Nate,
After all that has transpired, I find it somewhat amusing that such anxiety
surfaces about reading Leont'ev. It's like some kind of nervousness parents
experience when they let their teenager drive the car alone for the first
time maybe. It couldn't be just that someone wants to hijack psychology.
Not a peep was heard about that when Alfred Lang declared that all
psychology was bunk. Certainly there is an issue here concerning which
interpretations are consistent with what Leont'ev has actually written and
which ones aren't. I would think that such diversity of interpretation
might well be the substance of good discussion.
I personally don't feel the need to have someone tell me what is "the
rhetoric" and what is the substance. What might appear as rhetoric to one
could be a product of the rhetoric of their own position. And someone might
well fail to see the substance for the same reasons although I am very glad
the Yrjo Engestrom is participating and that he goes first in the somewhat
unusual (at least for xmca) role of ???? moderator, facilitator, summarizer,
cheerleader, assiduous respondent to every question, ???? I still haven't
figured out what the role is really supposed to be and will probably take my
lead on that from what the first person in line does. In any event, I
didn't ever think the role of the chapter facilitators was to be one of
official hermeneutician or catechist.. Everybody comes from some particular
point of view, don't they? Some have more familiarity with the texts, the
tradition, the background, the applications. In the group selected to
facilitate, I consider myself to be probably the least notable in most
respects--although having lived with marxist thought for 30+ years does
provide me with a framework for looking at the writings of people who worked
within that tradition. I personally expect to learn a lot and that's why
I'm happy to be a part of making this happen.
Let's just leave all the anxiety at the door and enjoy what looks to be a
fairly well organized, widely supported and awaited reading of one of the
important books by a psychologist in the name whose theories different
interpretations and applications have been advanced.
As Eugene says, "what d'a think?"
Paul H. Dillon
----- Original Message -----
From: Nate Schmolze <nate_schmolze@yahoo.com>
To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 1:48 PM
Subject: RE: RE: leontiev reading
> 1) Temporarily if you want a crossword free page with fixed up intro and
CH
> 1 use http://communication.ucsd.edu/mca/Paper/leontev/index.html (small
> mca). The fixed up intro and one is getting rid of excess css code that
> should not have been there is the 1st place. I call it the Bill (Gates)
> phenomenon.
>
> 2) In general I am hopeful the audience will come out more clearly when
the
> discussion starts. I would say its the west - pointing out our pitfalls
and
> attempting to resolve the contradictions within "western psychology". As
> far as Varangians I assume they are "us" or at least some of us. My take
is
> its a defence of psychology from being hijacked from above and below - the
> "v" did seem however to be directed at multidiciplinary research.
>
> Very clearly I think Leont'ev places his work in the Marxist tradition
that
> sets itself in oppossition to multiple varieties "bourgeois" science. I
> have mixed feeling on the usefullness on dwelling too much on the tone -
> there is certainly one - at the cost of finding aspects where we can move
> forward.
>
> Here I think Engestrom's words will be useful - getting to the substance
and
> past the rhetoric of the intro and chapter 1. My impression is its more of
a
> conversation "to" than a coversation "with" and it is keeping the focus on
> the latter that will be the most useful for us.
>
> Nate
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eva Ekeblad [mailto:eva.ekeblad@goteborg.utfors.se]
> Sent: Friday, September 22, 2000 12:46 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Cc: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: RE: leontiev reading
>
>
> At 10.42 -0600 00-09-22, Phillip White scrobe:
> > nate, could someone give a contextual over-view that was done for the
> >earlier article? the author's audience? movitation in writing? political
> >contexts? degree of marginalization, etc.?
>
> ...and to please tell us who are these "Varangians" some voices are heard
> openly calling to rule psychology.
>
> Eva
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:00:58 PDT