Hi Mike and everybody--
One brief comment on Luria.
Mike wrote,
> Second, Luria's work was never published in the USSR at the time
> and could hardly have been a cause of anything... until we get
> to the first report in 1970-71 and then 75-76 in Russian and
> English. Very different times.
It is true that Luria's work was never published in the USSR at the time.
But why? There is some historical evidence that Vygotsky and his colleagues
were supported in part by Bukharin, one of the top party leaders of that
time. Luria-Vygotsky research glorified rather consciously and deliberately
collectivization of peasant farms and (forced) schooling that were on the
political agenda of the time. However, their affiliation with Bukharin and
some other top communist functionaries that became increasingly unpopular
with Stalin led them into troubles (among other things). My point is that
the only reason that the Luria-Vygotsky research did not (hopefully) play
any role in the tragedy of those days was that they by themselves became a
target of political attacks (especially Vygotsky). I want to remind that the
Luria-Vygotsky work in Uzbekistan was done when Stalin organized artificial
famine in rural parts of the Soviet Union to force peasants (especially
those who were "from remote villages") to join collective farms. According
to some estimations between 10 and 20 million of people died (or better to
say "killed") during that time of early 30th. I personally very glad that
neither Vygotsky nor Luria contributed to this crime but they were very
close to such contribution.
Taking this into account I'm very sympathetic with Jim Wretsch's position
described by Mike
> First, this exchange indexes with special clarity why people like
> jim wertsch prefer the term socio-cultural to cultural historical
> or activity theory. Luria was a modernist. Not the only one around
> at the time in either Russia or the US. In so far as history
> implied progress/development, it is a very unfortunate term to
> use as a paradigm name. Or at least, some think so.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2000 1:22 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Luria in Uzbekistan
>
>
>
> Nate has usefully raised the issue of Luria's results from Central
> Asia. I have done the same but view things somewhat differently
> than Eugene (of course, intersecting the events in question from
> such different starting points!).
>
> Here is part of the exchange:
> > Yes, there was religion based literature, but my understanding
> > from Luria's
> > work was that "literacy" was selective and very few had access to it. My
> > point was in forming a "pre-soviet" Uzbekistan identity it was a
> > version of
> > literacy that was very Russian and a result of Luria's work and
> > the literacy
> > campaigns.
>
> 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?!).statements about power that Luria did not want to see
> in their answers (or
> did he?!).
>
> -------
> First, this exchange indexes with special clarity why people like
> jim wertsch prefer the term socio-cultural to cultural historical
> or activity theory. Luria was a modernist. Not the only one around
> at the time in either Russia or the US. In so far as history
> implied progress/development, it is a very unfortunate term to
> use as a paradigm name. Or at least, some think so.
>
> Second, Luria's work was never published in the USSR at the time
> and could hardly have been a cause of anything... until we get
> to the first report in 1970-71 and then 75-76 in Russian and
> English. Very different times.
>
> Third, as discussed in Cultural Psychology I think Luria's methods
> in that work flawed from a chat point of view. However, our
> socio-historical-activity-cultural-cohort in Russia thinks that
> I am romantically relativist, while Jack Goody, David Olson, and
> others assume that he affirms at modernist account of cultural
> and psycvhological Development.
>
> mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:03:15 PST