Dear Friends,
It has been interesting trying to catch up with the readings and
postings, all of which are coming very fast and furious. Thank you for
all of your thoughts that are interesting. I would like to know more
about the context in which A.N. Leontiev wrote this book (apart from
knowing he was old and it was written to enhance Marxism, etc.). And I
would like to know more about Leontiev's relationship to Rubenshtein,
who was very influenced by his philosophical studies in Marburg,
Germany. And, even though I have heard Brushkinsky speak a few times,
and have interviewed him, I am still shocked at why he keeps saying what
he said years and years ago, accusing Vygotsky of his misdeeds regarding
internalization and V.'s "sign-centered approach, taken from the
external (only) to the internal." I am also wondering about the German
quote that needed more context for understanding, and the use of words
such as "Aneignung" that can be translated as both "accomodation" and
"appropriation." In the German quote Joachim Lompscher was mentioned,
and I so wish he would jump in with some background information. It has
been very difficult to put all of these strands together and sometimes
relate them to the book we are reading. In reading Chapter 3 and 4
quickly, I still felt that A.N. Leontiev was using the word
"consciousness" while actually referring to "mind;" that in referring to
the internal aspect, he was actually focusing on "motive" (I could be
totally wrong, as I could not absorb all of the information so quickly,
having been away). At the same time, I am attracted to A.N. Leontiev's
use of the word "afferentiation" that for me would be called
"reflexivity" in today's terminology. This is indeed an important point.
Somehow, I am struggling with the discussion, and when reading
Leontiev, I keep feeling a subjective sense of blame towards Vygotsky
for having created an "impersonal" view, compared with classical German
philosophy of Idealism. I do feel a strong "impersonal" sense in the
book we are reading, and I understand that it was written to edify
Marxism (that was also impersonal to some degree). The bottom line (at
least for me) is still the difference in understanding
externalization/internalization (interiorization). K Amano's thoughts
were interesting, with "Leontiev's hypothesis on the isomorphism between
external and internal structure of activity."....or these thoughts
representing a "mechanical determinism."
So, I am reading the text as still representing a duality and not a
unity (or synthesis that V. strived for with his psychology/philosophy).
This duality is more implicit, perhaps reflecting the times the book was
written in positioning Marxism against Capitalism, etc. Vygotsky used
the terms externalization/internalization (or whatever words or better)
in understanding human consciousness via thought and language (viewed
as activity). I don't see how these ideas can be extrapolated on to
activity theory when they are not more directly related to the theories
of language and semiotics. As I understand Vygotsky, there was a genuine
reciprocity between social/individual, external/internal, where they
flowed together. It was the relationship of functions that led to
development and personal (as well as societal) transformation. And I was
so pleased to read the notes from Philip (related to Arne) that referred
back to "self-regulation." After each posting I kept wondering why that
was never mentioned in activity theory. Self-regulation is one of the
keys necessary in understanding Vygotskian theories (or methods) from my
perspective, and it doesn't get more personal and individual than that,
nor can it ever be separated from the societal for one second. And one
does not stop there: in the end the internal then returns to the
external, and both affect each other. This simple principle seems to get
confused in the book we are reading, except for the concept of
"afferentiation" (or I am just to tired to follow it?). You can't have
externalization without internalization, and one does not transcend the
other. I often felt that in the book and in our discussions we are
sometimes trying to externalize the internal for the sake of argument,
and perhaps even internalize the external. The point for me is to enter
the zone of flow or fusion (as Andy stated). It is exactly at this point
that I would hope there would be a complete revision of Marxist
theory....to include the contradictions within more internal theories
such as meaning and sense (leading to personal freedom, not just
alienation), and to expand outwards to more societal theories (to
include societal issues such as the homeless, cloning, death and dying,
illegal immigrants, emotional problems of children who are given drugs
to calm them down, etc.). I would hope that Marxism could be
restructured in a way that would capture the positive, and not focus on
a reflection of the negative.
I think that much of Vygotsky's writings were truly so positive and
metaphorical (although some view them as totally scientific), while
many of A. N. Leontiev's writings were an attempt at turning V.'s
metaphorical understanding into the scientific, and I am not sure if
that can really work. V. Zinchenko (1996) stated: Vygotsky's idea that
signs move from the outside inwards...should not be understood
literally. It is just such literal interpretations that give rise to
commonly accepted notions of internalization. However, the core of
Vygotsky's view consists in the fact that by means of signs, mental
functions are brought outwards, objectivized, and transformed into
external...actions and activities." I keep wondering why many people in
the West and many Marxists are not dealing with
internalization/externalization as a whole....a point that comes across
in our discussions, in school settings, with the Briggs-Meyer test, IQ
tests, teaching and learning, etc.
Zinchenko (1996) answered this question: "As long as we are bound to a
naturalistic understanding of the internal, that is similar to the
unconscious as naturalistically understood by Freud, internalization
cannot be interpreted as growing-into anywhere. Leont'ev envisioned that
such an interpretation is possible, and that is why in his last work he
specifically remarked that the internal plane is born for the first time
in the processes of internalization. This implies that we would trace
what happens next to this "newborn" entity. However, Leont'ev did not
carry out this task. Nonetheless, what he said is sufficient to assume
that internalization involves "growing in" and "growing up [meaning
"out]" at the same time. If growing up[out] is involved, then it should
not occur when object-related (or social!) activity is "buried" deeply
"inwards," is immersed down to some "physical bottom," or leaves a
deposit....a naturalistic interpretation of the idea of internalization
has long delayed studies of object-related activity and object-related
action."
The point? In taking Vygotsky's thoughts (as described above) into my
world today, there are so many tools I can use in my everyday life and
in my research interests. It is truly "height" psychology (as opposed to
"depth" psychology), and it is truly future oriented, as opposed to the
results of the scientific method that is past oriented...it all forms a
whole. However, I cannot get a grasp on what to take from A. N.
Leontiev's thoughts (in this book and others) to use in my life and
research. There seem to be many words that don't fit within "science"
nor within "metaphor." I do think that the times A.N. Leontiev lived in
are very important in understanding the background of this book. At the
same time, I would like to say that I also feel that Dmitry Leontiev,
and A.A. Leontiev are writing in a very interesting way that captures
the "unity" and "wholeness" I am searching for. In fact, I view their
theories as being much closer to Vygotsky than the ideas of A.N.
Leontiev (and perhaps that is also wrong). I am learning so much from
all of you and I thank you for all of your help. Perhaps I am simply not
able to grasp the "nuggets" of wisdom that the rest of you are
understanding. However, I am learning so much from all of you and I
thank you for all of your help.
Greetings to all of you,
Dot
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:33 PST