Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of functions)

[Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>]

Right, that's my point.

Martin

On Jun 22, 2012, at 10:51 AM, larry smolucha wrote:

> 
> Message from Francine Smolucha:
> That passage from Thought and Speech can be read in the traditional Vygotskian way as a statement that lower level spontaneous memory functions l(like instant recall or recognition)can develop into verbally mediated consciously directed memory as a higher psychological function.It is a relatively simple transformation that does not require functional reorganization.
> Luria pioneered the study of how the prefrontal cortices function to consciously directbehavior, cognition, emotions, etc. based on Vygotsky's theory of the development of verbally mediatedhigher psychological functions. Contemporary neuroscience continues to reveal how the executivefunction of the prefrontal cortices is related to the development of verbally regulated conscious functions.[See my 2012 publication that references Winsler et. al. Private Speech, Executive Functioning, and theDevelopment of Self-Regulation 2009 and Furster's book The Prefrontal Cortex 2009)
> 
>> From: packer@duq.edu
>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of functions)
>> Date: Fri, 22 Jun 2012 10:14:41 -0500
>> To: the_yasya@yahoo.com; xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> CC: 
>> 
>> Anton,
>> 
>> You have a better grasp of and access to the original texts than I do, so this is a question of clarification rather than one of contestation. In chapter 6 of Thought & Language, which I believe was written in 1934, LSV was still using the phrase "higher psychological functions," in a way that doesn't seem to place much emphasis on the interrelation of functions or on ontogenesis as a continuous process of functional reorganization. For example, towards the end of this chapter he writes:
>> 
>> At the core of development at school age we see the passage from lower functions of attention and memory to higher functions such as voluntary attention and logical memory. In other places we have shown in a very detailed manner how with the same justice as we speak of voluntary attention we may also speak of voluntary memory; how with just as much right as we speak of logical memory, we can talk of logical attention. This results in the fact that the intellectualization of these functions and their mastery are two moments of a single and same process: the passage to higher psychological forms. We master a given function to the degree that we intellectualize it. Volitional activity in a given function is always the result of conscious awareness. To say that memory has become intellectualized in the school age is completely equal to saying that voluntary memory has appeared; to affirm that attention in the school age becomes voluntary is the same as saying, as Blonsky has rightly said, that it depends all the more on thinking, that is to say, on intellect.
>> 
>> Martin
>> 
>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 6:19 PM, Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
>> 
>>> Martin, 
>>> 
>>> Right, this is exactly my point: much criticized for fairly mechanistic distinction between the lower and the higher in his earlier work of 1920s,
>>> Vygotsky rejected this binary opposition in his later writings of the 1930, although he kept using  phrases "higher functions" or, rather,
>>> "higher processes" and the like. The idea of "higher" perfectly fit his notion of "peak psychology" of 1932-1934, but the distinction higher-lower was gone.
>>> Indeed, the introduction of the idea of systems of functions and inter-functional connections/relations rather than isolated functions was instrumental in  
>>> this theoretical shift. In a couple of places he clearly states that psychological processes are not built "in two storeys", but are rather recombinations 
>>> of more or less the same set of components, well, let's call them functions. 
>>> 
>>> Following Kurt Lewin's methodological works (such as the one on the transition from Aristotelian to Galileian thinking), 
>>> in 1930s Vygotsky gradually revised his earlier naive binary oppositions and his later concepts, I believe, are better thought of as gradients than valuative and rigid oppositions.
>>> That's how I understand the evolution of Vygotsky's thought and conceptual system, at least.
>>> 
>>> As to imagination, I am not quite sure that in his late texts he refers to it as a function, although he might well have done so here and there, given his 
>>> fairly inconsistent and imprecise use of psychological terminology. As to leading, I do not quite recall him referring to any function as leading, but, more precisely, 
>>> I believe he discusses "leading activity", which makes some difference. In any case, indeed, it is really hard to say if imagination is really a "higher" hmmmm.... 
>>> psychological phenomenon, especially so, given its transitory character in children's development from total boundedness with "visual field" towards 
>>> abstract thinking and volitional behaviour. So, it is "higher" than purely motor-perceptual system of an infant, a prerequisite for preschoolers play, and,
>>> I guess, from Vygotsky's perspective, might be regarded as not so high in relation to the "higher" abstract thinking of adolescents and, obviously, adults.
>>> 
>>> AY
>>> 
>>> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
>>> To: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
>>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:38:06 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>> 
>>> Anton,
>>> 
>>> Is your point that LSV moved away from the notions of lower and higher psychological functions, towards that of systems of functions? I've been mulling over the fact that in his late texts on child development imagination is a leading function in early childhood, and it seems odd to call that either lower or higher. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your posts.
>>> 
>>> Martin
>>> 
>>> On Jun 21, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Like I said, I am under the impression that Vygotsky's expression "higher psychological [mental] functions" for Vygotsky means so many things 
>>>> (although in different texts authored in different periods of his life) that it is bordering on total meaninglessness. Therefore, rephrasing our character, 
>>>> "everything can be ... higher mental function", no problem with that :)
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Thus, if I may reformulate the question, we are looking for the textual proof that Vygotsky did refer to creativity as higher mental/psychological function, right, Peter?
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> AY
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> P.S.
>>>> 
>>>> By the way, speaking of mental/psychological, here is a funny thing: despite his virtually boundless flexibility in many respects, Vygotsky NEVER 
>>>> used the word "mental" (literally: psychic, psychical -- psikhicheskie) when he referred to functions, but only "psychological". Later on, this phrase 
>>>> was pretty consistently "corrected" by his devoted best students in many --but not all--of his posthumous publications of  Soviet period. Curious detail, 
>>>> isn't it? A recent study that has been done back in Germany demonstrates this mysterious peculiarity of Vygotsky's discourse of his lifetime period 
>>>> as opposed to his posthumous publications, and will be published shortly in several international languages in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal 
>>>> ( http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php ).
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> ________________________________
>>>> From: Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:23:57 AM
>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>>> 
>>>> In any case, in service of the scholarly discussion, I'm genuinely puzzled by the idea that creativity is a higher mental function, and would appreciate further clarity to that provided by Anton. Thx,p
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky
>>>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:20 AM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>>> 
>>>> My apologies to Francine if my mnemonic sounded snide--I was going from the pronunciation guide on the article that I had scanned, and I have no idea of who put it there. With a name like Smagorinsky (which also might be an Ellis Island adjustment), making fun of people's names is not usually part of my approach. I'm glad to have the correction. Peter
>>>> 
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of larry smolucha
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:22 PM
>>>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> Subject: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
>>>> I have been a member of XMCA for several years - anyone could haveasked me how to pronounce my last name.
>>>> I not surprised that the discussion of the work my husband and I have donebegins with a snide comment about our last name.Growing up in Chicago as a Polish-American, other ethnic groupswould often make fun of your last name, and tell insulting Polish jokes abouthow stupid Poles are. Polish immigrants often had their last names Americanizedby immigration officials at Ellis Island. In order for other ethnic groups to be able topronounce, and spell a Polish last name, Poles would typically use an easy English pronunciation.
>>>> My husband's family would usually say Smo-lou-ka.Some family members would say Smo-lou-cha.The proper Polish pronunciation is Smo-whoo-ha (Smolucha has an umlaut over the u).The Smolucha family 'Y' chromosome is Scandinavian (Vikings who settled Eastern Europecirca 800 A.D.) - we had the National Geographic Society's Genoanthropology project do aDNA analysis.
>>>> When I married into the Smolucha family, I chose to use my married name out of respect formy husband's family. By the way, my maiden name is Polish too.
>>>> As I have been working on my new paper titled "A Vygotskian Theory of Cultural Synergy andCultural Creativity", my conversation with a Latin-American colleague required that I debunksome popular misconceptions about 'white ethnics.' So I retell the story here:
>>>> My own family is 'Celtic' Polish in origin (the Krakov area was settled by Celts, Vienna was originally a Celtic village). The European Celts disappeared from history. Poland itself did not existfor over 150 years (from approximately 1760 until 1918) - while it was divided among Prussia(then Germany), Austria, and Russia. [The Palestinian loss of statehood is not unique in history.]One of my great grandmothers ran an illegal underground school in her farmhouse near Vilna where she taught children how to read and write the Polish language. The Czar had orderedanyone doing so to be shot. Her son (my grandfather) had to be smuggled out of St. Petersburgon a cattle ship bound for Canada after the aborted 1905 Russia revolution - he was a memberof a student group being hunted down by the Czar's orders. Back in Krakov, my other grandfatherwas serving in Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph's 'Polish' cavalry (Austrian occupied Poland beingrenamed Galactia) -
>>>> grandpa's wife was Spanish Hapsburg.
>>>> My parents, both first generation Americans, did not attend high school, instead my Dad worked in the Chicago Stock Yards as a teenager (you might recall Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle.)My mom was a factory girl. They grew up in that famous Chicago ghetto known as Back-of-the-Yards.Five months after they were married, Pearl Harbor was attacked -  my Dad served in the Army fieldartlllery, doing four beachheads in the South Pacific (Aleutians, Kwajelian, Philippines, & Okinawa).His unit would have landed in the first wave in the Invasion of Japan - which was cancelled whenJapan surrendered after the atomic bombs were dropped. Mom spent the war years building fighterplanes in a defense plant - yes, Rosie the Riveter.
>>>> We come from a family heritage of people who think for themselves and are honor bound to do theright thing.
>>>> If anyone is interested in discussing the Vygotsky Theory of Creativity that we have been publishing in thelast 27 years, I welcome the scholarly discourse. In addition to my 1992 Reconstruction of Vygotsky'sTheory of Creativity, you might read our 2012 publication Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity: Figurative thinking Allied withLiteral Thinking [in Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Creativity in Early Childhood Education}.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>                         __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> 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

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