Certainly no harm in free associating, but perhaps better not to
freely interpret. It would indeed be difficult to interpret lytical as
meaning "loosening" in the text you provided. But it does leave me
still wondering why the word was translated as "lytical". And as to
how this might contrast with "critical" - I'm at a loss. (but the do
set up a nice rhyme scheme).
As for the rest, the molecular accumulation model of "lytic"(?) and
"gradual" development does suggest that there is a place for the kind
of concern with micro-interactional contexts that are of most interest
to me - even if those contexts don't show abrupt and critical
developments. So the gist of this passage remains appealing even if I
can't make sense of the "long-term cryptic molecular process" that V
is describing. Anyone else have insight here?
-greg
p.s. The mole spirit may be a bit too much reification of development
for me.
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
I see no harm in a bit of free association here, Greg. Here is
Vygotsky's own words on the topic.
(I have bolded what Vygotsky associates with lytcal and underlined
what he is contrasting with lytical):
By purely empirical studies, psychology established that age-level
changes may, in the words of Blonsky, occur _abruptly and
critically_, or may occur *gradually and lytically*. Blonsky terms
as /periods and stages /the times of the child’s life that are
separated from one another by more (periods) or less (stages)
_abrupt crises_; phases are times of the child’s life separated
from
each other *lytically*.
Actually, at certain age levels, development is marked by *slow,
evolutionary, or lytic flow*. These are age levels of predominantly
*smooth and frequently unremarkable internal change* in the child’s
personality, change that is accomplished by *insignificant
“molecular” attainments*. Here, over a *more or less long time*
that
usually takes several years, no _fundamental, abrupt shifts and
alterations_ occur that _reconstruct_ _the child’s whole
personality_. More or less remarkable changes in the child’s
personality occur here only as a result of a *long-term cryptic
“molecular” process*. They appear outside and are accessible to
direct observation *only as a conclusion of long-term processes of
latent development*.
During r*elatively firm or stable* ages, development occurs mainly
through *microscopic change*s in the child’s personality *that
accumulate* to a _certain limit_ and _then appear spasmodically in
the form of some kind of neoformation_ of the age level.
"Well burrowed, Old Mole!"
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/o/l.htm#old-mole
Andy
Greg Thompson wrote:
and one last pitch for my (blind!) interpretation of "lytic":
Lytic as loosening or breaking down before re-incorporation
feels to me a lot like Hegel's "aufheben"
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aufheben) or "sublation" of the
two elements in the dialectic. Lysing as taking apart the
pieces and assembling them into something new that couldn't
otherwise have been. That is Hegelian genesis, no? The source
of creativity?
At bottom, all "development" (regardless of timescale)
involves the problem of change and creativity. How does
something new come into being that wasn't already there?
And as I said, my interpretation of "lytic" is severely blind
and Andy's reading of the text suggests to me that I am
connecting a few too many dots. But it is fun business to try
to make (new?) sense of these things.
I'm currently looking into aktualgenese in the Leipsig
tradition, but I don't know the extent of Hegel's influence
there. I assume that Vygotsky would have been influenced by
folks there, but the names I'm coming across there don't seem
to come up in Vygotsky's writings much - Wilhelm Wundt,
Friederich Sander, Kleine-Hurst, and Erich Wohlfart. Certainly
Vygotsky would have known of Wundt, but are there meaningful
links here from aktualgenese to Vygotsky's notion of genesis
and development?
Hopefully tomorrow I'll be able to return to micro-genesis -
right now, too busy trying to rock my little micro-genetic to
sleep. Hard to type while swaying back and forth...
-greg
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM, mike cole
<lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>
<mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com <mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com>>> wrote:
Thanks very much Andy and all who jumped in to indicate their
interest.
I will replace the file online at lchc website with Andy's
improved version.
The re-admiration of "lytic" that Greg introduced is
really thought
provoking to me. It also puts me in mind of the meaning of
culture
that
goes with biological research which urges us to think
about the
relation
between culture and "medium." All useful.
With respect to the polysemy of "development" and
"learning." In
*The Construction Zone, *Denis Newman, Peg Griffen, and I
struggled
enough so that we often gave up and used "change" which of
course
elides the difficulties but does not solve them.
With respect to this learning/development discussion I
think we
are still
struggling to get ourselves clear about whether the notion
of "genetic
domain" or "time scales" matters. In this discussion, at
least, I have
been struggling to get us to focus on short time
intervals. Very
often,
as in Andy's earlier notes and in Helen's recent note with
the helpful
reminders about Marianne H's writing, the time scale is
*ontogenetic -*
years.
I am all for discussion of these time scales!! But the
issue that
Greg put
on the table was about micro time scales (or I thought
that was
what the
topic was). From our discussion so far (I have not had a
chance to
read
Huw's note carefully and have certainly forgotten other
relevant
contribution, so I may be overgeneralizing) I got the strong
impression that
it was being argued that at short time scales, the term
development in any
meaningful sense, does not apply.
So, being interested in notions like a zone of proximal
development, which
presumably applies to interactions on a time scale closer to
minutes than
lifetimes, I have tried to get a focus there.
I am arguing that if the term, development, is
inappropriate at this
briefer time scale, then there should be some very serious
reconsideration
of Vygotsky's use of the zone of proximal development, since
development
would be ruled out in all the examples he gives by virtue
of the
short time
scale. So people who confuse a zone of proximal learning
for a zone of
proximal development have been right all along, just using
misleading
terminology.
mike
PS-- And while we are at it, a reconsideration of LSV's
idea that in a
zoped "one step in learning" should produce "two steps in
development" also
seems in order. My intuition is that Davydov was trying to
point
us right
at that problem, and that his germ cell approach to
development
was his way
of trying to deal with the issue, but others could
probably speak
to that
better than I.
*
*
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:47 AM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
> Mike, I have attached a modified version of the document
about
"Question
> Asking Reading." Two pages which were out of order have been
replaced in
> order and I have embedded OCR so it should be searchable.
Perhaps you could
> replace NEWTECHN.pdf
<http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf<http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf>>
> on the server with this one?
>
> Now, my hat off to the authors of this paper. I am sure
others
on this
> list knew about *Question Asking Reading*, but I was not
one of
them. You
> define reading as "/expanding/ the ability to mediate one's
interactions
> with the environment by interpreting text." You
recognise that a
child
> already has an ability to "read the world" and is
probably already
> proficient in mediating their reading of the world by
interacting with
> adults, so learning to read is constructed upon this
base. This
is clearly
> drawing on Vygotsky (credit to Piaget as well), and taking
reading as a
> specific kind of collaborative process rather than just a
technical process
> of decoding. You call on Luria's idea of "combined motor
method" to
> introduce an approach to combining diagnostic tasks with
teaching tasks.
> And you call on A N Leontyev to solve the crucial
problem of the
child's
> motivation for learning to read.
>
> (As an aside I much enjoyed the observation of how
prominent it
was for
> the children to engage in discussion about the relation
between
"growing
> up" and learning to read. My one and only experience of
teaching
a child to
> read hinged around this discussion. We were living in a
very remote
> location in the UK and her older brother was old enough to
attend the
> mixed-age primary school, but Sam was too young. This
hyperactive, very
> physical child suddenly focused on reading with startling
intensity and
> learnt to read fluently inside of a week. ... despite our
explanations
> about the legal age of public school attendance. But
very soon
the school
> willingly bent a rule or two and admitted her. :) )
>
> Now I grant that my contributions to this thread have
not gone
within a
> mile of the issues raised in this paper. But my
interests and
experience
> are in social transformation, not teaching and learning in
elementary
> schools. But I am willing to listen and learn.
>
> A point of clarification on my side.
>
> ZPD. I have heard it said that ZPD is relevant only to the
critical phases
> of development. I have also heard that ZPD was not a
discovery
of Vygotsky.
> For my part, I don't see any reason why this simple idea
is not
applicable
> to any learning situation. And likwise if you want to
introduce
the concept
> of "development" into qualitative achievements in the
lytical
phase of
> development under the heading of "microgenesis" to
distinguish
it from the
> whole process of growing into an adult citizen through a
series
of distinct
> social roles, I see no problem with this. ... Only
provided we
understand
> that if a child soldier who learns one day how to torture a
prisoner, which
> they were formerly reluctant to do, this is
"development" in a
different
> sense, because it creates only a barrier to becoming a
citizen of a
> community governed by democratic norms. But it would remain
"microgenesis"
> if considered in cultural isolation. What makes every
step along
the road
> of learning to read in countries like ours /development/
is that
(as you
> discussed with the kids) being able to read is a /sine
qua non/
of being a
> grown up in our world. Torturing your peers is not.
>
>
> In your message of almost 24 hours ago you said:
>
> "If what you write is correct, what does the word
DEVELOPMENT mean
> in the concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT? ...
classroom
>
> lessons are clusters of events that take place in
microgenetic time
> WITHIN ontogenetic lythic periods.Where does that leave us?"
>
> I am perfectly prepared to live with a lot of polysemy
with a
word like
> "development" when one moves from context to context.
Provided
only we
> don't claim that there is /no qualitative distinction/
between
the little
> developments that add up to development during a lytic
phase,
and the
> change in social position of a child which is constituted by
successful
> completion of both lytic and critical phases of
development. In
that sense
> there is development and development. If that is how you are
deploying the
> word "microgenesis," then fine. I just don't see any real
disagreement.
>
> Andy
>
>
>
> mike cole wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy--
>>
>> I made it home through a ton of LA traffic alive, which,
microgenetically
>> feels good whatever the larger significance.
>>
>> When you write "I personally regard it as a matter or
"mere words"
>> whether "child X at last managing to recognize the
difference
between d
>> and b today," for example, is described as a
development" it is
clear that
>> you and I are not close enough to the same topic for me
to know
how to make
>> progress.
>> It also appears that no more than four of the some 700
people
on xmca
>> give a damn about this topic, so lets go offline about it,
cc'ing Greg,
>> and David,
>> if he has patience to hang with us.
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:44 AM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> <mailto:
>> ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
>>
>> Yeah, whoever translated Vygotsky's "Problem of Age" is
>> responsible. It just means /gradual/. So in a process of
>>
>> development, you have alternating critical and lytical
phases, as
>> in stepwise processes.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> Greg Thompson wrote:
>>
>>> Apologies for the intrusion, but I had a quick point of
>>> clarification, for the uninitiated, what is meant by
"lytic"?
>>> (all I could come up with pertained to "lysis" or the
breaking
>>> down of cells - which would seem to suggest a
different sense of
>>> "development" - a breaking down so that things can be
>>> reintegrated. Is that the idea?).
>>> -greg
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Andy Blunden
<ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I don't know where Americans being dolts comes into
it, Mike.
>>> Some of my best friends are Americans. :) But let's
move on
>>> from that.
>>>
>>> The point, as I see it, is trying to extract from what
we can
>>> reaonsably understand Vygotsky to be saying, something
which
>>> we believe could be correct and significant. To do this I
>>> think we have to understand the concept of "development"
>>> always in a particular context. A truism for anyone here I
>>> think. What it means to me is that I cannot just ask: what
>>> transformations in psychological functioning constitutes
>>> "development"? The necessary, relevant context is what
role
>>> in what cultural and historical community is the person to
>>> play, in the short term and in the longer term. So the
>>> question of what constitutes development is age-specific,
>>> culturally specific and future-oriented.
>>>
>>> (Of course, the world changes, and what was development
>>> yesterday may become oppressive and detestable
tomorrow and
>>> vice versa, but let's abstract from cultural and
historical
>>> change for the moment.)
>>>
>>> >From the standpoint of natural science what I have
posed is
>>> an absurdity and incompatible with basic tenets of science
>>> ... because I have made development dependent on
events and
>>> relations in the future. In my opinion, that is just as it
>>> should be: kids go to school "for a purpose" -
although what
>>> we mean by "purpose" in this context (the child's? the
>>> parents'? the state's? in retrospect? under advice?
>>> sponatneous?). But again, let's just put the problems
arising
>>> from the idea of human actions being part of
object-oriented
>>> activities to the side for the moment.
>>>
>>> So you ask: "what does the word DEVELOPMENT mean in the
>>> concept of a zone of proximal DEVELOPMENT?"
>>>
>>> I have to ask /which/ zone of proximal development, which
>>> crisis or lytic period are we talking about. Now I
guess we
>>> can manage to give a general answer to the question:
general
>>> questions require general answers. What "development"
means
>>> is relative to which ZPD you are talking about. On the
other
>>> hand, the presence of the ZPD itself depends on the
>>> development being posed. Achievment of a specific new
mode of
>>> action with those around you, transforming your
relations and
>>> your identity and your actions in the social situation
>>> depends on the expectations of those around you,
according to
>>> broader cultural expectations and possibilities.
>>>
>>> A teacher or other "helper" interested in fostering
>>> development (if they can be presumed to reflect general,
>>> broader cultural expectations) has in mind what new
>>> functioning will be a necessary step towards the child
>>> becoming an autonomous citizen of the community.
>>>
>>> As Vygotsky insists, this poses for the child and her
>>> "helper" two different kinds of situation: either
/lytical/
>>> development or /critical/ development. Lytical
development is
>>> gradual and prepares the basis for developmental leap. To
>>> argue whether the gradual progress made in
strengthening the
>>> relevant psychologhical functions in this phase is or
is not
>>> development is in my opinion /just words/. Gradual
>>> accumulation of strength in those activities which the
child
>>> is basically able to do, but maybe not very
confidentally and
>>> well is a necessary preparation for transcending their
>>> age-role and entering into a phase of critical
development in
>>> which they have a chance of successfully coming out
the other
>>> side. It is by completion of the critical phase of
>>> development - the leap - which transforms the child's
>>> identity and role, that "/the development" is
realised/. All
>>> the preparation in the world proves to be not
development if
>>> it is not realised in facilitating the critical
transformation.
>>>
>>> So, excuse me please for however imperfectly rehearsing
>>> egg-sucking for grandma's erudition.
>>>
>>> I personally regard it as a matter or "mere words" whether
>>> "child X at last managing to recognise the difference
>>> between d and b today," for example, is described as a
>>> development. In the context of course it is; it is a step.
>>> You want to call that a "microgenetic development"?
>>> Personally I don't have a problem with that. David
may, but
>>> paraphrasing Oscar Wilde: "Microgenesis is not one of my
>>> words." But if the child at last managed to repeat the
>>> Gospel According to St Luke by rote, and you wanted to
>>> describe this as a microgenetic development, I would
want to
>>> hear the developmental plan that made that claim coherent.
>>>
>>> Where if anywhere does this leave us?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>> My apologies for using so many words to say so little.
>>> Just trying to be clear and careful.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> mike cole wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Andy--
>>>
>>> Well to begin with, thanks for keeping the discussion
>>> alive. I am away from home without books or control of my
>>> time, so I want to ask a question that may highlight what
>>> is central to my queries here.
>>>
>>> If what you write is correct, what does the word
>>> DEVELOPMENT mean in the concept of a zone of proximal
>>> DEVELOPMENT? Its all fine and dandy to point out what
>>> dolts Americans are for not understanding that learning
>>> leads DEVELOPMENT in classroom instruction, that but
>>> classroom lessons are clusters of events that take place
>>> in microgenetic time WITHIN ontogenetic lythic periods.
>>>
>>> Where does that leave us?
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> PS- the url below lays out in some detail where the idea
>>> of acquisition of reading as a cultural-historical
>>> developmental process. Old and never published. But at
>>> least we might refine what is indexed by the phrase
>>> "learning to read."
>>>
>>>
http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/**NEWTECHN.pdf<http://lchc.ucsd.edu/People/NEWTECHN.pdf>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden
>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>
>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
<mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> So this thread does not die ...
>>> You said, Mike, "So I am seeing the same solution to
>>> thinking
>>> about the ontogeny/microgenesis relationships by
>>> analogy with the
>>> phylogeny/cultural-history relation."
>>>
>>> I don't see the analogy there. Phylogeny and
>>> ethnogeny are two
>>> (overlapping and mutually determining) processes with
>>> two very
>>> distinct material bases, viz., genes and artefacts.
>>> But learning
>>> to read/write and development of abstract thinking
>>> (and other
>>> leading activities in a developmental ZPD) is not
>>> such a relation,
>>> it is a relation between critical phases and lytic
>>> (gradual)
>>> phases of development. This is quite a different
>>> relationship.
>>>
>>> The analogy I would see for something which couold be
>>> called
>>> microgenesis would be the /situation/: a concept develops
>>> momentrily in a person and their actions in a
>>> situation. The
>>> situation is not a factor in phylo- or ethnogensis,
>>> it essentially
>>> belongs to the very short time scale, and its
>>> material basis is
>>> activity. I grant that no-one might use
>>> "microgenesis" in that way
>>> and no-one may be doing research into that process
>>> these days. I
>>> don't know. But the situation is a distinct material
>>> basis for
>>> development and one on which Vygotsky did a great
>>> deal of work. On
>>> the other hand, I think /all/ processes of
>>> development have both
>>> critical and lytical phases (c.f. Gould's punctuated
>>> evolution).
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>>
>>> Andy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**____________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>
>>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>> 883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>> Department of Anthropology
>>> Brigham Young University
>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>>
http://byu.academia.edu/**GregoryThompson<http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson>
>>>
>>>
>> --
------------------------------**------------------------------
>> **------------
>>
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>> <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/**>
>>
>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>>
>> ______________________________**____________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>>
>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>>
>>
>>
> --
>
------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
>
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
<http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Department of Anthropology
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
--
Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
Department of Anthropology
Brigham Young University
Provo, UT 84602
http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson