I don't think that Vygotsky is a contextualist ( :-0
Also, it seems to me that the key for understanding Vygotsky is to
understand that he did not follow what is generally accepted as an
evolutionary progression: from un-organic matter, to organic matter, to
living beings from one cell beings to multi cell beings, from mollusks
through fish to .... to mammals to great apes, then to creation of an
intelligent human being, then to the society as an organization of the
intelligent beings, and then to culture and history as social products.
I think that the key to understanding Vygotsky is to understand that social
communication precedes higher mental functions in human beings. Social
activities and processes are not just a background (context) within which a
person, and individual develops -- social processes and activities are
internalized (Vygotsky's term) and make the person's self. And (!), this
is not social reductionism, because the process of internalization is the
process of active recreation of a social world as an inner microcosm.
In addition, I think that play -- activities and orientations in play --
are key to understanding how this internalizing/recreating works.
Ana
At 02:09 PM 6/10/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>For those interested in this thread, the two Gaskins and Goncu papers
>on play are available in the archives at lchc.ucsd.edu under newsletters.
>They are pdf files, but can be printed out easily enough.
>
>Dates: October 1988, Vol. 10, No. 4, 104-107
> April, 1992, Vol. 14, No. 2, 31-34
>
>"Neither Vygotsky's nor Piaget's theory would predict normal variation
>ini play, or would help interpret the importances of differences found
>among the Maya" (1992, p. 33)
>
>A socio-cultural theory which emphasizes the context of interaction and
>the context of meaning is proposed.
>
>Now, how do we reconcile this characterization of LSV and the way in which
>the
>term context is being used with Ana's version of LSV as contextualist wherin
>the individual is both creator and user of context in a manner similar to the
>way Rogoff denies separation of invidual and context?
>
>And, why, in standard intros to theories of development is Vygotsky
>introduced as a contextualist?
>
>What do you-all think?
>mike
----------
Ana Marjanovic-Shane
215-843-2909 (h)
267-334-2905 (m)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT