Excerpts from this fascinating article. (I'm also reminded of Mark Edwards' essay on Vygotsky here. And Damasio's work on the narrative self here.)
"The roots of the new (inner voice) work trace back to the 1920s and the Russian
developmental psychologist Lev Vygotsky, who said the human mind was
shaped by social activity and culture, beginning in childhood. The self,
he hypothesised, was forged in what he called the ‘zone of proximal
development’, the cognitive territory just beyond reach and impossible
to tackle without some help. Children build learning partnerships with
adults to master a skill in the zone, said Vygotsky, then go off on
their own, speaking aloud to replace the voice of the adult, now gone
from the scene. As mastery increases, this ‘self-talk’ becomes
internalised and then increasingly muted until it is mostly silent –
still part of the ongoing dialogue with oneself, but more intimate and
no longer pronounced to the world. This voice – at first uttered aloud
but finally only internal – was, from Vygotsky’s perspective, the engine
of development and consciousness itself.
"Vygotsky’s theory of childhood development contrasted sharply with those
of his Western counterparts. William James had a complete disdain for
the study of inner speech, because, to him, it was a ghost: impossible
to observe. The French developmental psychologist Jean Piaget insisted
that private speech signified simple inability – it was the babble of a
child without capacity for social communication with no relation to
cognitive functioning at all. Through much of the 20th century, Piaget
seized the reigns of child development, insisting that children had to
reach a developmental stage before learning could occur. Which came
first: the chicken or the egg? Vygotsky said that learning occurred,
then the brain developed. Piaget said the brain developed, then learning
occurred."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.