Eugene Matusov wrote:
>As to rejecting cultural-historical progressivism and
>dialoging with it at
>the same time, I think it is possible.
The problem is not that it is impossible or possible (I think it is possible
and I hinted at that in my response(and also have written about how to
complement elements of various views within socio-cultural-hisotrical
perspective, for example, in the mca paper). The problem is that you NEVER
mentioned the rejection-together-with-dialogue option in your posting. Now
that you have backed up from the rigid dichotomy and the outright 'rejection
stance' that you had initially suggested - the more balanced view is
restored and my goal is achieved (by the way, rejection is still not the
best word, why not use 'dialectic negation' instead, you should know the
difference, I am sure).
>It would be helpful (at least for me) if you can present
>Davydov's quotes where he appreciates diversity,
>criticizes ethnocentrism in the notion of progress, and/or >considers truth
as a social construction.
I never said Davydov did enough of this - this is not news to anybody. And
Mike did describe the reactions to his talks fairly. The more important
question that I wanted people to consider is WHY he did not do this and,
also, whether this relative lack of a 'diversity stance' (and also his
claims about 'primitive thinking') could have a different meaning in the
context of his approach than in, say, Spencer's evolutionary approach? I
think they could and did! But this is a different story, however. And a much
more inetersting question.
Anna
PS. Ana Marjanovic's name is with one 'n'. Why so many people keep calling
her with what is not her name? Ana, I hope you don't mind me pointing to
this.
-----Original Message-----
From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@UDel.Edu]
Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 7:19 PM
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Subject: RE: who said?
Dear Anna--
You are right 110% that my description of characterization of Russian
Vygotskian school is imprecise, stereotyping, overreaching and so on. In my
defense, I would say that I warned people (in earlier postings) that I'm
caricaturing and exaggerating to make the contrast more visible. You are
right that there are plenty examples of Russian scholars working in dialogic
tradition -- to list a few Bakhtin, Bibler, Arsen'ev. You also right that
you can find the Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky tradition of historical progressivism
in many non-Russian Vygotskian scholars. My apology for that.
> And rejection is opposite to a dialogue, isn't it? --
> this being my
> main message, by the way. Or otherwise, I do not know what rejection is
> about...
As to rejecting cultural-historical progressivism and dialoging with it at
the same time, I think it is possible. My favorite argument is that for
dialoguing you do not need to agree with your partner of dialogue. For
example, behaviorist critique contributed to development and strengthening
cognitive perspective in 50s and 60s. They were in dialogic relation with
each other.
Specifically you can find a lot of dialoguing about directionality of
development (the key concept in the Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky tradition) with
cultural-historical progressivism approaches while rejecting its
ethnocentrism in work of Jaan Valsiner, Jay Lemke, and my own work (sorry
for missing many others).
> As to Davydov: I happened to see him giving talks in Germany, for
> example. I
> was struck by how difficult it was for people there to make sense of his
> words... I do blame the effects of being taken out of context (in many
> senses of this expression, e.g., of him talking in an alien context with
> often bad translation, of others not knowing his philosophy and
> psychological framework etc) for this.
I knew Vasilii Vasil'evich Davydov personally during the end of 70s -- early
80s and in my recollection of Davydov's presentations, debates, speeches,
and lectures (in MSU), I think that Mike's depiction of his position is
correct (at least for these years and my exposure of Davydov). It would be
helpful (at least for me) if you can present Davydov's quotes where he
appreciates diversity, criticizes ethnocentrism in the notion of progress,
and/or considers truth as a social construction.
I want to emphasize that Davydov was an extremely interesting and important
scholar and must-know for sociocultural/CHAT family of approaches (our many
discussion of Davydov's ideas on XMCA is evidence for that). I also agree
with Anna that sometimes if it is difficult for people in US to understand
and fully appreciate Davydov because of a lack of shared conceptual (and
probably cultural and historical) context and background.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stetsenko, Anna [mailto:AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2001 4:18 PM
> To: 'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'
> Subject: RE: who said?
>
>
> Mike, one thing for sure - you never said or implied this. "OVER".
>
> I think I reacted to this posting by Eugene Matusov:
> "US Vygotskian school (or better to say a family of approaches)
> rejects the
> Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky idea of one historical development of society
> and focus,
> instead, on relations among cultures." Given that "the Hegel-Marx-Vygotsky
> idea of one historical development" was meant to be the centerpiece of the
> Russian school (in the same message), this did sound as a
> REJECTION, didn't
> it? And rejection can't be done without this 'over' and this
> 'abandonment',
> can it? And rejection is opposite to a dialogue, isn't it? --
> this being my
> main message, by the way. Or otherwise, I do not know what rejection is
> about...
>
> As to Davydov: I happened to see him giving talks in Germany, for
> example. I
> was struck by how difficult it was for people there to make sense of his
> words... I do blame the effects of being taken out of context (in many
> senses of this expression, e.g., of him talking in an alien context with
> often bad translation, of others not knowing his philosophy and
> psychological framework etc) for this. As to 'a la Spencer', I think, in
> essence, nothing can be farther away from Spencer's evolutionary thinking
> than Davydov's cultural-historical view of learning as the pathway of
> development and of mind as formed by cultural tools.
> Anna
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2001 6:44 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: who said?
>
>
>
> Anna--
>
> Where did this appear in the discussion?
> By the way, setting a clear preference of
> the latter OVER the former, and claiming that the cultural-historical view
> should be COMPLETELY abandoned in favor of the sociocultural view isn't
> perhaps a best way to pursue diversity and dialogue?
>
>
> About Davydov. He was speaking to an ethnically diverse group of people
> at LCHC the first time I heard him speak this way. The second time was
> at a developmental conference in Moscow where he took a strong hegelian
> stance that primitive peoples indeed think primitively, a la Spencer/
>
>
> Contextaualizing Vasilii Vasilievitch's view is a big help, thanks.
> mike
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue May 01 2001 - 01:01:42 PDT