Dear Anna and others,
Thank you so much for your note. It was appreciated, as are all of the
comments. My interest was/is in finding out the similarities and
dissimilarities of Leontiev and Vygotsky, not in trying to divide the
two. In various books and articles I have come across so many phrases
and statements that are truly confusing. It is clear that there was a
personal and professional break that Leontiev caused with Vygotsky (in
1933, I think). However, the details are not clear. And Vygotsky was
then banned (we hear that it had much to do with pedology), and then his
works were completely banned until 1956. And until the early 1950s
(1953?) Stalin was in power. We know that Luria left psychoanalysis, and
that Leontiev lost some of his positions and moved to Kharkov because of
the political climate. A.N. Leontiev won the Lenin prize in 1963 that
allowed him a great voice. One statement that I will quote is from
Kozulin in H. Daniels, 1996, An Introduction to Vygotsky: "It was not
difficult for Leontiev, under those circumstances [Lenin prize], to gain
the status of official interpretor of Vygotsky, and his interpretation
enjoyed a wider circulation than the original texts" (p. 117). I have
also heard various stories regarding this aspect various authors, even
from Vygotsky's daughter. My interest is simply in finding out what
happened historically and objectively. I am not trying to defend
VYgotsky, nor Leontiev, but am interested in a part of the puzzle that
does not seem to be totally clear and precise. In various books I keep
reading about the differences between A.N. Leontiev and Vygotsky, and I
am interested in that, not to try and separate V and L, but to simply
understand what really happened historically, and how it affected A.N.
Leontiev and his writings, who then affected Activity Theory so much. A.
A. Leontiev has alluded to these differences, and others have as well. I
have received e-mail messages about this problem from one well-known
author, and A. Kozulin talks about this in H. Daniels' book, and I
realize the problems with Kozulin not being a Marxist and other things
for some people on xmca. It states in various books that even without
the official banning of V., Leontiev had challenged many of the core
ideas of Vygotsky. One key statement in that context was on page 108
from Kozulin in Daniels: "For Vygotsky the major problem was not that of
socialization but rather of individualization of the originally
communicative speech-for-others." Even Mike is quoted in that article
mentioning the distance taken from Vygotsky by his students and
followers. I am just interested in better understanding that distance
(objectively), and the core aspects not taken over by A. N. Leontiev,
the political positioning between A.N. Leontiev and S.L Rubenshtein. The
basic problem is stated on page 116, and in many other texts:
"Psychologically, activity has no constituent elements other than
actions. 'If the actions that constitute activity are mentally
subtracted from it, then absolutely nothing will be left of activity'
(Leontiev, 1978, p. 64). And yet activity is not an additive phenomenon:
it is realized in actions, but ts overall social meaning cannot be
derived from the individual actions. At this point, Leontiev's concept
of activity ran into serious theoretical trouble, which did not escape
the attention of his opponents, Sergei Rubinstein and his students."
Vygotsky's overall interest from what I have read was aesthetics first,
and language/semiotics second (using consciousness as an explanatory
principle, and word meaning as a unit of analysis to better understand
human activity). Now, Kozulin states on p. 116 "Rejecting semiotic
mediation and insisting on the dominant role of practical actions, the
Kharkovites obliged themselves to elaborate the connection between the
philosophical categories of production and objectivation and the
psychological category of action." Together, this is simply what I am
trying to better understand. I would assume that discussing internalized
semiotics at that point in time would have been labeled "bourgeois"
within the political limitations. So, did A. N. Leontiev reject some of
Vygotsky's theories because of personal distaste, or because of the
political climate? This is what I am trying to understand. And
everything leads to Luria for me. Luria carried out research on
language, and continued with Vygotsky's thoughts closely in many
respects. That is a different story, but it is the goal that I have in
simply better understanding the connections/disconnections of A.N.
Leontiev and Vygotsky. Like some of you, I really hope the discussion
will also focus on Luria later. That is all. So, the questions I asked
of Anna, I will ask again to anyone:
1) What distinguishes A. N. Leontiev's activity theory beyond actions?
What were the other theories of psychology at that time in Russia
(beyond the Vygotskian paradigm), not including Rubenshtein?
2) What exact tenets from Vygotsky were carried into A.N. Leontiev's A.
T. and which aspects were not continued, and why?
3) How do activity theorists (directly following the line of A.N.
Leontiev) transcend dualisms via the dialectic to arrive at a sense of
wholeness that is more specific than just focusing on concrete
situations, or staying at the level of dialectical movement?
4) This was in reference to Anna: what is "activity as epistemological
principle"?
Thank you, any of you, for help with this aspect. It is not an attempt
to divide Leontiev from Vygotsky, but to understand the history
objectively.
With best wishes,
Dot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:49 PST