Re: Re: [xmca] Vygotsky NEVER spoke of "cultural-historical theory", "cultural-historical psychology", or "cultural-historical school"

[Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>]

First. "Historico-cultural development" is not the same as "cultural-historical theory", "cultural-historical psychology", or "cultural-historical school".

Apparently, no refutation of Keiler's PsyAnima claim here.


Second. Curiously enough, the phrasing of the "original translation", i.e. the English text (see The Vygotsky Reader, 1994), is yet further distorted 
in Russian back-translation, apparently, in order to better fit discursive practice of the way psychologists talked about Vygotsky's theory in Russia back then.

Thus, instead of original "historico-cultural" of the English text, we have "cultural-historical development" in Russian back-translation.

Peter Keiler should be delighted by this instance -- yet another one -- of textual distortion and, eventually, falsification of Vygotsky.


Third. This example is yet another piece of evidence that contributes to our distrust of this and, by extension, several other Vygotsky's texts

that were uncritically and indiscriminately published after his death. Well, well: still much critical and editorial work remains to be done...


AY



________________________________
 From: kellogg <kellogg59@hanmail.net>
To: lchcmike@gmail.com; "eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:20:26 AM
Subject: RE: Re: [xmca] Vygotsky NEVER spoke of "cultural-historical theory", "cultural-historical psychology", or "cultural-historical school"
 

 
At the end of Chapter Six in Tool and Sign in Child Development, Vygotsky speaks insistently of the "historico-cultural development of behavior", to which he attributes the whole of man's free will.
Действие человека, возникшее в процессе культурно-исторического развития поведения, есть свободное действие, т. е. независимое от непосредственно действующей потребности и непосредственно воспринимаемой ситуации, действие, направленное на будущее. Обезьяны же, по замечанию Келера, сделанному в другом месте, в гораздо большей степени, чем взрослые люди, являются рабами зрительного поля. Всэто должно иметь свое основание, и нетрудно видеть, что такое основание есть в то же время надежнейший критерий для генетического,
 функционального и структурного разграничения тех двух типов деятельности, о которых мы говорили выше. Но вместо метафизического основания для этого разграничения мы выдвигаем, побуждаемые нашими исследованиями, историческое, которое полностью согласуется и с фактами, установленными Келером относительно поведения шимпанзе. Итак, два типа деятельности, которые должен принципиально различать психолог, . это поведение животного и поведение человека; деятельность, являющаяся продуктом биологической эволюции, и
 деятельность, возникшая в процессе исторического развития человека.  
(The activity of man, as it appeared in the process of historico-cultural development of behaviour, is a free activity, i.e. not depending on direct needs and the immediately perceived situation; it is an activity geared to the future. In contrast as Köhler noted elsewhere, apes are to a much greater extent slaves of their field of vision than adult human beings. All this must have a foundation, and obviously this foundation is at the same time the most reliable criterion for the genetic, functional and structural division between the two types of activity mentioned above. But our studies induce us to advance, instead of a metaphysical foundation for this division, a historical one which is also in full harmony with the facts noted by Köhler in the behaviour of a chimpanzee. Thus, there are two types of activity between which the psychologist must discriminate in principle: one is the behaviour of animals, the other that of man; activity as a product
 of biological evolution and activity originating in the process of man’s historical development.)  
 
К. Левин в прекрасном анализе психологии намеренных действий с полной ясностью выделяет свободное и волевое намерение как продукт исторического культурного развития поведения и отличительную черту психологии человека. Удивителен сам по себе, говорит он, тот факт, что человек обладает необычайной свободой в образовании любых, даже бессмысленных, намерений. Эта свобода характерна для человека культуры. Она свойственна в несравненно меньшей степени ребенку и, по-видимому, также примитивному человеку, вероятно, отличает
 человека от наиболее близко стоящих к нему животны в большей мере, чем его более развитой интеллект. Это разграничение совпадает с проблемой овладения. 
 
In his excellent analysis of the psychology of purposeful activity, Lewin makes a clear-cut definition of free and volitional intention as a product of the historico-cultural development of behaviour and as a specific feature of man’s psychology. He says: 
 
(“The fact that man displays extraordinary freedom in what concerns th e formation of any, even the most senseless intention, is astounding in itself... Th is freedom is characteristic of cultural man. It is incomparably less characteristic of a child and, probably, of primitive man, too; there is reason to believe that th is, more than his highly developed intellect, distinguishes man from the animals which stand closest to him. This division corresponds to the problem of self-control (Beherrschung).”)
 
David Kellogg
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
 --------- 원본 메일 ---------
 
보낸사람: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
>받는사람 : Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>,"eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>날짜: 2012년 10월 16일 화요일, 08시 15분 12초 +0900
>제목: Re: [xmca] Vygotsky NEVER spoke of "cultural-historical theory","cultural-historical psychology", or "cultural-historical school"
>
>Thanks to your good works, Anton, NOTHING about the Vygotsky, L&L school
>seems astonishing any more!
>
>mike
>
>PS-- What about LSV and microgenesis? Where would you point us to for
>enlightenment?
>On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 8:26 AM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>wrote:
>
>> As astonishing as it may seem, according to a recent study,
>> Vygotsky NEVER spoke of "cultural-historical theory", "cultural-historical
>> psychology", or "cultural-historical school".
>>
>>
>> The paper came out in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal and is
>> available online in a English, Russian, German and Portuguese.
>> According to some sources, this is the most popular Russian psychological
>> journal in the entire world.
>>
>> For the open access paper please see the top publication (by Peter Keiler)
>> here: http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2012/1/index.php ;
>> for the journal's web site see http://www.psyanima.ru/
>>
>> Have a nice reading!
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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