My dear Friends,
Thank you all for such a stimulating discussion, and Bill I really feel
the same as you do regarding the
baby and the abyss. Yes, hopefully more and more people will feel free
to join this discussion, and I think
that everyone should know that for me it is not easy to write things on
line. We can be criticized tremendously for
entering the discussion, but I hope that more people will join in,
especially those outside of the United States. I only hope that various
people who do not have English as their mother tongue will also know how
difficult it is for me (and surely others) to communicate within this
forum. Having spent so
many years in Europe I don't think like a North American, so I often
experience problems, and am often not understood at all, even within the
English language. So, this feeling of American linguistic dominance,
inter alia,
is one I feel tremendously in terms of the dominant discourse mode that
demands a
conformity I simply cannot give or often understand. Here there seems to
be an overriding wish to have people agree with us, and to have
colleagues who agree with us. There appears to be an incredible wish and
need for such support, and if others don't agree with us, that is often
a horrible experience, instead of realizing that such a dialogue
could be the true "teacher" we need. I would think that we would be
looking for different criteria, but it is simply not the case for the
most part in North America, from my perspective. I also wish that more
Russians living in Russia could participate, and more people from Latin
America and Cuba could participate, and many others. Thanks, Angel, for
initiating a discussion that is very important and one that should be
continued. How can we solve some of the problems?
Okay, I only hope that my thoughts can be understood at all, and please
know they are written by a novice,
but a person vitally interested in the legacy of Vygotsky and also in
putting that legacy into my own practice, which
for me represents a huge and terribly demanding Hispanic project where I
live. I
keep "close" to Vygotsky as a source of strength in many ways, but
especially because of what I call his "constrained representation."
Chomsky, for example, entered the realms of a non-constrained linguistic
philosophy, at least for me. He was obliged to use intuition (as opposed
to
judgment) as a basic parameter. Placing intuition and constraints within
the same construct
demands an initial definition that is not forthcoming by Chomskyans.
Constraints offer
limitations on descriptions of reality, yet the most important aspect to
remember is that
constraints are the building blocks of an individual's reality.
In other words, for me at least, there needs to be an understanding of
"philosophical constraints" that
Vygotsky provides, but I don't always see it in various other fields.
I loved the introduction of the term "gravity" that means much to me. K
N. Hayles (1993 in G. Levin "Realism and Representation") states that
there are many laws of gravity, not only in physics, but in areas as
diverse as Native American philosophy..."objects fall to earth because
the spirit of Mother Earth calls out to kindred spirits in other bodies"
(p. 30). However, "no matter how gravity is conceived, no viable model
could predict that when someone steps off a cliff on earth, she will
remain suspended in midair" (p. 33). We have our beliefs, and then there
is a reality out there, a reality of constraints, and the regulations of
that reality are what I am searching for personally. At the same time,
we can be grateful to Bateson for always reminding us of the specific
view of singular parts of the metaphorical elephant we maintain that
usually
represent
only a small aspect of reality. Some of us see the elephant's trunk,
some the knee,
some see the tail, etc. So, from my small corner of reality, I
will state what I think, knowing it will probably be very criticized,
and realizing that I am perhaps the woman
who now jumps off the cliff.....but, I am not scared of that anymore.
I love the metaphor of "expansion" related to "learning" and the
inclusion of Jungian subconscious elements.
In fact, I am constantly faced with dualisms, as well as a
deeper
meaning of Spinozian
monism; however, the trick is that both form a whole, at least for me;
but a whole that is always changing and is not static. My problem is
that I have only read the introduction and Chpt. 1, and have not gone
further, so please forgive me at this stage. The "whole" that
I am slowly perceiving is gained through much reading of Buddhist
literature and the approach that is taken from that perspective.
Now for me, we cannot have "expansion" while eliminating "learning,"
nor the reverse, just as we cannot have the individual without society,
or the reverse. The trick is perhaps an approximation of balancing both
aspects to reach the unexplainable moment of "transformation." B. Bratus
speaks of something that I feel but have no words to really express, and
that is aiming at the highest level
of life, understanding, love, etc., knowing that we will probably fall
short of the mark, but that we set the bar
as high as possible. So, I place my thoughts related to
Vygotsky within the framework of the highest explanatory principle
possible for me, but that remains within what I understand regarding
traditional German philosophy and psychology (and some Russian
philosophy/psychology, much of which is based on the German part), and
Spinozian philosophy. My understanding does not
remain at the level of "theory" and "category." I truly do not know the
real and "constrained" difference between these two aspects.....does one
form a unit, and one an element? I just don't know! I am
trying very hard to differentiate between "categories"
and "theories" in Yrjo's thinking, but it is difficult for me
personally, without an overall philosophical positioning of his
understanding
of activity theory (apart from the cultural aspect of artifacts). I
don't see an
important division between the "categories" or "theories," nor do I see
the philosophical
demarcation between the two. But, I admit that it is probably my
fault. Once again, the woman at the abyss......My needs demand an
overall
philosophical basis.
The problem of reductionism that Vygotsky spoke about had to do with the
crisis in psychology during the 1920s, by including extreme
introspectionism, and extreme behaviorism, as it manifested in the West.
I think we have read about that issue so I will not stick with it here.
That was my reference to reductionism, and some of the problems that
resulted.
Now comes the controversial part. Since I need to understand the overall
philosophy, not just "theories" and "categories" of learning/or
expansion, the question arises: what is the overall philosophy of
current
international activity theory?, beyond theories/categories? and beyond
the
cultural understanding of mediation and artifacts? For me,
cultural-historical theory is related to
Vygotsky, and the excitement of the 1920s.....it dealt with the
electricity of societal changes that
sparked thoughts in art, film, aesthetics, theater, poetry, dance,
psychology, linguistics, semiotics,
education, etc. It included thoughts from the West and people visited
each other and dialogued
with each other. There was a connection of societal change together with
individual change, and
from my perspective, Vygotsky tried to fuse the two within a Spinoizan
understanding. Later, within the Kharkov School, there was a different
approach within a new area that was
called activity theory.
Vygotskian aspects such as consciousness, German philosophy,
internalization, the
individual as an individual,
had a different meaning, as did the "social." Note: Luria tried to
continue
with the legacy of Vygotsky,
especially in the area of philosophy of language. However, I am not
totally sure what the overall
philosophy of activity theory was orginally, related to Vygotsky (after
his death),
in it's totally honest
and "naked" form. I simply don't see the connections of the Kharkov
School to the
real "intentions" that Vygotsky had, because of many factors, certainly
with exceptions.
And I don't know what current activity theory takes
from
the traditional Russian activity theory and Vygotsky, and what it
deletes. The
Kharkov School was surrounded by the socialist and collective nature and
understanding of
the
individual and the social. I am assuming that there was a focus on
society and the
needs of society, from my readings, etc., as opposed to the needs of
individuals
such as in capitalist societies. However, with the fall of communism,
the overriding structures of Russian activity theory had to fall
apart.....so,
how
does current, international activity theory deal with the fall of these
structures? The individual had a different meaning in Russia during this
period
than it she does in other societies today. I have not seen writings that
explain
these differences within an historical perspective. I often hear that
people in the
West exclude "history" from a Vygotskian approach, but I have truly
found
this to be
the case in describing the transition of the individual and the social
in within
Russian activity theory after 1990, and now within current international
activity
theory. I am assuming that Yjro uses the word activity theory in
opposition
to American/international sociocultural theory, but I don't see the
philosophical
differences between the two areas.I sincerely want to understand these
differences,
and I write in the spirit of discourse of Habermas that views critical
discussion
as being positive. I don't have any anwers and just want to learn and
grow.
Within American/International
sociocultural theory, I am assuming that the individual has been placed
at the center of analysis,
as opposed to overriding societal structures. This is what I meant by
trying to recapture the understanding that Vygotsky was a holistic
thinker, one who did not really
divide the individual from society, or the reverse, as it is understood
today. So, I am wondering
about the overall philosophy
(as opposed to "theories" and "categories") of Yyro's activity theory,
and international
activity theory in general.
Is it based within Vygotskian
cultural-historical theory, Russian activity theory, sociocultural
theory, or a mixture of all three?
Then, my question regarded the focus that Vygotsky gave us in the 1920s.
For me personally,
I gravitate to the original writings of Vygotsky to gain
answers for the societal issues today.
Anyone can feel free to criticize all of these thoughts. I am very tired
at the moment and don't have the time to think things through, and even
if I did have the time, these thoughts are simply in progress. What I
have
experienced with xmca in the past is that people often interpret things
as being written in stone,
instead of viewing them as thoughts that will progress and develop
tomorrow....there seems to be a longing
for a "product" as opposed to "process" and I am not in a position to
offer a product. And to be brutally
honest, I don't see Vygotsky in many of the later works I so often read
in various schools that claims him as its anchor, certainly with
exceptions.
So, I want to make it very clear that I really like what I have read in
the introduction and Chapter 1 (as I
have not read further), and that I agree that we need to think about
"expansion." However, I do not
privilege polarities of one over the other (e.g., learning/expansion),
or that one area can replace the other. But, I totally agree that
knowledge
gained through learning must be mediated into understanding, and love
the
metaphor of expansion for such a process. I really liked the parallels
of
knowledge with a big head, well, I think it was something like that. The
question
with such knowledge is: so what? what good is such knowledge? and is it
really
internalized in the first place?
What is interesting to me is the aspect
of
"transformation" that can happen in a number of ways, perhaps even
through
learning.
It is a balance, a middle way that I am looking for, and perhaps it is
best anchored in the Buddhist teachings
I am trying to understand. My interest is in the magic moment of
transformation, and I sincerely think
that this comes as the rule of the Golden Mean, within some form of
"catharsis" that perhaps includes
many many diverse aspects into a whole that cannot be described in
words.
I often think about the Golden Key schools and the philosophy behind
them, even with the problems I have experienced regarding
differences in how to deal with "conflict" within in the Golden Key
philosophy. I do agree with Lev Kravtsov
that we need to try and see current societal/individual problems through
the eyes of Vygotsky, as opposed to analyzing so many of his theories.
And,
I also feel in my heart that we need to return to a reading of the
original
Vygotsky before expanding out into many areas of research, if we call
ourselves
Vygotskian.
And, I
do agree totally with Elena Kravtsova that we need to put practice into
theory, and not just theorize.The point for me is how to
view the
individual and the social as a whole, and not divided. How do we use
such intellectual
works to really reach all people, in various situations, and create an
atmosphere
that can facilitate an open space that will allow personal/social
transformation?
Perhaps that will be discussed
in the following chapters. Feel free to negate everything said,
disqualify it,
delete it, or argue with it. There is nothing there that might be the
same
tomorrow. I am just trying to understand life around me, nothing else.
I do appreciate all of you, the community that is being formed, and the
book
we are reading.
Best regards to each of you and best wishes for your own thoughts and
development,
Dot
P.S. Sorry if this was not what you wanted, Bill. I just don't have the
words to
express what I feel, and the words are often wrong. But, I wish you the
best
with the projects you are involved with.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:41 PDT