> -----Original Message-----
> From: nate [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 6:10 PM
> To: XMCA
> Subject: Re: sociocultural-historical genesis of Vygotsky's theory
>
>
> Eugene and others,
>
> Why is this only a Russian view? I guess my point is that while that
> connotation of culture bothers me greatly, I think there is a risk in
> assuming that it is a Vygotskian or Russian view of culture. Cole's
> diversity paper comes to mind as a case in point of how culture and
> diversity are still very much current struggles. Bi-lingual education is
> not getting rid of because its seen on equal par to English. It is very
> much about preserving the better "culture" for when European Americans are
> no longer the majority.
Your comment is very useful for me because I may not fully be sensitive to
all American connotations of the English word "culture." I was talking
mainly about academic use of the word "culture." I'm aware that some of my
students initially think that they do not have culture because this is the
way of doing things and culture is about others ("accent is a way of how
other people talk"). However, I think the definition of culture as "a way
of doing things" is not very common in Russian (at least 10 years ago when I
was there).
Also, I think the issue of diversity is very American (in a good sense :-)
or at least Western. Even in Bakhtin's writing, we can find value judgments
about cultural forms of literature as being primitive or advanced coming
from the notion of the historical progress so dear to Russian-German ear
(Hegel).
> Without sounding too Foucaultian, how does appropriation take us
> beyond the
> problems of internalization. The assimulationist project was not only
> concerned with skills, but also identity formation. I find appropriation
> as useful, but it also has its risks. I think Rogoff, Wertsch and many
> others work in wonderful in pointing towards culture, education being a
> dynamic process that involves intersubjectivity. But, it is also
> important
> to remember that this process makes "internalization" more
> efficient. Yes,
> the child is more active in this process but that doesn't in
> itself make it
> any less assimulationist. One example from Rogoff's manuscript on guided
> participation, a mother responds to her daugter playing with an object
> (doll) "is that the eyes, did you kiss the baby". Its a nice example of
> appropriation in that a certain intersubjectivity is involved between
> mother and daughter, yet it also is about appropriating gender roles.
> Without sounding too ironic is there much difference in having the girl
> internalize gender roles vs appropriating them.
In my recent paper published by Human Development, I made an effort to
abandon the discourse of internalization-appropriation-mastery. If anybody
is interested you can download the paper:
Matusov, E. (1998). When solo activity is not privileged: The participation
and internalization models of development. Human Development, 41, 326-349.
from http://ematusov.eds.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
What do you think?
Eugene
>
> Nate