I thought I saw a message from Peter S. on Leont'ev . Was I dreaming? If
that's the message Nate was responding to below, can someone repost it? I
can't find it on the website either.
thanks,
judy
At 09:56 AM 11/1/00 -0600, you wrote:
>Peter,
>
>Thanks so much I found this really useful. It really summed up for me what I
>have gotten from the readings and discussion - as well as my understanding
>of what Leont'ev, Vygotsky, Luria et al were trying to say.
>
>Nate
>
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter JONES(SCS) [mailto:P.E.Jones@shu.ac.uk]
>Sent: Tuesday, October 31, 2000 4:14 AM
>To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Subject: leont'ev: externalization/internalization etc
>
>
>31 october 2000
>from peter jones, sheffield hallam university
>Friends
>this message has been stewing for a few days as i've been really struggling
>both with the book and with the many ideas thrown up in discussion,
>including
>dot's earlier email (and her later clarifications) which provoked a lot of
>interesting debate, and in particular, some issues which are not so easy to
>resolve. i wanted to return to the issue of external/internal and
>externalization/internalization (and i've harped on about this before, so
>apologies!). the cultural-historical position is usually expressed as
>follows
>(and indeed vygotsky put it this way): the direction of development is from
>social to individual (= external to internal). this way of expressing things
>cannot be right (i should stress that i don't think vygotsky actually
>understood it in this way, despite the way that it is expressed). it is
>wrong
>because the individual IS THE SOCIAL BEING (marx)!! think about it: if
>social
>means 'external' then the process of 'internalizing' the external cannot
>therefore be social - it cannot be part of the 'social process' and
>consequently the individual (the person, the personality) is not a social
>phenomenon! but this is absurd! the process of 'internalization' (however we
>construe it) is part of the (SOCIAL!) process of becoming of the individual
>person, the (individual ) social being. it is absolutely wrong, therefore,
>to
>counterpose the individual to the social; the internal to the external in
>this
>way. there is of course a valid distinction between 'collective' and
>'individual' activities etc but this is not to do with the former being
>social
>and the latter not. the 'inner' states of the individual mind are just as
>much
>social phenomena as the stock exchange. i understand the 'social' to mean
>the
>concerted, co-action, co-operation etc of particular individuals; it means
>that
>in everything the individual person does (or thinks) other people are
>present,
>other people are 'addressed' (to use Felix Mikhailov's term -
>'obrashchenie')
>whether directly in immediate practical circumstances of active cooperation
>where, as individuals we must start our personal journey, or indirectly in
>'inner speech' and private contemplation. as marx put it (i think we've
>looked
>at this quote before): 'Social activity and social enjoyment exist by no
>means
>ONLY in the form of some DIRECTLY communal activity and directly COMMUNAL
>enjoyment, although COMMUNAL activity and COMMUNAL enjoyment - ie activity
>and
>enjoyment which are manifested and affirmed in ACTUAL direct ASSOCIATION
>with
>other men - will occur wherever such a DIRECT expression of sociability
>stems
>from the true character of the activity's content and is appropriate to the
>nature of the enjoyment. But also when i am active SCIENTIFICALLY, etc - an
>activity which i can seldom perform in direct community with others - then
>my
>activity is SOCIAL because i perform it as a MAN. Not only is the material
>of
>my activity given to me as a social product (as is even the language in
>which
>the thinker is active): my OWN existence IS social activity, and therefore
>that
>which i make of myself, i make of myself for society and with the
>consciousness
>of myself as a social being.' this is from the early writings (1844) and
>goes
>on in similar vein in a way which is directly relevant to the discussion i
>think.so the development of our physical and mental powers as individuals,
>of
>our capacity to act, think, plan, imagine, feel, etc etc is not a movement
>from
>'social to individual': it IS THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SOCIAL ITSELF - my
>individual 'progress' is the 'progress' of other people too; the development
>of
>the individuals (together, through and with one another) is the development
>of
>the community! if an individual solves a problem it is our solution -
>humanity
>as a whole has solved it. (conversely an individual's problems are
>everybody's
>problems!). leont'ev does not, i don't think, make this equation 'social =
>external' although sometimes his remarks seem a bit cryptic. but for
>instance
>(section 3.2): 'Human psychology is concerned with the ACTIVITY OF CONCRETE
>INDIVIDUALS that takes place either in conditions of open association, in
>the
>midst of people, or eye to eye with the surrounding object world - before
>the
>potter's wheel or behind the writing desk'. He goes on in the same section
>to
>criticise a view which is 'limited by the concept "socialization" of the
>psyche
>of the individual' although this implies that he sees the concept of
>"socialization" of the psyche as valid within certain liimits. his
>discussion
>of 'internal' and 'external' is very nuanced - and in section 3.4 he accepts
>some kind of interaction or dialectic of internal and external - 'the
>existence
>of regularly occurring transitions in the opposite direction also, from
>internal to external activity' although he general insists on the primacy of
>internalization as the process of formation of the individual "psyche". but
>there are problems with this. it seems to me (partly because of the
>exclusive
>focus - at least in detailed analysis - on individual activity) that the
>categories of 'internal' and 'ideal' (theoretical etc) activity are
>conflated
>(and perhaps this is the force of yrjo's early comment on the whole book.
>but
>the two distinctions do not match up: remember marx on the architect and the
>bee! the architect does his/her planning on paper on the drawing board -
>this
>is completely external! the 'plan' is the thing, the sensuous
>(super-sensuous,
>ie ideal) object in front of him/her being altered in advance of the real
>thing. of course there is activity going on 'inside the head' of the
>architect
>too (ie internally) which is of course, part of the planning process; but
>this
>'internal' activity in the head is part of any activity! if activity is
>truly
>conscious and purposeful (ie it has an object, motive in leont'ev's sense)
>then
>how can 'external activity' not be/include (at the same time) 'internal
>activity' in leont'ev's sense?? so that his distinction between
>external/internal breaks down. theoretical (or in general ideal) activity is
>just as 'external' as any other activity, as witness this discussion we're
>having about the meaning of his book! paul's point about the pre-eminence of
>production over consumption is a good, one, i think but it does not really
>make
>the point that he wants to make. production is purposeful activity - it
>runs
>its course (cf marx on the labour process) according to a purpose which
>(ideally) precedes (and guides) the actual transformation of object into
>product. so in leont'ev's (inadequate?) terms production is
>'externalization'
>of the 'internal'!! yours in some confusion!
>P
>PS: why do my messages come out in a weird format? should i be pressing some
>button??
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:48 PST