[Xmca-l] Re: Alex Kozulin's notion of three planes of understanding

[mike cole]

Darn. As you point out, David, so many translations are problematic. But
yes, with exception of new material I have access to all you mention.
Thanks. Good luck with the translation.

There is now a whole new Palgrave series on Culture and Creativity. My fear
that is appearance is non-accidentally rated to explosion of concern about
poverty/class (the 1%/99% idea has become ubiquitous in American
discourse).

mike




On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 3:12 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike--
>
> The publisher asked us to do a book on imagination and creativity. So
> we re-translated three works that have all appeared--more or less--in
> English.
>
> About half the book is Vygotsky 2004, which appeared in JREEP. Then
> there is "imagination and creativity in the adolescent", which appears
> in Van der Veer and Valsiner's Vygotsky Reader (it was part of
> Pedology of the Adolescent) and finally there is the lecture
> "Imagination and its Development in Childhood", which appears in an
> abridged form in Volume One of the English Collected Works (after
> Thinking and Speech).
>
> We were so taken with the lecture (LATE Vygotsky for beginners!) that
> we decided to translate the whole volume of lectures that Galina
> Korotaeva published in Russian in 2001 at the Udmurt University in
> Izhevsk (you can find it in the Russian section on Andy's website).
>
> It's quite remarkable--in the second lecture, which we're translating
> now, he basically tells these young teachers from various walks of
> life (mostly workers and peasants, like Korotaeva's father) that he's
> going to teach them his latest, unfinished work on age periods. These
> are young people who are taking a course that has no future (pedology
> has already been denounced at the level of the Russian Federation
> though not yet at the all-Union level). I think when we're done (in a
> year or so) we'll have something pretty clear to say about Vygotsky's
> periodization scheme.
>
> Best,
> David
>
>
>
> On 19 March 2014 13:22, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Always glad to blame my failures of understanding on mistranslation.
> >
> > Is the book on imagination and creativity in English? I could not tell
> from
> > the web page.
> > mike
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 8:30 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Thanks, Mike. There's nothing quite like the range you can read on
> >> xmca, except maybe history itself. And of course Mike Cole, territory
> >> and all, is a big part of that.
> >>
> >> On Psych of Art: The translation's excreable, even by the lamentable
> >> standards of English translations of Vygotsky. Large parts are simply
> >> incoherent. But it makes good sense in Russian.
> >>
> >> So we're applying for a big grant to retranslate it. If we get it
> >> (unlikely), we'll do it next year, and I'll slip a pdf of the English
> >> version to Anton for public distribution. If not, we're doing the
> >> "Lectures on Pedology" instead, because it's more relevant to what we
> >> do here in Korea (and also because it's late Vygotsky for absolute
> >> beginners).
> >>
> >> We might do both at the same time, just for fun. We did two volumes
> >> last year (HDHMF and Imagination and Creativity) and we had a great
> >> old time. See?
> >>
> >>
> >> http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/common/wseriesitem.aspx?SRID=25565
> >>
> >> dk
> >>
> >> PS: Thanks for the post-doc announcements too: Yongho (now Dr. Kim)
> >> keeps hoping!
> >>
> >> d
> >>
> >> On 19 March 2014 10:41, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > See, that is what I mean about historical depth, both Andy's tracing
> >> > back to
> >> > Goethe and you going further back to Vico. Its been 30 years since I
> >> > read
> >> > Berlin's Vico and Herder and I am pretty sure I did not tie it back to
> >> > Goethe!
> >> > (My modular mind).
> >> >
> >> > I think you are right about Vygotsky. Your interpretation fits with
> Jim
> >> > Wertsch's ideas about the ambivalence in Vygotsky and adds a temporal
> >> > dimension that is useful.  Perhaps its the form of attribution
> combined
> >> > with
> >> > my lack of knowledge that made me question the attribution and odd
> entry
> >> > into the issues in a neuropsychological clinic. I had a very difficult
> >> > time,
> >> > and still do, reading and understanding Psychology of Art.
> >> >
> >> > A comment on the following:
> >> > "Vygotsky realized that romantic and classical approaches were
> >> > essentially
> >> > right about each other--they were both inadequate--and that they would
> >> > have
> >> > to be combined by transcending individualistic psychology altogether."
> >> >
> >> > This seems right to me because Luria's form of romantic science is not
> >> > either or, but both/and, a result achieved through his deep
> involvement
> >> > over
> >> > a long period of time with specific other human beings. During all of
> >> > this
> >> > time he also worked using the methods of experimental psychology. The
> >> > two
> >> > are mixed together in different ways/textures in different concrete
> >> > instantiations.
> >> >
> >> > Anyway, great to be able to engage in this kind of learning
> experience.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry about my lousy typing/memory, never mind spelling. It comes with
> >> > the
> >> > territory.
> >> > mike
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 6:27 PM, David Kellogg <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> I think Mike's right (if we bar his "idiocyncratic" spellings and his
> >> >> tendency to say LSV when he actually means ARL). Luria DOES see LSV
> >> >> has overcoming the explanatory/descriptive divide; that is certainly
> >> >> the gist of the passage that I cited, and to the extent that this
> >> >> divide reflects in a direct way the classical/romantic split, LSV is
> >> >> not, in the eyes of Luria, or Mike, or even me, a romantic scientist
> >> >> at all. He transcends romantic and classical science by "setting
> >> >> aside" the dispute.
> >> >>
> >> >> But of course the divide between descriptivists like Dilthey and
> >> >> Husserl on the one hand and explanationists like Bekhterev, Pavlov
> >> >> (and why not Watson and Thorndike) on the other doesn't directly
> >> >> reflect the divide between romantic and classical science. This is a
> >> >> point that Mike also makes with great aplomb when he says that the
> >> >> former is a trace of German romanticism (and the latter, I might add,
> >> >> has more than a whiff of merciless French rationalism). First of all,
> >> >> the great divide is much older. we already see it in the split
> between
> >> >> Vico's principle of "verum factum" (that is, man only knows what he
> >> >> creates, so the social is more describable and more knowable than the
> >> >> natural) and in merciless Cartesian reductionism. Secondly, it is
> >> >> younger: we still see it in the split between "learner-centred" and
> >> >> "learning-centred" pedagogics in language education (just for
> >> >> example).
> >> >>
> >> >> The point I want to make is similar to the one that Martin made in
> his
> >> >> MCA article on the relevance of Vygotsky and the Historical Meaning
> of
> >> >> the Crisis in Psychology, when Martin points out that Vygotsky's
> >> >> initial solution to the crisis is to cut idealism from materialism
> and
> >> >> throw out the former entirely. When we overcome a split in the
> >> >> struggle of ideas, we don't always go about it impartially, the way
> >> >> that a parent mediates between two quarreling siblings. When Vygotsky
> >> >> set out to overcome the split between idealism and materialism in
> >> >> psychology, he set out as a dedicated partisan of one side, namely
> the
> >> >> latter. It was only through a process of struggle with idealism that
> >> >> he came to recognize that the idealists were just as right about the
> >> >> triviality of the results of materialist psychology as the
> >> >> materialists were right about the purely speculative and ultimately
> >> >> non-explanatory nature of idealism. From there it was a hop, skip,
> and
> >> >> a jump to the momentous realization that the so-called "materialists"
> >> >> too suffered from atomism--that is, from an individualistic
> psychology
> >> >> centred on the human body.
> >> >>
> >> >> So I think Luria was right--that Vygotsky set out to overcome the
> >> >> divide between romantic and classical psychology as a militant
> >> >> partisan of the romantic side. Somebody like Vygotsky would be no
> more
> >> >> "neutral" in the struggle between Gestaltism and reductionism than he
> >> >> was in the struggle between communism and fascism. But I also think
> >> >> that even before the struggle began, Vygotsky was steeped in
> >> >> classical, explanatory, and even atomistic ideas (after all, he was
> >> >> trained in the school of Bekhterev, and "Psychology of Art" is
> >> >> essentially an attempt to EXPLAIN the "aesthetic reaction"), and, far
> >> >> earlier than anybody else, Vygotsky realized that romantic and
> >> >> classical approaches were essentially right about each other--they
> >> >> were both inadequate--and that they would have to be combined by
> >> >> transcending individualistic psychology altogether.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's what I see in LSV's work on Hamlet. The romantic view of
> Hamlet
> >> >> is Goethe's; Hamlet as Goethe, as Coleridge, as hero-poet. Gordon
> >> >> gives this view artistic form when he makes the play a monodrama. The
> >> >> classical view of Hamlet is almost Aristotelian: Hamlet is morally
> >> >> blameless, but marked by a fatal flaw, which is one that we all
> share,
> >> >> and whose contemplation is therefore terrifying, the way that
> watching
> >> >> your own corpse rotting away would be terrifying. Stanislavski gives
> >> >> this view shape when he makes it a historical drama. The problem is
> >> >> that both are profoundly individualistic views; neither can show us
> >> >> how Shakespeare tweaked the "aside" into the soliloquy, and how this
> >> >> allowed him to transcend the "Revenge" play by re-inventing
> >> >> inter-psychological terror becomes intra-psychological horror. Only a
> >> >> social-historical view of Hamlet can really do that.
> >> >>
> >> >> I've also been re-reading Halliday's wonderful volume on the language
> >> >> of early childhood (The Language of Early Childhood, London:
> >> >> Continuum, 2004). He begins by rejecting the big split that made the
> >> >> whole twentieth century one big "lost decade" for linguistics:
> >> >> naturalism versus empiricism. Both are atomistic, individualistic,
> and
> >> >> both argue that language is "out there" to be acquired or
> >> >> "constructed" rather than construed ("figured out"). He argues that
> >> >> learning the mother tongue is figuring out a SECOND language--that
> is,
> >> >> the child has a language system "for himself" worked out, and must
> >> >> abandon it in order to learn a language "for others", the result of
> >> >> which is a language "for myself".
> >> >>
> >> >> Yes, there is some Hegel in there, but also some Spinoza. And,
> >> >> although he only cites him occasionally, Halliday is a very assiduous
> >> >> reader of Vygotsky!
> >> >>
> >> >> David Kellogg
> >> >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >> >>
> >> >> On 19 March 2014 09:21, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > David, Martin. My apologies if I was reading idiocyncratically and
> >> >> > too
> >> >> > literally.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I stumbled when I read I have always resisted the Lurian
> >> >> > characterization of
> >> >> > Vygotsky as a romantic scientist, because I never heard ARL speak
> of
> >> >> > LSV
> >> >> > in
> >> >> > those terms, nor did I put his idea of romantic science together
> with
> >> >> > explanatory/descriptive.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Perhaps the problem is that I had not properly appreciated the line
> >> >> > that
> >> >> > David points to:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > "On p. 175 he says "One of the major factors that drew me to
> Vygotsky
> >> >> > was
> >> >> > his emphasis on the necessity to resolve (sic) this crisis",
> meaning
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > crisis brought about by the split between classical and romantic
> >> >> > tendencies."
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > My failure was that I have long thought of the split being
> confronted
> >> >> > as
> >> >> > between explanatory and descriptive psychology. It had not occurred
> >> >> > to
> >> >> > me to
> >> >> > equate descriptive with romantic. I also have, and continue, to
> think
> >> >> > of
> >> >> > Luria's particular approach to romantic science as a means of
> >> >> > overcoming
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > nomoethetic/idiographic dichotomy that is also at play here.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Your way of putting this together with German romanticism helps
> make
> >> >> > sense
> >> >> > of the way that more contemporary cultural historical scholars have
> >> >> > used
> >> >> > the
> >> >> > term "non-classical" to refer to the Vygotskian tradition.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > mike
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Tue, Mar 18, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Martin John Packer
> >> >> > <mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Mike,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Like David, I too have read Luria as arguing for romantic science
> >> >> >> contra
> >> >> >> the classical alternative, and attributing this to LSV. Is your
> >> >> >> reading
> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> Luria wants to combine the two, and this is what he saw LSV doing?
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Martin
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Mar 18, 2014, at 7:59 AM, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> > I thought you had an actual example, David.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > So far as I know, LSV never used the term, and the terms "
> holism,
> >> >> >> > with anti-reductionism and Gestalt" were characteristic of many
> >> >> >> > who
> >> >> >> > did
> >> >> >> > not
> >> >> >> > claim romantic science as an organizing framework. The way you
> >> >> >> > wrote
> >> >> >> > it
> >> >> >> > made it sound like a direct attribution to a specific
> individual.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Hence my question.
> >> >> >> > mike
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 10:18 PM, David Kellogg
> >> >> >> > <dkellogg60@gmail.com>wrote:
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >> Oh, I got it from a wonderful book by Luria edited by Michael
> and
> >> >> >> >> Sheila Cole, "The Making of Mind". The phrase "romantic
> >> >> >> >> scientist"
> >> >> >> >> is
> >> >> >> >> not really Luria's to begin with; he took it from Max Verwoern.
> >> >> >> >> But
> >> >> >> >> on
> >> >> >> >> p. 174 of "The Making of Mind", he associates "romantic" with
> >> >> >> >> holism,
> >> >> >> >> with anti-reductionism and Gestalt, using Vygotsky's favorite
> >> >> >> >> quotes.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Classical scholars are those who look upon events in terms of
> >> >> >> >> their
> >> >> >> >> constituent parts. Step by step they single out important units
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> elements until they can formulate abstract general laws. These
> >> >> >> >> laws
> >> >> >> >> are then seen as the governing agents of the phenomena of the
> >> >> >> >> field
> >> >> >> >> under study. One outcoem of this approach is the reduction of
> >> >> >> >> living
> >> >> >> >> reality with all its richenss of detail to abstract schemas.
> The
> >> >> >> >> roperties ofhte iving whole are lost, which provoked Goethe to
> >> >> >> >> pen,
> >> >> >> >> 'Gray is eery theory, but ever green is the tree of life."
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> "Romantic scholars traits, attitudes and strategies are just
> the
> >> >> >> >> opposite. They do not follow the path of reductionism, which is
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >> leading philosophy of the classical group. Romantics in science
> >> >> >> >> want
> >> >> >> >> neither to split living reality into its elementary components
> >> >> >> >> nor
> >> >> >> >> to
> >> >> >> >> represent the wealth of life's concrete events in abstract
> models
> >> >> >> >> that
> >> >> >> >> lose the properties of the phenomena themselves. It is of the
> >> >> >> >> utmost
> >> >> >> >> importance to romantics to preserve the wealth of living
> reality,
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> they aspire to a science that retains this richness."
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> Don't you think that sounds like a thumbnail of Vygotsky?
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On p. 175 he says "One of the major factors that drew me to
> >> >> >> >> Vygotsky
> >> >> >> >> was his emphasis on the necessity to resolve (sic) this
> crisis",
> >> >> >> >> meaning the crisis brought about by the split between classical
> >> >> >> >> and
> >> >> >> >> romantic tendencies. He then describes the rise of wave after
> >> >> >> >> wave
> >> >> >> >> of
> >> >> >> >> reductionism in psychology in the twentieth century.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> David Kellogg
> >> >> >> >> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> On 18 March 2014 12:14, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>> David-- Where did luria say that Vygotsky was engaged in
> >> >> >> >>> Romantic
> >> >> >> >> Science.
> >> >> >> >>> I missed it!
> >> >> >> >>> mike
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> On Mon, Mar 17, 2014 at 2:34 PM, David Kellogg
> >> >> >> >>> <dkellogg60@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>>> Larry:
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> I'm not sure if this is on topic, but I'd like to pick up a
> >> >> >> >>>> strand
> >> >> >> >>>> of
> >> >> >> >>>> our thread that nobody else has touched. It's the idea that
> >> >> >> >>>> part
> >> >> >> >>>> of
> >> >> >> >>>> the trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological element of
> >> >> >> >>>> Vygotskyan
> >> >> >> >>>> theory lies in his early work on esthetics, and specifically
> on
> >> >> >> >>>> Hamlet.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> I have always resisted the Lurian characterization of
> Vygotsky
> >> >> >> >>>> as
> >> >> >> >>>> a
> >> >> >> >>>> romantic scientist, because I think he was, as Nadezhda
> >> >> >> >>>> Mandelstam
> >> >> >> >>>> said and as Bakhurst confirmed (in his piece on "Vygotsky's
> >> >> >> >>>> Demons"
> >> >> >> >>>> in
> >> >> >> >>>> the Cambridge Companion), a defender of Enlightenment ideas
> >> >> >> >>>> AGAINST
> >> >> >> >>>> the Romantic counter-revolution of the nineteenth century.
> When
> >> >> >> >>>> I
> >> >> >> >>>> read
> >> >> >> >>>> Vygotsky on Hamlet, I can see that he has completely rejected
> >> >> >> >>>> the
> >> >> >> >>>> nineteenth century idea of Hamlet as romantic hero--that is,
> an
> >> >> >> >>>> inspired individual hero among lesser breeds without the law.
> >> >> >> >>>> Hamlet's
> >> >> >> >>>> depressed, not inspired. He's divided, not individual. And
> the
> >> >> >> >>>> others
> >> >> >> >>>> in the play actually perceive Hamlet more accurately than he
> >> >> >> >>>> perceives
> >> >> >> >>>> himself; Hamlet simply cannot feel the weight of his own
> body,
> >> >> >> >>>> nor
> >> >> >> >>>> is
> >> >> >> >>>> he sufficiently aware of his own awareness to be able to
> >> >> >> >>>> distinguish
> >> >> >> >>>> it from the way things are.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> But I recently read a lot about Gordon Craig and Konstantin
> >> >> >> >>>> Stanislavski's 1912 Moscow production of Hamlet. Whether he
> saw
> >> >> >> >>>> it
> >> >> >> >>>> or
> >> >> >> >>>> not (and there is some debate on this point), it had a huge
> >> >> >> >>>> influence
> >> >> >> >>>> on the way that Vygotsky read Hamlet (we know that Vygotsky
> saw
> >> >> >> >>>> the
> >> >> >> >>>> revival of the 1912 production and that he disapproved of
> it).
> >> >> >> >>>> Perversely true to the play text, Craig's and Stanislavski's
> >> >> >> >>>> version
> >> >> >> >>>> was a completely divided production that almost fell apart
> >> >> >> >>>> before
> >> >> >> >>>> opening night: Craig saw the play as monodrama (that is,
> >> >> >> >>>> everybody
> >> >> >> >>>> in
> >> >> >> >>>> the play except Hamlet himself is a "ghost" in the mind of
> >> >> >> >>>> Hamlet).
> >> >> >> >>>> Stanislavski, of course, insisted on a historical drama of
> real
> >> >> >> >>>> people
> >> >> >> >>>> whose motivations were all too human; Hamlet was simply a man
> >> >> >> >>>> amongst
> >> >> >> >>>> men.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> You can see that all of Kozulin's planes are present and
> >> >> >> >>>> accounted
> >> >> >> >>>> for. Stanislavski, the social realist, accounts for the way
> in
> >> >> >> >>>> which
> >> >> >> >>>> Vygotsky made sense to his contemporaries. Craig is much
> closer
> >> >> >> >>>> to
> >> >> >> >>>> the
> >> >> >> >>>> way we interpret Vygotsky today: a way of making sense of
> >> >> >> >>>> individual
> >> >> >> >>>> psychology, alongside the work of Freud, Piaget, and others.
> >> >> >> >>>> And
> >> >> >> >>>> the
> >> >> >> >>>> third, trans-disciplinary, supra-psychological plane? Well, I
> >> >> >> >>>> think
> >> >> >> >>>> that is yet another plane that has gone missing. But when we
> >> >> >> >>>> find,
> >> >> >> >>>> I
> >> >> >> >>>> am sure that we will see that Vygotsky himself is safe and
> >> >> >> >>>> sound
> >> >> >> >>>> on
> >> >> >> >>>> board.
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> David Kellogg
> >> >> >> >>>> Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>>> On 17 March 2014 06:17, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
> >> >> >> >>>> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>>> Mike,
> >> >> >> >>>>> thanks for sending the article on the risks of being a
> public
> >> >> >> >>>> intellectual.
> >> >> >> >>>>> Anna Sfard also recently posted on who university scholars
> >> >> >> >>>>> *address*
> >> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >>>>> their publications.
> >> >> >> >>>>> I have been re-reading Alex Kozulin's book written 25 years
> >> >> >> >>>>> ago
> >> >> >> >>>> [Vygotsky's
> >> >> >> >>>>> Psychology: A Biography of Ideas.]
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Alex, in the epilogue to that book summed up by positing
> three
> >> >> >> >>>>> trends
> >> >> >> >> in
> >> >> >> >>>>> Vygotsky scholarship which he called three *planes*.
> >> >> >> >>>>> The 1st plane corresponds to the understanding of Vygotsky's
> >> >> >> >>>>> theory
> >> >> >> >>>>> by
> >> >> >> >>>> his
> >> >> >> >>>>> contemporaries in the 1920's and 1930's.
> >> >> >> >>>>> The 2nd plane emerges with the discovery of Vygotsky's
> theory
> >> >> >> >>>>> in
> >> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >> >> West
> >> >> >> >>>>> in the 1960's .
> >> >> >> >>>>> In 1990 Kozulin perceived the emergence of a 3rd plane of
> >> >> >> >>>>> Vygotsky
> >> >> >> >>>>> scholarship which is re-evaluating the presuppositions of
> the
> >> >> >> >>>>> 1920's.
> >> >> >> >>>> What
> >> >> >> >>>>> in the 1920's appeared to be a straight forward thesis of
> >> >> >> >>>>> social
> >> >> >> >>>> mediation,
> >> >> >> >>>>> and in the 1960's as a necessary corrective to the
> >> >> >> >>>>> individualistic
> >> >> >> >>>>> approaches of Western Psychology, in 1990 emerges as a
> >> >> >> >>>>> radically
> >> >> >> >>>>> new
> >> >> >> >>>>> question. The realization that within Vygotsky's theory
> social
> >> >> >> >>>>> AND
> >> >> >> >>>> cultural
> >> >> >> >>>>> mediatory mechanisms do NOT coincide.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> Alex writes:
> >> >> >> >>>>> "The origins and context of Vygotsky's theories are now
> being
> >> >> >> >>>>> seen
> >> >> >> >>>>> in
> >> >> >> >> a
> >> >> >> >>>> new
> >> >> >> >>>>> light; in place of comparisons to Pavlov, the Gestaltists
> and
> >> >> >> >>>>> Piaget
> >> >> >> >>>> comes
> >> >> >> >>>>> the context of philosophical hermeneutics and the theory of
> >> >> >> >> communicative
> >> >> >> >>>>> action. In an even broader sense, what looked like
> Vygotsky's
> >> >> >> >>>> contribution
> >> >> >> >>>>> TO psychology appears now as leading BEYOND psychology or at
> >> >> >> >>>>> least
> >> >> >> >> BEYOND
> >> >> >> >>>>> traditional psychology and into the sphere of human studies
> >> >> >> >>>>> BASED
> >> >> >> >>>>> on
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >>>>> humanistic, rather than the scientific model." [p. 278-279].
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> I am not sure how relevant Kozulin's epilogue  seems to
> others
> >> >> >> >>>>> 25
> >> >> >> >> years
> >> >> >> >>>>> later, but I found the themes in this book very current and
> >> >> >> >>>>> relevant.
> >> >> >> >> In
> >> >> >> >>>>> particular his analysis of Vygotsky's early humanistic
> >> >> >> >>>>> writings
> >> >> >> >> explored
> >> >> >> >>>>> in chapter one on *The Psychology of Art* and chapter two on
> >> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >> >> theme of
> >> >> >> >>>>> Vygotsky's book on the tragedy of Hamlet.  These works were
> >> >> >> >>>>> written
> >> >> >> >> by a
> >> >> >> >>>>> young public scholar developing his identity through
> engaging
> >> >> >> >>>>> in
> >> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >> >>>> deep
> >> >> >> >>>>> questions of life and existence.
> >> >> >> >>>>>
> >> >> >> >>>>> How does this relate to Anna and Mike's postings?
> >> >> >> >>>>> The discussion of corporate *money* controlling who gets to
> be
> >> >> >> >>>>> the
> >> >> >> >>>> audience
> >> >> >> >>>>> for researcher's articles [Anna Sfard's question] and the
> >> >> >> >>>>> question
> >> >> >> >>>>> of
> >> >> >> >> the
> >> >> >> >>>>> role of *public* intellectuals who are addressing humanistic
> >> >> >> >>>>> questions
> >> >> >> >>>> and
> >> >> >> >>>>> Vygotsky's writings as a humanistic writer seem related to
> the
> >> >> >> >> concept of
> >> >> >> >>>>> Kozulin's 3rd plane of engagement BEYOND narrow academic
> >> >> >> >>>>> disciplinary
> >> >> >> >>>>> discourse.
> >> >> >> >>>>> Will the university as an institution remain a place for
> these
> >> >> >> >> humanistic
> >> >> >> >>>>> studies and the type of scholarship which Alex captures in
> his
> >> >> >> >> biography
> >> >> >> >>>> of
> >> >> >> >>>>> Vygotsky's ideas, based on the humanistic model?. How
> central
> >> >> >> >>>>> to
> >> >> >> >>>> Vygotsky's
> >> >> >> >>>>> later psychological theories were his earlier reflections on
> >> >> >> >>>>> art
> >> >> >> >>>>> and
> >> >> >> >>>>> tragedy?
> >> >> >> >>>>> Larry
> >> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >
> >
>