Carl's paper

From: Andy Blunden (andy@mira.net)
Date: Fri Jan 19 2001 - 00:20:41 PST


A few weeks too late, stimulated Doris's mail, I've read Carl's paper and
I'd like to offer a couple of comments.
First off, I've already expressed myself on Jaan Valsiner and I don't want
to repeat myself, but any effort to criticise a retreat from Vygotsky
School psychology to individual psychology should be subject to critique,
so I applaud Carl's efforts.
However, others have made the same remark that I would make, the Cultural
Historical Activity Theory has so far failed to develop and adequate
approach to understanding individual difference, and if you're going to
make a critique of individualistic approach to cultural psychology, then
one would want to present in parallel some rebuttal of anthropologism, or
theories of aculturalisation. Carl, I think your paper comes perilously
close to anthropologism in its critique of individualistic psychology.
I don't think uniformity of outcome and lack of uniqueness is an argument
against individual agency. To say that "Personal experiences ... are simply
minor variations within these patterns", a formulation repeated on several
occasions, is surely the voice of anthropologism?
For example, in "The Cultural Behaviour of the Child", referring to the
child's use of aide memoire, Luria says: "If he wishes to remember a
difficult series, he invents a conventional sign". Elsewhere, it argued
that the road of imitation is blocked for the child since the child is
actually incapable of acting in an adult way, even with adult means. This
necessity to re-invent the use of culturally acquired signs is, to my mind,
and important facet of CHAT, and is one of the things that mark it off from
anthropologism. But would like to see more development of this side of CHAT.
Secondly, while I enthusiastically support proposal of social change as the
main road to psychological health, I think you give undue emphasis to the
Hegelian "Freedom is the understanding of necessity" - your reference to
Freire for example. Understanding of the cause of oppression is by no means
the essence of overthrowing oppression, and further, if democratic
institutions are to be the vehicle for this, I must agree with you, but
with some qualification. What is the agency of the creation of these
democratic institutions? And does this not move the problem back one step.
"Who is to educate the educators?" And who is to that our theory sources of
oppression is the right one? If we adhere, as I am quite sure you do Carl,
to a program of self-liberation of the working class, I seem to hear
Feuerbach here.
I am very interested in your consideration of the material base of
individualistic society. In a sense, it is when you come to these points we
are looking at critique in the proper sense of the word. Here you refer to
"their existing individualistic agency". I don't understand. I gather that
your meaning is that "their existing individualistic agency" is an illusion
resulting from the conditions of bourgeois society. But I'm not sure. From
here you move to consider the psychology of people who have internalised
alienated social relations. I have a special interest here, and would
appreciate it if you could develop this more. What do we mean by alienated
social relations? I think this line of enquiry has much to offer.
Andy

+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
| - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - |
| "It has been said that the very essence of civilisation consists of |
| purposely building monuments so as not to forget". L S Vygotsky 1930 |
~ Spirit, Money & Modernity, Melbourne Uni Summer School 23/24 Feb '01 ~
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 14:24:54 PST