That's very interesting, Anton. It is far from surprising, I guess,
that he and his colleagues discussed this question. I gather that the
discussion you are talking about is in 1930-31, so later than the notes
in "Crisis". The question would not go away! |
Along the lines of what David said, I remember a very passionate discussion in 2000 among those who participated in what was called S11 (a big demonstration against the World Economic Forum in Melbourne) which had created a new "convergence" bringing together people from the "old" workers' movement and the "new" social movements, etc. The discussion concerned the name that the movement was going to give itself. A fellow made the point that giving ourselves a name was premature and would act as a barrier to self-clarification, as we did not yet know who we were. He carried the day easily as there was no answer to this.
So what I see is on the one hand a desire to make a concept of the scientific movement's own identity, including one which refused to set any boundaries on its identity (by means of naming), and the understanding that it was premature. Anyway, who can tell? But I do get sick of the undercover wars which go on under the banner of names of theories and that which takes place under the banner of the real history of Vygotsky.
Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
__________________________________________ _____ xmca mailing list email@example.com http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca