Dear Anna,
Your comments are most informative, as always. They confirm my opinion
that V-L-L were definitely Marxists who conceived CHAT as an approach that
was based in Marxist thinking and was designed to promote a socialist
society. I have always tried to emphasize this point to Western followers of
Vyg. who somehow manage to ignore or deny his Marxism. However, I do believe
that despite their sound beginnings and intentions, V-L-L fell short of
truly developing Marxism in their CHAT. I ventured to think that perhaps
this failure was due to the political climate. Perhaps there are other
reasons. Anyway, it's great that you clarified the intentions of CHAT
because it indicates what needs to be developed.
Regards, Carl
-- Carl Ratner, Ph.D. cr2@humboldt1.com http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2P.O.B. 1294 Trinidad, CA 95570 USA
> From: "Stetsenko, Anna" <AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu> > Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 15:52:24 -0500 > To: "'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> > Subject: CHAT as collaborative enterprise > Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Resent-Date: Mon, 13 Nov 2000 12:55:31 -0800 (PST) > > Dear all, just in case you also feel some of the themes need to be > continued... and coming back to the historical context. I do not have a > smoking gun that would put things upside down. However, I do believe that > some misperceptions of Vygotsky and Leont'ev and others from this school of > thought have to be addressed. The reasons for these misperceptions, in my > view, cannot be attributed to anybody's deliberate attempts at distorting > things. Rather, they are largely caused by objective difficulties of > reconstructing the extremely complex dynamics of how this school emerged and > developed in the extremely complex socio-cultural-political context that > involved at least three revolutions, two world wars and one cold war (and > several completely different epoques). Most importantly, this very context > is still now in the midst of a profound transformation for which no history > has yet been written - as reflected, among other things, in difficulties of > even naming things that occurred in the last 10-15 years in the 'former > Soviet Union' (to use one of the many bad expressions... because there > cannot be a 'former' SU). The transformations that are occurring in Russia > (and the whole world) right now are certainly not neutral to how we are able > to reconstruct the context of Vygotsky's school, because they change the > very standpoint from which we attempt to evaluate the events of the past and > to infer their meanings for the future. Oddly enough, the current confusion > with elections in this country also plays into the same context... > > > Some of these misperceptions have been already addressed in the course of > the present discussion in a wonderful collective effort that gave rise to > many exciting new points of view which, ultimately, I believe, will help > achieve a much more contextualized and deeper understanding of not only > Leont'ev but the whole CHAT perspective. This is a task of enormous > difficulty and I can only hope of adding a small modest piece to the whole > puzzle. > > Because I cannot and do not want to be too detailed, I 'll just try to > formulate what appears to me to be the major issue here. Vygotsky's theory, > for the most part, has been taken in isolation from the development and > dynamics of the whole CHAT perspective (great credit has to be given to > whoever was the first to come up with this extremely pointed abbreviation, > was it you, Mike?). This is an unfortunate perspective, because V's work > and research have been right from the start very much a COLLECTIVE, > COLLABORATIVE ENTERPRISE that included efforts by a whole group of people > (Luria, Leont'ev, Morozova, Elkonin, Zaporozhets, Galperin, Slavina, > Bozhovich, Zinchenko, Levina). This group of people (all of whom assigned > the leading role of a Teacher to Vygotsky) constituted a unique example (to > my knowledge) of what indeed can be called a 'school of thought' that shared > common goals, assumptions and commitments and, generally, pursued an > outstanding common agenda - that of developing foundations for a new > psychology as an objective science. > > In this sense, the works of Vygotsky and his followers embody the very > spirit of their approach that puts such a great emphasis on exactly the > collective and collaborative nature of any activity. > > > The collaborative spirit of V-L-L school is evident from many different > features of how it started and evolved. Many initial ideas were developed in > collective discussions between the members of the group and research was > carried out to substantiate these collective claims, as in Leont'ev's > research on memory, Luria's expedition to Central Asia and so forth. More > importantly, Vygotsky's insights have been developed after his death by > members of his collective to produce more elaborated accounts of many > psychological issues (e.g., the relationship between lower and higher > psychological processes, the role of activity in the development of mind > etc.). It has been a gross distortion in the literature to ignore the > development of cultural-historical ideas after V's death by his followers > not only because they elaborated these ideas but also because they helped - > in various forms - to propagate these ideas and, specifically the V's > contribution, to several generations of psychologists in Russia and, > ultimately, across the world. I don't think V's works would have ever made > it to the fore of Western psychology if not Mike's and others' efforts in > the US that were, in their turn, mediated by Luria's and others' efforts in > Russia to reinstate their significance. > > This collaborative nature of CHAT sheds light, I believe, on several > peculiarities of this school that are otherwise difficult to grasp and > explain. For example, it explains why so few works have been written in the > Soviet Union on Vygotsky's TEXTS per se after his death by his followers: > precisely because they did not take these texts as remnants of the past that > needed to be interpreted, but rather as the working tools for developing the > same research agenda further. Hence, often so little care has been taken of > making 'proper' (proper only from a perspective of a different, more > historical, genre) references to Vygotsky, and so much confusion has arisen > even in terms of authorship of some texts (e.g., was it V and Luria who > wrote the "Tool and Sign"? or just V?). The letters that the members of this > group wrote to each other is a great testament to the unique atmosphere in > which they worked and lived and to the fact that they were clearly aware of > the collaborative nature of their efforts. Just one illustration: Luria's > daughter quotes from V's letter to Luria, on the occasion of Luria's > reporting on his expedition to Fergana, in Asia (my sloppy translation): " > Dear A.R., I am writing literally in such an excitement that is rare to be > experienced in one's life. I cannot remember of a day with more joy and > light. This is literally a key to so many problems in psychology... That > this study is of primary significance is out of any doubt, and OUR NEW PATH > IS NOW ASSERTED (BY YOU) not merely theoretically, but also practically and > experimentally" (dated July 11, 1931; see E. Luria, My father A. R. Luria, > 1994, Moscow: Gnosis, p. 65; emphasis added by AS). > > In addition, what united V-L-L and the others from the same school, I > believe, was the common horizon that they all had (and Paul H. Dillon stated > this in a very concise and adequate form). We cannot read their minds but we > can read their memoirs and autobiographies, memoirs of their children and > colleagues as well as archival materials, correspondence etc. (more and more > of this is being published as we speak, in Russia, thanks to efforts of > several YOUNG psychologists - Sokolova, Umrikhin, D. Leontjev and others who > do not seem to think, by the way, that the CHAT representatives somehow had > discredited themselves). > >> From all we know, I do not think that anyone of the V-L-L immediate school > could be described as a dissident... They were obviously quite engaged in > political life, and held positions of high societal responsibility and > esteem, both L's were members of the CP (I believe). It is clear that they > - as almost the majority of intelligencia of that times - were opposed to > Stalin's repressions. But do not forget that these purges and repressions > were condemned in a very clear way by Khrushev in early 1960ies, that Gulag > was abolished, that millions of prisoners were set free or rehabilitated > posthumously at exactly the same time. When I wrote that they perceived the > society they lived in as classless etc., I referred to 1960 and 1980-ies, > not to the times when V lived. I would not be surprised at all that V, L and > L had many critical views about the Soviet regime on the whole too, but this > would not change the argument that they did have a certain very specific > horizon that guided a lot of their research...To judge their position of not > being directly in opposition to the Soviet regime - this is exactly a kind > of question that depends on where one stands in the here-and-now context. I > can only say for myself that my own standpoint has undergone such rapid > changes in the last 10 years (and continues to do so) that I would hesitate > to make judgments at this point in time. > > I believe that the collaborative nature of V-L-L school of thought defies > many traditional ways of how to look at and how to reconstruct their > 'texts'; a different, new methodology should be applied in this case. > > Anna Stetsenko > PS. Carl, does this answer any of your comments at all? > > -----Original Message----- > From: Nate Schmolze [mailto:schmolze1@home.com] > Sent: Thursday, November 09, 2000 7:41 PM > To: Xmca > Subject: XCMA: Call for Papers > > > Hi all, > > I have two (I think) potential papers from members offered for discussion, > so thought it would be a good time for a general call. > > Like what we did last year this would be papers from XCMA members which > relate to the themes of mind, culture, and activity. > > Depending how it all goes I imagine we could possibly begin a collective > reading in December. This should give enough time to finish up Leont'ev. > > Nate > > > who-is-at @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > > Nate Schmolze > http://members.home.net/schmolze1/ > schmolze1@home.com > > who-is-at @@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:01:04 PST