Blowing Up a Growing Trend or Building a New Theory?
Initially I tried to suppress the above question when reading Jaan Valsiner’s chapter on the co-constructionist perspective as it emerged in developmental psychology. I wished to do this for at least three reasons: for the lack of time, for my presumably modest knowledge in the philosophy of science and last but not least, for my positively biased attitude toward the author who is a well-known and renowned exponent of developmental psychology. I hold his contribution to the analysis of cardinal issues of developmental psychology and history of psychology, especially his papers on Vygotsky and Baldwin and also his book, Culture and the development of children’s action, in high esteem. However, in spite of my positive attitude toward the author, all the avoiding maneuvers of my mind (e. g. my best intention to be satisfied with shedding light on some aspects or representatives neglected by the author in his analysis) have failed; and the question, expressed in the title, has remained challenging for me.
KeywordsHistorical Root Constructionist Perspective Radical Synthesis Adaptive Answer Cognitive Sociology
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Baldwin, J.M. (1925/1884). Mental development in the child and race. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- Blumer, H. (1962). Society as symbolic interaction. In: A.M. Rose (Ed.) Human behaviour and social processes. An interactionist approach. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and Method. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
- Cicourel, A. V. (1973). Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Interaction. Harmondsworth: Penquin Book Ltd.Google Scholar
- Danziger, K. (1985). The Problem of Imitation and Explanatory Models in Early Developmental Psychology. In: G. Eckardt, W.G. Bringman, & L. Sprung (Eds.) Contributions to a history of developmental psychology (pp. 319–328). Berlin: Mouton.Google Scholar
- Joas, H. (1985). G.H. Mead: A contemporary re-evaluation of his thoughts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
- Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. (Ed. by Ch.W. Morris) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Mead, G.H. (1938). The Philosophy of the Act. (Ed. by Ch.W. Morris et. al.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Moreno, J.L. (1934). Who shall survive? Washington: Nervous and Mental Disease Publication.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A (Ed.) (1964). George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
- Strauss, A (1959). Mirrors and Masks. New York: Free Press. (Reprinted in 1969 by Sociology Press, San Francisco).Google Scholar
- Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the Development of Children’s Action. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Vander Veer R., Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
- Vari-Szilagyi, I. (1988). G.H. Mead and L.S. Vygotsky: A comparative Analysis, In: Seventh European Cheiron Conference, Budapest, Hungary, 4–8 September pp. 690–698.Google Scholar
- Vari-Szilagyi, I. (1991). G.H. Mead and L.S. Vygotsky on Action. Studies in Soviet Thought, 7, 67–95.Google Scholar
- Vari-Szilagyi, I. (1988). Leontiev’s activity theory from the perspective of cognitive and social psychology, In: M. Hildebrand Nilshon & G. Ruckriem (Eds.), Activity Theory: A look into a multidisciplinary research area (Proceedings of the 1st Int. Congress on Activity Theory. Vol. 1.pp. 229–244) Berlin: Druck und Verlag System Druck.Google Scholar
- Vari-Szilagyi, I. (1992), G.H. Mead’s Original Role-concept and its Later Distortions (unpublished paper)Google Scholar