this seems right to me,
Ana, but does not resolve all the problems that appear in my dreams and
waking life (e.g dreams with eyes open):
We can say that development is not universal because it is part of variable
cultural-historical processes. But the statement "it is part of variable
cultural-historical processes" is meant as a universal statement. I don't
think that LSV meant "development is sometimes part of interpersonal and
larger social cultural historical processes, and sometimes it is not".
Cultural mediation is universal among humans. The big question is whether
there is a unilinear scale of cultural evolution form lower--higher.
Play enter here thanks to gaskins and goncu, by way of mayan kids who do not
engage in the kinds of play that LSV assumed were universal. Does it matter?
By some accounts, Mayan children develop just fine thank you without
superheroes. But a case can be made (do i need to do it?) that they develop
along a path that --WITHIN A EURO-AMERICAN-MODERNIST framework, is definitely
LOWER. The Sharp et al 1979 monograph or reserch by D. Wagner could be
invoked here in detail. I do not interpret the data in the way that, for
example, LSV might. But the issue is not cut/dried or dead.
Can it be that only 4 people on xmca have an opinion about whether they
consider LSV to be a contextualist?
till tomorrow, at which point harry daniels should save all those who
wish to think about something else from considering the issue.
The good new? This is finals week here. Almost free at last.
mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jul 08 2003 - 11:29:44 PDT