Dear Mike and everybody-
Yes, I think Mike you are right about Davydov's "two culture". However I
think the boundary between them where not about everyday
thinking/activities. Davydov contrasted "empirical thinking" (which is bad
in his judgment) with "theoretical thinking" (which is good). However, both
types of thinking are not domain specific: according to Davydov, you can
find evidence of theoretical thinking in everyday life/activities and
empirical thinking in scientific practice. I remember attending Davydov's
lectures at Moscow University in the late 70s -beginning 80s, when he
criticized Vygotsky for not dialectical and not critical acceptance of
scientific thinking as superior to everyday thinking. Davydov provided many
examples on his lectures of how scientific thinking is often "empirical"
while everyday thinking is "theoretical". For the latter, he used some
examples of wise people ("mudrezy") or practical sages (no connotation to
mafia, although :-).
On the other hand, Davydov's notion of "theoretical thinking" definitely
privileges and elevates intelligencia. As you may know, Russian term
"intelligencia" coined by Dostoevsky is not the same as American
"intellectual" or "educated". I think Holquist in his book "Dialogism:
Bakhtin and his world" gave an excellent definition of intelligencia. I do
not have the book at home but he defines intelligencia along the following
lines as people who are specialized on making sense of the world. In my
view, there is certain elitism in this notion that can be traced back to
Russian slavery ended only in 1861. It seems to me that it was an attempt of
marginalized underground people ("raznochintzy") nicely described by
Dostoevsky to develop a new class and new ideology of aristocracy of (and
by) mind (rather than by blood) to separate themselves from (former) peasant
slaves and old aristocracy.
In my view, Davydov's approach continues an intelligencia tradition to
downview people of power and common people on intellectual grounds of
manifesting poor thinking ("empirical thinking").
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:mcole@weber.ucsd.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 11:28 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Cc: ematusov@UDel.Edu
> Subject: davydov/professional/personal
>
>
> Very interesting inside description, Eurgene.
> I have always viewed Davydov as advocating a "two cultures" view
> of schooling. That is, one should teacth theoretical thinking in
> school and emphasize that it is valuable in and of itself and NOT
> depend upon everyday thinking/activities a la Dewey as a bridging
> mechanism.
>
> An interesting version of the two culturas issue.
> mike
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
> Sent: Friday, August 01, 2003 12:09 AM
> To: 'xmca@weber.ucsd.edu'
> Subject: RE: personalizing voice
>
> Dear Peter and everybody-
>
> Since I experience Davydov's approach first hand (I was a student in his
91 Moscow
> school), I think your point is very-very interesting. I think Davydov
tried to develop
> "professional practice" voice among students rather than "personal". By
"personalized
> voice" I mean using school curricula for understanding and transforming
the world like
> Friere's famous motto, "reading and writing word to read and write the
world." Davydov
> wanted to develop "universal theoretical thinking" in the students. His
idea was that the
> academic curricula have to become everyday practice for the students. So,
for example, kids
> would involve in math not because math is useful for their lives and lives
of their
> communities but because they become member of community of math practice.
>
> However, since Davydov believed that authentic theoretical thinking is
universal practicing
> theoretical thinking in one area would "spill out" into another area.
Historically, under
> Soviet regime it was true to some degree: many famous Soviet
mathematicians and
> physicists became dissidents and had high interests in social sciences and
humanities.
>
> I try to demonstrate the difference between "personalized teaching" and
"practicalized
> teaching" on the website
http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/cultures/Teaching.htm
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Moxhay [mailto:moxhap@portlandschools.org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 1:10 PM
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: RE: personalizing voice
> >
> > Jay wrote:
> >
> > > I wonder if anyone here can identify math textbooks or curricula that
do
> > > stimulate more of the kind of dialogue Eugene is talking about, where
> > > students can take critical stances toward mathematical inquiry and its
> > > relationship to other aspects of social life?
> >
> > Davydov's mathematics curriculum for the primary grades is an
> > interesting example of an inquiry-based curriculum, though it is
> > certainly not of the "math and society" type. It seems to me, though,
> > that it provides ample scope for the "personalized voices" of students:
> > the primary form of classroom interaction is whole-class discussion in
> > which the contributions of all participants, including the teacher, are
> > evaluated on an equal basis. It develops children's critical stances
> > towards mathematics to a very high level, though probably not in
> > the same sense as people have been discussing here.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 01:00:06 PDT