Eugene and others,
"Behind "Luria's literacy campaigns" in Uzbekistan and other places of the
Soviet Union in 30s was NKVD the predecessor of KGB. If you carefully read
Luria's transcripts, you can find between the lines of "illiterate" people's
statements about power that Luria did not want to see in their answers (or
did he?!)."
I agree Eugene. I don't assume in itself internalization is a good thing or
disconnected from power as you mentioned above.
"I have to admit that I'm lost again. If you think that taking native
American children at the beginning of the 20th century and coercively
putting them in boarding schools is naturalization or "internalization" --
Ok let's it be. But I can't see how Vygotsky is relevant here."
No, I don't. But that mentality has been naturalized. Just like S.
Carolina with their flag, Northern schools are continually crying foul
because for some odd reason Native Americans are offended by such innocent
terms as "redman", "warriors", "chiefs" etc. While we detest those boarding
schools, that mentality is very visable in school names and curriculum, but
its all innocent, right?
I think Vygotsky is relevant here. We have the genetic law in that social
processes are internalized. His emphasis on the lack of conscious awareness
in everyday concepts also seems pertinent. I was drawing on Vygotsky here on
the social to inner progression which occurs through language as well as
practice. Our initial discussion was how "middleclass" or a dominant
ideology emerges and stays dominant. It stays dominant because it is
internalized within cultural practice and therefore assumed as common sense
or innocent.
"Russification, modernization, and colonization of Uzbekistan by Soviet
Union
disrupted and destroyed local culture and practices. Yes, many Uzbeki people
became "modern" as a result of it. Some of them can't speak Farsi -- they
speak only Russian. I'm not sure what we can gain much here by calling
colonization by a fancy term "internalization"? Yes, colonization and
imposition of the dominant culture is always a social process and its
success can be tracked in individuals who are its victims (and in their
children). I'm not sure that this is what Vygotsky meant by "genetic law,"
although... Can you tell me how Vygotsky helps you to conceptualize the
processes we are talking about, please? Am I missing something?"
I think this explicates the "negative" side of the genetic law which is what
I was speaking to. I think we both agree that if we are taking about
historical or individual "development there was a certain telos involved. In
this sense I find Foucault useful in that he explicates the "dark side" of
the genetic law. If we conceptualize the process with internalization,
appropriation, transformation, or practice for me there is always this
irreducible tension. I prefer internalization because it explicates the
positive and negative sides (irreducible tension) of transforming/
transformation.
You may be right I am taking the genetic law to far,
"We can formulate the genetic law of cultural development in the following
way: any function in the child's cultural development appears on stage
twice, on two planes. First it appears on the social plane, then on the
psychological, first among people as an interpsyhical category and then
within the child as an intrapsychical category".
Now, I understand your concerns with the genetic law having an overly
individualistic emphasis from a telos perspective, but I also think it can
serve to counter the overly individualistic focus in education with an
emphasis on the individual (or collective) being cultural-historically
situated.
While Uzbekistan identity can not be understood outside of colonialism, that
does not mean there is some Uzbekistan identity that is pre-Russian or
pre-Soviet. I don't believe in this thing called an "authentic subject"
which is where I think we disagree.
Nate
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:03:08 PST