Mike and all,
I was pleased to see Arievitch's attention to Gal'perin's work, it
certainly may deserve a revival. I would be
happy to see, for example, Gal'perin's Introduction to Psychology
appear in English (if it hasn't).
It is interesting to read Arievitch's attempts to integrate Gal'perin
into the mainstream of activity theory.
But I need to think this through (and read the article a couple more
times) since in the Russian literature one
often hears Gal'perin's work described as just a theory of mental
*actions.*
For example, Davydov listed one of the outstanding problems of activity
theory as the need to connect AT
with other approaches -- and names just two: Piaget's genetic
epistemology and Galperin's theory of mental actions.
If Davydov's classed Gal'perin with Piaget as an *alternative* to AT,
can Gal'perin's work really be an activity approach?
For example, does Gal'perin ever talk about goals/motives? Or does it
matter?
Anyway, does Arievitch succeed in placing Gal'perin closer to Vygotsky
and Leontiev than one might have thought?
What does everyone think?
Peter
>
> Now that the Arievitch article is available for discussion, it would
> be helpful if those who voted for this article took the lead in
> promoting discussion. Once you have had a chance to read it, what
> major message did you take from it? Do yoyou see a way to incorporate
> the ideas in your work? Do you disagree with the
> major points in the paper? Do you have questions?
>
> There are a lot of people on XMCA who are remaining passive readers,
> but
> active voters. Let your fingers do some walking to help enrich the
> multi
> voicedness of the discussion!
>
> mike
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 11:42:57 PST