Dear Peter,
What impresses me more of the US democratic process is not only the
fact that people could support a regime that limits personal freedoms,
but the widespread lack of knowledge that the average American voter
has about anything that goes beyond the particular framework of his or
her own time an place, what we could call "historical literacy".
It is instructive that US elections are won on domestic issues (e.g.
economy, the morality of a president, work issues), but scarcely on an
awareness of the impact that the US foreign policy has over other
peoples. How many of Americans know about the role played by the WH in
helping the past Latin American dictatorships? On the other hand,
collective memory of past events does not play a figure role too but
in the cases of those most educated and committed voters. Let us see
how the experience of Vietnam plays a role in the next election (and
hope it will do).
Second, it equally impresses me the huge amount of people that do not
vote and the fact that your election days are not holidays, so working
people does not have an equal right to go an vote (at least in the
places I lived). But I may be mistaken on this last one, so please
correct me if I am.
David
Quoting Peter Smagorinsky <smago@coe.uga.edu>:
> hmmm, but what does this say about people in the U.S. who support
> George W.
> Bush? We are not (yet!) a totalitarian society, but cultural tools in
> the
> environment (particularly, administration lies and disinformation,
> happily
> reported as news by Fox News) contribute to people's belief that
> there are
> WMD (somewhere), we are winning the war in Iraq and will turn it into
> a
> thriving democracy by the end of June, Saddam Hussein was responsible
> for
> 9-11, the economy is doing well, the Patriot Act is good for
> democracy, tax
> cuts work, etc. People have access to different tools (MoveOn, the
> Daily
> Mislead, etc.) but don't access or believe them. Do these folks have
> moral
> responsibility when it comes to next fall's election, given their
> freedom
> to vote for other candidates? Peter
> At 09:48 PM 4/29/2004 -0400, you wrote:
>
> >I think that it is quite difficult to abstract the discussion of
> moral
> >responsability in a totalitarian society from the role played by
> >cultural tools in such environment (e.g. the mass media, the
> language,
> >the symbols, the structures of government and so on). It is true
> that
> >we can admire those that dissent, but it also seems to be true
> that
> >what a totalitatian society does to the mind is to change the
> whole
> >framework it uses to make a moral judgement. And, I think, for
> those
> >cases, the example of the morality of Adolf Eichman can be a good
> >example. As noted by Hanna Arendt, he only wanted to "make a
> career",
> >and, from his point of view, if that career involved helping to
> move
> >forward a genocide, that was anecdotical. Indeed, from Arendt's
> >depiction, it seems that Eichman did not put his "creativity" to
> work,
> >but was actually quite adaptive to what he was asked to do. That is
> to
> >say, he was quite average and his notoriety was the result of an
> >almost random set of circumstances. He was not a professional
> >antisemitic but a resented guy trying to move up in the social
> scale.
> >Thus, concerning the complicity of the masses, and those that
> don't
> >take a principal role in those societies, the Eichman case may work
> as
> >an example but not as an exemption to the norm. I wonder how can
> we
> >apply what we learn from these situations to contemporary issues
> in
> >order to keep track of the healthiness of our ability to judge.
> >
> >David
> >
> >
> >Quoting Eugene Matusov <ematusov@UDel.Edu>:
> >
> > > Dear Victor-
> > >
> > > I also think we are probably in agreement but let me clarify
> one
> > > important
> > > (for me) thing.
> > >
> > > You wrote,
> > > > it's neither useful or even interesting to criticize the
> morality
> > > of
> > > > those who have neither the intellectual integrity nor the
> > > self-respect to
> > > > challenge or at least to abstain from participation in the
> > > excessive
> > > > exercise of power to enforce public conformity.
> > >
> > > When I lived in the Soviet Union, my friends and I (what can be
> > > loosely
> > > called a "dissident circle") did not judge people who were forced
> to
> > > do bad
> > > things but we did judge (and ostracized) those who used their
> > > "creativity"
> > > in adding misery to others. I still think that it was a fair
> > > judgment.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> > >
> > > Eugene
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
> > > > Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:29 AM
> > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > >
> > > > Gene,
> > > >
> > > > I don't think we really differ here much. I grew up in period
> of
> > > hysterical
> > > > Anti-Communism, virulent Anti-Unionism, and what can only be
> called
> > > the
> > > most
> > > > fanatical Americanism. The experience of living in a
> totalitarian
> > > > environment; tapped phones, police surveillance, veiled and not
> so
> > > veiled
> > > > threats to loyal friends etc., is an extremely frightening one
> and
> > > for
> > > very
> > > > good reasons.
> > > >
> > > > I certainly share your evaluation of those who are too
> > > "pig-headed"
> > > (stupid)
> > > > to acquiesce to overwhelming authority and of those who,
> though
> > > refraining
> > > > from direct opposition to authoritarianism, support and
> protect
> > > those that
> > > > do so. Sadly, experience shows that the heroism of such people
> is
> > > only
> > > > recognized after the event, and it makes all the sense in the
> world
> > > to
> > > > "knuckle under" and keep a "low profile" if you hope to
> achieve
> > > something
> > > > you can enjoy in this life-time or sometimes just to
> physically
> > > survive.
> > > >
> > > > The heoism of the Vygotsky's, Ilyenkov's, and Vavilov's (as
> well
> > > as their
> > > > simple intellectual integrity) should be regarded with the
> > > highest
> > > respect,
> > > > but it's neither useful or even interesting to criticize the
> > > morality of
> > > > those who have neither the intellectual integrity nor the
> > > self-respect to
> > > > challenge or at least to abstain from participation in the
> > > excessive
> > > > exercise of power to enforce public conformity.
> > > >
> > > > With highest regards
> > > > Victor
> > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
> > > > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:31 PM
> > > > Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Dear Vic-
> > > > >
> > > > > You wrote,
> > > > > > I have some reservations regarding Valsiner's description
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > "insensitivity" of Leontiev and Luria. It requires much
> more
> > > than
> > > > normal
> > > > > > courage to oppose an oppressive regime. Let he who is
> innocent
> > > etc.
> > > > etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not want to trivialize the issue of historical
> > > responsibility but
> > > > > Vygotsky (and many others) never did "weird" and
> "politically
> > > insensitive"
> > > > > things like what Luria and Leontiev (L&L) did. Mike made a
> good
> > > point
> > > that
> > > > > L&L started working on their "lie/loyalty detector" before
> Stalin
> > > came
> > > to
> > > > > power (in the second part of 1929) - which is true
> (although
> > > they
> > > > continued
> > > > > working on long after - through the 1970s, as I've heard).
> > > However, the
> > > > > "red" terror was going on throughout the 1920s in the USSR
> > > although, of
> > > > > course, with less vigilance than later. Remember that Bakhtin
> and
> > > his
> > > > > friends were arrested before Stalin's consolidation of power
> in
> > > fall of
> > > > > 1929. People were arrested and "disappeared" throughout
> 1920s.
> > > > >
> > > > > By the way, some of Vygotsky's students and colleagues
> (e.g.,
> > > Kolbanovsky)
> > > > > publicly tried to protect him and his name (after
> Vygotsky's
> > > death) and
> > > > did
> > > > > not turn away (against) him (unlike L&L).
> > > > >
> > > > > I do not know what I would do if I live then and there but I
> want
> > > to
> > > > > recognize people like Vygotsky and Kolbanovsky. I admire them
> for
> > > their
> > > > > bravery, civil responsibility, political-moral
> intelligence,
> > > and
> > > honesty.
> > > > > Sometimes I thought that Vygotsky was pretty stupid if not
> > > suicidal but
> > > > not
> > > > > attending to the political situation. Vygotsky made many
> > > political
> > > > > "mistakes" (including his move from Moscow to Kharkov in
> the
> > > early 1930s
> > > > > that was literally "clean up" by NKVD in 1937) that would
> be
> > > fatal in
> > > the
> > > > > coming Stalinist purges if he didn't die so early. Vygotsky
> was
> > > "stupid"
> > > > if
> > > > > the highest value of his life was his survival but probably
> it
> > > was
> > > not...
> > > > >
> > > > > What do you think?
> > > > >
> > > > > Eugene
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:44 PM
> > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Gene,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > This comes as no great surprise. This was the very same
> regime
> > > that
> > > > > > persecuted Vavilov and made Lysenko a Soviet hero.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In my view Vygotsky was as thoroughly a Marxist as Ilyenkov
> and
> > > a far
> > > > more
> > > > > > consistent Historical Materialist than his students;
> Leontiev,
> > > Luria,
> > > > > > Davydov etc. In fact, his theoretical and practical
> > > accomplishments
> > > are
> > > > > > among the best examples of creative scientific work
> explicitly
> > > linked
> > > to
> > > > > > materialist dialectics.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By the way, some recent conversations with an
> agricultural
> > > advisor
> > > late
> > > > of
> > > > > > the Ukraine suggests that most kolkhoz presidents were
> > > strictly
> > > > political
> > > > > > appointees who were especially proficient at making out
> false
> > > reports,
> > > > > > giving special favors to their superiors and getting drunk
> for
> > > most of
> > > > the
> > > > > > day! I suspect that V&L were particularly circumspect in
> > > their
> > > > > description
> > > > > > of the kolkhoz president as "having difficulties with
> > > abstract
> > > > thinking!"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have some reservations regarding Valsiner's description
> of
> > > the
> > > > > > "insensitivity" of Leontiev and Luria. It requires much
> more
> > > than
> > > > normal
> > > > > > courage to oppose an oppressive regime. Let he who is
> innocent
> > > etc.
> > > > etc.
> > > > > > ....
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards,
> > > > > > Victor
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
> > > > > > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > > > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:07 PM
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dear Ana-
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Sorry for the delay - I was swamped with work when I cam
> back
> > > from
> > > San
> > > > > > Diego
> > > > > > > (AERA).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You asked,
> > > > > > > > > I think a discussion between psychological tools
> > > mediating
> > > higher
> > > > > > > psychological functions
> > > > > > > > and material tools meditating subject-object
> relations
> > > can
> > > > > > interesting...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > My study of this question led me to the following
> summary
> > > of
> > > Stalinist
> > > > > > > critique of Vygotsky-Luria:
> > > > > > > 1) Lack of VL's focus on class struggle as the
> explanation
> > > of
> > > diverse
> > > > > > > psychological phenomena.
> > > > > > > 2) Lack of VL's focus on the Marxist notion of labor.
> > > Specifically
> > > > > > Vygotsky
> > > > > > > was accused for replacing the Marxist notion of labor
> with
> > > his
> > > notion
> > > > of
> > > > > > > tools.
> > > > > > > 3) Not appreciation of "upraising new Soviet man" in
> their
> > > Central
> > > > Asia
> > > > > > > studies: how come the kolkhoz president - a good example
> of
> > > "new
> > > > Soviet
> > > > > > man"
> > > > > > > - did not have abstract thinking?!
> > > > > > > 4) VL's insensitivities of calling formerly oppressed
> > > national
> > > > > minorities
> > > > > > > "primitives".
> > > > > > > 5) VL's non-Marxist understanding of the notion of
> "culture"
> > > based
> > > on
> > > > > > > Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl's sociological and
> anthropological
> > > ideas
> > > like
> > > > > > tools,
> > > > > > > practices, rituals, collectives rather on labor,
> surplus,
> > > means of
> > > > > > > productions, productive relations, class, and so on.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Read for more in (maybe they have more)
> > > > > > > Veer, R. v. d., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding
> > > Vygotsky: A
> > > quest
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > synthesis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell (pp. 253- 255;
> 374-389)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By the way, on pages 245-246, Veer and Valsiner discussed
> how
> > > Luria
> > > > and
> > > > > > > Leotniev were politically "insensitive" praising
> Stalinist
> > > > > > collectivization
> > > > > > > (about 30 millions were killed) and developing
> "lie/loyalty
> > > detectors"
> > > > > for
> > > > > > > Soviet secret police in the late 20s and 30s. Also, VV
> report
> > > about
> > > > > Luria
> > > > > > > weird behavior of keeping his close friend's brain in
> an
> > > alcohol jar
> > > > for
> > > > > > > further study in his office (I've hear about that in
> Russia
> > > but I
> > > > never
> > > > > > read
> > > > > > > about that). Br-r-r-r! Weird times produce weird
> people!
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Eugene
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > From: ana@zmajcenter.org [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:54 AM
> > > > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's
> words?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dear Eugene and Steve,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I also see now far better what went on. I was
> reacting
> > > mostly to
> > > > what
> > > > > I
> > > > > > > perceived a negative
> > > > > > > > tone, primarily set by the article's title.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The substance of their article is far more complex
> and
> > > choke
> > > filled
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > points that need to
> > > > > > > > be carefully examined.
> > > > > > > > Steve, thank's for clearing that up so carefully.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Eugene, I know that Vygotsky and Luria were criticized
> by
> > > the
> > > > > Stalinist
> > > > > > > regime, but I don't
> > > > > > > > know exactly what was the critique aimed at preciselly.
> Can
> > > you
> > > tell
> > > > > > us??
> > > > > > > What did the
> > > > > > > > Stalinist regime "find wrong" with Vygotsky/Luria's
> work?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Ana
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 01:06 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's
> > > words?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Ana--
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Now, after reading Steve's analysis, I see where
> you
> > > might come
> > > > > from.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > agree with Steve
> > > > > > > > and you that the title of the critque is unnecessary
> > > sarcastic
> > > that
> > > > > > indeed
> > > > > > > communicates
> > > > > > > > negativity and agressivity.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As to to the issue of "upbrining new Soveit men", I'm
> not
> > > sure
> > > how
> > > > > > much
> > > > > > > Vygotsky and
> > > > > > > > Luria committed to this political agenda if at all
> (I'd
> > > like to
> > > hear
> > > > > > from
> > > > > > > Mike what was cut
> > > > > > > > from Luria's book). I could not find any place in
> > > Vygotsky-Luria
> > > > work
> > > > > > > suggesting this
> > > > > > > > political agenda. It is important to remember, that
> > > Stalinist
> > > > > propaganda
> > > > > > > machine severely
> > > > > > > > criticized Luria-Vygotsky study. Someone could use
> their
> > > study for
> > > > > this
> > > > > > > politcal purpose,
> > > > > > > > but nobody seemed to do.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I think a discussion between psychological tools
> > > mediating
> > > higher
> > > > > > > psychological functions
> > > > > > > > and material tools meditating subject-object
> relations
> > > can
> > > > > > interesting...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eugene
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > > > > From: Ana
> > > > > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 12:34 AM
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between]
> Vygotsky's
> > > words?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Eugene,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thank you a lot for the careful reading. I must
> admit
> > > that I
> > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > read their text so
> > > > > > > > carefully and that I reacted more to what seemed to me
> a s
> > > a very
> > > > > > negative
> > > > > > > tone. The reason
> > > > > > > > I "heard" their tone as negative was maybe subjective,
> or
> > > maybe I
> > > > was
> > > > > > very
> > > > > > > tired from the
> > > > > > > > trip to the conference... I also brought only one
> point
> > > into the
> > > > > picture
> > > > > > > -- and that was the way
> > > > > > > > how to characterize Vygotky/Luria's research in
> Uzbekistan
> > > and
> > > > > > Khirgizia.
> > > > > > > I absolutely
> > > > > > > > agree with Margaret and Carol that the
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > the study was a golden opportunity
> > > > > > > > > to test the long-standing and widespread debate
> among
> > > > > > > > > ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as
> to
> > > whether
> > > > > > categories
> > > > > > > > > of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or
> > > whether
> > > > > > > > > primitive and advanced technological cultures
> > > produced
> > > different
> > > > > > > > > levels of intellectual development (see Luria,
> 1979;
> > > van
> > > > > > > > > der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But at the time -- I thought that although this
> indeed
> > > was a
> > > > > golden
> > > > > > > opportunity to study
> > > > > > > > the change in the intellectual development, it still
> was a
> > > part of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > Soviet plan to create a
> > > > > > > > "new citizen".
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Anyway, I am very glad that when you found out that
> I
> > > was not
> > > > > right,
> > > > > > > you also explicitly
> > > > > > > > said that you still love me. It makes it so much
> easier
> > > to
> > > > reexamine
> > > > > my
> > > > > > > thoughts and say --
> > > > > > > > oops!! I was wrong.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In fact -- Margaret's and Carol's article have
> some
> > > very
> > > > > interesting
> > > > > > > points. One of them
> > > > > > > > the "fact" that it was not Vygotsky who introduced
> > > "activity
> > > > theory",
> > > > > > but
> > > > > > > it were
> > > > > > > > > "Vygotsky's disciples [who]
> > > > > > > > > turned his theory into an activity theory after
> his
> > > death,
> > > > > replacing
> > > > > > > > > the psychological tool as a mediator between
> objects
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > action and mental functions with material activity
> as
> > > the
> > > > > mediator,
> > > > > > > > > and careless scholars attribute activity theory
> to
> > > Vygotsky."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To me it would be interesting to discuss whether
> people
> > > (on
> > > this
> > > > > > list)
> > > > > > > today see
> > > > > > > > "activity" as a mediator between "subject" and
> "object".
> > > Or is
> > > > > > "activity"
> > > > > > > something else?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ana
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eugene Matusov wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Ana and everybody-
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I read/reread both articles and found that I agree
> with
> > > much of
> > > > > > Margaret
> > > > > > > > > Gredler and Carol Shields' criticism of Michael
> Glassman.
> > > Here
> > > are
> > > > > > > points of
> > > > > > > > > my agreement with Margaret Gredler and Carol
> Shields
> > > (just from
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > first
> > > > > > > > > page):
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 1. Michael Glassman wrote, "Dewey would applaud
> > > Vygotsky's
> > > > emphasis
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > everyday culture
> > > > > > > > > as the lynchpin of the educational process." (p.4)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields disagreed, "...
> > > contrary to
> > > > > > > Glassman's
> > > > > > > > > (2001, p. 3) statements, Vygotsky did not advocate
> > > bringing
> > > > everyday
> > > > > > > > > activities into the classroom or the ways that
> human
> > > activity
> > > > serves
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > impetus to learning." (p.21)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I agree with Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields.
> Unlike
> > > Dewey,
> > > > > > Vygotsky
> > > > > > > was
> > > > > > > > > rather critical about everyday
> > > culture/activities/concepts. I do
> > > > not
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > any place in his writings where Vygotsky argued
> that
> > > "everyday
> > > > > > culture"
> > > > > > > (I'm
> > > > > > > > > not sure I know what Michael Glassman meant by this
> term
> > > - I
> > > never
> > > > > > read
> > > > > > > > > about it before, not in Vygotsky definitely) is the
> > > lynchpin of
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > educational process. Did I miss something in
> Vygotsky?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 2. Michael Glassman wrote, "Vygotsky suggests that it
> is
> > > the
> > > > ability
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > develop cooperative activity through complex social
> > > relationships
> > > >
> > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > separates mature humans from all other animals
> (Vygotsky
> > > &
> > > Luria,
> > > > > > > 1993)."
> > > > > > > > > (p.5)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields disagreed, "...
> > > neither
> > > > Vygotsky
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Luria (1930/1993) nor Vygotsky's other writings
> state
> > > that
> > > > > cooperative
> > > > > > > > > activity separates humans from all other animals as
> > > Glassman
> > > > (2001,
> > > > > p.
> > > > > > > 5)
> > > > > > > > > asserts. Instead, "the absence of at least the
> beginnings
> > > of
> > > > speech
> > > > > .
> > > > > > .
> > > > > > > .
> > > > > > > > > the lack of ability to make a sign or to introduce
> some
> > > auxiliary
> > > > > > > > > psychological means [in problem solving] . . . draws
> the
> > > line
> > > > > between
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > ape and the most primitive human being" (Vygotsky &
> > > Luria,
> > > > > 1930/1993,
> > > > > > p.
> > > > > > > > > 73). In another work, Vygotsky (1931/1997f)
> identifies
> > > > > "signification,
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > is, the creation and use of signs" as the unique
> human
> > > behavior
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > differentiates humans from animals (p. 55)." (p.
> 21)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Further in his article, Michael Glassman talked
> about
> > > "tools and
> > > > > > > symbols" as
> > > > > > > > > being very important for Vygotsky but I agree with
> > > Margaret
> > > > Gredler
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Carol Shields that Michael Glassman's writing is
> very
> > > confusing
> > > > and
> > > > > > even
> > > > > > > > > misleading at times on this issue.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > 3. Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields wrote, "In
> > > addition,
> > > > > Glassman's
> > > > > > > (2001)
> > > > > > > > > assertions that Vygotsky considered tools as "the
> means
> > > for
> > > > > specific,
> > > > > > > > > culturally approved consequences" (p. 5), believing
> that
> > > "tools
> > > > and
> > > > > > > symbols
> > > > > > > > > are used in the service of culturally defined goals"
> (p.
> > > 6),3
> > > and
> > > > > > "free
> > > > > > > > > inquiry is . . . eclipsed by culturally significant
> and
> > > > appropriate
> > > > > > > inquiry"
> > > > > > > > > (p. 6) are inaccurate. Vygotsky did not discuss
> inquiry,
> > > and he
> > > > > > > described
> > > > > > > > > psychological tools as "the means of which we direct
> and
> > > realize
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > psychological operations (e.g., memorizing,
> comparing,
> > > selecting)
> > > > > > > necessary
> > > > > > > > > for the solution of the problem" (Vygotsky, 1997i,
> p.
> > > 86)." (p.
> > > > 21)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Again, in my view, Margaret and Carol are right.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can go on and on and on... Actually, I could not
> find
> > > place in
> > > > > > > Margaret
> > > > > > > > > Gredler and Carol Shields' critique of Michael
> Glassman
> > > that I
> > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > > agree... Did you? Did I miss something?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I did not find Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields'
> tone
> > > angry or
> > > > > > > aggressive
> > > > > > > > > or negative. They disagreed with Michael Glassman
> about
> > > almost
> > > > > > > everything (I
> > > > > > > > > actually can add more disagreements with Michael).
> So
> > > what? I
> > > did
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > > > anything disrespectful in their tone. Did I miss
> > > something in
> > > > their
> > > > > > > tone? (I
> > > > > > > > > like to disagree with people, maybe this is why I do
> not
> > > see
> > > > > anything
> > > > > > > > > offensive in their critical article). Does
> disagreement
> > > mean
> > > > > > "negative"?
> > > > > > > For
> > > > > > > > > me, "negative" means not constructive but I found
> > > Margaret
> > > Gredler
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > Shields being very constructive. I feel that
> Margaret
> > > Gredler
> > > and
> > > > > > Carol
> > > > > > > > > Shields are respectful to all community, including
> > > Michael
> > > > Glassman,
> > > > > > by
> > > > > > > > > bringing supports for their claims and grounding
> their
> > > claims in
> > > > > > > Michael's
> > > > > > > > > text. What else are they supposed to write? In this
> > > message, for
> > > > > > > example, I
> > > > > > > > > disagree with Ana, but I do not feel to be negative
> to
> > > her,
> > > angry
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > her,
> > > > > > > > > or aggressive to her. I love Ana and respect her a
> lot
> > > and I'd
> > > > love
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > hear
> > > > > > > > > what she and the others may say in response even if
> she
> > > and the
> > > > > other
> > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > completely disagree with me. I know that I can be
> wrong,
> > > she can
> > > > we
> > > > > > > wrong,
> > > > > > > > > we both can wrong, and so on... But, we work
> together. I
> > > think
> > > > that
> > > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > > > made an interesting attempt to bring Vygotsky and
> Dewey
> > > together.
> > > > He
> > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > his shot but Margaret and Carol (and I) rejected it
> by
> > > providing
> > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > critique. He may choose to rebuff us and show us
> wrong -
> > > I do
> > > not
> > > > > know
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > > > Margaret and Carol, but I'll be happy to admit that
> I'm
> > > wrong if
> > > > > > Michael
> > > > > > > > > brings his convincing counter-arguments. It is not
> > > necessarily
> > > > > > pleasant
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > read a critical review, in which the authors
> completely
> > > disagree
> > > > > with
> > > > > > > you.
> > > > > > > > > But, hey, this is part of our profession: other
> > > colleagues can
> > > > judge
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > work as completely right, partially right, or
> completely
> > > wrong.
> > > If
> > > > > it
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > latter, although it is unpleasant, I do not find
> > > anything
> > > > negative,
> > > > > > > angry,
> > > > > > > > > or aggressive in it per se. Again, I may miss
> something
> > > and I'd
> > > > like
> > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > other people see that makes Margaret Gredler and
> Carol
> > > Shields'
> > > > (and
> > > > > > > maybe
> > > > > > > > > even my?) tone objectable.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eugene
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: ana@zmajcenter.org
> [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 8:43 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's
> > > words?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Eugene,
> > > > > > > > > I absolutely agree with you. It is dangerous to
> make
> > > conclusions
> > > > > based
> > > > > > > on
> > > > > > > > > little evidence
> > > > > > > > > and several quotes. I am not sure what was
> Glassman's
> > > point,
> > > but
> > > > > to
> > > > > > me
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > did not seem
> > > > > > > > > contradictory to Luria and Vygotsky's research in
> the
> > > the ways
> > > > > that
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > cultural historical
> > > > > > > > > change produce changes in psychological processes.
> The
> > > "golden
> > > > > > > > > opportunity" to study
> > > > > > > > > these processes in a "natural experiment" was, at
> the
> > > same
> > > time,
> > > > > > > enabled
> > > > > > > > > in part by the
> > > > > > > > > Stalinist politics of forcefull collectivisation
> > > terror. Does
> > > > that
> > > > > > > mean
> > > > > > > > > that you can
> > > > > > > > > automatically align the researchers with the
> > > Stalinist
> > > political
> > > > > > > agenda?
> > > > > > > > > No.
> > > > > > > > > However, I was reactineg more to the tone of
> their
> > > debate than
> > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > fine
> > > > > > > > > points they were
> > > > > > > > > making. On the whole, they did not like
> Glassman's
> > > hypothesis
> > > > that
> > > > > > > > > Vygotsky's ideas can be
> > > > > > > > > related to Dewey's in the way that Glassman did.
> And
> > > they
> > > > > criticised
> > > > > > > > > different aspects of
> > > > > > > > > that comparison in Glassman's work in very
> forceful
> > > language.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ana
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 06:06 AM
> > > > > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > > > > Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's
> > > words?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dear Ana-
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I did not have time to read Gredler and Shields'
> article
> > > (I'm
> > > > still
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > San
> > > > > > > > > Diego) but the quotes that you nicely put together
> make
> > > me
> > > agree
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > authors. It seems to me (and I can be wrong) that
> one
> > > of the
> > > > > issues
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > POLITICAL Soviet context. The rhetoric about
> "upbringing
> > > the New
> > > > > > Soviet
> > > > > > > > > person" (ridiculed later by dissidents as "homo
> > > Soveticus") was
> > > > used
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > early 1930s by Stalinist propaganda. It seems to
> me
> > > that
> > > > Glassman
> > > > > > > > > dangerously aligned Vygotsky and Luria with the
> > > Stalinist
> > > > propaganda
> > > > > > > > > machine. I'm personally much more comfortable with
> > > Gredler and
> > > > > > Shields'
> > > > > > > > > formulation (as presented in your quote) than with
> > > Glassman's
> > > one.
> > > > > > > > > Although
> > > > > > > > > it is well-documented (see Rogoff, 1990) that
> Luria
> > > overlooked
> > > > the
> > > > > > > > > political
> > > > > > > > > context of his Uzbekistan experiments (i.e.,
> > > Stalinist
> > > > > > > collectivization
> > > > > > > > > terror), there is no evidence that Vygotsky and
> Luria
> > > accepted
> > > the
> > > > > > > > > Stalinist
> > > > > > > > > call for "upbringing the New Soviet person" as
> Glassman
> > > seems
> > > to
> > > > > > > > > suggest.
> > > > > > > > > Knowing Soviet history, Glassman's statements
> cited
> > > below
> > > about
> > > > > > > Vygotsky
> > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Luria make me VERY uncomfortable. In contrast,
> I'm
> > > very
> > > > > comfortable
> > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > Gredler and Shields' statement that
> > > > > > > > > Particularly important is that the study was
> a
> > > golden
> > > > > > opportunity
> > > > > > > > > to test the long-standing and widespread debate
> among
> > > > > > > > > ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as to
> > > whether
> > > > > categories
> > > > > > > > > of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or
> whether
> > > > > > > > > primitive and advanced technological cultures
> produced
> > > different
> > > > > > > > > levels of intellectual development (see Luria,
> 1979;
> > > van
> > > > > > > > > der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).
> > > > > > > > > Sorry if my comments do not make sense
> because I
> > > did not
> > > > > read
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > articles
> > > > > > > > > but react only to the short quotes.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Eugene
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > > > > From: Ana [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> > > > > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 3:54 PM
> > > > > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's
> > > words?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Peter, Bill
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I went and read the article. One thing is that it
> is
> > > definitively
> > > > > > > > > writen
> > > > > > > > > in a very negative tone, almost angry and very
> > > agressive.
> > > > > > > > > The other thing is that they give a lot of
> referrences
> > > one would
> > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > check in order to figure out if they have a point
> they
> > > claim
> > > to
> > > > > > have.
> > > > > > > > > However, in one instance at least, I could see that
> they
> > > don't
> > > > seem
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > understand exactly what they are criticizing. This is
> the
> > > case
> > > of
> > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > famous Luria/Vygtsky research on changes introduced
> by
> > > soviet
> > > > > literacy
> > > > > > > > > programs. Here is a quote from their article
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ****
> > > > > > > > > Glassman (2001, p. 6) cites Vygotsky and Luria
> > > (1930/1993) as
> > > > > > > > > the source for his statements that (a) Vygotsky
> would
> > > agree with
> > > > > > > > > Dewey that society has "a vested interest in the
> > > development and
> > > > > > > > > maintenance of these [psychological] tools" and (b)
> > > Vygotsky
> > > > > > > > > wanted "to use the educational process to teach new
> > > members
> > > > > > > > > of the social community how to 'use' important,
> > > culturally
> > > > developed
> > > > > > > > > tools in an effective manner (a
> top-down/determinate
> > > > > > > > > approach)." In contrast, Vygotsky and Luria
> (1930/1993)
> > > neither
> > > > > > > > > stated nor alluded to such an agenda. The text,
> which
> > > addresses
> > > > > > > > > cognitive development, discusses important
> landmarks
> > > > > > > > > in the three different paths that account for human
> > > behavior-
> > > > > > > > > evolutionary (phylogenetic), historical, and
> ontogenetic
> > > (p.
> > > 36).
> > > > > > > > > For example, numeric operations and other early
> > > psychological
> > > > > > > > > tools transformed the memory and thinking of
> primitive
> > > peoples.
> > > > > > > > > Also discussed were the authors' experiments on the
> > > development
> > > > > > > > > of children's cognitive processes and the cognitive
> > > development
> > > > > > > > > of mentally retarded, physically impaired, and
> gifted
> > > > > > > > > children.
> > > > > > > > > Glassman (2001) then states that the cross-cultural
> > > research of
> > > > > > > > > Luria and Vygotsky "hypothesized that the
> introduction of
> > > new
> > > > > > > > > tools by a strong social organization (i.e., the
> Soviet
> > > Union)
> > > > > > > > > would lead to the development of a 'new' type of
> citizen"
> > > (p.
> > > 6).
> > > > > > > > > Instead, the hypothesis the researchers actually
> tested
> > > was that
> > > > > > > > > "the structure of psychological processes changes as
> a
> > > function
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > history; consciousness does not have a constant,
> > > unchanging
> > > > > > > > > structure" [italics added] (Luria, 1971, p. 160).
> More
> > > specifi-
> > > > > > > > > cally, Luria (1976) clearly stated,
> > > > > > > > > We hypothesized that people with a primarily
> > > graphic/functional
> > > > > > > > > reflection of reality would show a different mental
> > > process from
> > > > > > > > > people with a system of predominantly abstract,
> verbal,
> > > and
> > > > logical
> > > > > > > > > approach to reality. (p. 18)
> > > > > > > > > Particularly important is that the study was a
> golden
> > > opportunity
> > > > > > > > > to test the long-standing and widespread debate
> among
> > > > > > > > > ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as to
> > > whether
> > > > > categories
> > > > > > > > > of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or
> whether
> > > > > > > > > primitive and advanced technological cultures
> produced
> > > different
> > > > > > > > > levels of intellectual development (see Luria,
> 1979;
> > > van
> > > > > > > > > der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).5 Conducted in the
> remote
> > > parts of
> > > > > > > > > the Soviet Union (villages in Uzbekistan and
> Kirghizia)
> > > that
> > > > > > > > > were undergoing rapid socioeconomic change, the
> study
> > > included
> > > > > > > > > two isolated and illiterate groups and three groups
> > > with
> > > > > > > > > varying literacy levels and some exposure to
> > > technological
> > > > > > > > > change. The 600 interview protocols (van der Veer &
> > > Valsiner,
> > > > > > > > > 1991, p. 248) indicated that practical activity and
> > > concrete
> > > > > > > > > situations
> > > > > > > > > dominated the perception, classification, and
> > > reasoning
> > > > > > > > > skills of the nonliterate subjects whereas the
> others
> > > engaged
> > > > > > > > > in categorical, abstract thinking (Luria, 1976, pp.
> > > 117-134;
> > > > > > > > > ***
> > > > > > > > > It seems to me that what they criticize is something
> that
> > > is not
> > > > at
> > > > > > > > > all
> > > > > > > > > opposed to what they say "researchers actually
> tested
> > > [...]".
> > > > And,
> > > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > was their hypothesis that:
> > > > > > > > > "the structure of psychological processes changes as
> a
> > > function
> > > of
> > > > > > > > > history; consciousness does not have a constant,
> > > unchanging
> > > > > > > > > structure" .
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Either they don't understand that the Soviet
> Imposed
> > > literacy
> > > > > program
> > > > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > at the same time a historical, social process" or
> I
> > > don't know
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > want to say.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > That is my first impression. No doubt that the
> article
> > > was
> > > written
> > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > hostile tone, and I am surprised that it was
> published
> > > as such
> > > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > educatinal researcher. Good game is a game where we
> all
> > > build
> > > upon
> > > > > > > > > each
> > > > > > > > > other's thinking and research instead of bashing
> each
> > > other.
> > > If
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > very important fine points about the differences
> > > between Dewey
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > Vygotsky, why not just point that out in a friendly
> > > manner??
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > And of course, I agree with Bill: No one's thinking
> ought
> > > to
> > > > become
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > dogma - Einsten's, Vygotsky's or anyone elses. The
> point
> > > is to
> > > > keep
> > > > > > > > > moving ahead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Ana
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Bill Barowy wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Wow. Thanks Peter for provoking my interest
> in
> > > this
> > > > > article.
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > > had
> > > > > > > > > noted it
> > > > > > > > > when it arrived, but I'll make sure to read
> it
> > > asap.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I have to say that i am uncomfortable with the kind
> of
> > > thinking
> > > > and
> > > > > > > > > writing
> > > > > > > > > that you described. For example, while
> Vygotsky
> > > could be
> > > > held
> > > > > > as
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > kind of
> > > > > > > > > genius Einstein was, one does not find folks
> saying
> > > so
> > > much
> > > > > they
> > > > > > > know
> > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > Einstein "said and believed" to the
> condescension
> > > of
> > > others.
> > > > > > > Quite
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > contrary, it is expected to go beyond Einstein
> in
> > > our
> > > > > > > understanding
> > > > > > > > > -- he
> > > > > > > > > may
> > > > > > > > > have been a genius, but he was still only a
> human.
> > > And
> > > > there
> > > > > > are
> > > > > > > now
> > > > > > > > > better
> > > > > > > > > reformulations of Einstein's core ideas than
> what
> > > Einstein
> > > > > > > developed.
> > > > > > > > > We
> > > > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > > and do still admire Einstein for his
> > > contributions.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But so, is this kind of publication the result of
> > > making
> > > Vygotsky
> > > > > > > > > into
> > > > > > > > > such an
> > > > > > > > > untouchable icon? Are we suffering the slings
> and
> > > arrows
> > > of
> > > > a
> > > > > > > > > codeveloping
> > > > > > > > > hegemonic discourse that attribute legitimacy
> more
> > > to
> > > > > > replicating
> > > > > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > > > > an
> > > > > > > > > individual's ideas than to the problems and
> the
> > > work? If
> > > > so,
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > > > such
> > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > strange and ironic twist for activity theory
> > > research.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > bb
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 12:05:47 PST