in the term 'socioculturalism' i am thinking of the vygoskyian traditions,
i am thinking also of lave, rogoff, wertsch,
elkon'in, leonte'ev and other east europeans,
and the articles i've read in mca - i should say that i am a great
proponent of the
notions of historical contexts/persons-in-relations/tools & mediational
activity, and so on -
nevertheless, the benign qualities are embedded in the assumption that an
inherently
socialist approach to understanding complex processes of interaction
can be transplanted to a capitalist/democratic context - i.e. the
political regimes in a cultural
history can't be put aside nor can they be extracted from the ideas of
sociality and interactions
being cultural-historical;
the dominant notion of the primacy of the 'individual' here in the USA
contradict much of sociocultural theory,
but i haven't yet come across any sort of coherent critique of these
antagonisms -
as well, the ever-present absence of a critical gender context
always concerns me, as the song sez, 'don't you know that it's different
for girls?' -
the only context where i have read about a sociocultural approach to
education
actually work is at an institute in Hungary, Anton Peto's conductive
education institute
for motor-disabled children,
and the reasons why it works is because it works in coordination with
national curriculum
and national health boards, as well as a cohesive parent-infant education
program
that begins with the birth and registration of a motor-disabled child with
the
a national registry of disabled children -
(i have detailed info on this if anyone is interested) ...
in other words, to be social=cultural, there needs to be a context of
cultural compatability
and i don't see that here in the states;
i have been engaged in a seminar reading of wertsch's latest text and
noticed the
struggle of traditional pragmatism with sociocultural idealism - the
vacuous gap where gender concerns
are (not)
and the struggle to reconcile 'individuality' and 'ownership' with a
basically socialist approach to
understanding education -
being a socialist-minded person, myself, i espouse the sociocultural
interpretation constantly;
but by the same token it seems to be discussed in generalized terminologies
(internalization/externalization - mastery - appropriation - tool -
mediation - activity - practice)
which are easily neutralized in a theoretical conversation -
this is not to say that the folks here or anywhere where these discussions
take place
aren't benevolent folks,
but that the ways the theory is produced in absentia from politics
(institutions/gender/power inequalties/literate authorities)
always leaves me with my forehead furrowed... for whose benefit?
this points more to my own leanings, i cannot imagine any context distinct
from power relations
and gender oppressions, internalized - systemic -
there isn't a place in the world where gender isn't a dominant structure
of control - i am sure even at the Peto Institute there are gender
oppressions incorporated into the practices of conductive education.
no theory is perfect in-itself, of course. i am sure there are many
'kinds' of sociocultural perspectives
but there do seem to be core concepts that are mobilized, and these
concepts
seem to exist as reified tools in themselves. benign, neutral.
diane
' 'We have destroyed something by our presence,' said Bernard, 'a
world perhaps.'
(Virginia Woolf, "The Waves")
+ + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
diane celia hodges
university of british columbia, vancouver / university of colorado, denver
Diane_Hodges who-is-at ceo.cudenver.edu