[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [xmca] "higher psychic function"
I believe John Shotter's article I posted yesterday has a perspective that
may add to [or confuse] the discussion of "higher" as above or "better"
functions. John's article is emphasizing the PARTICIPATORY and he
contrasts this with "abstractive" psychological processes. I will quote a
paragraph from page 7 of the article. See yesterday's attachment if you
want to read the full article.
"It is at this point that we run into a contradiction. And as a result, we
can easily find ourselves diverted from our concern with the nature of
Vygotsky's enabling theory-method. For while Goethe (and Wittgenstein too)
see PARTICIPATORY thinking as PRECISELY the kind of thinking we must from
now on seek - if we are to move beyond the limitations of abstract,
theoretical, schemes of thought in relating ourselves to the living forms
around us - Vygotsky seems to disparage such thinking in complexes as
primitive. He is not unaware of the fact that we still make use of such
thinking in our daily lives: 'The adult constantly shifts from CONCEPTUAL
to concrete, complex thinking. The transitional, pseuoconceptual form of
thought is not confined to the child's thinking: we too resort to it in our
daily lives' (Vygotsky) Nor is he unaware that: 'The principle function of
complexes is to ESTABLISH BONDS AND RELATIONS. Complex thinking begins with
the unification of scattered impressions: by organizingdiscrete elements
into groups, it creates a BASIS for later generalizations.' (Vygotsky)
But, rather than seeing a complex as based in a piece of empirical evidence
of 'clearly of a higher sort' (Goethe) - just because it is organized as a
UNITY of scattered impressions - he sees it instead as 'a definite
historical stage in the development of language and thought' (Vygotsky).
For 'the advanced concept presupposes more than unification. To form such
a concept it is also necessary to ABSTRACT, to single out elements, and to
view the abstracted elements APART FROM the totality of concrete experience
in which they are embedded..
John Shotter is questioning the valuation of abstracting conception as
"higher" than participatory knowing. Yes, abstracting is later developing
and transformative BUT not transcendant. In each new moment participation
precedes abstraction. John writes,
"to come to an understanding of LIVING forms we must encompass more than
merely an interconnected set of elements abstracted from concrete
experience, we must also SEE those elements in terms of a UNIFIED structure
of possibilities unfolding in time; to SEE the being before one
historically, is to see it as a being of this rather than that kind, as
having this rather than that STYLE of life. Thus each particular life form
we encounter presents us with the same task all over again. We need a
sense not only of crucial past events shaping its PRESENT form, and thus a
sense of events to which it might now be RESPONSIVE, but also of the NEXT
possible forms it might manifest as a result. And it is THIS, as Goethe
realized only too well, that is the STRENGTH OF PARTICIPATORY thinking: for
once one has identified oneself with, or INTERNALIZED A SYNOPTIC SENSE of,
all the tiny details of the RESPONSIVE LIFE of a particular living form,
from birth to death, then one is in the position of being able oneself to
RESPOND, PRACTICALLY, to it, whatever stage of development it happens to
be. This point is crucial, and has the most starting consequences for our
understanding of Goethe and Vygotsky's enabling theory-method [as a form of
apercu or apperception]]
I believe Shotter's perspective adds to the comments from David Kellogg,
I am wondering what he would have called his book if he had published it in
one installment. It seems to me that Vygotsky loved dialectical oppositions
in his titles, like "Thinking and Speech", and "Tool and Sign". So (I am
speculating of course) I think he might have called it "Skill and System",
or "Activity and Volition", or perhaps "Action and Will". And it's the
merger an interpenetration of these two terms that takes place during
cultural development which Vygotsky called--but only provisionally--the
higher psychic functions.
Shotter might add "complexes and abstractions" or "participation and
distanciation" What Shotter is emphasizing is the dialogical "call and
response" or EXPRESSION when engaging with living forms.
Larry
On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 7:57 AM, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com
> wrote:
> Colette asked for a concept "that it be best read/understood/accepted by
> educationalists (more specifically, science education researchers)
> in such a case it seems that "Extension of psychological mediatory
> function" does not fit the context Bella Kotik-.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 5:00 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On 13 February 2012 12:09, Bella Kotik-Friedgut <bella.kotik@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Colette my off-list note returned rejected by your server, so:
> > >
> > > I use "higher mental functions" or sometimes "higher psychological
> > > functions", but the first is preferable.
> > > --
> > > Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 at 1:47 PM, Colette Murphy <c.a.murphy@qub.ac.uk
> > > >wrote:
> > >
> > > > Dear All
> > > > I'd be very interested to hear your views on how to
> edit/reword/rewrite
> > > > the phrase "higher psychic function" in relation to Vygotsky's CH
> > theory
> > > so
> > > > that it be best read/understood/accepted by educationalists (more
> > > > specifically, science education researchers)?
> > >
> >
> >
> > Perhaps it would be better to use a term that pointed to the phenomena,
> > such as "Extension of psychological mediatory function". "Higher"
> relates
> > the phenomena to other psychological theories but points away from the
> > phenomena -- one is left considering why one function is higher than
> > another whilst embedding the ideas in an (unnecessary) analogical
> framework
> > of "height = abstraction" or "higher as in high church" in which case one
> > is even further removed from a precise formulation using a metaphorical
> > frame.
> >
> >
> > > I'm happy to engage off-list
> > > > if this query is better treated that way.
> > >
> >
> > This is clearly on-topic in many ways.
> >
> > Kind regards,
> > Huw
> >
> >
> >
> > > > Thanks a million
> > > > Colette
> > > >
> > > > Dr Colette Murphy
> > > > Senior Lecturer
> > > > School of Education
> > > > 69 University St
> > > > Queen's University
> > > > Belfast BT7 1HL
> > > >
> > > > tel: 02890975953
> > > >
> > > > “Why is it, in spite of the fact that teaching by pouring in,
> learning
> > by
> > > > passive absorption, are universally condemned, that they are still so
> > > > entrenched in practice?”
> > > >
> > > > John Dewey Democracy in Education 1916, Page 46
> > > > ________________________________________
> > > > __________________________________________
> > > > _____
> > > > xmca mailing list
> > > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > > >
> > > __________________________________________
> > > _____
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > __________________________________________
> > _____
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Sincerely yours Bella Kotik-Friedgut
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca