Gene and Dave:
Since Hanna Arendt wrote The Banality of Evil a considerable number of
studies have been published concerning the willingness of ordinary men to
participate in terrific crimes in the name of the state, the party and
people. Some of the most interesting of these deal with the with the
participation of the most anonymous of men - most of us - in high crimes
against humanity. Not surprisingly much of this literature deals with the
inconcievable practice of systematic murder on the part of many very
ordinary German soldiers during WW II. Here are a few such works (including
the blurbs of the publisher in parentheses:
1.Browning, Christopher R., *Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and
the Final Solution in Poland* (From 1942 to 1944, a unit of 500 German
family men too old for army service was responsible for the deaths of 83,000
Polish Jews. Drawing on postwar interrogations of 210 former members of the
battalion, Browning suggests that they were acting less out of deference to
authority or fear of punishment than from the insidious motives of careerism
and peer pressure. 8 pages of photographs. 2 maps)
2.Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah, *Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans
and the Holocaust* (In this extraordinarily controversial interpretation of
the Holocaust, Goldhagen proposes that virulent anti-Semitism was so
ingrained in German culture that the stage was set for the mass slaughter of
the Jews long before Adolf Hitler rose to power.)
I found Browning's book especially interesting since it concerns a military
unit very similar to the one (not a police battalion thank god) I served in
for many years. Among the most surprising of Browning's finding was, how few
of these ordinary men actually refused to participate in these crimes
despite the virtual absence of all official pressure for active
participation. In the case of Reserve Police Battalion 101 a miniscule
proportion of officers and men explicitly refused to take part in the
genocidal mission assigned to the battalion, and these were released from
that duty and transferred - without exception - to other units, and more
often than not to positions of higher authority and responsibility!
For those of us who are actively committed to humane practices it's
difficult to regard wanton cruelty without immediate condemnation, but how
can we relate to the findings of researchers such as Browning and Goldhagen?
We should by now be aware of the fact that the activities of the
overwhelming majority of the ordinary Germans in Reserve Police Battalion
101are not specially German, no more than the cruelties of the Cossack
troopers described by I. Babel in *Red Cavalry* are particularly Russian or
the war-crimes perpetrated by US soldiers in Vietnam are particularly
American. The issue of collaboration in creative acts of adding misery to
others is complex and not easily resolved. Can we condemn men for the very
human motives of careerism and peer pressure in situations were these lead
to collective acts of inhuman treatment of others? I really don't know.
There's an old Jewish adge that might be relevant here. It goes something
like this: "In the place where there are no men, try to be a man."
Highest regards,
Victor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:15 AM
Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> Dear Victor-
>
> I also think we are probably in agreement but let me clarify one important
> (for me) thing.
>
> You wrote,
> > it's neither useful or even interesting to criticize the morality of
> > those who have neither the intellectual integrity nor the self-respect
to
> > challenge or at least to abstain from participation in the excessive
> > exercise of power to enforce public conformity.
>
> When I lived in the Soviet Union, my friends and I (what can be loosely
> called a "dissident circle") did not judge people who were forced to do
bad
> things but we did judge (and ostracized) those who used their "creativity"
> in adding misery to others. I still think that it was a fair judgment.
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:29 AM
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> >
> > Gene,
> >
> > I don't think we really differ here much. I grew up in period of
> hysterical
> > Anti-Communism, virulent Anti-Unionism, and what can only be called the
> most
> > fanatical Americanism. The experience of living in a totalitarian
> > environment; tapped phones, police surveillance, veiled and not so
veiled
> > threats to loyal friends etc., is an extremely frightening one and for
> very
> > good reasons.
> >
> > I certainly share your evaluation of those who are too "pig-headed"
> (stupid)
> > to acquiesce to overwhelming authority and of those who, though
refraining
> > from direct opposition to authoritarianism, support and protect those
that
> > do so. Sadly, experience shows that the heroism of such people is only
> > recognized after the event, and it makes all the sense in the world to
> > "knuckle under" and keep a "low profile" if you hope to achieve
something
> > you can enjoy in this life-time or sometimes just to physically survive.
> >
> > The heoism of the Vygotsky's, Ilyenkov's, and Vavilov's (as well as
their
> > simple intellectual integrity) should be regarded with the highest
> respect,
> > but it's neither useful or even interesting to criticize the morality of
> > those who have neither the intellectual integrity nor the self-respect
to
> > challenge or at least to abstain from participation in the excessive
> > exercise of power to enforce public conformity.
> >
> > With highest regards
> > Victor
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
> > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:31 PM
> > Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> >
> >
> > > Dear Vic-
> > >
> > > You wrote,
> > > > I have some reservations regarding Valsiner's description of the
> > > > "insensitivity" of Leontiev and Luria. It requires much more than
> > normal
> > > > courage to oppose an oppressive regime. Let he who is innocent etc.
> > etc.
> > >
> > > I do not want to trivialize the issue of historical responsibility but
> > > Vygotsky (and many others) never did "weird" and "politically
> insensitive"
> > > things like what Luria and Leontiev (L&L) did. Mike made a good point
> that
> > > L&L started working on their "lie/loyalty detector" before Stalin came
> to
> > > power (in the second part of 1929) - which is true (although they
> > continued
> > > working on long after - through the 1970s, as I've heard). However,
the
> > > "red" terror was going on throughout the 1920s in the USSR although,
of
> > > course, with less vigilance than later. Remember that Bakhtin and his
> > > friends were arrested before Stalin's consolidation of power in fall
of
> > > 1929. People were arrested and "disappeared" throughout 1920s.
> > >
> > > By the way, some of Vygotsky's students and colleagues (e.g.,
> Kolbanovsky)
> > > publicly tried to protect him and his name (after Vygotsky's death)
and
> > did
> > > not turn away (against) him (unlike L&L).
> > >
> > > I do not know what I would do if I live then and there but I want to
> > > recognize people like Vygotsky and Kolbanovsky. I admire them for
their
> > > bravery, civil responsibility, political-moral intelligence, and
> honesty.
> > > Sometimes I thought that Vygotsky was pretty stupid if not suicidal
but
> > not
> > > attending to the political situation. Vygotsky made many political
> > > "mistakes" (including his move from Moscow to Kharkov in the early
1930s
> > > that was literally "clean up" by NKVD in 1937) that would be fatal in
> the
> > > coming Stalinist purges if he didn't die so early. Vygotsky was
"stupid"
> > if
> > > the highest value of his life was his survival but probably it was
> not...
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Eugene
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:44 PM
> > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > >
> > > > Gene,
> > > >
> > > > This comes as no great surprise. This was the very same regime that
> > > > persecuted Vavilov and made Lysenko a Soviet hero.
> > > >
> > > > In my view Vygotsky was as thoroughly a Marxist as Ilyenkov and a
far
> > more
> > > > consistent Historical Materialist than his students; Leontiev,
Luria,
> > > > Davydov etc. In fact, his theoretical and practical accomplishments
> are
> > > > among the best examples of creative scientific work explicitly
linked
> to
> > > > materialist dialectics.
> > > >
> > > > By the way, some recent conversations with an agricultural advisor
> late
> > of
> > > > the Ukraine suggests that most kolkhoz presidents were strictly
> > political
> > > > appointees who were especially proficient at making out false
reports,
> > > > giving special favors to their superiors and getting drunk for most
of
> > the
> > > > day! I suspect that V&L were particularly circumspect in their
> > > description
> > > > of the kolkhoz president as "having difficulties with abstract
> > thinking!"
> > > >
> > > > I have some reservations regarding Valsiner's description of the
> > > > "insensitivity" of Leontiev and Luria. It requires much more than
> > normal
> > > > courage to oppose an oppressive regime. Let he who is innocent etc.
> > etc.
> > > > ....
> > > >
> > > > Regards,
> > > > Victor
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
> > > > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:07 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Ana-
> > > > >
> > > > > Sorry for the delay - I was swamped with work when I cam back from
> San
> > > > Diego
> > > > > (AERA).
> > > > >
> > > > > You asked,
> > > > > > > I think a discussion between psychological tools mediating
> higher
> > > > > psychological functions
> > > > > > and material tools meditating subject-object relations can
> > > > interesting...
> > > > >
> > > > > My study of this question led me to the following summary of
> Stalinist
> > > > > critique of Vygotsky-Luria:
> > > > > 1) Lack of VL's focus on class struggle as the explanation of
> diverse
> > > > > psychological phenomena.
> > > > > 2) Lack of VL's focus on the Marxist notion of labor. Specifically
> > > > Vygotsky
> > > > > was accused for replacing the Marxist notion of labor with his
> notion
> > of
> > > > > tools.
> > > > > 3) Not appreciation of "upraising new Soviet man" in their Central
> > Asia
> > > > > studies: how come the kolkhoz president - a good example of "new
> > Soviet
> > > > man"
> > > > > - did not have abstract thinking?!
> > > > > 4) VL's insensitivities of calling formerly oppressed national
> > > minorities
> > > > > "primitives".
> > > > > 5) VL's non-Marxist understanding of the notion of "culture" based
> on
> > > > > Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl's sociological and anthropological ideas
> like
> > > > tools,
> > > > > practices, rituals, collectives rather on labor, surplus, means of
> > > > > productions, productive relations, class, and so on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Read for more in (maybe they have more)
> > > > > Veer, R. v. d., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A
> quest
> > > for
> > > > > synthesis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell (pp. 253- 255; 374-389)
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, on pages 245-246, Veer and Valsiner discussed how
Luria
> > and
> > > > > Leotniev were politically "insensitive" praising Stalinist
> > > > collectivization
> > > > > (about 30 millions were killed) and developing "lie/loyalty
> detectors"
> > > for
> > > > > Soviet secret police in the late 20s and 30s. Also, VV report
about
> > > Luria
> > > > > weird behavior of keeping his close friend's brain in an alcohol
jar
> > for
> > > > > further study in his office (I've hear about that in Russia but I
> > never
> > > > read
> > > > > about that). Br-r-r-r! Weird times produce weird people!
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eugene
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ana@zmajcenter.org [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:54 AM
> > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 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 - 01:00:08 PDT