[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Xmca-l] Re: IRECE special issue on perezhivanie and subjectivity
The special issue on perezhivanie has an article written by Gonzales Rey and Albertina Martinez (Perezhivanie: Advancing on Its Implications for the Cultural Historical Approach.)
All the articles in this special issue are open access to download.
I am focusing on this article because Gonzales Rey seems to be a central figure in reinterpreting the meaning of the legacy of Vygotsky in his last year of life (1933-1934).
Rey says this new approach is actually a return to the themes of his writing in “The Psychology of Art”.
Rey quotes Leontiev who recognized a profound shift occurring in this last year:
“Here I will focus on the ideas of Vygotsky’s last year, from late 1933 to his death in 1934. Our task will be to grasp the logic of this uncompleted work and attempt to extrapolate the tendencies that were developing in his thinking.” (Leontiev)
Rey then adds:
“Unfortunately little has been done to rescue Vygotsky’s final legacy because the dominant representation of his thoughts prevent new interpretations of his work.” (Rey)
The notion of perezhivanie, from Rey’s perspective, is central to recognizing Vygotsky’s final legacy forming in 1933-34.
Rey makes the case that Vygotsky in his final year was making what must have felt he was making an extreme shift in the tendencies of his thought “considering the dominant principles based on Activity Theory that ruled Soviet Psychology in 1934.”
My intent in posting this is to generate a conversation that some will read as advancing cultural historical theory, while others will read as Rey extrapolating misunderstandings.
Rey is focusing on the subjective aspect of what he calls human *psyche* that focuses on the reality of perezhivanie.
Hoping to keep this topic alive.
Sent from my Windows 10 phone