| Uni e si as Psychologica | Colombia | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 | ISSN 1657-9267 |
a 
Co espondence au ho . Email:
[email p o ec ed]
How o ci e: San ama ía, A., Cube o, M., & De la
Ma a, M. (2019). Towa ds a cul u al psychology:
Meaning and social p ac ice as key elemen s.
Uni e si as Psychologica, 18(1), 1-16. h ps://doi.o g/1
0.11144/Ja e iana.upsy18-1. cpm
DOI: h ps://doi.o g/10.11144/Ja e iana.upsy18-1. cpm
Towa ds a Cul u al Psychology: Meaning and
Social P ac ice as Key Elemen s*
Hacia una concep ualización de la Psicología Cul u al: signi icado y
p ác ica como elemen os cla e
Recei ed: 14 Feb ua y 2016 | Accep ed: 31 July 2018
And és San ama ía
Uni e sidad de Se illa, España
ORCID: h p://o cid.o g/0000-0001-7813-2626
a
Me cedes Cube o
Uni e sidad de Se illa, España
ORCID: h p://o cid.o g/0000-0003-0417-4246
Manuel Luis de la Ma a
Uni e sidad de Se illa, España
ORCID: h p://o cid.o g/0000-0002-9302-4786
ABSTRACT
Se e al p ominen schola s in he Social Sciences ha e de ended he
need o a new way o s udying he ela ionship be ween cul u e and he
indi idual. O e he las h ee decades, i has been common o ind s udies
unde he heading o Cul u al Psychology (CP), which ha e ocussed on
he ole o cul u e in his o ical and on ogene ic de elopmen . Howe e ,
among he de ende s o CP, he e ha e been speci ic disag eemen s
o e heo e ical and me hodological aspec s o he p ojec . This lack o
ag eemen is e ealed by he di e en concep ions o he ole o meaning
and social p ac ice in human psychological unc ioning. This pape aims
is o analyze some di e en app oaches o CP, and he ole o meaning
plays in i s cons i u ion. Fo us, he cen al claim o CP is ha he human
mind should be seen as in e -pene a ed by in en ional wo lds ha a e
cul u ally and his o ically si ua ed, and his psychology mus o s udy he
ways psyche and cul u e; pe son and con ex , sel and o he , p ac i ione
and p ac ice li e oge he , and join ly make each o he up. In addi ion,
CP has also iden i ied he symbolic media ion o mind and cul u e as i s
analy ical ocus. Finally, we de end ha cul u e and mind a e o be ea ed
as o ms o cul u ally di e en ia ed meaning p ac ices. To make possible
his en e p ise, we p opose he necessi y o de elop he no ion o media ed
and si ua ed ac ions as a uni o analysis o Cul u al Psychology.
Keywo ds
Cul u al Psychology; Social p ac ice Meaning; A i ac ; Cul u e.
RESUMEN
Un g an núme o de des acados au o es en Ciencias Sociales han
de endido la necesidad de una nue a o ma de es udia la elación
en e la cul u a y el indi iduo. A lo la go de las úl imas es décadas,
han sido muchos los es udios desa ollados bajo la denominación de
Psicología Cul u al (PC), que se han enido cen ando en el papel de
la cul u a en el desa ollo his ó ico y on ogené ico. Sin emba go, en e
los de enso es de la PC ha habido cie os desacue dos sob e los aspec os
eó icos y me odológicos de es e p oyec o. Es a al a de acue do se ha
And és San ama ía, Me cedes Cube o, Manuel Luis de la Ma a.
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 |
2
cen ado undamen almen e en las di e en es
concepciones del papel del signi icado y la p ác ica social
en el uncionamien o psicológico humano. El obje i o de
es e abajo es analiza algunos en oques di e en es de PC
y el papel del signi icado en su cons i ución. A nues o
juicio, la a i mación cen al de la PC es que la men e
humana debe ía e se como in e pene ada po mundos
in encionales que es án cul u al e his ó icamen e si uados.
De es e modo, es a psicología debe es udia las o mas en
las que la psique y la cul u a; la pe sona y el con ex o,
el yo y el o o, el p ac ican e y la p ác ica se cons uyen
mu uamen e el uno al o o. Así mismo, es a PC des aca
la noción de mediación simbólica de la men e y la cul u a
como su p incipal in e és analí ico. Se de iende así que
la cul u a y la men e deben se en endidas como o mas
de p ác icas de signi icado cul u almen e di e enciadas.
Finalmen e, se p opone la noción de acción mediada y
si uada como unidad de análisis de la PC.
Palab as cla e
Psicología Cul u al; p ác ica social; signi icado; a e ac o; cul u a.
Di e en iews o Cul u al Psychology a e held
abou i s aims, he ques ions he discipline should
add ess and, basically, abou i s e y de ini ion
and i s ela ion o mains eam psychology. In
he ollowing, we shall iden i y some di e en
app oaches o he discipline: His o ical-Cul u al
Psychology (Cole, 1996; Cole & Enges om,
1993), he Symbolic app oach, ep esen ed by
B une (1990, 1996, 2005) and Shwede (1990;
Shwede & Sulli an, 1993); he Cul u al
Psychology o Semio ic Dynamics, de eloped by
Valsine (2014a) and he Symbolic Ac ion Theo y,
by Boesch and Eckensbe ge (Boesch, 1996,
1997; Eckensbe ge , 1996, 2014). Howe e , he
ecogni ion o di e ences be ween app oaches
does no mean, as Poo inga (1997) ema ks,
ha hey should be conside ed as incompa ible.
Ins ead, hey should be iewed as di e en
con ibu ions o he cons uc ion o Cul u al
Psychology (Ellis & S am, 2015; Güle ce, 2015).
Despi e he disc epancies be ween heo is s, hey
all sha e a cen al ene : “Cul u al Psychology is,
i s o all, a designa ion o he compa a i e s udy
o he way cul u e and psyche make each o he
up” (Shwede & Sulli an, 1993, p. 498).
In o he wo ds, he e is a b oad ag eemen
abou he idea ha any beha io is, by
de ini ion, cul u al. Any human ac is, now
i occu s, una oidably cul u al. We could,
he e o e, say ha , in gene al, all cul u al
psychologis s sha e he assump ion ha he goal
o Cul u al Psychology is o unde s and how he
p ocesses o human de elopmen a e c ea ed
and ans o med in cul u e and, in u n, a e
cons ained by cul u e (Valsine , 2009).
The main objec i e o his pape is, he e o e,
o analyze di e en app oaches o Cul u al
Psychology, hei simila i ies and di e ences.
F om ou pe spec i e, hese pe spec i es ha e
enough elemen s common o jus i y he
conside a ion o cul u al psychology as a (single)
discipline. In he i s sec ion, we shall look a
he simila i ies in o de o de elop an in eg a ed
iew o he cul u al app oaches. In he second,
we shall add ess he di e ences ha sepa a e
hese heo ies om di e en epis emological
amewo ks. We shall pu pa icula emphasis on
he ole ha he di e en app oaches assign o
meaning abou social p ac ice, as his is one o he
cen al di e ences be ween hem.
Common p inciples in di e en cul u al
agendas
The cul u al app oaches we a e going o e iew
sha e he ollowing ideas:
a) An in e es in he ole o his o ical
and cul u al media ion in human psychological
unc ioning. Fo ha eason, hese app oaches
challenge he classical iew o cogni i e
Psychology abou he ela ionship be ween mind
and cul u e o indi idual and cul u e. This
non-cul u al iew unde s ands cul u e as he
medium whe e ac ions ake place. In o he
wo ds, cul u e is in e p e ed as an independen
a iable(s) ha a ec s he con en s o mind
in a causal and mechanis ic way and lea es
aside i s in luence in men al p ocesses, which
a e conside ed uni e sal. In addi ion, cul u al
app oaches c i icize he iew o mind as a se o
abs ac capaci ies o cogni i e s yles ha wo ks
in a pe manen way, ega dless o he con ex s
in which hese capaci ies a e used (B une , 1990;
Cole & Enges om, 1993; Eckensbe ge , 2014;
Shwede , 1990; Valsine , 2014a).
Towa ds a Cul u al Psychology: Meaning and Social P ac ice as Key Elemen s
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 | 3
b) As an al e na i e, cul u al psychologis s
concei e cul u e ega ding sociocul u al
ac i i ies o p ac ices media ed by cul u al ools.
As in Vygo sky’s psychology, his pe spec i e
le s us o e come one o he mos equen
and impo an sho comings o he heo ies
ha s ess he ole o social in luences in
psychological unc ioning. The conside a ion o
cul u e as he p ac ice o speci ic indi iduals in
sociocul u al se ings allows a new way o ela ing
mac osocial o ins i u ional phenomena wi h
psychological p ocesses, escaping om classical
“black box” app oaches. Cul u e, concei ed
in his way, is an in e media e link be ween
he social and he psychological since cul u e
becomes “ he p oduc o social li e and human
social ac i i y” (Vygo sky, 1981, p. 164). Such
a concep o cul u e can be applied o di e en
domains o ac i i y, om he concep ual o hose
in which he mo o aspec is c i ical. In all cases,
wha de ines he concep ual ca ego y o p ac ice
is he ac ha ac ions a e socially de eloped.
The social dimension o p ac ice and ac ions
e e s o he echnologies o ools ha mus be
used, o he knowledge ha is used and sha ed
and o he goals he pa icipan s ecognize and
pu sue (Cole, 1996; De la Ma a & Cube o, 2003;
Valsine , 2014a).
Cul u al psychologis s p opose a iew o
cul u e ha anscends he physical elemen s
o he en i onmen . Fo hem, he pa icipan s
c ea e he co e elemen s o cul u e. These
elemen s include no only he objec i e
dimension o cul u e bu also a subjec i e o
in e p e a i e dimension. Social con ex and
p ac ice encompass, on he one hand, he ixed
and s able aspec s ha exis , ega dless o he
indi idual, in o he wo ds, he ins i u ional
plane. This plane was he e be o e he
indi idual’s a i al and will emain a e he/she
has disappea ed. I canno be in e p e ed om a
ealism pe spec i e. The ins i u ional plane does
no p e-exi apa om he indi iduals. I is only
c ea ed by he indi iduals ha li ed be o e he
pa icipan s in an ac i i y se ing, h ough he
in e ac ions be ween indi iduals in his social
con ex . So, we can de end a his o ical p e-
exis ence o cul u e and no a ealis ic one.
On he o he hand, he p ac ice in ol es o
pe mi s a pe sonal way o being expe ienced.
This las dimension leads cul u al psychologis s
o s ess he symbolic na u e o cul u e (Boesch,
1997; B une , 1990; Cole, 1996; Shwede , 1990)
Acco ding o Valsine , o he ex en ha signs
cons i u e cul u e, human beha io –ac ion–
canno be unde s ood ou side he meaning
sys ems ha make sense o i . Human ac ions
a e, he e o e, “ac s o meaning” (B une , 1990,
p. 13). Cul u e is simul aneously inside and
ou side he indi idual. Mo e speci ically, cul u e
is a psychological p ocess. A p ocess ha “comes
in o being whe e e people engage in join ac i i y
o e a pe iod o ime” (Cole, 1996, p. 301). O ,
in Valsine ’s wo ds, “… he ac i e p ocess o
media ing human li es h ough signs, bo h in a-
and in e -psychologically” (Valsine , 2014a, p.
47).
c) In a complemen a y way, hey sugges a
iew o he indi idual as an ac i e, in en ional
subjec , who is conscious (a leas , po en ially) o
his/he own de elopmen and mos ly esponsible
o he c ea ion o he wo lds s/he pa icipa es
in, o his/he own ac ions and men al objec s
o ep esen a ions. The human being is iewed
as a pe son who o ganizes his/he ac ions o
achie e goals. These goals can be p e-es ablished
o concu en wi h he ac . In o he wo ds, he
subjec is ac i e o he ex en ha he/she can
cons uc his/he own eali ies and consciously
and in en ionally selec , om a se o ools, hose
sui able o he goals p oposed.
d) The ideas p esen ed abo e p o ide us wi h
an in e p e a ion o men al phenomena as ac i e
p ocesses ha a e loca ed ou side he indi idual’s
head; as a quali y ha is no si ua ed in he
indi idual no cul u e. Ins ead, i eme ges and is
dis ibu ed among he elemen s ha pa icipa e
in his ela ionship. In o he wo ds, men al
ac ions a e concei ed as media ed by cul u al
ools and dis ibu ed o co-cons uc ed in he
sense ha hey a e de e mined by con ex and
sp ead among he pa icipan s in ha con ex
(Boesch, 1997; B une , 1990; Cole, 1996; Cole &
Enges om, 1993; Eckensbe ge , 1996; We sch,
1998, Valsine , 2014a). The e is no global, unique
sys em. Ins ead, he sys em o in e p e a ion is
And és San ama ía, Me cedes Cube o, Manuel Luis de la Ma a.
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 |
4
mul iple and depends on he con ex and on he
indi iduals ha pa icipa e in ha con ex . F om
his pe spec i e, cogni ion implies he ac ion o
a subjec in a pa icula con ex ha p o ides
he esou ces, knowledge, skills, and cons ain s
cha ac e is ic o his se ing (Rogo , 1990).
This concep ual pe spec i e leads us o
ecognize ha Cul u al Psychology is o ien ed
owa ds ac i i y se ings o p ac ice i . (Ra ne ,
1996, 2006). The no ion o ac i i y se ing
media ed by ools, especially language, is he link
be ween cul u e and he indi idual. In his sense,
Boesch (1996), B une (1990, 1996) o Cole
(1996), o example, speak abou si ua ed ac ion
and Shwede conside s ha in en ional wo lds o
objec s ha e no na u al eali y beyond ac i i ies
(Shwede 1990). Thus, o he in en ional aspec
o beha io , hey assign: ac ion (Boesch, 1996,
1997; B une , 1990; Cole, 1996; Eckensbe ge ,
2014; Hwang, 2014) o i s meaning (B une ,
1990), play he ole o connec ing link be ween
cul u e and indi idual.
e) Au ho s om di e en cul u al app oaches
accep an in e ac i e concep ion o he o me
ela ion. F om ha pe spec i e, i is no possible
o unde s and he indi idual and his/he ac ions
ou o om he cul u al se ing ha hey c ea e
and ha , in u n, gi es meaning o hem. In he
same way, he e y exis ence o cul u e depends
on indi iduals’ ac ions. Cul u e de elops and
changes as a esul o indi iduals’ ac ions and
in e ac ions. These au ho s also a gue ha mind
and cul u e a e he wo sides o he same
coin. Each one is a undamen al pa o he
o he , as hey in en o e-c ea e each o he .
Pu in ano he way, bo h sides pa icipa e in
he genesis o and a e he p oduc o he
o he (B une , 1990; Cole, 1996; Eckensbe ge ,
1996; Shwede , 1990; Shwede & Sulli an,
1993, Valsine , 2009). The e o e, human ac ion
depends on cul u al ac i i y and ins umen s,
while a he same ime, modi y cul u al a i ac s
and p ac ice (Cole & Ha ano, 2007). By no
ocusing on he indi idual o cul u e, bu on
he pe son pa icipa ing in he cul u al ac i i y,
cul u al psychology o e comes bo h indi idual
and sociological educ ionism. Thus, o cul u al
psychologis s, he p ima y objec i e is o s udy
he ela ionship be ween indi idual and cul u e
and he way in which hese e ms in e pene a e
hei iden i ies and co-cons uc each o he
(Es eban, 2011; San ama ía, De la Ma a &
Cube o, 2010; Valsine , 2009).
) Conce ning me hodology, cul u al
psychologis s accep ha i should depend on
heo y (and no he opposi e). Howe e , he e is
no a o al ag eemen abou he speci ic me hods
o be used. All au ho s assume a non- es ic i e
iew (Cohen, 2007). They do no deny he
u ili y o compa a i e me hods o quan i a i e
analy ic p ocedu es (B une , 1990; Cole, 1996;
Shwede & Sulli an, 1993; Eckensbe ge , 1996),
bu ecommend comple ing hese me hods
wi h quali a i e me hodologies, aken om
he social sciences. Recen ly, some heo is s
p opose he impo ance and he necessi y o
use mixed-me hod esea ch s a egies (Fishe
& Poo inga, 2018). In his sense, he wo k
o Yancha and Wes e man (2006) p o ide a
ascina ing discussion abou i . In o he wo ds,
hey sugges he in eg a ion o quan i a i e
me hods in o he pos -posi i is con ex ualis
pa adigm (Dawson, Fische & Zacha y, 2006).
Yancha and Wes e man adop , as a s a ing
poin , a his o ically-con ex ual-si ua ed and sel -
in e p e i e iew o human mind (as he cul u al
esea ches ha we a e poin ing ou ) and de end
he possibili y o combining a he meneu ic
o in e p e a i e iewpoin ha moniously wi h
quan i a i e esea ch me hodologies (Yancha &
We e man, 2006).
Besides he abo e ideas, all heo is s om
Cul u al Psychology adi ion de end he use
o his o ical me hods, in ol ing di e en le els
o analysis: mic ogene ic, on ogene ic and
his o ical-cul u al le els —wha Cole (1996)
labels he meso-gene ic me hod —, as a way
o unde s anding highe men al unc ions as
well as collec i e men al li e (Boesch, 1997;
Cole, 1996; Shwede , 1990; Vygo sky, 1986).
The e y ac ha cul u al psychologis s con e
men al p ocesses a cul u al and his o ical na u e
jus i ies he in e es and he need o s udy
hem om a gene ic pe spec i e ii . In o he
wo ds, all hese au ho s a e in e es ed in s udying
hese phenomena in hei p ocesses o change.
Towa ds a Cul u al Psychology: Meaning and Social P ac ice as Key Elemen s
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 | 5
This analy ical pe spec i e implies examining
he mechanisms o genesis, o ma ion, and
ans o ma ion o a gi en phenomenon o i s inal
s a e. This gene ic app oach was also de ended by
Wund and by all he Ge man adi ion (Jahoda,
1992; Cole 1996). I has become a key piece
in all he me hodological p oposals o Cul u al
Psychology.
(Some) Di e ences be ween cul u al
agendas
F om ou pe spec i e, besides he simila i ies,
he e a e signi ican di e ences be ween di e en
p oposals wi hin he ield o Cul u al Psychology.
The mos impo an di e ences may be
ound be ween an an h opological pe spec i e,
such as he symbolic app oach by Shwede ,
and a psychological iew o he discipline,
such as Cole’s His o ical-Cul u al psychology
and Valsine ’s cul u al psychology o semio ic
dynamics. The app oaches adop ed by B une
and he School o Saa b ücken may be loca ed
on ei he side, depending on which aspec s a e
analyzed.
a) The i s di e ence poin ed ou by Jahoda
(1992, 2012), is he ela ionship be ween
Cul u al Psychology and mains eam Psychology.
Acco ding o Jahoda, his di e ence condi ioned
he e olu ion o he di e en app oaches
signi ican ly. Cole (1996) conside s cul u e as
an “ac ion ield”. Fo him, cul u e is he basic
con ex whe e he human being lea ns and
de elops. In his con ex , all ac ions ake place
and make sense. Fo ha eason, he claims
ha all psychology should be cul u al. Fo
his p oposal, he e o e, he s a us o Cul u al
Psychology is simila o ha o gene al psychology
as he does no conside Cul u al Psychology an
a ea, o a specialized ield, bu a way o doing
Psychology (Cole, 1996). Shwede , in con as ,
de ends he iew ha cul u al psychology is
a b anch o psychology de o ed o he s udy
o cul u es and he men ali ies associa ed wi h
hem. Fo ha eason, i is complemen a y
o o he ela ed ields in psychology, such as
C oss-Cul u al o Social Psychology and o he
disciplines like An h opology o E hnog aphy.
(Shwede , 1990; LeVine, 2007). Wund ’s Second
Psychology di ec ly in luences Shwede 's posi ion
abou he place o Cul u al Psychology abou
mains eam Psychology. Fo Wund , Second
Psychology does no exhaus he s udy o
psychological phenomena. Pe haps because o
hese di e ences, Cole ocuses on he s udy
o gene al aspec s o cul u e and cogni ion in
con ex , while Shwede is in e es ed in he
analysis o speci ic cul u es and men ali ies.
In his case, Boesch (1997) and B une
(1990, 1996) adop Cole’s pe spec i e. Valsine ’s
posi ion abou his issue is, in gene al, simila o
Cole, as he assumes he cen ali y o cul u e “We
s udy phenomena we call ‘‘cul u al’’ in human
psychology in o de o make sense o gene al
p inciples o he human psyche ha canno
be explained by p inciples o lowe le els o
gene ali y” (Valsine , 2014c, p. 154).
b) Howe e , an in-dep h analysis o aspec s
such as he s a us o symbolic phenomena and
meanings ela ed o social p ac ice e eals one
o he mos impo an di e ences be ween
hese app oaches. Tha is, he me hodological
app oach o each one is en i ely di e en . Fo
Shwede and B une , o example, cul u e is
concei ed as a meaning sys em. Indi iduals
c ea e meanings in in e ac ion. Cul u e has no
eal exis ence ou o hese meanings. We may
say ha , o he symbolic app oach, bo h cul u e
and social p ac ice canno be explained, bu
in e p e ed. This idea led au ho s o claim he
in e p e i e cha ac e o Cul u al Psychology
(B une , 1990; Shwede , 1990). Rela ed o his
idea, hey do no in end o use p ac ice as he
guiding p inciple o he human mind, bu o
unde s and p ac ice by using he meneu ic o
in e p e i e me hodologies. In his sense, he
Symbolic Ac ion Theo y ag ees in de ense o he
in e p e i e cha ac e o Cul u al Psychology and
he need o use he meneu ic me hods o analyze
his kind o Psychology (K ewe , 1990).
In gene al, Cole and he app oach o
cogni ion in con ex ocus on he analysis
o cogni ion in he p ac ice in which i
akes place. I makes him/ hem assume ha
psychological unc ioning depends on social,

And és San ama ía, Me cedes Cube o, Manuel Luis de la Ma a.
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 |
6
ma e ial and ideological ( ega ding Ilenko )
dimensions ha de ine p ac ice. Fo Cole,
p ac ice plays he ole o he guiding p inciple
o human beha io . He de ends, hus, he
explana o y cha ac e o cul u al psychology and
he use o me hodologies such as sys ema ic
obse a ion, he e olu iona y-his o ical me hod
o e en quan i a i e me hodologies. All hese
me hodologies a e a om he meneu ic
me hods. So, al hough Cole ecognizes he
symbolic na u e o bo h cogni ion and p ac ice,
he does no emphasize his ea u e o e o he s.
The ole o he semio ic aspec is no cen al o
his app oach.
In his sense, in Vygo sky’s o iginal p ojec
and in i s de elopmen s by au ho s like Tul is e
(1991), We sch (1981, 1998) o Valsine (2009,
2014b), we ind some elemen s ha enable us o
accoun o he way in which human ac ions a e
semio ically media ed wi hou sepa a ing hem
om hei ac i i y con ex s (B escó, 2016). The
key o his asse ion is he ecogni ion o he
ins umen al na u e o signs. This ea u e makes
i possible o concei e bo h he ideal and ma e ial
dimension o men al ac ions. The impo ance
o gi ing a di e en s a us o he meaning and
social p ac ice is cen al as i de e mines he e y
no ion o Cul u al Psychology as an in e p e i e
o explana o y science. I also de e mines he
me hods and echniques mo e sui able o he
cons uc ion o he discipline. This is he hi d
di e ence be ween he wo main app oaches o
Cul u al Psychology. In he nex sec ion, we shall
analyze his issue in g ea e de ail, as i is he ocus
o his a icle.
The ole o meaning and p ac ice
Undoub edly, one o he mos c ucial phenomena
in ou e e yday expe ience is language. Language
becomes a c i ical elemen o human cogni ion.
Almos all human cogni i e ac i i ies and
cul u al p ac ices a e based on language. The
cen al ea u e o all hese ac i i ies and p ac ices
is hei symbolic na u e and, he e o e, hei
meaning ulness. Howe e , he no ion o meaning
is oo ague. Fo ha eason, i would be use ul
o cla i y his no ion o enabling us o analyze
he ole ha meaning (and p ac ice) play in he
cons i u ion o Cul u al Psychology (San ama ía
e al., 2010). We shall do his b ie ly now.
O e he las wo decades, a mo e dynamic
app oach o meaning has been de eloped. The
cen al idea in his app oach is ha meaning
mus be conside ed conce ning he p ac ices in
which i is used (B une , 2005; Cole, 1996). F om
his pe spec i e, he mind canno be concei ed
jus as a capaci y o sol e p oblems. Ins ead,
i mus be iewed as he capaci y o en e
a sha ed wo ld o meaning. F om adi ional
and objec i is app oaches, he meaning is
de ined in e ms o he ela ionship be ween
abs ac symbols and he s a e o a ai in
he wo ld, be ween signs and hei e e en s.
F om his pe spec i e, meanings, concep s,
deduc i e models and, in sum, all aspec s o
a ionali y a e cha ac e ized by hei uni e sali y
and independence om cul u e and con ex .
Howe e , om o he posi ions, meaning is no
jus a ixed ela ion be ween sen ences and an
objec i e eali y, as objec i ism holds. Ins ead,
meaning is in be ween symbols and he wo ld;
an e en o cul u al and his o ical owne ship.
Le us say ha meanings a e public p ope y.
Fo ha eason, we a gue ha meaning is no
in he head o he indi idual bu lows in social
in e changes. Meaning is no only an exp ession
o onesel , bu is inhe en ly sha ed o , in Valsine ’s
(2014a) e ms, co-cons uc ed. I cons i u es and
modula es he public space in which we de elop
ou ac i i ies and ela e o o he s (Nede gaa d,
2016; Simão, 2016).
In his sense, ollowing Budwig, Uzgi is
and We sch (2000) we can iden i y ou
app oaches o he s udy o meaning and meaning
cons uc ion ha di e om classical and
objec i is ic iews.
a) Dialogic app oaches based on he wo k by
Bakh in (1986). They ocus especially on he
analysis o u e ances. F om his pe spec i e,
speech always implies an i educible ension
be ween a semio ic sys em and he pa icula use
o ha sys em (Güle ce, 2014; Zi oun, 2014,
2018). Speech is concei ed as a o m o ac ion.
Towa ds a Cul u al Psychology: Meaning and Social P ac ice as Key Elemen s
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 | 7
b) Sociological and Con e sa ional Analysis
app oaches. This ield o s udy eme ges om
e hnome hodology and o he iews o speech
as si ua ed p ac ice (Scheglo , 1991). Meaning
is conside ed in i s use as a communica i e
p ac ice. The emphasis is pu on communica ion
( a he han on u e ance) as a o m o ac ion
(Goodwin & Goodwin, 1992). I looks a
how communica ion is s uc u ed in di e en
e e yday p ac ices.
c) Func ional and Cogni i e Linguis ics
app oaches. Meaning is conside ed in ela ion
o i s con ex o use (Tomasello, 1998).
These app oaches emphasize he ins umen al
cha ac e o language. Language is seen as a ool
o cogni ion. Di e ences wi h o he app oaches
appea when de ining he con ex .
d) An h opological Linguis ics app oaches.
Linguis ic an h opologis s, as well as
unc ionalis s, ocus on he s udy o he key issues
in meaning cons uc ion. As con e sa ional
analys s, hey emphasize he impo ance o
communica i e p ac ice and he idea ha
linguis ic p oduc ions a e “social ac s”.
These di e en app oaches p esuppose a mo e
lexible, dynamic and cons uc i e iew o
meaning han he classical ones. They enable he
de elopmen o heo ies o meaning ha ocus on
he connec ion wi h he social p ac ices which
indi iduals a e embedded in. This ela ion is
es ablished no only h ough media ional bu also
h ough symbolic means. Ou in e es coincides
wi h o he esea che s in Cul u al Psychology
and ocuses on analyzing he way indi iduals
app op ia e cul u al p ac ices and meanings in
speci ic ac i i y se ings. I implies a iew o
meanings as elemen s in ol ed in p ac ice.
Al hough his iew is usual in in e disciplina y
discussions abou language and hough , i has
only ecen ly become ele an in psychology.
The ideas ou lined abo e demons a e ha
he main agendas in Cul u al Psychology sha e
he idea ha human men al unc ioning is
an eme gen p ope y o symbolically media ed
expe iences and his o ically de eloped meanings
and p ac ices.
The app oach adop ed by Shwede and B une
is inspi ed by he an h opological ideas o Gee z
(1973). Two aspec s o B une and Shwede ’s
p oposals e lec his in luence. On he one hand,
hey can be conside ed inhe i o s o Gee z’s
no ion o cul u e, while on he o he , because o
assuming his no ion, hey de end a concep ion o
Cul u al Psychology as an in e p e i e discipline.
Le ’s examine hese wo issues. Gee z was one
o he main esponsible o a change in he
way o analyzing cul u e in An h opology. Fo
Gee z, cul u e is a meaning sys em ha is mos ly
esponsible o he cons i u ion o human beings
as such, o he e y ca ego y o human being:
(Cul u e) “…deno es a his o ically ansmi ed
pa e n o meanings embodied in symbols,
a sys em o inhe i ed concep ions exp essed
in symbolic o ms, by means o which men
communica e, pe pe ua e, and de elop hei
knowledge abou , and a i udes owa d li e”.
(Gee z, 1973, p. 89)
Taking Gee z’s s andpoin , B une and
Shwede assume ha cul u e can be de ined
as a symbolic con ex , as a meaning sys em
ha makes sense o human ac ions (G een ield,
2009). B une (1990, 1996), o ins ance,
main ains ha human ac s canno be unde s ood
o s udied ou o hei meanings. They a e,
by de ini ion, “ac s o meaning”. He conside s
ha indi idual and cul u e ela e o each o he
h ough meaning. Cul u e shapes he indi idual
mind, h ough meaning c ea ion. This p ocess
o meaning c ea ion implies si ua ing indi idual’s
encoun e s wi h he wo ld in hei app op ia e
cul u al con ex s. Fo B une (1996), al hough
meanings a e in mind, hei o igins mus be in
cul u e, since indi iduals canno c ea e hem
wi hou he symbolic sys ems de eloped in hei
cul u e. Thus, B une a gues ha meaning is
no cons uc ed a e he ac . Ins ead, human
ac ions a e, om he e y momen hey a e
p oduced, ac s o meaning. In o he wo ds,
hey a e inex icably linked o an in e p e a ion.
This in e p e a ion is no me ely indi idual,
bu gene a ed in cul u e, in communica i e
in e changes wi h o he s. These in e changes
And és San ama ía, Me cedes Cube o, Manuel Luis de la Ma a.
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 |
8
occu unde he belie ha he in e locu o s
sha e a common wo ld.
Meaning is always meaning o a pe son
o communi y. Wo ds ha e no meaning on
hei own. They only ha e meaning o he
pe sons ha use hem o mean some hing.
Thus, he meaning is always a ma e o
ela ion. Au ho s like B une (1990) s ess ha
meaning is a cul u ally media ed phenomenon.
I s exis ence depends on a p e ious sys em o
sha ed symbols. We a e he e o e aced wi h he
ques ion: How can we cons uc hese sha ed
meanings? In ecen yea s, a g ea deal o
esea ch has e idenced ha humans ecognize
and unde s and in en ional beha io ega ding
na a i e. They unde s and na a i e as a mode
o hinking, as a way o c ea ing and in e p e ing
meaning. Na a i e has been iden i ied as he
cen al means by which people a ibu e meaning
o li e e en s. As B une (1996) would ha e pu
i , humans a e bo n wi h a disposi ion o na a e,
o ell s o ies o one ano he . Humans lea n o
na a e, and in so doing, hey lea n o emembe
hei pas and o imagine hei u u e. They
lea n o o de ac ion sequences o make a whole
ha can be sha ed wi h ano he pe son. B une
(1996) a gues ha na a i e le s us gi e sense o
and o ganize ou expe iences and he meanings
sha ed wi h indi iduals in ou social and cul u al
con ex . As we can see, B une ’s concep ion o
na a i e goes beyond he empo al pe spec i e
o ac ion o inco po a e wha he calls he
“landscape o consciousness” (B une , 1996, p.
23); ha is, he in e p e a ion ha humans
make o ac ions and e en s in e ms o goals,
mo i a ions, in en ions, belie s, alues, e c.
This led B une (1990) o conside na a i e as
he bes means o s udying cul u al meaning. Fo
his au ho , he na a i e is a way o in e p e ing
he wo ld ega ding ac o s wi h in en ions and
pu poses, making hem pe o m ac ions in ce ain
se ings by using pa icula ools o esou ces.
I is, he e o e, an in insically cul u al way
o hinking. Socially cons uc ed na a i es as
o ganize s o ou expe iences and p ac ices a e
a cen al ocus o he kind o meaning accoun s
ha we a e de eloping in his pape . Acco ding
o his iew, na a i e cons uc ions de eloped
in collabo a ion wi h o he s p o ide a s uc u e
o a pe sonal and social meaning ul expe ience.
In sum, i is a cul u al ca ego y ha emphasizes
meaning cons uc ion.
F om a simila posi ion o B une ’s,
Shwede a gues ha human beings a e
subjec s con inuously in ol ed in a sea ch
o meanings (Shwede , 1990). Wi h his
exp ession, Shwede and his colleagues mean
ha humans a e especially mo i a ed owa d
app op ia ing meanings and esou ces o ou
cul u al en i onmen . Fo hem, as o B une ,
meanings a e una oidably social.
As we ha e claimed, Gee z has in luenced
bo h B une and Shwede . This in luence has
condi ioned hei isions abou he ole o
symbolic issues and hei iew o Cul u al
Psychology as an in e p e i e discipline. F om
his pe spec i e, Cul u al Psychology is no
in e es ed in explaining he uni e sal and
di e en ial aspec s o he human mind. Ins ead,
i s in e es lies in accoun ing o he social
condi ions and cul u al models ha a e
esponsible o he meanings iii and senses ha
indi iduals gi e o hei ac ions o make hem
unde s andable and explici . This in e p e i e
iew is di ec ly associa ed wi h he de ense
o me hodologies o comp ehensi e na u e.
K ewe (1990) calls hem dialogic-he meneu ic
me hods. This me hodological concep ion has a
phenomenological o ien a ion and concen a es
on making sense o human ac ions in cul u al
con ex s (B escó and Wagone , 2016). Howe e ,
as i would no be igh o conclude om
he abo e wo ds ha symbolic app oaches do
no con empla e he ac i i ies in which human
ac ions ake place, we canno e e o Cole’s
His o ical-Cul u al Psychology by saying ha i
does no conside he impo ance o meaning
o indi idual ac ions. Ins ead, he di e ence
be ween he wo app oaches lies in he emphasis
hey pu on one aspec o he o he . O
cou se, his does no lessen he impo ance
o his di e ence. Cole’s pe spec i e, inspi ed
by Vygo sky’s and Lu ia’s His o ical-Cul u al
Psychology, is subs an ially di e en ; his analysis
ocuses on ac i i y i .
Towa ds a Cul u al Psychology: Meaning and Social P ac ice as Key Elemen s
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 | 9
Cole’s posi ion abou his speci ic medium o
human li e, cul u al ac i i y o p ac ice and how
i in luences psychological unc ioning can be
summa ized as ollows:
“...cul u e as a sys em o a i ac s and mind as he
p ocess o media ing beha io h ough a i ac s
in ela ion o a sup a-indi idual “en elope” wi h
espec s o which objec /en i onmen , ex /
con ex a e de ined. This app oach allows me o
make use o he no ion o cul u e as medium and
o con ex as bo h ha which su ounds and ha
which wea es oge he . I also p o ides me wi h
a basic uni o analysis ha has na u al linkages
o he mac o pole o socie y and i s ins i u ions
and he mic o le el o indi idual human hough
and ac ions”. (1996, p. 143)
This no ion o he a i ac was o iginally
de eloped by he So ie philosophe Ed ald
Ilenko who p oposed i o p o ide a ma e ialis
explana ion o “ he ideal”. By using his e m,
Ilenko e e s o all non-ma e ial phenomena as
men al p ocesses (subjec i e ideali y) bu also o
objec i e non-ma e ial phenomena such as he
a ious ypes o alue and meaning and o he
p ope ies, like hospi ali y o dange ousness. I
is in e es ing o no e ha o Ilenko men al
phenomena a e no he p ima y o m o he ideal.
The subjec i e ideali y is a seconda y ealm o
phenomena. I de i es om he p ima y ealm,
consis ing o meanings and alues (and he o he
o ms o objec i e ideal phenomena). To accoun
o he way in which he objec i e ideal becomes
cons i u ed and how his o m o ideali y gi es
ises o he o he one, Ilenko de eloped he
no ion o a i ac s (No os, 2018). A i ac s a e
embodimen s o human ac i i y. In he a i ac ,
he na u al objec acqui es signi icance (o iginal
emphasis).
The no ion o a i ac s p o ides a model o
unde s anding all o ms o alue and meaning,
including linguis ic meanings (B inkmann, 2016;
Innis, 2016). Wo ds a e con igu a ions o sounds
ha acqui e hei signi icance because o hei
inco po a ion in o human p ac ices. Wo ds a e
a i ac s o Ilenko . “The meaning o a wo d
is an ideal o m acqui ed by a pu ely na u al
objec h ough i s inco po a ion in o pu pose ul
human ac i i y. A wo d owes i s signi icance o
i s use” (p. 185).
Fo Cole, (1996), Ilenko ’s no ion o a i ac is
closely ela ed o Vygo sky’s idea o a ool. I was
Vygo sky who p oposed he s udy o ools as a way
o s udying cul u al his o y, as hey a e p oduc s
o i . Cole unde s ands ha human beings li e in
a wo ld ha is ans o med by a i ac s, which in
u n we e cons uc ed and used by he p eceding
gene a ions. The main unc ion o a i ac s is o
coo dina e human beings wi h hei physical and
social milieu (1995a). This concep is ela ed o
bo h cul u e and cogni ion. On he one hand,
a i ac s a e he main cons i uen s o cul u e. On
he o he , he mind eme ges om he in e ac ion
be ween subjec s, a i ac s and he wo ld o
objec s (Cole, 1996; Cole and Enges om, 1993).
This is he basic media ional iangle and
allows us o o mula e he cul u al de e mina ion
o indi idual psychological unc ions and, in
gene al, o ela e mind and cul u e in an
in eg a ed schema.
Cole s esses he idea ha a i ac s do
no exis in he acuum. Ins ead, hey exis
abou an ac i i y se ing o sys em. This
sys em in eg a es subjec s, objec s, and a i ac s
(ma e ial and psychological) in an in eg a ed
whole (Cole and Enges om, 1993). Mo eo e ,
Cole, elying on Enges om’s concep ualiza ion o
ac i i y, includes he ollowing elemen s as basic
componen s o he ac i i y sys ems:
- The se o indi iduals ela ed h ough a
common objec i e (communi y).
- The no ms, ules and con en ions ha
egula e he ela ions be ween indi iduals and
be ween he indi iduals and hei ac ions.
- The di ision o goal-di ec ed ac ions be ween
he membe s o he communi y (a di ision o
labo ).
All hese elemen s and he complex ela ions
be ween hem can be con inuously e-in en ed
as p oduc s o he li e and his o y o human
beings (Cole, 1996). This iew o ac i i y
sys ems ex ends he subjec -a i ac -objec basic
media ional iangle, which ep esen s he basic
s uc u e om which human cogni ion eme ges.
And és San ama ía, Me cedes Cube o, Manuel Luis de la Ma a.
| Uni e si as Psychologica | V. 18 | No. 1 | 2019 |
16
107-121. h ps://doi.o g/10.1177/1354067
X17701272
No es
*Resea ch a icle.
iOu no ion o ac i i y is no limi ed o
Leon ’e (1979). We also conside We sch’s
(1985) con ibu ion o his concep . Fo
us, We sch’s no ion o ac i i y may
help o o e come he “dead end” ha
ac i i y heo y ep esen s o some heo is s
(Toomela, 2000; Tha p, & O’Donell, 2016).
Acco ding o We sch, an ac i i y o ac i i y
se ing e e s o a socio-cul u ally de ined
con ex in which human men al unc ioning
akes place. The se ing is, o a g ea ex en ,
an in e p e a ion o he pa icipan s. Any
ac i i y se ing is, hen, based on a se
o implici assump ions abou he aspec s
which a e necessa y o his con ex o exis
and be ecognised by he pa icipan s. In his
sense, he no ion o p ac ice (La e, 1988,
1993, La e & Wenge , 1991) and he no ion
o ac i i y se ing (1991, 1998) a e so close.
ii The gene ic app oach de ended by Wund
and all he Ge man adi ion, among o he s,
as well as by Vygo sky and His o ical-
Cul u al Psychology has become a key
piece in he me hodological p oposals o
Cul u al Psychology. In ac , au ho s like
Cole, Boesch, B une , Eckensbe ge o
Shwede de end he need o adop ing
a de elopmen al o gene ic app oach.
Thus, hey ocus hei analysis on he
p ocesses o de elopmen , no because
hey a e in e es ed in hese p ocesses
in hemsel es, bu because hey conside
his analysis una oidable o unde s anding
psychological p ocesses (Boesch, 1996;
B une , 1990; Shwede , 1990; Eckensbe ge ,
1996; We sch, 2000).
iii I is impo an o ake in o accoun ha he
heo is s included in he symbolic app oach
sha e o a e in a way a e inhe i o s o Taylo ’s
idea o meaning. This au ho s esses ha
meaning and signi icance do no only e e
o ep esen a ion (which leads us o a
men alis iew), bu also o ha which is
meaning ul o impo an o human li e.
i Al hough Vygo sky did no explici ly
elabo a e a heo y cen e ed on ac i i y,
many au ho s claim ha he was e y
close o ha (Cole 1996; Kozulin, 1986;
We sch, 1981, Zinchenko, 1997). Issues
such as he dialogic, non- educ ionis ic,
social, his o ical and media ed cha ac e
o men al unc ions as well as his ac i e
concep ion o subjec s a e among he
a gumen s ha hese au ho s use o suppo
his claim.
Cole adop s Ilenko ’s no ion o an a i ac .
This no ion accoun s o ideal phenomena
(meaning and alue). Howe e , by using his
e m, Cole does no pay special a en ion
o ideal a i ac s, as meaning. He ocuses on
he gene al ole ha a i ac s play in he
con igu a ion o cul u e.