Paul, Helena and now several other people brought up the issue of Vygotsky's
theory broad sociopolitical context that is very dear to my heart. I thought
this little piece goes really well with these recent postings (it is my
abstract for the upcoming ISCRAT conference). I am struck again how
interesting it is that certain lines of thinking really seem to pop up
simultaneously in various parts of the world... It would fascinating to
discuss this at ISCRAT.
CHAT: An Investigative Project with a Unique Liberating Potential
From the time of its inception by Vygotsky and his colleagues, the CHAT
perspective has essentially defied the traditional individualist and
mentalist (and hence, ultimately idealist) notions of science. Specifically,
it defied the notion of science as being a process of knowledge production
carried out by solitary minds engaged in value-free rationalistic pursuits
of truth in a sociocultural and sociopolitical vacuum of purely intellectual
dialogues and interdependencies among various "voices" and ideas in science.
Instead, the CHAT perspective emerged, right from the beginning, as a
value-laden collaborative project embodying specific sociopolitical and
cultural-historical context in which it was created and entailing essential
moral, practical, and technological components along with the mere
intellectual ones. In this sense, the very creation and development of the
CHAT perspective stands in amazing congruency with the foundational
principles of this unique investigative project that came to distinguish it
from the rest of psychology dominated by individualist and mentalist views
of human subjectivity, knowledge, and science.
This paper will focus on elucidating and exploring this congruence as well
as on revealing the implications of this view for understanding not only the
central tenets of the CHAT perspective as a theory of human development but
also its unique standing in the history of psychology, especially in its
human liberating potential stretching far beyond the confines of traditional
sciences and oriented towards ideals of equality and social justice.
-----Original Message-----
From: Bruce Robinson
To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
Sent: 2/11/2002 6:30 PM
Subject: Re: Quasi-historical discourse
Well said, Peter and Helen. Yet again 'bricolage' and eclecticism become
pretexts for not attending to why people thought what they did and how
their broader goals fitted with what they said. Perhaps another way of
saying that they have become part of our common cultural heritage is to
say
that their ideas have been gutted of their critical content to the
extent
that they have become commonplaces of academic discourse.
I'm not arguing for an uncritical hagiography of anyone (even
Vygotsky;))
but there's nothing worse than rendering revolutionaries harmless after
their deaths (as I believe Lenin once said!).
Bruce Robinson
At 12:24 11/02/02 -0800, you wrote:
>Right on, Helen! In the case of Vygotsky, as I understand him, he was
a
>revolutionary who supported the original goals of the bolshevik-led
>Revolution, and steeped his theory building in the material reality
around
>him, and wanted to use Science to CHANGE the social inequities and
>backwardness created by the class system. For this attitude, surely he
>would have been purged, or worse, by the stalinists, had he not died so
>early. Am I wrong in assuming that his desire to unify all the social
>sciences into one grand framework (a marxist, materialist one) was part
of
>this revolutionary attitude, to create a more transparent Social
Science,
>more amenable to serving humanity; as opposed to the disparate
disciplines
>whose insularity more readily serves the interests of the ruling class?
>
>Pete Farruggio
>
>
>
>At 07:20 AM 2/11/02, Helena Worthen wrote:
>
>>So.....
>>
>>We have Vygotsky, according to Paul Dillon, ..." trying to create the
>>psychological component of a unified dialectical materialist social
theory"
>>... and Joseph Glick saying Piaget was attempting ...."to link
changing
>>structures to the biologically invariant functions - "adaptation"
(ultimately
>>made of assimilation and acccomodation in balance) and Organization
(which
>>organizes these adaptations with respect to
>>one another)"..
>>
>>Neither of these goals has been accomplished yet, out there in the
real world
>>where people are or are not funding education, welfare programs,
>>training, etc.
>>
>>And here on xmca we are talking about support for minority grad
students. I
>>myself am working in a program that tries to teach minority/community
people
>>enough math to pass building trades apprenticeship tests and get into
union
>>construction apprenticeships.
>>
>>So, don't these two goals still need to be worked on? Maybe the
context in
>>which they can be applied has changed, but certainly, to have a social
theory
>>that was grounded in material reality (I'm being a little Procrustean
>>here) and
>>that had a psychological component and was broadly understood by
people who
>>make decisions about, for example, access to community colleges, or
>>funding for
>>training for laid-off workers, would be great! And to really
understand
>>-- and
>>to have people out there in the day care/Head Start/ state legislature
>>universe
>>really get why it's important for kids who are trying to grow to have
a
>>decent
>>breakfast -- we're nowhere near being able to get this news out there
in a
>>clear, simple way that the people who make decisions can use.
>>
>>So I'd say that the problems V and P were working on are still alive
and
>>acute
>>today, and that the problems people on xmca are working on can be
>>loosened up a
>>bit by referring back to them and clarifying their application.
>>
>>Helena Worthen
>>
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> > From: Glick, Joseph <JGlick@gc.cuny.edu>
>> > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> > Sent: Sunday, February 10, 2002 4:40 PM
>> > Subject: Quasi-historical discourse
>> >
>> > >
>> > > If we want to find out what these guys were really about we
should look
>> > > to the kinds of theoretical problems that they were trying to
solve -
>> > > which were quite different and which are, I think, quite
different from
>> > > the kinds of problems that we are trying to solve.>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>---
>>Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.
>>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>>Version: 6.0.320 / Virus Database: 179 - Release Date: 1/30/02
>
<<ATT198017.txt>>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Mar 01 2002 - 01:00:19 PST