Book contents
- Frontmatter
- 1 Introduction: Overview
- 2 The Historical Context Of Piaget’s Ideas
- 3 Piaget’s Developmental Epistemology
- 4 Piaget’s Biology
- 5 On the Concept(s) of the Social in Piaget
- 6 Piaget on Equilibration
- 7 Constructive Processes: Abstraction, Generalization, and Dialectics
- 8 Piaget and Method
- 9 Infancy
- 10 Childhood
- 11 Adolescence
- 12 Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development
- 13 Piaget’s Enduring Contribution to a Science of Consciousness
- 14 Piaget and Affectivity
- 15 Piaget’s Pedagogy
- 16 Piaget in the United States, 1925-1971
- 17 The Mind’s Staircase Revised
- 18 Dynamic Development: A Neo-Piagetian Approach
- Index
5 - On the Concept(s) of the Social in Piaget
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 28 March 2010
- Frontmatter
- 1 Introduction: Overview
- 2 The Historical Context Of Piaget’s Ideas
- 3 Piaget’s Developmental Epistemology
- 4 Piaget’s Biology
- 5 On the Concept(s) of the Social in Piaget
- 6 Piaget on Equilibration
- 7 Constructive Processes: Abstraction, Generalization, and Dialectics
- 8 Piaget and Method
- 9 Infancy
- 10 Childhood
- 11 Adolescence
- 12 Piaget’s Theory of Moral Development
- 13 Piaget’s Enduring Contribution to a Science of Consciousness
- 14 Piaget and Affectivity
- 15 Piaget’s Pedagogy
- 16 Piaget in the United States, 1925-1971
- 17 The Mind’s Staircase Revised
- 18 Dynamic Development: A Neo-Piagetian Approach
- Index
Summary
THE PROBLEM
The problem I want to raise in this chapter is the following: Does Piaget's theory of cognitive development include a theory of the social? If so, is the theory coherent and/or adequate?
There exists a common set of criticisms of Piaget's theory of cognitive development (Boden, 1980; Hamlyn, 1971, 1978; Meacham & Riegel, 1978; Rotman, 1977; Russell, 1979; Tripp, 1978; Vygotsky, 1934/1986; Wallon, 1928, 1942, 1951; Wilden, 1977): (1) Piaget has no theory of the social contribution to cognitive development; (2) he has such a theory, but it is inadequate because his theory is impoverished and inadequately stresses the social; (3) he may have had a sufficiently complex theory of the social, but it is a false or mistaken one. The question I want to pursue is: Are these criticisms justified?
A common reply to his set of criticisms made by Piagetian scholars (Apostel, 1986; Chapman, 1986; Kitchener, 1981, 1991; Mays, 1982; Smith, 1982, 1995) is that the critics simply have not read Piaget, in particular, his recently translated Sociological Studies (Piaget, 1977/1995). For contained therein is such a social theory. Hence, the critics are wrong about (1). These scholars are less sanguine about question (2), although some argue that the theory is a plausible one (although perhaps needing a few tweaks here and there). It is, however, difficult to find many that argue that (3) itself is false and that Piaget has a perfectly fine account in no need of revision.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Cambridge Companion to Piaget , pp. 110 - 131Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2009
- 8
- Cited by