDT