Dear Friends,
Thank you for this discussion on A. N. Leontiev, it is really nice!!
Nate, thanks for your comments. Yes, we (Vladimir Spiridonov and myself)
organized a ZPD conference last year in four cities in Russia and we
hope to have another smaller conference in Moscow (only) this summer
from July 1-5th. It will be for graduate students and professors and
will deal with research in various areas of the social sciences within
the cultural-historical tradition. We are just in the planning stages of
that conference, but I hope some of you will be interested in attending
(and I hope very much that Marta, Szymon, Rafel from Poland will
attend). There will be room for 10 professors and 25 graduate students.
People will be selected from around the world (not from one or two
institutions) in order to offer an international atmosphere. One goal is
to link up international professors and graduate students with Russian
graduate students in order to exchange ways of conducting research in
general. We are also looking for all kinds of textbooks and other books
from the West and Asia in psychology, linguistics, teaching
methodologies, research methodologies to share with our Russian
colleagues. If you have any books to share, please let me know. Also, if
you have published books that might be of interest to Russians, and have
an extra free copy, that would be wonderful. Thanks!
Okay, A. A. Leontiev once stated that "Kozulin's Vygotsky looks like
Kozulin, Yaroshevsky's Vygotsky looks like Yaroshevsky, and Puzyrey's
Vygotsky looks like Puzyrey." Of course this is true of each of us, and
the same is true in analyzing A. N. Leontiev's thoughts. I would like
to get back to the aspect of "consciousness" and "Marxism" (will it
happen?) and I hope you are patient with me. Nate used the words
"critique" and "appropriation" and I would like to continue with the
problem I introduced via some thoughts on "appropriation." May I begin
with the ZPD? It is so interesting (and somewhat typical) that Vygotsky
took the idea of ZPD from Dorothea McCarthy and Meumann, two foreigners.
This concept has been appropriated around the world, and the irony is
that it is seldom used in Russia (at least that was my experience while
there). Last summer at the ZPD conference it was actually very funny!
Not a single Russian professor spoke on the ZPD when giving their
papers, although the topic of the conference was the ZPD. In fact, I had
heard each and every talk various times before. What I heard Russians
speaking about was the aspect of "periodization" (i.e., stages of child
development related to ages representing a "crisis" or potential that
could trigger real change). There is an irony there: The Russians I knew
were interested in stages of development or critical periods of
development, and in the West we are very interested in transcending the
stages of development (e.g. Piaget) and entering a more open space of
development, hence ZPD. I would like to say that I suggested the topic
of the ZPD for the conference to attract people from the West and Asia,
and the Russians were not enthusiastic about that suggestion at all. As
strange as it sounds, this brings me back to the differences in
cultural-historical theory, Russian activity theory, sociocultural
theory, my real problem right now. I am wondering if the "tensions"
within the different traditions can be resolved in order to really view
all three theories within one line of thought? I think it can be done,
but not the way it has been done in the past. I have discovered that
most people truly do not know the history of the three lines of theory
we so love (cultural-historical, activity theory, sociocultural theory),
and I certainly don't understand it. For example, the Russians I know do
not understand sociocultural theory at all, and within many Western
organizations there is not much interest in really trying to understand
the Russian perspective. My point is that it would be good to backtrack
and reread Vygotsky from "his" point of view as much as possible, then
go on to books like we are reviewing now from the Russian perspective of
Activity Theory, and then look at the tradition of sociocultural theory.
For example, I so wish Russians within the cultural-historical context
could be given a chance to explain Vygotskian theory from their
perspectives, and North/South Americans and Europeans could explain
sociocultural theory from their perspectives. Let me return to the word
"appropriation." Personally I identify with the Russian
cultural-historical tradition, so I just don't use the word
"appropriation" very much. I use the word "internalization." The term
"appropriation" is a term that is totally connected with M. Bakhtin for
me, and the term "mastery" is completely linked to A. N. Leontiev. I
have no problem with the word "internalization" and it must be linked to
an understanding of consciousness. My understanding of the term
"internalization" is not dualistic, and it is different from
definintions in activity theory (e.g. definition given in Yrjo's on
Perspectives on A. T.). This is because I view the words "mastery" and
"appropriation" as representing the "conscious" aspect only, while
"internalization" includes "unconscious" elements (Vygotsky viewed the
unconscious as the "seat of creativity"). Well, this is just a very
superficial explanation. This problem is similar to the ZPD (but not
exactly the same), and this thought is only for me personally, as I
doubt if it corresponds to the Russian reality in any way.....in the
West we often view the ZPD as one zone, basically individual in nature.
Within my understanding of the little I experienced in Russia (and in
East Germany during the socialist government), the ZPD (meaning my
visualization of the ZPD in Russia, not any construct Russians
themselves perceive) was surely not viewed as representing one level of
reality, but representing many zones with mutiple layers, and it was not
located within the classroom only....it extended to life after school,
families, society, back to the classroom.....this is good and bad as we
all know within a "closed" society. At least this is how I interprete
Vygotsky's intention of the ZPD. The intention of the ZPD (although
that is just a metaphor) for me was expansive, while in the West it is
very restrictive. Also, the term" internalization" is still very
expansive for me, while mastery and appropriation are restrictive.
Internalization includes the elements of the subconscious (not as a
Freudian problem, but as the possibility of real change). It is clear
that all of us must recite lines we do not agree with (such as prayers
in school); however, personal freedom from a Spinozian point of view
reflects my "internal" relationship to my human will, and not words
parroted that are either appropriated or master (something much more
external for me). Now, that understanding only makes sense to me within
a Marxist framework of "unified dialectics." Therefore, there is a
"tension" within cultural-historical theory relating to internalization;
however, within sociocultural theory this tension is dissolved with a
dualistic return to mastery/appropriation (where these terms are not yet
defined, or I have not found the NEW definitions of them anywhere). We
can only understand these problems by understanding the history of the
origins of cultural-historical theory and sociocultural theory. Another
example is Marxism. Sociocultural theory does not deal with Marxism, or
am I wrong? Vygotsky represented a more traditional philosophical
approach to Marxism, while Leontiev was faced with the realities of
Stalinism. How do we reconcile the philosophy of Marx within the system
created in Russia that failed? Where is the new Marxism or new thoughts
on analyzing where Marxism failed in practice? how can this failure
change Marxist theory today? In Moscow, for example, I did not meet a
single person writing or thinking about Marxism (nor have I met any
Russians living abroad doing the same). In fact, even with the limited
translations of books in Russian, I kept hearing over and over how
impressed students were with Husserl's phenomenology. So many really
love him. Why? Husserl represents the exact opposite of any type of
materialism. However, when I would tried to discuss Husserl and
Heiddeger as representing the core of French poststructuralism, the
Russian students knew nothing about that. Once again, an example of
"mixed appropriation" of concepts not properly understood from a
historical/contextual perspective, and not really "internalized." The
other example is the contradistinction between "dialectics" and
"dialogical thinking." It is so interesting for me that within
sociocultural theory dialectics have been replaced by dialogical
thinking.....perhaps you disagree. However, Bakhtin (the author of the
dialogical) was an avowed anti-Marxist, a Christian. Yet, he is the
major voice of the sociocultural approach to language, do you disagree?
My feeling is that we need to totally differentiate the three lines of
theory, study them in light of their history, and then move on. This was
the reason I was hoping that people would write to A. A. Leontiev to get
his opinion on his fathers book. So, I would like to say one thing about
Russian activity theory from the point of view of Dmitry Leontiev, or
from the Russian perspective: it is divided into three phases for him:
1930s-1950s--activity theory; 1960s-1980s--theory of consciousness;
1980s--until now--theory of PERSONALITY. The focus is not on atomistic
parts of personality as it is viewed in the West (e.g. introvert,
anxiety, risk taking, motivation, etc.), but the WHOLE personality of
the individual. I never see this written about in the West. So, my great
wish would be to retrace the thoughts of the three lines of theory we
follow, and view them historically (and one of my favorite writers,
Ethel Tobach, actually compares the word "activity" with "change").
Well, as you noticed, I never really got back to "Marxism" and
"consciousness." But hope to. Thanks for any help along these lines. I
am trying to learn and grow and appreciate any thoughts.
Sorry this was so long!
Best wishes,
Dot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:01 PDT