If one of our goals in reading Leontiev is to understand the relevance of
marxism to cultural psychology, it is clear that one central theme of
Leontiev's presentation of marxism in chap. 1 is the historical specificity
of consciousness and psychology. This, in turn, reflects the concrete social
organization of activities -- the division of labor between and withhin
them. In other words, activities such as work, education, family, politics,
religion, medicine are organized in particular ways involving particular
social relations. Leont. mentions extreme division of labor and alienation
in the capitalist organization of activities. Commodification, competition,
production of surplus value, individual ownership are other features of the
social organization of activities that comprise capitalist society.
This concrete social organization of activities as central to human
consciousness and psychology is a vital point of marxism. Whether one agrees
w. it or not, it is impt. to see its difference from abstract notions of
culture and activity. Describing activity as "purposeful action that is
mediated by artifacts," or as "mediated means" (which is a redundant phrase,
isn't it?), or even as "semiotically organized" does not capture the
concrete social organization of activities. IN Marx's and Leontiev's view
(at least as expressed in chap. 1) they are abstract since they are divorced
from the concrete social context in which they exist. As Marx said in his
famous discussion of methodology in the Grundrisse and Critique of Political
Economy, abstractions such as these may be true, however they have limited
utility because they are so general. Utilizing a Marxist perspective in
cultural psych. would entail tracing psychological phenomena to the manner
in which various social activities are socially organized.
If we can agree that this is what marx/Leontiev are saying, we can then
discuss the validity of this perspective.
-- Carl Ratner, Ph.D. cr2@humboldt1.com http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2P.O.B. 1294 Trinidad, CA 95570 USA
> From: Dot Robbins <drobbins@socket.net> > Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 22:29:44 -0700 > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Leontiev > Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Resent-Date: Wed, 27 Sep 2000 20:26:10 -0700 (PDT) > > Dear Friends, > Thank you for this discussion on A. N. Leontiev, it is really nice!! > Nate, thanks for your comments. Yes, we (Vladimir Spiridonov and myself) > organized a ZPD conference last year in four cities in Russia and we > hope to have another smaller conference in Moscow (only) this summer > from July 1-5th. It will be for graduate students and professors and > will deal with research in various areas of the social sciences within > the cultural-historical tradition. We are just in the planning stages of > that conference, but I hope some of you will be interested in attending > (and I hope very much that Marta, Szymon, Rafel from Poland will > attend). There will be room for 10 professors and 25 graduate students. > People will be selected from around the world (not from one or two > institutions) in order to offer an international atmosphere. One goal is > to link up international professors and graduate students with Russian > graduate students in order to exchange ways of conducting research in > general. We are also looking for all kinds of textbooks and other books > from the West and Asia in psychology, linguistics, teaching > methodologies, research methodologies to share with our Russian > colleagues. If you have any books to share, please let me know. Also, if > you have published books that might be of interest to Russians, and have > an extra free copy, that would be wonderful. Thanks! > > Okay, A. A. Leontiev once stated that "Kozulin's Vygotsky looks like > Kozulin, Yaroshevsky's Vygotsky looks like Yaroshevsky, and Puzyrey's > Vygotsky looks like Puzyrey." Of course this is true of each of us, and > the same is true in analyzing A. N. Leontiev's thoughts. I would like > to get back to the aspect of "consciousness" and "Marxism" (will it > happen?) and I hope you are patient with me. Nate used the words > "critique" and "appropriation" and I would like to continue with the > problem I introduced via some thoughts on "appropriation." May I begin > with the ZPD? It is so interesting (and somewhat typical) that Vygotsky > took the idea of ZPD from Dorothea McCarthy and Meumann, two foreigners. > This concept has been appropriated around the world, and the irony is > that it is seldom used in Russia (at least that was my experience while > there). Last summer at the ZPD conference it was actually very funny! > Not a single Russian professor spoke on the ZPD when giving their > papers, although the topic of the conference was the ZPD. In fact, I had > heard each and every talk various times before. What I heard Russians > speaking about was the aspect of "periodization" (i.e., stages of child > development related to ages representing a "crisis" or potential that > could trigger real change). There is an irony there: The Russians I knew > were interested in stages of development or critical periods of > development, and in the West we are very interested in transcending the > stages of development (e.g. Piaget) and entering a more open space of > development, hence ZPD. I would like to say that I suggested the topic > of the ZPD for the conference to attract people from the West and Asia, > and the Russians were not enthusiastic about that suggestion at all. As > strange as it sounds, this brings me back to the differences in > cultural-historical theory, Russian activity theory, sociocultural > theory, my real problem right now. I am wondering if the "tensions" > within the different traditions can be resolved in order to really view > all three theories within one line of thought? I think it can be done, > but not the way it has been done in the past. I have discovered that > most people truly do not know the history of the three lines of theory > we so love (cultural-historical, activity theory, sociocultural theory), > and I certainly don't understand it. For example, the Russians I know do > not understand sociocultural theory at all, and within many Western > organizations there is not much interest in really trying to understand > the Russian perspective. My point is that it would be good to backtrack > and reread Vygotsky from "his" point of view as much as possible, then > go on to books like we are reviewing now from the Russian perspective of > Activity Theory, and then look at the tradition of sociocultural theory. > For example, I so wish Russians within the cultural-historical context > could be given a chance to explain Vygotskian theory from their > perspectives, and North/South Americans and Europeans could explain > sociocultural theory from their perspectives. Let me return to the word > "appropriation." Personally I identify with the Russian > cultural-historical tradition, so I just don't use the word > "appropriation" very much. I use the word "internalization." The term > "appropriation" is a term that is totally connected with M. Bakhtin for > me, and the term "mastery" is completely linked to A. N. Leontiev. I > have no problem with the word "internalization" and it must be linked to > an understanding of consciousness. My understanding of the term > "internalization" is not dualistic, and it is different from > definintions in activity theory (e.g. definition given in Yrjo's on > Perspectives on A. T.). This is because I view the words "mastery" and > "appropriation" as representing the "conscious" aspect only, while > "internalization" includes "unconscious" elements (Vygotsky viewed the > unconscious as the "seat of creativity"). Well, this is just a very > superficial explanation. This problem is similar to the ZPD (but not > exactly the same), and this thought is only for me personally, as I > doubt if it corresponds to the Russian reality in any way.....in the > West we often view the ZPD as one zone, basically individual in nature. > Within my understanding of the little I experienced in Russia (and in > East Germany during the socialist government), the ZPD (meaning my > visualization of the ZPD in Russia, not any construct Russians > themselves perceive) was surely not viewed as representing one level of > reality, but representing many zones with mutiple layers, and it was not > located within the classroom only....it extended to life after school, > families, society, back to the classroom.....this is good and bad as we > all know within a "closed" society. At least this is how I interprete > Vygotsky's intention of the ZPD. The intention of the ZPD (although > that is just a metaphor) for me was expansive, while in the West it is > very restrictive. Also, the term" internalization" is still very > expansive for me, while mastery and appropriation are restrictive. > Internalization includes the elements of the subconscious (not as a > Freudian problem, but as the possibility of real change). It is clear > that all of us must recite lines we do not agree with (such as prayers > in school); however, personal freedom from a Spinozian point of view > reflects my "internal" relationship to my human will, and not words > parroted that are either appropriated or master (something much more > external for me). Now, that understanding only makes sense to me within > a Marxist framework of "unified dialectics." Therefore, there is a > "tension" within cultural-historical theory relating to internalization; > however, within sociocultural theory this tension is dissolved with a > dualistic return to mastery/appropriation (where these terms are not yet > defined, or I have not found the NEW definitions of them anywhere). We > can only understand these problems by understanding the history of the > origins of cultural-historical theory and sociocultural theory. Another > example is Marxism. Sociocultural theory does not deal with Marxism, or > am I wrong? Vygotsky represented a more traditional philosophical > approach to Marxism, while Leontiev was faced with the realities of > Stalinism. How do we reconcile the philosophy of Marx within the system > created in Russia that failed? Where is the new Marxism or new thoughts > on analyzing where Marxism failed in practice? how can this failure > change Marxist theory today? In Moscow, for example, I did not meet a > single person writing or thinking about Marxism (nor have I met any > Russians living abroad doing the same). In fact, even with the limited > translations of books in Russian, I kept hearing over and over how > impressed students were with Husserl's phenomenology. So many really > love him. Why? Husserl represents the exact opposite of any type of > materialism. However, when I would tried to discuss Husserl and > Heiddeger as representing the core of French poststructuralism, the > Russian students knew nothing about that. Once again, an example of > "mixed appropriation" of concepts not properly understood from a > historical/contextual perspective, and not really "internalized." The > other example is the contradistinction between "dialectics" and > "dialogical thinking." It is so interesting for me that within > sociocultural theory dialectics have been replaced by dialogical > thinking.....perhaps you disagree. However, Bakhtin (the author of the > dialogical) was an avowed anti-Marxist, a Christian. Yet, he is the > major voice of the sociocultural approach to language, do you disagree? > My feeling is that we need to totally differentiate the three lines of > theory, study them in light of their history, and then move on. This was > the reason I was hoping that people would write to A. A. Leontiev to get > his opinion on his fathers book. So, I would like to say one thing about > Russian activity theory from the point of view of Dmitry Leontiev, or > from the Russian perspective: it is divided into three phases for him: > 1930s-1950s--activity theory; 1960s-1980s--theory of consciousness; > 1980s--until now--theory of PERSONALITY. The focus is not on atomistic > parts of personality as it is viewed in the West (e.g. introvert, > anxiety, risk taking, motivation, etc.), but the WHOLE personality of > the individual. I never see this written about in the West. So, my great > wish would be to retrace the thoughts of the three lines of theory we > follow, and view them historically (and one of my favorite writers, > Ethel Tobach, actually compares the word "activity" with "change"). > Well, as you noticed, I never really got back to "Marxism" and > "consciousness." But hope to. Thanks for any help along these lines. I > am trying to learn and grow and appreciate any thoughts. > > Sorry this was so long! > Best wishes, > Dot > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:02 PDT