I began to wonder whether the term "internalization" might be a=20
mistranslation from Vygotsky's Russian text of what should really have=20
been translated as "appropriation".
I do not answer to any one of the intriguing questions brought to=20
discussion by you. I'd like, in turn, to express how I think - by now -=20
the difference between "internalization" ("internaliza=E7=E3o" in=20
Portuguese) and "appropriation" ("apropria=E7=E3o" in Portuguese).=20
By INTERNALIZATION I understand a process that is not necessarilly=20
counscious. For example: I can internalize from my culture a specific=20
kind of food taste as "good". Although that same food taste can be=20
considered "not good" to people from other culture. But since it has=20
been felt as "good" within the group in witch I was born and with whom I=20
interact, I feel it as "naturally" good. Like an operation,=20
automatically realized by someone. Something one does but not think=20
on/over - but, indeed, does. By the way, Vygotsky himself said that a=20
child speaks "in prose" but do not know she speaks that way (Mind in=20
Society).
By APPROPRIATION, on contrary, I understand something that is=20
counciouslly conquered. Something internalized, that someone knows it=20
is/was "internalized" from intersubjectivity relations. A procedure that=20
involves meta-cognition.
They seem to me two features of the same phenomenum. Like those two=20
kinds of 'guided participation' described by G=F6nc=FC,Rogoff et alli (On=
e,=20
related to free observation and imersion/participation in specific=20
cultural practices; other, related to explicit intervention of more=20
likely members of a given culture) =20
=20
As to say: all APPROPRIATION is INTERNALIZATION but nor all=20
INTERNALIZATION is APPROPRIATION.
Is it a valid way of understanding, acoording to cultural-historical=20
theory?