>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".
I agree that it should be read politically, but I'm not quite sure what you
mean by 'so-called Marxist science', Nate. It is obvious to me reading 'The
crisis of psychology' that Vygotsky was as early as 1926 opposed to
Stalinist encroachments on scientific activity (he explicitly attacks the
notion of 'Marxism by quotes' as a basis for psychology), but just as clear
to me that he saw himself as developing a form of Marxism that was adequate
for the scientific study of mind. Maybe this was what you meant.
>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 think it was and had to be both. For example, without an ideology it would
have been impossible to maintain Stalinised Communist Parties outside
Russia. It's true in the sense that Stalin shifted policies to suit his
needs and those of the ruling elite in Russia, but that doesn't mean there
wasn't an ideology.
>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.
There's also a danger of being ahistorical about it. The dividing line was
the period of the First Five Year plan in1928-32. This was the period in
which science became totally subordinated to Stalinist politics. I have no
doubt that, had he lived, Vygotsky would have at the very least ended up in
the Gulag (think of the downgrading of psychology in1936 and also of the
incident with the 'The Uzbeks have no illusions' telegram).
I have more doubts about Luria, less because he kept his head down by
shifting to the approved area of neuropsychology, but more because of the
story about the lie detector (which occurred, I thought, in the 20s, rather
than at the time of the purges).
Bruce Robinson
>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 - 01:03:45 PST