In the context of the relationships between V.’s and L.’s theoretical
paradigms, we are talking about the role Zeigarnick might have played. Let
me share with you what I know about this matter. My argument is that while
Bluma was instrumental in organizing personal contacts between L. and V., she
had not contributed anything substantial into scientific connections or even
discussions between their theories.
B. V. Zeigarnick is one of the first and, probably, the most prominent
of Lewin’s students. She has secured her place in the history of psychology
at a very early age by brilliantly describing (after many series of pretty
experiments) the phenomenon which bears her name since then: "Zeigarnic
effect" (…"the interrupted action is remembered better than "completed"
action…") It was first published in "Psychologische Forsehung" in 1927.
This discovery and its description (the terms used, the concept itself,
the way the experiments were designed and carried out, etc.) perfectly fits
the gestalt paradigm in general and Lewin’s "field theory" in particular. In
1929 Bluma returned to Russia . She worked in a psychiatric clinic until
WWll. According to Gita, Bluma brought Lewin to Vygotsky’s flat at
Serpuhkovsky, 17, in 1933. Bluma, as well as A. R. Luria, participated in
their discussions. We probably will never know what they discussed. But one
thing is known. According to Bluma (see the interview I mentioned earlier)
Lewin asked Vygotsky’s advice where to emigrate (it was 1933, Hitler had
seized the power in Germany). We do not know what advice V. gave to Lewin.
But we do know that L. emigrated to the US. (thank God).
Zeigarnick became one of the most prominent psychologists in the former
Soviet Union: she is the "founding mother" of contemporary psychopathology in
the former USSR. She is the author and co-author of practically all major
texbooks on psychopathology ("abnormal psychology" in the US terms) and was
the leading teacher in this area (full professor at Moscow University since
early 60s (in Luria’s department). Her last book, the second edition of
"Psychopathology" was published in 1986 (after her death).
Now, I attended her lectures in 1973-76. I read from cover to cover
many of her textbooks during my training as a forensic psychologist. I can
testify that in all her texts she appeared as an orthodox Vygotskian (in
Leontiev’s modification) and there is nothing there from gestalt psychology
in general and Lewin’s writings in particular. During her lectures she was
very critical of Lewin, I would say, even sarcastic: she repeatedly said:
"the so-called theory of Lewin". Among her books there is one titled: "Theory
of Personality of Kurt Lewin", published by MGU in 1981. (in Russian:
"Teoria Lichnosti K. Levina"). I believe this text is critical in
understanding the whole issue. Here, again, there is a sharp criticism of
L.’s ideas from Vygotskian’s position. ( Please note: I am not an expert in
this question, that is my personal perception. I should re-read this book,
it is on my shelve collecting dust…). That is why I think that in the
scientific/theoretical perspective Bluma is not the "bridge" between L. and
W, although from a personal perspective she undoubtedly had been.
P.S., Ana, I do not have at hand the exact data where this interview was
published in English, it is one of those "Soviet Psychology" journals of
translations.
Boris Gindis, Ph.D.
NYS Licensed Psychologist
Center for Cognitive-Developmental
Assessment, Rehabilitation, and Training,
13 South Van Dyke Ave. Suffern, NY 10901
Tel: 914-357-2512
Fax: 914-369-6830
E-mail: bgindis who-is-at aol.com
Touro College Graduate School of Education and Psychology
Empire State Building, 350 Fifth Ave./Suite 1700,
New York, NY 10118
Tel: 212-643-0700
Fax: 212-643-0759