On Dec 20, 2003, at 4:52 AM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
> I think we should avoid a fight for "pure" or
> "correct" understand of Vygotsky. Understanding has always to be
> biased to
> become relevant.
>
Agreed, Eugene. The paper by V. Ageyev that I seem to be privileged to
have read before many others provides for me a wonderful reminder,
however, that in order for us to connect more closely with Vygotsky's
work, we need to get closer to the context in which he was working
(almost a redundancy for many). For example, the concept of "culture"
as used by Vygotsky is quite different to the one that many readers
from another time and place would bring to his texts. You mention, as
Vladimir does, the political climate of the day and the dangers of
foregrounding cultural diversity in academia in those times in Russia.
Our own schemas with regard to cultural relativism, etc. need to be
suspended (?) as we read and ask "What has he left out for me?"
But I do agree that we view the work from our own prisms rather than
seeking the "world according to...". But (last point before the new
year for me) I must say that I am only comfortable when I have a clear
picture of what someone is really setting out to investigate. And that
STILL provides problems for me with the zpd, as it was "used" by LSV
within several different contexts for at least a couple of quite
different reasons...and it is/has been woven into different educational
paradigms (e.g. Krashen's i+1 = Vygotsky's zpd) such that it is
becoming a much more difficult construct to talk about.
Happy winter and summer holidays to all (if you are doing them).
Phil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jan 01 2004 - 01:00:10 PST