Victor, if you have the patience, I would just like to try to express
myself a little more cautiously to see if I am so much on my own.
Glassman: "Vygotsky wants to use the educational process to teach new
members of the social community how to "use" important, socially developed
tools in an effective manner (a top-down/determinate approach)"
http://www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol30_04/AERA300402.pdf p 4
Vygotsky: "The closest we can get to a definition of this new principle,
which is to become the foundation of moral education, is to view it from
general approaches to education, as consisting in the social coordination
of one's own behavior with the behavior of the group, and here obedience
must be replaced throughout by free social coordination. The rule that
originates from everyone, from the group, and which is directed likewise to
the entire group and sustained by the actual effective mechanism of the
self-discipline and routine of daily life in the school has to itself
replace that "pedagogical singsong" which prevails between teacher and
student in the authoritarian system. It is not obedience to someone or
obedience to something, but the free adoption of those patterns of behavior
which will vouchsafe the consonance of all of behavior. This mechanism is
not something alien to the child, something that grips him, on the
contrary, it lies within the child's very nature, and play is the natural
mechanism which develops and connects these skills together. Nowhere is the
child's behavior so regulated by rules as in play, and nowhere does it
assume such a free and morally instructive form as in play. Nowhere in play
do we find any patterns whatsoever that an adult might have prescribed and
which the child only enact.
"... self-governance in the school and the self-discipline of the children
themselves are the best tools for moral education in the school" [Ch 12.
Ethical Behaviour. in Education Psychology, 1926]
This chapter includes criticisms of both "free education" and authoritarian
education, and has the proviso (in reference to the "transitional" state of
Soviet society):
Every attempt at constructing educational ideals in a society with social
contradictions is a utopian dream, since, as we have seen, the social
environment is the only educational factor that can establish new reactions
in the child, and so long as it harbors unresolved contradictions, these
contradictions will create cracks in the most well thought-out and most
inspired educational system.
Now I have to say that when I read this, despite the criticism of "free
education", I was immediately reminded of the more radical "progressive
schools" in the West. But I don't think "top-down/determinate" is an apt
description of Vygotsky's view of (in this case) moral education.
Am I on my own?
Andy
At 11:00 AM 18/10/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>It appears to me that your review of Vygotsky as a dialectician is unique
>(at least in the English language) with the possible exception of two
>articles in English written by <mailto:leszek@ii.uni.wroc.pl>Koczanowicz,
>Leszek.<mailto:leszek@ii.uni.wroc.pl>leszek<mailto:leszek@ii.uni.wroc.pl>@ii.uni.wroc.pl
>whose written considerably on Vygotsky and Mead but nearly all in
>Polish. The two articles of his in English (which I've not read) are:
>
>Analyses of Human Action. Relation between Mind and Action in
>Behaviourism, G.H. Mead's Social Pragmatism and L.S. Vygotsky's
>Psychological Concepts. Wroceaw 1990 and "G.H. Mead and L.S. Vygotsky on
>Meaning and the Self", Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 8 (1994): 262-276
>
>Koczanowicz teaches at Opole University and SUNY Buffalo. In the short
>description of his early work on Mead and Vygotsky (from a very short
>biography introducing a lecture of his for the The Pittsburgh Area
>Realtime Scientifiction Enthusiasts Club).
>
>"Professor Leszek Koczanowicz is a philosopher and psychologist at Opole
>University, Poland, where he has been teaching courses in history of
>psychology and social philosophy. Currently Dr. Koczanowicz is a visiting
>professor at SUNY at Buffalo. His doctoral dissertation (1987) compared
>L.V. Vygotsky's historical cultural approach to the mental life with G.H.
>Mead's social behaviorism. His later work has been devoted to the concepts
>of the self in American Pragmatism. His current research deals with social
>philosophy and psychology. Dr. Koczanowicz studied and taught at
>University of Wroclaw, Poland, UC at Berkeley, SUNY at Stony Brook, SUNY
>at Buffalo, Institut f_r die Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna
>(Austria), and Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities
>and Social Sciences (Holland).
>
>That's about all that's currently available on (the net) Leszek's writings
>on Mead and Vygotsky.
>
>The rest of the material on relations between Mead, Dewey and Vygotsky
>appear to be all oriented towards educational issues and most emphasize
>the historical relation between Vygotsky and Dewey (after all LSV does
>refer to Dewey's work) rather than compare them. And then you have Patty
>Farrah's article, Rationalism, Empiricism, and Pragmatism The Three Major
>Epistemological Traditions and their Influence on Instructional Design ITC
>575 November 28, 2001 <http://www.whps.org/schools/norfeldt/libraryweb/
>MediaResources/TermPaper.PDF>www.whps.org/schools/norfeldt/libraryweb/
>MediaResources/TermPaper.PDF where Vygotsky is touted as a Russian
>Symbolic Interactionist and pragmatist!
>
>Victor
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>Andy Blunden
>To: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 3:30 AM
>Subject: Re: George Herbert Mead
>
>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