[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Wertsch is focusing on the concept of *settings* and I wonder if the notion of *human worlds* is considered equivalent to this notion of *settings* ?

On page 204 of the Wertsch article : “The Primacy of Mediated Action in Sociocultural Studies”  is the notion of broadening the concept of *Settings*  On page 204 is this paragraph:

“Vygotsky’s analysis of mediation is central to understanding his contribution to psychology. Indeed, it is the key in his approach to understanding how human mental functioning is tied to cultural [settings], institutional [settings], and historical [settings] since these settings shape and provide the cultural tools that are mastered by individuals to form this functioning.  In this approach the mediational means are what might be termed the *carriers* of sociocultural patterns and knowledge.”

I notice that other traditions posit the notion of {worlds] that come into existence with human approaches to [worlds].

Is it ok to consider that Wertsch who is exploring linking human mental functioning to human settings is indicating the same realm as others who are exploring human mental functioning linking to human *worlds*. 

In particular the author John William Miller posits the actuality of *midworlds* that resemble or have a family semblance to the notion of *settings*.  
Also Continental Philosophy explores *worlds* that exist as human dwelling places? 

The notions of [settings] and [worlds] seem to be linked? 


Sent from Mail for Windows 10