[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[xmca] 1982 paper on schooling
- To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- Subject: [xmca] 1982 paper on schooling
- From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
- Date: Sat, 26 Jun 2010 23:38:59 +1000
- Delivered-to: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
- List-archive: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca>
- List-help: <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=help>
- List-id: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca.weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-post: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- List-subscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=subscribe>
- List-unsubscribe: <http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>, <mailto:xmca-request@weber.ucsd.edu?subject=unsubscribe>
- Reply-to: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
- Sender: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
- User-agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.23 (Windows/20090812)
I just had a read of Mike's 1982 paper with Roy D'Andrade on
the influence of schooling on concept formation:
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/Histarch/ap82v4n2.PDF
Great paper!
It occurred to me that Luria is in agreement with many
others that a hierarchical system of categories, a
taxonomy, is the archetype of the "abstract" concept.
Luria's conception of how this relates to prior forms of
concept (affective and concrete) is the main point of
interest in the article, but I would like to question
whether this taxonomical idea is valid as the archetype of
the "true" concept. The article claims that taxonomical
practices ("true" or not) are archetypal school practices,
and this is an interesting and different question.
An interesting counterpoint to this is Hegel's
classification of 3 different components which he thinks
must *all* be present in the formation of a true concept:
The subject is (a) ascribed certain qualities; (b) seen as
having having a certain place in a system of social
practice; and (c) taken under its genus, as belonging to a
certain living whole.
Further, I think (c) does not actually amount to the kind of
Linnaean hierarchical family tree, but could also be
interpreted like genre and archetype without the implied
underlying totality. Also, there is all too much room for
subsuming (c) under (a) as almost all of present-day
philosophy and natural science are wont to do.
Mike, you have done a lot of work on the role of this
"taxonomical activity" in and out of school. Davydov on the
other hand, emphasises (b) as opposed to (a). It would be
interesting to investigate concept-formation on this wider
frame.
Andy
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
Book: http://www.brill.nl/scss
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca