RE: [xmca] Once Again, Learning and Development!

From: Andy Blunden <ablunden who-is-at>
Date: Sun Jan 20 2008 - 14:26:57 PST

Go to the context:
Marx deals with your question there, I think.

Marx is a little ambiguous, across his life, on what is included under
"production," but since we are talking about whole social formations in
this instance, and taking into account other claims in this same work, I
think we can say that he is talking about economic production as distinct
from "superstructure". Personally, however, I would say that for the
purposes of psychology, it is questionable whether "production" can be
conceived in that limited way. My point only was that this general approach
to complex human forms of development, in the Hegelian/Marxist tradition,
has always had this idea about a "leading activity."


At 10:26 AM 20/01/2008 -0600, you wrote:
>Andy et al:
>What does Marx mean by "production"? What is included? Can you give some
>examples of social formations and then examples of "production" that are
>specific, of not unique, to each formation?
>I'm reading John Berger, especially "The Production of the World," his
>essay about Van Gogh, but Berger uses the phrase "production of the world"
>in other essays, too.
>From: [] On Behalf
>Of Andy Blunden []
>Sent: Saturday, January 19, 2008 8:02 PM
>To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>Subject: Re: [xmca] Once Again, Learning and Development!
>There is in every social formation a particular branch of production which
>determines the position and importance of all the others, and the relations
>obtaining in this branch accordingly determine the relations of all other
>branches as well. It is as though light of a particular hue were cast upon
>everything, tingeing all other colours and modifying their specific features.
>Marx, <../../1859/critique-pol-economy/appx1.htm#p211>Preface to the
>Critique of Political Economy (1859)
>At 08:16 AM 19/01/2008 -0800, you wrote:
> >... Actually, I'm not sure if this way of understanding what Vygotsky
> >meant by central functions and peripheral functions is right at all. It's
> >okay for learning, but it does seem too microgenetic to describe
> >development, doesn't it? Perhaps the BEST thing to do is to take this back
> >to XMCA and see what others think!
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Seoul National University of Education
>xmca mailing list
>xmca mailing list

  Andy Blunden : tel (H) +61 3 9380 9435,
mobile 0409 358 651

xmca mailing list
Received on Sun Jan 20 14:28 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Feb 13 2008 - 12:33:27 PST