Gestalt psychology was important to Vygotsky because he was critiquing it in his own work. Gestalt psychology was a response to the behaviorists and the experimental psychologists, who agreed that psychological processes could be studied by analyzing “basic constituents” (Cole & Scribner’s intro to Vygotsky, _Mind in Society_). Gestalt psychology rejected the notion that complex processes could be accounted for by examining simple processes.
“Vygotsky believed that the internalization of culturally produced sign systems brings about behavioral transformations and forms the bridge between early and later forms of individual development” (Cole & Scribner, p. 7). Vygotsky has a chapter on the importance of examining writing when studying how cultural sign systems are internalized. This reminds me of Ong’s argument in his chapter on how “Writing Restructures Consciousness” (1988). Except that, Ong comes at this from a different angle, because he is talking about “restructuring.” This is different than “internalization” in some ways, and in others it is not different. The problem with Ong’s discussion is that it makes it sound like people who do not write, are generally on a lower intellectual level than people who do write. In some ways though, this also maps onto Vygotsky’s discussion of children who are yet unable to internalize certain cultural tools. And yet, the stances of these two authors differ because Vygotsky does not seem as arrogant and patronizing as does Ong. Vygotsky points out that because “mentally retarded” children have difficulty thinking abstractly, one approach was to remove all abstract-thinking curriculum, or curriculum that encourages abstract thinking, from their education. But, this had a detrimental effect on the mentally retarded children’s development. Instead, Vygotsky argues that because they have difficulty with abstract thinking, mentally retarded children should certainly receive education that encourages this type of thinking. My point is, Vygotsky was trying to help marginalized people. Ong instead, judges them --- at least that’s how he reads sometimes. Not to say Ong doesn’t have good points. (Vygotsky also argued for the intellectual benefits of play, since humans play above their level of actual intellectual development – so if you want people to become smarter, you have to let them play).
Vygotsky and Ong map onto each other because both of them are concerned with how technology influences the way we think. Vygotsky was concerned with learning, while Ong was concerned with intellectual capability. He focused more on writing and rhetoric.
An older colleague of Vygotsky, PP Blonksy, had already developed the idea that “behavior can only be understood as the history of behavior” (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 8). I believe the following is key to why Vygotsky has become so attractive as a theorist to those studying digital writing:
“Blonsky was also an early advocate of the view that the technological activities of people were a key to understanding their psychological makeup, a view that Vygotsky exploited in great detail” (p. 8).
Later in 1988, Ong argues that writing is a technology, and that “more than any other single invention, writing has transformed human consciousness” (p. 77). I'm not sure about this idea of "transforming" and "structuring." This I am still thinking about because I think I might disagree that that is what writing does. So, I have to think about the differences between "mediation" and "structuring."
What I wanted to talk about was the differences between Polanyi and Vygotsky, but I'm not there yet. Obviously their focuses are very different, but what I mean is how are they different when it comes to their views of knowing.
