Re: [xmca] Historical Development

Dear Heidi and Mike:
   
  Andy and I have been batting around versions of our contributions to the collective article for Education et Didactique off list. He's not very happy with my contribution, because I don't manage to make a clear distinction between learning and development and because I have the temerity to refer to Hegel without adding TM.
   
  I'm very happy with the amazing historical sweep of his but rather less happy with its tendency to make LSV out to be a Gestaltist. (There are other problems as well; we don't agree about whether there were any lasting gains from civil rights and women's movements, and we don't agree about whether the work of the Vygotsky school suffers more than we do from the lack thereof.)
   
  Thinking it over, I realize I am fastidious; what makes me happy and what makes me unhappy are really the same thing. I like the grand historical view, the great sweep, the big picture. I also like those warm, fuzzy categories that make it possible (e.g. "word", "neoformation", and why not "Gestalt"?).
   
  But I don't like the idea that development happens without fundamentally changing the unit of development itself. And I don't like units of development that can't be applied to concrete spoken data.
   
  Anyway, here's MY solution. Notice that I have, characteristically, given up what I like in order to get rid of what I don't like. I think that's all right, because we've got Andy to reinvent what I like again (at the affordable price of reintroducing what I don't like, of course!)
   
  David Kellogg
  Seoul National University of Education
  
 

       
---------------------------------
Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca