Commentary

In 1991 when introducing a special issue of Learning and Instruction on the theme of “Culture and Learning,” Säljö (1991) suggested that there had been a paradigmatic shift in theorizing the sociocultural formation of human capabilities. He argued that culture could no longer be regarded as simply an outside influence on learning, because our patterns of social interaction, our understanding of the world, and our cognitive capacities are themselves culturally mediated and constituted.

In the same vein, Rijsman (2004) suggests that, crudely speaking, it is useful to distinguish between two basically different epistemologies in psychology, namely one in which the primary source of meaning is the individual subject and in which intersubjectivity is considered a consequence of that condition, and another one in which intersubjectivity is taken as the primary source of meaning, and the individual subject only as a derivate of that condition (e.g., Rijsman, 1997, Rijsman & Stroebe, 1989). The classic experimental psychology, which emerged in the early 20^th century, is clearly an example of the first epistemology, whereas the social constructionism (e.g., Gergen, 1994) and the sociogenetic constructivism (Doise, 1989; Mugny, De Paolis, & Carugati, 1984) are examples of the second epistemology.