Tony, Mike:
We translated Piaget's "prise de conscience" as "seizure of
consciousness",
except that in Korean the verbal noun has the more psychological
sense of
"grasping" as when you grasp a meaning that you didn't really
understand in
a phrase that you have heard many times. So, to nominalize, the
"prise de
conscience" is the "graspture of awareness" or the "rapture of
awareness".
Every child is an awareness raptor.
I think that one important thing to grasp here is that "conscience"
in
French is not really the homuncular "consciousness" we have in
English, any
more than it is the obvious false friend, the meaning of a moral
"conscience" that we find in English writings on ethics. It has a
number of
OTHER meanings that attracted Vygotsky to Piaget, to wit:
a) awareness
b) noticing
c) selection
d) potential anticipation
It seems to me that all of these can be conceptualized as moments
in the
passing of the child from a relatively passive, reactive state to a
much
more voluntary, volitional one.
Last night, I was re-reading Engestrom's old book "Learning by
Expanding",
which some of our teachers are busy translating into Korean. In
Chapter Five
he does try to tackle the question that I think gives the "prise de
conscience" its real importance, which is the question of whether
and at
what point learning is REVERSIBLE--at what point the laying down of
socioculturally accumulated experience becomes the creation of new
content
for the next phase of sociocultural progress.
I think Engestrom sees Vygotsky's preliminary considerations of
history
(which he describes, it seems to me incorrectly, as
phenomenological), his
laboratory experiments (what Paula and Carol replicated), his
empirical
classroom observations (Chapter Six of T&S) and his theorizing as
moments of
a single process which can be REVERSED in order to yield the next,
higher
phase of expansion. The first process works from outside in, and
the second
from inside out.
The problem, it seems to me, is the crisis. the "prise de
conscience" is
really a crisis par excellence, and a crisis is by definition NOT
reversible. For example, awareness is not simply the end point of
noticing
done backwards, nor is noticing the endpoint of attentional
selection in
reverse. Obviously, active anticipation requires awareness, noticing,
and attentional selection, but not vice versa.
So the crisis obeys different laws, and we can also expect post-
critical
development to be different from precritical development in
important ways.
In physics, a shock wave cannot, by definition, be understood with
the same
mathematics we use to describe continuous phenomenon. And the shock
reverberates: if a crisis is generally restructuring, we have to
expect that
the laws of the next phase of social progress are going to be in
some way
fundamentally different.
David Kellogg
Seoul National University of Education
---
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca