Re: Rogoff?

From: Keith Sawyer (ksawyer@artsci.wustl.edu)
Date: Wed May 01 2002 - 15:51:08 PDT


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.

R. Keith Sawyer

http://www.keithsawyer.com/
Assistant Professor
Department of Education
Washington University
Campus Box 1183
St. Louis, MO  63130
314-935-8724



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jun 27 2002 - 08:02:49 PDT