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

Re: [xmca] Honestly....


That is as best an answer that I have heard, thank you.

I geuss I am falling into the same abyss of misunderstanding that Carol 

Part of the issue for me is that I am not a researcher and therefore don't 
necessarily hold tight to one fundamental theory but rather read for the 
purpose of assisting me in my practice of assisting young adults move from 
instabiltiy to stability in their lives.  The greatest insights for me 
have come from LSV, Michael Cole, Sylvia Scribner and Valsiner as well as 
reading and writing to XMCA.  Now recently I was introduced to Peter 
Fonagy's concept of mentalisation and in the introduction to the following 

Fonagy, P., Gergely, G., & Target, M. (2007). The parent-infant dyad and 
the construction of the subjective self. J
Child Psychol Psychiatry, 48(3-4), 288-328.

He outlines that intersubjectivity as discussed by Tomasello assumes too 
much of the infant.

So; i posted something last week that equated intersubjectivity with 
Piaget and wanted to correlate Fonagy's concept of mentalization with 
LSV's theory of human development.

what do others think?

Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
Sent by: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
04/26/2010 09:52 AM
Please respond to ablunden; Please respond to "eXtended Mind, Culture, 

        To:     "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
        Subject:        Re: [xmca] Honestly....

Eric, I think it quite possible to hold at the same time 
different positions on intersubjectivity and on the question 
of innate/acquired. There is no doubt that there are social 
animals whose sociality is innate and who can therefore 
acquire new skills socially. But I believe CHAT is a current 
of thought which holds that becoming human is possible only 
through interaction with other people using culturally 
acquired artefacts (i.e., intersubjectivity plus artefacts), 
but even the tendency to engage in interaction is acquired 
only because other human beings around the child "summon" 
the child to interaction. There is no innate drive to 
sociality in human beings. A. I. Meshcheryakov's book is 
definitive on this question I believe.

Does that answer your question, Eric? I wasn't sure I got 
your meaning exactly.


ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org wrote:
> ....didn't realize equating Piaget with intersubjectivity would create a 

> conflaguration of misunderstanding.
> Am I incorrect in my understanding of intersubjectivity?  I believe it 
> be based on innate abilities rather than appropriated skills.  Perhaps 
> Bahktin did not write on this, I must admit I am shallow in my 
> understanding of Bahktin.
> Initially in my study of LSV and the CHAT tradition I was a person who 
> prioritized innate abilities but as I have studied and practiced 
> I have come to  realize that being human IS developed via interactions 
> attachments.  Biological genetics must play into it but I have a hard 
> believing that intersubjectivity is biological in nature.
> Am I talking in circles or drowing in misunderstanding?
> eric
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ +61 3 9380 9435 
Skype andy.blunden
An Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: 

xmca mailing list

xmca mailing list