How is it "historically new"? It would seem a crieria for YE
would not just be "new" for the subject but genuinely
"historically new" activities.
If for example, those involved created a "new" type of an
activity to deal with those double binds that would appear to
meet the criteria, but am unclear how something just personally
new would qualify.
Nate
4/28/01 1:15:59 PM, "Paul H.Dillon" <illonph@pacbell.net>
wrote:
>Diane,
>
>My message concerning my experiences with the small project up
here
>certainly did redirect the discussion onto the specific
situation of the
>ZPD. Why people don't take the question of contradictions
that I presented
>in that example into the LBE direction is something I have no
control over.
>I think it is very relevant here and in particular since YE
wrote in Ch. 3:
>
>"A provisional reformulation of the zone of proximal
development is now
>possible: It is the distance between the everyday actions of
the individuals
>and the historically new form of the societal activity that
can be
>collectively generated as a solution to the double bind
potentially embedded
>in everyday actions." (174)
>
>What I was pointing to in that example had to do precisely
with how that
>double-bind first comes to be an issue for those kids (and
thereby a
>potential contradiction for generating transformation) since
their everyday
>actions don't include participation in the "new form of the
societal
>activity". As the girl told me, "I don't have nothin' to do
with computer
>stuff." And there is an additional Catch-22 (if not exactly a
double bind)
>insofar as participation in the new form of societal activity
presupposes a
>certain skills.
>
>I can't help it if people want to continue to look at the hole
and not the
>donut.
>
>Paul H. Dillon
>
>"hmmmmmm, donuts" - Homer Simpson
>
>
Why were all the dogs kicked out of the whitehouse?
They kept peeing on the Bushes.
-Enlightened Second Grader -
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:02:09 PDT