Re: different flavors of chat

From: Eugene Matusov (ematusov@udel.edu)
Date: Thu Mar 29 2001 - 17:23:14 PST


Hi everybody--

In response to Mike Diane wrote,
>
> why would history be equated with progress, when there is ample textual
> evidence in history that there is no progress when history is unaccounted
> for? wouldn't a historical analysis provide the necessary critical space
> that is missing from socio-cultural perspectives?

Yes, of course. I agree with you, Diane. I do not want to speak for Mike but
here is my $.20 to the discussion. In Vygotsky's cultural-historical
approach, culture is reduced to history (i.e., culture is a slice of
history). (The right) analysis of history prescribes an action. In this
undestanding of culture, there is no dialogue among culture but only
modernization, enlightment and education of a less advanced (i.e.,
primitive) culture by a more advanced culture.

In a sociocultural approach, history is reduced to a cultural context.
History does not have anymore guiding power, but only explanatory. Dialogue
of cultures (i.e., a sociocultural approach) replaces activism of histotical
progressivism (i.e., Vygotsky's cultural-historical apporach). Or as Lisa
nicely put it,

> I do appreciate the American Vygotskian school's effort in
> identifying relationships among cultures, and that has been the focus
> of my research for the last couple of years. However, there are times
> that I do question myself "what more are we doing than describing a
> cultural phenomenon using academic vocabulary?" If we can't answer
> that, then I think that we will be estranging ourselves even further
> from the non-academic world. Which is ironic, because the nature of
> sociocultural research is to divulge in research of everyday activity
> in the natural setting....

In my view, Diane's reminder of a critical-historical perspective is
important in finding a resolution for this culture-history or
dialogism-activism tension:

> well, in academia, of course, there is good textual evidence to support
> any position or idea, from the most absurd to the most obtuse, - i mean,
> if anything, there is an excess of evidence substantiating particular
> (popular) positions, and a lack of analysis to interrogate 'who benefits'
> from all this evidence.
> perhaps i'm misunderstanding (lordess knows it's happened before eh?)
> but mightn't a critical-historical perspective provide more space for
> innovation, as opposed to retreading the worn trails of unquestioned
> practice?
> diane

Dialogue among all "others" about activism aiming on liberating and
disrupting oppresive conditions, practices, and institutions (and not for
sake of the objectively defined historic progress) can be a new beakon for
us.

What do you think?

Eugene



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Apr 01 2001 - 01:01:23 PST