[Xmca-l] Re: Perezhivanie of perezhivanie

[James Ma]

Hello Martin, would it be possible to have a copy of your article "Is
Vygotsky relevant?"? Many thanks.
James

On 19 December 2017 at 21:17, Martin John Packer <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co>
wrote:

> Well, it would be better that they obtain larger stockings!  :)
>
> M
>
> > On Dec 19, 2017, at 4:09 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Those who find that Martin's book won't quite fit in their stockings
> should
> > look at Martin's 2008 article "Is Vygotsky relevant?"
> >
> > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749030701798607
> >
> > Scrooges can get a free pre-draft by googling "Is Vygotsky Relevant". For
> > some reason the LCHC link doesn't work any more, and the paper doesn't
> > appear to be on Martin's website any more either.
> >
> >
> > David Kellogg
> >
> > Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
> > Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
> > Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'
> >
> > Free e-print available (for a short time only) at
> >
> > http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 20, 2017 at 4:58 AM, Martin John Packer <
> mpacker@uniandes.edu.co
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> On Dec 18, 2017, at 7:43 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com
> <mailto:d
> >> kellogg60@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >>
> >> For example, when Wolff-Michael says that Vygotsky rejected
> >> both "scientific" and "interpretive" psychology, he doesn't mention the
> >> context, which is "History of the Crisis in Psychology". Vygotsky's
> talking
> >> about reflexology on the one hand and Dilthey's "interpretive"
> psychology
> >> on the other. It's not about "quantitative" and "qualitative" research
> at
> >> all.
> >>
> >> If this is what Michael was referring to, then yes Vygotsky does reject
> >> Dilthey’s approach to social science, and he rejects Dilthey’s division
> of
> >> the natural sciences and the human sciences — sciences of spirit — as
> yet
> >> another version of dualism. It’s not quite true that this has nothing
> to do
> >> with contemporary conceptions of ‘quantitative’ and ‘qualitative’
> research,
> >> in so far as people on both sides of this divide today continue to
> accept
> >> Dilthey’s proposal that the natural sciences can provide ‘explanation’
> >> whereas the human sciences, using interpretive investigation, can
> provide
> >> only ‘description.’ I reject this proposal.
> >>
> >> There are other problems with Dilthey’s version of interpretive
> inquiry. I
> >> write in SQR that on the one hand "hermeneutics, for Dilthey, is the
> theory
> >> of how life discloses and expresses itself in cultural works....
> >> Interpretation aims to go beyond subjectivity to the
> 'thought-constituting
> >> work' of life itself. For Dilthey, understanding is not a purely
> cognitive
> >> matter, but life grasping life in and through a full and rich contact
> that
> >> escapes rational theorizing.”
> >>
> >> This remains a powerful idea. However, on the other hand:
> >>
> >> “[Dilthey] recognized that the objects of inquiry in the human sciences
> >> are historical phenomena, but he could not fully accept the
> implications of
> >> his own belief that the inquirer, the interpreter, is also always
> >> historically situated. It is ironic that someone who emphasized the
> >> historical character of our experience wanted to provide interpretations
> >> that would transcend history.... If we are thoroughly involved in
> history
> >> it is difficult to see how we can achieve an objective viewpoint on
> human
> >> phenomena, yet this was the goal that Dilthey struggled all his life to
> >> achieve. He had accepted the dominant ideology of science as an activity
> >> that provides objective knowledge, but he could not identify a solid
> >> foundation for objective knowledge in the human sciences, whose
> legitimacy
> >> he sought to define.”
> >>
> >> Martin
> >>
> >>
>
>
>

<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
Virus-free.
www.avast.com
<https://www.avast.com/sig-email?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=webmail>
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>