I have read the very useful PDF article you recommended, Victor, but I find
it somewhat unsatisfactory. (1) The writer, Michael Glassman, seems to have
a slightly different Vygotsky than the one I know, and (2) the article is
of course very much focused on pedagogy, whereas my specific interest was
social psychology.
The article by Vygotsky on Ethical Education in the 1926 "Educational
Psychology" I found an exhilerating read, partly because of how much
Vygotsky saw it as essential to foster critique and self-management on the
part of the students, and how far away it was from Stalinist ideas of
schools as institutions for the socialisation of kids into the status quo
and inculcation of existing values (except that for Vygotsky revolution
clearly was such a value!). The article seems to contrast Dewey and
Vygotsky by portraying Vygotsky as an advocate of what I would see as a
Stalinist view of education. Vygotsky simply says that a school cannot
raise itself above the society of which it is a part.
Secondly, I was particularly impressed by Vygotsky's observation that
development always requires an element of invention on the part of the
child, since imitation is impossible for her, and this element seems to be
missing in the writer's otherwise valid description of how Vygotsky sees
the role of a teacher as a mentor and setter-of-problems, rather than
simply as facilitator.
The article is about pedagogy and is probably addressed to teachers, so it
is natural that it should focus on the role and intentions of the teacher.
However, it seems to me that Vygotsky is not just a teacher of teachers.
There seems to be a school of interpretation of Vygotsky which emphasises
the two-sided negotiation involved in learning and development. But surely
this is just the product of "teachers eye view" when reading Vygotsky.
For example, the experimental methods (as described in the famous article
by Sakharov) are clearly expressions of how a scientist should intervene
*in pursuit of the goals of science*, but this should not be read as
descriptive of learning and development itself. Most people do not have a
cognitive psychologist around when they are learning.
Do people have a view on these matters? Victor led me to the Glassman
article, but I fear I may have the same kind of problems with a Valsiner
article. The reason for my interest is critique of Axel Honneth, a
"student" of Habermas's who has substituted for Habermas's use of Piaget
for empirical backing, the use of George Herbert Mead. A step forward I
think, but I need help in focusing on the critique of Pragmatism, since I
think the necessary empirical backing must come from the Vygotsky School.
Andy
At 11:13 AM 17/10/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>Valsiner, Jaan and Rene Van de Veer. "On the social nature of human
>cognition: An analysis of the shared intellectual roots of George Herbert
>Mead and Lev Vygotsky. In Lev Vygotsky: Critical Assessments: Vygotsky's
>theory Vol 1 edited by Peter Lloyd. New York: Routledge (1999):145-164.
>Also check out the online pdf article ]Dewey and Vygotsky: Society,
>Experience, and Inquiry in Educational Practice at
>www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol30_04/AERA300402.pdf - 16 Oct 2003. True, this
>refers to Dewey rather than Mead, but Dewey and GH are very similar in
>theory. This article suggests that Mead, through Dewey had considerable
>influences on Soviet theory of education and social psychology.
>
>"Dewey and Vygotsky in Historical Context There are historically based
>explanations for both the strong similarities
>In 1928 Dewey visited the Soviet Union (although the schools were closed for
>vacation for most of the time he was there). Prawat (2001) recounts how
>Dewey visited Second Moscow University during this trip at the time Vygotsky
>was a rising young star there. Dewey certainly met with Blonsky, Vygotsky's
>compatriot, and Prawatt (2001) builds a fairly strong circumstantial case
>that Dewey actually met with Vygotsky. This only adds to the probability
>that Dewey influenced Vygotsky's early work.
>
> Enough for now
>Victor
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:15 AM
>Subject: George Herbert Mead
>
>
> > Do any of you xmca-ers have a critique of George Herbert mead from the
> > Vygotsky perspective at your finger tips? or a "compare and contrast"?
> >
> > Andy
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PST