"The text" -- which one?
If this is "The problem of consciousness", then its first appearance is in
a volume "Psikhologiia grammatiki"
(The psychology of grammar). Moscow: Izdatel'stvo MGU, 1968 (edited by
A.A. Leontiev and T.V. Riabova).
The second edition in the notiorous and shameful Collected Works of
Vygotskii in 6 volumes,
the one later translated into English (6 vols.) and Spanish (5 vols.).
If you are asking about some other text, Joao, please, clarify which one
of those mentioned along the thread.
From: Joao Martins <email@example.com>
To: 'Anton Yasnitsky' <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "'eXtended Mind, Culture,
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 9:14:20 PM
Subject: RES: [xmca] Vygotskii-Lewin as gestaltists and the critics of
gestaltism in '30s
Where the text was published?
De: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] Em
de Anton Yasnitsky
Enviada em: quarta-feira, 24 de abril de 2013 21:23
Para: Martin Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Assunto: [xmca] Vygotskii-Lewin as gestaltists and the critics of
Oh, this one is pretty easy. Two points:
Point 1. The source is fairly idiosyncratic and should be almost totally
distrusted. Firstly, Vygotsky never wrote this text:
Leontiev (A.N.) and Zaporozhets did. This text was generated on the basis
the notes the two guys were taking
during Vygotskii's several hours long presentation, and only God knows what
exactly the whole talk was about.
Naturally, the title was invented by the publishers of these notes
--Leontiev A.A. and Ryabova (Akhutina)--who
released it for the first time in 1968. Then, the textological hybrid was
republished in the Collected Works, with grave mistakes in chronology, but,
quite possibly, there are also other involuntary mistakes and deliberate
censorship in the style of Yaroshevskii's usual brutal editing of
Luckily, some notes that Vygotskii prepared BEFORE the talk have preserved
hurray, hurray!--were published fairly recently by Zavershneva.
I guess, furthermore, we also published the stuff in English some time ago.
Quite a bonus, I would say.
So, it might be pretty interesting to compare the two sources, whatever
brief and fragmentary both are.
Anyway, all this needs to be kept in mind as long as this publication is
Point 2. To the matter: "cultural-historical gestalt psychology" as a
synthesis of Soviet Luria-Vygotskian and, on the other hand,
gestalt psychology. Regardless of what Vygotskii--or, rather Leontiev,
Zaporozhets and Yaroshevskii--say in this paper "The problem of
consciousness", there is overwhelming evidence of most intensive
and productive contacts between the two groups of scholars and, if not
mutual convergence, then most enthusiastic attempts to integrate
German-American gestaltist scholarship in the Soviet Union. I could
try to relate this story here, but for the time being would refer to the
work that has already been done.
It took me several [already published] papers to provide arguments in
support of this claim.
Some of these are in Russian, but the just of one of these is available in
English (and some other languages), too.
All these are available here, right after Keiler's seminal work that shows
that Vygotsky never spoke of "cultural-historical psychology" or, for that
matter, "higher psychic functions" (vysshie psikhicheskie funktsii):
FYI, Russian paper provides numerous footnotes not in Russian that might
give some idea of the contents of the paper.
Also, there are a couple of nice original documents published as
Illustrations within this Russian paper.
Still, the paper does not deal directly with the issue of theoretical
synthesis. Well, in fact, such paper is not written yet.
In a couple of words, though, the idea is as follows, I guess: profoundly
influenced by gestaltist holism from late 1929
onwards, Vygotskii, however, moves closer to Kurt Lewin, who, in turn,
started expressing his criticism of gestaltist
preoccupation with holism in favour of more balanced view that would take
into consideration the wholeness and,
on the other hand, the life of organs and the processes in the sub-parts of
the whole, including the processes of
separation and fragmentation. This development looked too revisionist for
the hardcore gestaltist, and fairly renegade.
It is pretty much in this sense Vygotskii was--along with Lewin--a most
devoted gestaltist and, at the same time,
its staunch critic. This is how I would interpret Lewin's and Vygotskii's
both holism-gestaltism and its critic to the extent
of the danger of excommunication from the ranks of faithful gestaltists.
This is true of the decade of 1930s, but not earlier.
From: Martin Packer <email@example.com>
To: Anton Yasnitsky <firstname.lastname@example.org>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 6:20:34 PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] "semiotic/semantic [semicheskyj] analysis" (timeo
Vygotskii et dona ferentem)
In "The problem of consciousness" (Collected Works, vol. 3), LSV writes
gestalt psychology makes the mistake of assuming that the psychological
functions form a specific kind of unified structure. He says that he wants
to treat this assumption as the problem: to explore the connections among
the psychological functions, and how these connections change dynamically.
Certainly one can read this as an influence of gestalt psychology on his
work. But it doesn't seem much of a movement towards a synthesis, or to
encourage such a synthesis. What's your take on this?
On Apr 23, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Anton Yasnitsky <email@example.com> wrote:
As I mentioned this on several occasions, a synthesis of Vygotskian ideas
with the solid system of gestaltist thought--
the "cultural-historical gestalt psychology", if I may--looks like a very
interesting and most promising option
for the development of Vygotskiana in psychology today.
xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list