[Xmca-l] Re: Help With Russian

[David Kellogg]

Many thanks, Nadja and Mike.

Later, Vygotsky categorically rules out the intra-uterine period. Like this:

Эмбриональное развитие ребенка исключено нами из возрастной схемы детского
развития по той простой причине, что оно, во-первых, никак не может
рассматриваться в одном ряду с внеутробным развитием ребенка как социального
существа как один из возрастных периодов в истории развития детской личности
наряду с другими периодами, ибо представляет собой совершенно особый тип
развития, подчиненный совершенно иным закономерностям, чем начинающееся с
момента рождения развитие личности ребенка; во-вторых, потому, что оно
изучается самостоятельной и чрезвычайно развитой наукой эмбриологией,
которая никак не может рассматриваться в качестве одной из глав педологии.
Педология должна учитывать законы и данные эмбрионального развития ребенка,
так как течение этого периода сказывается в ходе послеут- робного развития,
но из этого педология никак не включает в себя эмбриологию точно так же, как
необходимость учета законов и данных генетики, т.е. науки о наследственности,
в педологии не превращает генетику в одну из глав педологии. Педология
изучает не наследственность и не утробное развитие как таковые (это
представляет предмет особых наук), а лишь роль и влияние наследственности и
утробного развития в ходе социального развития ребенка. Поэтому знание
элементов генетики и эмбриологии, так же как и знание элементов общей
биологии, анатомии, физиологии и психологии, является необходимым
предварительным условием для изучения педологии.

 (Embryonal development is from child development excluded by us from the
scheme of ages in child development for the simple principle that it, first
of all, cannot be considered of the same order as the extra-uterine
development of the child as a social being as one of the age periods in the
history of the development of the child’s personality along with the other
periods, because it represents in itself a completely distinct type of
development subject to completely different laws other than those which
begin with the moment of birth and the development of the child’s
personality; secondly because it is studied by itself in the developed
science of embryology, which cannot be regarded as a component chapter in
pedology. Pedology must take into account such laws and data of the
embryonal development of the child during this period as impact
post-uterine development, but pedology does not by this include embryology,
in the same was as the need to incorporate the laws and data of genetics,
i.e. the science of heredity, does not transform genetics into one of the
chapters of pedology. Pedology does not study heredity or uterine
development as such (these are the subject of special sciences) but only
the role and influence of heredity and uterine development in the course of
the social development of the child. Therefore, knowledge of elements of
genetics and embryology, along with knowledge of the elements of general
biology, anatomy, physiology and psychology, are prerequisites for the
study of pedology.)

So it seems that the Soviet editors are right to change "intra-uterine" to
"extra-uterine". Still, they weren't right to do it without a footnote.
Perhaps Vygotsky himself changed it, though; the Collected Works manuscript
is different in many ways (it is much briefer, for one thing), and it's
sometimees hard to believe that it's the same manuscript.

David Kellogg

Hankuk University of Foreign Studies




On Fri, Mar 27, 2015 at 1:16 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:

> Implantation of the zygote has always seemed to be a great example of a
> crisis in
> prenatal development. But if birth is not a crisis for all involved
> post-natally, hard to think of what might be. Blood flow reverses, oxygen
> has to come through breathing, nutrients can't flow withhout someone else's
> (culturally mediated) actions.
>
> Whew. A wonder any of us made it this far.
> mike
>
> On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 8:32 PM, Natalia Gajdamaschko <nataliag@sfu.ca>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi David,
> >  It seems that the para points to more logical usage of "внеутробного
> > развития".
> > I just doubt that Vygotsky was venturing into discussion of intra-uterine
> > development in his theory of development. But I don't know for sure.
> > Cheers,
> > Natalia.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "David Kellogg" <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 26, 2015 7:35:37 PM
> > Subject: [Xmca-l]  Help With Russian
> >
> > In Chapter One of the Problem of Age Periodization, Vygotsky is trying to
> > "finalize" the chain of critical ages, and argues that birth should be
> > included as a "crisis". He and Blonsky apparently agree here. He writes:
> >
> > Катастрофическое, скачкообразное изменение всего хода развития в акте р
> > ождения, когда новорожденный, быстро, критически попадая в совершенно
> новую
> > среду (Блонский), изменяет весь строй и ход своей жизни, определяет
> > начальный период внутриутробного развития как один из самых острых и
> > несомненных критических возрастов.
> >
> > I take this means something like: "Catastrophic, leaping changes (i.e.
> > "breaks" or "ruptures", discontinuous changes--DK) in the whole course of
> > development in the act of birth, when the newborn, rapidly entering
> > critically into a completely new environment (Blonsky), transforms the
> > whole structure and the course of his life and defines the beginning
> period
> > of intra-uterine development as one of the most acute and undoubtedly
> > critical ages.
> >
> >
> >
> > The problem with this translation is that it is utter nonsense, because
> the
> > beginning period of intra-uterine development is not birth but
> conception.
> > The
> > Russian collected works (which simply omits Blonsky's name because he is
> a
> > non-person) just changes внутриутробного развития to внеутробного
> развития
> > without any comment at all. (In all fairness the Soviet editors seem to
> be
> > working with a different manuscript or transcription of this material,
> and
> > the correction might have been Vygotsky's.)
> >
> > Now, my grasp of Russian grammar is pretty tenuous. But it seems to me it
> > MIGHT be possible to interpret this passage as someting like this:
> >
> > "Catastrophic, leaping changes (i.e. "breaks" or "ruptures",
> discontinuous
> > changes--DK) in the whole course of development in the act of birth, when
> > the newborn, rapidly entering critically into a completely new
> environment
> > (Blonsky), transforms the whole structure and the course of his life and
> > defines (i.e. delimits, fixes and puts an end to--DK) the beginning
> period
> > of intra-uterine development, seem (appear to be--DK) one of the most
> acute
> > and undoubtedly critical ages."
> >
> > So--once again a question for the infinite patience of the Russophones of
> > the list--is this a reasonable interpretation, or did Vygotsky make a
> > mistake (saying "внутриутробного развития" when he really meant "
> > внеутробного развития") and did the Soviet editors put him right?
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >  My question, for the Russophones on the
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> "Each new level of development is a new relevant context." C.H. Waddington
>