Institutionalization, Internalization, Semiotics

Sitting down to read these made me feel like a kindergartner in the early stages of D.I. implementation that’s probably going to get stuck in the slowest reading group. They’re rather dense and I had (am having) a hard time understanding them. Here’s what I managed to get out of them:

Berger and Luckman (the most interesting and bearable reading of the 3): INSTITUTIONALIZATION

“Society is a human product. Society is an objective reality. Man is a social product.”

In Social Construction of Reality, Berger and Luckman present a theory of institutionalization. Human activity becomes habit, whether in the context of a society or of an individual. Habitual behavior then becomes routine, and following a routine eliminates the need to make choices. To become institutionalized, however, requires more than an individual because the behaviors need to be reciprocated, then passed on to others. So, institutionalization is essentially a way of doing things. It does not mean that there are no other options, but that whatever institution that has been passed down functions enough so that whoever is a part of it can focus their energy elsewhere.

Institutions are not real, but they are. “Since institutions exist as external reality, the individual cannot understand them by introspections. He must “go out” and learn about them, just as he might learn about nature. This remains true even though the social world, as a humanly produced reality, is potentially understandable in a way not possible in the case of the natural world.”

Vygotsky: INTERNALIZATION

“In general he was scornful of pedology that emphasized tests of intellectual ability patterned after the IQ tests then gaining prominence then gaining prominence in western Europe and the United States”(10).“Behavior can be understood only as the history of the behavior” (8).

“Every function in the child’s cultural development appears twice: first, on the social level, and later, on the individual level: first, between people, and then, inside the child” (57). I suppose this to mean that a child first recognizes something and that it has significance before this thing/idea/language ever has a personal significance to the child. Through interaction, the child learns implied meanings within their culture. This is internalization…I think.

Peirce: SEMIOTICS

“Self-knowledge…comes from reflection upon the field of expressions in which one finds oneself, individually and socially” (2).

For Pierce, everything is a sign. “Any ordinary word, as “give,” “bird,” “marriage,” is an example of a symbol. It is applicable to whatever may be found to realize the idea connected with the word: it does not, in itself, identify those things”(18). This I actually did find interesting and have thought about. Basically, a sign/representamen is associated with an object , in order that the interpretant can lead to further interpretations…(?)

Writing this blog helped me understand each of the readings better than I did initially, but I still don’t feel like I have that great of a grasp on these ideas. Maybe class will help. :/