-----Original Message-----
From: Alfred Lang [mailto:alfred.lang@psy.unibe.ch]
Sent: Friday, September 01, 2000 5:14 AM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: don't debiologize it
Nate wrote:
>When I said de-biologize I was referring to development not culture (: I
>don't see biology outside culture so I'm not sure how I feel about
hybridity
>here. In activity theory/ post modernism I have usually seen it used as
>sort of a third space.
Indeed, Nate, I have shifted focus. Maybe it is because,
"development" is already largely de-biologized, as I pointed to the
word use in "research and development" except with some
psychologists perhaps. Isn't it also significant that you see the
term "development" rarely used in the genetic (by way of genes)
context. I guess this will come when the present feelings of guilt
will fade since genetic engineering is exactly what the term covers
technically.
I maybe should have used the word "de-naturalized" instead of
"de-biologized" in the sense that "nature" can occupy various spaces
including culture. I still think the mapping out of childhood or more
generally ontogeny has a tendency to naturalize culturalization.
Whether biotic factors are really of (almost) no importance in
ontogenetic changes in later years as compared to childhood and youth
I dare to doubt on the basis of lots of data and personal experience.
You consider development to be understood as a "hybridity" thing and
decide preferably against. I would find that only a cheap "solution"
within the habitual opposition between nature and culture. On a
background of cultural organization of life and living (together) to
be understood as a mere and partial or extended reorganization of
their biotic organization I see no need to firstly break the two
apart and secondly to put them together again. Culture is not an
addition to, rather an expansion of the biotic.
I think biotic factors are present throughout life, and have "importance"
"for culture" rather than "in themselves". We could take the highly
energetic child or a child that maybe does not engage like "most other
children" in which biotic factors no doubt exist. Those factors it seems to
me serve as a sign for the child, teacher, family, culture etc. The meaning
a teacher gives to this may be lack of self regulation, a call to alter the
educational environment, the child having a different learning style etc.
The child may be seen as disrespectful, disruptive, or needing to receive
special educational services. So, rather than culture being an expansion of
the biotic, I would see the biotic more along the lines of a sign that get
its meaning from culture.
One thing that emerges from time to time is the notion of levels. Ethel
Tobach has written about this coming from a dialectical materialist
theoretical foundation, and Jay has also touched on this with his time
zones. If we are talking about an activity system or semiotic ecology the
level of analysis could be of central importance. That socio-biology stuff
that reduces culture to memes and all would be incorporating an analysis
from one level to another (inappropriately). We get the wonderful ideas
that how we vote is somehow determined by our genes. I guess one question I
would have is how Sem-Eco handles the level question?
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:41 PDT