If the basic model, at least in its possibly sanitized American variant,
assumes interaction with a more-knowledgeable other, cooperative activity,
and conscious scaffolding, with positive learning results ... then all
these elements can be called into question or reversed, at least for
purposes of theoretical exploration.
The Other does not have to be more-knowledgeable, we can learn from
infants, dogs, and hot radiators ... but are we learning in the same sense,
in the same way, as with the more-knowledgeable partner? and what is the
nature of this knowledge? suppose it is not consciously held, but tacit
knowledge: someone can show us what they do, but not tell us how they do it
... we can still learn from tacit knowers, but somewhat differently, and
they still seem to me to fit the ZPD model -- but learning from infants,
dogs, and hot radiators does not fit the model at all. What do you think?
I've said something already about 'non-cooperative' joint activity, in
terms of issues of emergent, divergent goals or activity trajectories.
There have been also several comments on 'resistance' including the idea
that one cannot say who is resisting, and this latter seems to me to fit
the divergence model: the abler partner is able to do X (and also y, z, not
currently in focus) and begins to do it jointly with the less-able partner
-- but the less-able partner begins to shift toward doing W, or at least
not-X; if the X-able partner persists towards X, s/he is 'resisting' the
shift to W as much as the less-X-able partner is 'resisting' doing-X.
Perhaps a generous teacher would mobilize y or z from his/her repertory,
which might facilitate towards W, and in so doing abet a further shift in
joint activity from W to V. In the course of this both partners are
learning, though differently. A less generous teacher might end up helping
the student learn better how to resist.
I believe the original LSV model does not require conscious scaffolding, or
knowledge of a 'path' for learning, but only the perhaps tacit knowledge of
how to engage in the activity. How different is learning in the ZPD in
cases where we learn from tacit vs. explicit knowers? how does this relate
to the distinction between everyday and scientific knowing in LSV?
Perhaps most fascinating is the issue of negative ZPDs in the sense of
counter-developmental interpersonal interactions. 'Teachers' who are bad
for us. Models of destructive or even of debilitating modes of action. Are
these merely value judgments of activity types learned, or is there a more
basic sense of negative learning? I think for example of Bateson's model of
the genesis of schizophrenia in pathological double-bind interactions.
Whether this is an adequate model of schizophrenia in general (probably
not), it is still a fairly believable phenomenon in itself. Interactions
that drive people crazy, or diminish their capacity to functionally deploy
mediational means. Various kinds of 'brainwashing' practices? What about
prolonged interaction with psychotics by younger developing persons? Is it
possible to actually reverse the course of socio-intellectual development
in a negative interpersonal interactive ZPD? I suspect that it is, and
while knowledge about how to do this systematically is rather horrifying in
its moral implications, it might certainly tell us alot about how the
positive ZPD works that our present theories miss (e.g. the role of power
relationships or emotional bonds, as in Bateson's hypothesis about the
double-bind).
Always more questions. JAY.
---------------------------
JAY L. LEMKE
CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK
JLLBC who-is-at CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU
---------------------------