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

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



BTW, community is something I find lacking within AT's explicit
formulations.  But that doesn't mean to say it doesn't align with
formulations of motive.

Best,
Huw

On 18 October 2014 03:58, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> Seems to me to be about locating psychology within social conditions.
> Delineating how important social tensions manifest psychologically.
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On 18 October 2014 03:31, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>
>> Here's an excerpt from http://www.marxists.org/
>> archive/leontev/works/1947/historical-development-consciousness.pdf in
>> which social theory is taken up under the heading of the historical
>> development of consciousness. He could not loudly proclaim a new social
>> theory of course because the USSR already had a social theory, viz
>> "historical materialism." This is a chapter from "The Development of Mind"
>> which begins with amoeba and works it way up to Soviet Man.
>>
>>    The same process that led to separation of the producers led on the
>>    other hand to a separation as well of the conditions themselves,
>>    which appeared as the property of capitalists in the form of
>>    capital. The capitalist now also personifies these conditions,
>>    which, as far as the worker is concerned, are opposed to him, the
>>    worker. But the capitalist’s capital also has its own existence
>>    separate from the capi­talist, which takes possession of his own
>>    life and subordinates it to itself.
>>
>>    These objective conditions, engendered by the development of private
>>    property, also determine the features of man’s consciousness in the
>>    conditions of class society.
>>
>>    The traditional psychologist, of course, refuses to consider them,
>>    seeing in them only a relation of things. He demands that psychology
>>    should, come what may, remain within the context of the
>>    ‘psychological’, which he understands purely as subjective. He even
>>    reduces psychological study of man’s industrial activity to
>>    investigation of its ‘psychological components’, i.e. of those
>>    psychic features for which engineering presents a demand. He is
>>    unable to see that industrial activity itself is inseparable from
>>    people’s social relations, which are engendered by it and determine
>>    their consciousness.
>>
>>    But let us return to our analysis of these relations.
>>
>>    A consequence of the ‘alienation’ of human life that has occurred is
>>    the emergent disparity between the objective result of man’s
>>    activity on the one hand, and its motive on the other. In other
>>    words, the objective content of the activity is becoming discrepant
>>    with its subjective content, with what it is for man himself. That
>>    also imparts special psychological features to his consciousness.
>>
>> Andy
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>
>>
>> Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 18 October 2014 02:56, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:
>>> ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     He? ANL or LSV.
>>>     LSV states his aim to create a General Psychology in "Historical
>>>     Crisis"
>>>     http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/crisis/psycri13.htm
>>>
>>>     ANL, I think the aim of a creating general theory of human
>>>     activity was always meant to be interdisciplinary. Although for
>>>     very good reasons it has only ever been taken up by Psychologists,
>>>     I think it is very obviously interdisciplinary.
>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, ANL.  Did he state an attempt to provide a social theory.  Seems
>>> not?
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>>
>>>     Andy
>>>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>>> ------------
>>>     *Andy Blunden*
>>>     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>
>>>
>>>     Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>         On 18 October 2014 02:20, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net
>>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>             Which only means that Vygotsky did not attempt to create a
>>>         Social
>>>             Theory, only a Psychology.
>>>             But in creating a General Psychology, he left us a
>>>         paradigm for
>>>             the human sciences. ANL attempted to carry that through to
>>>         create
>>>             a Psychology which was equally a Social Theory, but in my
>>>         view he
>>>             was largely unsuccessful. But to have created a Psychology
>>>         rather
>>>             than a Theory of Everything does not make one an Idealist,
>>>         just a
>>>             specialist.
>>>
>>>
>>>         Does he state this aim somewhere?  That might be interesting
>>>         to look at.
>>>
>>>         Best,
>>>         Huw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                      Andy
>>>                    ------------------------------
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>             *Andy Blunden*
>>>             http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>         <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>             <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>
>>>
>>>             Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>                 On 18 October 2014 01:48, Andy Blunden
>>>         <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>                 <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>
>>>                 <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>         <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>                     No, LSV is quite right, Huw. You and I can go
>>>         through the same
>>>                     sequence of events, but if, for example, the
>>>         events really get
>>>                     under your skin, and perhaps due to past
>>>         experiences, or
>>>                 to some
>>>                     sensitivity or another, it really shakes you up
>>>         and causes
>>>                 you to
>>>                     dwell on the experience, work over it and reflect
>>>         on it,
>>>                 then most
>>>                     likely you will make a personal development. If
>>>         perhaps on
>>>                 other
>>>                     hand, maybe because of some prejudice I had, the same
>>>                 experience
>>>                     just went like water off a duck's back for me and
>>>         I didn't
>>>                 care
>>>                     tuppence about the experience and just simply
>>>         turned to next
>>>                     business, then I will not make a development.
>>>
>>>
>>>                 But does ANL refute this?  He is simply asserting that
>>>                 experience is derivative to activity, not that meaningful
>>>                 things don't follow from experience.
>>>                              It is *only* the "subjective" side of
>>>         experience and the
>>>                     *reflection* of "objective" relations/events that
>>>         forms
>>>                 personal
>>>                     development. Only. And that is LSV's point.
>>>
>>>
>>>                 And it is ANL's point that these experiences arise in
>>>                 activity.  Note that LSV doesn't provide a medium for
>>>         their
>>>                 formation, he simply refers to them as forms.
>>>                                      And can I just echo Martin and
>>> David's observation
>>>         that
>>>                     consciousness before language was well-known and
>>>                 foundational to
>>>                     Vygotsky, and consequently consciousness other than
>>>                 language. And
>>>                     Julian and Mike's observation that "the ideal" lies
>>>                 ultimately in
>>>                     social practices, the doing-side of which give
>>>         content and
>>>                 meaning
>>>                     to speech which speech would lack outside its
>>>         being part
>>>                 of those
>>>                     activities. Vygotsky knew this, and this was why he
>>>                 introduced a
>>>                     range artifacts derived from the wider culture, as
>>>         mediating
>>>                     elements, into social interaction.
>>>
>>>                     So ANL is going along with the still widely held
>>>         prejudice
>>>                 that
>>>                     Vygotsky was *just* all about language. Not true.
>>>
>>>
>>>                 I would read these in terms of the opening paragraph
>>>                 ("propositions that have been connected to a unified
>>>         system,
>>>                 but are far from equivalent") and then there is the
>>>         politics
>>>                 of survival.
>>>
>>>                 Best,
>>>                 Huw
>>>                                      Andy
>>>                                   https://www.academia.edu/
>>> 7511935/The_Problem_of_the_Environment._A_Defence_of_Vygotsky
>>>                                   ------------------------------
>>> ------------------------------------------
>>>                     *Andy Blunden*
>>>                     http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>         <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>                 <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>                     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>
>>>
>>>                     Huw Lloyd wrote:
>>>
>>>                         ....
>>>
>>>                         Hence ANL is right to impute (metaphysical)
>>>         idealistic
>>>                         tendencies to this
>>>                         paper of LSV's.  Because to base the
>>>         development on
>>>                 subjective
>>>                         emotional
>>>                         experience is idealistic.  ANL, conversely,
>>>         refers to the
>>>                         relativity of
>>>                         experience upon activity.  It does not help
>>>         that LSV
>>>                 refers to
>>>                         his norms as
>>>                         ideals and that all of the examples he
>>>         provides are
>>>                 about speech
>>>                         communication.  It is ripe for
>>>         misinterpretation as an
>>>                         idealistic paper.
>>>
>>>                         Best,
>>>                         Huw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>