[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: units of analysis? LSV versus ANL
On 18 October 2014 00:13, Martin John Packer <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> 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.
ANL says that LSV makes inconsistent propositions. If ANL is saying LSV
says both at different times, then he isn't incorrect by your measure.
"L.S. Vygotsky’s studies of the environment are made up of a number of
sepa- rate propositions that have been connected to a unified system, but
are far from equivalent, and that we must subject to careful critical
analysis before evaluating them as a whole."
> On Oct 17, 2014, at 5:24 PM, Huw Lloyd <email@example.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
> > his existence as a social being. Among these conditions, he encounters
> > 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
> > 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
> > 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