Piaget and Levy-Bruhl

Levy-Bruhl exerted a powerful influence, seldom considered, on Piaget. The Levy-Bruhlian thesis of a "pre-logical mentality" characterized by "mystical participation" is outlined, together with its initial reception. The first evidence of Piaget's interest in it dates from 1920, and when he began his studies of children's thinking he compared it with that of 'primitives," also adopting Levy-Bruhl's concept of "participation." By 1928 Piaget had elaborated a theory of the social foundations of different types of thought, which he regarded as also explaining the alleged similarity between the thinking of primitives and children. Both are subject to constraint, primitives by elders and children by parents and teachers. Logical as opposed to pre-logical thought was said to depend on cooperation in free social interaction. Piaget continued to maintain essentially the same views long after Levy-Bruhl himself had renounced the notion of pre-logicality.     

"I would eagerly leave Neuchâtel ..." A 1912 letter by Jean Piaget with an introduction and notes

A 1912 letter from fifteen-year-old Jean Piaget (1896-1980) to the director of the Museum of Natural History of Geneva illustrates Piaget's precocious integration into a community of professional naturalists, and reveals his hitherto unknown plan to study medicine. It is not certain whether he actually intended to realize that plan. An essential biographical fact, however, is that he finally left natural history by turning to philosophy rather than to medicine.     

Can Jean Piaget explain the possibility of knowledge?

The purpose of this article is to show that Piaget's use of the equilibrium principle cannot explain the possibility of correct understanding. That is, it cannot explain the possibility of knowledge, as opposed to simple change in belief. To make the argument, I begin by describing Piaget's explanatory model, which is known as the equilibrium principle. I then argue that correct understanding, or knowledge of any x as a case of y, requires a concept of correctness, i.e., the recognition that words and concepts apply under some conditions but not others. I try to show that because he uses the equilibrium principle as a basis for his explanation, Piaget cannot explain how a concept of correctness is acquired. Finally, I argue that to explain the possibility of knowledge, one must show how the conditions for word and concept application are determined by a community of language users. Again, I claim that Piaget's use of the equilibrium model precludes such an account.     

寂寞身后事,蓄势待来年——让·皮亚杰(J.Piaget)逝世30周年祭

皮亚杰逝世已30年,但皮亚杰所创立的发生认识论研究不应走向历史。皮亚杰的理论遭到许多人的误解。遗传论和生物学化是两项最为不恰当的帽子。皮亚杰不是传统意义上的心理学家,心理学只是其研究康德意义上的"先验范畴"之个体发生发展的"方法论插曲"。发生认识论具有鲜明的跨学科性质,应该进行"发生认识论"与当代"认知科学"的比较研究。应正确认识理论生物学、结构主义方法论、代数工具和逻辑学在发生认识论研究中的作用和地位,尤其应注重晚年皮亚杰运用新的意义逻辑(logic of meaning)和态射(morphisms)、范畴(categories)等新的代数概念作为形式化认知结构之工具的价值和意义。要深入研究发生认识论对以"具身化"和"回归大脑"为特色的第二代认知科学的启示,探讨它们之间的联系。至少在两个方面可以明显看到这种联系:一是发生认识论中的"动作协调"及对由协调而产生的逻辑—数学经验的"反省抽象"这两个概念,表明了皮亚杰对心智具身性的卓越洞见;二是在皮亚杰所主张的"表型复制"(phynocopy)观点中体现的衍生论(epigenesis)和建构论(constructionism)思想,它们与第二代认知科学的动力系统理论之基本思想——所涉因素或变量之间的关系是一种互为因果、相互塑造的对偶(coupling)关系而不是线性的单向因果关系——两者是完全一致的。皮亚杰及其发生认识论定会随着认知科学的未来发展而被"再发现"。     

Interdisciplinary epistemology

In commemorating Piaget we should not remember his psychology alone. He hoped for a biologically grounded epistemology, which would require interdisciplinary effort. This paper mentions some recent research in biology, embryology, and philosophy that is consonant with Piaget's epistemological aims. The authors do not cite Piaget as a prime intellectual influence, there being no distinctive Piagetian methodology outside psychology. But they each mention him as someone whose work is relevant to theirs and whose interdisciplinary aims will be achieved only if studies like these can be integrated in the future.This paper originally appeared as a chapter in the 1983 book Jean Piaget: An Interdisciplinary Critique, edited by Sohan Modgil, Celia Modgil, and Geoffrey Brown, and published by Routledge & Kegan, Paul, London.     

Piaget's stages: the unfinished symphony of cognitive development

After a period during which Piaget's work in developmental psychology went into serious decline as a central force in the field, it has once again gained considerable interest to theorists and researchers. The purpose of the current discussion is to reconsider Piaget's stage construct so that a revised version is viable within the psychological part of the theory. The premise of the discussion is that Piaget fully intended his stages to remain at the heart of his psychology, but had difficulty meeting the objections of critics: that the stages as proposed were too vague, too broad, and too dependent on faith in a “miraculous” transition process. By shifting stage transitions to the midpoint of each stage, by adopting recursive transition processes from neo-Piagetian theories, by embracing decalage as systematic and necessary, and by using Piaget's idea of the taking of consciousness, some of the main problems of his stages can be resolved in a satisfying way. Although still not fully specified, the Piagetian stages can retain their place as general guides to cognitive development and as sources of constraints on what structures and functions are available to the developing mind.     

Reason

ReasonJean Piaget wrote three short papers shortly before his death in 1980

Paper I: Scientific Report on Work during 1978-1979.Paper II: Reason as Objective of the Understanding.Paper III: Reason: Introduction.Each is probably incomplete, Papers II and III definitely so. These papers were intended as a contribution to his 1979-1980 research project “Reason,” here translated into English for the first time. Their central argument is distinctive. It amounts to Piaget's final statement of his empirical model of normative reason as a mechanism intrinsic to the construction of knowledge during children's cognitive development.     

小学儿童“互反可逆性“发展的研究

本文运用成分分析法研究经典的皮亚杰有关儿童“互反可逆性”的理论。     

The Hawthorne experiments and the introduction of Jean Piaget in American industrial psychology, 1929-1932

The Hawthorne interview program between 1929 and 1932 was one of the most significant industrial studies in the United States. The Hawthorne researchers applied Jean Piaget's clinical method in their extensive interviews with tens of thousands of workers. Chiefly responsible for the program's methodology was Elton Mayo, an Australian who saw interviewing as a means to promote social cooperation. Previous discussions of the Hawthorne experiments have ignored the influence of Piaget in the social sciences. This article provides an account of Mayo's and the Hawthorne researchers' efforts to fuse Piaget's innovation with burgeoning American industrial psychology. The endeavor was not an isolated event but rather drew on the theories and practice of Janet-Piaget psychology, on the support of the Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Foundation, and on the discourse among social scientists about Piaget's work.     

对皮亚杰理论忽视社会因素作用的不同认识

皮亚杰关于社会因素对儿童认知发展的作用问题,长期受到一些心理学家的批评。针对这些批评,本文首先简要叙述了批评者批评皮亚杰忽视社会因素作用的理论依据。接着,对皮亚杰有关社会因素的主要论述进行了分析。最后,对社会因素在皮亚杰儿童认知发展理论中的作用作出了与批评者不同的评价。     

The construction of meaning: Kegan,Piaget, and psychoanalysis

Kegan's theory is discussed in terms of its relationships to Piaget and to psychoanalysis. Basing himself on Piaget's genetic epistemology, Kegan formulates a theory of human development extending throughout the life cycle. The theory postulates that individuals alternate between periods of concern with intimacy and concern with autonomy. For Kegan, what is conceived by the individual as part of the self (subject) at one stage becomes object at the next. While his work is considered to be an important contribution, Kegan is criticized on the grounds of conceptual vagueness and an overemphasis on developmental universals at the expense of the consideration of idiosyncratic aspects of individual development. Kegan is also criticized for appearing to believe that there is only one correct therapeutic approach.     

The mobile frontiers of Piaget’s psychology. From academic tourism to interdisciplinary collaboration / Las fronteras móviles de la psicología de Piaget. Del turismo académico a la colaboración interdisciplinaria

Jean Piaget’s (1896–1980) interdisciplinarity was related to his psychology in several ways. First, he was a simple tourist of other fields: an interested outsider. But as he became increasingly involved in the professionalization of the discipline, he moved through different contexts that constrained the possibilities for successful action in new and different ways. To make these clear, we adopt a little-known aspect of his later epistemological framework: the open hierarchy of levels. This then affords new perspectives of his life, his work, his theory and his location in the history of both Swiss psychology and French psychology. It also outlines his reasoning regarding the necessity of a disciplined approach to interdisciplinary collaboration, institutionalized in the founding of his International Centre for Genetic Epistemology. We therefore come not only to a fuller understanding of how Piaget thought scientific knowledge develops, but also of how the boundaries of scientific disciplines are pushed back.     

"He sees the development of children's concepts upon a background of sociology": Jean Piaget's honorary degree at Harvard University in 1936

In the recent memory, Jean Piaget has been known as a cognitive developmental psychologist. But in 1936 when Harvard gave him his first honorary degree, he was recognized mainly as a sociologist. Why did Harvard honor him in 1936? Who knew his work well enough to nominate him? This article will address these questions by exploring archival documents from different sources. Evidence draws our attention to a broad social and intellectual endeavor in philanthropy, other social sciences, and especially industrial research that brought Piaget across the water. This article also attempts to interpret the circumstances of the nomination process inside and outside of Harvard University by using a theory of institutional design. It suggests that embodied in Harvard's honor of Piaget in 1936 was an idealistic act in social designing for a future society.     

Cognition,construction of knowledge,and teaching

The existence of objective knowledge and the possibility of communicating it by means of language have traditionally been taken for granted by educators. Recent developments in the philosophy of science and the historical study of scientific accomplishments have deprived these presuppositions of their former plausibility. Sooner or later, this must have an effect on the teaching of science. In this paper I am presenting a brief outline of an alternative theory of knowing that takes into account the thinking organism's cognitive isolation from reality. This orientation was proposed by Vico at the beginning of the 18th century, disregarded for two hundred years, and then propounded independently by Piaget as a developmentally grounded constructivist epistemology. The paper focuses specifically on the adaptive function of cognition, Piaget's scheme theory, the process of communication, and the subjective perspective on social interaction. In the concluding section it then suggests some of the consequences the shift of epistemological presuppositions might have for the practice of teaching.The only truly ubiquitous factor in cognitive developments — be it in the history of science or in the ontogeny of mind — are of a functional, not a structural kind.Piaget and Garcia, 1983, p. 38I am indebted to Jack Lochhead and John Clement for their helpful critical comments on the draft of this paper. The work that led to it was supported in part by NSF Grants to IBR. University of Georgia, and SRRI, University of Massachusetts.     

Challenges in Piaget’s Legacy

The publication of After Piaget (Martí and Rodríguez 2012) hopefully triggers a new effort to understand the richness of the efforts of that major psychologist of the 20th century. Piaget was consistently concerned with part/whole relationships throughout his life. He addressed this issue philosophically, epistemologically, and psychologically. Conceptually Piaget struggled with the issue of continuity/discontinuity in development and changed his mind about how to reconcile the discontinuities of stages with his concept of development. I also attribute his variability to the implications of his important work on perception, and to his willingness to get involved in widespread concrete applications of his approach to education including the education of children with special needs; his center for genetic epistemology, and his interest in psychoanalysis. Benefiting from all the authors of After Piaget, I want to point out that Piaget has identified many major issues that will continue to constitute challenges to psychology in this century. These include specifying terms such as ‘development;’ methodological issues such as sampling both quantitatively in one culture and across cultures; comprehensive inclusion of the psychological processes covered by introductory textbooks in psychology; and conceptual issues such as the relationships among all these parts within a whole. I make a distinction between an ‘issue’ and a ‘problem’—problems have solutions; while issues refer to controversies in science generally as well as in psychology that have persisted for centuries.     

皮亚杰的方法论：体系、优势与启示

皮亚杰的方法论体系包括：(1）发生学的理念;(2)“适应”和“运演”的理论解释工具;(3)获取资料的临床访谈法．他以这样的方法论体系而建立起来的理论具有：理性性、解释性、整体性等特征。皮亚杰方法论对我们当前的心理学研究具有启示意义。当前的一些研究在很大程度上,恪守着“实证”与“量化”的规范;却忽视研究主体的理性建构作用。     

The concept of egocentrism in the context of Piaget’s theory

In this paper, we trace the origin and development of the concept of egocentrism in Piaget’s work. We evaluate a number of criticisms that have been leveled against the concept of egocentrism. Based on our evaluation, we propose a reconceptualization of the concept of egocentrism as a decentering process with different phases that is recapitulated at different stages of development. We provide examples of the decentering process for the sensorimotor, preoperational, concrete-operational, and formal operational stages.Piaget introduced the concept of egocentrism in his early writings in the 1920s to describe general characteristics of the preschool child. Since its introduction, the concept of egocentrism has received considerable theoretical and empirical attention and has drawn numerous criticisms. Piaget attributed these criticisms to serious misunderstandings of the concept of egocentrism. Indeed, Piaget (1945/1962, p. 285, fn) admitted that the choice of the term egocentrism was “unfortunate”, and he apologized (Piaget & Inhelder, 1948/1967, p. 220) for having dwelt on this expression for the last twenty-five years.In this paper, we trace the origins of the concept of egocentrism in Piaget’s writings and examine the subsequent changes to this concept. We examine some of the criticisms leveled against the concept of egocentrism and conclude that the concept of egocentrism remained ambiguous in Piaget’s writings. Finally, we suggest a revision of the concept of egocentrism that addresses these ambiguities.     

全面的意义结构:总体类型学--解析戈德曼的哲学理论逻辑

戈德曼是20世纪法国重要的西方马克思主义哲学家。他所提出的发生结构主义和科学人学观也是西方马克思主义哲学史中极为重要的一环。本文主要讨论了他试图调和人本主义与科学主义逻辑断裂的理论努力,即总体类型学的观点。在这里,戈德曼想用皮亚杰的发生学的科学结构主义观念为基础,并以主体与结构的接合关系形成他面对世界的全部哲学理念。     

The resurrection of a magical reality: treatment of functional migraine in a child

A magical world view and logic were used in the treatment of a 10-year-old girl who was referred because of suicidal threats due to migrainous pain. The treatment consisted of a one-session intervention with three-week, six-month, and one-year follow-up indicating elimination of migraine. Within a strategic family therapy, a magical ritual was prescribed that derived from the preoperational logic explicated by Piaget and from the healing practices described in anthropological studies. Such a ritual casts the symptom in a different context, alters the meaning of migraine to the family system, and leads to different interactional patterns. Piaget's theory and anthropological data are discussed as sources of a magical world view to help families and children disengage from a symptomatic system of interactions.     

The logic of delusion

Piagetian concepts explaining normal mental development are applied to delusion, a major psychiatric disorder of thought which can result in bizarre conduct. Piaget constructed problems in which the errors of six to eight year old children fit the standard textbook definition of delusion surprisingly well. When we examined cases of delusional individuals, we concluded that their apparent irrational and bizarre conduct could be explained as problem-solving errors like those of Piaget's young children. In contradistinction to existing theories, we define delusion as a regression under stress to the logic of children of a particular age range, and that what appears bizarre and irrational is the result of an adult attempting to filter experience through a child's logic.Under a different title this paper was presented at the Biennial Congress of the World Federation for Mental Health in Mexico City in August, 1991.