The message I sent to Mohammed was a personal 1 and got sent to xmca by
mistake. Please disregard it.
-- Carl Ratner, Ph.D. cr2@humboldt1.com http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2P.O.B. 1294 Trinidad, CA 95570 USA
> From: Dot Robbins <drobbins@socket.net> > Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 22:39:49 -0700 > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Leontiev > Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Resent-Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 20:34:03 -0700 (PDT) > > Well, I must admit that I was somewhat shocked to go back and read > Chapter 1 (I have not read ahead, so perhaps my thoughts will change > later). When was Leontiev's book orgainally published? I was no longer > used to the Soviet style of discourse, which appeared to predominate > throughout the chapter (implicitly). Perhaps someone can help me, but I > found the descriptions to be so superficial. The fact that consciousness > can be found in activity does not define what consciousness really means > to Leontiev. The article seemed to be very circular to me, and I hope > someone will discuss perception related to consciousness (from > Leontiev's point of view). It appears that if Leontiev would have gone > deeper into what consciousness really means within activity, then such > an attempt would perhaps replicate some form German idealism so > predominate in German philosophy, and so forbidden in Soviet psychology. > It appeared that Leontiev was speaking more of "mind" than > "consciousness." So, I would be interested to know what the exact > difference was for him. Perhaps Yrjo could explain that more. Perhaps it > will be discussed in depth in Chapter 4 and a new understanding will > arise. > > It was interesting that only Vygotsky's and Rubinshtein's names were > mentioned in Chapter 1, but not discussed regarding "consciousness." > What is more interesting to me is that Vygotsky was a Marxist, certainly > in the sense of classical philosophy; however, this only represents a > certain facet of his thinking, that must also go together with > Spiniozian monism, and many other traditions. I have tremendous problems > putting the word CHAT together personally, primarily beause the term > cultural historical is so broad and inclusive, while the traditional > Russian activity theory (not the newer approaches) were fixed on Marxism > to the exclusion of so many areas Vygotsky truly loved. Perhaps I am > wrong in this assessment. As I understand it, Leontiev wrote a letter of > betrayal regarding Vygotsky in 1933, trying to convince Luria to break > off with Vygotsky as well. Leontiev wanted to establish a different > focus. I have heard that Vygotsky then wrote a letter breaking off the > relationship with Leontiev.My point is that for me Vygotskian > cultural-historical theory is truly different from Leontiev's activity > theory. Could Yrjo comment on this? Chapter 1 is far removed from the > "essence" of Vygotsky from my understanding (which is primarily > philosophical) and I keep wondering about the "bridge" between the two. > I have been discussing this issue with many people since ISCRAT 98,and > various Russian colleagues feel that I am completely wrong. They tell me > that Leontiev would lecture in depth about Vygotsky at Moscow State > University, and would discuss issues in a more philosophical way. > > Like Vera and others, I am interested in the differences between > cultural-historical theory, activity theory and sociocultural theory. > Perhaps this has been discussed on xmca earlier. I am formulating > thoughts I hope to share in an article down the road. These questions > are important to me because in Chapter 1 (and in other traditional > articles on activity theory during the Soviet era), I usually find > Vygotsky mentioned, rarely reflected upon in a deeper sense. His > thoughts were truly philosophical and yet practical simultaneously > (including activity); however, the reverse is seldom true for me within > activity theory, hence the philosophical, aesthetic, semiotic aspects > Vygotsky used are often missing in activity theory (with the exclusion > of A. A. Leontiev, Dmitry Leontiev, and a few others). So, I have > noticed that there is an assumption that the terms cultural-historical, > activity theory, sociocultural theory can be interchanged, but can they > really? I think Vera and Lois Holzman have used the term sociocultural > theory related to Vygotsky (and I understand that Vygotsky used this > term a few times himself; he also used the term constructivism, but in a > different way); and Yrjo, Joachim Lompscher, etc. have brought activity > theory forward (how much of a role does Marxism play here?), while MIke > uses the term cultural-historical (with a different focus), etc. And > there are differences in the socicultural theories of Jim W. and others > in Europe. Of course, the differences of terms are not so important; > however, I am starting to wonder if these words should not be more > separated in view of the theoretical differences represented, or not? > For example, is Chapter 1 truly based in the cultural-historical > approach as well as activity theory? can these areas be separated? What > is the definition of the cultural-historical approach? How do the > traditional Russian psychologists fit into the cultural-historical > approach, like Elkonin, Zinchenko, Davydov? Can some of them be > considered within the cultural-historical approach and not activity > theory? It appears that many in traditional Russian activity theory are > trying hard to say implicitly that Vygotsky's interpretation of > consciousness was not understood to be in "real time" and not located > within "real activity." At the same time, there was often a negation of > the philosophical background Vygotsky cherished. The word consciousness > was radically different than it was interpreted by traditional Russian > activity theorists. Was this background forbidden or was its exclusion > selective? > Thanks for any suggestions, definitions, clarifications, etc. I totally > believe in the legitimacy of all three lines of theory and want to learn > more about all of them. But, can I really view them as one line of > theory? I look forward to some help from the moderators in particular. > Dot > > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:00 PDT