[Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL

Tue Oct 21 15:23:24 PDT 2014

All,
Like Annalisa, I consider myself a neophyte regarding Vygotsky and Marx, and only slightly more informed about Vygotsky "pure and simple". Ha! I found the following article through LCHC website a little while ago (thanks to Mike's encouragement to use the google tool on the website). A fairly short read, it confirmed things that I had suspected about Vygotsky in a Stalinist environment, though very little about Marx, especially dialectical materialism. Those in the XMCA chat that are steeped in the dialectic will probably find the article falls short, but does it look like a fair and accurate account of the context of Vygotsky's work and collaborations? 
Henry

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: LSV-bio.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 1890438 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20141021/126cb2c6/attachment-0001.pdf 
-------------- next part --------------

On Oct 21, 2014, at 4:01 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ah, quite true.
> 
> http://lmgtfy.com/?q=site:lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/mail+Marx+and+Vygotsky
> 
> I am showing you this way so that you see how to write "site:" in the
> search, which you can then apply to many sites.  If I sent you the google
> link it wouldn't be so clear.
> 
> Best,
> Huw
> 
> On 21 October 2014 21:59, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>> on behalf of Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 12:43 PM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
>> 
>> This is one way to search, Annalisa: http://bit.ly/1pxNClw
>> 
>> Best,
>> Huw
>> 
>> Hi Huw,
>> 
>> What is the link? I see it is a bit.ly link but that doesn't tell me
>> anything, and I like to know somewhat where I'm going before I click. :)
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> 
>> Annalisa
>> 
>> 
>>> 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/
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 