Vygotsky, Mead, and the New Sociocultural Studies of Identity
Vygotsky, Mead, and the New Sociocultural Studies of Identity
复制标题
维果茨基、米德和新的身份社会文化研究
DOI：
10.1017/ccol0521831040.005
复制
发表时间：
2007
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Lachicotte
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
D. Holland;W. Lachicotte
引言身份是一个关键的概念，在许多不同的领域，包括心理学，人类学，社会学，语言学和文化研究。在这些领域的交叉点，社会文化研究-最近的名称为跨学科的方法，灵感来自L。S.维果茨基和其他人-正在发展自己的身份综合观点。在他短暂的一生中，维果茨基只写下了关于人格或自我的基本概念。尽管如此，他所提供的那些理论，当与他关于符号中介和高阶心理功能的一般概念相结合时，形成了对身份形成及其对社会和文化变革过程的重要性的重要的初步理解。本章考察了相关研究和理论的发展，这些研究和理论大部分都是在威廉·佩内尔和詹姆斯·韦奇1995年的关键文章之后出现的。通过采用身份的扩展定义，我们纳入了广泛的研究，从个人身份发展的案例研究到身份在调解对国家项目和社会运动的反应中的中心地位的分析。身份的概念经常混杂在一起（虽然不是在佩努尔和韦奇），产生了很大的混乱和模糊。因为我们关注的是与乔治赫伯特米德相关的身份认同方法，而不是遵循佩内尔和韦奇对埃里克·埃里克森更著名的概念的关注，我们的首要任务是澄清这两个主要概念化之间的差异。那些想直接进入本章“身份的社会文化研究”一节的实证研究综述的人，应该先考虑阅读下面的说明。
INTRODUCTION Identity is a key concept in many different fields including psychology, anthropology, sociology, linguistics, and cultural studies. At the intersection of these fields, sociocultural research - a recent name for the interdisciplinary approach inspired by the cultural historical work of L. S. Vygotsky and others - is developing its own integrated perspective on identity. In his brief life, Vygotsky wrote down only rudimentary ideas about personality or self. Still, those he did offer, when combined with his general notions of semiotic mediation and higher-order psychological functions, formulate an important nascent understanding of identity formation and its significance for processes of social and cultural change. This chapter examines developments in relevant research and theory that have appeared, for the most part, since William Penuel and James Wertsch's key 1995 article. By adopting an expanded definition of identity, we include a wide range of research, from case studies of individual identity development to analyses of the centrality of identities in mediating response to state projects and to social movements. Concepts of identity are often (although not in Penuel and Wertsch) promiscuously mingled, producing a good bit of confusion and ambiguity. Because we concentrate on the approach to identity associated with George Herbert Mead, rather than following Penuel and Wertsch's focus on Erik Erikson's better-known concept, our first task is to clarify the differences between these two major conceptualizations. Those who are tempted to move directly to the review of empirical studies in the “Sociocultural Studies of Identity” section in this chapter should consider first reading the clarification that follows.