[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Culture as dialogic relation

Eugene wrote much of interest, ending:

For me the
biggest problem with Galperin's dualism is pragmatic and not even conceptual
(although it is there as well).

While acknowledging your concerns and problems with developmental education, Eugene, it seems to me that the main task in reading Arievitch on Gal'perin is precisely to consider what G. might in fact bring, *conceptually*, to the understanding of internalization. It seems to me that the main immediate task is to evaluate the relevance, to our own concrete problems, of at least two aspects of internalization:

1) the collective-individual aspect (initiated by Vygotsky, I suppose), and

2) the formation of an "internal plane of consciousness" (or some other way of
putting it) -- which was Gal'perin's particular concern.

My understanding is that 2) was particularly intensively studied in Russia, beginning in the 1950's, by Gal'perin, Davydov, Talyzina, and others, and to some extent eclipsed 1) for a while. But that the aspect 2) is perhaps, currently, in turn, in
eclipse, internationally.

Arievitch is raising the interesting question of whether it is worthwhile to reconsider the aspect 1) of internalization. Could this in fact lead to some kind of conceptual
breakthrough in understanding "internalization"?

Also, does not Arievitch point out that Gal'perin did not actually consider himself
primarily a pedagogical psychologist?

In this connection, I would also refer people to the very interesting article by
Davydov and Andronov, which Mike was kind enough to post. For me, one of
the most interesting things about this article is that it is one place where Davydov considers the development of children's *spontaneous* concepts -- of addition, in this case, with a special emphasis on how children use object actions and gestures to spontaneously resolve the dialectical conflict between ordinal and cardinal number. This article describes quite detailed empirical
research along the lines sketched out by Gal'perin.

Although Davydov-Andronov makes some mention of possible instructional
applications, it really does seems to focus on a general aspect of internalization that ought to be considered for its conceptual interest independent of instruction
or of any "agenda" for developing children into adults seen as "better."

What do you think?