Reconciling Stage and Specificity in Neo-Piagetian Theory: Self-Organizing Conceptual Structures

Abstract

Case has advanced a new theoretical construct – central conceptual structures – to help resolve the tension between general stages and conceptual specificity in neo-Piagetian theory. However, a closer look at the content of thought highlights inter- and intra-individual diversity in semantic organization, making the definition of stages more elusive than before. Developmental level and conceptual diversity are difficult to disentangle, whether assessing age-specific competencies or upper limits on processing capacity. Yet, stages stripped of diversity represent cultural ideals rather than real developmental phenomena. To resolve these difficulties, central conceptual structures can be reinterpreted as self-organizing systems that stabilize in response to general and specific constraints, yet reconfigure themselves periodically over development. According to this conception, stage and specificity are two sides of the same coin. Idiosyncratic pathways stem from the amplification of small differences and the consolidation of nonoptimal solutions, but these pathways progress through stable phases of coupling among conceptual and environmental constituents.

The French Connection: Some Contributions of French‐Language Research in the Post‐Piagetian Era

“…As in recent work by neo-Piagetians (e.g., Case, 1992;Lewis, 1994) the pluralistic and multidimensional model presents development as resulting from the reciprocal interaction of processes that create selforganizing loops, thus describing the major processes through which diversity occurs. However these selforganizing loops do not lead to idiosyncratic processes or developmental trajectories that would be totally unpredictable, as some recent conceptualizations of cognitive development seem to suggest (e.g., Fischer & Grannot, 1995;Lewis, 1994).…”

“…However these selforganizing loops do not lead to idiosyncratic processes or developmental trajectories that would be totally unpredictable, as some recent conceptualizations of cognitive development seem to suggest (e.g., Fischer & Grannot, 1995;Lewis, 1994). The pluralistic and multidimensional model suggests that individual differences are governed by a limited number of general processes that are vicarious, coexist in all individuals, and offer alternative ways to approach tasks (de Ribaupierre, 1994).…”

Cognition-Emotion Feedback and the Self-Organization of Developmental Paths

“…Yet it implies emergent rather than prespecified characteristics, consistent with in dividual diversity. Self-organizing stages with idiosyncratic features are described in greater detail elsewhere [Lewis, 1994], The contribution of emotion to stable personality patterns is supported by evi dence for behavioral consistency in emotionally stressful situations [Malatesta and Wil son, 1988;Wright and Mischel, 1987]. However, this contribution can be viewed in more than one way.…”

Central Conceptual Structures Seeking Development Integration

“…In so doing, it goes a substantial way toward meeting the criticisms of earlier versions of the theory, especially those that focused on the relative impenetrability of the core structures to the dynamics of individual ontogeny (Lewis, 1994).…”

“…One of the most attractive features of the current formulation of Case's theory is that it represents a serious attempt to achieve a new level of integration in cognitive developmental theory. In so doing, it goes a substantial way toward meeting the criticisms of earlier versions of the theory, especially those that focused on the relative impenetrability of the core structures to the dynamics of individual ontogeny (Lewis, 1994).…”