I have been reflecting on Martin's article sent months ago on Lewin and field theory and Martin's critique of the concept of "nested" contexts. Therefore I'm curious about others reflections on the "Dynamic Systems model as articulated by Linda Smith and Esther Thelen. Earlier I mentioned the centrality of the notion of MARKED INTERSUBJECTIVE attuned activity for the emergence of a sense of agency. Fonagy's extension of Bowlby's Attachment theory is the best articulation of MARKED activity. [Fonagy is critical of Bowlby's notion of early attachment as a TEMPLATE that determines future development. Fonagy instead discusses the intersubjective exchanges of MARKED attunement as central to development. Smith and Thelan's article [attached] highlights some empirical evidence for the centrality of MARKED activity for development. Refer especially to page 346 where 10 month old infants do the A not B task and the activity that becomes MARKED is a shift in posture from a sitting to a standing position. This marked shift in posture allows the infant to be in a ZPD that allows the infant to be successful on a task that is thought of as being a later developing capacity. Marked intersubjective activity is usually implicit but can become explicit. Martin, what are your thoughts on "time" being "nested" in Smith and Thelen's model? The multiplicity of causal factors in the Dynamic Systems model AND the notion of MARKED INTERSUBJECTIVE ATTUNED activity in an EMERGENT model of development seems to show promise. What do others think? Larry
Attachment:
APRIL 5 THELAN and SMITH Dynamic Systems Theory.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca