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

[Xmca-l] Re: Yasnitsky and Van der Veer: Mythbusters!



I got that, Peter!
I think Van der Veer was very smart in just sending that image to us. :)
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 3/01/2016 11:01 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
My observation was quite simple: that taking Vygotsky's notebooks and translating them into something that makes sense must be very difficult. That's all.

-----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 David Kellogg
Sent: Saturday, January 02, 2016 11:13 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Yasnitsky and Van der Veer: Mythbusters!

Peter:

Am I missing something? I don't see any account, daunting or otherwise, of how hard it is to get things published with Vygotsky's name on it. There's only a photograph of Vygotsky's notebook. And what about his other comments?

Part of the problem is illiteracy. I don't mean the readership; they are more literate and more savvy than ever. I mean the publishers, who sometimes can make Stalin seem positively erudite. I am pretty sure that it wasn't Hanfmann and Vakar who decided that "Thinking and Speech" would really read a whole lot better if it were cut in half and given a title like "Thought and Language". I know that Mike had a very hard time getting ANYBODY to have a look at Luria's manuscript (and also that "Mind in Society" was NOT his idea, or Vygotsky's idea, of a title).

You would think that it wouldn't be that hard to interest publishers in an academic blockbuster, since businessmen, unlike the rest of us, come armed with some kind of sixth sense, an ability to smell the money to be made, which justifies six figure incomes and seven figure bonuses. But it turns out that they have the same five senses as the rest of us; I am sure that Harvard were even more astonished by the success of "Mind in Society" than Mike was.

Our own publisher has a similar tendency to choose titles for books that he doesn't bother to read (Luria's "Cognitive Development" is marketed in Korea under the title "Vygotsky and the Secret of Intelligence"). So perhaps we shouldn't be too hard on Yasnitsky and Van der Veer. They are trying to make their way in a pretty difficult market. I think that their marketing strategy--even as a marketing strategy--is not a very good one, but what do I know?

We imagine that somehow academics have a "free press" and that the internet has made us far freer. But we also acknowledge that it is under supposedly totalitarian regimes like that of Stalin (or how about that of Queen
Elizabeth) that intellectuals and literati were sometimes at their most productive. I'm not saying that somehow Stalinism was good for psychology, any more than I am saying that somehow Elizabeth's torturers were responsible for Shakespeare's plays. Actually, what I'm saying is pretty close to something that Anton was trying to say and got distracted from saying by his own myth busting.

It's this: brute repression is not a very effective way of shutting down intellectual life, and it shouldn't really be called "totalitarian" at all ("futilitarian" would be a lot closer to the truth). Money does more than Milton can to justify the State's ways to man. One can't help suspecting that the strange combination of sensationalism and naivete that we find in the very title of  "Revisionist Revolution in Vygotsky's Studies" owes something to that sad fact of life.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University



On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 8:33 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu> wrote:

I sent David's comments to Rene van der Veer, and part of his reply
included a shot (attached) of what translators and editors have to go
through in moving LSV and others into what today we'd call a book or
article. Pretty daunting.

-----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 David
xmca-l-bounces+Kellogg
Sent: Friday, January 01, 2016 6:44 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Yasnitsky and Van der Veer: Mythbusters!

Henry:

Of course, when you read a translation, you are not reading the
writer, or at least not the writer in large letters; you are reading
the writer in small letters; that is, the translator. When we finished
translating "Thinking and Speech" into Korean (which we did from the
French and Italian translations, because our Russian was no good, and
because we could see, from the very first chapter, that the English
was no good either) one of our best translators quit the team with the
bitter comment that none of us knew any Russian (true) and some of us
knew very little Korean, or at least very little literary Korean
(also, alas, true). We've worked pretty hard to overcome both of these
problems, and next month we'll bring out our seventh volume of Vygotsky's works in Korean.

Years ago I was rather astonished when I heard Eugene Subbotsky
describe Vygotsky as a poet, since I too had read him entirely in
translation and had (wrongly as it turns out) come to think of him as
quite clumsy, maladroit, redundant and wordy. But I have come to see
that Subbotsky was
right: there are certain wordings in Vygotsky, like the idea that the
child is "intertwined (interpersonally) and interwoven (socially)"
that have wings; that overleap both languages and soar. As Vygotsky
says, there is a kind of thinking without words that only thinking
with words can bring about.

So when you read Vygotsky in English you are reading the thinker and
not the writer. There are certain advantages to that, which you should
be very conscious of as a teacher of foreign languages and as a
foreign language learner. The whole point of the first part of
"Thinking and Speech" is that the thinker and the speaker are really
two diferent creatures, and even in the second part we can see that
they are two radically different persona, even where they partake and
participate in the same personality. By standing aloof for a moment
from the language of expression, we can get a certain critical distance, a sense of the overall shape of the thoughts.

And in fact that was the point I was trying to make: "Thinking and Speech"
was not Vygotsky's final word (there will never be a final word,
thanks to people like you, Henry), and it was not even his finished
word, and its very unfinished quality is, I think, also responsible
for the fact that LSV doesn't list either HDHMF or Tool and Sign in any of his "Greatest Hits'
(though, significantly, Tool and Sign IS in the references to the
first edition of Thinking and Speech). This patchy, unfinished quality
makes the sheer brilliance and consistency of the ideas all the more remarkable.

I would like to think that our clumsy translations also have the
effect of throwing the spotlight on the grace and coherence of
Vygotsky's thinking, but I know that unfortunately this probably isn't
the case; I imagine there are lots of people scribbling imprecations
against Vygotsky in the margins of their Korean translations which really ought to be directed against us.
There can really be only one excuse for what we did.

It is the same excuse that Mike, Sylvia Scribner, Vera John-Steiner
and Ellen Souberman have for issuing a compilation under Vygotsky's name.
Yasnitsky and Van der Veer admit that no deception was involved, and
their main complaint is that the process of compiling it is not
sufficiently transparent to be made reversible, but of course the same
thing is true of almost any compilation and indeed coauthorship quite
generally--we only know which chapters in "Ape, Primitive, Child" are
by Luria and which by Vygotsky because of Vygotsky's complaints about
Luria's Freudianism in his letters, and there is no way for the reader
to know which of the revolutionary revisionist ideas in this book are
Van der Veer's and which are Yasnitsky's!

Of course, we have different standards for writers of historic stature
than we do for each other, and that's perfectly okay, so long as we
keep in mind that at the time "Mind in Society" was published,
Vygotsky was not generally considered a writer of historic stature:
his publication list in English was considerably shorter than Mike
Cole's. Today it's just too easy for people to forget that the
difficulty of publishing Vygotsky in the West was actually far greater
than that of publishing him in the USSR for most of the twentieth
century, thanks to the very real totalitarianism exercised
(increasingly) by commercial publishing. Yasnitsky and Van der Veer do
have the grace to acknowledge that "Mind in Society" started the
Vygotsky boom that made it posssible for Yasnitsky and Van der Veer to
start their revisionist revolution. We can't really fault historians
for not knowing what to do next. But we can fault them for forgetting
that people back then didn't know what we know today.

In the end, I think that's the only excuse for doing translations,
good or
bad: Nobody else will, or nobody else will do it as well. To be fair,
I should say that there WERE no less than two other teams translating
Thinking and Speech into Korean when we went ahead and published; one
was a very well-funded team of Russian professors at Korea University
and the other had an official contract with MIT Press--but the latter
used the Hanfmann and Vakar translation into English and the team of
Russian professors--incredibly--used the Minick translation! So I am
very glad we went ahead and published ours, imperfect as it is. As
Tagore says, Ekla Chalo Re:

If they answer not to your call walk aloneIf they are afraid and cower
mutely facing the wall,O thou unlucky one,open your mind and speak out
alone.If they turn away, and desert you when crossing the wilderness,O
thou unlucky one,trample the thorns under thy tread,and along the
blood-lined track travel alone.If they shut doors and do not hold up
the light when the night is troubled with storm,O thou unlucky
one,with the thunder flame of pain ignite your own heart,and let it burn alone.
(Translated from Tagore's Bengali by Tagore himself--but was it back
translated?)

David Kellogg
Macquarie University

PS: While we were working on Piaget's response to "Thinking and
Speech" I wrote to MIT Press to get permission to translate it into
Korean. I learned that the original French manuscript had been lost,
and that the translator, Francoise Seve, had had to reconstruct it
from a typescript, part of which could only be reconstructed by back translating from English to French!

dk

On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 6:36 AM, HENRY SHONERD <hshonerd@gmail.com> wrote:

David,
Yes, it makes sense to me too. It at least partly explains why my
comments in the margin of my copy of Speech and Language I bought so
many years ago can still evoke my irritation at Vygotsky, who, it
turns out, is not the author I thought he was. Another part is my
own constantly gaining and losing my grasp on a coherent
socio-cultural bead on the here and now, very much connected to the
pulses of this chat. Funny how then and now inform each other.
Henry

On Dec 31, 2015, at 4:35 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

Thanks, David! :)
All makes sense to me.
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 1/01/2016 11:00 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
Or not. So, you thought you knew your Vygotsky, did you? Here are
seven facts you've always believed about Vygotsky that
are...well, more or
less
right, actually, according to Yasnitsky and Van der Veer's
"Revisionist Revolution in Vygotsky Studies", due to come out on
Routledge in the new year.

1.  Stalinist science was highly centralized, clique ridden,
ritualistic,
deliberately esoteric and impractical, parochial, and given to
cults and personality. Sounds familiar? Now, lest you think that
I am making an unfair comparison between Stalinist Russia and
today's relatively benign and bucolic academic atmosphere, note
that Anton's revolutionary revisionist point in this first
section is precisely that: the present
day
reputation of Vygotsky is based on a very centralized, monolithic
interpretation of his work, drive-by citations and padded
reference lists,an almost complete disjunction between high
theory and more or
less
banal practice, a geographical focus in just a few centres in
Russia and the West, and a foundational myth of a doomed Moses,
who saw the
promised
land from the mountaintop and knew he would never set foot there.
Is the comparison unfair? Not at all. If anything, the problem is
that it is
too
obvious to count as revision, much less as revolution.

There is, however, another problem, or rather two other problems.
The
first
is that myths are not entirely fiction--it is not a myth but a
medical
fact
that L.S. Vygotsky died of tuberculosis in June of 1934, and it
is not really much more far fetched to say that he died without
ever knowing
that
in eight decades he would be translated into the Korean language
and
widely
read by school teachers in South Korea. The second is that
mythbusters
are
themselves mythic figures; that is, they take certain historical
facts
and
construct narratives around them, in this case the narrative that
the previous narrative was constructed around incorrect facts or
that it was constructed around correct facts which have been
grossly misinterpreted
in
some way. So....

2. There never was a Troika or a Pyatorka: instead, the "Vygotsky
School"
was a loose network of scholars who came and went, joined and
drifted
away,
spread across three cities (Moscow, Leningrad, and Kharkov,
although the loyalty of the Kharkov centre is in doubt). This
section, based on Yasnitsky's Ph.D. work, is--unlike the first
section, which manages to
be
both sensationalistic and naive--both nuanced and closely argued.
But of course for that very reason it tends to undermine the
claims of the
first
part of the book. And at the same time, it ignores the most
obvious evidence that there really WAS something like a
Pyatorka--the fact that Vygotsky's own letters referto the
Pyatorka, and the fact that the
Pyatorka
held meetings, internal conferences, etc, None of this
contradicts
Anton's
main thesis, which was that the "Troika" and the "Pyatorka" were
convenient
constructs (exoteric as opposed to esoteric ways of
understanding) for thinking about the history of the Vygotsky
school even while it was happening. But it also doesn't answer
the question I have always had
about
the use of the term "Troika". For Trotskyists (and, as Anton
points out, there is clear evidence that Vygotsky has strong
pro-Trotsky
sympathies),
the term Troika has very bad connotations: it referred to a
bureaucratic bloc between Stalin, Zinoviev and Kamenev to oust
Trotsky from power in
the
year following Lenin's death. .

3. Thinking and Speech", far from being Vygotsky's magnum opus,
is an unfinished and highly uneven work, cobbled together from
materials which really fit rather poorly, during the months
immediately before...and after...Vygotsky's death. I think
anybody who really knows the
chronology
of the composition of Thinking and Speech will not find this
controversial;
the facts are well known, and only serve to throw the coherence
and
power
of the work into greater relief (and also, incidentally, to
undermine
the
popular idea--which Yasnitsky and Van der Veer DO subscribe
to--that
there
are three very different Vygotskies believing three very
different foundational ideas at work in the years 1926-1934).

So of course this is not really revisionist and revolutionary
enough for Yasnitsky and Van der Veer. Beyond this, they try to
claim that the
works
that Vygotsky thought were important are NOT the works that we
read
today,
and the works we read today are NOT the works that Vygotsky held dear.
They
found their argument on Vygotsky's own lists, compiled at three
times during his life, of his own works. The problem is that two
of these
lists
are part of job applications, and anybody who has ever done a job
application knows very well that you list things that your
potential employer will find impressive, and these are usually
quite far from
being
the works that you yourself value. Sure enough, by this standard,
Vygotsky's most important work is his first one: "Educational
Psychology",
which is surely his most uneven and least visionary, closely
followed by "Imagination and Creativity", which was, as the
authors quite correctly point out, a work of popular science (and
includes references to
textbook
writers and agony aunts who wrote for the Soviet papers).

Weakest of all are Yasnitsky's claims about the History of the
Development
of the Higher Mental Functions and Tool and Sign, to wit, that
the
former
was a fabrication by the Soviet editors cobbled together from two
unrelated
texts and the Russian version of the latter the result of a
benign
forgery
by Luria and the popular medical writer Elkhonon Goldberg.

First of all, there is strong evidence INSIDE the text of HDHMF
that it
was
conceived and written as a single work: there is a conclusion
which goes back to the beginning, which remarks on the order in
which it was
conceived
and how it differs from the order it was written, and how the
chapters
fit
together. More importantly, the first part DOES lay out the
problem, the approach and the research method followed in the
"special studies" of
the
second part, just as Thinking and Speech was to do years later.
is is really weak stuff: they

Secondly, as Yasnitsky himself admits, the wonderful story of
benign forgery (actually back translation, not a rare occurence
in recovering historic manuscripts) does not actually explain
what it is supposed to explain, which is the recurrence of
several paragraphs, not word for
word,
but very nearly so. Yasnitsky explains this by adding a kind of
Ptolemaic
epicycle: there were TWO translators, and the editor didn't
bother to
read
what he was editing, so there was some redundancy. The only
authority
for
this story, which seems so much less probable than the
alternative explanation that this is simply another instance of
Vygotsky's tendency
t
repeat himself more or less verbatim in places, is Elkhonon
Goldberg
("The
Wisdom Paradox: How Aging Actually Benefits Your Brain", and
other must readings in psychoneurology for aging jet-setters),
and an anonymous blogger (neither source seems very well disposed
to their erstwhile professor, Luria). Of course, the mere fact
that a story is highly improbable and that the sources are
somewhat jaundiced do not mean that
it
is not true; but in a work devoted to mythbusting, it should mean
that
it
is...well, possibly mythical.

4. Vygotsky died with an unfinished book on consciousness clearly
in
mind.
This much too should be have been already very clear to any
careful
reader
of Thinking and Speech. But this is in fact the most exciting
part of
the
book, and the only part of the book which really does offer
completely
new
evidence (it is also the only part of the book which was not
written by Yasnitsky or by Van der Veer). You may disagree with a
lot of what Zavershneva has to say about Vygotsky's supposed
Nietszcheanism and his rejection of "word meaning" as a unit of
consciousness in favor of
"sense"
(which is, after all, a type of word meaning). You may question,
as I
did,
whether "perizhevianie" is really intended as a substitute, and
if so
up to
what point it is a substitute for word meaning. Above all, you
may
wonder
what the relationship between THIS unwritten work and the other
unfinished
works that Vygotsky left us might be ("Teaching on the Emotions"
is mentioned, but there is hardly any mention at all of "Child
Development").
But this is the part of the book where you are most likely to
learn something. It's also the part of the book where we see the
most Vygotsky inedit--unpublished Vygotsky.

5. Vygotsky has been poorly translated, and he didn't write
either of
the
English language books for which he is famous. The facts are
depressingly
clear: the 1962 version of "Thought and Language" is something
like
half of
the original, with all the Marx and Lenin (and also the
"redundancies", which for Yasnitsky are the proof of the
inauthenticity of Tool and
Sign)
cut away by editors. "Mind in Society" was not a book that
Vygotsky ever wrote but instead (like much of Aristotle, like all
of the New
Testament,
like the Quran and like de Saussure's "Cours", a compilation put
together
by students and students of students (e.g. Mike). I think what
the revolutionary revisionists ignore is the dialectic of that process:
"Mind
in Society" was designed to, and did in fact, overcome the
significant omissions of Hanfmann and Vakar's translation: they
saw that they could bring back some of Vygotsky's Marxist roots,
and that is exactly what
they
did. Yasnitsky and Van der Veer acknowledge that this book,
whether by Vygotsky or not, was the book that started the
Vygotsky "boom"; the real question we have to ask is--what can we
actually accomplish with the
energy
that "Mind and Society" unlocked? What happens when the rubble of
the
boom
stops bouncing? Previously, our "revolutionary revisionists"
suggested archival work,authoritative editions, and so on, and of
course that is certainly very much to be desired. But it also
ignores the exoteric
nature
of the boom and does nothing to overcome the gap between theory
and practice noted in point 1) above.

6. The results of Luria's Central Asian expeditions were
suppressed in order not to inflame resentment among the USSR's
national
minorities.
This
too is extremely well known to people who read Luria's own
preface, as
well
as those who followed the horrible story of the quasi-official
denunciation
of Vygotsky and Luria (see point 7 below). And it turns out to
be...well,
more or less true, although Laman and Yasnitsky manage to cloak
the
truth
in anachronistic phrases like "affirmative action" and "political
correctness" which only show how very little they understand the
concrete
realities that Luria and Vygotsky actually faced. The really
objectionable
part of this section of the book, though, is the accusation that
Vygotsky
is a vulgar Marxist who believed that the change in the relations
of production, without any education, was enough to create
concepts in the minds of Uzbeks. There is no evidence for this in
any of Vygotsky's or Luria's texts, and plenty of evidence to the
contrary. (Luria repeatedly refers to the effect of schooling).
Note that Lamdan and Yasnitsky do
not
raise a number of key issues:

a) Vygotsky at one point in HDHMF, Chapter Two, criticizes those
who
take
experiments out of the laboratory and do anthropological
fieldwork with them and calls this method absolutely unjustified.
Does this explain
why he
did not personally take part?

b) In fact, Luria's experiments were quite similar to what people
like Rivers had done in New Guinea--they were not at all
unprecedented; they were in fact part of a recognized and
continuing tradition in cross-cultural psychology (c.f. Glick and
Cole, and also recent work on chimps and children in Africa).
This ethnographic tradition WAS
politically
suspect, and for good reason. Is this why Luria refers to it
sparingly,
and
why Koffka is rather unsympathetic to Luria's (largely foregone)
conclusions?

7. Vygotsky's work was never officially denounced by Stalin
himself, but instead was subject to an informal ban, which did
not prevent him from being favorably cited in the twenty years
between his death and the
first
publications in Russia. Well, this isn't exactly myth-busting.
Stalin
was
not particularly well-read; his most critical comment on Vygotsky
would have been something along the lines of "Who?" But this
really is both sensationalistic and naive: it is sensationalistic
(and
anachronistic)
to
imagine that Vygotsky's work was famous enough at his death to
deserve
the
kind of explicit suppression that, say, Trotsky, Bukharin, Radek,
or
even
Vavilov suffered. It is naive to imagine that the two almost
fact-free articles published against Vygotsky in the years after
his death were somehow not part of an orchestrated campaign
against his work (which
began
WELL before he died--why is there no discussion of the 1931
decree on pedology in Leningrad, something that Vygotsky himself
mentions in
Thinking
and Speech Chapter Six?)

As Kozulin remarks in a remarkably well-tempered preface, this is
a dangerous book--not so much to the reader, but to the writers.
The
danger
is that that Yasnitsky and Van der Veer run the risk of busting a
gut rather than busting myths, making revolutionary revisionism
out of their firm grasp of the obvious embroidered with material
that is anything but obvious. When that happens, we get something
that is neither a gorgon
nor a
minotaur but more like Lady Bracknell in "The Importance of Being
Earnest":
something like a monster without being a myth.

David Kellogg
Macquarie University



, and even (in designed to undo some of those cuts.  Like
Aristotle,
Jesus
Christ, and Muhammad, Vygotsky didn't write or at least didn't
edit the books that made him famous. The problem of course is
that Vygotsky
didn't
know that he was Vygotsky; he thought he was just "me". and de
Saussure, Vygotsky did not



    So you thought you knew L.S. Vygotsky! Well