Dear Mohamed, Peter S., Carl, Paul, Helen, Bill, Nate and everyone!
Thank you so much for your most interesting thoughts! I sometimes wish
we could all have a few days together to really speak and understand
each other's views. By the way, where is Yrjo's guidance and wisdom?
Thank you Mohamed for discussing the French connection regarding
Leontiev. I had never heard of Zasso and Voutsinaas and hope you will be
posting relevant thoughts regarding them. And thank you Carl for your
thoughts on making Marxism central to cultural psychology.
In rereading the first chapter of Leontiev again, two things struck me:
one was the fine line he drew by "walking the fence" between bourgeois
philosophy and Marxist philosophy/Russian Marxist ideology. It is clear
that we do not really know Leontiev's inner most feelings along these
lines, and that is why I do think Mohamed should summarize some of the
understanding he has gained from the French connection to Leontiev. The
second point was that of "unity," "wholeness." Leontiev seemed to ask us
to view Marxism in its totality, before separating it. It is clear that
Leontiev truly understood Western philosophy/psychology, while forging a
new path, just as Picasso understood the classical techniques of art
before going into cubism, abstract painting, etc., and Wittgenstein
completely understood Philosophy with a large "P" before creating
philosophy with a small "p." This is our disadvantage today.....most of
us did not grow up in homes where such things were discussed and
practiced every day. Often we are only left with the tools of bricolage
in trying to truly internalize what has gone before, and it sometimes
remains at a more superficial level than for those who grew up in such
an atmosphere. A. A. Leontiev often states that he was raised on the
"air" of Vygotsky.
Regarding consciousness, it is interesting that we in the West are
fascinated with a new focus on society and the individual. In the United
States the understanding of consciousness often runs the risk of true
solipsim ( here where the individual does not recognize the full meaning
of the social), and it really turns ugly with Jerry Fodor and his
thoughts in general (against Vygotsky in particular). I realize that
Mike tried to mitigate this huge gap in understanding. However, my point
is that to prioritize the social over the individual is just as one
sided as prioritizing the individual over the social. Regarding the
aspects of learning preceeding developing, Lois Holzman took this to
task. There must be a focus on both aspects. One of the reaons for the
popularity of Vygotsky in the West was the revelation that babies are
not born as individuals (philosophically speaking), but are socialized
beings first, then individuals. Even that point can be taken to
extremes. I don't believe Vygotsky was as much interested in the polar
concepts as in a personal "synthesis."
What I keep thinking about is the playoff of "Marxism/bourgeouis
philosophy-psychology," "abstract consciousness/concrete
consciousness,", "behaviorism/Gestalt psychology" (which Leontiev
mentioned), or just the "individual/social," "external/internal."
Leontiev criticized the polarities of viewing the forest and not the
trees (Gestalt psychology) and he criticized viewing the tress and not
the forest (behaviorism). An example of this was the opposition of
German Marxism (practical, economic) as opposed to German philosophy
(Idealism). How do we operate between these two poles? and the paradoxes
that have resulted? It is so interesting that with an extreme focus on
individualism in the West, personality is viewed as representing "bits
and pieces" (this was stated before, e.g., anxiety not related to risk
taking, etc.). That is a basic reason for the attraction of holistic
Russian psychology/philosophy in the West. The reverse is also true with
some in Russia trying to find an individualistic approach to
psychological/philosophical questions, often within phenomenology at the
moment (my experience). We get caught up in defending and believing one
side of the polarity, and not opening up to incorporating both aspects
in order to arrive at our own "synthesis." This can lead to real irony:
Chomsky is the best example of that for me. He is both a 17th centruy
rationalist regarding deductive innatism, and at the same time his
theories are considered to be anchored within the scientific theory,
regarding his linguistics. For him the "parts" add up to the "whole,"
which is a complete paradox when innatism (e.g. determinism) is the
overarching philosophical construct. So, we have followers of Chomsky
who are almost "religious" in defending his ideas (which are supposed to
be scientific), and we have a man caught in the Cartesian dualism of all
times: professional life = algorithmic linguistics (that is not at all
psychological, because it is not situated in real time) + his private
life = liberal politics. This is a metaphor for me of much thinking in
the West....in reality, the parts do not represent the sum of the whole
and the entire construct is not "holistic" as I understand it. It
follows the logic of viewing only the "trees' and not the "whole"
forest, or the very concrete logic of owning guns that are to kill,
while going to church to affirm that we should never take another life.
I truly feel that we need to transcend such dualism in general, and
learn to view the absolute, determinism, monism, competency, whole
(etc.) together with the relative, free will, dialectics, performance
(etc.). I personally believe that under Stalinism Leontiev was
constrained to a point we will never understand, and I do believe that
he understood this balance and would have liked to pursue it more (just
my personal thoughts). He stated that "Consciousness invariably appeared
in psychology as something extraneous to the principal concern, only as
a condition for the taking place of psychological processes.
Particularly such was the position of Wundt." Leontiev wanted to take a
middle position (only my opinion) of viewing consciousness as the stage
on which life is created. In German philosophy consciousness
traditionally represented something like Kant's nouema....the
unreachable, but it was still present. In fact after studying with Wundt
in Leipzig, Bloomfield returned to North America so disgusted that he
tried to circumvent Wundt's thoughts by contributing to a psychology
that could be seen, demonstrated, "proven scientifically." This led to
behaviorism, where the "whole" was forgotten and consciousness as a
philosophical construct was banished. We lost the view of the forest to
only see the trees; German philosophy has historically tended to lean
towards "totality" that has had its consequences by viewing the "whole"
(sometimes unconscious archetypes of teutonic mythology, sometimes
mirrored in some of the most outstanding Culture of the 20th century)
and not the "trees." Wallon wrote the best explanation of German
philosophy possible for me, and only about three pages. For me, the
direction we should be going in is different: a middle way of viewing
the whole and the parts as fitting into one overall scheme. There is
room on that scale for everyone. However, there are some problems in
arriving at this new consciousness. Although these thoughts on Leontiev
look more like Dot Robbins than Leontiev, I will try to present the
problems.
I will stop and go to part two!! Feel free to delete this and the next
message if they are boring! It is difficult to do this and I appreciate
your patience.
Best,
Dot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Oct 01 2000 - 01:01:03 PDT