[xmca] Understanding Complex Dynamic Processes Within the Zo-Ped

[Larry Purss <lpurss@shaw.ca>]

I thought I would reflect on this month's posted article for discussion "Adult and Child Development in the Zone of Proximal Development"
In the final paragraph Beth Ferholt and Robert Lecusay state,
"Finally, this analysis does not exhaust these data in the service of supporting the concept of Zo-ped as a site of both child and adult development."  They invite a MULTIPERSPECTIVAL means of analysis "if we are to more fully understand the MANY AND COMPLEX DYNAMIC PROCESSES taking place WITHIN this Zo-ped" (p.82)
This question of the relation of the Zo-ped to development and learning seems to be a foundational question for the CHAT community and its dialogue with other Discourses. (I am using Discourse with a capital D in a way parallel to how the article articulates the THIRD voice as representing an institutionalized and historically constructed voice)  These Discourses or Third voices then get VENTRILOQUATED or POSITIONED within the person's first voice.
Bahktin's dialogical theory and Vygotsky's mediational theory are then Discourses being ventriloquated within the CHAT community as we try to find our "authentic" first voices".
The notion of the Zo-ped as a SPACE or LOCATION which facilitates (or constrains) the emergence of these "authentic" (referred to as "agentic" in some Discourses) voices seems to be a central inquiry of the posted article.
 
Ferholt and Lecusay suggest that Vygotsky
 
"primarily described development in the Zo-ped as VERTICAL improvement across LEVELS, but developmental psychology must find a way to ACCOUNT FOR HORIZONTAL DEVLOPMENT ACROSS BORDERS in the Zo-ped." Engestrom is quoted (ferholt & Lecusay) as describing The development in the Zo-ped as "crossing of boundaries BETWEEN worlds, not just... ascending on ladders of competence and maturity" (p.60)
 
It is this crossing of boundaries between worlds that I find fascinating.  Ferholt and Lecusay use the construct "interillumination" to describe the transformation within the Zo-ped, while other traditions (Discourses) such as attachment theory (Bowlby) and relational psychoanalysis Daniel Stern) are exploring "intersubjectivity" as a space of OPENNESS which facilitates emergence and novelty and an "agentic" voice.  Winnicott's "transitional space" as a holding environment is one example of a discourse that is exploring similar themes to the Zo-ped.  In these various Discourses the creation of Zo-peds or transitional spaces facilitate and produce impressive development and also PLEASURE for for both children and adults.
At the end of the socratic dialogue the authors of the article describe the activity as the children go out to play.  They do not race to the end of the field and back as is usual (instrumental and goal directed) "Instead many of the children weave from side to side as they run, some of them waving their arms. Rachel says as she runs "I feel like I'm flying." Pearl looks up at the sky as she runs and says 'I look up and I go faster.'  Nancy walks backwards and rotates her arms as if she is swimming on her back." (p79) Andrea makes the most profound comment "I don't have to look. I know where I'm going" as she walks backwards.
This EMOTION OF EMERGENCE speaks to the MOTIVATION of the AGENTIC IMPULSE" which was created within the Zo-ped or what Winnicott, and Bowlby would describe as a TRANSITIONAL space.
In my reading of this article, the child's "finding" their voice privleges the emergence of the voice as something that is there and must be liberated. It is possible to put more emphasis on the voice as EMERGING and FORMING within the Zo-ped and being a NOVEL voice which is co-consructed and not "found"  
Bowlby's Discourse tradition of attachment privleged "natural" accounts of emergence and maturation and the movement or telos of development privleged the "organism" However, his insights on the critical role of attachment can be reformulated (see Fonagy, Gergely, and Target) to privlege the Zo-ped as central to emergence and development. 
Notions such as "interillumination" and "intersubjectivity" WITHIN the Zo-ped as co-constructing and transforming one's voice (and becoming more agentic) have the potential to foster self-reflexive practices and "hold" multiple perspectival viewpoints.
 
In a final note I want to draw attention to the POWER OF ATTACHMENT in Pearl's comment that we are ALL friends that TRANSFORMED the tension of the magisterial voice and released the socratic dialogue.  Throughout the article there are references to e-MOTION and tears and frustration and then "RECOGNITION of voice (but also of attachment).  The centrality of e-motion in the transformation and movement within the Zo-ped is implicit but I believe could be highlighted more.  But that's another thread.  
In summary, I want to make explicit the centrality and quality of the Zo-ped to facilitate horizontal movement BETWEEN BORDERS.  I believe that Latour's metaphor of the cross with two axis could be appropriated.  One axis is vertical development and the other axis is horizontal development. The self is in the center and maturation is not either/or.  It is simultaneously vertical AND horizontal. But that's also another thread.  
Larry
 
 
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca