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

[Xmca-l] Re: perezhivanie

Hi, Andy,
In my opinion, it is important, and especially in this topic, to be precise
about the phenomena or the aspects of the phenomena which are under
scrutiny; otherwise, scientific discussion and cumulative construction may
become quite difficult. In this case, it might happen, I think, that
different people interarticulate a formally coherent discourse talking of
perezhivanie, and they think they are talking about the same object of
study and about analogous observations, but in reality talking about
different objects of study, or different aspects, or about observations
which can be complementary (instead of in opposition, for example). The
problem, in my view, is not that there are different focuses, aspects, etc.
under research in relation to a phenomenon or different related phenomena;
the problem may arise if observations about different aspects, for example,
are counterpoised and discussed as if they were about the same aspect of
the phenomenon.
That's why I think it may be useful to make some distinctions, to gain some
precision in the scientific work on perezhivanie. The first distinction,
experiencing-as-contemplation and experiencing-as-struggle, is made by
Vasilyuk (although with a different name for experiencing-as-struggle, as
explained in the paper). He initially distinguishes these as two types of
activity, although later suggests that experiencing-as-contemplation could
be an initial moment for a subsequent experiencing-as-struggle (but not all
experiencing-as-contemplation would necessarily imply
experiencing-as-struggle). In experiencing-as-struggle, Vasilyuk also
identifies the importance of the cultural meanings that mediate this
activity -which he calls schematism,- and especially how these meanings are
transformed in experiencing-as-struggle. In my interpretation, when
Vygotsky talks of perezhivanie in The Problem of the Environment, he
focuses mainly in this type of meaning. This is what in my comment I
suggested to call m-perezhivanie.
I agree with you, Andy, and I think this is also related to part of
Alfredo's points, that there is no experiencing-as-struggle without a
mediating m-perezhivanie which is transformed in the activity, so that,
even analytically, this distinction could seem useless, because studying
experiencing-as-struggle is the same as studying the transformation of
m-perezhivanija, and viceversa. Still, I think that the distinction may be
useful because I work with the hypothesis that this type of holistic
meaning is key not only as a mediator in experiencing-as-struggle, but in
many other types of activity (as I mentioned also in previous messages and
also in the paper). Thus, what we learn about this type of mediating
meaning in experiencing-as-struggle may inform also about other types of
activities and viceversa. Also, and in the same vein, in my view this
distinction helps to connect Vygotsky and Vasilyuk works on perezhivanie.
Thus, note that, in The Problem of the Environment, Vygotsky does not
consider what in my interpretation is m-perezhivanie as mediating in
activities of experiencing-as-struggle, but instead he considers it,
basically, as mediating in activities of experiencing-as-contemplation.
I don't know if the terms I suggested are adequate or not, and I don't
consider myself with authority enough to recommend one term over others,
but I think that, regardless the terms used, we need to be precise about
the phenomenon or aspects of the phenomenon we are addressing.
Best regards,

2017-01-10 1:05 GMT+01:00 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>:

> Marc, throughout the Special Issue we spelt /perezhivanie/ the same say
> and put it in italics, indicating a Russian word transliterated into
> English, and systematically had authors delete "experiencing" and "lived
> experience" from their articles and even quotations, as part of an effort
> to create a common meaning for the word. Summing up your position, in the
> Response, you said:
>        In my reading (and I apologize in advance for any
>        misinterpretations), the different papers in this
>        special issue have basically noted four different
>        phenomena that are sometimes referred to as
>        /perezhivanie/. They might be considered four
>        different meanings of the word. To distinguish
>        between these meanings of /perezhivanie/, I will
>        give them four different tentative names:
>        experiencing-as-contemplation;
>        experiencing-as-struggle; fantasy-based
>        experiencing-as-struggle; and m-/perezhivanie/.
> What is your recommendation for future writers? Should they choose one of
> these four terms? Or use /perezhivanie/ and qualify, or rely on context to
> specify meaning?
> Andy
> --
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Andy Blunden
> http://home.mira.net/~andy
> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making