My understanding of appropriation comes from several sources. First, in
the "construction zone" by Mike and company intersubjectivity comes into
play is that not only is the teacher or student transforming, but being
simutanously transformed. What I would translate as a dialectical process
that avoids "internalization" on one end and "construction" on the other.
The other notion of appropriation is from Wertsch in which he gives the
example of a Jewish student internalizing the pledge of allegience, but n=
ot
appropriating it. Appropriation in this lite would include a level of
identity formation (which can be good or bad).
I would tend to see appropriation being defined as including both
intersubjectivity and identity formation. My reading of Davydov's
"developmental teaching" would be along these lines. I would not divide
appropriation and internalization along the lines of meta cognition or
explicit instruction, but do agree that all APPROPRIATION is
INTERNALIZATION but not all INTERNALIZATION is APPROPRIATION. I would te=
nd
to see "food taste" more in line with appropriation than internalization =
in
that identity formation is involved, and elements of schooling may involv=
e
internalization, but not appropriations (which isn't all bad).
I think Leontiev approach to appropriation that Artin describes is
interesting, but wouldn't necessarily imply meta or explicit instruction =
in
the strict sense. For example, with food taste we may at first not be
conscious of its cultural significance (like the gesture with signs), yet
achieve this consciousness through actions in "practical activity" (maybe
if its carrots, picking them, peeling them etc), and lastly they become
automated or an operation. As a parent I may become explicit at times su=
ch
as we eat carrots with a fork or don't put them in our nose so the child
becomes conscious of the cultural activity. Or I may assume that this pa=
rt
of the cultural activity can wait until a later time. Eventually, this
becomes "appropriated" by the child and becomes automatic. What occurs is
much more than the child internalizing carrot, so s/he can select it on a
multiple choice test, but its interrelationship with cultural activity.
In this sense, I think appropriation describes what is going on better th=
an
internalization, but it shouldn't be unproblematized. In Wertsch's examp=
le
does that mean we should attempt to have the Jewish student appropriate o=
r
own as apposed to just mastering or internalizing the pledge of allegienc=
e.
Or the history books to take another example from Wertsch, while students
may not internalize all the "facts" they seem to nevertheless appropriate
the "freedom narrative".
/\ / /\ | /-----
/ \ / /__\ ---|--- /---
/ \/ / \ | /----
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
*******************************************************************
"Pedogogics is never and was never politically indifferent,
since, willingly or unwillingly, through its own work on the psyche,
it has always adopted a particular social pattern, political line,
in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its
interests".
L.S. Vygotsky
********************************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: Ricardo Ottoni <rjapias who-is-at attglobal.net>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Thursday, November 11, 1999 8:38 PM
Subject: Re: sociocultural-historical genesis of Vygotsky's theory
> Serpell wrote (aside too many other things):
>
> I began to wonder whether the term "internalization" might be a
> mistranslation from Vygotsky's Russian text of what should really have
> been translated as "appropriation".
>
> I do not answer to any one of the intriguing questions brought to
> discussion by you. I'd like, in turn, to express how I think - by now -
> the difference between "internalization" ("internaliza=E7=E3o" in
> Portuguese) and "appropriation" ("apropria=E7=E3o" in Portuguese).
>
> By INTERNALIZATION I understand a process that is not necessarilly
> counscious. For example: I can internalize from my culture a specific
> kind of food taste as "good". Although that same food taste can be
> considered "not good" to people from other culture. But since it has
> been felt as "good" within the group in witch I was born and with whom =
I
> interact, I feel it as "naturally" good. Like an operation,
> automatically realized by someone. Something one does but not think
> on/over - but, indeed, does. By the way, Vygotsky himself said that a
> child speaks "in prose" but do not know she speaks that way (Mind in
> Society).
>
> By APPROPRIATION, on contrary, I understand something that is
> counciouslly conquered. Something internalized, that someone knows it
> is/was "internalized" from intersubjectivity relations. A procedure tha=
t
> involves meta-cognition.
>
> They seem to me two features of the same phenomenum. Like those two
> kinds of 'guided participation' described by G=F6nc=FC,Rogoff et alli (=
One,
> related to free observation and imersion/participation in specific
> cultural practices; other, related to explicit intervention of more
> likely members of a given culture)
>
> As to say: all APPROPRIATION is INTERNALIZATION but nor all
> INTERNALIZATION is APPROPRIATION.
>
> Is it a valid way of understanding, acoording to cultural-historical
> theory?
>