[Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of word-meaning]
Julian Williams
julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
Thu Oct 23 12:16:03 PDT 2014
Mike
Just responding to the first point here.
I said this:
> But before we go there have we finally dispensed with the notion in *Vygotsky's
> Perezhivanie paper that the situation or environment is given and the same
> for all,* and the final form of development is given in a final, given
> 'ideal' form right from the beginning ( being then associated with an
> already given social plane).
Then You respond with this:
> WHAT? Isn't the core idea that each of the three kids in the initial
> alcoholic mom story that perezhivanie is a particular relationship between
> the individual and the situation?
>
I think this is what Vygotsky seems to say, and your interpretation seems right... And I think it's a problem - (not sure that Leontiev saw the problem in just the way I do.... And the emotions Leontievs paper raises means I prefer to stand alone on this).
IF the 'situation' is the same for each kid, then the difference in perezhivanie will be due solely to their different stages of development, OK. But if the relationship is dialectical, one can surely observe that actually the situation/activity is partly due to and responsive to the acting child... The mother - even when sober - behaves differently to each child, perhaps being angered by the bed-wetting that the youngest exhibits (causing her work and a sense of guilt?) as a result of the stress on the child, etc etc. so the child's stage of development becomes a factor in the context of the situation of the family...
I don't think anyone argues with this dialectic in the context of 'activity', do they? I'm suggesting we insist on the same dialectic in the unit of Perezhivanie, or if we don't we will be in trouble.
Julian
> Second, regarding *the final form of development is given in a final,
> given 'ideal' form right from the beginning ( being then associated with an
> already given social plane).*
>
> I raised concerns early on about this formulation. On the one hand, it is
> true (in so far as the ideal is not seen as "the perfected/never to be
> changed).It is only the given, ideologically and historically shaped "ideal
> of the group at the given time". How long it remains and how widely it is
> dispersed is up for grabs. For deaf, home signing kids to be brought
> together in a school setting where they, collectively, "acquire", use and
> transform the "ideal" that they encounter, depending upon which generation
> of local signers they encounter.
>
> My concern grew precisely along the lines that worry Julian. But the notion
> of "the ideal" as not an historically evolved cultural understanding seems
> to me to play too easily into totalitarian modes of thought. On the other
> hand, some sorts of ideals seem to have such a long life and seem so useful
> to us, that they are "as if" unchanging. So, for a (relatively) long time,
> English can be considered a "mature language." Its hard to see how next
> generations of kids change the language in a single generation. But for
> sure it happens and is happening all the time. If you doubt it, imagine
> your grandmother saying something like "Well,if you are not down with that,
> just google it." Any acquaintance with the history of English from is
> precarious beginnings makes the same point on a longer time scale.
>
> mike
>
> On Thu, Oct 23, 2014 at 9:24 AM, Julian Williams <
> julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>> Andy:
>>
>> Now I feel we are nearly together, here. There is no 'final' form even of
>> simple arithmetic, because it is (as social practices are) continually
>> evolving.
>>
>> Just one more step then: our conversation with the 7 year old child about
>> the truth of 7plus 4 equals 10 is a part of this social practice, and
>> contributes to it....? The event involved in this Perezhivanie here
>> involves a situation that is created by the joint activity of the child
>> with us?
>>
>> Peg: Germ cell for the social practice of mathematics... I wonder if there
>> is a problem with Davydov's approach, in that it requires a specification
>> of the final form of the mathematics to be learnt (a closed curriculum).
>> But let me try: One candidate might be the 'reasoned justification for a
>> mathematical use/application to our project' ... Implies meaningful verbal
>> thought/interaction, and collective mathematical activity with others. Not
>> sure how this works to define your curriculum content etc.
>>
>> Julian
>>
>>
>> On 23 Oct 2014, at 16:28, "Peg Griffin" <Peg.Griffin@att.net> wrote:
>>
>>> And thus the importance of finding a good germ cell for mathematics
>> pedagogy
>>> -- because a germ cell can "grow with" and "grow" the current "social
>>> practice of mathematics." Whether someone agrees with the choice of germ
>>> cell made by Davidov (or anyone else), a germ cell needs to be
>> identified,
>>> justified and relied on to generate curriculum content and practice,
>> right?
>>> PG
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2014 10:35 AM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of
>> word-meaning]
>>>
>>> Julian,
>>> The claim that the ideal exists in the social environment from the
>> beginning
>>> is quite consistent, indeed relies upon, the claim that the ideal is
>> being
>>> continuously subject to transformation, that is, that mathematicians are
>>> active developing the content of mathematics in the context of the
>> problems
>>> and resources the community is generating. Were this not the case, it
>> would
>>> be very difficult (though not impossible) for kids to acquire a
>> mathematical
>>> disposition.
>>>
>>> I think the basic ontogenetic principle fully applies to mathematics.
>>> But the ideal is certainly not the absolute truths of arithmetic taught
>> in
>>> South African elementary schools. The ideal is the *social practice of
>>> mathematics*. That is, of course, by its very nature, continually
>> evolving
>>> and transforming. The ideal is a pair of shifting goal posts.
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>
>>>
>>> Julian Williams wrote:
>>>> Andy/Carol
>>>>
>>>> I would like to expand a bit on Andy's point -
>>>>
>>>> First, I have often had very interesting discussions with children who
>>> work out that 7+4 = 10 ... this is usually accomplished by a 'counting
>> on'
>>> method, which begins with the 7 ("1") and goes 7 ("1"),8 ("2") ,9 ("3")
>> ,10
>>> "4- there we are, 10!" ...
>>>>
>>>> 7 -- 8 --- 9 -- 10
>>>> 1 ... 2 ... 3 ... 4
>>>>
>>>> Similarly 10 - 4 = 7 etc.
>>>>
>>>> (It doesn't really matter whether the teacher accepts the answer or
>>>> not - the kids keep getting the answer 10... and we have data to prove
>>>> it; until one day they are told they are hopeless and its time for
>>>> them to leave and go down the mines/factory. See Billy Connolly's
>>>> youtube hit on 'algebra'..)
>>>>
>>>> Second: Im pleased to say that the best arithmetic I am seeing in
>> schools
>>> now bears almost no relation to that I experienced 50 odd years ago as a
>>> learner, and that I taught as a teacher 30 years ago... although there
>>> seems still to be a lot that hasn't changed as much as Id like. Im
>> thinking
>>> of a lesson wherein different groups of children modelled their 'proofs'
>>> that 3x28 = 84 using various methods, tools, etc.
>>>>
>>>> So Im afraid the story that arithmetic already exists in some ideal
>>>> form in the social - cultural plane (eg in adult practices?), and so
>>>> can/has to be somehow made present for the youngster in their earlier
>>>> stages of development (if that's what Vygotsky really meant) is far
>>>> too simple for me, and at its worst leads to terrible schooling
>>>> practices, where there is no room for a child's intelligent argument
>>>> that 7 + 4 really equals 10
>>>>
>>>> :-)
>>>>
>>>> Julian
>>>>
>>>> Andy: my sleight of hand here is that I translate your formulation of
>> what
>>> leontiev says "there is one true object/ive and the kids should come to
>> know
>>> it" into Vygotsky's " ideal form of arithmetic" where child development
>> must
>>> end up... thus your critique of Leontiev becomes my complaint about
>>> Vygtosky's perezhivanie paper. Im sure you will say "not fair"?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden
>>>> Sent: 23 October 2014 14:50
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: In defense of Vygotsky [[The fallacy of
>>>> word-meaning]
>>>>
>>>> Mathematics today is nothing like it was 300 years ago, Carol, even if
>>>> it is in a South African elementary school. And the teacher wouldn't
>>>> accept it if Johnny said that apes had evolved from human either or
>>>> that gravity went clockwise. The ability to correctly reproduce
>>>> things like
>>>> 4+7=11 is not in my experience any evidence that a child has grasped
>>>> what + or = means, and certainly no evidence that they have any grasp of
>>> mathematics or even number. Of course, we might take the view that they
>>> never will anyway, so being able to add is good enough for them.
>>>>
>>>> But if we take the view that it is worthwhile that a child learn what
>>> science is and what mathematics is about, then in my view, the problems
>> are
>>> essentially the same whichever science it is.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, in general, the attitude a teacher takes to their material is
>>> that it is objectively true and the kids should come to know it. But this
>>> stance or attitude to knowledge, or science, is a very poor preparation
>> for
>>> adult life and citizenship. I don't see mathematics in principle as
>> being an
>>> exception. Perhaps a little teaching of the history of mathematics would
>>> help? I don't know.
>>>>
>>>> Andy
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> --
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> I realise that, but it much more robust than orthodox science; i.e.
>>>>> we are still doing the same maths as 300 years ago, where normal
>>>>> science is very different indeed.
>>>>>
>>>>> If Johnny said that 4+7=10, the teacher is not going to accept that,
>>>>> is she?
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 October 2014 10:02, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol, mathematics is a natural science like any other.
>>>>> It is neither the absolute truth nor merely social convention.
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol Macdonald wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Julian, Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> I think arithmetic is something of a test case. Just as word
>>>>> meaning
>>>>> changes over time in a dynamic way, as recognised by
>>>>> linguists, maths
>>>>> truths don't. It would be difficult to argue that maths truths
>>>>> of basic
>>>>> arithmetic have changed over the centuries. I don't know about
>>>>> maths truths
>>>>> of a higher order.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry if I use the terms arithmetic and maths interchangeably;
>>>>> it's a South
>>>>> African usage here in basic education.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carol
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 October 2014 08:33, Julian Williams
>>>>> <julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk
>>>>> <mailto:julian.williams@manchester.ac.uk>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, just so, this is why I go to social theory eg Marx
>>>>> and Bourdieu to
>>>>> find political-economic contradictions within and between
>>>>> activities.
>>>>>
>>>>> But before we go there have we finally dispensed with the
>>>>> notion in
>>>>> Vygotsky's Perezhivanie paper that the situation or
>>>>> environment is given
>>>>> and the same for all, and the final form of development is
>>>>> given in a
>>>>> final, given 'ideal' form right from the beginning ( being
>>>>> then associated
>>>>> with an already given social plane).
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm happy enough to accept that this is a false and
>>>>> undialectical reading
>>>>> of Vygotsky (after all who knows how the concept of
>>>>> perezhivanie might have
>>>>> matured in his hands)...
>>>>>
>>>>> To return to my case - arithmetic. Many will say this
>>>>> exists in ideal form
>>>>> in the culture and all that needs to be done by
>>>>> development is to bring the
>>>>> child into the culture... Then the child is 'schooled'...
>>>>> Passive, lacking
>>>>> in agency, often failed, and at best made obedient to the
>>>>> cultural legacy.
>>>>> AsBourdieu says, through processes in school the class
>>>>> system is
>>>>> reproduced, and this is enculturation into the cultural
>>>>> arbitrary.
>>>>>
>>>>> Julian
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On 23 Oct 2014, at 07:08, "Andy Blunden"
>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No, the point is that for ANL "meaning" refers to the
>>>>> one true meaning
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> of something. He does not allow that the meaning of
>>>>> something may be
>>>>> contested, and that a meaning may be contested because of
>>>>> heterogeneity in
>>>>> society, different social classes, genders, ethnic groups,
>>>>> social movements
>>>>> and so on. For ANL there is only the one true meaning of
>>>>> something which
>>>>> "everyone knows" or individual, personal meanings, which
>>>>> are therefore
>>>>> taken to be subjective.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Annalisa Aguilar wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This continues and extends from my original post
>>>>> concerning Andy's
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> breakdown of ANL vs. LSV. There are about 8 points
>>>>> total... [copypasta is a
>>>>> starch of art]
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- 6. [The
>>>>> fallacy of word-meaning] (see original post below)
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------- You
>>>>> say: "ANL believes
>>>>> that motivation determines perception. The norm of
>>>>> perception, the "true"
>>>>> meaning of an object, is therefore the meaning it has for
>>>>> the community as
>>>>> a whole. I am questioning the validity of this concept of
>>>>> "community as a
>>>>> whole" in this context." So is it the case that
>>>>> word-meaning is denied by
>>>>> ANL because meaning and symbols "must be" cohesive across
>>>>> the culture and
>>>>> cannot have personal or spontaneous meaning? I can see the
>>>>> reason
>>>>> politically to emphasize this, if the State is sanctioned
>>>>> as the sole
>>>>> arbiter of meaning. --- clip from previous post below Wed,
>>>>> 22 Oct 2014
>>>>> 06:28:48 +0000 Annalisa wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _6th charge_: The fallacy of word-meaning
>>>>> ---------- ANL believes that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> the mental representation in a child's awareness must
>>>>> _correspond_ directly
>>>>> to the object in reality, and not just perceptually, but
>>>>> also how the
>>>>> object may relate and associate to other objects and their
>>>>> meanings. The
>>>>> example is a table. Because of this definition of, what I
>>>>> will call here
>>>>> for convenience (i.e., my laziness) "object-awareness",
>>>>> ANL takes exception
>>>>> with LSV's rendering of a _single word_ to stand as a
>>>>> generalization to
>>>>> reference the meaning of the word and as an independent unit
>>>>> (word-meaning). Furthermore, ANL disagrees with the
>>>>> existence of these
>>>>> word-meanings, _as units_, but he also disagrees that they
>>>>> are what
>>>>> construct consciousness as a whole. ANL can say this
>>>>> because he considers
>>>>> consciousness and intellect to be synonymous. ----------
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy's reply to #6 above: ANL believes
>>>>> that motivation determines
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> perception. The norm of perception, the "true" meaning of
>>>>> an object, is
>>>>> therefore the meaning it has for the community as a whole.
>>>>> I am questioning
>>>>> the validity of this concept of "community as a whole" in
>>>>> this context.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --end
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Carol A Macdonald Ph D (Edin)
>>>>> Developmental psycholinguist
>>>>> Academic, Researcher, and Editor
>>>>> Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list