Risking to expose my ignorance I am still searching to really understand
what is it what defines "post-modernism" and what is it that defines
"modernism".
And I also don't know why would that distinction be important.
What is for me the most innovative and the most useful idea in
Vygotsky's work is the idea of mediation of human experience by
cultural and social tools/symbols. The idea that by learning how to
create, build and use symbolic tools in communication, individuals
transform their thought and emotional processes from functioning in a
simple stimulus-reaction loop to a process (that is, a higher
psychological function) which can generate imagery, creating and
understanding rules and norms, conceptual categorization, evaluation,
planning, memory, etc... Maybe what people find to be "post-modern" is a
relational and processual thinking in Vygotsky's theory which does not
take any phenomenon for granted, does not stop at its face value, but
tries to examine it from many sides and to situate it in a far richer
context. Maybe that "non linearity" in Vygotsky's theory is what is
dubbed "post-modern"?
Ana
Bill Barowy wrote:
>On Wednesday 10 September 2003 9:28 pm, Judith Vera Diamondstone promulgated:
>
>
>>It seems to me the point is whether the writings of Vygotsky, Leovt'ev et
>>al are USEFUL in addressing post-modern concerns.
>>
>>
>
>Implicit in this discussion is what appears to me to be value judgements of
>Vygotsky's work with post-modernism as the fulcrum. My simple mind finds
>this weird because i consider *usefulness* to be a core criterion for valuing
>research, and I find Vygotsky's work more useful than anything i've yet seen
>that is called "postmodern".
>
>But I'm willing to be shown otherwise. ???
>
>bb
>
>
>
>
>
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ana Marjanovic-Shane 267-334-2905 (cell) 215-843-2909 (home)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Oct 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PDT