Dear Dot and others,
When I mentioned Zinchenko’s recent work, I indeed referred to
his book on Gustav Spet but also to his 1996 paper from which
Dot quoted. That Zinchenko now believes ‘there is no use in speaking
about the externalization/internalization dichotomy’ can be interpreted
in so many ways. For example, that it has played its role and
now can recede to the background. First and foremost, I believe,
this dichotomy should not be taken as an absolute principle or
idea that is valid 'once and for all' in any context, that is
for sure. Leont’ev, I believe, never meant it to be this way.
When Zinchenko now strives to unravel some spiritual religious
aspects of life – there is indeed perhaps NO USE in the dichotomy
of externalization/internalization. As in many other contexts
too. This dichotomy is nothing but an instrument that can help
in thinking about certain issues and achieving some specific
goals, an instrument that makes sense in some concrete contexts
but not others. Dot said herself very eloquently that “ analyzing
dualisms is a prerequisite for finding unity”. I could not agree
more. Or, I would add, a prerequisite for finding out how humans
develop their first concepts and their whole minds for that matter.
Or many many other things. Why should we, in the postmodern world,
have to take some ideas as statements of absolute principles
that exist out there on their own, rather that just being elements
in our (or somebody else’s) broader activities in the real world,
activities that exclusively are able to impart meaning on isolated
concepts and dichotomies. There is no externalization or internalization
in the real world, let alone any relationship between them, before
someone needs to conceptualize them for specific purposes. I
believe, Leont’ev needed this dichotomy and, more importantly,
he made it work for his purposes.
This brings me to a more general point: to understand Leon’ev
one needs to find ways to become part of the same activity that
he was involved in while developing his theory (this does not
presume agreement, but certainly participation). Hence, of course,
Dot is right that cultural-historical context of him writing
this work is so important (I will try to write more on this later).
Or to come see his works as part of one’s own activity and an
instrument of getting at one’s own goals. There is no way to
understand AT from ‘nowhere’, but only from within an activity
context (which means in the context of wanting to change something)
that is in some clear relationship to that of Leont’ev’s. This
relationship does not have to be uniform (e.g., only agreement)
but certainly it needs to be reflected upon.
What I allude to here can perhaps be called “understanding understanding
as an activity” or “activity as epistemological principle”, that
is, applying AT principles to the very process of constructing
and re-constructing it.
The crucial question then – as in any analyses of any activity
- is, of course, what was Leont’ev’s motive and goal in developing
AT? This is a separate topic, however…
Anna Stetsenko
Graduate Center
City University of New York
e-mail: astetsenko@gc.cuny.edu
--- Original Message ---
Judy Diamondstone <diamonju@rci.rutgers.edu> Wrote on
Thu, 26 Oct 2000 21:29:27 -0400
------------------
who could forget the word now
the wishing to say is forgotten
the thought staked to its variations
caught in stanzas
> (thanks to 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).
>
>
>
<<<<
-----
Sent using MailStart.com ( http://MailStart.Com/welcome.html )
The FREE way to access your mailbox via any web browser, anywhere!
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Nov 01 2000 - 01:01:35 PST