Re: Appropriation, Part 2

dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
Mon, 27 Jul 1998 17:20:33 -0500

Vera,
The reference was included in my original posting, appended here
in your response. Arievitch & van der Veer's point is not that a
theory of internalization isn't needed, only that propounding such
a theory in a way that does not preserve classical dualism (or that
does not appear to preserve classical dualism) is difficult. Terms
like "appropriation" or "mastery" have been suggested as
substitutes; but as the authors note, there are some important
aspects of internalization that are not preserved by these less
troublesome terms. Gal'perin's solution seems quite reasonable,
but I'm still having trouble reconciling his definition of appropriation
with other standard definitions.
David

---------------------- Forwarded by David H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU on 07/27/98
05:02 PM ---------------------------

vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu on 07/27/98 03:28:16 PM

To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu@internet
cc: (bcc: David H Kirshner/dkirsh/LSU)
Subject: Re: Appropriation, Part 2

David,
I found your summary of Gal'perin very useful, do you have a reference? Or
did I miss that in catching up with messages. I am still puzzled by
the widespread resistance to internalization . We have so much
neurophysiological evidence that learning, appropriation and I thoibk
internalization produces neural re-organization. To me, denying
internalization is really opposing the notion that we can think both at
the psychological, participatory and the neurological level. But
then this may be a naive stance. (I AM REFERING, AS AN INSTANCE, TO THE
PHONOLOGICAL ACQUISITION STUDIES WE MENTION IN THE FUNCTIONAL SYSTEMS
ARTICLE IN THE LAST mca ISSUE).
vERA

On Thu, 16 Jul 1998 dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu wrote:

> Lest the summer get too restful, perhaps, I'll
> say a few words about my particular interest in
> appropriation. As I'm reading about the problems
> with the construct of internalization (e.g., Arievitch
> & van der Veer, 1995), I'm trying to decide to what
> extent those problems are the result of trying to
> account for what is sometimes called "scientific
> thinking" or "higher order cognitive functions" in a
> social frame. Gal'perin, for example, struggled
> (explicitly) against Cartesian dualism in his account
> of three levels of activity: "material" (in which the
> activity is carried out in the material world); "ideal
> external" (in which the activity is enacted mentally,
> but only with the support of material props); and
> "ideal internal" (in which no external props are needed).
> For Gal'perin appropriation is a more general term that
> applies to all three of these sorts of actions; but only
> this last one is characteristically human (i.e., higher
> order) activity.
>
> What I'm trying to figure out is if appropriation, which
> seems like a relatively clear solution to the internalization
> problem, achieves its clarity by providing a more general
> (less specifically human) account of learning in the ZPD.
>
> Thanks.
> David Kirshner
>
> Louisiana State University
> dkirsh who-is-at lsu.edu
>
> Arievitch, I., & van der Veer, R. (1995). Furthering
> the internalization debate: Gal'perin's contribution.
> Human Development, 38, 113-126.
>
>
>

---------------------------------
Vera P. John-Steiner
Department of Linguistics
Humanities Bldg. 526
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
(505) 277-6353 or 277-4324
Internet: vygotsky who-is-at unm.edu
---------------------------------