On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 19:18:17 +0700 philchappell@mac.com wrote:
>
> On 12/09/2005, at 10:12 AM, Natalia Gajdamaschko wrote:
>
> > I am always curious why people don't, for example, discuss the
> > development
> > of higher psychological functions versus lower psychological
> > functions? Is
> > Vygotsky's concept obsolete, not deserving, or falsified (if so, by
> > whom?)?
>
> Dear Natalia,
>
> I'm unclear here - in my readings I see many references to the
> development of both functions. Are you referring to the less common
> phenomena of discussions of the dialectical developmental relationship
> between the two? If so, this is certainly something I'm interested in,
> too.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Phil
>
Hi Phill, Lois and Dear ALL,
But Phill, don’t you agree --- this was exactly my question – IF the
literature you mention discussed development of higher psychological
functions (or lower psychological functions) WITHOUT discussing of
"dialectical developmental relationship between the two", than ... that type
of literature fails to excite me. (sorry)
Or, to put it differently --perhaps, we do, indeed, "entertain different
units of development when we speak of development?" here, as Lois formulated
it in her message.
How about development IS a formation of new functional systems, changing
interfunctional dialectical relationships? Neoformation (novoobrazovanie)?
Crisis of development? Do we really have a lot of literature discussing
those issues?
Yes, I do think that Vygotsky’s dialectical approach to development
contrasts with traditional, more or less linear approaches that analyze
development but do not explain the origins of the new psychological
structures. I agree with Lois here.
The issue is very complicated ... but may be only for me (??? cheers).
Vygotsky wrote that:
"if one holds the point of view [that] the process of intellectual changes
that occur at adolescence can be reduced to a simple quantitative
accumulation of characteristics already laid down in the thinking of a
three-year old...the word development does not apply" (p. 29, Vol.5 ).
Instead LSV suggested that
“The age levels represent the integral, dynamic formation, the structure,
which determines the role and relative significance of each partial line of
development” (p. 196).
At any given age we have so called central and peripheral lines of
development:
"The processed of development that are more or less directly connected with
basic neoformation we shall call central lines of development and the given
age and all other partial processes and changes occurring at the given age,
we shall call paripheral lines of development. Processes that are central
lines of development at one age become peripheral lines of development at
the following age and conversely, peripheral lines of development of one age
are brought to the forefront and become central lines since their meaning
and relative significance in the total structure of development changes..."
(p. 197 Vol.5).
And Vygotsky formulated “the first law of the development and structure of
higher mental functions which… can be called the law of the transition from
direct, innate, natural forms and methods of behavior to mediated,
artificial mental functions that develop in the process of cultural
development” (p. 167-168, Vol.5).
In addition, I think that one of utmost important to LSV concept of
development is the idea of “crisis of development.”
Vygotsky wrote:“ Crisis are not temporary state, but the path of inner life.
When we move from systems to destinies, … to the birth and death of systems,
we shall see this with our own eyes.”
Cheers,
Natalia.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Oct 01 2005 - 01:00:11 PDT