The “Non-cuttable” Space in Between: Context, Boundaries and Their Natural Fluidity

Regular Article

Abstract

The inherent open-ended nature of socio-cultural phenomena makes it necessary to create new theoretical frameworks that enable us to understand the fluidity of the relations between different parts of the dynamic system. Recent advance in modern biology seems to provide a set of heuristic concepts useful to investigate the complexity and fluidity of the relationship between different contexts. One of these is the Rayner’s logic of natural inclusionality. According whit Rayner’s evolutionary standpoint any living system is constantly in dialogue with its natural neighbourhood on the basis of an interdependent and co-evolutive process involved both the context and the organism. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the model proposed by Rayner in light of contextual perspective in development and educational psychology arguing as the space in between is neither a cuttable and divisible presence into discrete things, nor a mere “nothing” that could be cut off our conceptualization. Rather, it’s a ground (for a figure) in which flow and counter-flow in a fluid interplay amidst a distinct bounded context takes place.The interest for the boundary conditions calls for focusing on what happened on the border. By adopting a simultaneous perspective from two standpoints we are able to constantly focus on both aspects—what happens inside and outside different social settings—we became aware that the “walls” of the context of our living are much more permeable than has been until now theorized by psychological research.

Keywords

Life’s context Boundary conditions Biological perspective Fluid inclusion Binocular vision 

References

  1. Akkerman, S. F., & Bakker, A. (in press). Boundary crossing and boundary objects. Review of Educational Research. Google Scholar
  2. Beloussov, L. V. (1998). The dynamic architecture of a developing organism. Dordrecht: Kluver Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bronfenbrenner U. (1988). Interacting Systems in Human Development. Research Paradigms: Present and Future. In N. Bolger, A. Caspi, G. Downey & M. Moorehouse (Eds.), Persons in Context: Developmental Processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of meaning. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and a future discipline. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Trad. it. Edizioni Carlo Amore, Roma, 2004.Google Scholar
  7. Diriwächter, R. (2004). Völkerpsychologie: the synthesis that never was. Culture & Psychology, 10(1), 85–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Dooremalen, H., & Borsboom, D. (2010). Metaphors in psychological conceptualization and explanation. In A. Toomela & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  9. Engeström, Y., Engeström, R., & Kärkkäinen, M. (1995). Polycontextuality and boundary crossing in expert cognition: learning and problem solving in complex work activities. Learning and Instruction, 5, 319–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herbst, D. (1995). What happens when we make a disctiction: An elementary introduction to co-genetic logic. In T. Kindermann & J. Valsiner (Eds.), Development of person context relations. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  11. Iannaccone, A. (2010). Le condizioni sociali del pensiero. Milano: Unicopli.Google Scholar
  12. Iannaccone, A., & Marsico, G. (2007). La famiglia va a scuola. Discorsi e rituali di un incontro. Roma: Carocci.Google Scholar
  13. Kerosuo, H. (2001). Boundary encounters as place for learning and development at work. Outlines: Critical Social Studies, 3(1), 53–65.Google Scholar
  14. Kindermann, T., & Valsiner, J. (Eds.). (1995). Development of person context relations. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Konkola, R., Tuomi-Gröhn, T., Lambert, P., & Ludvigsen, S. (2007). Promoting learning and transfer between school and workplace. Journal of Education and Work, 20, 211–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. Lewin, K. (1936). Principles of topoloical psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  19. Linell, P. (2009). Rethinking language, mind, and world dialogically. Interactional and contextual theories of human sense-making. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  20. Madureira, A. F. A. (2007a). The psychological basis of homophobia: cultural construction of a barrier. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 41(3–4), 225–247. doi: 10.1007/s12124-007-9024-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Madureira, A. F. A. (2007b). Homophobia as a boundary phenomenon: the dynamic dance between different tensions. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 41(3–4), 326–342. doi: 10.1007/s12124-007-9027-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Madureira, A. F. A. (2009). When stereotypes become ‘scientific’ statements: dealing with gender issues. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 43, 138–148. doi: 10.1007/s12124-009-9090-2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Marieb, E. N. (2003). Essentials of human anatomy & physiology (7th ed.). San Francisco: Benjamin Cummings.Google Scholar
  24. Marsico, G., & Iannacone, A. (2011). The work of schooling. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), The oxford handbook of culture and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Marsico, G., Komatsu, K., & Iannaccone, A. (Eds.). (in press). Crossing boundaries. Intercontextual dynamics between family and school. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  26. Rayner, A. D. M. (2004). Inclusionality and the role of place, space and dynamic boundaries in evolutionary processes. Philosophica, 73, 51–70.Google Scholar
  27. Rayner, A. D. M. (2006). Natural inclusion: How to evolve good neighbourhood. Available from http://www.inclusional-research.org/naturalinclusion.php.
  28. Rayner, A. D. (2011). Space cannot be cut. Why self-identity naturally includes neighbourhood. Integrative Psychological and Behavioural Sciences. doi: 10.1007/s12124-011-9154-y.Google Scholar
  29. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. NewYork: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  30. Suchman, L. (1994). Working relations of technology production and use. Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 2, 21–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Tavory, I., Jablonka, E., & Ginsburg, S. (2011). Culture and epigenesis: A Waddingtonian view. In J. Valsiner (Ed.), Oxford handbook of culture and psychology. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Troadec, B. (1999). Psychologie culturelle du development. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar
  33. Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the development of children’s action. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Vygotsky, L. S. (1934). Myslenie i rec: Psichologiceskie issledovanija. Moskva-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Social’no-Ekonomiceskoe Izdatel’stvo.Google Scholar
  35. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society. The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Waddinghton, C. H. (1957). The strategies of the genes. London: Allen &Unwin.Google Scholar
  37. Waddington, C. H. (1940). Organisers and genes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Wundt, W. (1900–1920). Völkerpsychologie: Eine Untersuchung der Entwicklungsgesetze von Sprache, Mythus und Sitte. Kröner, Leipzig.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Human, Philosophic and Education SciencesUniversity of SalernoFiscianoItaly

Personalised recommendations