In general, I agree with you but does not this occur to an extent in any
> activity - the process of recontextualization. For me, there is somewh=
at a
> danger, as in early Bruner, of seeing certain types of activity;
> constructive activity or play as a precurser to symbolic thought. Play,=
of
> course, has significance in this way because that recontextualization i=
s
> important, maybe even essential, for learning to read and write. The
> danger I think is seeing certain types of activity, play for example, a=
s
> not itself having complexity or recontextualization. One of Vygotsky's
> critiques was that play should not be over intellectualized (Piaget) th=
at,
> like all activity, it was connected to the child's needs, motives, and
> desires. It is important to remember that as those needs, motives, and
> desires change so will the recontextualization. Many, but not all
> cultures, for good historical reasons, have valued the symbolic as a
> mediational means, but that is not the only way it can occur. The way =
I
> was looking at play was it having a complexity in itself irrespective o=
f it
> "developmental significance" to categorical thought or learning to read=
or
> write.
I, personally, think that Vygotsky had no time to deeplly analise and=20
approach "play". But Daniil B. Elkonin try that (in a social-historical
way) in his PSYCHOLOGY OF PLAY.
Here, in Brazil, Phd. Ingrid Dormien Koudela proposes that we should=20
call play ("Dramatic play" =3D Jogo dram=E1tico) the make-believe play of=
=20
children (Faz-de-conta) and game ("Theater game"=3D Jogo teatral) that=20
make-believe made by children to an audience (to someone else other than=20
the players within play). As to say: a COUNSCIOUS and deliberated action=20
directed to the other (others).
So, it is not difficult to agree that in theater games, it does occurs=20
symbolization because it is a counscious action, in order to establish a=20
comunicative process between those who play and those who is watching=20
the play itself. But in play (dramatic play) it doesn't happen=20
necessarilly.
What Piaget calls "deformative assimilation" - a child's own choice and=20
desire -, Vygotsky calls "play" - conditioned to the kind of "pivots",=20
requested to serve as "something" else.
But yes, you're right to point the complexity of "Play" and its=20
emotional, as to say, corporal dimention.
=20
>=20
> >
> I think your right, it was seen more as a sign than a representation fo=
r
> Vygotsky. But symbols are also signs as least for Vygotsky, I think Pi=
aget
> as saw them more as representations of action. Walkerdine critiques th=
is
> aspect of Piaget's work in *Mastery of Reason* in which she argues the
> symbolic for him was just action written down. She argues for a
> dialectical sign/signified relationship.
>
PLAY (human play)is a fascinating issue - not yet exaustivelly studied=20
by researchers. Specially its historical roots.=20
According to social-historical perspective It began to be improved since=20
technological ways of doing work put children apart from job. So, it and=20
"childhood" became something "natural" to "cultural people".