----- Original Message -----
From: Ricardo Ottoni Vaz Japiassu
<Yes, he[LSV] indeed advocates the historical materialism as something
superior than dialetic materialism >
I don't think this is right, but wonder whether it is the result of
confusion about the term 'historical materialism', which is usually used in
relation to Marx's thought to mean the idea that society is defined and
develops through the means by which humans labour. Vygotsky sees his role in
relation to psychology as creating the _equivalent_ of historical
materialism in relation to the subject matter of psychology. He sees the
historical-genetic aspect of his psychology as having its origin in
dialectics as applied to the study of mind. He is not critical of
dialectical materialism as such but (a) sees it as too general a set of
principles to serve as the basis for psychology, needing instead to apply
dialectics and materialism in a form specific to psychology; (b) is
critical of the dogmatic approach that was gaining influence with official
sanction in the USSR of the 20s.
<"(...) I wonder if neo-Marxism is playing this role in psychology today?"
Howard
Sometime ago I heard an interesting explanation by Phd. Angel Pino that
states some difference between a marxist interpretation and a marxian
interpretation. The first of them would be very close to what you call
uncritique marxism (political militancy) and the last one, a critical
interpretation of Marx's ideas (neomarxism? postmodern approach to Marx's
ideas?).>
I think 'postmodern Marxism' would be precisely one of those contradictions
in terms that Vygotsky refers to as the product of marrying ideas that don't
fit together. Plus I think Marxism without any emancipatory and critical
intent is also a non-starter. (Sometimes I worry that they are not evident
in some applications of CHAT.)
Bruce
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 01 2001 - 01:01:56 PST