Blowing Up a Growing Trend or Building a New Theory?

  • Ibolya Vari-Szilagyi
Part of the Annals of Theoretical Psychology book series (AOTP, volume 10)

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Historical Root Constructionist Perspective Radical Synthesis Adaptive Answer Cognitive Sociology 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baldwin, J.M. (1925/1884). Mental development in the child and race. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  2. 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
  3. Blumer, H. (1969). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and Method. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  4. Button, G. & Sharrock W. (1993). A Disagreement over Agreement and Consensus in Constructionist Sociology. Jorunal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 1, 1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cicourel, A. V. (1973). Cognitive Sociology: Language and Meaning in Interaction. Harmondsworth: Penquin Book Ltd.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Gecas, V. (1989). Rekindling the Sociological Imagination. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 19, 97–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Joas, H. (1985). G.H. Mead: A contemporary re-evaluation of his thoughts. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Mead, G.H. (1934). Mind, self and society. (Ed. by Ch.W. Morris) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Mead, G.H. (1938). The Philosophy of the Act. (Ed. by Ch.W. Morris et. al.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Moreno, J.L. (1934). Who shall survive? Washington: Nervous and Mental Disease Publication.Google Scholar
  12. Schwalbe, J. (1987). Mead among cognitivists. Roles as performance imagery. Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 17, 113–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Strauss, A (Ed.) (1964). George Herbert Mead on Social Psychology. Chicago-London: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  14. Strauss, A (1959). Mirrors and Masks. New York: Free Press. (Reprinted in 1969 by Sociology Press, San Francisco).Google Scholar
  15. Strauss, A (1991). Mead’s multiple conception of time and evolution: their contexts and their consequences for theory. International Sociology, 6., 411–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Valsiner, J. (1987). Culture and the Development of Children’s Action. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  17. Vander Veer R., Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Vari-Szilagyi, I. (1991). G.H. Mead and L.S. Vygotsky on Action. Studies in Soviet Thought, 7, 67–95.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Vari-Szilagyi, I. (1992), G.H. Mead’s Original Role-concept and its Later Distortions (unpublished paper)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ibolya Vari-Szilagyi
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for PsychologyHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations