This is also the way I understand Vygotsky: children transform what
they appropriate, even while what they appropriate is initially
framed for them by the adults they are interacting with. I think
BOTH are true, and I've seen a great deal of emphasis on this list
on the first part of this (that is, the individual agency of
children), but very little emphasis on the second part (the
constraints of culture). Personally, I find that what's unique
about Vygotsky (from the perspective of the field of developmental
psychology, which has always tended to use the individual as the
unit of analysis) is the way in which the individual's constructions
are viewed as embedded in the constructions of the larger society;
not that this translates into cookie-cutter duplication, but simply
that the constraints of culture are present in the analysis.
I've been surprised that the focus of this list (and I don't know
what discussions I've missed in the past) has been on celebrating
the uniqueness of the individual and speaking of culture primarily
as a negative, coercing influence. Again, I don't share the
history of discussion, I can only speak from my own disciplinary
history, but I am surprised at the individualistic, almost anti-social-
order tone of the discussion. Isn't there a way to validate
both the transforming power of the individual AND his or her given
sociocultural constraints? I'm rambling now, I'm sure...
Robin