Odd what sparks discussion here.
I have also been reading Valsiner and will go back to it through this lens.
I found the following statement odd.
The two [Stern-individualism and Vygosk] are brought together in
Valsiner's theory, which highlights the sign-constructing and
sign-using nature of all distinctively human psychological processes.
Arguing that the individualistic and the cultural traditions differ
largely in emphasis, Valsiner unites them by focusing on the intricate
relations between personality and its social context, and their
interplay in personality development.
If the personality is the highest form of sociality, the unit of
analysis for understanding the "whole person," what does it mean to
talk about relationships BETWEEN the personality
and its social context? Is context outside and personality inside? Really?
mike
On Sun, 13 Feb 2005 14:38:27 +0100, George <researcher@safe-mail.net> wrote:
> Dear Phil,
>
> I do not have Engeström's et al. book. Would you happen to have an
> electronic copy of Davydov's article? or know a link - although I
> searched an could not find anything?
>
>
> On Feb 13, 2005, at 12:53 PM, Phil Chappell wrote:
>
> > Davydov's essay: Davydov, V.V. (1999) The content and unsolved
> > problems of activity theory, in Engestrom, Y, Miettinen, R and
> > Punamaki, R-L "Perspectives on Activity Theory" Cambridge University
> > Press
>
> Best regards,
>
> George
> (Hansjoerg von Brevern)
>
> -------------------------------------
>
> Research in e-Learning Objects, e-Learning meta data standards,
> didactical activity, Systemic-Structural Activity Theory, and
> Socio-cultural Theory
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 01 2005 - 01:00:04 PST