Re: [xmca] Historical Development

From: Paul Dillon <phd_crit_think who-is-at>
Date: Wed Feb 20 2008 - 22:34:01 PST

  I totally agree about your assessment of Martin's article and desire for a section by section reading.
  As to "whether primitives really do think like children" , doesn't it follow from the idea that socio-historical developments subsume (in the Hegelian sense), the previous stages, that what children learn in historically more complex stages of social development encompasses in some way the previous stages of historical development?
  Isn't the problem with recognizing this related to the moral evaluation that accompanies this notion? And how do we get rid of that? Children often are wiser than adults in ways we identify as "human" . Doesn't it come down to the power relations between the cultures of socially complex (e.g. more complex division of labor) and those of less complex ones? I'm sure many people on xmca have learned a lot from children after letting go of the stereotypical adult-child power relation. I know I have.

Mike Cole <> wrote:
  Martin, David et al--

Martin's article deserves almost page by page or section by section
discussion and I have no
idea how to organize such systematicity here. The comments by several of you
have been equally
provocative and development promoting (at least for me!).

I am still trying to think through the issue of freedom as the recognition
of necessity in this framework of
discussion, wondering about LSV's claims to what a REAL, natural scientific
psychology would be, whether
primitives really do think like children (after erasing the confusion of
race and culture along lines suggested by
Paul), and many more issues dare trying to contribute substantially to the

I interpret Martin's article as a great example of careful, scholarly, deep
study of key texts that raises very important
issues. Its an honor to be associated with that kind of scholarship, and the
commentaries generated "here."

On Wed, Feb 20, 2008 at 6:55 PM, Martin Packer

> David,
> I do too, and for very similar reasons.
> On 2/20/08 3:51 PM, "David Kellogg" wrote:
> > I do prefer "personal" to "individual", and I prefer "personality" to
> > "individuality". Here's why.
> >
> What about Vygotsky's use of experimentation? Do you see that in Marx's
> method too?
> > That's why I think Bakhurst's right; the whole method comes from Marx.
> But
> > we can only really clearly see this when we discard "activity" as the
> > fundamental unit of analysis and go back to LSV and word meanings. Word
> > meanings always involve the interface between persons; they are what
> make up
> > personality.
> >
> Martin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------
> > Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try
> it
> > now.
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
xmca mailing list

Looking for last minute shopping deals? Find them fast with Yahoo! Search.
xmca mailing list
Received on Wed Feb 20 22:36 PST 2008

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Wed Apr 09 2008 - 08:03:11 PDT