Unidentified subject!

James Wertsch (jwertsch who-is-at artsci.wustl.edu)
Tue, 24 Sep 1996 08:08:04 -0500 (CDT)

I quite agree with Genevieve. One of Vygotsky's basic assumptions was
that the distinction between individual and social (intramental and
intermental) processes is less obvious than we often take it to be in
discussions of psychology. For him, the point was that the _same_ mental
functions appear on the intermental and intramental planes. Furthermore,
the fact that mediational means, or cultural tools inherently shape
processes on both planes means that the connection between individual and
social processes is even closer. From this perspective, the important
point is to view neural, mediational, social, economic, and other such
processes as _moments_ in human action rather than stand-alone entities.

Jim Wertsch

> >
> >Isn't it the case that sociocultural interpretations of mental phenomena do
> >not systematically distingusih between "psychological" (as in-the-head
> >private phenomena)and social (economic relations, power, etc)frameworks?
> >
> >
> says
> >
> >***********************************
> >Chris Francovich
> >***********************************
> >
>
>
> I wouldn't exactly put it that way. I think it's more that sociocultural
> interpretations trace the complex relations between what goes on in the
> firing neurons and what goes on between people, places, the weather, etc.
> And they insist that these relations are important, that mind grows in
> society, in activity, while at the same time, the many processes dedicated
> to that growth ensure the continued existence of society and activity.
> To understand, perhaps even influence learning, requires a focus on those
> relations/relationships, on the dynamic, on the process, the movement,
> the (often multiple) dialectic of mind, culture, activity.
>
> Still have at least one week to catch up on...
>
> oh well...
>
> genevieve
>
>
>