[Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL

[Huw Lloyd]

On 21 October 2014 19:14, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hello!
>
> Thanks for directing my attention to your paper. I've downloaded it
> accordingly.
>
> I apologize to the list if as a newcomer I am contributing to any tiresome
> redundancy; I am not clear whether there is a way to search the list
> archives or not.
>
>
This is one way to search, Annalisa: http://bit.ly/1pxNClw

Best,
Huw


> Best,
>
> Annalisa
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 9:57 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
>
> Hi Juan, Annalisa,
>
> The relationship between LSV and Marx is certainly something that we have
> discussed here on xmca.  My own contribution includes a paper published a
> few years ago, which I would be happy to send to you:
>
> Packer, M. J. (2008). Is Vygotsky relevant? Vygotsky’s Marxist psychology.
> Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(1), 8-31.
>
> Martin
>
> On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
>
> > Hello Juan,
> >
> > I agree with you that one must understand Marxism to understand Vygotsky
> clearly. Darwin's theory too. My grasp upon these topics is tenuous and I
> would benefit to know more.
> >
> > In my past, it has been difficult to enjoy dispassionate conversations
> about Marxism in my circles without the distractions of how much I don't
> know about Marxism, or how much Marx didn't know about capitalism; neither
> position is helpful. Perhaps Marxism is a hot potato still.
> >
> > Certainly there are claims that even the Soviets did not understood
> Marxism properly and that that may be why Vygotsky had such a hard time. If
> Marxism has been so difficult a topic, why should it be different for us
> who have come late to the table? We do have the power of hindsight, but has
> this helped?
> >
> > For any thinker's work, it is highly relevant to understand the
> contemporary milieu in which that person worked. That is why I look to
> historical context to unlock Vygotsky's work, not just his texts. However,
> I find a political specter rises from the grave when discussing Marxism and
> kills all prospects before understanding can begin. It is perplexing. I
> wonder if it is why Vygotsky will remain elusive to us post-moderns.
> >
> > I wish I could read the Castorina & Baquero paper, but I cannot read
> Spanish very well. Would it be asking too much of you to list the relevant
> points made in that paper? I would very much be interested!
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > Annalisa
> > ________________________________________
> > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Juan Duarte <juanma.duarte@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:39 AM
> > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
> >
> > I´m sorry for couldn´t answer -neither red all the messages- previously.
> > But what i was reffering was precisely the fact that the "unit of
> analysis"
> > in Vigotsky is not understandable without taking Marx and Engels method,
> as
> > Vygotsky himself writes, for example, in his manuscript The historical
> > meaning of the chrisis in psychology.
> > There´s is the need of psychology´s own Das Kapital. And the units of
> > analisis in LV are built in a dialectical way. So, it´s -for me, at
> least-
> > surprising to read so much about the marxist psychologist, and preciselly
> > about method, and very few comments about the fact he was marxist. To
> > understand the concept of "unit of analysis" is to know, for example, the
> > method of Das Kapital, where Marx takes the value as a cell, unit of
> > diverse and opposits, change value and use value, wich cannot be
> separated
> > without loosing the whole. So is the use of Meaning (unit of though and
> > language), for example.
> >
> >
> > Well, that´s my point. And know that there are many that thake this point
> > of view. Andy, for example.
> >
> > Thanks a lot for the fruitful interchange.
> > I send you, if anyone is interested, an article about the marxism in LV
> (in
> > spanish). Here, in Argentina, Jose Castorina and Ricardo Baquero have
> > worked through this line, in a very interesting work.
> > Juan Duarte (Argentina).
> >
> > 2014-10-20 21:08 GMT-03:00 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>:
> >
> >> Returning to Leontyev's critique of Vygotsky, ANL claimed that
> >> perezhivanie, as a manifestation of the whole personality, cannot be the
> >> determinant of personality, because that would be a logical circle. But
> it
> >> seems to me that ANL failed to understand how Vygotsky’s analysis by
> units
> >> allows him to avoid the reductionism into which ANL then ventures. If a
> >> complex process is to be explained by something _else_, then its
> analysis
> >> is _reduced_  to the analysis of that something else. Analysis by units
> >> allows Vygotsky to avoid reductionism because the analysis begins from a
> >> concept of the whole complex process represented in a unit, not the
> whole,
> >> but a small fragment of the whole, such that the whole can be seen as
> being
> >> made up of very many such fragments only. Absent Vygotsky's method of
> >> analysis by units, and Leontyev's Activity Theory is in danger of
> >> collapsing to a reductionism that actually explains nothing.
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> *Andy Blunden*
> >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
>
>