Dear Mike, I'm really confused.
In my personal, novice way of understanding development, it seems universal
(as a possibility). If everybody is going to reach the same 'level' will
depend on cultural-historical processes (this very notion of 'level' is
judgemental and cultural). I think the development path depends on the
activities people are involved in, the culture, their "umwelts", the
affordances (???).
In relation to culture, I think it gets even more complex, because I see
different layers of culture. Our western culture, for example, the
countries' own culture, the region's or even city's culture and the culture
in a community and even within a single family.
As an example, my brother and I were raised almost in the same way, but
before that, we live in the same country, region, city. We belong to the
same social class but we value different things. I would say that in my
family (my husband, daughter and I), we value 'knowing' and his family
values 'doing' as the main accomplisment. So, in this case, we have
different "umwelts", which would then explain our different values. But
then, how do we explain this difference in "umwelts"? I would risk saying
that it is due to the different activities we have been involved in. I'm a
teacher and my husband works with software development. To be able to do our
work, we have to be constantly studying or have to keep up with advances in
technology. We mainly work with knowledge, ideas.
My brother, on the other hand, is a designer, he projects things and sees
that they get done in the correct way. He materializes things that were
first ideal. His wife works in a store. She doesn't think that going to
college or studying is important because, as she says, she makes as much
money as some engineers.
As for your main question, if "umwelt" = context, then I think Vygotsky was
a contextualist.
then, again, what does it mean to be 'contextualista'??? I lack the concept.
Still confused....
Karin Quast
mktostes@uol.com.br
----- Original Message -----
From: "Mike Cole" <mcole@weber.ucsd.edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:54 PM
Subject: RE: umwelt and context
> this seems right to me,
> Ana, but does not resolve all the problems that appear in my dreams and
> waking life (e.g dreams with eyes open):
>
> We can say that development is not universal because it is part of
variable
> cultural-historical processes. But the statement "it is part of variable
> cultural-historical processes" is meant as a universal statement. I don't
> think that LSV meant "development is sometimes part of interpersonal and
> larger social cultural historical processes, and sometimes it is not".
>
> Cultural mediation is universal among humans. The big question is whether
> there is a unilinear scale of cultural evolution form lower--higher.
>
> Play enter here thanks to gaskins and goncu, by way of mayan kids who do
not
> engage in the kinds of play that LSV assumed were universal. Does it
matter?
>
> By some accounts, Mayan children develop just fine thank you without
> superheroes. But a case can be made (do i need to do it?) that they
develop
> along a path that --WITHIN A EURO-AMERICAN-MODERNIST framework, is
definitely
> LOWER. The Sharp et al 1979 monograph or reserch by D. Wagner could be
> invoked here in detail. I do not interpret the data in the way that, for
> example, LSV might. But the issue is not cut/dried or dead.
> snip, snip, snip...
> mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT