Dear Nate,
If I'm not wrong, sometime ago the discussion on the meaning (and senses) of "appropriation" had emerged in XMCA's posts.
And, since that time it does not "stay clear" to me at all.
I have noticed that there are a great variety (and contexts) of use of the term "appropriation" (in English as in Portuguese). If, in one hand, it can be understood as "take something to a one's own private property", in the other, it is also used to refer to a "right" or "appropriated" social behaviour/action.
Personally, when I use (and read) the term in the context of LV's CH theory, although without closing eyes at all to the last sense pointed above ("nice"="right"), I usually use it in the sense of "taking possession of something", or taking something as "my" own property.
So, to really "take possession" of something implies conscious mental processes. On the other hand, through uncoscious mental processes one can do internalize "appropriate" cultural behaviour and values without really "taking possession" of them. For example, a little boy that likes the color blue because this color is associated to masculinity but is not counscious at all of the arbitrary (cultural) nature of that association (blue=masculinity).
Another thing, completelly different, is a man that, for example, uses "blue" shirts because that color is "appropriate" to males - although, inside him, he does not really like it. Or, yet, that say he likes blue color affraid of people around can put his masculinity "in check" (Are there males who still thinking this way? now-a-days?! :).
In the case of the little boy he had INTERNALIZED a cultural value associated to blue color. In the case of the man, he had APPROPRIATED a specifical cultural sense for the social use of blue color.
Can you understand me better, now?
-----Mensagem original-----
De: Nate Schmolze <v3y3g3o3t3s3k3y@msn.com>
Para: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Data: Quarta-feira, 15 de Maio de 2002 21:02
Assunto: Re: stability & change / hot and cold
Roicardo,
All kinds of examples would apply. I sort of see appropriation as a
precurser to internalization. Even then I think one could internalize an
aspect of an activity (ability to do this or that action) but not
appropriate (identity) the activity.
Earlier I used the example of a kid with down syndrome which I think
applies. The individual has not/ will not / can not interalize the skills
necessary to read, yet it is important for him to appropriate the "activity
of reading". I usually make a big deal when this particular kid is
"studying" the dictionary, and make comments about needing to study those
words for the spelling test.
I guess I would situate appropriation with externalization to some extent.
But then it could also be the precurser to internalization. A child
appropriating the activity of paper airplane building, but then later
internalizing it on the individual plane (mastery).
On the other hand, I also think a child can internalyze (master) an activity
such as reading, yet not appropriate it. Here appropriation is very
interconnected with identity as in "identity as a reader" or one taking
"ownership for ones learning".
NATE
>From: "Ricardo Ottoni Vaz Japiassu" <rjapias@uol.com.br>
>Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Subject: Re: stability & change / hot and cold
>Date: Wed, 15 May 2002 15:33:17 -0300
>
>-----Mensagem original-----
>De: Nate Schmolze
>Assunto: Re: stability & change / hot and cold
>
>"So, does appropriation encompass internalization?"
>
>In my understanding, yes. Because internalization would be a larger concept
>than appropriation. So, all kind of appropriation would imply, any way,
>internalization.
>
>" For me, appropriations
>usefulness is in describing aspects of the social that are not internalyzed
>perse. But it seems possible to have one and not the other. "
>
>I also think it is possible. My thinking is that all appropriation
>presupposes internalization but not all internalization would be
>necessarily appropriation (unconscious reasons and desires etc).
>
>"For example, a
>child with downs syndrom appropriating the activity of reading (looking
>through dictionary) yet not internalyzing skills / practices necessary to
>"read".
>
>Any child, "normal" or "deaf", in the process of appropriation the activity
>of writting-reading (one thing cannot be separeted from the other) had
>already internalized a very specifical way of thinking: verbal thinking!
>She speaks and hear/understand the world - although in a very specific
>manner - necessarily mediated by WORDS.
>
>"I ask because it seems to me they are both useful concepts, and that
>appropriation does not necessarily encompass the concept of
>internalization."
>
>For the reasons I briefly put above, I cannot agree with your statement
>that "appropriation does not necessarily encopass the concept of
>internalization". Can you point me where and why I'm wrong?
>
>
nAtE
vygotsky@charter.net
http://webpages.charter.net/schmolze1/
_________________________________________________________________
Join the world’s largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:50 PDT