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

[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL

Thanks for the clarification, Huw.

I am pointing out that in his texts LSV writes of consciousness prior to language (that is, in the preverbal infant), and of changes in consciousness when the child starts to speak. Presumably he would not have written such things if he believed that language is a necessary condition (ontogenetically) for consciousness. If ANL attributed such a view to LSV, he was incorrect, it seems to me.

On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> The ANL's translation was:
> "The child, therefore, appears before us primarily as a subject of the
> mate- rial process of life. In the process of his development, he
> encounters ready- made, historically established conditions that determine
> his existence as a social being. Among these conditions, he encounters the
> fact of language, which is the medium of the “spiritual relations”
> established with it and con- stitutes an essential condition for the
> development of his social and intellec- tual consciousness. Thus,
> Vygotsky’s proposition that consciousness is a product of the child’s
> verbal communication under conditions of his activity and in relation to
> the material reality that surrounds him must be turned around: the
> consciousness of a child is a product of his human activity in relation to
> objective reality, taking place *under conditions of language* and under
> conditions of verbal communication."
> You (Martin) wrote:
>> I see a difference, Huw. I just don't see the difference that the
>> difference makes.  And ANL cannot be correct: for one thing, in various
>> texts LSV writes about the character of consciousness in preverbal
>> children, and of how consciousness  is transformed by the acquisition of
>> language. This would hardly be possible if language were a necessary
>> condition for consciousness.
> So you're saying: That transformation of consciousness would not be
> possible if language were a necessary condition for consciousness.
> ANL is asserting that LSV is not being coherent in this paper with respect
> to materialist formulations.  He is saying that it is weak.  He is also
> saying that the word is not the source of consciousness.  So what are
> saying that ANL cannot be right about?
> Best,
> Huw