I think your right Bill. Yet I think Valsiner focus is diiferent or at least
more explicit,
"affect-laden meanings [symbolic concepts] meant to infect or penetrate
personal belief systems (systems of personal sense). Their success, however,
depends on whether the individual's personal culture in its present state is
susceptible to such influence, or whether it contains psychological
`antibodies' or conflicting beliefs (that had emerged during previous
experiences), that block or neutralize the `attack' (Lightfoot & Valsiner,
1992, p. 396)."
I really enjoyed your reference to psychology being an arena, and I think
its pertinent to development in particular. It is assumed that an emphasis
on development is somehow "pro individual" yet it seems to me that what it
mainly does is normalize. It is used to deny certain expeiences to certain
children, and is used to legitimize practices in preschool and kindergarten
such as readiness. Readiness (Beth Graue)is interesting because low income
and African American children are not redshirted but flunked or held back
because their experiences do not speak to the naturalness of development.
Middleclass children on the other hand do and use redshirting very much as a
form of cultural capital. Children are redshirted primarily so they will not
be at the bottom of the social hierarchy.
Its logic seems embedded in a reasoning that if I want to legitimize a
practice at certain point in time I will signify that practice by some
experience in early childhood and therefore make it appear natural. For
example, we have a growing number of children (not really but that's the
story) who are being violent in schools, the developmental response to this
is signifying children's experiences in earlychildhood as somehow connected
to this violence. We need to continually watch those children labeled ADHD
or who are otherwise at risk.
It seems to me that 'development' in practice is an insitutionalized version
of Mike's reference to prolepsis. It naturalizes that process as a
biological not a cultural process. I don't deny that there are biological
processes that change through time, but I don't think they have logic or
structure in themselves.
who-is-at S /B@/QCtROsS@ SQC
/Q who-is-at ( 3st#(O(@@t(RRt%R(Gt@
# who-is-at G(OtG@ @((7@st%R((OC((sB(t@
CB who-is-at Bt7@Ott(@@(((t(tt((t(((t(((t@
^#(CR who-is-at ((tStt((7ttttt(((((((((ttttR
K7t# who-is-at tt(((ttt((tttttttt(((((((((tttts(
who-is-at ttttt((((((((tttttttt(((((((((tttt7S
^K((((tttttttt((((((((ttttttttt((((( who-is-at
S7(((tttttttt((((((((ttttttttt(((((R
#ttt((((((((tttttttt(((((((((tttttO7
Rttt((((((((tttttttt(((((((((ttttt7 who-is-at
^Q((tttttttt((((((((ttttttttt(((((( who-is-at
who-is-at (t((((((((tttttttt(((((((((tttttts7
C3t((((((((tttttttt(3K#KO%tt((((((( who-is-at ~
R(tttttttt((((((RRt ( who-is-at R((((((K@
who-is-at t((((((((ttttOR RCtttt7B
who-is-at 7(((7#@@@@@OQ% R7tttt3S
Bt(K# /# who-is-at @G Btttt(@
who-is-at @R (3 / @tttt(Q~
who-is-at G ~Ktttt(7@@@#
Q Q who-is-at R^ R ^@ttttt(RtQQt@
# / who-is-at (@t(((((ttB(QCO(
who-is-at @@~ /R#3ttttttt((((R3B
#^ (Q who-is-at K7tt(OK@@@@S7((tttttttt(((sC@/ /O@@B#
O3 who-is-at ttttttttt(t((ttttt((((((((tttt(OR RRCCCCCC
% who-is-at B@S(tttttttt(((((((((tttttttt7B@Bt(t@@K@@@s /BCCCCCCCC
%O( who-is-at G7((3@R(t(((((((((tttttt#@@@@@@(((ts@6CCC#@@QSCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at ttt%3%t((tt(((((((((ttttO@@@@@@Q@t((ttt@CCCCCsRCCCCCCCCCC
B((tttttttt(((((((((tt3 who-is-at @@@@@#SRsttt(((RCCCCCGSCCCCCCCCCC
#7t((((((((tttttttttC who-is-at @@@@##@S@s((((tt(RCCCCCC@CCCCCCCCCC
Qt((((((((ttttttC who-is-at RR@@@@@SQ#Btttttt(((@CCCCCCOBCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at (tttttttt(((%@R(@7tts@@@@Q7ttttttt((C#CCCCCCCO@CCCCCCCC
#3tttttttsK who-is-at C RB((@@%tt((((((((tt@CCCCCCCCCCB#CCCCCC
/CR who-is-at @Q% 7S(ttts%((((((((t@sCCCCCCCCCCCCB@QCC@
who-is-at Ctt7K@OCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at S#GCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
/ who-is-at C@CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at OCCBSCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
%sCCCCs who-is-at sCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at CCCCCCCs@SCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at CCCCCCCCCC@sCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
CROCCCCCCCCCs who-is-at #CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
/R%G who-is-at @@@@@@@#/QsCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at (tttttt(7R RCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at R#G SQtt(((((((@C @CCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
who-is-at ettC@@@SK@@R%tttt((((((@ (SCCCCCCCCCCCCCC
%BR((((((t((((((((tttt7 who-is-at @CCCCCCCCCCCCCC
^ who-is-at O((tt3@@3(((tttttttt(((R( BsCCCCCCCCC6@#
SB who-is-at @@@((((((((ttttttteB% %SCCCCCQ@RKKK
who-is-at 7(tttttts#(tttsB# ~BS@@RKKKKKK
who-is-at t7@@BttO@/^^^ ~R@@@@R#K
( /S#/ ^ who-is-at
-----Original Message-----
From: Bill Barowy [mailto:wbarowy@mail.lesley.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, May 10, 2000 5:31 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: Re: Barker
Bum raps seem to go around needlessly (or needfully?) in academia -- the
following (dated) web site appears to give Lave a bum rap for not
recognizing intrapsychological process (that, at least, cognition in
practice does seem to recognize).
http://x.ed.uiuc.edu/PES/94_docs/PHILLIPS.HTM
But then, returning to development and culture, it certainly was also clear
ingo. in prac. that she views culture as developing, and takes issue with
the cognitive paradigm's simplifiying assumption that since the evolution of
culture occurs on a longer time-scale, that it can be taken as constant and
external.
But wow, take Lave's idea of arena and its relation to setting and think of
discipline knowledge as an arena -- perhaps the same form of what she wrote
about the supermarket can be applied to psychology:
"Psychology, for instance, is in some respects a public and durable entity.
It is a physically, economically, politically, and socially organized
space-in-time. In this aspect it may be called an "arena" within which
activity takes place. Psychology as arena is the product of patterns of
capital formation and political economy. It is not negotiable directly by
the individual. It is outside of, yet encompasses the individual, providing
a higher-order institutional framework within which setting is constituted.
At the same time, for individual researchers, psychology is a repeatedly
experienced, personally ordered and edited version of the arena. In this
aspect it may be termed a "setting" for activity. Some experiments do not
exist for a given researcher as part of her setting, while other experiments
are rich in detailed possibilities."
(too many apologies to Jean Lave, and to Piaget for my abuse of
"assimilation")
In response to Nate -- not only Valsiner, but my readings of Lave, Lang,
Bronfenbrenner, and of course Cole, Engeström, and Lemke, also speak to the
co-development of culture and individual and all other units in between and
beyond. Sometimes it takes reading between the lines.
Lave's book certainly increased my interest in Barker...
Bill Barowy, Associate Professor
Lesley College, 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790
Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169
http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html
_______________________
"One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself
and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful."
[Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 01 2000 - 01:01:24 PDT