Anna,
I am surprised at your comment that Leont., and presumably the other
activity theorists Luria & vyg., felt that they were already living in a
classless workers' democracy and therefore felt no need to address concrete
social problems. From my limited understanding, I have heard that Vyg. and
Luria felt quite oppressed by the CP though they did believe in the ideals
of socialism. I've heard that Vyg. was in imminent danger of persecution and
that only his early death prevented this. And I understood that Luria was
bitter about the CP and felt so politically threatened that he turned from
sociohistorical studies to medical studies to avoid any political
persecution. Is all that wrong?
And in any case, I can't imagine that anyone could be so naive as to think
that a mere 10 years after a political revolution all social problems had
been solved and that people were happily on the road to a new social
existence. Of course, if these activity theorists did, in fact, have such a
belief then your explanation for their ignoring concrete social questions
makes sense. But I always thought that the reason involved political
threats. I know that this is the case in China where I lived for 2 years in
the early 80's. No social scientist in China could touch political questions
because the CP kept these for itself. So all Chinese social science became
concerned with simple, atheoretical questions like population growth, or
they turned to abstract Western psych. with its emphasis on abstract
variables, individual processes, etc. I assume that because the Chinese
system was modeled on the Russians, similar forces were at play in
subverting a genuine cultural psychology.
I'd be interested in your comments.
-- Carl Ratner, Ph.D. cr2@humboldt1.com http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2P.O.B. 1294 Trinidad, CA 95570 USA
> From: "Stetsenko, Anna" <AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu> > Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 17:18:40 -0500 > To: "'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> > Subject: RE: Leontiev's Cultural Psych. > Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Resent-Date: Mon, 6 Nov 2000 14:25:55 -0800 (PST) > > Carl, yes, you are right in many ways. One little thing, however, needs to > be taken into account, I believe. This thing is the kind of society Leont'ev > was working in (but not from the point of view of Stalin's persecution, > which you mentioned but which is just part of the story). Although I am > charting a somewhat risky territory, I will note that, in L'S AND MOST OF > HIS CONTEMPORARIES' PERCEPTION, they were living and working in a classless > society that had already broken away with alienation, inequality and > various forms of exploitation, that had tried to implement (and was trying > still in L's times) the most radical social project ever undertaken in the > history of humankind. By virtue of living and working in this society, L's > could see himself as participating in this dramatic social project and this > would automatically mean he could not see himself as "ignoring the concrete > social relationships of people", even if he did not address them when > charting the foundations of his theory. Because, as he probably saw it, he > was participating in creating NEW social relationships. Does this change > anything in your perception? What if I add that the goal of the 'betterment > of human condition' was so much part of the typical discourse of those times > that even each and every PhD thesis in psychology had to speak directly to > this...The belief being that instead of addressing the existing conditions > (as you seemed to want L to be doing), what is needed is the work towards > understanding how to change them. > I guess I am also implicitly objecting to what seems to be a black-and-white > picture of 'repressions-society versus political-freedom-society' that > lurked in your message. As any other dichotomy, this one would probably not > sustain a close analyses either, I suspect. > > Anna Stetsenko > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Carl Ratner [mailto:cr2@humboldt1.com] > Sent: Saturday, November 04, 2000 5:57 PM > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu > Subject: Re: Leontiev's Cultural Psych. > > > Now that we have finished reading Leontiev's book I'd like to make an > observation about its relevance for cultural psychology -- and activity > theory. I've noticed that Leont. often states that "In all of its > distinctness, the activity of the human individual represents a system > included in the system of relationships of society. Outside these > relationships human activity simply does not exist. Just how it exists is > determined by those forms and material and spiritual means (Verkehr) that > result from the development of production and that cannot be realized > otherwise than in the concrete activity of people." (chap. 3). What's > paradoxical to me is that he hardly ever discusses any particular > relationships of society or concrete activity of people. He never uses the > term capitalism or socialism which are particular relationships of society. > And he hardly ever mentions the concrete social organization of activities > such as work, family, medicine, education, government. In the entire book he > only refers to social class twice and to alienation once. And he only spends > a few sentences on them. The entire rest of the book ignores the concrete > social relationships of people. It talks in general terms of hierarchical > arrangements of personality traits, about the transformation of subjectivity > into objectivity, about the mediated nature of stimulus-response, about > affective signals for emotions. While these are impt. ideas, they don't > touch on the cultural aspects of human psych. > I believe this is typical of the entire Russian/Soviet approach to > activity theory and cultural-historical psych. It fails to deliver its > promise to relate psych. to concerete social activity. I think this is a > major failure that must be corrected if activity theory is to be realized > and if a concrete cultural psych. is to be developed. > The failure is understandable in terms of the Stalinist domination of > social policies. Academics were prevented from touching on social/political > questions under that regime. However, contemporary Western academics need to > use their political freedom to develop activity theory along the lines > proposed by Leont. and Vyg but unfulfilled by them. > In a side note, it seems that activity theory is under attack from some > unlikely quarters in contemporary social science. The latest issue of the > journal Culture & Psychology (Sept. 2000) carries an article entitled, > "Activity Theory is a Dead End for Cultural-Historical Psychology." > -- > Carl Ratner, Ph.D. > cr2@humboldt1.com > http://www.humboldt1.com/~cr2 > > P.O.B. 1294 > Trinidad, CA 95570 > USA > >> From: "Nate Schmolze" <nate_schmolze@yahoo.com> >> Reply-To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 07:29:53 -0500 >> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> >> Subject: RE: Two Approaches in Psychology >> Resent-From: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> Resent-Date: Sun, 22 Oct 2000 05:24:23 -0700 (PDT) >> >> The article Andy mentioned is on the MCA Leontev page at >> http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/leontev/index.html. The subject / >> object piece can be found directly at >> http://communication.ucsd.edu/MCA/Paper/leontev/essay_77.htm. >> >> Nate >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Andy Blunden [mailto:andy@mira.net] >> Sent: Sunday, October 22, 2000 3:38 AM >> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >> Subject: Re: Two Approaches in Psychology >> >> >> This first part of Leontyev's Chapter addresses the age-old problem of >> subject and object, and doesn't our discussion show how eternal it is! I >> think the translation problems - important in themselves in trying to get >> to the author's meaning and context, and concretising our understanding - >> still, it's all around this same problem. >> >> "THUS, the object of activity is two-fold; first, in its independent >> existence as subordinating to itself and transforming the activity of the >> subject; second, as an image of the object, as a product of the >> psychological reflection that is realised as an activity of the subject > and >> cannot exist otherwise." >> >> I have scanned the article in "Philosophy in the USSR" (which included >> Ilyenkov's article on the Ideal and Leontyev's article) by Lektorsky >> devoted to Subject-Object, and emailed it to Nate. Nate, can you post it > on >> the MIA and let people know the URL? >> >> Andy >> >> >> >> ____________________________ >> At 05:26 PM 16/10/2000 +1000, you wrote: >>> Leontyev summarises the first part of Ch. 3 "Two Approaches in > Psychology" >>> as follows: >>> _________________________________________________________ >>> "The main thesis, the substantiation of which will be presented in a >>> subsequent work, is that the real way to overcome this postulate [of >>> directness, i.e. S->R], ... is through the introduction into psychology > of >>> the category of object activity. >>> "... The question is one of activity, and not one of behavior or the >>> neurophysiological processes that produce activity. The fact is that the >>> "units" isolated by analysis and language, with the help of which >>> behavioral, cerebral, or logical processes are described on the one hand, >>> and objective activity on the other, do not agree with one another. "... >>> either keep the basic binomial formula: action of the object -> change in >>> ongoing condition of the subject ..., or devise a trinomial formula >>> including a middle link - the activity of the subject and, > correspondingly, >>> conditions, goals, and means of that activity - a link that mediates the >>> ties between them. >>> "We will take either the position that consciousness is determined by the >>> surrounding objects and phenomena, or the position that consciousness is >>> determined by the social existence of people ... >>> "But what is human life? It is that totality, more precisely, that system >>> of activities replacing one another. ... activity appears as a process in >>> which mutual transfers between the poles "subject-object" are > accomplished. >>> "In production the personality is objectivized; in need the thing is >>> subjectivized," noted Marx" >>> _________________________________________________________ >>> >>> Can I go on? >>> >>> Andy >>> >>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> | - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - | >>> | All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational | >>> | solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.| >>> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >>> >>> >> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> | - Andy Blunden - Home Page - http://home.mira.net/~andy/index.htm - | >> | All mysteries which lead theory to mysticism find their rational | >> | solution in human practice and in the comprehension of this practice.| >> +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ >> >> > >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Dec 01 2000 - 01:00:59 PST