You seem to have an amazing bibliography at your fingertips Victor!
I think it more likely that there is some misunderstanding somewhere than
that I have such a unique view of Vygotsky. I'll continue looking into this
issue, Victor ... Andy
At 11:00 AM 18/10/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>It appears to me that your review of Vygotsky as a dialectician is unique
>(at least in the English language) with the possible exception of two
>articles in English written by <mailto:leszek@ii.uni.wroc.pl>Koczanowicz,
>Leszek.<mailto:leszek@ii.uni.wroc.pl>leszek<mailto:leszek@ii.uni.wroc.pl>@ii.uni.wroc.pl
>whose written considerably on Vygotsky and Mead but nearly all in
>Polish. The two articles of his in English (which I've not read) are:
>
>Analyses of Human Action. Relation between Mind and Action in
>Behaviourism, G.H. Mead's Social Pragmatism and L.S. Vygotsky's
>Psychological Concepts. Wroceaw 1990 and "G.H. Mead and L.S. Vygotsky on
>Meaning and the Self", Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 8 (1994): 262-276
>
>Koczanowicz teaches at Opole University and SUNY Buffalo. In the short
>description of his early work on Mead and Vygotsky (from a very short
>biography introducing a lecture of his for the The Pittsburgh Area
>Realtime Scientifiction Enthusiasts Club).
>
>"Professor Leszek Koczanowicz is a philosopher and psychologist at Opole
>University, Poland, where he has been teaching courses in history of
>psychology and social philosophy. Currently Dr. Koczanowicz is a visiting
>professor at SUNY at Buffalo. His doctoral dissertation (1987) compared
>L.V. Vygotsky's historical cultural approach to the mental life with G.H.
>Mead's social behaviorism. His later work has been devoted to the concepts
>of the self in American Pragmatism. His current research deals with social
>philosophy and psychology. Dr. Koczanowicz studied and taught at
>University of Wroclaw, Poland, UC at Berkeley, SUNY at Stony Brook, SUNY
>at Buffalo, Institut f_r die Wissenschaften vom Menschen in Vienna
>(Austria), and Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities
>and Social Sciences (Holland).
>
>That's about all that's currently available on (the net) Leszek's writings
>on Mead and Vygotsky.
>
>The rest of the material on relations between Mead, Dewey and Vygotsky
>appear to be all oriented towards educational issues and most emphasize
>the historical relation between Vygotsky and Dewey (after all LSV does
>refer to Dewey's work) rather than compare them. And then you have Patty
>Farrah's article, Rationalism, Empiricism, and Pragmatism The Three Major
>Epistemological Traditions and their Influence on Instructional Design ITC
>575 November 28, 2001 <http://www.whps.org/schools/norfeldt/libraryweb/
>MediaResources/TermPaper.PDF>www.whps.org/schools/norfeldt/libraryweb/
>MediaResources/TermPaper.PDF where Vygotsky is touted as a Russian
>Symbolic Interactionist and pragmatist!
>
>Victor
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>Andy Blunden
>To: <mailto:xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>Sent: Saturday, October 18, 2003 3:30 AM
>Subject: Re: George Herbert Mead
>
>I have read the very useful PDF article you recommended, Victor, but I
>find it somewhat unsatisfactory. (1) The writer, Michael Glassman, seems
>to have a slightly different Vygotsky than the one I know, and (2) the
>article is of course very much focused on pedagogy, whereas my specific
>interest was social psychology.
>
>The article by Vygotsky on Ethical Education in the 1926 "Educational
>Psychology" I found an exhilerating read, partly because of how much
>Vygotsky saw it as essential to foster critique and self-management on the
>part of the students, and how far away it was from Stalinist ideas of
>schools as institutions for the socialisation of kids into the status quo
>and inculcation of existing values (except that for Vygotsky revolution
>clearly was such a value!). The article seems to contrast Dewey and
>Vygotsky by portraying Vygotsky as an advocate of what I would see as a
>Stalinist view of education. Vygotsky simply says that a school cannot
>raise itself above the society of which it is a part.
>Secondly, I was particularly impressed by Vygotsky's observation that
>development always requires an element of invention on the part of the
>child, since imitation is impossible for her, and this element seems to be
>missing in the writer's otherwise valid description of how Vygotsky sees
>the role of a teacher as a mentor and setter-of-problems, rather than
>simply as facilitator.
>
>The article is about pedagogy and is probably addressed to teachers, so it
>is natural that it should focus on the role and intentions of the teacher.
>However, it seems to me that Vygotsky is not just a teacher of teachers.
>There seems to be a school of interpretation of Vygotsky which emphasises
>the two-sided negotiation involved in learning and development. But surely
>this is just the product of "teachers eye view" when reading Vygotsky.
>
>For example, the experimental methods (as described in the famous article
>by Sakharov) are clearly expressions of how a scientist should intervene
>*in pursuit of the goals of science*, but this should not be read as
>descriptive of learning and development itself. Most people do not have a
>cognitive psychologist around when they are learning.
>
>Do people have a view on these matters? Victor led me to the Glassman
>article, but I fear I may have the same kind of problems with a Valsiner
>article. The reason for my interest is critique of Axel Honneth, a
>"student" of Habermas's who has substituted for Habermas's use of Piaget
>for empirical backing, the use of George Herbert Mead. A step forward I
>think, but I need help in focusing on the critique of Pragmatism, since I
>think the necessary empirical backing must come from the Vygotsky School.
>
>Andy
>
>At 11:13 AM 17/10/2003 +0200, you wrote:
>>Valsiner, Jaan and Rene Van de Veer. "On the social nature of human
>>cognition: An analysis of the shared intellectual roots of George Herbert
>>Mead and Lev Vygotsky. In Lev Vygotsky: Critical Assessments: Vygotsky's
>>theory Vol 1 edited by Peter Lloyd. New York: Routledge (1999):145-164.
>>Also check out the online pdf article ]Dewey and Vygotsky: Society,
>>Experience, and Inquiry in Educational Practice at
>>www.aera.net/pubs/er/pdf/vol30_04/AERA300402.pdf - 16 Oct 2003. True, this
>>refers to Dewey rather than Mead, but Dewey and GH are very similar in
>>theory. This article suggests that Mead, through Dewey had considerable
>>influences on Soviet theory of education and social psychology.
>>
>>"Dewey and Vygotsky in Historical Context There are historically based
>>explanations for both the strong similarities
>>In 1928 Dewey visited the Soviet Union (although the schools were closed for
>>vacation for most of the time he was there). Prawat (2001) recounts how
>>Dewey visited Second Moscow University during this trip at the time Vygotsky
>>was a rising young star there. Dewey certainly met with Blonsky, Vygotsky's
>>compatriot, and Prawatt (2001) builds a fairly strong circumstantial case
>>that Dewey actually met with Vygotsky. This only adds to the probability
>>that Dewey influenced Vygotsky's early work.
>>
>> Enough for now
>>Victor
>>
>>----- Original Message -----
>>From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
>>To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>>Sent: Friday, October 17, 2003 3:15 AM
>>Subject: George Herbert Mead
>>
>>
>>
>> > Do any of you xmca-ers have a critique of George Herbert mead from the
>> > Vygotsky perspective at your finger tips? or a "compare and contrast"?
>> >
>> > Andy
>> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Nov 01 2003 - 01:00:08 PST