I have to admit, lately I cringe when I hear the terms social constructivsim and social constructionism (even though I have been guilty of using them myself). How thin can we slice the cheese. It reminds me of the movie Colors and the 23rd Street gang, and Robert Duvall I think asks them why they bother, and they say, well 23rd street may not be much, but it is their turf. Lately I sort of want to break down the distinction between the larger fields.
Still, when I have heard social constructionism used it is usually in support of a Dewey like approach, or Critical Theory, or by Post-Structuralists. I sort of think of it in terms of Louis Sullivan (I know, I get my ideas from odd places sometimes, but I have been reading about him and I feel like its given me some insight - or maybe I just think of him as an anti-hero). Anyway, Sullivan was working on the Court of Honor for the Chicago World's Fair and he was the only architecht to break away from the sort of Roman iconic work to create this building that didn't make any sense in its context. The building had no obvious rhyme or reason and you could easily get lost within it. He wanted I believe to do it for two reasons - the first was to break away from the oppressive nature of the Roman architecture, both historically and in terms of immediate elitism. He felt they simply catered to the ego of those who funded them, those who built them, and those who visited them. They were symbols of an unfair domination. By constructing his building Sullivan was actually able to simultaeneously attack the facade of the elitist artchitecture that really did not take in to account the needs of those who backs they were built on (Andy mentioned Jane Jacobs great book, and I wonder if she might be considered a modern extension of this and a social constructionist), and also change perceptions about what architecture should be and who had power in it, and by changing percpetions change context. So anyway, I sort of think of that as what I see as social constructionism.
Social constructivism (and constructivism in general) is I think more straight forward - the construction of either knowledge and/or meaning and/or instruments through some sort of active inquiry. The agent (although people argue about using the term agent lately) is much more the focus, and there is more of an emphasis placed both on the inquiry and the fruits of inquiry.
I don't think the two are mutually exclusive, but any time you set up categories you set up turf battles. I'd be interested what other people think.
Michael
________________________________
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Mike Cole
Sent: Sun 12/3/2006 9:14 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] non-classical thoughts!
Thanks for all the thoughts and references, Dot.
I cannot comment on most of what you wrote owing to ignorance including my
great difficulty in understanding Zinchenko's recent writing.
My one comment: If the individual "vs" social balancing act is what is at
issue in the constructivist/constructivism distinction we need a whole new
term so that we can escape a real dead end.
I am guessing the Spinoza would agree with me.
mike
On 12/3/06, Dot Robbins <drobbins72000@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Non-Classical Psychology
> In reading many messages over the past few days, I am somewhat struck at
> the type of discourse taken, more than the content of the messages. Just a
> couple of private comments, with no need for your response. Very slowly,
> there is a small, new discourse being developed to try and return to
> Vygotsky, inter alia, to begin to understand concepts from a different
> level. The label used for this discourse is "non-classical psychology," the
> term Elkonin gave to Vygotsky's cultural-historical approach. The idea right
> now is to return to older theories and try to understand them in the light
> of various new thinking today. There is a reference list at the bottom of
> the page, and two authors in particular have written interesting material,
> Dmitry Leontiev (2005), and V. Zinchenko (2001 and 2002). I have tried to
> contribute to these ideas, in an article I have (2007) that will be on my
> website in a couple of days. I will not get into the newer form of discourse
> here, but hope that
> some of you might be interested in thinking about a less linear approach
> to thinking and discussing, which includes a non-spatial approach to
> problems not yet truly understood, such as units of analysis, etc. I don't
> know if this approach will take root or not, but I do know that the mode of
> discourse we now have often falls into a sense of rhetoric or endless words.
> I would like to give caution to that, and setting up what can sometimes be
> viewed as false dichotomies. We need a discourse that fits within a specific
> system (also, for A. A. Leontiev, a system--plan--methodology). Otherwise,
> we are truly speaking so many words that are difficult to use without some
> system that truly translates into concrete action (be it human free action
> of will, or any other action needed to change ourselves and society). Thanks
> to anyone for investigating the articles I have offered, which have shown me
> that we have much to interprete from a win/win situation.....Thank you for
> your
> discussions on the past few days, all of which has triggered much thinking
> for me, and I think, many others. \n
> \nSpinoza
> \nFor a new discourse within non-classical psychology, it is extremely
> necessary to know Spinoza, with all of our interpretations. His thoughts on
> truth being perceived through "essence" (Zinchenko writes on similar, but
> different thoughts), which is fixed in eternal things...he writes on the
> "third space"--intuition; will as perfect understanding; truth as a
> possession of a true idea, where no further sign is needed; whole/part: "In
> order that all ideas may be reduced to unity, we shall endeavor so to
> associate and arrange them that our mind may, as far as possible reflect
> subjectively the reality of nature, both as a whole and as parts." (quote
> from Spinoza, sorry, don\'t have source here). Spinoza is a key component in
> non-classical psychology, and I am happy he is being discussed. So, wish
> there could be more on his ideas from Spinozian scholars. Thanks for the
> discussion.\n
> \n
> \nConstructivism/Constructionism
> \nIn my notes italsostatedthat "constructionism foregrounds the social
> setting, wheras constructivism foregrounds the individual in the social
> setting." Vygotsky (1989 [1929] spoke about a "constructive method," but we
> need to reread his thoughts. Constructivism can be broken down into many
> things, such as "cognitive constructivism" or "social
> constructivism"...Gergen (1995, pp. 24-25) has written interesting thoughts
> on this, also speaking about Vygotsky. And, Hayles (1993, pp. 39-42) speaks
> of a "constrained constructivism." All of this discussion is also very
> important in better understanding the roots of Vygotsky. Thanks for that
> discussion.\n
> \n
> \nDefectology
> \nYes, I agree with Katya R. that we need to have a better understanding
> of defectology. I would highly encourage people who can read German to find
> some books from Wolfgang Jantzen and Christel Manske. I have listed one
> below. There are initial discussions by some to perhaps have a seminar on
> defectology and Vygotsky in future, somewhere in Moscow, or perhaps it could
> be with Jantzen in Bremen, Germany. This is an aspect rarely discussed on
> xmca, and one of the core elements of Vygotskian thought. Thanks for that
> discussion.\n",1] ); //-->
>
> Spinoza
> For a new discourse within non-classical psychology, it is extremely
> necessary to know Spinoza, with all of our interpretations. His thoughts on
> truth being perceived through "essence" (Zinchenko writes on similar, but
> different thoughts), which is fixed in eternal things...he writes on the
> "third space"--intuition; will as perfect understanding; truth as a
> possession of a true idea, where no further sign is needed; whole/part: "In
> order that all ideas may be reduced to unity, we shall endeavor so to
> associate and arrange them that our mind may, as far as possible reflect
> subjectively the reality of nature, both as a whole and as parts." (quote
> from Spinoza, sorry, don't have source here). Spinoza is a key component in
> non-classical psychology, and I am happy he is being discussed. So, wish
> there could be more on his ideas from Spinozian scholars. Thanks for the
> discussion.
>
> Constructivism/Constructionism
> In my notes, it also stated that "constructionism foregrounds the social
> setting, wheras constructivism foregrounds the individual in the social
> setting." Vygotsky (1989 [1929] spoke about a "constructive method," but we
> need to reread his thoughts. Constructivism can be broken down into many
> things, such as "cognitive constructivism" or "social
> constructivism"...Gergen (1995, pp. 24-25) has written interesting thoughts
> on this, also speaking about Vygotsky. And, Hayles (1993, pp. 39-42) speaks
> of a "constrained constructivism." All of this discussion is also very
> important in better understanding the roots of Vygotsky. Thanks for that
> discussion.
>
> Defectology
> Yes, I agree with Katya R. that we need to have a better understanding
> of defectology. I would highly encourage people who can read German to find
> some books from Wolfgang Jantzen and Christel Manske. I have listed one
> below. There are initial discussions by some to perhaps have a seminar on
> defectology and Vygotsky in future, somewhere in Moscow, or perhaps it could
> be with Jantzen in Bremen, Germany. This is an aspect rarely discussed on
> xmca, and one of the core elements of Vygotskian thought. Thanks for that
> discussion. \n
> \nIn concluding, I am hoping that perhaps newer forms of discourse can
> take place in future, with many unresolved issues within Vygotskian thinking
> being discussed in the light of non-classical psychology. And, this will
> need to have the inclusion of many many Russian voices......Regarding the
> 7th International Vygotsky Memorial Conference in Moscow, November 14-17,
> 2006....a big thanks goes to the people who supported this conference. There
> were 17 countries represented, and people from three more countries who
> could not attend. We hope that newer ideas and a new discourse will be
> generated as a result of the conference. From June 20-29, 2007 there will be
> an International Summer School in Russia, titled: The Cultural-Historical
> Approach in Education in Russia: Golden Key Schools. It will be for
> teachers, practitioners, theorists, students, anyone. The attempt is have a
> smaller group of people come together to see how the Golden Key Schools
> function within the Vygotskian
> tradition, and to have days to dialogue and exchange ideas together. Thank
> you for your inspiration in the past few days, and the long reading time it
> has taken. May it continue.....\n
> \n
> \nwith best regards to each of you,
> \nDot
> \n
> \nGergen, K. J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process.
> In L. P. Steffe & G. Gale (Eds.). \nConstructivism in Education. Hillsdale,
> NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
> \n
> \nHayles, K.N. (1993). Constrained constructivism: Locating scientific
> inquiry in the theater of representation. In G. Levine (Ed.), \nRealsim and
> Representation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
> \n
> \n",1] ); //-->
>
> In concluding, I am hoping that perhaps newer forms of discourse can
> take place in future, with many unresolved issues within Vygotskian thinking
> being discussed in the light of non-classical psychology. And, this will
> need to have the inclusion of many many Russian voices......Regarding the
> 7th International Vygotsky Memorial Conference in Moscow, November 14-17,
> 2006....a big thanks goes to the people who supported this conference. There
> were 17 countries represented, and people from three more countries who
> could not attend. We hope that newer ideas and a new discourse will be
> generated as a result of the conference. From June 20-29, 2007 there will be
> an International Summer School in Russia, titled: The Cultural-Historical
> Approach in Education in Russia: Golden Key Schools. It will be for
> teachers, practitioners, theorists, students, anyone. The attempt is have a
> smaller group of people come together to see how the Golden Key Schools
> function within the Vygotskian
> tradition, and to have days to dialogue and exchange ideas together. Thank
> you for your inspiration in the past few days, and the long reading time it
> has taken. May it continue.....
>
> with best regards to each of you,
> Dot
>
> Gergen, K. J. (1995). Social construction and the educational process.
> In L. P. Steffe & G. Gale (Eds.). Constructivism in Education. Hillsdale,
> NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
>
> Hayles, K.N. (1993). Constrained constructivism: Locating scientific
> inquiry in the theater of representation. In G. Levine (Ed.), Realsim and
> Representation. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
>
> 01). Jeder Mensch kann lernen-Perspektiven einer kulturhistorischen
> (Behinderten-) Pädagogik.\n Berlin: Luchterhand. (trans. Every Person can
> Learn-Perspectives of a cultural-historical (handicapped-) Pedagogy).
> \n
> \nLeontiev, D. (2005). Non-Classical Psychology: Beyond the Internal and
> the External. In A. Gulerce, A. Hofmeister, I. Staeuble, G. Saunders, and J.
> Kaye (Eds.) \nContemporary Theorizing in Psychology: Global Perspectives,
> (pp. 19-28). Concord, ON: Captus University Publications.
> \n
> \n
> \nRobbins, D. (2003). Vygotsky\'s and A. A. Leontiev\'s Semiotics and
> Psycholinguistifcs: Applications for Education, Second Language Acquisition,
> and Theories of Language. \nCT: Praeger Publishers. (Chapter 4:
> Constructivism (Constructionism) and Teacher-Ability, pp. 55-72)
> \n
> \nRobbins, D. (2007). Critical Review of Sociocultural Theory,
> Cognitivism, Postmodernism: Redefining L. S. Vygotsky\'s Non-Classical
> Psychology. In Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics, Vol. 4, Nr. 1. (it will
> be on my website very soon)\n
> \n
> \nVygotsky, L. S. (1989 [1929]). Concrete human psychology. In Soviet
> Psychology, 27(2), pp. 53-77.\n
> \n
> \nZinchenko, V. (2001). External and Internal: Another Comment on the
> Issue. In S. Chaiklin (Ed.), ",1] ); //--> Jantzen, W. (2001). Jeder
> Mensch kann lernen-Perspektiven einer kulturhistorischen (Behinderten-)
> Pädagogik. Berlin: Luchterhand. (trans. Every Person can Learn-Perspectives
> of a cultural-historical (handicapped-) Pedagogy).
>
> Leontiev, D. (2005). Non-Classical Psychology: Beyond the Internal and
> the External. In A. Gulerce, A. Hofmeister, I. Staeuble, G. Saunders, and J.
> Kaye (Eds.) Contemporary Theorizing in Psychology: Global Perspectives, (pp.
> 19-28). Concord, ON: Captus University Publications.
>
>
> Robbins, D. (2003). Vygotsky's and A. A. Leontiev's Semiotics and
> Psycholinguistifcs: Applications for Education, Second Language Acquisition,
> and Theories of Language. CT: Praeger Publishers. (Chapter 4: Constructivism
> (Constructionism) and Teacher-Ability, pp. 55-72)
>
> Robbins, D. (2007). Critical Review of Sociocultural Theory,
> Cognitivism, Postmodernism: Redefining L. S. Vygotsky's Non-Classical
> Psychology. In Journal of Intercultural Pragmatics, Vol. 4, Nr. 1. (it will
> be on my website very soon)
>
> Vygotsky, L. S. (1989 [1929]). Concrete human psychology. In Soviet
> Psychology, 27(2), pp. 53-77.
>
> Zinchenko, V. (2001). External and Internal: Another Comment on the
> Issue. In S. Chaiklin (Ed.), The Theory and Practice of Cultural-Historical
> \nPsychology, (pp.135-147). Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
> \n
> \nZinchenko, V. (2002). From Classical to Organic Psychology: In
> Commeration of the Centennial of Lev Vygotsky\'s Birth. In D. Robbins and A.
> Stetsenko (Eds.), \nVoices within Vygotsky\'s Non-Classical Psychology:
> Past, Present, Future, (pp. 3-26). New York: Nova Science.
> \n------
> Dr. Dorothy (Dot) Robbins
> www.vygotsky-robbins.com
> \n\n",0] ); //--> The Theory and Practice of Cultural-Historical
> Psychology, (pp.135-147). Denmark: Aarhus University Press.
>
> Zinchenko, V. (2002). From Classical to Organic Psychology: In
> Commeration of the Centennial of Lev Vygotsky's Birth. In D. Robbins and A.
> Stetsenko (Eds.), Voices within Vygotsky's Non-Classical Psychology: Past,
> Present, Future, (pp. 3-26). New York: Nova Science
> ____
> "] ,[] ,[] ,[] ,"Dec 3, 2006 6:20 PM","Fwd: non-classical
> thinking","",[] ,1,,,"Sun Dec 3 2006_6:20 PM","On 12/3/06, Dot
> Robbins wrote:","On 12/3/06, Dot Robbins <dot.robbins@gmail.com>
> wrote:","gmail.com",,,"","",0,,"",0,,0,"In reply to \"non-classical
> thinking\"",0] ); D(["mb","Wolfgang, For Your Information!!!!",1] ); //-->
>
>
> Dorothy (Dot) Robbins
> Professor of German
> Russian Orphanage Vyschgorod
> www.vygotsky-robbins.com
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Access over 1 million songs - Yahoo! Music Unlimited.
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Jan 03 2007 - 07:06:17 PST