[Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL

[Martin John Packer]

Hi Juan, Annalisa,

The relationship between LSV and Marx is certainly something that we have discussed here on xmca.  My own contribution includes a paper published a few years ago, which I would be happy to send to you:

Packer, M. J. (2008). Is Vygotsky relevant? Vygotsky’s Marxist psychology. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(1), 8-31.

Martin

On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:27 AM, Annalisa Aguilar <annalisa@unm.edu> wrote:

> Hello Juan,
> 
> I agree with you that one must understand Marxism to understand Vygotsky clearly. Darwin's theory too. My grasp upon these topics is tenuous and I would benefit to know more.
> 
> In my past, it has been difficult to enjoy dispassionate conversations about Marxism in my circles without the distractions of how much I don't know about Marxism, or how much Marx didn't know about capitalism; neither position is helpful. Perhaps Marxism is a hot potato still.
> 
> Certainly there are claims that even the Soviets did not understood Marxism properly and that that may be why Vygotsky had such a hard time. If Marxism has been so difficult a topic, why should it be different for us who have come late to the table? We do have the power of hindsight, but has this helped?
> 
> For any thinker's work, it is highly relevant to understand the contemporary milieu in which that person worked. That is why I look to historical context to unlock Vygotsky's work, not just his texts. However, I find a political specter rises from the grave when discussing Marxism and kills all prospects before understanding can begin. It is perplexing. I wonder if it is why Vygotsky will remain elusive to us post-moderns.
> 
> I wish I could read the Castorina & Baquero paper, but I cannot read Spanish very well. Would it be asking too much of you to list the relevant points made in that paper? I would very much be interested!
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Annalisa 
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Juan Duarte <juanma.duarte@gmail.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 21, 2014 5:39 AM
> To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: LSV versus ANL
> 
> I´m sorry for couldn´t answer -neither red all the messages- previously.
> But what i was reffering was precisely the fact that the "unit of analysis"
> in Vigotsky is not understandable without taking Marx and Engels method, as
> Vygotsky himself writes, for example, in his manuscript The historical
> meaning of the chrisis in psychology.
> There´s is the need of psychology´s own Das Kapital. And the units of
> analisis in LV are built in a dialectical way. So, it´s -for me, at least-
> surprising to read so much about the marxist psychologist, and preciselly
> about method, and very few comments about the fact he was marxist. To
> understand the concept of "unit of analysis" is to know, for example, the
> method of Das Kapital, where Marx takes the value as a cell, unit of
> diverse and opposits, change value and use value, wich cannot be separated
> without loosing the whole. So is the use of Meaning (unit of though and
> language), for example.
> 
> 
> Well, that´s my point. And know that there are many that thake this point
> of view. Andy, for example.
> 
> Thanks a lot for the fruitful interchange.
> I send you, if anyone is interested, an article about the marxism in LV (in
> spanish). Here, in Argentina, Jose Castorina and Ricardo Baquero have
> worked through this line, in a very interesting work.
> Juan Duarte (Argentina).
> 
> 2014-10-20 21:08 GMT-03:00 Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>:
> 
>> Returning to Leontyev's critique of Vygotsky, ANL claimed that
>> perezhivanie, as a manifestation of the whole personality, cannot be the
>> determinant of personality, because that would be a logical circle. But it
>> seems to me that ANL failed to understand how Vygotsky’s analysis by units
>> allows him to avoid the reductionism into which ANL then ventures. If a
>> complex process is to be explained by something _else_, then its analysis
>> is _reduced_  to the analysis of that something else. Analysis by units
>> allows Vygotsky to avoid reductionism because the analysis begins from a
>> concept of the whole complex process represented in a unit, not the whole,
>> but a small fragment of the whole, such that the whole can be seen as being
>> made up of very many such fragments only. Absent Vygotsky's method of
>> analysis by units, and Leontyev's Activity Theory is in danger of
>> collapsing to a reductionism that actually explains nothing.
>> 
>> Andy
>> 
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/