Re: [xmca] Re: microgenesis?

[Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>]

On 14 October 2012 01:47, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> Unfortunately I can't find the source from where I found the meaning of
> lytical. It's not in the on-line OED.
> The context is here: http://www.marxists.org/**
> archive/vygotsky/works/1934/**problem-age.htm<http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1934/problem-age.htm>where I have inserted an explanation to the effect that lytical as opposed
> to critical means fading from one to the other rather than making a sudden
> "leap" with no stable in-between positions. So by using the two words, both
> with Greek roots, Vygotsky is drawing attention to two interdependent types
> of development: one fading out and in, the other cutting from one to the
> other. So yes, it is a bit more specific than "gradual".
>
> Andy
>
>
"Lytic" (adjective) is in the OED.  "Pertaining to or causing lysis"
(loosening). "Lytically" (adverb) is listed too.

Huw


Greg Thompson wrote:
>
>> Apologies for the intrusion, but I had a quick point of clarification,
>> for the uninitiated, what is meant by "lytic"?
>> (all I could come up with pertained to "lysis" or the breaking down of
>> cells - which would seem to suggest a different sense of "development" - a
>> breaking down so that things can be reintegrated. Is that the idea?).
>> -greg
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>
>>     I don't know where Americans being dolts comes into it, Mike. Some
>>     of my best friends are Americans. :) But let's move on from that.
>>
>>     The point, as I see it, is trying to extract from what we can
>>     reaonsably understand Vygotsky to be  saying, something which we
>>     believe could be correct and significant. To do this I think we
>>     have to understand the concept of "development" always in a
>>     particular context. A truism for anyone here I think. What it
>>     means to me is that I cannot just ask: what transformations in
>>     psychological functioning constitutes "development"? The
>>     necessary, relevant context is what role in what cultural and
>>     historical community is the person to play, in the short term and
>>     in the longer term. So the question of what constitutes
>>     development is age-specific, culturally specific and future-oriented.
>>
>>     (Of course, the world changes, and what was development yesterday
>>     may become oppressive and detestable tomorrow and vice versa, but
>>     let's abstract from cultural and historical change for the moment.)
>>
>>     >From the standpoint of natural science what I have posed is an
>>     absurdity and incompatible with basic tenets of science ...
>>     because I have made development dependent on events and relations
>>     in the future. In my opinion, that is just as it should be: kids
>>     go to school "for a purpose" - although what we mean by "purpose"
>>     in this context (the child's? the parents'? the state's? in
>>     retrospect? under advice? sponatneous?). But again, let's just put
>>     the problems arising from the idea of human actions being part of
>>     object-oriented activities to the side for the moment.
>>
>>     So you ask: "what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in the concept of
>>     a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT?"
>>
>>     I have to ask /which/ zone of proximal development, which crisis
>>     or lytic period are we talking about. Now I guess we can manage to
>>     give a general answer to the question: general questions require
>>     general answers. What "development" means is relative to which ZPD
>>     you are talking about. On the other hand, the presence of the ZPD
>>     itself depends on the development being posed. Achievment of a
>>     specific new mode of action with those around you, transforming
>>     your relations and your identity and your actions in the social
>>     situation depends on the expectations of those around you,
>>     according to broader cultural expectations and possibilities.
>>
>>     A teacher or other "helper" interested in fostering development
>>     (if they can be presumed to reflect general, broader cultural
>>     expectations) has in mind what new functioning will be a necessary
>>     step towards the child becoming an autonomous citizen of the
>>     community.
>>
>>     As Vygotsky insists, this poses for the child and her "helper" two
>>     different kinds of situation: either /lytical/ development or
>>     /critical/ development. Lytical development is gradual and
>>     prepares the basis for developmental leap. To argue whether the
>>     gradual progress made in strengthening the relevant psychologhical
>>     functions in this phase is or is not development is in my opinion
>>     /just words/. Gradual accumulation of strength in those activities
>>     which the child is basically able to do, but maybe not very
>>     confidentally and well is a necessary preparation for transcending
>>     their age-role and entering into a phase of critical development
>>     in which they have a chance of successfully coming out the other
>>     side. It is by completion of the critical phase of development -
>>     the leap - which transforms the child's identity and role, that
>>     "/the development" is realised/. All the preparation in the world
>>     proves to be not development if it is not realised in facilitating
>>     the critical transformation.
>>
>>     So, excuse me please for however imperfectly rehearsing
>>     egg-sucking for grandma's erudition.
>>
>>     I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether "child
>>      X at last managing to recognise the difference between d and b
>>     today," for example, is described as a development. In the context
>>     of course it is; it is a step. You want to call that a
>>     "microgenetic development"? Personally I don't have a problem with
>>     that. David may, but paraphrasing Oscar Wilde: "Microgenesis is
>>     not one of my words."  But if the child at last managed to repeat
>>     the Gospel According to St Luke by rote, and you wanted to
>>     describe this as a microgenetic development, I would want to hear
>>     the developmental plan that made that claim coherent.
>>
>>     Where if anywhere does this leave us?
>>
>>     Andy
>>     My apologies for using so many words to say so little.
>>     Just trying to be clear and careful.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     mike cole wrote:
>>
>>         Hi Andy--
>>
>>         Well to begin with, thanks for keeping the discussion alive. I
>>         am away from home without books or control of my time, so I
>>         want to ask a question that may highlight what is central to
>>         my queries here.
>>
>>         If what you write is correct, what does the word DEVELOPMENT
>>         mean in the concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? Its all
>>         fine and dandy to point out what dolts Americans are for not
>>         understanding that learning leads DEVELOPMENT in classroom
>>         instruction, that but classroom lessons are clusters of events
>>         that take place in microgenetic time WITHIN ontogenetic lythic
>>         periods.
>>
>>         Where does that leave us?
>>
>>         mike
>>
>>         PS- the url below lays out in some detail where the idea of
>>         acquisition of reading as a cultural-historical developmental
>>         process. Old and never published. But at least we might refine
>>         what is indexed by the phrase
>>         "learning to read."
>>
>>         http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf<http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>         On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden
>>         <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>
>>             So this thread does not die ...
>>             You said, Mike, "So I am seeing the same solution to thinking
>>             about the ontogeny/microgenesis relationships by analogy
>>         with the
>>             phylogeny/cultural-history relation."
>>
>>             I don't see the analogy there. Phylogeny and ethnogeny are two
>>             (overlapping and mutually determining) processes with two very
>>             distinct material bases, viz., genes and artefacts. But
>>         learning
>>             to read/write and development of abstract thinking (and other
>>             leading activities in a developmental ZPD) is not such a
>>         relation,
>>             it is a relation between critical phases and lytic (gradual)
>>             phases of development. This is quite a different relationship.
>>
>>             The analogy I would see for something which couold be called
>>             microgenesis would be the /situation/: a concept develops
>>             momentrily in a person and their actions in a situation. The
>>             situation is not a factor in phylo- or ethnogensis, it
>>         essentially
>>             belongs to the very short time scale, and its material
>>         basis is
>>             activity. I grant that no-one might use "microgenesis" in
>>         that way
>>             and no-one may be doing research into that process these
>>         days. I
>>             don't know. But the situation is a distinct material basis for
>>             development and one on which Vygotsky did a great deal of
>>         work. On
>>             the other hand, I think /all/ processes of development
>>         have both
>>             critical and lytical phases (c.f. Gould's punctuated
>>         evolution).
>>
>>             What do you think?
>>
>>             Andy
>>
>>
>>
>>     ______________________________**____________
>>     _____
>>     xmca mailing list
>>     xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>
>>     http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>> Department of Anthropology
>> Brigham Young University
>> Provo, UT 84602
>> http://byu.academia.edu/**GregoryThompson<http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>
>>
>>
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca