Re: [xmca] help: Vygotsky and pedology (reading Holowinsky, part 2)

[Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>]

Thanks, Eugene, for the compliment, and I really hope that I do qualify not only--as you put it--as a "professional historian", but as a developmental psychologist as well :). Now, to your questions (starting from the end):

1. As to banned books by Vygotsky, I wonder if after his death and public
attacks on him, it was impossible to publish his books.
 
Well, like I told you once :), we have evidence that Vygotsky was basically non-publishable DURING his life-time, in 1932-33, and something really changed in the very end of 1933, and his status radically changed. So, from the beginning of 1934--and especially AFTER his death in June, 1934--quite a lot of Vygotskian stuff  came out in 1934-36--signed by Vygotsky's name, in collaboration with his students or under the names of his collaborators only (typically, with the reverent reference to the late research supervisor). After 1936 everything changed, and Vygotsky became a little bit too ambiguous figure to invoke his name too often. Still, quite a lot of guys did refer to him in their published works, some mentioned him during their conference presentations in the second half of the 1930s. So, clearly, Vygotsky has never been an "unperson" as he tends to be depicted by the historians of the "oppressed science" camp, i.e., by the vast majority of the
 contemporary Russian scholars.  Thus, for instance, it turns out that as of 1936 Vygotsky was not banned *personally*, but some of his published books appeared in a pool of roughly 120 items to be removed to special library stacks with limited access to special categories of patrons (aka "spetskhran") (for that, see the most recent entry at psyhistorik: http://community.livejournal.com/psyhistorik/ ). I guess the main criterion for getting into this category of "banned books" was the word "paedology" on the cover.

Then, publishing was a separate and pretty complicated and formal, 
ritualistic issue. In order to publish a book in the Soviet Union one needs to prove not just *harmlessness*, but *usefulness* of this publication, which is a little bit problematic for such author as Vygotsky, still compromised by his involvement with paedology. 

However, right before and especially during the war the situation changed yet another time, and the guys had pretty good chances of publishing the stuff, provided they really wanted to. Still, yet another turn came with the beginning of Cold War and Pavlovization (1950-1955). Yet, they did publish a couple of books, in 1956 and in 1960. Finally, Shchderovitskii after all questions the willingness of Vygotsky's students--the bunch of people in power and virtually in total control of Soviet psychology in 1960-70s--to publish Vygotsky. Indeed, given Vygotsky's students--members of Academies, directors of institutes, managers of publishing hourses, etc.--proclaimed and demonstrative devotion of to their teacher it is really hard to explain why on Earth the first volume of the six-volume collection came out only AFTER the death of the main and most active members of the group (Luria passed away in 1977, AN Leontiev - in 1979, Zaporozhets and Bozhovich - in
 1981; the first volume of the collection was published in 1982). Anyway, much research is needed to clarify the story, and as yet we do not have an answer to the question if it was possible, and, if so, how difficult it was. Reference to Shchedrovitskii's account is here--sorry, in Russian only as of now: http://zhurnal.lib.ru/s/shedrowickij_g_p/gp_i1-2.shtml

2.I remember reading Vygotsky's book "Thinking and speech" in the Ushinsky
library in Moscow in late 1970s. It was very old, probably, published in the
1934 (but I am not sure now). I wonder if it is possible to order it via
interlibrary exchange and check if it was cut.

Yes, it IS possible to order the book through interlibrary loan. For instance, I did so once, and the book--in the flesh!--arrived from Saltykov-Shchedrin library. Still, there is no need to order it since it is available on the web. Torrent link to the first edition of the book, along with other stuff, is available here: http://rutracker.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1688697 . Not sure what exactly you mean by "it was cut": the book itself or the manuscript. As you will be able to see as soon as you download the book, it is available untouched, all 300+ pages. As to the manuscript, the book, prepared for publication by and L.V. Zankov and Zh.I. Shif as well as Vygotsky's widow R.N. Vygotskaya (Smekhova) and edited by V.N. Kolbanovskii, was sent to press August 27 and signed for publication December 7, 1934, so what we know for sure is that Vygotsky never saw the final version of the text, thus, we truly do not know what exactly was written by Vygotsky, and
 what was inserted/deleted/altered by the book's first editor. It seems that the manuscript of the book was not preserved. I guess I covered some of these issues in some of my earlier published stuff, including my Ph.D. dissertation, but a really nice discussion of textological issues of Vygotsky's works can be found here and there, e.g., in the works of van der Veer, Zavershneva and some other authors. References available upon request :).

AY





----- Original Message ----
From: Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Wed, May 19, 2010 4:59:28 PM
Subject: RE: [xmca] help: Vygotsky and pedology (reading Holowinsky, part 2)

Wow, Anton, terrific work!!!! Thanks a lot! I think this should be
published.... I'm so glad that we have professional historian who can check
facts and direct to sources.

You wrote, 
> ...parts of his book Thought and Speech were prohibited from publication
> (Kolbanovsky, 1968). -- Comment. I personally definitely prefer referring
to
> the book as Thinking and Speech, but, as we have seen, this is a matter of
> taste. Generally, the reference to the "parts of the book" is unclear, but
the
> author refers to Kolbanovsky's paper that I do not presently have access
to,
> and I am unable to verify this statement. In any case, the issue of
prohibition
> to publish Vygotsky is a tricky one, and I am determined to distrust ANY
> reference to the prohibited publication of Vygotsky's works, until I see
at
> least one document where it is clearly stated. Until then we have no
> compelling reasons that anybody ever banned Vygotsky,--despite what the
> guys kept telling us all the way--and may equally believe that somebody
was
> just not persistent enough to have the stuff published. Actually, this is
> exactly what G.P. Shchedrovitskii stated on a number of occasions.
> References available upon request.

I remember reading Vygotsky's book "Thinking and speech" in the Ushinsky
library in Moscow in late 1970s. It was very old, probably, published in the
1934 (but I am not sure now). I wonder if it is possible to order it via
interlibrary exchange and check if it was cut.

As to banned books by Vygotsky, I wonder if after his death and public
attacks on him, it was impossible to publish his books.

What do you think?

Eugene

> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Anton Yasnitsky
> Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 3:58 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] help: Vygotsky and pedology (reading Holowinsky, part
2)
> 
> Here are only SOME of my comments on the paper by Holowinsky (1988).
> Vygotsky and the History of Pedology, please see below:
> 
> p. 123
>  Tautundzhian, 1983 --
> FALSE. The author's name is Tutundzhan, or, as it is spelled on the
journal's
> web-page - Tutunjyan O. M.
> http://www.voppsy.ru/eng/authoes/TUTUNJOM.htm
> By the way, this paper of 1983 is available online, in Russian:
> http://www.voppsy.ru/issues/1983/832/832139.htm
> 
> In December 1981, a conference was organized - TRUE Nineteen papers and
> six panels discussed in depth his contributions -- FALSE: the conference
was
> banned by the Party officials and never took place. Still, conference
> proceedings were published.
> Jacques Carpay retold us the story of this conference @ MCA,
> http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785310030&db=all
> 
> ...parts of his book Thought and Speech were prohibited from publication
> (Kolbanovsky, 1968). -- Comment. I personally definitely prefer referring
to
> the book as Thinking and Speech, but, as we have seen, this is a matter of
> taste. Generally, the reference to the "parts of the book" is unclear, but
the
> author refers to Kolbanovsky's paper that I do not presently have access
to,
> and I am unable to verify this statement. In any case, the issue of
prohibition
> to publish Vygotsky is a tricky one, and I am determined to distrust ANY
> reference to the prohibited publication of Vygotsky's works, until I see
at
> least one document where it is clearly stated. Until then we have no
> compelling reasons that anybody ever banned Vygotsky,--despite what the
> guys kept telling us all the way--and may equally believe that somebody
was
> just not persistent enough to have the stuff published. Actually, this is
> exactly what G.P. Shchedrovitskii stated on a number of occasions.
> References available upon request.
> 
> Vygotsky's work Historical Meaning of Psychological Crisis written in 1926
had
> not been published by 1979 (Radzikhovsky, 1979) -- PARTIALLY TRUE.
> Clarification: the work, indeed, had not been published by 1979, but it
was
> published in 1982-1984 six-volume collection of Vygotsky's works, and the
> author of the paper on the history of Vygotskian psychology could and
> should have mentioned that. A reference to Radzikhovsky in this context
> looks a little bit redundant. Still, it is not not quite clear why this
specific work
> is mentioned: quite a few of Vygotsky's works (including his books, like,
e.g.,
> his Psychology of Art, The History of development of higher mental
functions
> or Tool and sign) had not been published during Vygotsky's lifetime and
even
> well after Stalin's death, so there is nothing special about the
Historical
> Meaning manuscriopt. Especially so, since, as recent research shows, in
all
> likelihood Vygotsky was not going to publish this work, but did publish
the
> substantially revised, improved and succinct excerpts from the manuscript
as
> a series of scholarly journal  articles (see Zavershneva, 2009,
Zavershneva &
> Osipov, 2010).
> 
> p. 124
> V.M. Bekhtiarev -- normally, this name is spelled as Bekhterev. I guess,
the
> author attempts to render the Ukrainian (more precisely, Western
Ukrainian)
> spelling of this Russian name.
> 
> Depaepe, 1985 --
> Comment and remark. Holowinsky provides pretty good exposition of
> Depaepe's work. FYI, since then, quite a lot of pretty good stuff in the
area of
> the history of education came out. The authors to follow are--among
others-
> -Marc Depaepe, Rita Hofstetter, Bernard Schneuwly, et al. Just google the
> names. Anyway, further refs available upon request.
> Note on David's note that "There is considerable confusion between
> "pedagogy" and "pedology"."-- We need to carefully distinguish between
> paedology/pedagogy in Europe and those in the Soviet Union. Two very
> different contexts, and very different meanings of "paedology" in the two
> traditions. In Europe, paedology was a nice initiative that for natural
reasons
> declined fairly soon (see, e.g., Depaepe, Marc (1997). The heyday of
> paedology in Belgium (1899-1914): a positivistic dream that did not come
> true), whereas in the Soviet Union "paedology" was an extremely
successful,
> militant and Marxist, fast spreading all over the place discipline and
social
> practice under the leadership of Zalkind and some other, less significant
> figures. Until some point, though :)...
> 
> There was a general climate in the Soviet Union of the 1920s which
fostered
> attempts at child study... -- Comment. I would say: The Bolsheviks most
> enthusiastically and lavishly supported ALL scientific research (not just
child
> study) from 1920s onwards, until the collapse of the Soviet Union.
> 
> ...During the decade, 1920-30, four different orientations evolved within
> Soviet psychology... -- FALSE. Certainly many more. The list may be
discussed,
> but four orientations is certainly a major misrepresentation of the
multitude
> of the ideas in the Soviet Union back then. Yet, Holowinsky refers to
McLeish
> (1975), and, thus, may be excused for this one.
> 
> p. 125
> [Vygotsky in 1917-1923] was a teacher of literature and psychology at a
high
> school in the city of Homel. -- Comment. Well, not only a teacher, and not
> only of literature, and not exactly at a high school, but, anyway, yes, a
> teacher, TOO.
> 
> Vygotsky introduced into psychology an historical approach to the
> understanding of human mental development, and... -- FALSE and, for
> obvious reasons, totally ridiculous. No comments.
> 
> ...and the study of children's mental development based upon Marxist
> ideology. -- Equally false and ridiculous. From here, onwards: Holowinsky
> renders Vygotsky quoting Leontiev, Luria and El'konin, and--with one
> exception of a paper of 1931--without referring to Vygotsky's own texts--
> isn't it a little bit weird? The result and the quality of his discussion
is quite
> predictable.
> 
> Vygotsky published Fundamentals of Defectology, and in the same year, a
> book with the intriguing title Fascism in Psychoneurology (1934). --
FALSE.
> Both books came out posthumously, so one can not say that Vygotsky
> "published" these books. The first one was a compilation of either
> somebody's course notes or a stenographic protocol of his lectures, most
> likely not revised by Vygotsky himself. The second title, too, came out
after
> Vygotsky's death, as a book signed by half a dozen other prominent
> psychoneurologists of the time (including the then late Vygotsky), and,
> according to the footnote, Vygotsky's was only the last, the fourth
chapter.
> Judging by the style of the text and the circumstances of this publication
> appearance we have NO REASONS to believe without reasonable doubt that
> the chapter in its entirety was authored by Vygotsky himself. (By
extension,
> the same argument holds for ABSOLUTELY ALL posthumous publications of
> Vygotsky).
> 
> Leontiev and Luria consider this view to be the central position of all of
> Vygotsky's criticism of Piaget (1931:22). -- MISLEADING REFERENCE. The
only
> item that was published in 1931 indicated in the paper's bibliography is:
> Vygotsky, L.S. (1931). Questions of pedology and sciences. Pedologiia,
3:52-
> 58. Apparently, page 22 is outside of this very article. NO other source
of 1931
> can be found on the list. Furthermore, I am under the impression that the
> author did not understand the Russian word "smezhnye" in the original
title
> of Vygotsky's 1931 paper, otherwise, I guess, he would have correctly
> translated the title as "Paedology and allied sciences"
> 
> Pedology became an easy target at the time of Stalin's increased suspicion
of
> foreign influences. -- FALSE. Holowinsky seems to assume that Stalin was
> increasingly suspicious of foreign influences on Soviet science, I guess.
Given
> that no international event of primary importance would take part without
> Stalin's knowledge and personal authorization, how would one explain a
> series of international scientific congresses held in the Soviet Union
> throughout the decade of 1930s (actually, until the beginning of WWII in
1939)
> such as:
> 1930, July - Second International Congress of Soil Scientists (Moscow and
> Leningrad) incidentally, this field was called "pedology", too :) 1931,
> September - Seventh International Conference on Psychotechnics (Moscow)
> 1934, May - Fourth International Congress on Rheumatology (Moscow) 1935,
> August - Fifteenth International Physiological Congress (Moscow and
> Leningrad) 1937, July - Seventeenth International Geological Congress
> (Moscow) -- not to mention Soviet scholars' participation in international
> conferences abroad worldwide until the end of the decade. Psychologists
are
> certainly not an exception from this general pattern.
> By the way, the Westerners would return from their trips to the Soviet
Russia,
> often critical of the Soviet lifestyle, but also often totally overwhelmed
by
> the achievements and the unbelievable progress of Soviet science of the
> period. Another reason for the Westerners' envy was the resource base and
> the lavish funding offered to the Soviet scholars. References available
upon
> request. Well, it appears real life hardly fits black and white picture of
the
> "oppressed science", after all, and not the liberal requirement of
democracy
> as a precondition of science is not necessarily and universally true.
> All in all, the anti-paedological campaign has absolutely nothing to do
with
> international affairs, and is totally internal issue.
> 
> p. 127
> The fight against pedology was led by Makarenko and Medinsky, etc. --
> BLATANT FALSIFICATION. Totally ungrounded stream of consciousness, a
> bunch of claims not substantiated by any reliable reference or empirical
> evidence. Makarenko was a notable yet far from an influential figure whose
> range of activities was basically all within Ukrainian SSR, working with
> education of homeless children (bezprizorniki) and juvenile delinquents
> under the jurisdiction of the Ministry or Internal Affairs, possibly,
NKVD,
> indeed. The whole narrative about Makarenko comes out of nothing. Finally,
> in the very end it turns out that we still understand next to nothing
about
> Vygotsky's relation to paedology. Regardless of numerous flaws,
> inconsistencies, and mere mistakes in the paper's argument and
factography.
> 
> Finally, a comment on comment (see below):
> RE: p. 126: The last two sentences of the third para on the left
amalgamate
> 1929, when pedology was perfectly legal, and 1934 when it was already
> banned. --
> 
> Comment: Paedology was by no means banned in 1934. Thus, to give just an
> example, see the list of Vygotsky's publications (Lifanova's list:
> http://www.voppsy.ru/journals_all/issues/1996/965/965137.htm ):
> 
> 1931:
> 207. Paedology of adolescent. -- Book, >500 pages
> 
> 1934:
> 250. Foundations of Paedology, 1st ed. Moscow, >200 pages (posthumous
> edition)
> 
> 1935:
> 250. Foundations of Paedology, 2nd ed. Leningrad, ~130 pages (posthumous
> edition)
> 
> In addition to that, note also two editions of Blonskii handbook on
Paedology
> of 1934 & 1936 and a handbook by Uznadze (aka Usnadze) on Paedology that
> came out in Georgian in Tbilisi in 1933. All of these books, absolutely
legal and
> mainstream, had been approved by Narkompros (Ministry of Education) and
> passed official censorship of Glavlit. So, the rumours of peadology's
death
> before 1936 turn out slightly exaggerated...
> 
> 
> Cheers,
> AY
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com; Culture ActivityeXtended Mind
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 10:22:21 PM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] help: Vygotsky and pedology
> 
> Andy, Mike:
> 
> Anton is a historian, and a very good one. My stepfather was a good
historian
> too, so I know that good historians are apt to be a little gruff one we
get
> things wrong, and they have occasionally been known to freight historical
> details with very considerable importance.
> 
> I gather that one of the things that offends Anton is that Vladimir
Zinchenko
> is referred to as "Vasya", short for Vasily and not Vladimir. Holowinsky
might
> have been thinking of Davydov, whose name really is Vasily.
> 
> Here are some of the things I found that might be wrong in the article on
> pedology.
> 
> p. 123: "parts of his book Thought and Speech were prohibited from
> publication". Well, the whole thing, actually.
> 
> p. 124: There is considerable confusion between "pedagogy" and "pedology".
> The two things really were quite different, and in fact "pedology" was
> established partly in reaction to "pedagogy", as a science in its own
right. We
> applied linguists understand this very well; people are always confusing
us
> with linguists, which is a little like confusing a cucumber and a
concubine, or a
> protestant with a prostitute.
> 
> p. 126: The last two sentences of the third para on the left amalgamate
1929,
> when pedology was perfectly legal, and 1934 when it was already banned.
> Vygotsky's pedological work, including "Pedology of the Adolescent", was
> published in 1929. "Fascism in Psychoneurology" was, of course, published
in
> 1934, after the capitulation of psychologists like Jaensch, Ach, and Jung
to
> Nazism.
> 
> Now what I don't understand is this: in 1934, Vygotsky really did publish
a set
> of lectures called "Fundamentals of Pedology". By then, the struggle
against
> pedology had already been going on for so long that Vygotsky himself had
> criticized pedology (in Chapter Six of Thinking and Speech). It can't be
the
> usual problem with sonambulent publishers, either, because they're
> stenographic records of lectures delivered at the Second Moscow Medical
> Institute that very year. Perhaps he knew he wouldn't be around to face
the
> consequences.
> 
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
> 
> --- On Tue, 5/18/10, mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [xmca] help: Vygotsky and pedology
> To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
> <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Date: Tuesday, May 18, 2010, 6:16 PM
> 
> 
> Gentlemen--
> 
> The post that Anton pointed us to is nonsense. The article on Pedology is
> more interesting, although he does mischaracterize me as THE editor of
Mind
> in Society. Some interesting refs there. The article was written in about
1987
> at a time when it was not so easy to get straight information on these
> matters. The Makarenko stuff was interesting. I didn't know he was
> connected with the NKVD  (assuming that is true).
> 
> Ease up. history is long, life is short.
> mike
> 
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:06 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> wrote:
> 
> > Fair point, Anton. I didn't check it because I didn't feel I qualified
> > as someone 'familiar with Vladimir Petrovich Zinchenko', though I did
> > 'know about the existence of such person'. I've read some of his work
> > but I know nothing about the person beyond that. I have always tended
> > to confuse the two Zinchenkos; are  they father and son? I have
> > checked it now, of course, and from your comment I guess there must be
> > a gross factual error in that little paragraph. But I can't tell. I'll
have to trust
> you.
> >
> > Andy
> >
> >
> > Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
> >
> >> Andy,
> >>
> >> I am under the impression you did not check out the link,
> >> specifically, the quote in English. If not, please, feel free to do
> >> so. Just in case, here is the link again:
> >>
> >> http://community.livejournal.com/psyhistorik/27712.html
> >>
> >> Please let us know if you do not believe this example counts as a
> >> justification.
> >>
> >> Anton
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ----- Original Message ----
> >> From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> >> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >> Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 8:12:24 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [xmca] help: Vygotsky and pedology
> >>
> >> Anton,
> >> When political leaders in my country tell you that another person is
> >> a fool but don't have time to justify their claim they say: "Trust me!"
> >>
> >> Andy
> >>
> >> Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
> >>
> >>> Here is my first reaction to Eugene's question, the rest will follow
> >>> when I find time to fully enjoy the paper in question:
> >>>
> >>> Below is the link to my favourite example of Holowinsky's
> >>> scholarship that can be best appreciated by anybody familiar with
> >>> Vladimir Petrovich Zinchenko, or who at least knows about the
> >>> existence of such person and the basics of his genealogy:
> >>>
> >>> http://community.livejournal.com/psyhistorik/27712.html
> >>>
> >>> Enjoy :)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>> From: Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>
> >>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>> Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 4:13:32 PM
> >>> Subject: RE: [xmca] help: Vygotsky and pedology
> >>>
> >>> Dear Anton-
> >>>
> >>> Can you elaborate on Holowinsky's points in his article that you
> >>> view as wrong, please? And what is your basis for this criticism?
> >>> I'm asking these questions not because I want to challenge your
> >>> views but because I want to learn more about this interesting and
> >>> potentially influential history and you are a specilist in this
> >>> area.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks,
> >>>
> >>> Eugene
> >>> PS I was surprised to read in Holowinsky's article about Makarenko's
> >>> opposition to pedology. Do you know more about that, by any chance?
> >>> ---------------------
> >>> Eugene Matusov, Ph.D.
> >>> Professor of Education
> >>> School of Education
> >>> University of Delaware
> >>> 16 W Main st.
> >>> Newark, DE 19716, USA
> >>>
> >>> email: ematusov@udel.edu
> >>> fax: 1-(302)-831-4110
> >>> website: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu
> >>> publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
> >>>
> >>> Dialogic Pedagogy Forum: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu
> >>> ---------------------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> >>>> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Anton Yasnitsky
> >>>> Sent: Monday, May 17, 2010 4:55 PM
> >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] help
> >>>>
> >>>> If I may add a comment, the author, as a rule,  presents a lot of
> >>>>
> >>> ridiculous--to
> >>>
> >>>> say just "erroneous" would be a gross understatement--stuff in his
> >>>>
> >>> writings,
> >>>
> >>>> so I would like to thank Mike for the paper and am anticipating a
> >>>> really hilarious reading :)
> >>>>
> >>>> Anton
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> ----- Original Message ----
> >>>> From: Joao <jbmartin@sercomtel.com.br>
> >>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> >>>> Sent: Sun, May 16, 2010 9:11:14 PM
> >>>> Subject: [xmca] help
> >>>>
> >>>> Hi...
> >>>> I need to find the paper "Vygotsky and the History of Pedology" of
> >>>> Ivan Z.
> >>>> Holowinsky. (School Psychology International, v. 9, 1988) Can
> >>>> anyone help me?
> >>>>
> >>>> Thanks
> >>>>
> >>>> Joao Martins
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> xmca mailing list
> >>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> xmca mailing list
> >>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> >>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> > --
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -- Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> > <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blunden An
> > Interdisciplinary Theory of Activity: http://www.brill.nl/scss
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > xmca mailing list
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> >
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca



_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca