Mike wrote:
>Doesn't Rogoff argue for levels of analysis while maintaining a
fusionist
>position? Is the crucial issue whether the levels are assumed to be
"only"
>of analysis or actually in the phenomenon?
No, Rogoff rejects any analytic separation, in addition to rejecting that
they are actually in the phenomenon. Rogoff has been increasingly
explicit in rejecting "levels of analysis" and in her rejection
of an ecological or "social influence" approach, most recently
in her 1998 Handbook of Child Development chapter. In this, I see
her as taking a position opposed to Mike Cole's in his writings.
(Mike, have you and Barbara ever discussed these differences?) In
the 1998, she even defines "socioculturalism" as equivalent to
her inseparability stance (different from my usage). I quote many
of the relevant passages in "Unresolved tensions," at too much
length to reproduce here. For example, in the published exchanges
between Rogoff and Valsiner, Rogoff re-emphasizes her inseparability
claim in rejecting what Valsiner calls "inclusive separation"
which is essentially what you are proposing, Mike.
I also quote several passages from Eugene Matusov's Rogoff-ian 1998
article, as in this passage: "Matusov
rejects Vygotsky’s internalization model because it 'leads to a chain of
mutually related dualisms between the social and the individual, the
external and the internal' (1998, p. 331). In opposition, Matusov
advocates Rogoff’s participation antithesis that 'social and
psychological planes mutually constitute each other and are inseparable'
(p. 329)." The "mutual constitution" language is
Giddens' and is frequently used by Rogoff.
Yet in practice Rogoff wants to retain what she calls three
“angles,” “windows” (1990, p. 26), “lenses,” or
“planes of analysis” (1997, pp. 267-268). In "Unresolved
tensions," I write that it is unclear how we can reconcile this with
her theoretical claims for analytic inseparability (given the
implications of inseparability that I draw from the Giddens-Archer
debate). Giddens does not do this and so would seem more
theoretically consistent, but as a result, it is unclear how to translate
his theory into an empirical project.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:49 PDT