[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Xmca-l] Re: Bibler's concept of "formations of Reasoning"



Thanks, Peter

What year was volume 49 (2) ??

Has the XMCA community discussed Bibler's way of orienting to education and
its purpose as *humanistic*.  Seeing *reason* as developing distinct
formations historically and these various formations continuing to be in
*dialogue* within contemporary ways of understanding.  The current
scientific mode/genre of reasoning as a particular formation expressing
particular assumptions which can be put in dialogue with earlier formations
that CONTINUE to inform contemporary reasoning processes.

I will elaborate by referring to chapter 7 [The Life of Ideas] in Alex
Kozulin's book *Vygotsky's Psychology*. Onn page 254 is an outline of how
Kozulin views Vygotsky's legacy developing in the 1970's & 1980's.
 Kozulin wrote:
"To give some idea of how Vygotsky's theoretical legacy was developed in
the 1970's and 1980's  I will concentrate on three directions. The first
direction  included a constructive critique of Vygotsky's notion of
*scientific* concepts and the development of  a new program for the study
of theoretical concept formation in schoolchildren. The second direction of
research was associated with the fundamental epistemological critique  of
psychology based on the natural-scientific model and the proposals for the
NEW HUMANISTIC PSYCHOLOGY and psychotherapy.  The third direction explored
the philosophical importance of Vygotsky's work together with the work of
Bahktin.. The problem of the dialogical nature of human consciousness came
to the forefront and proposals were made for a new logic based on a
dialogue between different *cultures of thinking*"
Kozulin in chapter 7 then expands his understanding of each of these three
directions.
The second direction [a new humanistic psychology] references Vasilyk's
book *The Psychology of Experiencing* as an example of this new direction.
Vasilyk contrasts *defense mechanisms* with the notion of *overcoming* by
*living through* crisis. The individual *lives through* a crisis ONLY by
plugging into the *sociocultural schemas* that are supra-individual. At the
same time *plugging into* the sociocultural schemas does NOT lift the
requirement of *authoring* [overcoming] but rather emphasizes *authoring*.
Overcoming/authoring is impossible without sociocultural schemas but can be
accomplished only in a highly individual way. In Vasilyk's book the idea of
*psychological tools* was EXTENDED to include the sociocultural schemas of
religious character AND the critical issue of the issue of MEDIATION
THROUGH THE  SIGNIFICANT OTHER is explored. Kozulin suggests Vasilyk is an
example of this second new direction Vygotsky's legacy extended within
humanistic psychology.

The third direction opened up by Vygotsky's legacy in the 1970's and 1980's
is the theme of *dialogical* human nature.
Vladimir Bibler is exploring one particular type or genre within dialogical
notions of human nature. [the dialogue between different SYSTEMS OF LOGIC].
Bibler suggests the represented object is different in different *systems
of thought*.   Kozulin writes:
"The dialogue of these systems would REVEAL the object as *encircled* by
different forms of cognitive representation, no one of which is either
final or *encompassing*. Such a dialogue, however, is impossible as long as
the scientific inquiry is taken as the prototype of THE logic of human
thought. Scientific epistemology, as it was formulated in the seventeenth
through the nineteenth centuries PRESUPPOSES a continuous progression of
thought and the SUBLATION of the achievements of the past into new, HIGHER
forms of theorizing. Such a prototype would not allow for a truly
dialogical relationship between DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, because one of them
should necessarily appear as a special case of the MORE DEVELOPED one."
[page 270]

Kozulin goes on in referring to Vladimir Bibler's project to say:

" While Vygotsk's study of inner speech suggested to Bibler the
psychological model of the process of thought formation, Bahktin'a analysis
of the novel armed him with the philosophy of culture BASED on the idea of
dialogue.... What is meant by Bahktin is NOT an explicit, overt dialogue in
which two voices are engaged, but an INNER dialogic quality of a text,
EVERY ELEMENT of which is incorporating the overtones of other texts. This
sometimes hidden dialogic NATURE OF A TEXT is a REFLECTION of the
essentially dialogical nature of human consciousness. At this moment it
seems relevant to recall Vygotsky's distinction between consciousness and
intellect. Intellect, and its OBJECTIVIZED FORM, scientific reasoning, are
MONOLOGOUS and object-oriented, while consciousness, which is ORGANIZED by
the system of *senses* is NECESSARILY dialogical.  That is why language,
according to Vygotsky, is a microcosm of the human consciousness rather
than that of the intellect." [page 271]

Peter, I have ventriloquated Kozulin's voice [and also other voices from
Kozulin's *readings*.
The concept *sociocultural schemas* was used by Kozulin to explore DISTINCT
formations of reason within particular epochs. His central point is that
these formations are NOT sublated but continue to *plug in* to contempory
formations of reason* [as dialogically emergent]
Vladimir Bibler has attempted within the *School of Cultural Dialogues* to
help students learn to think and converse in each of these DISTINCT forms
of reason. He assumes that by learning to *plug in* each type [genre] a
student can also learn to see the dialogical nature of our current way of
scientific reasoning as one particular type and not a universal capacity.

Then a student can learn to be more playful and flexible with the multiple
types of reasoning that continue to develop in our ongoing interplay.

I'm curious if the 3 directions Kozulin was *reading* into Vygotsky's
legacy in the 1970's and 1980's are continuing to inform Vygotsky's legacy
or is Kozulin's *reading* a minor stream of Vygotsky in-search and
re-search?

Peter, thanks for the lead to the JREEP article's on Bibler.

So many varied *readings* Of Vygotsky to try to understand and interpret

Larry



Kozulin's book on Vygotsky has


On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:09 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

> Eugene Matusov edited an issue of JREEP dedicated to the School of the
> Dialogue of Cultures. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,
> 49(2),
> http://www.mesharpe.com/mall/results1.asp?ACR=rpo
>
> Peter Smagorinsky
> Distinguished Research Professor of English Education
> Department of Language and Literacy Education
> The University of Georgia
> 315 Aderhold Hall
> Athens, GA 30602
>
> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education
>
> Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:
> xmca-l-bounces+smago=uga.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2014 10:56 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Bibler's concept of "formations of Reasoning"
>
> Valdimir Bibler was recently mentioned on this site. He has participated
> in creating the "School of the Dialogue of Cultures" which uses as its
> central construct "formations or systems of reasoning".
> Kozulin refers to this construct as "sociocultural schemas"
> Binswanger refers to "world designs"
> Gadamer refers to "horizons of understanding"
>
> This construct does not see knowledge as *sublated* but each new
> *formation* enters into dialogue with previous formations of consciousness
> AND knowledge is the process OF REVEALING the dialogical nature of this
> EMERGING encounter between formations of *reasoning* Bibler has developed a
> school system where students engage in USING these various formations of
> histrorically developed *reasons* as world-designs.
>
> I'm fascinated with the family resemblance with Gadmer and Binswanger's
> ideas as sharing common intersections.
> Larry
>
>