Re: [xmca] RE: CHAT/SCT - A voice from the past

[Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns <jlarream@uniandes.edu.co>]

No, Mike, I actually found Eugene's list very useful myself. What I was after, and certainly I expressed myself not quite efficiently was not a paradigmatic account, but a historical one. I know little about what the academic and intellectual life was like when, within the Soviet Union, Vygotsky's ideas were emerging and being received, and at the same time one had a milieu I guess pervaded by behaviorism of some kind. Vygotsky had them as interlocutors, which was somewhat a difference with the SCT, which had cognitivists as the most direct audience. Does it make any sense? 

Jorge




Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
Profesor Asociado y Director
Departamento de Psicología
Universidad de los Andes







On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, mike cole wrote:

> Jorge. I think you are misinterpreting Eugene's very useful list of
> potential differentia between SCT and CHAT. Eugene wrote:
> 
> Good question. Currently, I'm kind of fixating a bit on functionalism and I
> see all "other" differences as related to functionalism, like:
> 
> a) focus on observable "external" behavior, actions, movements, mediations,
> tools, constrains, schedules, and so on by people;
> b) distrust to "spiritualism" and "metaphysics" and "retrospections";
> c) focus on changing reality rather than just studying it;
> d) "formative experiment", "double stimulation";
> e) distrust to nativism and prioritization of nurture versus nature;
> f) interest in history of processes;
> g) what else? I probably missed a lot other important aspects...
> 
> and, of course, distrust to structuralism....
> 
> As I interpret this list, it provides us with one side of an implied "other"
> position that is somehow
> in contrast with a-g above. Its that "otherness" that intrigues me here. It
> seems that each of us should be
> able to look at the items on the list and ask themselves, "does that apply
> to me"?
> 
> Eugene-- Can you provide a parallel list? In some cases it is possible to do
> so, but in others it seems
> unclear.
> 
> mike
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns <
> jlarream@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> 
>> Right, Andy. But I'm, perhaps, after the products of the historical sharing
>> of the two lines of thought. That's what intrigues me, at least for the time
>> being, not the differences, but the similarities, the shared background, as
>> Eugene made it explicit.
>> 
>> Jorge
>> 
>> 
>> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
>> Profesor Asociado y Director
>> Departamento de Psicología
>> Universidad de los Andes
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Nov 25, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>> 
>>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/reflexology.htm
>>> 
>>> I think that Vygotsky's re-assertion of the need for the concept of
>> "consciousness" to take its place as the central concept of Psychology marks
>> the difference between CHAT and Behaviourism, Jorge, and Vygotsky marked out
>> this difference right at the beginning, in the same speech where he
>> expresses his solidarity with Wm James.
>>> 
>>> Andy
>>> 
>>> Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns wrote:
>>>> Eugene,
>>>> I once had a conversation with Andy Blunden about  concepts and
>> mentioned the fact that in the behaviorist tradition concepts are often
>> interpreted as patterns of behavior, a definition that has fascinated me
>> ever since I learned about it. Then, I realized that, within the behaviorist
>> tradition, such a foundational notion (I mean, concept) was defined not in
>> mentalistic terms, but in terms that refer, I have to confess, ultimately,
>> to the person's actions, as opposed, say, to a set of mental representations
>> of sorts (of course, behaviorists have no conception of person). I'm fully
>> aware of the distinctions between the traditions (meaning, behaviorist and
>> else), , some of which are related to the very opposition, in terms of
>> Giddens, between action and movement. As you may recall, action in the
>> behaviorist tradition was reduced to an externality, void of connections
>> with history, goals, and context. But the point, is that no recourse was
>> made i the behaviorist tradition to a representational, cognitive, kind of
>> entity. I know the history in the American psychology, the raise and fall of
>> Watson, but I wonder, historically, about the connections between the
>> behaviorism in the Soviet Union and the emergence of Vygotsky's ideas. The
>> two intellectual traditions seem to me, at some point, neighbors. Good or
>> bad, of course, is a matter of perspective. Any thoughts?
>>>> 
>>>> Jorge
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> bne
>>>> On Nov 25, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear Jorge–
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>> From: Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns
>>>>>> [mailto:jlarream@uniandes.edu.co]
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 4:39 PM
>>>>>> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] RE: CHAT/SCT - A voice from the past
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Eugene,
>>>>>> Do you see any other similarities between Vygotskian approaches and
>>>>>> behaviorist ones besides being functionalists? I wonder.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> Good question. Currently, I'm kind of fixating a bit on functionalism
>> and I
>>>>> see all "other" differences as related to functionalism, like:
>>>>> 
>>>>> a) focus on observable "external" behavior, actions, movements,
>> mediations,
>>>>> tools, constrains, schedules, and so on by people;
>>>>> b) distrust to "spiritualism" and "metaphysics" and "retrospections";
>>>>> c) focus on changing reality rather than just studying it;
>>>>> d) "formative experiment", "double stimulation";
>>>>> e) distrust to nativism and prioritization of nurture versus nature;
>>>>> f) interest in history of processes;
>>>>> g) what else? I probably missed a lot other important aspects...
>>>>> 
>>>>> and, of course, distrust to structuralism....
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Eugene
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jorge
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
>>>>>> Profesor Asociado y Director
>>>>>> Departamento de Psicología
>>>>>> Universidad de los Andes
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Nov 25, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dear Mike and everybody-
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Here is my two cents on this interesting topic besides minor
>>>>>>> correction that the Sociocultural conference in Madrid was I think in
>>>>>>> 1992, not in 1994 (I
>>>>>>> think):
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 1)      You seem suggest that the differences between CHAT and SCT as
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> they
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> have emerged in the "West" (i.e., outside of former Soviet Union)
>> have
>>>>>>> been historically rooted in the Soviet debates. Am I right in
>>>>>>> understanding of your point? If so, I'm not sure that it is true or
>>>>>>> fully true. I want to hear more from you about your reasoning
>> connecting
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> these two debates.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 2)      I think in your original message, you were alluding that, at
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> least,
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> in part the disagreements among the Soviet scholars were caused by
>>>>>>> their political squabbles within the "Stalinist science" (the term
>>>>>>> that was coined by Krementsov, I think) or in the "post-Stalinist
>>>>>>> science". In any case, what makes you think that way? Also, do you
>>>>>>> think that there was any "substance" in these debates or not? For
>>>>>>> example, you wrote, "At the same time, they criticized Leont'ev for
>>>>>>> placing too much emphasis on activity as external conditions,
>> likening
>>>>>>> him to a behaviorist (Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, 1980)." It can be a
>>>>>>> fluke, but I have noticed that some former behaviorists became
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Vygotskians. Mike, can you, yourself, be an example of this pattern?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If my observation is correct, it can suggest some interesting
>> affinity
>>>>>>> between behaviorism and Vygotskian family of approaches (e.g., both
>>>>>>> are functional approaches).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 3)      I have noticed, and I can be wrong, that you want to diminish
>>>>>>> differences in Vygotskian family of approaches rather than explore
>>>>>>> possible differences and differentiations among them. For me, even
>>>>>>> this posting goes along with this tendency. Am I right about that? If
>>>>>>> so, can you elaborate on that? Basically, I want to ask you if you
>>>>>>> PREFER that there are no differences rather than you do simply do not
>>>>>>> see any differences but would be EQUALLY HAPPY if the differences
>> really
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> exist.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Eugene
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Eugene Matusov, Ph.D.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Professor of Education
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> School of Education
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> University of Delaware
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 16 W Main st.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Newark, DE 19716, USA
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> email: ematusov@udel.edu
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> fax: 1-(302)-831-4110
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> website: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu <http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/
>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Dialogic Pedagogy Forum: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu
>>>>>>> <http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/>
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=
>>>>>> 8
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 893>
>>>>>>> Description: Journey into dialogic pedagogy Matusov, E. (2009).
>>>>>>> Journey into dialogic pedagogy
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> <https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=
>>>>>> 8893> .
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> ---------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> From: mike cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
>>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:37 PM
>>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
>>>>>>> Cc: Luis Moll; Eugene Matusov
>>>>>>> Subject: CHAT/SCT - A voice from the past
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I know some people who care a lot to distinguish CHAT and SCT. I
>>>>>>> wonder if there is any consensus on what the critical differences are
>>>>>>> between them. Here is what I wrote at the Sociocultural Conference in
>>>>>>> Madrid about 1994 where Jim Wertsch, who edited the 1981 book on
>>>>>>> Soviet activity theory,  as a major player and lead editor on the
>>>>>>> subsequent volume - socicultural theories of mind.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> More than 15 years have passed since this was written. I may have
>> been
>>>>>>> dead wrong then and making the same argument now may seem really
>>>>>>> mistaken. You will see traces of this same discussion in various
>>>>>>> messages being posted around the P&L article.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> How should I proceed to find out?? Where are all the L2 people here
>> to
>>>>>>> help us out here? Other than publishers in applied linguistics
>>>>>>> preferring SCT, what's in those names that makes people get irritated
>>>>>>> with each other? Who are the bad people? What are the special virtues
>>>>>>> of the good people?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>> ------------------------------
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> For the past several years I have been striving, with rather limited
>>>>>>> success, to understand the intellectual issues that divide the
>>>>>>> Vygotskian and activity theory approaches, as well as the division
>>>>>>> between activity
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> theorists who follow Leont'ev and those who follow Rubinshtein. This
>>>>>>> task is complicated because, insofar as I can understand,
>> contemporary
>>>>>>> followers of Leont'ev continue to adhere to the major principles
>>>>>>> articulated by Vygotsky, Luria, and Leont'ev in the 1920s and early
>>>>>>> 1930s, arguing in effect that Vygotsky was an activity theorist,
>>>>>>> although he focused less on issues of the object-oriented nature of
>>>>>>> activity than on processes of mediation in his own work (Engestrorn,
>>>>>>> 1987; Hyden, 1984). Followers ofRubinshtein, on the other hand, deny
>>>>>>> that Vygotsky was an activity theorist and tax him with
>>>>>>> "signocentricisrn," which in the overheated debates of the last
>> decade
>>>>>>> of Soviet power seemed to
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> be roughly equivalent to "idealist," a sin at that time (Brushlinsky,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 1968).
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> At the same time, they criticized Leont'ev for placing too much
>>>>>>> emphasis on activity as external conditions, likening him to a
>>>>>>> behaviorist (Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, 1980).
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I do not want to minimize the possible scientific benefits to be
>>>>>>> derived from attempting to understand these disagreements more
>>>>>>> thoroughly, although I am not certain how productive such attempts
>>>>>>> will
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> be for non-Russian psychologists. From existing historiographical
>>>>>>> evidence, debates among Russian adherents of these various positions
>>>>>>> appear to have been tightly bound up with the wrenching political
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> upheavals that racked the Soviet Union repeatedly between 1917 and
>>>>>>> 1991 (and which arc by no means over) (Van der Veer & Valsiner,
>> 1991).
>>>>>>> What I am almost positive of, however, is that it would not be
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> productive for adherents of the various positions to carry those
>>>>>>> battles into the international sphere except insofar as they have
>>>>>>> international intellectual merit.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What most concerns me is that for whatever combination of reasons,
>>>>>>> there has not yet been close cooperation on an international scale
>>>>>>> among psychologists who work under the banner of activity theory and
>>>>>>> those who use some version of the concept of sociocultural psychology
>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> their conceptual icon. At the first Activity Theory Congress in
>> Berlin
>>>>>>> in 1986, there was only one major address that took the work of
>>>>>>> Vygotsky and Luria to be coequally relevant to the proceedings with
>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> of Leont'ev, and individual talks that proceeded from a more or less
>>>>>>> Vygotskian perspective were relatively rare. At the second Activity
>>>>>>> Theory Congress in 1990, there was a far richer mix of viewpoints,
>> but
>>>>>>> many of the people prominent in organizing the current meeting in
>>>>>>> Madrid were preoccupied with preparatory work for the current meeting
>>>>>>> and did not contribute.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It would be most unfortunate if adherents of the various streams of
>>>>>>> psychological thinking whose history I have sketched were to continue
>>>>>>> their work in isolation from each other. The common intellectual
>>>>>>> issues facing different streams of cultural-historical,
>> sociocultural,
>>>>>>> activity based conceptions of human nature are too difficult to yield
>> to
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> piecemeal efforts.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> It is time for those who have come to questions about the
>>>>>>> socio-cultural-historical constitution of human nature to join in a
>>>>>>> cooperative search for their common past and to initiate cooperative
>>>>>>> efforts to address the difficult intellectual issues and staggering
>>>>>>> national and international problems facing humanity in the post-Cold
>> War
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> era.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>>>> _____
>>>>>>> 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
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>> Joint Editor MCA: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/
>>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
>>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
>>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
>>> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
>>> 
>>> 
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> 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
>> 
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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