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

[Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>]

RE:

So he would never give to his project the name of any variety or "brand" or specialism of psychology. His work is simply "psychology".
Andy  
RE:
Andy--
... Vygotsky's way was to never give a name to the concept until the concept was ready, and sometimes not even then.---



Not exactly so.

Consider, for instance:

<QUOTE>

7. Notes about the name of his own theory (“NB! We are missing a name”)
are especially interesting because to this day we have virtually no testimony
about how Vygotsky named his theory. In a document dated during the time he
was working on the manuscript of The History of the Development of Higher
Psychic Functions (i.e., approximately 1930–31) we read:

 <QUOTE within QUOTE> 
NB! We are missing a name, a designation. It should not be a signboard
(intuitivism). Not instrum., not cultural, not signif[icative], not struct., etc.
Not only because of the blend with oth[er] theories but also because of the
int[e]rnal lack of clarity, e.g., the idea of analogy with instr. = only scaffolding,
dissimilarity is more essential. Culture: but where is culture itself
from (it is nonprimordial, and this is hidden). So:
1) for the method the designation
meth. of d[ou]ble stimulation.
2) for theory as a whole
а) psychol. of higher functions, i.e.
b) histor. psychology or
с) histor. theory of higher psychol. f[u]nctions.
Because the central concept for us is concept of
higher function:
it contains a theory
а) of its development, b) of its psychol. nature; с) of the method of its
investigation.
 </end of QUOTE within QUOTE>  

In discussing the name, Vygotsky dwells on option 2c, but it should not be
forgotten that he is describing here his own approach of the 1930–31 period,
that is, he is analyzing it on the eve of major changes. After a year, already
the concept of psychic function was gradually losing its role as a guiding
instrument, a leading term, although it remained in the conceptual framework
of the theory. </end of QUOTE> 


Source: 
p. 30 in --
Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, vol. 48, no.1,
January–February 2010, pp. 14–33.
© 2010 M.E. Sharpe, Inc. All rights reserved.
ISSN 1061–0405/2010 $9.50 + 0.00.
DOI 10.2753/RPO1061-0405480101
E.Iu. Zavershneva
The Vygotsky Family Archive
(1912–1934)
New Findings

Reminder: For discussion of the after-life of Vygotsky's theory's name after Vygotsky's death see Keiler's paper @ PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal (  http://www.psyanima.ru/  ), issue 1, 2012


________________________________
 From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2012 12:27:15 AM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Vygotsky NEVER spoke of "cultural-historical theory", "cultural-historical psychology", or "cultural-historical school"
 ...
So he would never give to his project the name of any variety or "brand" or specialism of psychology. His work is simply "psychology".

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