Dear Eugene and Steve,
I also see now far better what went on. I was reacting mostly to what I perceived a negative tone, primarily set by the article's title.
The substance of their article is far more complex and choke filled with points that need to be carefully examined.
Steve, thank's for clearing that up so carefully.
Eugene, I know that Vygotsky and Luria were criticized by the Stalinist regime, but I don't know exactly what was the critique aimed at preciselly. Can you tell us?? What did the Stalinist regime "find wrong" with Vygotsky/Luria's work?
Ana
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 01:06 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
> Dear Ana--
>
> Now, after reading Steve's analysis, I see where you might come from. I agree with Steve and you that the title of the critque is unnecessary sarcastic that indeed communicates negativity and agressivity.
>
> As to to the issue of "upbrining new Soveit men", I'm not sure how much Vygotsky and Luria committed to this political agenda if at all (I'd like to hear from Mike what was cut from Luria's book). I could not find any place in Vygotsky-Luria work suggesting this political agenda. It is important to remember, that Stalinist propaganda machine severely criticized Luria-Vygotsky study. Someone could use their study for this politcal purpose, but nobody seemed to do.
>
> I think a discussion between psychological tools mediating higher psychological functions and material tools meditating subject-object relations can interesting...
>
> Eugene
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ana
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 12:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
>
> Dear Eugene,
>
> Thank you a lot for the careful reading. I must admit that I did not read their text so carefully and that I reacted more to what seemed to me a s a very negative tone. The reason I "heard" their tone as negative was maybe subjective, or maybe I was very tired from the trip to the conference... I also brought only one point into the picture -- and that was the way how to characterize Vygotky/Luria's research in Uzbekistan and Khirgizia. I absolutely agree with Margaret and Carol that the
>
> the study was a golden opportunity
> to test the long-standing and widespread debate among
> ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as to whether categories
> of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or whether
> primitive and advanced technological cultures produced different
> levels of intellectual development (see Luria, 1979; van
> der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).
>
> But at the time -- I thought that although this indeed was a golden opportunity to study the change in the intellectual development, it still was a part of the Soviet plan to create a "new citizen".
>
> Anyway, I am very glad that when you found out that I was not right, you also explicitly said that you still love me. It makes it so much easier to reexamine my thoughts and say -- oops!! I was wrong.
>
> In fact -- Margaret's and Carol's article have some very interesting points. One of them the "fact" that it was not Vygotsky who introduced "activity theory", but it were
> "Vygotsky's disciples [who]
> turned his theory into an activity theory after his death, replacing
> the psychological tool as a mediator between objects of
> action and mental functions with material activity as the mediator,
> and careless scholars attribute activity theory to Vygotsky."
>
> To me it would be interesting to discuss whether people (on this list) today see "activity" as a mediator between "subject" and "object". Or is "activity" something else?
>
> What do you think??
>
> Ana
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Eugene Matusov wrote:
>
> Dear Ana and everybody-
>
> I read/reread both articles and found that I agree with much of Margaret
> Gredler and Carol Shields' criticism of Michael Glassman. Here are points of
> my agreement with Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields (just from their first
> page):
>
> 1. Michael Glassman wrote, "Dewey would applaud Vygotsky's emphasis on
> everyday culture
> as the lynchpin of the educational process." (p.4)
>
> Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields disagreed, "... contrary to Glassman's
> (2001, p. 3) statements, Vygotsky did not advocate bringing everyday
> activities into the classroom or the ways that human activity serves as an
> impetus to learning." (p.21)
>
> I agree with Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields. Unlike Dewey, Vygotsky was
> rather critical about everyday culture/activities/concepts. I do not know
> any place in his writings where Vygotsky argued that "everyday culture" (I'm
> not sure I know what Michael Glassman meant by this term - I never read
> about it before, not in Vygotsky definitely) is the lynchpin of the
> educational process. Did I miss something in Vygotsky?
>
> 2. Michael Glassman wrote, "Vygotsky suggests that it is the ability to
> develop cooperative activity through complex social relationships that
> separates mature humans from all other animals (Vygotsky & Luria, 1993)."
> (p.5)
>
> Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields disagreed, "... neither Vygotsky and
> Luria (1930/1993) nor Vygotsky's other writings state that cooperative
> activity separates humans from all other animals as Glassman (2001, p. 5)
> asserts. Instead, "the absence of at least the beginnings of speech . . .
> the lack of ability to make a sign or to introduce some auxiliary
> psychological means [in problem solving] . . . draws the line between the
> ape and the most primitive human being" (Vygotsky & Luria, 1930/1993, p.
> 73). In another work, Vygotsky (1931/1997f) identifies "signification, that
> is, the creation and use of signs" as the unique human behavior that
> differentiates humans from animals (p. 55)." (p. 21)
>
> Further in his article, Michael Glassman talked about "tools and symbols" as
> being very important for Vygotsky but I agree with Margaret Gredler and
> Carol Shields that Michael Glassman's writing is very confusing and even
> misleading at times on this issue.
>
> 3. Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields wrote, "In addition, Glassman's (2001)
> assertions that Vygotsky considered tools as "the means for specific,
> culturally approved consequences" (p. 5), believing that "tools and symbols
> are used in the service of culturally defined goals" (p. 6),3 and "free
> inquiry is . . . eclipsed by culturally significant and appropriate inquiry"
> (p. 6) are inaccurate. Vygotsky did not discuss inquiry, and he described
> psychological tools as "the means of which we direct and realize the
> psychological operations (e.g., memorizing, comparing, selecting) necessary
> for the solution of the problem" (Vygotsky, 1997i, p. 86)." (p. 21)
>
> Again, in my view, Margaret and Carol are right.
>
> I can go on and on and on... Actually, I could not find place in Margaret
> Gredler and Carol Shields' critique of Michael Glassman that I did not
> agree... Did you? Did I miss something?
>
> I did not find Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields' tone angry or aggressive
> or negative. They disagreed with Michael Glassman about almost everything (I
> actually can add more disagreements with Michael). So what? I did not find
> anything disrespectful in their tone. Did I miss something in their tone? (I
> like to disagree with people, maybe this is why I do not see anything
> offensive in their critical article). Does disagreement mean "negative"? For
> me, "negative" means not constructive but I found Margaret Gredler and Carol
> Shields being very constructive. I feel that Margaret Gredler and Carol
> Shields are respectful to all community, including Michael Glassman, by
> bringing supports for their claims and grounding their claims in Michael's
> text. What else are they supposed to write? In this message, for example, I
> disagree with Ana, but I do not feel to be negative to her, angry with her,
> or aggressive to her. I love Ana and respect her a lot and I'd love to hear
> what she and the others may say in response even if she and the other people
> completely disagree with me. I know that I can be wrong, she can we wrong,
> we both can wrong, and so on... But, we work together. I think that Michael
> made an interesting attempt to bring Vygotsky and Dewey together. He made
> his shot but Margaret and Carol (and I) rejected it by providing their
> critique. He may choose to rebuff us and show us wrong - I do not know as
> Margaret and Carol, but I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong if Michael
> brings his convincing counter-arguments. It is not necessarily pleasant to
> read a critical review, in which the authors completely disagree with you.
> But, hey, this is part of our profession: other colleagues can judge our
> work as completely right, partially right, or completely wrong. If it is the
> latter, although it is unpleasant, I do not find anything negative, angry,
> or aggressive in it per se. Again, I may miss something and I'd like what
> other people see that makes Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields' (and maybe
> even my?) tone objectable.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ana@zmajcenter.org [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 8:43 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
> Dear Eugene,
> I absolutely agree with you. It is dangerous to make conclusions based on
> little evidence
> and several quotes. I am not sure what was Glassman's point, but to me it
> did not seem
> contradictory to Luria and Vygotsky's research in the the ways that a
> cultural historical
> change produce changes in psychological processes. The "golden
> opportunity" to study
> these processes in a "natural experiment" was, at the same time, enabled
> in part by the
> Stalinist politics of forcefull collectivisation terror. Does that mean
> that you can
> automatically align the researchers with the Stalinist political agenda?
> No.
> However, I was reactineg more to the tone of their debate than to the fine
> points they were
> making. On the whole, they did not like Glassman's hypothesis that
> Vygotsky's ideas can be
> related to Dewey's in the way that Glassman did. And they criticised
> different aspects of
> that comparison in Glassman's work in very forceful language.
>
> Ana
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
> Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 06:06 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
> Dear Ana-
>
> I did not have time to read Gredler and Shields' article (I'm still in
> San
> Diego) but the quotes that you nicely put together make me agree with
> the
> authors. It seems to me (and I can be wrong) that one of the issues is a
> POLITICAL Soviet context. The rhetoric about "upbringing the New Soviet
> person" (ridiculed later by dissidents as "homo Soveticus") was used in
> the
> early 1930s by Stalinist propaganda. It seems to me that Glassman
> dangerously aligned Vygotsky and Luria with the Stalinist propaganda
> machine. I'm personally much more comfortable with Gredler and Shields'
> formulation (as presented in your quote) than with Glassman's one.
> Although
> it is well-documented (see Rogoff, 1990) that Luria overlooked the
> political
> context of his Uzbekistan experiments (i.e., Stalinist collectivization
> terror), there is no evidence that Vygotsky and Luria accepted the
> Stalinist
> call for "upbringing the New Soviet person" as Glassman seems to
> suggest.
> Knowing Soviet history, Glassman's statements cited below about Vygotsky
> and
> Luria make me VERY uncomfortable. In contrast, I'm very comfortable with
> Gredler and Shields' statement that
> Particularly important is that the study was a golden opportunity
> to test the long-standing and widespread debate among
> ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as to whether categories
> of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or whether
> primitive and advanced technological cultures produced different
> levels of intellectual development (see Luria, 1979; van
> der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).
> Sorry if my comments do not make sense because I did not read the
> articles
> but react only to the short quotes.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ana [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 3:54 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
> Peter, Bill
>
> I went and read the article. One thing is that it is definitively
> writen
> in a very negative tone, almost angry and very agressive.
> The other thing is that they give a lot of referrences one would have
> to
> check in order to figure out if they have a point they claim to have.
> However, in one instance at least, I could see that they don't seem to
> understand exactly what they are criticizing. This is the case of the
> famous Luria/Vygtsky research on changes introduced by soviet literacy
> programs. Here is a quote from their article
>
> ****
> Glassman (2001, p. 6) cites Vygotsky and Luria (1930/1993) as
> the source for his statements that (a) Vygotsky would agree with
> Dewey that society has "a vested interest in the development and
> maintenance of these [psychological] tools" and (b) Vygotsky
> wanted "to use the educational process to teach new members
> of the social community how to 'use' important, culturally developed
> tools in an effective manner (a top-down/determinate
> approach)." In contrast, Vygotsky and Luria (1930/1993) neither
> stated nor alluded to such an agenda. The text, which addresses
> cognitive development, discusses important landmarks
> in the three different paths that account for human behavior-
> evolutionary (phylogenetic), historical, and ontogenetic (p. 36).
> For example, numeric operations and other early psychological
> tools transformed the memory and thinking of primitive peoples.
> Also discussed were the authors' experiments on the development
> of children's cognitive processes and the cognitive development
> of mentally retarded, physically impaired, and gifted
> children.
> Glassman (2001) then states that the cross-cultural research of
> Luria and Vygotsky "hypothesized that the introduction of new
> tools by a strong social organization (i.e., the Soviet Union)
> would lead to the development of a 'new' type of citizen" (p. 6).
> Instead, the hypothesis the researchers actually tested was that
> "the structure of psychological processes changes as a function of
> history; consciousness does not have a constant, unchanging
> structure" [italics added] (Luria, 1971, p. 160). More specifi-
> cally, Luria (1976) clearly stated,
> We hypothesized that people with a primarily graphic/functional
> reflection of reality would show a different mental process from
> people with a system of predominantly abstract, verbal, and logical
> approach to reality. (p. 18)
> Particularly important is that the study was a golden opportunity
> to test the long-standing and widespread debate among
> ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as to whether categories
> of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or whether
> primitive and advanced technological cultures produced different
> levels of intellectual development (see Luria, 1979; van
> der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).5 Conducted in the remote parts of
> the Soviet Union (villages in Uzbekistan and Kirghizia) that
> were undergoing rapid socioeconomic change, the study included
> two isolated and illiterate groups and three groups with
> varying literacy levels and some exposure to technological
> change. The 600 interview protocols (van der Veer & Valsiner,
> 1991, p. 248) indicated that practical activity and concrete
> situations
> dominated the perception, classification, and reasoning
> skills of the nonliterate subjects whereas the others engaged
> in categorical, abstract thinking (Luria, 1976, pp. 117-134;
> ***
> It seems to me that what they criticize is something that is not at
> all
> opposed to what they say "researchers actually tested [...]". And,
> that
> was their hypothesis that:
> "the structure of psychological processes changes as a function of
> history; consciousness does not have a constant, unchanging
> structure" .
>
> Either they don't understand that the Soviet Imposed literacy program
> is
> at the same time a historical, social process" or I don't know what
> they
> want to say.
>
> That is my first impression. No doubt that the article was written in
> a
> hostile tone, and I am surprised that it was published as such in the
> educatinal researcher. Good game is a game where we all build upon
> each
> other's thinking and research instead of bashing each other. If they
> had
> very important fine points about the differences between Dewey and
> Vygotsky, why not just point that out in a friendly manner??
>
> And of course, I agree with Bill: No one's thinking ought to become a
> dogma - Einsten's, Vygotsky's or anyone elses. The point is to keep
> moving ahead.
>
> Ana
>
>
> Bill Barowy wrote:
>
> Wow. Thanks Peter for provoking my interest in this article. I had
> noted it
> when it arrived, but I'll make sure to read it asap.
>
> I have to say that i am uncomfortable with the kind of thinking and
> writing
> that you described. For example, while Vygotsky could be held as the
> kind of
> genius Einstein was, one does not find folks saying so much they know
> what
> Einstein "said and believed" to the condescension of others. Quite
> to
> the
> contrary, it is expected to go beyond Einstein in our understanding
> -- he
> may
> have been a genius, but he was still only a human. And there are now
> better
> reformulations of Einstein's core ideas than what Einstein developed.
> We
> can
> and do still admire Einstein for his contributions.
>
> But so, is this kind of publication the result of making Vygotsky
> into
> such an
> untouchable icon? Are we suffering the slings and arrows of a
> codeveloping
> hegemonic discourse that attribute legitimacy more to replicating
> exactly
> an
> individual's ideas than to the problems and the work? If so, it is
> such
> a
> strange and ironic twist for activity theory research.
>
> bb
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 01:00:07 PDT