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

Re: [xmca] moral life of babies

On May 7, 2010, at 10:37 PM, Larry Purss wrote:

> You mentioned that sensorimotor functions are NOT REPRESENTATIONS and NOT SEMIOTIC.  In fact they are interactional patterns of living in the world.  Piaget sees them as physical and NOT social.  
> Then you add  "that is a topic for another day."
> That topic for another day is what fascinates me and I'm holding my breath waiting for the next installment.  I hope you keep avoiding thinking about the implications of what your students have learned and add another installment in this ongoing saga of the origins of meaning and concepts [as originating in socially situated practices]

Larry, don't hold your breath too long! But one way that Piaget's analysis of infancy could obviously be improved is by considering sensorimotor schemes as inherently interactional, having their origins in the social situation and then involving the newborn. I was browsing second-hand book stores earlier this week and discovered that I published my first article in Spanish in 1982! I stumbled on a translated edition which I didn't know existed of a book by David Shaffer and Judy Dunn to which I contributed a chapter (co-written with colleague Deborah Rosenblatt). It was a summary of some of the neonatal research, and although it was written 30 years ago there are some things I still like about it. I'm attaching the English version.


Attachment: Packer 1979 The first year of life psychological.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

xmca mailing list