[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] The belated reflections on Anna's and Peter's article



Thank you for your response, Sasha.

Of all the questions coming up in our discussion, the problem of the continuity or compatibility between the writings and research work of Vygotsky and Leontiev is the one that I am finding especially productive and challenging. You have been arguing that the ideas of Vygotsky (especially, the concept of sign mediation) were idealist and therefore reactionary, and that Vygotsky's ideas and those of AN Leontiev are incompatible. You further explain that ANL, although he did make some important steps forward, failed in important aspects of his account of human consciousness. Instead, Meshcheriakov and Ilyenkov successfully pointed the way toward solutions to essential issues regarding human consciousness.

If there is an article in English that summarizes your overall sense of the flow of these ideas, I would love to be pointed toward it. Perhaps this is an article still to be written, or at least, translated into English. And I certainly understand that a listserve like xmca is not necessarily an adequate good place to just create such an article.

In the meantime, I am working on the many questions and points you made in your attached post last week, finding myself reading quite a few different sources and trying to wrap my head around these issues. In an important sense, the very issues of what is CHAT, what is its history, what is psychology, what is consciousness, what is activity, what is, as you summarize Meshchariokov's perspective, "collaborative object oriented activity mediated with cultural tools," etc. are at the core of these discussions about the compatibility of Vygotsky and Leontiev. These are not secondary questions!

Highest regards,
- Steve





On Jan 18, 2009, at 11:26 AM, Alexander Surmava wrote:

Steve,



I did my best to find a solution of the riddle with interrupted sentence. Alas, I failed :-).

I think the best is to delete this semisentence.





As for Alexander Meshcheriskov's theoretic ideas it’s in the same time easy and difficult to discuss them. Easy because the core result of Meshcheriakov’s practice with deaf-blind children was absolutely clear: the human consciousness is based on collaborative object oriented activity mediated with cultural tools, while the latter are first of all tangible implements of human way of life and last of all arbitrary signs. Strictly to say this conclusion doesn’t contradict to Vygotsky’s scientific data. In “Tool and symbol in child development” he admits

“We can think of nothing more obviously underlining the fact that at the very beginning of speech the child sees no connection between sign and meaning, nor does it begin to become conscious of this connection for quite some time.”

In fact these words contain involuntary admission of an error in his own idea about arbitrary signs as basis of human consciousness (“high mental functions”) at least in dialectical (Marxist) logic.

Surely eclectics allows to aggregate any definitions at any stage of development and at any stage of analysis, say to start from object oriented activity (while one can clearly see that the child (or “primitive”) in Vygotsky’s experiment, refusing participate in these strange games with arbitrary renaming, acts as object oriented subject) than to add “socialness”, than to add “subjectness”, than to add arbitrary signs and a bit of magic and after all this operations pretend on “theoretic” position. On the contrary the dialectical logic insists on the necessity of theoretical deduction of all developed forms from the initial cell, from the most abstract relation. And just in this point there is a basic distinction between Hegelian and “nonexistent” Marxist philosophy.

Hegel contents himself with speculative extraction of developing ideas from his own genial head (in fact from uncritically adopted contemporary science) while Marx demands to search and to find the way how ideas (and their objects) develop in the very objective reality. Actually it means the critical rethinking of all theoretic and empirical data of predecessors and deliberate research aiming to find the way the objective reality intends to sublate its contradictions itself.

Thus both Marx and Hegel endeavoured to overcome the naïve sensualist approach, the notorious S-->R relation with its lack of real subject. Marx found the solution in his analysis of human history as the most developed object and put forward the idea of collaborative practice revolutionarily transforming the world, while Hegel failed to find something better that postulating a magic ability of ascribing arbitrary signs, or die Namengebungkraft. Evidently in this case Vygotsky went after Hegel, not Marx. That’s why the empiric data which he as sincere researcher refers to argues against his theoretic Hegelian style speculations and confirms the opposite, dialectical approach.

All this is absolutely evident if we are looking from developed dialectical perspective, looking from Il’enkov’s position. But I am afraid that it’s rather difficult simply to illustrate the theme with wide citation from Il’enkov and Meshcheriakov.

You are absolutely right that besides critical one needs a positive explanation of the subject. I assure you that I’ll be happy to give such a positive exposition of dialectical psychology approach. Only one problem still exists in this connection. The format of listserv post is a little narrow for description of fundamental theory :-) while my articles used to magically escape the chance to be published (at least in English).

Cheers,

Sasha





-----Original Message-----

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca- bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Steve Gabosch

Sent: Thursday, January 15, 2009 4:06 PM

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

Subject: Re: [xmca] The belated reflections on Anna's and Peter's article



Jan 15

Hi Sasha,



I got your attachment.  I notice your earlier part 1 is included in

this one, so your whole new post is in this new MSWord attachment.



I'll be looking over your commentary carefully, lots to think about

and respond to.



I wanted to see if, in the meantime, I could nudge you into writing a

little more about A. Meshcheriakov's theoretical ideas.



I found myself especially struck by your mentioning of Alexander

Meshcheriakov's "great discovery". You say:



" ... by excluding the real tangible tool Vygotsky hermetically closed

the window between the real material world and the so called

subjective reality or consciousness, between material and ideal.  The

real (indeed) great discovery of Alexander Meshcheriakov

(theoretically reflected and greeted by Ilyenkov) was experimental

prove of the fact that human consciousness arises **not in senseless

drilling of arbitrary signs** which supposedly gives the deaf and

blind person a chance to access to Divine Word, but the practical

mastering of real tangible and far from any arbitrariness human tools

as say a spoon, as cloths, as a bed, as a chair, as a chamber-pot etc.

In fact this not speculative but founded in the practical reality

statement was nothing but death sentence to Vygotsky’s semiotic

conception. In his epoch-making book “Deaf and blind child”

Meshcheriakov demonstrates how this logic can be observed even in

biography of Helen Keller thou her teacher Ann Sullivan hardly had an

adequate theoretically understanding of the real reasons of her

success."

In your December post, which your new post helps me understand much

better, (thank you), you also briefly discussed Meshcheriakov's ideas.



You said:



"the shift of interest from “bare hand” (in Leont’ev and

Zaporojetz doctrine of perceptive activity) to hand armed with

cultural tool in object oriented activity belongs more to Alexander

Meshcheriakov and Il’enkov than to Leont’ev"



And you contrasted Meshcheriakov's central unit of analysis,

"Collaborative object oriented activity of minimum two persons

mediated by cultural tool (not mere sign!)" with the "Vygotskyian

triangle of sign mediation" and Leontiev's "Subject and Object, or

vial relation."



I was wondering, Sasha, while you are waiting for me to respond, if

you would be willing to expand on your reading of Meshcheriakov and

Ilyenkov in terms of the core psychological ideas you are advocating.



After all, in the long run, it is not what you are against and

critical of that counts most - it is what you are **for**.  :-))



Best,

- Steve



PS  This is a question to Sasha about an incomplete sentence that is

at the end of the below paragraph: "Surely all this can be correct but

to ..."



Is there more?  Or did your word processor leave in something not

meant ...



"May I ask you Steve why you are “especially unwilling to have to

choose between” lines of theorizing of Vygotsky and Leont’ev? Are

you equally unwilling to have to choose between lines of theorizing of

say Kant and Hegel, or Hegel and Marx? Or in the last case you realize

that such refusal to choose between two lines will be inadequate

because one can’t merge the subjective idealism of Kant with

objective one of Hegel, and objective idealism of Hegel with

materialism of Marx without flagrant eclecticism. Do you realize that

your refusal to choose between semiotics of Vygotsky and object

oriented activity of Leont’ev means the refusal in appreciation the

Leont’ev’s theorizing as a new theoretic step in the development of

the Vygotsky’s theoretic school and appreciating of the Vygotsky’s

school as developing one? In fact you say that all basic ideas were

formulated by Vygotsky in his twenties while Leont’ev had to define

more exactly some non-essential details and that both Vygotsky and

Leont’ev were totally mistaken supposing that the contradiction

between their approach were and remain principle. Surely all this can

be correct but to"



If research proves that the oxygen theory of burning is truer that

“phlogiston” one, we as researchers have to choose one definite

position. And that is not a peculiarity of chemistry as natural

science, or national feature of these pugnacious Russians but the

universal principal of dialectical (=scientific, =научного)

thinking.













On Jan 14, 2009, at 12:04 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote:



Hi everybody,



in reply to Steve's comments on my long post I'm sending even longer

one.

I did my best to be more compact. Alas, I failed.

As previously I'm sending the post in attached file in MSWord to

save all

formatting.

(My text is marked With dark red letters. Steve's text marked in

yellow on

green field.)



Sasha



-----Original Message-----

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-

bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On

Behalf Of Mike Cole

Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 7:44 PM

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

Subject: Re: [xmca] The belated reflections on Anna's and Peter's

article



Along with others, thanks for your thoughtful summarizing and

commentary

on Sasha's long note, Steve. To me, the basic idea behind chat as a

framework (sometimes elevated in particular work to the status of a

theoretical

heuristic, perhaps even a theory) is captured by the following

statement in

Steve's note which, I believe, reflects the views of Peter and Anna

as well.



These two lines of thinking about tools and signs could be seen as

two sides

of the same coin, the same essential process, which may be better

understood

now that we have the theory of ideality/materiality to work with,

(which, as

I mentioned, I believe is an advance over the older "sign/tool"

framework

Vygotsky employed).  The discovery by Ilyenkov that all cultural

artifacts,

including internal psychological processes, "contain" (metaphorically

speaking) both ideality and materiality offers new ways to assess

earlier

efforts to describe and explain mediation.



mikr





On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 5:17 AM, Steve Gabosch < <mailto:stevegabosch@me.com > stevegabosch@me.com>

wrote:



Yikes!  I did not realize I managed to send out two earlier

versions of

what I was putting together. The last one is the one most worked on.

Please ignore the first two.  Hopefully they don't have something

embarrassing!



Thanks for your response, Sasha.  Looking forward to hearing more

from

you!



Happy New Year to all from me as well,

- Steve







On Dec 30, 2008, at 4:50 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote:



Thank you Steve,

your summery of my text is absolutely adequate and  your comments

are

inspiring to detailed answer.

I try to write it as soon as possible, but...

In new year :-)

Thank  you again

And A Happy New Year to all XMCA'ers!!!

Sasha



-----Original Message-----

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu

] On

Behalf Of Steve Gabosch

Sent: Wednesday, December 31, 2008 2:19 AM

To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity

Subject: Re: [xmca] The belated reflections on Anna's and Peter's

article



I found myself taking a close look at Sasha's Dec 28 post, and wound

up writing a summary of major points and quotes from his post to

sort

them out for myself.  Others may or may not find this summary

helpful.



Some comments follow.







1. Sasha suggests that Anna and Peter take a cavalier and eclectic

methodological approach toward sociology.



Combining CHAT with "one or various types of sociology, based on

absolutely different philosophical backgrounds … demonstrates," in

Sasha's opinion, "some methodological unconcern."





2. Sasha's main concern in this post/commentary is not over CHAT and

sociology, however.  It is over the relationship of Vygotsky and

Leontiev.  He sees Peter and Anna's "eclecticism" toward various

trends in sociology as being akin to what he sees as an eclecticism

toward CHAT theory itself, which arbitrarily and incorrectly

combines

Vygotsky and Leontiev.



Sasha remarks that "eclecticism blossoms in the discussed text much

earlier than [when] the authors try to act as matchmakers between

psychology and sociology."



"The very notion of so called Cultural Historical Activity Theory,

or

CHAT," according to Sasha, amounts to little more than "several

arbitrarily taken out of context separate ideas of Vygotsky and

Leont'ev."



"Even more naïve," he comments further, is the "attempt to put

forward

the distinction between "the first", "the second" and the "third"

generations" of what he sees as a "nonexistent theory."



He acknowledges that "we use the term CHAT" as a way "to designate"

the tradition "rooted in Vygotsky and Leont'ev tradition," but Sasha

emphasizes that "I'm afraid that it looks rather naïve to take it

literally as THEORY."





3. Sasha asks "we have to put before ourselves the real question:

what, if anything, unifies psychological ideas of Leont'ev and

Vygotsky?"



Sasha says with emphasis: "Near to nothing."





4.  Sasha acknowledges that both LSV and ANL were Marxists, but

dismisses Marxism as being a point in common between Vygotsky and

Leontiev **as psychologists.**



He explains: "One can find a lot of common motives, common ideas and

even the same words in both LSV and ANL. These common motives and

words are nothing but their common Marxist background, their Marxist

theoretic culture. And we will be the last who will deny or

underestimate this common cultural-historical root of both thinkers.

But the question was about their similarity as psychologists, not as

private persons with similar political and philosophical

weltanschauung [sg - world view]."





5.  Sasha emphasizes they were Marxists, and furthermore, did not

make

concessions to what some would call Stalinism.



"Did [these] two researchers, or even one of them, part from their

common Marxist general philosophical and social position?

"Surely not!



"Both remain sincere and passionate Marxists and communists.



"Did one of them accept or slightly move closer to Soviet official

quasi Marxist ideology?



"Surely not, as well!"





6. However, Sasha emphasizes, one cannot agree with both Vygotsky

and

Leontiev.



"… if one of them was right, the other inevitably was wrong."





7.  Sasha summarizes their basic theoretical positions in this way:



"As we know the basic theoretic idea of LSV was the idea of sign

mediation. He really believed that "cultural" (arbitrary) sign can

bridge the gap between two Cartesian substances."



On the other hand, "ANL didn't believe that [the] arbitrary sign can

help to solve [the] old psycho physical problem, and shift[ed] his

attention as a researcher from "cultural" sign to object oriented

activity."



As Sasha sees it, "Here, just in this point the ways of Vygotsky and

Leont'ev as psychologists divaricated.  Leont'ev focused his

attention

on activity as a means which can mediate a subject and his object,

while Vygotsky stayed on his old semiotic position."





8. Sasha raises objections to points Peter and Anna raise about

"transformative change" being a theme in first but not second

generation CHAT.  He uses this as a touchstone to a major point he

stresses - Vygotsky's theory of sign mediation cannot play a role in

the emancipation (transformative change) of the wage worker.



Sasha says he "can hardly imagine how a sign can change anything

both

in the real world and in the individual consciousness at least from

Marxist perspective."





9. Sasha analyzes the plight of the wage worker to illustrate this.



"When a worker is self-employed say in subsistence production or in

creative work he acts as living object oriented and consequently

spontaneous creature. On the contrary, when a human sells his labor

power he alienates first of all his/her spontaneity."



" … as wage hand he needs to be specially stimulated to make any

movement."



" … the wage worker turns into Cartesian dead, mechanical SèR

machine

in the very capitalist reality."



"… a worker is totally enslaved and the task of communist

revolution

is to destroy this relation which turns an alive human into dead

SèR

machine.





10. Sasha describes the alienation of the worker both in capitalism

and in the Soviet Union.



" … the method of double stimulation (the notorious triangle) was

the

basic method of "emancipation" of alienated labour in the Soviet

Union

…"



"… the basis of relation of wage labour lies naked S=>R relation

…"





11.  Sasha emphasizes that "signs" cannot liberate the worker, only

the elimination of wage labor itself can do this.



"… to mask this unattractive picture [wage slavery] capitalists

decorate the chain with paper flowers of every sort and kind of

"cultural" signs.  The premise of this practice is an idea that

totally alienated wage worker will forget about his slave status and

imagine that he is free looking at false ideological quasi communist

or equally false ideological religious or liberal signs or slogans

hanging on the walls of his workshop or transmitting via mass media.



"… the way to the realm of freedom has nothing to do with so

called

"sign mediation".



"The fact is that we don't need false even highly "cultural"

decorations of the chain, we need to destroy the chains of wage

labour

as it is."





12.  Better suited to this task is the theory of object oriented

activity than semiotic mediation.



"And the theory of object oriented (not alienated) activity in its

more developed variant as theory of dialectical psychology is more

suitable instrument for this task than all kinds of semiotic

conceptions with all kind of false artificial signs."





13.  The suggestion that Leontiev's theorizing was connected to

Stalinism is unfounded.



"Surely Leont'ev (and Il'enkov) lived in more hard times than

Vygotsky, but that circumstance doesn't give us a right to insult

them

with unfounded inferences that his theoretic position has

something to

do with the Soviet totalitarianism."





14.  At the same time, while LSV's theory of semiotic mediation was

objectively reactionary, Sasha emphasizes that he is not accusing

him

of being a political reactionary.



"To prevent any misunderstanding we want emphasize that criticizing

semiotic approach as objectively reactionary one we are far from

accusing Lev Semionovich in any political sins."



"That is not his fault that the first outline of Marxist psychology

wasn't entirely successful."



"Even less we imply that Soviet authorities were in the list [in the

past? sg] guided by Vygotsky's semiotic ideas, because similar

more or

less articulated ideas were and still remain in the air."





15.  As an aside, Sasha discusses the way Anna translates a passage

from Vygotsky in a 2004 article.  I will skip that.





16.  Sasha then moves on to describe the crux of his critique of

Leontiev.  He points out that Leontiev's theory of perception is

indicative of what is wrong with his theory in general.



" … Leont'ev knew and insisted on social character of human

activity,

but he failed in substantial psychological realization of this

principle."



" … activity in Leont'ev's theory is an activity of isolated

person or

animal, a variant of Robinsonade. That comes home if we take for

example his and Zaporojets' conception of perceptive activity."



" … both researchers analyzed the movement of eyes or hands of

isolated person in total abstraction from any social relation and

from

any tangible tool, taking it in terms of Francis Bacon "with bare

hand".





17.  Understanding the role of the human-created tool is crucial,

something Leontiev did not understand.



"In fact the omission of tool in the schema of human object oriented

activity is equal to omission of social context of this activity

because the attributive characteristic of human activity is that it

has to be armed with a tool given to him by another human."



"Many of animals can make and utilize various tools. Only humans

make

tools not for themselves, but for others, only humans don't throw

out

their tools after utilizing them, only humans teach their kids to

use

this tools, only humans collect tools as tangible part of their

culture, only humans acquire an ability to deal with ideal meanings

embodies in those tools."





18.  Leontiev's lack of understanding on the question of the human-

made tool means he cannot be credited with solving this crucial

problem in object oriented activity theory.



"Evidently that the shift of interest from "bare hand" (in Leont'ev

and Zaporojetz doctrine of perceptive activity) to hand armed with

cultural tool in object oriented activity belongs more to Alexander

Meshcheriakov and Il'enkov than to Leont'ev."





19.  Continuing his critique of Leontiev, Sasha explains that ANL's

failure to understand the psychological nature of the cultural tool

paralleled Leontiev's failure to theorize the psyche.  Sasha

refers to

sharp though friendly-in-form criticisms Leontiev made of Vygotsky

semiotic approach, but points out that Leontiev did not himself

surmount that "vulgar and evidently non-Marxist" semiotic approach

himself.



"In the same time he [Leontiev] totally failed in his attempt to

give

a theoretic deduction of psyche."



"In fact defining a psyche as an ability which emerges in the

situation when a (magically arise from nowhere) "subject" starts to

react on abiotic stimuli which acquires a meaning of sign which

indicates the presence of some biotic stimuli Leont'ev

unintentionally

returned to the same vulgar and evidently non Marxist semiotic

approach which he sharply (though friendly in form) criticized in

Vygotsky."





20. Nevertheless, Sasha argues that Leontiev did make a fundamental

contribution, despite these other failures.



"What Alexei Nikolaevitch really did was the discovery of the

essence

of life as it is (which in fact is nothing but an object oriented

activity) … though Leont'ev himself didn't guess what was the real

subject of his really great discovery.





21.  The final part of Sasha's commentary is a table comparing the

three trends of psychological theorizing represented by Vygotsky,

Leontiev, and Ilyenkov/A. Meshchariakov.  He lists the authors and

names of the three theoretical trends, and compares them along three

criteria: their units of analysis, whether they solved the "essence

of life" question, and whether they solved what might be called the

"human tool sharing in culture and history" problem.



Vygotsky's theory, "Cultural-Historical theory," using the

Vygotskian

triangle of sign mediation as its unit of analysis, did not solve

either problem.



Leontiev's theory, "Theory of Activity," using the Subject and

Obect,

or vital relation as its unit of analysis, solved the essence of

life

problem (activity is object-oriented), but not the human tool

sharing

in culture and history problem (human psychology is based on the use

of shared tools in human activity).



Ilyenkov/Meshchariakov's theory, "Dialectical Psychology," or what

Sasha says can be called simply CHAT, uses as its unit of analysis

"collaborative object oriented activity of minimum two persons

mediated by cultural tool (not mere sign!)" and successfully solves

both problems.





22.  As part of his presentation of this table, Sasha comments on

Vygotsky. He is critical of Vygotsky's SèR schema, his triangle of

mediation, as being mechanical.  He rejects the idea that culture

and

history can be found in this scheme with arbitrary [conventional]

signs. He also suggests that culture and history cannot be found in

the "artificial concepts" theorized in the Sakharov-Vygotsky

experiment.



Vygotsky "tried to deal with stimulus reactive creatures as a

starting

point of his theorizing (e.g. in the basis of his triangle of

mediation), while the SèR schema is totally mechanical principle

which

has nothing to do even with alive subjects not to speak of

subjects of

psyche or human consciousness …"



"Culture is something that is growing and crystallizing and passing

from one alive hands to another one for ages and that has little

to do

with taken by agreement arbitrary signs."



" … in the scheme of mediation with arbitrary signs we can find no

more "culture and history" than in Sakharov-Vygotsky experiment with

so called "artificial concepts"."





23.  At the same time, before he closes, Sasha feels strongly

obliged

to point out Vygotsky's vital contributions.

"I feel that I can't put a dot without appreciating Vygotsky's

contribution to CHAT …"



There is no question that "Vygotsky's role in foundation of CHAT

as a

researching school can't be underestimated."



"It was Vygotsky who clearly formulated the criteria of scientific

character of our discipline: "Donauchn. t.zr. —

vzaimodeistv." (prescientific point of view – interaction <of

soul and

body – A.S.>)."



"It was Vygotsky who said:  "Centr. problema vsei psihologii –

svoboda." (The core problem of entire psychology is freedom)"



"… and this: "Grandioznaya kartina razvitiya lichnosti: put' k

svobode. Ojivit' spinozizm v Marks. psihol." (The grandiose

picture of

personality development: the way to freedom. Revive Spinozism in

Marxist psychology.)



"We can continue the list of such brilliant insights."





24.  Sasha finishes off with a big nod to the contributions of

Leontiev and others.



"But probably his [Vygotsky's] biggest scientific result was

inducing

the field of greatest voltage around himself as a researcher, the

field that attracted and inspired such brilliant thinkers as Luria

and

Zaporojets, as Elkonin and Leont'ev and many many others.



And among these, " … first of all Alexei Leont'ev, who not only

continue[d the] Vygotsky's project, but make [made] fundamentally

new

step[s] in the development of CHAT psychology."





25.  And a final comment by Sasha to return to the general

discussion

thread:



"To summarize my feelings from Anna's and Peter's article I can

repeat

that it touches essentially actual problems and just therefore it

must

be appreciated as a starting point of big discussion concerning

social

dimensions of CHAT psychology."





COMMENTS by Steve:



I appreciate Sasha's contribution and criticisms.  He raises

important

issues for CHAT about how to understand Vygotsky, Leontiev and

Ilyenkov's theories, and use them as a basis to move forward.  I

find

myself having a few critical remarks on Sasha's commentary.



I don't agree that Vygotsky and Leontiev had "near to nothing" in

common in their psychological theorizing, and I am especially

unwilling to have to choose between their two lines of

theorizing.  I

believe the two can be highly integrated, even more so than has been

done, at least in English, so far. (Obviously, that belief needs to

be put into practice!)



On Sasha's critique of the theory of sign mediation, I do not

recognize Vygotsky's actual theory in his commentary. I am also

quite

uncomfortable using this theory as representative of Vygotsky's

overall theorizing.  I think it misses out on the strong Marxist

approach Vygotsky worked with.



I applaud Sasha's call for emancipation from wage labor and

alienated

work conditions, but I do not believe Vygotsky was talking about

political signs adulating capitalist industrial practices when he

talked about psychological signs, as Sasha seems to interpreting the

theory of sign mediation to be about.  Perhaps I am misreading

Sasha.

To understand his critique, I would have to ask Sasha to point to

actual things Vygotsky wrote.



On his example of wage labor, I question the one-sided way it seems

that Sasha suggests that at "the basis of relation[s] of wage labour

lies naked S=>R relations."  It is certainly true that social

relations and physical conditions can deteriorate to terrible lows

in

capitalist industry, but humans, except in the most extreme

conditions, are rarely fully divested of their upper mental

functions

and reduced to just animal reactions, naked S=>R relations.  When

this

happens, of course, humans can't work.  Not that one doesn't feel

like

that at the end of the work day sometimes!  Such a situation could

indeed happen in a concentration camp, conditions of prison torture,

etc., where people can truly "lose their minds" for the moment,

maybe

for a while.  But it is precisely the (contradictory) meditational

aspects of human psychology and social reality that makes it

possible

for workers and anyone to be human – not to mention up for and

fight

for their humanity - isn't it?  It is that mediational element

between

the Stimulus and the Response that gives us the power to be human,

and

even the power just to do even menial work.  The capitalists

impose a

mode of production that seeks to completely ignore this mediational

element it - but at their peril. In reality, compromises are worked

out on shop floors and all workplaces day by day, minute by minute.

Workers can get treated like semi-animals (with language and

skills!),

but they don't become animals.



When Marx talked about the task of the emancipation of workers being

the task of the workers themselves, I think he was talking about

taking our humanity (despite the capitalist's exploitation of it) on

the job and generalizing that toward creating a new kind of society.

The first step is to see the humanity that does exist in the work

process, including the capitalist work process.  Sasha's

descriptions

seem to lose sight of that first step.



I believe that Ilyenkov's theory of the ideal solves important

problems with the instrumental level of analysis Vygotsky was

using to

distinguish tools and signs, and to understand and describe the

fundamentally meditational character of human upper mental

functions.

The theory of the ideal in my opinion is still only tentatively

being

integrated into CHAT – it has important contributions still to

make.



Similarly, Leontiev's theory of object-oriented activity solves some

very important limitations that first generation CHAT was facing

trying to analyze the complex subject-object relations that

psychology

must address.  This theory is also only tentatively accepted and

integrated into mainstream CHAT today.  Some question whether it

even

belongs in CHAT.



As for the history of CHAT, rather than draw a picture of

reactionary

errors and complete failures, as Sasha seems to (and others

sometimes

do, too), I prefer viewing these theoretical developments a little

less dramatically and more cerebrally, in terms of lines of

development, obstacles, wrong directions, and new leaps.  Sasha

takes

pains to emphasize the good intentions of both Vygotsky and

Leontiev.

I see no reason not to maintain this spirit in our historical

analyses

of both their accomplishments and their shortcomings, and those of

others in the CHAT tradition. Even in errors are important seeds of

progress, which should not be lost sight of.  Phraseology like

"reactionary" and "totally failed" creates a one-sided view of

serious

work that can obscure vision of actual development.  An effective

dialectical criticism needs above all to show where things are

going,

not just where they have stalled.



Sasha's criticism of Leontiev on viewing activity and perception

only

in terms of the "bare-handed" individual is interesting.  For me,

specific passages where Leontiev does this are needed for me to

understand this criticism.  As for the ideas about the shared

cultural

tool Sasha attributes to Ilyenkov and A. Meshcheriakov, these ideas

certainly seem worth explaining and having appropriate writings on

this referred to.



Finally, Sasha's table offers an interesting look at how he sees

CHAT

as developing.  Despite his sharp rhetoric and negative assessments

about Vygotsky and Leontiev, when all is said and done, I don't see

the sense of the direction of CHAT as radically different from most

others in CHAT, at least judging from this commentary.



I see a lot of work still laying ahead of us in the CHAT world just

grasping what Vygotsky, Leontiev and Ilyenkov said, and putting it

together into an integrated theory of psychology – or rather,

part of

the basis for such a theory. These three writers of course are only

the top of a pyramid of researchers, philosophers, sociologists,

psychologists, thinkers that need to be critiqued and integrated.

Underlying all this effort is the desire and hope for a new kind of

psychology – which is what Vygotsky called for, and I think in

one way

or another, unites us.



I hope Sasha continues to share the work he and his colleagues have

been doing. If he has a chance to elaborate on some of his specific

readings of Vygotsky and Leontiev and others, all the better.



- Steve













On Dec 28, 2008, at 7:06 PM, Alexander Surmava wrote:





Dear XMCA'ers,

Because the text with my reflections contains a table and some

other

difficult for reproduction in "plain text" formatting I attach the

MSWord

file to this post.

Cheers,

Sasha

<About Anna's and Peter's

article.doc>_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca





_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca





_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

<Reply to Steve.doc>_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________

xmca mailing list

<mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu

<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca