Leontiev

From: Dot Robbins (drobbins@socket.net)
Date: Mon Sep 25 2000 - 22:39:49 PDT


Well, I must admit that I was somewhat shocked to go back and read
Chapter 1 (I have not read ahead, so perhaps my thoughts will change
later). When was Leontiev's book orgainally published? I was no longer
used to the Soviet style of discourse, which appeared to predominate
throughout the chapter (implicitly). Perhaps someone can help me, but I
found the descriptions to be so superficial. The fact that consciousness
can be found in activity does not define what consciousness really means
to Leontiev. The article seemed to be very circular to me, and I hope
someone will discuss perception related to consciousness (from
Leontiev's point of view). It appears that if Leontiev would have gone
deeper into what consciousness really means within activity, then such
an attempt would perhaps replicate some form German idealism so
predominate in German philosophy, and so forbidden in Soviet psychology.
It appeared that Leontiev was speaking more of "mind" than
"consciousness." So, I would be interested to know what the exact
difference was for him. Perhaps Yrjo could explain that more. Perhaps it
will be discussed in depth in Chapter 4 and a new understanding will
arise.

It was interesting that only Vygotsky's and Rubinshtein's names were
mentioned in Chapter 1, but not discussed regarding "consciousness."
What is more interesting to me is that Vygotsky was a Marxist, certainly
in the sense of classical philosophy; however, this only represents a
certain facet of his thinking, that must also go together with
Spiniozian monism, and many other traditions. I have tremendous problems
putting the word CHAT together personally, primarily beause the term
cultural historical is so broad and inclusive, while the traditional
Russian activity theory (not the newer approaches) were fixed on Marxism
to the exclusion of so many areas Vygotsky truly loved. Perhaps I am
wrong in this assessment. As I understand it, Leontiev wrote a letter of
betrayal regarding Vygotsky in 1933, trying to convince Luria to break
off with Vygotsky as well. Leontiev wanted to establish a different
focus. I have heard that Vygotsky then wrote a letter breaking off the
relationship with Leontiev.My point is that for me Vygotskian
cultural-historical theory is truly different from Leontiev's activity
theory. Could Yrjo comment on this? Chapter 1 is far removed from the
"essence" of Vygotsky from my understanding (which is primarily
philosophical) and I keep wondering about the "bridge" between the two.
I have been discussing this issue with many people since ISCRAT 98,and
various Russian colleagues feel that I am completely wrong. They tell me
that Leontiev would lecture in depth about Vygotsky at Moscow State
University, and would discuss issues in a more philosophical way.

Like Vera and others, I am interested in the differences between
cultural-historical theory, activity theory and sociocultural theory.
Perhaps this has been discussed on xmca earlier. I am formulating
thoughts I hope to share in an article down the road. These questions
are important to me because in Chapter 1 (and in other traditional
articles on activity theory during the Soviet era), I usually find
Vygotsky mentioned, rarely reflected upon in a deeper sense. His
thoughts were truly philosophical and yet practical simultaneously
(including activity); however, the reverse is seldom true for me within
activity theory, hence the philosophical, aesthetic, semiotic aspects
Vygotsky used are often missing in activity theory (with the exclusion
of A. A. Leontiev, Dmitry Leontiev, and a few others). So, I have
noticed that there is an assumption that the terms cultural-historical,
activity theory, sociocultural theory can be interchanged, but can they
really? I think Vera and Lois Holzman have used the term sociocultural
theory related to Vygotsky (and I understand that Vygotsky used this
term a few times himself; he also used the term constructivism, but in a
different way); and Yrjo, Joachim Lompscher, etc. have brought activity
theory forward (how much of a role does Marxism play here?), while MIke
uses the term cultural-historical (with a different focus), etc. And
there are differences in the socicultural theories of Jim W. and others
in Europe. Of course, the differences of terms are not so important;
however, I am starting to wonder if these words should not be more
separated in view of the theoretical differences represented, or not?
For example, is Chapter 1 truly based in the cultural-historical
approach as well as activity theory? can these areas be separated? What
is the definition of the cultural-historical approach? How do the
traditional Russian psychologists fit into the cultural-historical
approach, like Elkonin, Zinchenko, Davydov? Can some of them be
considered within the cultural-historical approach and not activity
theory? It appears that many in traditional Russian activity theory are
trying hard to say implicitly that Vygotsky's interpretation of
consciousness was not understood to be in "real time" and not located
within "real activity." At the same time, there was often a negation of
the philosophical background Vygotsky cherished. The word consciousness
was radically different than it was interpreted by traditional Russian
activity theorists. Was this background forbidden or was its exclusion
selective?
Thanks for any suggestions, definitions, clarifications, etc. I totally
believe in the legitimacy of all three lines of theory and want to learn
more about all of them. But, can I really view them as one line of
theory? I look forward to some help from the moderators in particular.
Dot



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:59 PDT