In reading texts in different disciplines, I am struck by the current
attempt to place various authors together, compare them, and try to find
connections that work. This is laudable, of course; yet, I often read
about core aspects of theories which are then reduced to the bare
minimum. To give one example from applied linguistics, Diane
Larsen-Freeman (a person I respect very much), states the following
which is symptomatic for many such comparisions: "Chomsky has made it
his contribution to argue for a strong innate endownment for language
within humans. Vygotsky feels that what is of value lies in social
interaction" (157) ("Chaos/Complexity Science and Second Language
Acquisition," Applied Linguistics, Vol. 18, No. 2. 1997). Social
interaction seems to be the key word in describing Vygotsky across
disciplines. From my perspective (which is from an American, who
completed all graduate studies in Germany, spending a total of 15 years
in Europe), the basic core elements of Vygotskian thought are sometimes
missing from these discussions. I realize that the sociocultural trend
in America goes from "thought to action," hence, sociocultural theory;
however, from the influence I have been exposed to, my understanding of
Vygotsky is from "action to thought," particularly in relation to
Vygotsky's aesthetics. Kouzlin (113-114) states: "From action to
thought...Vygotsky's position was...higher mental function is created
through activity, it is an objectivation of action. The traditional
rationalist formula, from thought to action, is thus reversed and
becomes, from action to thought" (Vygotsky's psychology: a biography of
ideas). From that starting point, I interpret Vygotsky's overall search
to be an inward-directed process, beginning from the social, ending with
the individual. In terms of a reconcilation with Piaget, I am somewhat
puzzled, and do feel (as was stated) that this has happened to a large
degree with the article by Jim Wertsch and Mike Cole. It is the
internalization-appropriation, self-regulation as a result of "concept
formation" that allows a theory of individual development within a
Vygotskian perspective, I personally feel. Concept formation is both
external and internal. One seldom sees articles written on Vyogotsky's
understanding of concept formation, or on self-regulation. Indeed, this
would presuppose more thoughts on his understanding of aesthetic values,
such as "imitation" going into the theories of mimesis. It is
interesting that within much of current talk in various fields, the ZPD
takes center stage (i.e. externalization), when in reality there needs
to be a focus on an "intra-ZPD" (once mentioned on this listserv), I
think. In other words, a discussion of the dialectic between inner
speech and the ZPD. What concerns me in various articles I read across
disciplines is the attempt to place Vygotsky and Piaget together, for
example, on various sides of one spectrum, and then reconcile their
viewpoints. From my perspective, I feel that Vygotsky has a logical
system in place with an internal coherence for both social
interactionism and individual development. It is precisely the point of
self-regulation and internalization-appropriation which is a major
factor in the failure of various educational systems in postmodernism, I
think. Much of school work in this country is either focused on an
internalization of material needed for standarized tests, but not always
used for "personality development;" or it focuses on
"spontaneous/everyday" concepts, or information that used to be learned
at home, church,etc. In other words, there is often a focus on the
external. Much of the understanding of classical education, such as
memorization of poetry, etc. is often not understood as a stepping stone
to genuine, individual creativity, but is considered an end in itself,
often interpreted as a "waste of time" by many students. In fact, Jim
Wertsch speaks about the problem when mediated action does not become
internalized, so "knowing how" and "mastery" (not in the sense used by
A.A. Leontiev) might replace the term "internalization." I am afraid
that this is a reality in postmodernism, and that is why I draw great
strength from a Vygotskian perspective. It is the internal, aesthetic,
self-regulative qualities that I find so appealing, along with the
elements of "consciousness" and "personality development" (which is one
of Vygotsky's highest goals). So, from my perspective, I do read Piaget
with great respect, especially his thoughts on semiotics; however, I do
not need to use Piaget as the missing link to Vygotsky; and as one
person said, certainly as a woman, I am careful in reading Piaget,
knowing that his subjects were only middle class, white, European boys.
The last thought regards constructivism, often attempting to place
Vygotsky within that paradigm (I feel that constructivism can only be
placed within a Vygotskian perspective, not the reverse). Certainly
there are many parallels between constructivists and Vygotsky, with
Vygotsky using the word "constructivism" himself, in a similar, yet
different context. Gergen (1995:24-25) stated the following: "Thus, the
constructionist is centrally concerned with such matters as negotiation,
cooperation, conflict, rhetoric, ritual, roles, social scenarios. In
contrast, Vygotsky is centrally a psychologist. Although social process
does play an important role in the theory, psychological process
occupies the foreground. While there is by sparse articulation of the
social field, Vygotsky gave careful attention to specifically mental
processes of abstraction, generalization, comparison, differentiation,
judgment, sign-mediated operations, and so." (in L.O. Steffe et al.
Constructivism in education). Once again, the difference between
"interaction" and the mediated role of teacher/competent peer has a
different value within each position.It is interesting for me to watch
the focus on "interaction" in schools in America, with the overriding
goal of "lock step" closure by requiring ACT, SAT, etc. tests to dictate
educational results. In having watched various schools in East Germany
and Russia during the communist period, with all of the massive
problems, I sincerely felt a sense of individualism at some, not all,
levels. It has been an amazing paradox for me. (i.e. people learned to
be so creative in those systems...I saw young people able to make their
own bicycles, a typewriter, etc. I learned to make shoes, leather
purses. I learned to write my own poetry, make all gifts, etc., which
translated into a wonderful feel of individualism within a different
context). In closing, the one problem I have with Vygotsky's concept
formation has never been discussed (except somewhere in Soviet
Psychology during the 1980s), which is the following: with the internal
mechanism of concept formation, Vygotsky tends to confuse sign systems
and concept formation, sometimes with the "feel" that both are spoken
about without distinction. Maybe I have misinterpreted this point.
However, on the whole, Vygotsky's system is most complete in itself, at
least from my perspective. There is so much written about him, and by
him, that it is difficult to read all of that material alone. That is a
basic problem in general; in particular when comparing him to Piaget,
who also wrote a tremendous amount. In closing, I personally have more
of a feeling of "non-dualism" in Vygotsky's work than any other writer I
know of, as well as a sense of transcendence of specific fields, truly
reminding one of Spinoza and his attempt. Certainly it is Vygotsky's
focus on the inner most plane of the individual, approaching the
non-conscious, and viewing that as the origin of our creativity, which
presents a theory of beauty and coherence. As has been often stated, in
the West we often view psychology (and other fields) within a "depth"
perspective, where the un(non)conscious elements reflect troubles,
turmoil, problems, etc., hence the focus on "depth" psychology (i.e.
psychoanalysis), which is carried over into many disciplines. Vygotsky
viewed psychology, science, life from the perspective of "height".
Dot Robbins