Thank you for your clarifying words.
Yes, Bruce. You're right to say that
"(...) Vygotsky's other work testifies to his willingness to take ideas from a wide variety of sources"
and that the distinction he makes is
"(...) between a genuine synthesis within an integral conceptual framework and a sort of montage in which bits are cut out of different theories and pasted together"
But I, personally, as a teacher or a "reflexive practictioner", have nothing against a "bricolage" :)
What is ironical in this is the fact that he, LSV, was indexed by "soviet vaticano" as ecletic... Of course, he was right on the way to construct a coherent conceptual framework according to a historical materialist approach to psyche although I do believe, like him, that "(...) Psychology will be the comon name of a hole family of sciences. Because our task do not consist absolutelly in differeciate our work of all psychological work of the past, but unify it in an ensemble over a new basis aside everything that had been scientifically studied by psychology. We do not want to differentiate our school of science, but it of what is not scientific, the psychology of non-psychology." (number 13, § before the last one)
About Luria's marxist approach to Freudism:
I think it is very difficult to someone who had not access to Lurias' text - like me - to fully understand and agree with him, LSV. He develops, in crisis, a convincing discourse against his pupil but I had the impression he was to severe on his public critics to a young researcher - as Luria was that time. I would say he was not ethical at all. I was shocked, I confess.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:55 PST