Sorry Mike (and others). I should know that my attempts at humor fall
flat on email (and often ftf as well!). Of course this is an important
question.
I do not know Vygotsky's work well enough to answer the question of
whether he was a contextualist. My only point was that the answer will
probably depend upon what you (we) mean by context. Every theoretical
position I know has a point of view on this, sometimes explicitly,
sometimes implicitly. Even the word you use in your reply, affordance,
has a contextual aspect. With respect to visual perception, Gibson
considers the environment to be the surfaces that separate substances
(the "things" in the world) from the medium (air, water) in which
animals live. But environments also afford things (such as shelter,
locomotion, etc.). There is information in light for perception but also
for the perception of what surfaces afford. To perceive something is to
perceive what it affords, its value or meaning. To quote Gibson, "The
affordances of the environment are what it offers the animal, what it
provides or furnishes, either for good or ill" (p. 127). But affordances
do not exist independent of an animal; the term refers to both the
environment and animal. "An affordance is neither an objective property
nor a subjective property; or it is both if you like... (it) points both
ways, to the environment and the observer"(p. 129). The terrestrial
surface, for example, may be horizontal, flat, extended and rigid, thus
affording support to certain terrestrial animals. But this affordance is
relative to particular terrestrial animals, not an abstract property of
the physical world. This is model is actually quite like von Uexkull's
umwelt. Gibson is a contexualist in this sense of the word context.
Don Cunningham
Indiana University
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:46 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: umwelt and context
Don-- I am not being arbitrarily argumentative. I am quite concerned
that
in the discourse surrounding LSV there is a LOT of confusion. I have
thought
so for some time, but have a particular interest in trying to get a
handle
on the range of positions at present.
Yes, there is a huge affordance for using context as container. And, if
you
have read cultural psychology (e.g. my version) you know know that under
some
(bracketed/circumsribed) conditions, it is useful. But it has a lot of
pernicious affordances.
Re humpty dumpty. I am on record, in print, of saying that we should
keep
that egg head from getting on the wall in the wall in the first place.
does la di da, so it goes mean that we should put serious attempts at
co-understanding on hold for the time being? If so, for how long?
does it matter? I think so. But I am a voice of one. I fear greatly
what is happening in my country of birth, not least in the area of
human development and education. I am seeking ways "forward." Your
help would be greatly appreciated.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT