It seems to me that the separability argument lacks a dialectical
perspective. Vygotsky is clear that
the construction of the individual is a social process but he also
acknowledges individual agency. (An issue which has moral dimensions.) At
the same time, he sees processes which are distict as a temporary
distinction because it is their weaving together into systems that provide
them --the individual in society, the social constructing the
individual --with their dynamic properties. I agree with Keith that
empirical work requires a focus on different levels of analysis but the
theoretical interpretation of such efforts is synthetic, revealing the
conceptual inseparability of the two levels of analysis. A quick example
from applied linguistics:
Lily Wong Fillmore studied the acquisition of English on the part of
native speakers of Spanish and Chinese. She was interested in the
productivity of formulaic expressions as scaffolds to increasingly
succesful interaction between native-English speaking. kindergarten age
children with their non-
native peers. She found that those learners of English who relied most
frequently on expressions such as "do you want to" plus X (play, go
outside, etc), that is formulaic language, were most successful in
establishing communicative exchanges with their peers. This is the
empirical finding which takes into account individual differences. but at
the level of theoretical interpretation we are in the realm of the social.
Idiomatic expressions are socially constructed and practiced. Social
interaction as a means of acquiring a first or second language is clearly a
social process,. Thus, language is simultaneously an individual and social
activity. (If an individual has a biologically-triggered handicap in
acquiring language he/she will need social assistance in fully
participating in communicative exchanges.)
In the realm of language studies these issues are quite important because
of the strong influence of the nativist (individualist) position in the
field. So the way in which we deal with the irreducible tension of the
social-individual levels of analysis has many practical as well as
theoretical consequences.
Good discussion,
Vera -----Original Message-----
From: Keith Sawyer <ksawyer@artsci.wustl.edu>
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Date: Friday, May 03, 2002 3:56 PM
Subject: Re: Vygotsky as individualist
>In reply to Gordon's comments on inseparability and the individual:
>
>I agree with Gordon's comments. I think strict inseparability is
>implausible theoretically, and is probably impossible to turn into an
>empirical program. Archer argues the following in her 1995 book:
>inseparability makes it impossible to explain the most important things
>about individuals, and also makes it impossible to explain the most
>important things about broader social contexts. So neither psychologists
>nor sociologists can be happy with that.
>
>Giddens holds to a purer form of strict inseparability so I find his
>position pretty implausible. He can only get away with that by not doing
>any empirical work. Rogoff, Lave, and some others I discuss in my article
>vascillate between claims for inseparability on the one hand, and empirical
>work that assumes what Valsiner calls "inclusive separation," on the other.
>
>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