Re: [xmca] Vygotsky vs. Derrida

From: Jay Lemke (
Date: Mon Oct 23 2006 - 11:01:14 PDT


I'd be very interested in a discussion about context and
contextualization. My special interest is in "selective
contextualization", since we make sense of things by putting them in
some contexts and not in either all possible contexts or in just any
old context. Which context, for what? when and why? how do we know
which contexts? how do learn which contexts?


At 08:51 PM 10/22/2006, you wrote:
>Very interesting, David, and helpful in understanding ways in which
>theoretical forbearers (e.g., those whom we forbear!) are relevant to
>understanding current issues of getting on
>with our work.
>There are SO many ideas on the virtual table at present, that I hesitate to
>introduce another one. But lets mark it. It is the idea of
>decontextualization. I believe that your use of this
>term is perhaps a pithier way of raising the issue of synchronic
>heterogeneity of behavior that I raised in my response to Katarina's (whose
>contextualized response we are all awating!). Jim Wertsch speaks of "the
>decontextualization of mediational means" but you may prefer LSV's own
>terms. For me there is no such thing as "decontextualized psychological
>processes" of any kind. But we need to get beyond the bromide that
>"everything depends upon contrext."
>Since I am supposed to be writing about the idea of "Vygotsky and context" I
>will stop here and hope to be able to make this topic the focus of future
>On 10/22/06, Kellogg <> wrote:
>>Dear (Wolf-)Michael and Mike (Cole):
>>Thanks (to the former Mike) for the two Derrida refs (which I will get to
>>in a few weeks when my students go on their practica), but above all thanks
>>to the ref to your own book on language and science learning; I'm gestating
>>an article on the subject at this very moment, and I will certainly order
>>and read your work.
>>Like most people, I came to Derrida through "Grammatologie" and
>>"L'ecriture et la differance". And like Mike (Cole) I came to him looking
>>not for philosophy or "performative" writing, but rather for some fairly
>>empiricial, practical, even programmatic conclusions.
>>At the time I was writing an article on "native speakerism", that is, the
>>unpleasant fact that any backpacking credit card exile from the USA can step
>>off a plane at Inchon airport and put a Korean Ph.D. in English, TESOL, or
>>even applied linguistics out of work simply by virtue of their dulcet
>>mid-Western twange.
>>I thought Derrida's attack on phonocentrism, the belief that language is
>>overwhelmingly spoken and that writing is merely a pale shadow of its spoken
>>body, might help here. This is actually related to the work I'm doing on the
>>language of science teaching, because my data showed that Korean teachers
>>tended to written, decontextualizable, scholarly English while the so-called
>>"communicative" English being packaged for export by TESOL inc.USA is a
>>service language designed for face to face interaction with flunkies in the
>>neo-colonies (not to put too fine a point on it).
>>But I was very disappointed with Derrida. Yes, it is true that Derrida
>>rejects Saussure's position on the primacy of spoken language. But his
>>"method" is simply to turn Saussure on his head: written language is primary
>>(because all meaning-making systems are constructed through the opposition
>>of "traces" and absences") and spoken language is derivative (because spoken
>>language is simply writing on air).
>>I think that turning Saussure on his head in this way leaves the
>>fundamental problems with Saussurean linguistics completely unaddressed.
>>That includes the most fundamental problem of all--how do "concepts" and
>>"acoustic images" develop in minds in the first place? IT also includes some
>>problems which, although they do not appear fundamental from a European
>>perspective, are fairly close to our hearts in Asia (for example, what about
>>Chinese writing?)
>>Vygotsky really DOES tell us what is different and distinctive about
>>writing--its decontextualizeability, its relative freedom from temporal
>>context, and above all its role as a mental tool, which is similar to the
>>role played by foreign language learning. But Derrida repeats all of
>>Saussure's ignorant gobbledygook about Chinese and ends up with a
>>Eurocentric idealization of Chinese writing that is simply the reverse of
>>Above all (in answer to Mike's request for some empirical implications) I
>>think that Vygotsky's view of writing as emerging from two different genetic
>>roots (that is, drawing and spoken language) allows him to understand the
>>"pre-history" of written language in the child (I am still incensed that
>>Chapter Eight of "Mind in Society" was translated into Korean as the
>>"Precedent of Written Language" rather than its "prehistory"). If we accept
>>Derrida's view that all language is written language then it is very hard
>>for me to see how there can be any such thing as pre-history, in either
>>ontogenesis or sociocultural development.
>>(One reason this is hard for me to see is that I believe that human
>>language is simply a socio-cultural exaptation of animal communication
>>systems, much as speech is an exaptation of organs originally evolved for
>>respiration and the ingestion of food. Derrida's view, that is, that writing
>>is the real source of language, seems very hard to square with this.)
>>David Kellogg
>>Seoul National University of Education
>>xmca mailing list
>xmca mailing list

Jay Lemke
University of Michigan
School of Education
610 East University
Ann Arbor, MI 48109

Tel. 734-763-9276
Website. <>
xmca mailing list

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2006 - 01:00:15 PST