Dot, could you write a few words of clarification for what are the dangers you mention below?
thanks,
bb
>Dear Friends,
>Never meant to write to Peggy on line, sorry, it was a mistake! The thoughts on "expansion" are very interesting.
>Here are some questions I have:
>
>1). Vygotsky warned against the dangers of placing various aspects of theories together forming one theory. It can
>lead to reductionism. Of course, he has been found guilty of doing this, except for the fact that he came up with his own
>original theory. I was very interested to read so many authors who were mentioned, and was glad
>that people like Bratus, Fichtner, etc. were also included. I am wondering about placing so many
>ideas together. Habermas has been criticized for placing the ideas of Freud and Marx together. I have not read
>the rest of the book by YE and will be interested to see how it plays out. I am fascinated to discover how a model, based
>on Vygotskian thought, will emerge in the book. The idea of "expansion" seems to be extremely interesting. It appears
>that the criticism Vygotsky gave to Luria needs to be re-examined: can areas such as Freudianism, or Jungian
>archetypes and the collective unconscious, be brought together? Vygotsky certainly believed in including aspects of
>the unconscious in his theories of art and aesthetics, related to images, motives, etc. How can this dichotomy be
>bridged without reductionism?
>
>2). I did not have the same take on Habermas. YE stated that Habermas " seems to see hope only outside the system of production and administration." Habermas has often stated that "modern representation" has contributed to
>a lack of healthy public spheres. Habermas tried to establish a cross referential model of reconstruction of European thought.....for him the empirical-analytic process is too objective and monological; the historical-hermeneutic process is too subjective and relativistic. These models were always connected to various "interests" behind them. Habermas wanted to bridge the apparent gap mentioned in the other theories by including an emancipatory interest within a communicative ethics. Habermas still wants to create an ethics within communication, where each person would be able to use all speech acts, or
>speak openly and critically, without the usual consequences. The combination of a linguistic model with moral development ran into problems, but I have never seen Habermas wanting to work outside the system, although some postmodernists claim
>this position for him. In my understanding, Habermas especially was/is interested in placing morality back into technology and science, and that is why he keeps claiming that human "rationality" has not reached its heights. One of the problems that I see
>with Habermas is the lack of "self reflection" being placed within communicative competence/Universal Pragmatics. With the high level of institutionalization today, Habermas states that the communication process is completely distorted, resulting in "technical" domination. This is a problem when relating Vygotskian thought to the societal level and it will be interesting to see if this level is discussed in the book. What I mean is simply linking the individual to the social, without critical reflection of the social, and the reverse. There seems to be so little discussion of a meta-understanding of how a new society could look
>like, and the last discussion of that type appears to be Marxist. Perhaps the social element will indeed become more
>regional with the development of technology to connect us, instead of more national and international, or perhaps there
>will be an entirely new construction of the understanding of the social, international, regional, etc. I
>sincerely feel that there needs to be a re-evaluation of Marxism as a societal model, but within the understanding of
>Carrillo's Eurocommunism in Spain, and other such models.
>The question then is: will theory building within YE's activity theory include praxis within societal change? Societal change will
>come through education, I assume. It is interesting
>that to date there really are very few schools based on the theories of Vygotsky, and little theory placed into
>real revolutionary praxis (with exceptions, such as the work of Lois Holzman et al.). In other words, Vygotsky seems
>to be almost status quo, with his name being a consumable commodity instead of a force for societal change.
>
>3). YE seemed to be stating in the introduction that Vygotsky focused on the individual, and I think that we need to re-evaluate that
>premise. In the introduction there was the statement that "The limitation of the first generation was that the unit of analysis remained individually focused." One of the very interesting aspects of Vygotsky is the connectedness of the individual with the
>social and the reverse. I see Vygotsky's works as always placing the individual with the social, and the social was
>questioned at that point in time, trying to take education as the driving force to connect the social/individual in a revolutionary
>perspective. It seems that there was a linking of aspects and not a one-sided perspective. The idea was to place
>elements into units that could reflect the elements holistically, at the same time. This is a holographic approach and it is
>common in many theories today, such as complexity theory, but does not seem to represent a common approach to
>theory building in post-Vygotskian research. Surely it is the dialectical reciprocity that fuels development,
>not within a linear, nor vertical/horizontal dichotomy, nor a generalization to concrete model only. It is the spiral
>nature of the dialectic connected to the whole that I perceive to be one core ingredient of Vygotsky's thinking.
>It is interesting that Habermas' goal within communicative rationality is autonomy and responsibility, gained through emancipatory interests and argumentative/truthful discourse. One of Vygotsky's goals is self-regulation (within a new educational approach that was called "pedology."). In postmodern
>society there is a focus on the disconnectedness of the individual, and this is reflected in most of our institutional
>settings, not all. So, much research is based on finding results and solutions to problems within an individualized approach.
>Vygotsky did not take the individualized approach that is understood in postmodern societies, nor has
>Habermas, who requires a mutual, communicative consensus as a solution. I am hoping that in further chapters
>or in further discussions there will be thought given to the extremely problematic nature of theorizing about the
>individual and the social in more critical terms (something that is positive for Habermas)....in many of the later
>works of the followers of Vygotsky, I don't see critical discussions of this type. In other words,
>how can individuals become self-regulated and autonomous, and still find a link to changing institutional structures
>to create more solidarity? how can Vygotskian theory actually be put into revolutionary praxis today? Certainly,
>the aspect of theory building will need to change, and it is for this reason that the book selected is very
>appreciated. The aspect of "expansion" will be very interesting to follow in the chapters.
>
>With best wishes,
>Dot
>
>P.S. It is interesting to note that while Habermas was writing on his Universal Pragmatics, he
>had not read the works of Vygotsky (or many--any??-- Russian thinkers). He stated this somewhere.I remember reading that he simply said that he did not have the time to read everything in the world. It would be interesting
>to know if this has now changed.
>
-- Bill Barowy, Associate Professor Lesley University 29 Everett Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2790 Phone: 617-349-8168 / Fax: 617-349-8169 http://www.lesley.edu/faculty/wbarowy/Barowy.html _______________________ "One of life's quiet excitements is to stand somewhat apart from yourself and watch yourself softly become the author of something beautiful." [Norman Maclean in "A river runs through it."]
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:37 PDT