These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes,
and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving.
Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards.
If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site,
please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
Its an interesting account, Larry.I have not read enough of the material to comment on it substantively, but i have forwarded to a European colleague who is much closer to that line of development to see if the main premise rings true to a participant. mike On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 10:10 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote: > I am curious if a historical trajectory Zittoun, Gillespie, Cornish, and > Psaltis have suggested has evloved in Piagetian developmental theory is a > more general trend in developmental theories. The reason I ask is it seems > to parallel my emerging perspectives and questions about development. > > Zittoun et al suggest Piagetian models have developed through 4 generations > of theorizing the subject-OTHER-object model of development. > [sociocognitive > model] They suggest Piaget [except in his early work] focused on the > binary > subject-object transmission of knowledge and was a model of interior > mediation. > The first generation of post-Piagetian models looked to Mead, Vygotsky, > Bernstein, and Moscovici to reorient to a triadic subject-OTHER- object > triangle and resocialized Piaget's model. Subject and other have differing > perspectives and this creates tension and creates a de-centering and > cognitive elaborations. Chapman's term was the "epistemic triangle". In > this first generationof post-Piagetian models tension is created between > persons interacting as different intentional beings, "but these > intentional > participants are not typically considered in terms of their societally > situated roles. > A second line of post-piagetian models deepens and extends the notion of > the > social to the whole subject-other-object SYSTEM [context] that takes place > in a world structured by social positions, VALUES, rules, and DISCOURSES" > which are all factors which CONSTITUTE social positions and thus the > PERSPECTIVES of the participants in the epistemic triangle. This extends > interpersonal coordination to include intergroup and ideological processes. > This generation of models focused on the INSTITUTIONAL contexts and > re-focuses on the centrality of the object as mediating SYSTEMS of social > relations [positions] > More recently another generation of epistemic triangle models is exploring > the constitutive role social and institutional Asymmetires within societal > contexts. [Duveen] > > This movement from interpersonal interactivity, to institutional roles and > positions, and then into social representations and hermeneutics gives an > expanding role to history and traditions and seems parallel to the > direction > in which my curiosity is wandering. I was curious if the patterns or > configurations of emerging epistemic triangle models of development to > embrace hermeneutics, traditions, and history as the CONTEXT in which > interpersonal participation is embedded is a trajectory that is more > general > across other triangle models of development? > > Larry > _______________________________________________ > xmca mailing list > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca > _______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca