Others can probably enlighten us more than I can, Nektarios, but I
think he was a very erudite person. Clearly from a young age
he was hungry for knowledge and read widely in many languages. But
specifically, he was coming of age in Russia right in the midst of the
Russian Revolution. This revolution threw literally millions of people
into all kinds of "social criticism" (Luria describes the tumultuous
scene in his University at the time, in his Autobiography). New
movements in Art, literature, Linguistics, natural science, social
theory, philosophy, technology, social organisation,... sprung up
spontaneously on all sides. Vygotsky was a part of that. That is the
main thing. But for geopolitical reasons it was a short-lived "Spring."
In particular, I think, Vygotsky came from Art Criticism (in a milieu
where drama theory, linguistics and aesthetic theory were making world
historic advances in Vygotsky's immediate social circle. Then his
intellectual disposition (as exhibited in his Psychology of Art) took
him into education and scientific psychology. At that time, prior to
and independently of the Revolution, Russia was already in the
forefront of Behaviourist research in Psychology. Vygotsky was in an
ideal position to bring the social criticism he learnt as a student
into the scientific establishment around Pavlov, Bekhterev, etc. Add to
that his close study of Marx's Capital, Lenin's philosophical works,
and Engels' popularisation, is the broth which produced Vygotsky.
See http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/chat/Genealogy-CHAT.htm
Andy
Nektarios Alexi wrote:
Hi Andy,
My question is how Vygotsky could tackle such subtle problems in the
theories of Piaget but also others in his book Thought and Language?
What kind of intellectual or theoretical backgorund did Vygotsky had
that allowed him to see the human nature in such a depth and not just
that but also find the precise language to describe it, but not just
describe it but describe it in scientific terms and also with evidence?
Can we say that it was his comprehensive knowledge on arts and
especially of classic literature that helped him to see that deep and
notice such subtle details and errors in so many other important
psychological theories of his time? Just saying..
Nektarios
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Larry Purss
Sent: Thu 11/8/2012 12:02 AM
To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] ISCAR Newsletter?
Andy
I just finished reading your article in the newsletter.
It is a clear statement of ways to expand the conversation.
I have recently re-read the 1st chapter of Raymond Williams book
*Marxism
and Literature* on the concept of *culture*. It is a wonderful history
on
the shifting flowing transforming meanings of various uses of the
concept
*culture*
I noticed at the beginning of the article you are affiliated with a
group
with the title *continental philosophy*
I often wonder if this umbrella term could be more explicitly brought
into
the conversation to illuminate the multiple streams of sociocultural
theory
and how CHAT is situated within this umbrella term.
It would possibly assist in engaging deeply with philosophy as you
advocate.
I would like to bring in a distinction that Charles Taylor uses between
what he refers to as *strict* dialectics and *interpretive* dialectics.
Strict dialectics assumes each side of the dialectic [for example
individual and social] are interactive but the essence of the objects
interacting is determined. Interpretive dialectics in contrast puts in
play
the interpretive nature of the objects which are then joined in
interaction.
I am attaching the first two chapters of Raymond Williams book *Marxism
and
Literature* which I believe is an example of *interpretive* dialectics
as
described by Charles Taylor.
The contrast between the notions *strict* and *interpretive* may be
helpful
in illuminating different notions of *interaction* and *activity* within
mediated worlds.
Andy, I hope others read the ISCAR newletter and join with us in a
friendly
CHAT.
Larry
On Wed, Nov 7, 2012 at 5:42 AM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
wrote:
> Strangely enough, Ron, my first contacts with Vygotskyan theory
was with
> academic colleagues at the University of Melbourne, with whom I was
> interacting in the project of creating collaborative learning
spaces. I
> knew about social constructionism, which I took to be Berger and
> post-modern critical theory (having only the vaguest knowledge of
these
> things) but then from my colleagues, who were van der Veer and
Valsiner
> types, I was surprised to find out that Vygotsky (whose name I
knew from
> Ilyenkov) was also a constructivist (I have never properly
separated the
> way those two words are used). So I then got a book out of the
library on
> constructivist epistemology which said that there were dozens of
varieties
> of constructivism, but that Vygotsky was a constructivist who took
the
> collaboration of carer-child dyads as the basis for the social
construction
> of knowledge, rather than the wider culture .... took me quite a
while to
> find my bearings in all that mess.
>
> I just think that we always have to allow a lot of latitude in
> understanding what people actually mean when they use a word in a
given
> context. A word meaning is not a concept.
>
> Andy
>
>
> Ron Lubensky wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> I too thought the ISCAR newsletter interview article was very
good. I
>> especially liked your comparison of CHAT to interactionist
approaches,
>> which you and I have discussed before. One area that continues
to be messy,
>> as you suggest, is the relationship of CHAT to social
constructIVism and
>> social constructIONism.
>>
>> Since CHAT's first home is developmental psychology, it is out
of the
>> work of Piaget and Papert that these terms are usually
defined, and so
>> closely that they are often conflated. While these theories
acknowledge the
>> social and perhaps cultural influences on learning and
interpretation, they
>> centre on a cognitivist, mental model view of knowledge. There
is also the
>> normative aspect of giving control to the learner to construct
his or her
>> individual world-view.
>>
>> The other social constructIONism comes out of communications
and
>> sociology (e.g. Berger and Luckmann, The Social Construction
of Reality,
>> 1966), that challenges the inevitability of categorisations
that are taken
>> for granted in common discourse, and which form the bases for
many
>> institutions. This post-modern constructIONism generally
places knowledge
>> in discourse and interaction, but in more recent scholarship
focuses on the
>> cultural situation of the individual. This isn't a learning
theory but
>> rather a critical, meta-theoretical stance. To complicate
matters, there
>> are different strands with various accounts of what should be
treated as
>> real, true, essential, scientific, etc. and how communication
should relate
>> to action. It also challenges academic research standards with
advocacy for
>> interventionist approaches to practice. For an
interdisciplinary expansion
>> of CHAT, I think this constructIONism offers a rich field for
comparison.
>>
>> --
>> Ron Lubensky
>> http://www.deliberations.com.**au/
<http://www.deliberations.com.au/>
>> 0411 412 626
>> Melbourne Australia
>>
>
> --
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
> ------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
> Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts
> http://ucsd.academia.edu/**AndyBlunden<http://ucsd.academia.edu/AndyBlunden>
>
> ______________________________**____________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/**listinfo/xmca<http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca>
>
|