In *LV: Revolutionary Scientist* both Newman and Holzman make explicit that
it is their Vygotsky and Marx. I took it as a different interpreatation of
Vygotsky that normally occurs in CHAT. In this sense, I saw them
challenging the notion of the "true version" more than anything else. In
Holzman's critique of learning and development she spends some time
critiqueing this idea of truth, especially scientific truth. What I
continue to find interesting in many "deconstructivist" literature is the
act of "deconstructing" "regimes of truth" gives the literature a sense of
a true version which supercedes all others. This is interesting because
that is exactly what they are critiqueing or challenging.
I have sensed this with myself reading Walkerdine and I think it has
something to do with subjectivity and/ or ideology. Walkerdine, Newman,
and Holzman do not hide their subjectivity in their research or book, and
as a byproduct it can be interpreted as "a true version" superceding all
others. There may be more to it than this, but it is interesting (and I
include my own interpretations) that when subjectivity is involved it gives
one that sense, but one is not given that impression when its hidden in the
myth of objectivity.
/\ / /\ | /-----
/ \ / /__\ ---|--- /---
/ \/ / \ | /----
Nate Schmolze
http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
*******************************************************************
"Pedogogics is never and was never politically indifferent,
since, willingly or unwillingly, through its own work on the psyche,
it has always adopted a particular social pattern, political line,
in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its
interests".
L.S. Vygotsky
********************************************************************
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Diamondstone <diamonju who-is-at rci.rutgers.edu>
To: <xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Sunday, October 24, 1999 5:41 PM
Subject: Re: Play
> Nate, I'm delighted that someone else on this list has found something of
> substance in Holzman & Newman. I am intrigued and irritated by "schools
for
> growth" -- intrigued by the 'gap' in CHAT that performance (/play)
theory
> 'fills' & irritated by the claim that any one version of vygotsky is the
> 'true' version, superceding all others. I don't remember if the claim was
> explicit & intended or if i construed it -- i _should_ check. But I am
very
> happy to know that someone else has picked up on what is intriguing there
> because i'd like to see the text discussed. I can't be more specific
until I
> reread - very bad memory on short term engagements
>
> judy
>
>
> >In this sense, I see Holzman and Newman's work as taking how Vygotsky
saw
> >the ZPD operating in play to different levels. They transform rules
and/for
> >results into tool and /for results with play being the former. Play
> >(performance, drama, writing etc.) is not in opposition to "reality" or
> >work, but connected to it. As with children who play mommy and daddy it
is
> >very well connected to reality, but at the same time the child can be
what
> >she/he is not (a head taller than him/her self). In *Schools for
Growth*,
> >I see "play" being elaborated at a variety of levels. In using both
> >Vygotskian ideas of play and Wiittgensteinian language games the
importance
> >of performance is invoked. From the social therapy centers, to the All
> >Star Talent Show a variety "play" activities are described.
> >
> >In Vygotsky's article on play and in later work (*Child Psychology*) on
> >imagination in late childhood, he makes a pretty direct connection
between
> >the two. So, play (in the preschool period) being not simply a
transition
> >from rules "and" to rules "for" results, but also having an important
> >relationship to creativity, imagination, or "revolutionary activity" to
use
> >Newman and Holzman's term. As Vera describes in *Notebooks of the mind*
> >the act of creativity is not in opposition to culture but a gift to it.
> >
> >For me, Vygotsky arguing for the ZPD in both play and education is of
> >central importance. The connection is not simply that play has the same
> >function for younger children that instruction has for older children,
but
> >a "unity of opposites". As Vera describes in *notebooks* that
creativity
> >was not solely embedded within this sole individual against the social,
but
> >that the social; teachers, parents, friends, books etc. facilitated or
> >supported that creativity.
> >
> >While "little league" or other activities are play in an opposition
sense
> >(not work) are they in the "developmental" sense. Is what Vygotsky saw
as
> >characteristic of play in preschool better found in other avenues. I
tend
> >to see the 5th D as being more consistent with play in a "developmental"
> >sense.
> >
> >
> > /\ / /\ | /-----
> > / \ / /__\ ---|--- /---
> >/ \/ / \ | /----
> >
> >Nate Schmolze
> >http://www.geocities.com/~nschmolze/
> >schmolze who-is-at students.wisc.edu
> >
> >*******************************************************************
> >"Pedogogics is never and was never politically indifferent,
> >since, willingly or unwillingly, through its own work on the psyche,
> >it has always adopted a particular social pattern, political line,
> >in accordance with the dominant social class that has guided its
> >interests".
> >
> > L.S. Vygotsky
> >********************************************************************
> >
> >
>
>
> Judith Diamondstone (732) 932-7496 Ext. 352
> Graduate School of Education
> Rutgers, the State University of New Jersey
> 10 Seminary Place
> New Brunswick, NJ 08901-1183
>
>