Re: [xmca] Re: microgenesis?

[Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>]

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
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Andy Blunden <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
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca