I've been looking for that kind of thinking, Ana, and despite claims of
dialectic, I have been finding evidence to the contrary -- in several places
--with the social/psychological planes vocabulary -- (1) with the general
genetic law "We can formulate the general genetic law of cultural development
as follows: every function in the cultural development of the child appears
twice, in two planes, first, the social, then the psychological, first between
people as an intermental category and then within the child as a intramental
category." (2) Then for another example, there is Mike and Jim's paper "Beyond
the Individual-Social Antimony in Discussions of Piaget and Vygotsky" with the
section on Social Origins "It is to say, however, that social processes give
rise to individual processes and that both are essentially mediated by
artifacts. Vygotsky explicated the first of these two claims in his general
genetic law of cultural development according to which
interpersonal/inter-mental processes are the precursors and necessary condition
for the emergence of individual/intra-mental (psychological) processes."
By the way, Nate did a nice overview a couple years ago -- his posting appears
at:
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.1999_07.dir/0146.html
Nate's last quote of V "a means of affecting others and only later a means of
affecting oneself" indicates action in the reverse direction, but it is buried
in text -- it is not highlighted like the general genetic law. So this is not
so much to make trouble, of which a part I don't deny as a means to greater
clarity. Well so maybe it is troublemaking.
Stepping back for a bigger picture, one wonders if the environmental
determinist leaning is more of a position against a focus on individual
construction -- and whether later developments change this asymmetry.
Nevertheless, quotes of later authors as "the social world does have primacy
over the individual" if not pushing toward a "cultural" determinism, is at
least claiming it to be the major influence.
I'm still seeking clarity here, so any comments are welcome.
bb
--- Ana Marjanovic Shane <anashane@speakeasy.net> wrote:
> Bill,
>
> I don't think that you can pose the question like that: development is
> first on the social plane and than on the individual. Don't forget that for
> Vygotsky individual development is MEDIATED by the socially produced TOOLS
> (of communication and material technologies). Individual and social are not
> separate but always in interaction as two aspects of the same process or
> two inseparable parts of one and the same machine. If you want to use a
> modern day metaphor: maybe you can say that the development of computer
> hardware is driven by the development of computer software and the other
> way around. (it is just a very rough metaphor I admit).
> If you can characterize Vygotsky's thinking into a definite method of
> thinking, than it is not a determinism at al - it is dialectical thinking.
>
>
> At 03:58 PM 1/24/2002 -0800, you wrote:
> >Folks,
> >
> >Many of you have probably discussed this before, so I'm turning to you as
> sort
> >of brain-trust. Vygotsky saw development occuring on the social plane,
> before
> >that on an individual plane == then is his work an enviromental determinism?
> >
> >Thanks in advance for any comments and refernces in this direction.
> >
> >
> >
> >=====
> >Bill Barowy
> >
> >"Everything is a becoming, without beginning or end"
> >
> >__________________________________________________
> >Do You Yahoo!?
> >Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
> >http://auctions.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 11 2002 - 09:22:33 PST