On Appropriation & internalization
I am afraid a little that some are discussing
the problems of appropriation, taking the idea
(not concept) of "pricvoenie" (appropriation)
of A.N. Leontiev as, as if, one corresponding to
(or comparing to) the idea of "internalization "
of Vygotsky interpretted in the framework of
A.N.Leontiev .
If we consider the both theoretical frameworks
of A.N.Leontiev and Vygotsky, I think that we should
set the idea of " appropriation" of A.N.Leontiev
againt the idea of "sign mediation" or more exactly
"genesis of consciousness(higher mental function)
through mediation by signs(speech) and psychological tool"
Of course one origin of the idea "appropriation "
of Leontiev came from the idea of social-historical
origin of higher mental function of Vygotsky(or Marx),
but A.N.Leontiev began to abandon or to think little
of the idea "sign mediation" of Vygotsky, when he
introduced the idea "appropriation" into psychological
theory (A.R.Luria and his followers held this idea of
Vygotsky).
This difference of view points of both great scholars
appears also in the understanding of processes of
internalization or of the role of internalization in
mental development.
Vygotsky analyzed fairly enough the process of
internalization in the experiments on development
of selective reaction,attention and speech and so on,
and single out the four stages of development{
(1)primitive and natural stage,(2)the stage of naive
psychology,(3)the stage of external sign and external
operation, (4) the stage of evolution(or internalization;
in Russian "vrashivanie" (the stage of "rooting" in
the translation by N.Minick)} and three type of
internalization(see the chapter 4 of "Thinking and Speech
" and the chapter 5 of " History of development of higher
mental function").
It is very interesting that Vygotsky did not use the
term "internalization"("interiozastuya" in Russian) and
used term "vrashivanie", when he spoke of his own theory,
although he used term "internalization" when he dealt with
other theory of internalization. And "vrashivanie" for
Vygotsky always designates either the process in the above-
mentioned stage(4) or the process of transformation from
interpsychological functions to intrapsychological
functions, that is, the process of reconstruction of
higher mental functions by internalization of sign(speech).
Moreover,he stresses that higher mental function are
qualitatively restructured by "vrashivanie".
Vygotsky writes: "On "vrashivanie", that is, on conversion
of functions insides, a complex transformation of all
structure of functions takes place. As experimental analysis
shows it needs to mention the following as the important
moments of it's transformation: (1)substitution of function,
(2)change of natural function( of elemental processes which
are the basis of higher mental function and become a
component of higher mental function),(3)generation of new
psychological functional systems(or systematic functions),
which take a role played before by individual functions in
the structure of behavior."(from "Orudie i znak v razvitie
rebenka", Sobranie sochinenii,tom 6, p15 ).
When we examine the idea of "appropriation" and the
concepts "internalization" and "externalization " of
A.N.Leontiev and his followers, we can easily find that
the concept of "vrashivanie" of Vygotsky was enlarged to
a great degree by them. Of course the long-term works of
P.Ya.Galiperin, N.F.Talizina and others contributed much to
elaboration and development of the concept of
internalization. A.N.Leontiev writes; "The interiosations
of actions,i.e.the gradual conversion of external actions
into internal,mental one, is a process that necessarily
takes place in man's ontogenetic development. Its
necessity is determined by the central content of a child's
development being its appropriation of the achievements of
mankind's historical development, including those of human
thought and human knowledge. These achievements come to him
as external phenomena(objects,verbal concept,knowledge).".
As far as we consider that "internalization " is to be
a psychological mechanism of realization of appropriation
of the achievements of mankind's historical development
for Leontiev and we take into account the theory of
Galiperin, not only conversion of actions of external
speech into internal, but also the transformation of
objective (or materialized) action into verbal plane,
and even the shaping or organizing actions in objective
social action stage should be regarded as a process of
internalization. This difference in understanding of
internalization between Vygotsky and Leontiev is also
refleted in understanding of the relationship between
external and internal structure of activity(or actions).
Leontiev's hypothesis on the isomorphism between external
and internal structure of activity does not agree with
that of Vygotsky.
Now we can answer Denis Newman's question "when the baby
appropriates the cup, is something also interiorized? ".
(XACT, Yes, the action with a cup has been already
internalized in the baby, as far as he/she can use a cup
with him/herself for drinking milk or water. In the case of
motor skills with a folk and a knife or with a bicycle
etc.,, of course,the execution of an action always remains
external, but orientation and control part of it are
internalized in the process of acquisition of skills in
the stage of objective social action according to the
theory Galiperin and Leontiev. At the stage when a baby
begin to observe how mama or papa use a cup and want to
use a cup, it should be considered that something begin to
be internalized.
But the main problems seems not to be here. The problem
seems to concern with whether theoretical framework of
Leontiev with the concept "appropriation","internalization"
and "internalization" is enough for explanation and for
the study on psychological development from the point
of view of activity theory or not.
I think much problems remain unsolved. For example,
problem of relationship between external and internal
structure of an activity or an action. According to
the Leontiev's hypothesis on the isomorphism between
external and internal structure of activity, all of
the content and structure of activity formed in the
social objective activity stage is to be kept in the
internal mental stage, when it is internalized into it's
stage. It may be possible, when the process of
internalization is well organized. But is it not possible
that a some new moment will happen to arise in the process
of internalization when we change the condition of it ?
I suppose that it is possible.
The second example of problems is the relationship between
internalization and externalization. In the process of
internalization of an action or an activity does this
process proceed without any externalization ? Or may the
process of externalization appear also ? I can not say
anything about it, but this relationship may depend upon
the way of organization of activity. But how do they
relate ?
The third example of problems is one concerning the
relation of "internalization"(or appropriation) of
an activity (or an action) with the conditions of an actor.
According to the theory of A,N,Leontiev and Galiperin, any
one can acquire any activity created by people of proceeding
generations and can reproduce their activity and abilities,
(on condition that he/she does not have a special damage in
the brain) when we can organize their activity well.
It may be right. But the effect of acquisition of the
activity for the future development will be not same
with different actors(for example, the effect of acquisitionof speech of a
certain language by a child will be extremely
different from the effect in the case of an old man).
This third example reminds me of the discussion on the
problems of human abilities between Leontiev,A.N. and
Rubinshtein. Rubinshtein criticised the application of idea
"appropriation" of Marx into psychology by Leontiev in his
paper "Problem of abilities and problems of psychological
theory, Problems of psychology 1960". Now I have no
time to explain his criticism in detail. I write here
only points of his criticism: (1) The concept "pricvoenie"
(appropriation) of K.Marx will not serve as the basis of
the idea that human abilities are the result of
appropriation of achievements of human socio-historical
development. (2) The idea of Leontiev of psychological
development with the concept of "appropriation",
"internalization" and "internalization" is a sort of
mechanical determinism in the sense that it always
neglects the conditions of subjects of human activity.
Please some one, in Moscow or anywhere, would take a
trouble to explain Rubinshtein's criticism to Leontiev's
idea of "pricvoenie" ?
I will put this mail into Xact, expecting that some
one in Moscow will responce to it. But if necessary,
please put it into XLCHC.
-------------------------------------------------
K.Amano, Chou University, Tokyo
who-is-at @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Nate Schmolze
http://members.home.net/schmolze1/
schmolze1@home.com
who-is-at @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:32 PST