David et al-- Here, thanks to Marxist.org is a segment on the issue of
elements of mediational in relation to structure. The entire chapter
can be
found at http://www.marxists.org.
Let us now compare the natural and cultural mnemonics of a child. The
relation between the two forms can be graphically expressed by means
of a
triangle: in case of natural memorization a direct associative or
conditional reflexive connection is set up between two points, A and
B. In
case of mnemotechnical memorization, utilizing some sign, instead of
one
associative connection AB, the others are set up AX and BX, which
bring us
to the same result, but in a roundabout way. Each of these
connections AX
and BX is the same kind of conditional-reflexive process of
connection as
AB.
The mnemotechnical memorizing can thus be divided without remainder
into the
same conditional reflexes as natural memorizing. The only new
features are
the substitution of two connections for one, the construction or
combination
of nervous connections, and the direction given to the process of
connection
by means of a sign. Thus new features consist not in the elements
but in the
structure of the cultural methods of mnemonics.
The structure
The second task of scientific investigation is to elucidate *the
structure *of
that method. Although each method of cultural behaviour consists, as
it is
shown by the analysis, of natural psychological processes, yet that
method
unites them not in a mechanical, but in a structural way. In other
words,
all processes forming part of that method form a complicated
functional and
structural unity. This unity is effected, first, by the task which
must be
solved by the given method, and secondly, by the means by which that
method
can be followed.
The same problem, if solved by different means, will have a different
structure. If a child in the above mentioned situation turns to the
aid of
external memorizing means, the whole structure of his processes will
be
determined by the character of the means which he has selected.
Memorizing
on different systems of signs will be different in its structure. A
sign or
an auxiliary means of a cultural method thus forms a structural and
functional centre, which determines the whole composition of the
operation
and the relative importance of each separate process.
The inclusion in any process of a sign remodels the whole structure of
psychological operations, just as the inclusion of a tool remodels
the whole
structure of a labour operation. The structures thus formed have their
specific laws. You find in them that some psychological operations are
replaced by others which cause the same results, but by quite
different
methods. Thus, for example, in memorizing mnemotechnically, the
various
psychological functions, such as comparison, the renewal of old
connections,
logical operations, reasoning, etc., all become aids to memorizing.
It is
precisely the structure which combines all the separate processes,
which are
the component parts of the cultural habit of behaviour, which
transforms
this habit into a psychological function, and which fulfils its task
with
respect to the behaviour as a whole.
The genesis
However, that structure does not remain unchanged. That is the most
important point of all we know concerning the cultural development
of the
child. This structure is not an outward, ready-made creation. It
originates
in conformance with definite laws at a certain stage of the natural
development of the child. It cannot be forced on the child from
outside, it
always originates inwardly, although it is modelled by the deciding
influence of external problems with which the child is faced and the
external signs with which it operates. After the structure comes
into being,
it does not remain unchanged, but is subject to a lengthy internal
change
which shows all the signs of development.
A new method of behaviour does not simply remain fixed as a certain
external
habit. It has its internal history. It is included in the general
process of
the development of a child’s behaviour, and we therefore have a
right to
talk of a genetic relation between certain structures of cultural
reasoning
and behaviour, and of the development of the methods of behaviour.
This
development is certainly of a special kind, is radically different
from the
organic development and has its own definite laws. It is extremely
difficult
to grasp and express precisely the peculiarity of that type of
development.
In basing our position on critical explanations and on a series of
schemes
suggested by experimental investigations, we shall try to take
certain steps
toward the correct understanding of this development.
Binet, who in his investigations was faced by these two types of
development, tried to solve the problem in the simplest fashion. He
investigated the memory of eminent calculators, and in this
connection had
occasion to compare the memory of a man endowed with a truly
remarkable
memory with the memory of a man endowed with an average memory; the
latter,
however, was not inferior to the former in memorizing a huge number of
figures. Mneme and mnemotechnics were thus for the first time
contrasted in
experimental investigation, and for the first time an attempt was
made to
find an objective difference between these two essentially different
forms
of memory.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca