Peter Smagorinsky has just posted a message about scripts and
schemas as secondary cultural artifacts:
On Sat, 15 Nov 1997, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> As I understand Cultural-Historical Activity Theory, it would not
> accommodate the view that scripts reside strictly within the head. Mike
> takes this up in Cultural Psychology--see pp. 124-131 where he develops the
> idea that scripts and schemas are secondary cultural artifacts that
> "partake of both the ideal and the material; they are materialized and
> idealized (reified) in the artifacts that mediate peoples' joint
> activities."
When I contrast this to Yrgo's expanded activity system model on
page 284 I get confused. One of the points of the triad is 'rules' and I
don't understand the difference between that point, and the rules explicit
that would be found in scripts and schemas. How is it that they become
separated, so that scripts and schemas, as Peter notes, are secondary
cultural artifacts? What about the 'rules' regarding gendered
beliefs and behavior, social-economic-status beliefs and behaviors, or
rules about how a teacher is to behave, a parent, a student, a principal?
Or, to place this question in the context of our present on-going
discussion about quantitative / qualitative research - a deep cultural
rule that different activites are framed in perceptions of dichotomies?
As Jay wrote:(Friday, 14 Nov.)
"'Qualitative' and 'Qualitative' are mere placeholders in both the
rather empty debates over research method and in the more significant
issues of concrete research practices. I think most of us do know the
core of this issue: that one constellation of philosophical assumptions,
master discourses about research methods, and concrete practices (varying
greatly from one discipline to another) soucht and more or less achieved
in academic circles for a period of time a political hegemony that sought
to exclude other approaches."
Is not this 'political hegemony' a system of rules that would fit
in the triad of 'rules'? Of, is this political hegemony a secondary
cultural artifact?
Any help on this? I feel I'm being terribly obtuse.
phillip