Thanks for this interesting message. "Anthropology" is a very different
science in Russian. Let me provide the following table of "translation" that
emerged from my consultation with my Russian friend Mate Sokolovsky:
Russian sciences Corresponding American sciences
1. Anthropology Origin of human being as new species equipped with culture
Sociology (a part about theories of human societies)
Anthropology (small part: theory of development of cultures)
2. Ethnography Anthropology (big part)
3. Culturology Anthropology (small part: understanding of the world)
Historical-cultural theories of art and literature (e.g., Levi-Strauss,
Bakhtin, Lotman, Eco)
Please, let me know if you have more questions.
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Dillon [mailto:dillonph@northcoast.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 8:50 PM
> To: ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu
> Subject: Re: sociocultural-historical genesis of Vygotsky's theory
>
>
> Eugene,
>
> Through an odd set of simultaneous coincidences I met a young Russian
> psychology grad student not too long ago who had come to Humboldt State
> University at the invitation of a retired psychology professor,
> Carl Ratner.
> When I mentioned what we call anthropology, she said that is studied as
> "culturology" in Russia. This reminded me that the American
> anthropologist
> Leslie White, who was in Russia in the late 20s (to the best of my
> knowledge), wanted to rename the science of culture as
> culturology as well.
> What can you tell me about that russian discipline and its
> relation to what
> anthropologists in the US study as culture.
>
> Paul H. Dillon
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eugene Matusov <ematusov who-is-at UDel.Edu>
> To: xmca who-is-at weber.ucsd.edu <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Friday, November 12, 1999 4:56 PM
> Subject: RE: sociocultural-historical genesis of Vygotsky's theory
>
>
> >Hi Nate and everybody--
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: nate [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
> >> Sent: Friday, November 12, 1999 6:10 PM
> >> To: XMCA
> >> Subject: Re: sociocultural-historical genesis of Vygotsky's theory
> >>
> >>
> >> Eugene and others,
> >>
> >> Why is this only a Russian view? I guess my point is that while that
> >> connotation of culture bothers me greatly, I think there is a risk in
> >> assuming that it is a Vygotskian or Russian view of culture. Cole's
> >> diversity paper comes to mind as a case in point of how culture and
> >> diversity are still very much current struggles. Bi-lingual
> education is
> >> not getting rid of because its seen on equal par to English.
> It is very
> >> much about preserving the better "culture" for when European Americans
> are
> >> no longer the majority.
> >
> >Your comment is very useful for me because I may not fully be
> sensitive to
> >all American connotations of the English word "culture." I was talking
> >mainly about academic use of the word "culture." I'm aware that
> some of my
> >students initially think that they do not have culture because
> this is the
> >way of doing things and culture is about others ("accent is a way of how
> >other people talk"). However, I think the definition of culture
> as "a way
> >of doing things" is not very common in Russian (at least 10
> years ago when
> I
> >was there).
> >
> >Also, I think the issue of diversity is very American (in a good
> sense :-)
> >or at least Western. Even in Bakhtin's writing, we can find
> value judgments
> >about cultural forms of literature as being primitive or advanced coming
> >from the notion of the historical progress so dear to Russian-German ear
> >(Hegel).
> >
> >> Without sounding too Foucaultian, how does appropriation take us
> >> beyond the
> >> problems of internalization. The assimulationist project was not only
> >> concerned with skills, but also identity formation. I find
> appropriation
> >> as useful, but it also has its risks. I think Rogoff, Wertsch and many
> >> others work in wonderful in pointing towards culture, education being a
> >> dynamic process that involves intersubjectivity. But, it is also
> >> important
> >> to remember that this process makes "internalization" more
> >> efficient. Yes,
> >> the child is more active in this process but that doesn't in
> >> itself make it
> >> any less assimulationist. One example from Rogoff's manuscript
> on guided
> >> participation, a mother responds to her daugter playing with an object
> >> (doll) "is that the eyes, did you kiss the baby". Its a nice example of
> >> appropriation in that a certain intersubjectivity is involved between
> >> mother and daughter, yet it also is about appropriating gender roles.
> >> Without sounding too ironic is there much difference in having the girl
> >> internalize gender roles vs appropriating them.
> >
> >In my recent paper published by Human Development, I made an effort to
> >abandon the discourse of internalization-appropriation-mastery.
> If anybody
> >is interested you can download the paper:
> >
> >Matusov, E. (1998). When solo activity is not privileged: The
> participation
> >and internalization models of development. Human Development,
> 41, 326-349.
> >
> >from http://ematusov.eds.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
> >
> >What do you think?
> >
> >Eugene
> >>
> >> Nate
> >