Dialectics (In praise of Engels)
HDCS6 who-is-at jetson.uh.edu
Sun, 12 May 1996 09:00:42 -0500 (CDT)
I remember reading a quote in the beginning of a book about dialectical
biology (actually it was called _The Dialectical Biologist_, though I
can't remember the authors at this moment) a dedication to Engels that
essentially said that Engels was wrong a lot, but when he was right, he
was as right as anybody in history. I think that his is really true.
He was, from what I have read of his life and of his work, a romantic
(odd to say from the way we talk about Marx and Engels today) who
would spin web upon web in defining the development of the human
condition. But his core ideas (such as the use of tools, and the use
of language as a tool in the negotiation of labor) were extraordinary
insights into the development of humanity. A great deal of what is
going on today in social sciences owes a debt to Engels that is
rarely recognized. But there is also a problem when we speak about
Engels, especially in a place like xmca, or when we are writing about
Vygotsky and/or CHAT. I have definitely read in one place, and I
believe in at least one other, that Engels felt that his theory
(and Marx's) was not meant to be used as a psychological theory.
It was an economic (sociological) theory. Thus economists and
sociologists have a much easier time applying it than people who
have a direct interest in ontological human development. Any time
that it is used in such a sense we are going to get into some type
of trouble. I think that may have been what Arne was pointing to,
and it may be the reason that somebody who joined the list recently
felt that there was only a superficial understanding of dialectical
materialism. We have trouble applying Marx and Engels and the
philosophical implications of dialectical materialism because they
really do no suit many of the things we are trying to accomplish.
So what is to be done about it, especially considering 1) Engels ideas
have so many important implications for the way we think and 2)Vygotsky
and other CHAT theorists have recognized these implications and tried
to incorporate them into their theory? Well, this is going to sound
kind of radical (maybe) but I think that if you are involved in
an ontological theory of human development you have to abandon
the whole notion of a philosophically based dialectical theory.
I just don't think it's going to happen (There was a conversation
about this a couple of years ago). There are a number of reasons
for this (e.g., human beings develop at a very different rate than
many aspects of their environment). I don't mean that you abandon
dialectics, just trying to find a philosophical application of
dialectics (Illynkov notwithstanding). Instead, we should turn
towards the dialectical theory embedded within biological
development (again, we get this explicitly from Engels and _
The Dialectics of Nature_). Maybe, again, this is was Arne
was talking about in his message. I think, on some level, Vygotsky
recognized this, and that is why he tried to deal with it through
his three levels of development (evolutionary, cultural historical,
and ontological).
Well, I've probably been as opaque as I possibly could be on this
Sunday morning. But before I go I just can't resist this one
last rhetorical trick. Isn't it amazing that our thinking has
progressed to the point where we no longer see things as
actually progressing (Ta dum dum).
Call your mothers!
Michael Glassman
University of Houston