> So I'm curious if anybody else has any queries on the assumptions and
> terminology of Ch2?
well, i just this evening before i looked at my email loaned out
my copy of M. as A. - and i'm bother by the unit of analysis that Wertsch
prefers to focus on - being individual plus tool. yet, in my experience
the individual's intention / goal / teleonomy of the _use_ of the tool,
actually sets the trajectory of _how_ the tool is used.
for example, the tool of knowing the official history of a nation.
for the russians who established their hegemony over Estonia, the use of
the official history was different from the native Estonians living under
the russian occupation. Wertsch notes that the Estonians resisted the
official history, yet acquired it in order to negotiate russian dominated
institutions. however, it's probable that the russians not only acquired
the official history, but appropriated it, in order to maintain their
hegemony.
one Estonian relating the official history commented that it
involved particular emotions, without it being stated what they were.
certainly the emotions involved in finding one's nation occupied by a
foreign nation would elicit particularly strong emotions, which would
determine or impact how one used the official history.
and so, this also brings up for me how CHAT appears to not
recognize the role of emotions and intentionality - which i think is the
source of some people suggesting using CHAT along with critical theories.
an idea ...
phillip
phillip white pwhite who-is-at carbon.cudenver.edu
/////////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
A relation of surveillance, defined and regulated,
is inscribed at the heart of the practice of teaching, not
as an additional or adjacent part, but as a mechanism that
is inherent to it and which increases its efficiency.
Michel Foucault / Discipline & Punish
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\///////////////////////////////////////