Hi everybody--
Oops, I'm running in a cultural/linguistic error that requires immediate
clarification!!!!!!!!!!!
Mike wrote,
> "They were not Stalinists."
I replied,
> "I think so. "
I 'm sorry but I used Russian way of saying. Unlike in English where "yes"
or "no" refer to information that the previous author meant, in Russian
"yes" or "no" refer to agreement/disagreement with the author. So to
translate my reply in English, I meant "Yes, I agree, Mike, that they were
NOT Stalinists." Russian "yes" sometimes means English "no" and vice versa.
It took me many misunderstandings to realize that.
Again sorry for the confusion -- I'll try to be careful next time (but I
can't promise -- native language is so powerful in organizing one's way of
thinking and talking!)
Eugene
PS Thanks, Nate, for reacting on this error -- without your reaction, I'd
miss it....I agree with all your points.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nate Schmolze [mailto:schmolze@students.wisc.edu]
> Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 9:21 AM
> To: Xmca
> Subject: RE: me too Bukharin or no
>
>
> Eugene said:
>
> "I wonder if we ever learn about Vygotsky's real attitude toward what was
> going on in the Soviet Union that time. I'd expect it to be
> rather complex."
>
> I lost my notes but awhile ago in going through some of the historical
> stuff; Yarochevsky, Kozulin, Valsiner & Van Der Veer there was as you say
> complexities involved.
>
> One that stood out was the quote in T&L (P.255) that stated....
>
> "and like bees in a deserted hive
> The dead words have a rotton smell"
> N. Gumilev
>
> The quote while fitting the context of the text was also a very explicit
> comment on the political context. Gumilev was recently brought
> in by Stalin
> and Vygotsky was making an explicit comment on where he stood on
> the Stalin
> issue. My understanding was at the time of Vygotsky's death his days were
> numbered in more ways than one.
>
> I also think when we look at the "historical crisis" we can read them as
> political not just theoretical or philisophical critiques. At a minimum a
> critique of or at Vygotsky had political consequences. He had very serious
> concerns about the "so called Marxist science".
>
> Mike said,
>
> "They were not Stalinists."
>
>
> Eugene said,
>
> "I think so. Besides, I think that Stalinism is not an ideology but
> practice -- there is nothing to believe in. I'd recommend to see an
> interesting movie titled "Stalin" (available in Blockbuster, with Robert
> Duval as Stalin) based on memoirs and achieves . In this movie, Stalin's
> friend Ordzhenikidze tried to convince Stalin not to eliminate Leningrad
> party leader Kirov in early 30s. Ordzhenikidze said that Kirov agreed with
> all your policies and decisions. Stalin replied, "I don't need anybody to
> agree with Stalin!" Agreement implies freedom of decision making that was
> too much for Stalin. Kirov was killed via Stalin's order."
>
> I assume we are talking about Luria and Vygotsky here, I am
> curious how they
> can be linked as such. The historical analysis I have read situate them as
> defending themselves against Stalinism. Yet, if we define it as a practice
> it becomes impossible not to be a Stalinist. If we are taking an
> historical
> analysis of how Stalinism impacted all aspects of society and that in
> different ways individuals played a role in its reproduction that is one
> thing, but that seems a long way from saying one is a Stalinist.
>
> A line a reasoning of guilt by association seems to be more in line with
> Stalinism than apposed to it. I am also a little confused about
> the purpose
> of labeling Vygotsky or Luria Stalinists. I can only imagine what it was
> like to have the consequences be so high stake. I am sorry Eugene
> but while
> I agree Vygotsy or Luria benefitted from Stalinism in some important ways
> labeling them Stalinist feels like a purge to me.
>
> Nate
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:03:44 PST