Dear Paul, Mike, Nate, Anna, and Friends,
I am so sorry for my lack of clarity. My goodness, Paul and Mike, I
totally agree with both of you. I think there was a real
misunderstanding with what I tried to state. My point was very simple,
and I think Nate represented what I mean (i.e., hope I am not
misrepresenting Nate). There is a "relational" aspect to
internalization/externalization. That is all. Surely we all ascribe to
the primacy of the social first. That is what took me by surprise.
Personally, I feel that the analysis of internalization/externalization
is important in better understanding the differences between A. N.
Leontiev and Vygotsky, but I make no claims to truth whatsoever. My
personal interest is in psycholinguistics and semiotics; therefore, I am
focused on the process of internalization (only as a result of the
social first). But, that is just my personal focus, nothing else. My
overall interest is very simple: with a focus on "unity," "synthesis,"
and not on dualisms entirely. Leontiev's book appears to focus on
dualisms for me, and perhaps I am 100% wrong. However, analyzing
dualisms is a prerequisite for finding unity. It is all a paradox, I
suppose. Using the quotes of Vladimir Zinchenko was perhaps wrong. It
was taken from his 1996 address in Moscow (Vygotsky Centennial
Conference). And, of course, I agree with Anna that V. Zinchenko's later
ideas are different from his earlier ideas. I am assuming that Anna was
referring to Zinchenko's new book on G. Spet. And, I have heard this
argument from others in the West and in Russia. So, that was perhaps not
a good source to quote. The bottom line: I don't disagree with Paul,
Mike, Nate....I totally agree with you. My point is that
externalization/internalization is an anchor we can use to better
analyze Vygotsky compared with Russian activity theory. My sincere
interest is in trying to better understand cultural-historical theory,
Russian activity theory (and newer versions of activity theory), and
sociocultural theory. In doing that, I feel we should look at these
theories and analyze them, and then reconstruct them as a whole. It is
truly a simple idea. Also, I want to state very clearly that my Russian
skills are very primitive, never having studied Russian in a formal
setting. So, I might be very wrong in this statement, and I am sure it
will be corrected. However, when speaking with Vladimir Zinchenko on a
couple of occasions, I understood that he now believes that there is no
use in speaking about the externalization/internalization dichotomy. In
fact, I am assuming that Jim Wertsch gained some of his understanding
from Zinchenko on this point (only my opinion). In the same article from
1996, Zinchenko states: "In essence, my [V. Zinchenko] has been to
support the simple idea that external (object-related) and internal
(mental) activities are equally psychological, equally related to
objects, equally ideal, equally cultural, and equally capable of serving
as a subject for psychological research. The differences that exist
between them are in no way related to the philosophical problems of what
is primary and secondary, or to the worldview-related problems of the
origins of mind."
Just one very personal thought: Vladimir Zinchenko is one of the last
great Russian psychologists who has an overview of the view/experience
of Russian activity theory that I treasure, no matter what the problems
are today.
I am sorry that my thoughts were interpreted as something I did not
intend; and, I now understand the value of very short comments made by
most of you. That is perhaps the best. At the same time, I would ask
that you reread what my intentions were, as I think they are in line
with Vygotsky; however, related to Vygotsky's theories of consciousness
and theories of language/semiotics/concept development. If I really am
wrong, I would like to know that.
We know that quoting Osip Mandelstam's poem The Swallow was an act
of strength on the part of Vygotsky at that period of time. Here are
four translations of that poem in English (and I would have been be
happy to send the Russian version, if it would have been possible on
this system.). These versions of the poem demonstrate how different our
interpretations are in general. I think that in reading these different
versions we can see that we all interpret the thoughts of others
according to our own experiences and emotions, etc. I would ask that you
reread my thoughts to understand my intentions. I think they are in line
with most of your intentions (but I am not sure). Best wishes, Dot.
I have forgotten the
word I wished to say, and my thought, unembodied,
returns to the realm of shadows (Hanfmann & Vakar, 1962)
I forgot the word that I wanted to say,
And thought, unembodied, returns
to the hall of shadows (Collected Works of L.S. Vygotsky,
1978)
I forgot the word
which I wanted to say, and the thought,
lacking material form, will return to
the chamber of shadows (A. N. Leont'ev (1978))
I wanted to utter a word, but that word
I cannot remember; and the bodiless thought
will now return to the palace of shadows (Vygotsky, Thought
and Speech
in Saporta, 1961)
The word I forgot
Which once I wished to say
and voiceless thought
returns to shadows' chamber (Vygotsky, Thought and Speech
in A. Kozulin, 1994).
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:35 PST