[xmca] Historical RE-visoning of Piagetian Theory

[Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>]

Hi Martin [and others curious about sociocultural links between Vygotsky and
Piaget]

Gerard Duveen's et al  article in the Journal "Human Development" gave an
historical account of the development and extension of Piagetian theory to
include situations and co-ordination of activity.  I see some parallels to
Vygotsky's extension into activity theory and "activity systems" theory.
The article frames 3 generations of Piagetian theory.  It isthe 3rd
generation that makes explicit the centrality of CO-ORDINATION of ACTIVITY
and PERSPECTIVES that integrate multiple perspectives [as a development
achievement]  Duveen says the 3rd generation of theory is an attempt to
systematically articulate W. Doise's 4 levels of analysis ofcognitive
development.
1] intrapersonal
2]interpersonal]
3]intergroup/positional
4]ideological/social representational {Moscovici}

while retaining the strengths of Piaget's structural analysis.

 Martin, I also question if Piaget's proposed stages of logical operations
is too linear [and is an historical account of a Eurocentric view of
development] I question whether there is a single teleological trajectory
and question if development moves inevitably towards logical forms of
cognition  It may be that this movement towards greater rationality, through
decentering, is a taken for granted model of development historically
embedded in modernity and describes a particular kind of telos which
privileges logical operations and science as forms of knowledge. However, if
we entertain the idea that with development we are "ideally" [as telos] able
to "integrate" or "co-ordinate" multiple perspectives [or social
representations] or [traditions] by de-centering from our implicit single
taken for granted positions then this post-Piagetian 3rd generation
perspective may offer insights into this process of co-ordinating and
integrating activity, perspectives and social representations.

In this spirit of levels of analysis I want to summarize Duveen's narrative
of  the evolution of Piagetian theory towards embracing situations.

In the 3rd generation of Piagetian theory operational structures remain
central to understanding social development BUT their co-ordination is seen
as being "constrained" or "enabled" by the concrete historical social
representations of a community.  Artefacts [tools, scripts] frames,
traditions, patterned practices within activity systems, are cultural
resources that in turn furnish positions of identity [Duveen's work links
social representations and identity]  Identity positions are triadic
[self-other-object] ASYMMETRICAL configurations of status between
subject-object-other. These multiple social representations define
expectatations of CONTROL and influence over the object and thus control of
the actions and co-ordination of objects. [An example of social
representations constraining positions is the category of gender]

In this model co-ordination of actions is the result of the resolution of
sociocognitive conflicts.  The intensity of conflicts depends on the degree
of symmetry or asymmetry of status relations in interactions. Reasoning,
from this 3rd generation perspective is tied to the particular social
representations and resulting contexts of interaction.  A central question
becomes "Who owns or should own and thus regulates activity over the object,
and co-ordination of actions and perspectives. The USE OF SYMBOLIC RESOURCES
MEDIATE the representational work in microgenesis, ontogenesis, and
sociogenesis of social representations. These symbolic resources
semiotically MEDIATE the co-ordination of activity and moments of
developmental transition [decentering from a a single taken for granted
social representation] As the child develops he changes forms of
REFLEXIVITY. This is a notion of teleology from "non-reflective" [children]
through "becoming reflective" to "reflective".

This re-visioning Piagetian theory brings to the foreground the social
dynamics BETWEEN subjects with different social identities within different
intergroup relational patterns. [Moving from the social representational
level of analysis to intergroup positional level of analysis]. At the
intergroup level status asymmmetiries are critical variables. Each person is
situated in a matrix of SYMMETRICAL or ASYMMETRICAL social relations
constrained by intergroup categories [ie gender, social class, ethnic origin
etc]  The 3rd generation model generates research where the role of more
distant ideological and social representational frames can be TRANSLATED
into an exploration of how conflicting and aligned EXPECTATIONS
[anticipatory] of control can constrain or enable the CO-ORDINATION OF
ACTIONS over gognitive problems and thus cognitive development.  The 3rd
generation model extends the focus on the institutional context relations
[ie teacher-student] to encompass a concern with broader social
representations AND CATEGORIZATIONS. The child, in the 3rd generational
model is an agent or subject who participates in socially structured
PATTERNS OF COMMUNICATION which generate social identities and social
representations.
A central theme is exploring ASYMMETRICAL constrained or SYMMETRICAL aligned
CATEGORIES and social representations.  The telos is towards de-centration
of taken for granted "common sense" and the reflective capacity to
CO-ORDINATE and integrate [hold] multilple perspectives.  {Martin, from my
perspective these multiple perspective include categorizations or social
representations that are not rational and logical. However the flexibility
to move between these multiple social representations through de-centering
is an ideal]

Duveen also has proposed a levels of analysis of different types of
conversation.  He suggests a pattern of communication which is symmetrical
and he labels "explicit recognition" is a particular type of communication
which stimulates REFLECTION andthe co-ordination of activity and
perspectives.  This concrete and specific pattern of communication leads to
"interiorization" of reflective capacity and the capacity to integrate
multiple social representations.  This seems to have parallels to Vygotsky's
global metaphor or co-ordinating latitude and longitude [integration of
perspectives]

My reason for introducing this summary of Duveen et al's  work is its
parallels with Moscovici; Mead; and attachment & relational psychoanalytic
notions of integrating emotions [holding multiple emotions]. These various
models share the notion of CO-ORDINATION of activity, CO-ORDINATION of
perspectives, CO-ORDINATION of emotion & imagination within the larger arena
of multiple social relations, and  multiple traditions, that are exploring
what Vygotsky referred to as "ideal models" that mediate our social
activity.

Larry
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca