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

[xmca] MARKED activity within a Dynamic Systems Developmental Model

I have been reflecting on Martin's article sent months ago on Lewin and
field theory and Martin's critique of the concept of "nested" contexts.
Therefore I'm curious about others reflections on the "Dynamic Systems model
as articulated by Linda Smith and Esther Thelen.

Earlier I mentioned the centrality of the notion of MARKED INTERSUBJECTIVE
attuned activity for the emergence of a sense of agency.  Fonagy's extension
of Bowlby's Attachment theory is the best articulation of MARKED activity.
[Fonagy is critical of Bowlby's notion of early attachment as a TEMPLATE
that determines future development.  Fonagy instead discusses the
intersubjective exchanges of MARKED attunement as central to development.

Smith and Thelan's article [attached] highlights some empirical evidence for
the centrality of MARKED activity for development.  Refer especially to page
346 where 10 month old infants do the A not B task and the activity that
becomes MARKED is a shift in posture from a sitting to a standing position.
This marked shift in posture allows the infant to be in a ZPD that allows
the infant to be successful on a task that is thought of as being a later
developing capacity.  Marked intersubjective activity is usually implicit
but can become explicit.

Martin,  what are your thoughts on "time" being "nested" in Smith and
Thelen's model?

The multiplicity of causal factors in the Dynamic Systems model AND the
notion of MARKED INTERSUBJECTIVE ATTUNED activity in an EMERGENT model of
development seems to show promise.

What do others think?


Attachment: APRIL 5 THELAN and SMITH Dynamic Systems Theory.pdf
Description: Adobe PDF document

xmca mailing list