Eugene, I wrote a long response to this just to have it eaten up by my
computer at work which froze. Maybe it was it's reaction to the
criticism of the elitism and intelligencia. It literally sent my
response to Siberia!! :-) -- I cannot reproduce it now.
Seriously;
I think that Davidov's thinking reflects a kind of naive evolutionism in
which there is a definite hierarchy between "lower" and "higher" forms
of organisms, forms of society and finally forms of Individual thinking.
I did not know that the Russian Empire style of this kind of thinking
originated in the "low life", riffraff, proletarian circles -- probably
also very heavily Jewish. However, the same kind of elitism and
intellectual snobism is not strange to the rest of Europe either. I also
grew up absolutely despising ignorance (not people, but their state of
ignorance) -- both of the poor blue collar workers and of the imbecile
but powerful, and therefore dangerous, politicians and rulers.
Vygotsky and Luria also had some remnants of this kind of thinking in
the discussion of their experiments with bringing schooling and literacy
to the tribes in the back lands of the Soviet Union. Mike talks about
this in his Cultural Psychology.
But I think that Vygotsky had actually rejected this kind of thinking
and started something else when he talked about the changing in the
psychological functions and their mutual interrelationships and
relationships to the social forms. It is very hard to be absolutely
critical in the domain of social and psychological investigations. First
it is hard to see the water if you live in it, and second, even when you
start understanding that it is just one of the possible environments,
you still probably tend to think of it as the best one.
What do you think?
Ana
Eugene Matusov wrote:
>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