Ulises vuelve a casa: retornando al espacio del problema en el estudio del desarrollo

Resumen

Partiendo de las limitaciones y problemas de los modelos predominantes de desarrollo y sus conceptualizaciones sobre el contexto, se examinan las alternativas necesarias que llevarían a una concepción muy diferente de ambos y a una versión un tanto desconocida de la alternativa histôrico-cultural.

Se relaciona a continuación esta concepción con el desarrollo metodológico que parece necesario, teniendo en cuenta las actuales insuficiencias y sesgos en las perspectivas y herramientas de medida, para dar cuenta del contexto y del desarrollo de manera satisfactoria. Se muestra por último un ejemplo de aproximación al desarrollo en contexto en que se intenta ensayar la nueva aproximación conectando el desarrollo microgenético y macrogenético, el mental y el cultural, en un contexto a la vez individual y social.

Abstract

Starting from existing limitations and problems of prevailing models of development, and from their conceptualizations of context, the paper examines some necessary alternatives that lead to a very different conception of both, and to a somewhat unknown “version” of the socio-cultural paradigm.

This conceptualization is then related to methodological developments that seem necessary—given present inadequacies and biases in research methods—to satisfactorily account for both context and development. Finally, the paper presents an example of how to approach development in context using this new perspective. An attempt is made to connect microgenetic and macrogenetic, mental and cultural, individual and social aspects of development.

Extended Summary

This paper reviews some epistemological obstacles which have acted in psychology as a sort of delayed mechanism in establishing a methodology necessary to address the study of complex mind-culture relation in ontogenetic development. Some of these obstacles, such as: The identification of “mental” with “internal factors”; the inside-out dualism (organism-setting); the epistemic and methodologic fragmentation of psychological functions and of context-which at best is seen as a list of discreet variables; the tendency to catalogue the subject psychologically as a mere processor of symbols who relates to reality solely through discreet processing; etc., continue to be implicit in different approaches to the study of development, even in those claimed to be more “contextual”.

The paper then proposes to conceptualize the context as an internal and, at the same time, external part of the subject. It criticizes certain attitudes that contradict Vygotskyan assumptions on the social and cultural origin of psychological functions-and which appear in Vygotsky's work; such as, the defense of a single line of development both from a historical and an ontogenetical viewpoint. In the first case, it attains a completely “symbolized” society (i.e., highly technified); in the second case, it results in an adult that has developed through “internalizing” all things that culture has placed at his/her disposal during the process of development (i.e., the rational, scientific subject). In both cases context is necessary, but only insofar as it acts as a ladder that is necessary to reach a higher level: The mental subject. Our theses supports that the psychological construction of an individual or of a society of individuals are not the only things that are inexplicable without context, but the very functioning of individuals and societies is both contextual and mental: Psychological functioning is distributed between internal and external factors. Vygotsky's Zone of Proximal Development thus becomes a Syncretic Zone of Representation, the external setting is a third cerebral hemisphere-culture turns into complex systems of distributed environmental consciousness-from which essentially developing subjects, though also the most “competent”, borrow and at the same time contribute their psychological functions, and the tools to construct them.

A study of “mental” factors that seeks to be explanatory is thus impossible, turning only to the subject who is individually considered. The difficulties posed by a systemic and macrogenetic methodology are not only due to financial difficulties imposed by ecologic requisites: Fundamentally they are to be found within the epistemic convenience which gives researchers “control” of variables and of the experimental paradigm (see Figure 1). We feel that it is time to abandon the warm refuge of mere microgenetic analysis in quasi-experimental situations and observe the daily lives of subjects through research tecniques that, with the risk of dragging with it imperfections, contribute new bases to help explain psychological construction.

In this line, we have designed a pilot study focusing on the daily lives of Spanish children and the cultural contexts in which they take place. This paper deals only with the theoretical assumptions and basic tecniques used; the rationale, method, and result of this study may be found in del Río and Alvarez, (1992, in press).

Palabras clave:

• Psicología histórico-cultural
• desarrollo
• contexto
• métodos de investigación

Keywords:

• Historical-culturalpsychology
• development
• context
• research methods