RE: Cultural biases in understanding Vygotsky

From: Eugene Matusov (ematusov@UDel.Edu)
Date: Fri Dec 19 2003 - 13:41:50 PST


Dear Phil-

It will be nice to have a book on Vygotsky written by international
Vygotskian scholar from Russia, US, Estonia, Finland, South Africa, Brazil,
Australia, Japan, Israel, and so on discussing how they understand Vygotsky
(differences and similarities) and what new horizons they see... This will
be a nice contribution to cross-cultural historical Vygotskiology :-)

Have a nice trip to Australia,

Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Phil Chappell [mailto:phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th]
> Sent: Friday, December 19, 2003 6:08 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Cultural biases in understanding Vygotsky
>
> Thanks for the link to your paper, Eugene, and for your
> thought-provoking reply. As I said in my post, I kind of skimmed
> Vladimir's paper and then sat back and got thinking. Earlier this week
> I presented at a conference on English as another language development,
> mainly from a genre/Bakhtinian/Hallidayan perspective, but I brushed
> the zpd and "scaffolding". At the end of the presentation I fielded all
> kinds of questions from teachers (mainly from SE Asian teaching
> contexts) who wanted more on the zpd as a means for assessment (and
> testing). I'm not about to make general statements about SE Asian
> lenses, but this will be a particularly interesting time for us as
> Vygotsky's work becomes better known in newer areas, at more
> operational levels...cross-cultural and cross-historical Vygotskiology
> is a rather nice term for that! As well as the volume I mentioned
> containing works by more Russian scholars, I was delighted to see a
> paper on second language development by one of the key (for me)
> proponents of moving on from the acquisition metaphor to a
> transformation-in-participation metaphor (Jim Lantolf).
>
> Your paper will be read on a plane trip to Sydney in a couple of days,
> meanwhile, I hope we can hear from others.....
>
> Phil
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 19, 2003, at 4:40 AM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
>
> > Thanks A LOT, Phil, for the useful review of the book! It is now on my
> > reading list..
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with Vladimir Ageyev's claim that some US translations of
> > Vygotsky de-emphasized his poetic and metaphorical style that deeply
> > embedded in his paradigm and research program (e.g., what Vygotsky
> > considered as a psychological phenomenon and evidence and what
> > mainstream American psychology considers as a psychological phenomenon
> > and evidence). I think Mike wrote about that several months ago about
> > his own difficulties to introduce poetry in his academic writing and
> > research. I'm glad that Vladimir brought that to public debate (I'm
> > unaware about any other publication discussing this issue - but I can
> > be wrong). In general I think psychology should learn from
> > anthropology how to become sensitive to own scientific writing and
> > narratives. I think that this is especially true for psychologists
> > with sociocultural (or whatever you call it) orientation like ours
> > (xmca-ish). It is time to develop cross-cultural "psycholo-logy?" (a
> > science comparing how psychology practice is defined and viewed in
> > different cultures) and specifically "cross-cultural and
> > cross-historical Vygotskiology" (a field of cross cultural
> > psycholology comparing how Vygotsky's writings treated in different
> > national psychology sciences and across time).
> >
> >
> >
> > Phil wrote,
> >
> > > Several students I have worked with recently, in the context of
> >
> > > learning theory for developing abilities in using another language,
> >
> > > have posed questions such as "How do we know when a learner is in the
> >
> > > zpd?", How can we measure progress through the zpd?" and "When
> > learners
> >
> > > are interacting, whose zpd is it?". Similar questions from US
> > students
> >
> > > are outlined by Ageyev. I have always had difficulties myself in
> >
> > > answering these questions, and have replied with vacuous statements
> >
> > > such as, "Think of the zpd metaphorically", etc. Ageyev provides some
> >
> > > good fodder to think over, notably for me...
> >
> >
> >
> > Although I did not read Vladimir's chapter and judge only from Phil's
> > summary, I disagree a bit with portraying an inquiry of "measuring
> > ZPD" as a specifically American inquiry (here I'm going again -
> > judging a text without reading it! :-). In my view, Vygotsky himself
> > really believed that ZPD can be operationalized and become a
> > psychological measurement like IQ tests. It is true that he had
> > several different definitions of ZPD (at least two) probably referring
> > to different psychological phenomena: 1) ZPD as a distance between
> > child's solo and joint performance and 2) ZPD as a leading activity
> > where child demonstrates most advanced psychological functions. But I
> > do not have doubts that Vygotsky badly wanted to operationalize the
> > ZPD to measure proximal development. I privately discussed this issue
> > with Jaan Valsiner (who is very knowledgeable about the historical
> > context of Vygotsky's writings) and he seemed to think similarly. In
> > my view, we are moving he notion of ZPD to more exciting directions
> > that Vygotsky himself did not envision (e.g., ZPD in areas of
> > diversity and multiculturalism).
> >
> >
> >
> > Now, I wrote "I disagree *a bit*" because, in my view, it is true that
> > there is not any other country where desire to develop a ZPD test has
> > not been taken so seriously and with such a zest as in US. According
> > to Jaan, the first American attempts to design "ZPD test" were
> > undertaken in the end of 30s. The attempts failed because of lack of
> > reliability (surprise-surprise!).
> >
> >
> >
> > It is funny (but not for everybody) that a few days ago, graduates
> > students at my school told me that my colleague assigned my article on
> > Vygotsky where I discuss the issue of "ZPD test" and asked the
> > students to operationalize the notion of ZPD (that was a question of
> > the final exam)! He seems to argue that if a notion can't be reliably
> > operationalize, it does not exist (or not scientific).
> >
> >
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> >
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> >
> >
> > PS The article I referred to is
> >
> > Matusov, E. (2001).Vygotskij's theory of human development and new
> > approaches to education. In N. J. Smelser and P. B. Baltes
> > (Eds),International Encyclopedia of the Social and Behavioral
> > Sciences. Elsevier Science Ltd, Oxford.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > > From: Phil Chappell [mailto:phil_chappell@access.inet.co.th]
> >
> > > Sent: Thursday, December 18, 2003 7:04 AM
> >
> > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >
> > > Subject: Cultural biases in understanding Vygotsky
> >
> > >
> >
> > > I just received a copy of "Vygotsky's Educational Theory in Cultural
> >
> > > Context" (Ed's Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev and Miller) Cambridge 2003,
> > and
> >
> > > while flicking through the volume, I was drawn to the final chapter
> > by
> >
> > > Vladimir Ageyev, entitled, "Vygotsky in the Mirror of Cultural
> >
> > > Interpretations". Ageyev has taught courses on LSV's work both in
> >
> > > Russia and the US, and his aim in the chapter is to outline some of
> > the
> >
> > > cultural biases that he has noticed in the US context of students'
> >
> > > understandings of Vygotsky's ideas. Ageyev begins by claiming that
> >
> > > LSV's ideas underwent a strong Americanisation through filtering out
> >
> > > most "poetic, philosophical and historical images", especially from
> > the
> >
> > > first edition of "Thought and Language" (1962)....I do recall this
> > was
> >
> > > a point of discussion during the xmca on-line course earlier this
> > year.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Several students I have worked with recently, in the context of
> >
> > > learning theory for developing abilities in using another language,
> >
> > > have posed questions such as "How do we know when a learner is in the
> >
> > > zpd?", How can we measure progress through the zpd?" and "When
> > learners
> >
> > > are interacting, whose zpd is it?". Similar questions from US
> > students
> >
> > > are outlined by Ageyev. I have always had difficulties myself in
> >
> > > answering these questions, and have replied with vacuous statements
> >
> > > such as, "Think of the zpd metaphorically", etc. Ageyev provides some
> >
> > > good fodder to think over, notably for me...
> >
> > >
> >
> > > 1. Doing some critical self-reflection on how I myself interpret
> > LSV's
> >
> > > work, as he claims that 100 years of positivism and behavioursim
> > can't
> >
> > > be shrugged off too readily, especially considering my own
> >
> > > socio-historical background as a privileged middle class, white male
> >
> > > from Australia (although Ageyev is referring to US contexts)
> >
> > > 2. Revisiting the relationship between LSV's work and Marxism. LSV's
> >
> > > work is usually held by new students in a positive light, and Marx is
> >
> > > usually associated with "negatives", such as communism. Some of the
> >
> > > more powerful metaphors that Marx created and which were appropriated
> >
> > > by LSV (e.g. tools) could do with a critical historical overview.
> >
> > > 3. Gain a better understanding of the context within which LSV was
> >
> > > working, and which was shaping his ideas and "experiments". As Ageyev
> >
> > > notes, we need to move beyond good linguistic translations of LSV's
> >
> > > works (he seems to assume that we have these available - I can't
> > make a
> >
> > > comment there) to better cultural interpretations of his ideas. This
> >
> > > final point rings loudly to me, as the zpd becomes a popularised
> >
> > > metaphor for successful transmission or acquisition of knowledge and
> >
> > > skills. I can't help thinking of homogenised fat-free milk!!!
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Just some thoughts on a chapter that I skimmed.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > Phil



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:09 PST