Apologies for the intrusion, but I had a quick point of clarification,
for the uninitiated, what is meant by "lytic"?
(all I could come up with pertained to "lysis" or the breaking down of
cells - which would seem to suggest a different sense of "development"
- a breaking down so that things can be reintegrated. Is that the idea?).
-greg
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
I don't know where Americans being dolts comes into it, Mike. Some
of my best friends are Americans. :) But let's move on from that.
The point, as I see it, is trying to extract from what we can
reaonsably understand Vygotsky to be saying, something which we
believe could be correct and significant. To do this I think we
have to understand the concept of "development" always in a
particular context. A truism for anyone here I think. What it
means to me is that I cannot just ask: what transformations in
psychological functioning constitutes "development"? The
necessary, relevant context is what role in what cultural and
historical community is the person to play, in the short term and
in the longer term. So the question of what constitutes
development is age-specific, culturally specific and future-oriented.
(Of course, the world changes, and what was development yesterday
may become oppressive and detestable tomorrow and vice versa, but
let's abstract from cultural and historical change for the moment.)
>From the standpoint of natural science what I have posed is an
absurdity and incompatible with basic tenets of science ...
because I have made development dependent on events and relations
in the future. In my opinion, that is just as it should be: kids
go to school "for a purpose" - although what we mean by "purpose"
in this context (the child's? the parents'? the state's? in
retrospect? under advice? sponatneous?). But again, let's just put
the problems arising from the idea of human actions being part of
object-oriented activities to the side for the moment.
So you ask: "what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in the concept of
a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT?"
I have to ask /which/ zone of proximal development, which crisis
or lytic period are we talking about. Now I guess we can manage to
give a general answer to the question: general questions require
general answers. What "development" means is relative to which ZPD
you are talking about. On the other hand, the presence of the ZPD
itself depends on the development being posed. Achievment of a
specific new mode of action with those around you, transforming
your relations and your identity and your actions in the social
situation depends on the expectations of those around you,
according to broader cultural expectations and possibilities.
A teacher or other "helper" interested in fostering development
(if they can be presumed to reflect general, broader cultural
expectations) has in mind what new functioning will be a necessary
step towards the child becoming an autonomous citizen of the
community.
As Vygotsky insists, this poses for the child and her "helper" two
different kinds of situation: either /lytical/ development or
/critical/ development. Lytical development is gradual and
prepares the basis for developmental leap. To argue whether the
gradual progress made in strengthening the relevant psychologhical
functions in this phase is or is not development is in my opinion
/just words/. Gradual accumulation of strength in those activities
which the child is basically able to do, but maybe not very
confidentally and well is a necessary preparation for transcending
their age-role and entering into a phase of critical development
in which they have a chance of successfully coming out the other
side. It is by completion of the critical phase of development -
the leap - which transforms the child's identity and role, that
"/the development" is realised/. All the preparation in the world
proves to be not development if it is not realised in facilitating
the critical transformation.
So, excuse me please for however imperfectly rehearsing
egg-sucking for grandma's erudition.
I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether "child
X at last managing to recognise the difference between d and b
today," for example, is described as a development. In the context
of course it is; it is a step. You want to call that a
"microgenetic development"? Personally I don't have a problem with
that. David may, but paraphrasing Oscar Wilde: "Microgenesis is
not one of my words." But if the child at last managed to repeat
the Gospel According to St Luke by rote, and you wanted to
describe this as a microgenetic development, I would want to hear
the developmental plan that made that claim coherent.
Where if anywhere does this leave us?
Andy
My apologies for using so many words to say so little.
Just trying to be clear and careful.
mike cole wrote:
Hi Andy--
Well to begin with, thanks for keeping the discussion alive. I
am away from home without books or control of my time, so I
want to ask a question that may highlight what is central to
my queries here.
If what you write is correct, what does the word DEVELOPMENT
mean in the concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? Its all
fine and dandy to point out what dolts Americans are for not
understanding that learning leads DEVELOPMENT in classroom
instruction, that but classroom lessons are clusters of events
that take place in microgenetic time WITHIN ontogenetic lythic
periods.
Where does that leave us?
mike
PS- the url below lays out in some detail where the idea of
acquisition of reading as a cultural-historical developmental
process. Old and never published. But at least we might refine
what is indexed by the phrase
"learning to read."
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
So this thread does not die ...
You said, Mike, "So I am seeing the same solution to thinking
about the ontogeny/microgenesis relationships by analogy
with the
phylogeny/cultural-history relation."
I don't see the analogy there. Phylogeny and ethnogeny are two
(overlapping and mutually determining) processes with two very
distinct material bases, viz., genes and artefacts. But
learning
to read/write and development of abstract thinking (and other
leading activities in a developmental ZPD) is not such a
relation,
it is a relation between critical phases and lytic (gradual)
phases of development. This is quite a different relationship.
The analogy I would see for something which couold be called
microgenesis would be the /situation/: a concept develops
momentrily in a person and their actions in a situation. The
situation is not a factor in phylo- or ethnogensis, it
essentially
belongs to the very short time scale, and its material
basis is
activity. I grant that no-one might use "microgenesis" in
that way
and no-one may be doing research into that process these
days. I
don't know. But the situation is a distinct material basis for
development and one on which Vygotsky did a great deal of
work. On
the other hand, I think /all/ processes of development
have both
critical and lytical phases (c.f. Gould's punctuated
evolution).
What do you think?
Andy
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Department of Anthropology
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson