[Xmca-l] Re: Passions, (Projects?) and Interests

Fri Jan 11 14:00:52 PST 2019

Yes, the sex bits in “Educational Psychology” are actually more progressive
than what Vygotsky writes in adolescent pedology, reflecting a time that
was perhaps not a happier one but a more hopeful one (bliss it was upon
that dawn to be alive, but to be young was very heaven). So for example in
Educational Psychology he takes the scientific position on “onanism” which
was being taken by people like Metchnikoff (yes, the yogurt guy, whose
disciple founded Danon) and Stekel (who was a student and patient of
Freud). But in Pedology of the Adolescent he takes the position of his
boss, Aaron Zalkind. He argues that the scientific understandings of
Metchnikoff and Stekel still have to be synthesized with the older,
non-scientific understandings of the church: onanism may be harmless
physiologically, but it has psychological risks (including
suicide—according to Pavlov—and “latency of world view”—according to
Vygotsky--because the activity of sex becomes detached from the task of
reproduction).

The reason why “Pedology of the Adolescent” is more attractive for us in
Korea is that we need some theory of higher emotions for very practical,
teaching purposes. I think the truth is that kids in Korea are not so much
being driven to suicide and latency of world view by onanism but by sheer
boredom: the kind of “audit culture” that Rob describes (internships,
coding camps, qualifications without any actual knowledge) is pretty much
our high school curriculum, except that it is directed not towards a real
(robotic but at least lucrative) job. Instead, it's all about Judgement
Day: the one-day college entrance examination.

Take (please!) the K-Pop group BTS (which our president Mun Jae-in
referenced in his New Years press conference as a model for the development
of Korean culture!). Here’s their hit single “No More Dreams”, from their
debut album “Too Cool for School”.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4sEu9QSnnA

I think BTS puts the problem raised by Huw (and by Mike) in a very concrete
(not to say danceable) way. It is also the way Vygosky is framing the
problem in the section Huw is quoting. Huw would like to show us
ontological and epistemological questions underlying the link between
activeness and interests; my ontology (and my epistemology) is to keep
things both classroom real and after-school interesting. In this case that
does mean keeping pedagogical activity linked to activeness. And that’s
particularly hard to do with sex education, when “love has to wait” until
you can get a job and an apartment. Fortunately, art can help. One way to
look at BTS and all other K-Pop groups is that they provide a kind of fast
food menu of "types" for adolescents to choose from--BTS is a kind of
sexual version of the Lotteria drive-through fast food menu for teenage
girls (the name "Lotteria", which is the Korean equivalent of McDonald's or
Burger King, comes from Goethe's heroine Charlotte in "Sorrows of Young
Werther"....)

Mike points out (quite rightly) that emotion is right there in Psych of
Art, in the form of Vygotsky’s polemic against Bukharin’s conceptualization
of art as a form of emotional agitation (Vygotsky reverses it and says it’s
not the tool of the individual agitator but the social tool of emotion). If
we experience "No More Dream" that way, we see that it is not taking a
position against learning or against development but trying, in its
inarticulate way, to express the inadequacy of learning and development
detached from long-term interests (as it must be in Korea). The problem is
that the form they have chosen for this message (or at least the form that
they chose before they were snatched up by Hyundai cars and Coca-cola) is
the Psychology of Art form—emotion as an aesthetic reaction rather than as
a higher interest. That's what Vygotsky attacks in the section that Huw
quotes (he is actually arguing that the Gestaltist definition of emotion is
inadequate, because doesn't distinguish between instincts, habits, and
higher forms of emotion like creativity and free will).

So too with Vygotsky’s analysis of Stanislavsky. It just doesn’t go far
enough, Rob. It’s not enough to say that an actor has to say one thing and
mean another, or even say one thing and feel another. It’s not enough to
say that an actor has to be able to strip off the literal meaning of the
text and show the subtext. You have to be able to show that beneath that
subtext of meaning, there is some other subtext of sub-meaning, and yet
another beneath that. And in order to do that you will need not simply a
psychology but a linguistics. You remember I tried to provide this in the
book I did for you, by showing how a text had at least three subtexts, an
interpersonal one articulated through intonation, an ideational one
articulated through vocabulary and a textual one articulated through
grammar.

Take, for example, “No More Dream”. In order to decide whether the song is
anti-learning/anti-develoment (“too cool for school”) or simply trying to
articulate a particular aesthetic reaction (“you know you feel this way
too, even if you are afraid to say it as we do”) it is not enough to have
the ideational meaning of the words: you also need the interpersonal
meaning—you need to know who the kids are talking to—their teachers, their
parents, or other kids like them. In some ways, the official music video
makes this much clearer than the words do, not so much because we have the
context of situation (this is actually pretty vague!) but because we have
the gestures and facial expressions that go with the intonations (which,
because of the meter and stress of rap music, is actually not that helpful
here).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nX9yD6XeMw4

 David Kellogg
Sangmyung University

New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li:
Mountains in labour: Eliot’s ‘Atrocities’ and Woolf’s
alternatives
Show all authors

https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660

On Sat, Jan 12, 2019 at 4:00 AM Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com> wrote:

> I wouldn't say so, Mike. Not in the way Vygotsky attributes the term. It
> is one of the places where Vygotsky gets quite close, in a vague manner, to
> what I have called "active orientation". Only I refer to active orientation
> as an integral aspect of psychological development and activity, including
> affect. Although I have not set out to explain Vygotsky - I refer to other
> numerous other authors - it is possible that what I have written can be
> read in a manner that can help to explain vague aspects of Vygotsky, such
> as his reference to psychological functions, psychological systems,
> misinterpretations of his rationality etc.
>
> Here's the quoted translation for "interests":
>
> "Such integral dynamic tendencies that determine the structure of the
> direction of our reactions can justifiably be termed interests. (vol.5,
> p.8)"
>
> Best,
> Huw
>
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 16:48, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>
>> So interests are curiosity, Huw?
>> Didn’t “Psychology of Art” have something to to do with Emotions, David?
>> 10 Volumes (!) of LSV! Wow.
>> Mike
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:58 AM Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> For Vygotsky, interests are intentions.  Although he recognises that
>>> Lewin's structural theory is inadequate with regard to discerning the
>>> essence of interests, his own writings in that chapter focus upon
>>> developmental patterns of interests, and he does not get around to being
>>> explicit about what is behind interest -- what is really driving it. To a
>>> certain extent this is answered with the social situation of development,
>>> but unless one reads between the lines there is a great deal of vagueness,
>>> such as with reference to psychological functions.
>>>
>>> I have a rather large theoretical paper I am completing on this to
>>> compliment some empirical work. What I state is that it is epistemology
>>> (and ontology) that is the interest behind interest.
>>>
>>> Best,
>>> Huw
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, 11 Jan 2019 at 12:08, Moises Esteban-Guitart <
>>> moises.esteban@udg.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> That's an interesting question that I asked myself when I read
>>>> EDUCATIONAL
>>>> PSYCHOLOGY by Vygotsky "from one interest of the child’s to a new
>>>> interest
>>>> —that is the rule” (Vygotsky, 1926/1997a, p. 86). My conclusion was that
>>>> it depends on the biographical moment (see pp. 393 to 396 document
>>>> attached). By the way, in his "Educational Psychology" he wrote on sex
>>>> too
>>>> ("Education on the sex instinct", pp. 71-77), however I didn't explore
>>>> this.
>>>> m
>>>>
>>>> > David,
>>>> >
>>>> > I would imagine the reference to interest relates to the STUDENTS'
>>>> > interest: meaning that whatever way it is approached it needs to be
>>>> > introduced from and in relation to the students' current
>>>> > knowledge/interest/developmental stage as opposed to being imposed in
>>>> a
>>>> > decontextualised way.
>>>> >
>>>> > At least I think that's what's going on here...
>>>> >
>>>> > Julie
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >> Sorry, Rob. I mean fifteen hours a year. The government has itinerant
>>>> >> specialists who lecture from school to school. There is even a bus
>>>> for
>>>> >> visiting the provinces.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> In contrast, Vygotsky says:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> a) No class with ONLY sex education--since anatomical, sexual, and
>>>> >> sociocultural maturation do not coincide in modern humans, sex
>>>> education
>>>> >> is
>>>> >> not a science of a natural whole, where the object of study is given
>>>> to
>>>> >> us.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> b) No classes WITHOUT sex education--since sex education is simply
>>>> >> learning
>>>> >> how to be with people who may be of sexual interest, all classes must
>>>> >> have
>>>> >> some form of sexual "enlightenment".
>>>> >>
>>>> >> c) No sex education without INTEREST. But what, exactly, is interest?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> David Kellogg
>>>> >> Sangmyung University
>>>> >>
>>>> >> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li:
>>>> >> Mountains in labour: Eliot’s ‘Atrocities’ and Woolf’s
>>>> >> alternatives
>>>> >> Show all authors
>>>> >>
>>>> >> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Jan 11, 2019 at 5:40 PM robsub@ariadne.org.uk
>>>> >> <robsub@ariadne.org.uk>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >>> Fifteen hours a week???
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> I hope it's not all practicals - the teachers would be exhausted.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> In the UK nowadays the very inadequate thing we do in schools is
>>>> called
>>>> >>> Sex and Relationship Education. The "and Relationship" bit was
>>>> tacked
>>>> >>> on
>>>> >>> some time in the 90s or maybe early 2000s, if I recall rightly. They
>>>> >>> missed
>>>> >>> a trick there - they should have put it the other way round
>>>> >>> "Relationship
>>>> >>> and Sex Education". A very large lump of the population go into a
>>>> >>> tabloid
>>>> >>> induced panic as soon as they hear the word "sex", especially when
>>>> >>> related
>>>> >>> to children, and then fail to hear the "and relationship" it.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Rob
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> On 11/01/2019 07:14, David Kellogg wrote:
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Last July in Geneva, I got into a bit of a tiff with my hosts over
>>>> >>> whether
>>>> >>> or not Vygotsky had a theory of emotion. The commonplace position,
>>>> >>> taken
>>>> >>> by
>>>> >>> almost all high Vygotskyans including my francophone friends, is
>>>> that
>>>> >>> Vygotsky spent too much of his life developing a theory of thinking
>>>> and
>>>> >>> intellect, complexes and concept formation, and when he turned his
>>>> >>> attention to the lower and higher emotions, that dark side of the
>>>> moon,
>>>> >>> it
>>>> >>> was too late. He worked out a kind of prolegomena, in the form of
>>>> >>> "Teaching
>>>> >>> on the Emotions" (or "Study of the Emotions" or perhaps "The
>>>> Doctrine
>>>> >>> of
>>>> >>> the Emotions"--you can read what he did in Volume 6 of the Collected
>>>> >>> Works). And the rest was silence.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Here in Korea we are bringing out our tenth volume of Vygotsky's
>>>> works
>>>> >>> (see attached cover, with blurbs from Renee Van der Veer and Irina
>>>> >>> Leopoldoff-Martin). It's all about sex education, which is a very
>>>> >>> important
>>>> >>> topic here in Korea, because we have fifteen hours of sex education
>>>> a
>>>> >>> week
>>>> >>> mandated by the government, but the ministry of education has more
>>>> or
>>>> >>> less
>>>> >>> withdrawn the downloadable materials for this, not for the usual
>>>> >>> reasons
>>>> >>> but instead because of criticism from Human Rights Watch (it is
>>>> >>> terribly
>>>> >>> sexist, homophobic, and just plain ignorant).
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> Vygosky's view is that sex education (which he calls "sexual
>>>> >>> enlightenment") has to be integrated into ALL subjects (so for
>>>> example
>>>> >>> the
>>>> >>> test of a good sex enlightenment programme would be one that ensures
>>>> >>> equal
>>>> >>> participation of boys and girls in math and physics), it has to
>>>> start
>>>> >>> as
>>>> >>> soon as preschoolers enter primary school, and it has to be
>>>> >>> INTERESTING.
>>>> >>> In
>>>> >>> other words, instead of the "sex education without sex" programme we
>>>> >>> have
>>>> >>> here in South Korea, we need non-sex education...but with a good
>>>> deal
>>>> >>> of
>>>> >>> sex.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> All of which has got me thinking about the problem my Geneva friends
>>>> >>> set
>>>> >>> before me. I think that Vygotsky really DOES have a theory that
>>>> unites
>>>> >>> passions and interests. It's like that book by Hirschmann on how the
>>>> >>> unity
>>>> >>> of passion and interest gave rise to capitalism, but instead it is
>>>> all
>>>> >>> about how passions, shared projects, and interests give rise to
>>>> sexual
>>>> >>> love, and it is more or less right before we would expect to find
>>>> it:
>>>> >>> in
>>>> >>> the Pedology of the Adolescent, right before the chapter on concept
>>>> >>> formation, which shows how complexes (which are categories for
>>>> others)
>>>> >>> become concepts (categories for themselves). This is the chapter on
>>>> >>> interests, which explains how passions (which are sensations in
>>>> >>> themselves)
>>>> >>> become interests: that is, emotions for themselves. (There is
>>>> already a
>>>> >>> passable translation of this in Volume Five of the CW). The only
>>>> thing
>>>> >>> is
>>>> >>> there is a need for a transitional form--a feeling with others.
>>>> Andy's
>>>> >>> idea
>>>> >>> of the Project?
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> David Kellogg
>>>> >>> Sangmyung University
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> New in *Language and Literature*, co-authored with Fang Li:
>>>> >>> Mountains in labour: Eliot’s ‘Atrocities’ and Woolf’s
>>>> >>> alternatives
>>>> >>> Show all authors
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>> https://doi.org/10.1177/0963947018805660
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > Dra. Julie Waddington
>>>> > Departament de Didàctiques Específiques
>>>> > Facultat d'Educació i Psicologia
>>>> > Universitat de Girona
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Moisès Esteban Guitart
>>>> Dpt de psicologia
>>>> Director - Institut de Recerca Educativa -
>>>> Facultat d'Educació i Psicologia
>>>> Universitat de Girona
>>>>
>>>> Grup de recerca "Cultura i Educació" (GRC  2017SGR19)
>>>> https://culturaieducacio.cat
>>>>
>>>> Responsable a la Universitat de Girona del Postgrau Interuniversitari en
>>>> Psicologia de l'educació MIPE-DIPE http://mipe.psyed.edu.es/ca
>>>
>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.ucsd.edu/pipermail/xmca-l/attachments/20190112/41ee03f5/attachment.html 