[Xmca-l] Re: Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article for discussion

[David Kellogg]

Alfredo:

Actually, I think there are three threads we can twist together.

a) Do adults develop? This is one of the major issues that divided Vygotsky
from the "psycho-technicians" of his time (e.g. Isaac Spielrein). Vygotsky
was consistent: the child is not a short adult, and the adult is not a
senile child, so child development cannot be seen as a kind of dress
rehearsal for adult development, nor can adult development be seen as
continuing child development by other means: there is a qualitative
difference between the adolescent and the young adult that does not exist
even between the schoolchild and the adolescent.

b) Did Vygotsky ever rise to the concrete? Should he even have tried? This
is one of the issues that divides Sasha from Wolff-Michael, and also
divides Wolff-Michael from me. Sasha believes that without rising to the
concrete, we cannot speak of the Marxist method at all. To me that
necessarily means making the concept of neoformation more specific and more
age-dependent--but Wolff-Michael wants to make it much more general and
consequently abstract.

c)  What is "perezhivanie" (as a technical term) and what would it mean for
it to change "dialectically"? Wolff-Michael has set a cat amongst the
pigeons by defining consciousness itself as "perizhivanie of
perizhivanie".  On the one hand, this seems to suggest that consciousness
is an afterthought, and that children cannot have any consciousness at all;
it also seems (to me) to imply that consciousness is essentially
individual, the product of reflection upon reflections (and there is a
similar argument being made, rather sloppily, by Michael Luntley in the
current Educational Philosophical and Theory...

Luntley, M. (2017) Forgetski Vygotsky, Educational Philosophy and Theory,
49:10, 957-970, DOI: 10.1080/00131857.2016.1248341

And yet there are two things about Wolff-Michael's formula that do appeal
to me:

1. The idea that dialectical development is essentially differentiation and
not replacement of one form by another. If consciousness is essentially
perizhivanie turned back on itself (like language turned back on itself) it
is easy to see how we develop--by unraveling it.

2. The idea that consciousness is the "meaning of meaning". Of course,
that's not exactly what he said, but it is what I get when I turn it back
on itself....


David Kellogg

Recent Article in *Mind, Culture, and Activity* 24 (4) 'Metaphoric,
Metonymic, Eclectic, or Dialectic? A Commentary on “Neoformation: A
Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change”'

Free e-print available (for a short time only) at

http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/YAWPBtmPM8knMCNg6sS6/full


On Wed, Dec 13, 2017 at 7:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
wrote:

> Just a reminder that the article for discussion on neoformation is now
> open access at the MCA T&F pages.
> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10749039.2016.1179327
>
> There recently were questions in this list concerning adult development.
> There was then no mention to this article, which I think was already
> published, but it turns out that it discusses a developmental turn-over in
> the professional and everyday life of an adult teacher, using and
> discussing the concept of neoformation and the associated law of transition
> of quantity into quality. Vygotsky introduced the concept in writings about
> child development, and so I assume there may be issues or challenges
> specific to the extension of these notions beyond child development. I
> wonder what others in this list and outside it think, how and whether those
> interested in adult development find the contributions present in the
> article relevant/appealing/problematic...
>
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> on behalf of Alfredo Jornet Gil <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
> Sent: 07 December 2017 19:33
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Neoformation and developmental change: Issue 4 article
> for    discussion
>
> Steemed xmca'ers,
>
>
> the year is close to its end and we have yet to discuss a selected article
> from Issue 4. The choice this time is an article written by Wolff-Michael
> Roth: "Neoformation: A Dialectical Approach to Developmental Change?".
>
>
> The article, which is attached and will be made open access for a brief
> time soon, brings up the concept of "neoformation", a Vygotskian notion
> that has appeared more than once in xmca but which is not so common in the
> literature, despite having quite a methodological import in Vygotsky's
> writings.
>
>
> I believe the topic is timely given parallel discussions and critiques to
> Vygotsky in xmca and in recent literature. Moreover, the article brings
> with it a companion, David's Kellogg commentary (which is open access right
> now), and a response by Michael. So its a 3 for 1 treat!
>
>
> The whole issue is published here:
>
> http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/current?nav=tocList
>
>
> Michael has kindly agreed to join the conversation in the coming days, and
> I encourage you all to have a look at the paper and not to be shy bringing
> in comments and questions. I think this is a unique opportunity we have for
> digging into the different ways in which Vygotsky's legacy may live on in
> current and future CHAT and CHAT-related research/literature.
>
>
> Alfredo
>
>