[Xmca-l] Re: The Anatomy of the Ape

[Andy Blunden]

Well, my interpretation has long been the Hegelian one,
David, and knowing that Marx studied the Philosophy of Right
quite closely, I guess that was Marx's allusion, too. Much
as I admire Terrell Carver, I cannot connect that to
nostalgia at all.

Funnily enough it was this aphorism that marked my very
first glimpse of CHAT internal politics. It was around 1998
that I was recommended to read a book by Jan Valsiner by a
colleague at the University of Melbourne, which I duly did.
I can't remember which book , but I emailed Jan and
challenged his negative comment on the "anatomy of the ape"
aphorism. I spoke up in its defence, stupidly pointing out
that it was a quote from Marx. How naive was I, thinking
that pointing out that some claim was a quote from Marx in
some way settled an argument. Vasliner simply replied: "Yes,
Marx was wrong."

That did not turn me off Vygotsky or Marx, but I did go in
search of other introductory works, and I think it was then
that I found Lois Holzman.

Andy

Andy Blunden
http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
On 22/11/2017 10:47 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
> Thanks, Andy--that's the answer I was looking for. T.
> Carver argues that what Marx is really saying in this
> passage is that our appreciation of ancient Greek art is a
> kind of nostalgia for slave times. That's certainly true
> in some places (it explains Mussolini's neo-classicism,
> the appreciation of Classical culture in the slave-owning
> South, etc.). But nostalgia really is teleological: it is
> a longing for naivete, innocence, and temps perdu. I think
> this passage says something very different: any language
> contains its own history. That's all. It doesn't imply
> that a language is reducible to a history or a history can
> be elaborated into the whole language. Shakespeare's
> Troilus and Cressida "contains" Homer, but that doesn't
> mean that it is Homer for grown-ups.
>
> David
>
> On Wed, Nov 22, 2017 at 8:19 AM, Andy Blunden
> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>
>     The aphorism was reproduced in
>     https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm
>     <https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/index.htm>
>     , Appendix 1, published in German in Berlin in 1859,
>     most of
>     which is found verbatim in The Grundrisse.
>
>     Andy
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------
>     Andy Blunden
>     http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm
>     <http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/ablunden/index.htm>
>     On 22/11/2017 10:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote:
>     > Vygotsky cites, in the Historical Meaning of the
>     Crisis of Psychology,
>     > Marx's rather cryptic remark in the Grundrisse about
>     human anatomy holding
>     > the key to the anatomy of the ape. He uses this
>     elsewhere (in his
>     > discussions of psychotechnics and pedology) and
>     obviously finds it an
>     > important remark. More, he is perfectly aware of its
>     non-teleological
>     > character: he knows that saying that humans
>     developed from apes is not the
>     > same thing as saying that apes are fated to become
>     humans.
>     >
>     > But how did Vygotsky know this? As far as I can
>     figure out, the Grundrisse
>     > wasn't published until 1939, five years after
>     Vygotsky's death. Did
>     > Vygotsky have privileged access? Or is there some
>     other place where Marx
>     > says this that I don't know about?
>     >
>     > David Kellogg
>     >
>     >
>
>