Bronfenbrenner on Development
I created this critical commentary for my graduate theories of human development class at the University of Rochester. The professor asked us to read "Environments in developmental perspective" by Bronfenbrenner (1999). We were then asked to describe how we thought Bronfenbrenner describes development. My critical commentary is below.
Bronfenbrenner on Development
Well first of all, let me say, thank you Bronfenbrenner! I thoroughly enjoyed reading Chapter 1, Environments in Developmental Perspective: Theoretical and Operational Models. Whilst after reading Vygotsky I couldn’t help but feel I’d been hoodwinked by a clever magician, now reading Bronfenbrenner I feel redeemed. Bronfenbrenner in many ways matures an immature set of radicalized positions of Vygotsky, our young bratty genius, and he returns humility and exactitude to the scene.
To me from my reading, Bronfenbrenner defines development as an outcome of a proximal process. A proximal process is the interaction between an organism (say human) and something else (often another human, but could also be other things). A proximal process is made up of a form, power, content and direction. The constituent components of the proximal process are dictated by the person, the environment, and the developmental outcomes (which include social and historical context).
In order for development to occur, as I understood it, Bronfenbrenner needs an individual to engage in a proximal process as an activity, it must be bidirectional with another thing, and the activity must be regular and become increasingly more complex.
I have not yet found an article that adopts an ecological framework approach but I look forward to finding one and applying it to Suzy from our Up series.
I loved the fact that Bronfenbrenner put so much emphasis on attempting to operationalize his theory and defining actual empirical measurements that could be made to understand the relationship between the individual, their development, the proximal process, and the environments, importantly multiple interdependent environments and how they interact over time. He also gave us a series of real world examples of studies that came close to achieving good measurements. He also stressed how important it was to use measurements to update one’s theory, not simply validate it. He not only shows humility but an openness to grow and change, I find this absolutely wonderful, he is not wedded to his ideas and encourages their development.
When I look at Suzy, I start wondering, in what ways does she develop, what were her developmental outcomes? What were the proximal processes mediating this directed development? What other objects or people was she interacting with in her processes? Also, which environments was Suzy interacting within and were these environments enabling or preventing the proximal processes available to act on her?
Once again, I want to say thank you Bronfenbrenner for maturing and redeeming in my eyes the work of earlier socio-cultural theorists and for giving me an actually measurable lens to continue exploring our character from, one that is not subject to the biases of subjectivity.
