Dear Victor-
I also think we are probably in agreement but let me clarify one important
(for me) thing.
You wrote,
> it's neither useful or even interesting to criticize the morality of
> those who have neither the intellectual integrity nor the self-respect to
> challenge or at least to abstain from participation in the excessive
> exercise of power to enforce public conformity.
When I lived in the Soviet Union, my friends and I (what can be loosely
called a "dissident circle") did not judge people who were forced to do bad
things but we did judge (and ostracized) those who used their "creativity"
in adding misery to others. I still think that it was a fair judgment.
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
> Sent: Thursday, April 29, 2004 5:29 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
> Gene,
>
> I don't think we really differ here much. I grew up in period of
hysterical
> Anti-Communism, virulent Anti-Unionism, and what can only be called the
most
> fanatical Americanism. The experience of living in a totalitarian
> environment; tapped phones, police surveillance, veiled and not so veiled
> threats to loyal friends etc., is an extremely frightening one and for
very
> good reasons.
>
> I certainly share your evaluation of those who are too "pig-headed"
(stupid)
> to acquiesce to overwhelming authority and of those who, though refraining
> from direct opposition to authoritarianism, support and protect those that
> do so. Sadly, experience shows that the heroism of such people is only
> recognized after the event, and it makes all the sense in the world to
> "knuckle under" and keep a "low profile" if you hope to achieve something
> you can enjoy in this life-time or sometimes just to physically survive.
>
> The heoism of the Vygotsky's, Ilyenkov's, and Vavilov's (as well as their
> simple intellectual integrity) should be regarded with the highest
respect,
> but it's neither useful or even interesting to criticize the morality of
> those who have neither the intellectual integrity nor the self-respect to
> challenge or at least to abstain from participation in the excessive
> exercise of power to enforce public conformity.
>
> With highest regards
> Victor
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 10:31 PM
> Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
>
> > Dear Vic-
> >
> > You wrote,
> > > I have some reservations regarding Valsiner's description of the
> > > "insensitivity" of Leontiev and Luria. It requires much more than
> normal
> > > courage to oppose an oppressive regime. Let he who is innocent etc.
> etc.
> >
> > I do not want to trivialize the issue of historical responsibility but
> > Vygotsky (and many others) never did "weird" and "politically
insensitive"
> > things like what Luria and Leontiev (L&L) did. Mike made a good point
that
> > L&L started working on their "lie/loyalty detector" before Stalin came
to
> > power (in the second part of 1929) - which is true (although they
> continued
> > working on long after - through the 1970s, as I've heard). However, the
> > "red" terror was going on throughout the 1920s in the USSR although, of
> > course, with less vigilance than later. Remember that Bakhtin and his
> > friends were arrested before Stalin's consolidation of power in fall of
> > 1929. People were arrested and "disappeared" throughout 1920s.
> >
> > By the way, some of Vygotsky's students and colleagues (e.g.,
Kolbanovsky)
> > publicly tried to protect him and his name (after Vygotsky's death) and
> did
> > not turn away (against) him (unlike L&L).
> >
> > I do not know what I would do if I live then and there but I want to
> > recognize people like Vygotsky and Kolbanovsky. I admire them for their
> > bravery, civil responsibility, political-moral intelligence, and
honesty.
> > Sometimes I thought that Vygotsky was pretty stupid if not suicidal but
> not
> > attending to the political situation. Vygotsky made many political
> > "mistakes" (including his move from Moscow to Kharkov in the early 1930s
> > that was literally "clean up" by NKVD in 1937) that would be fatal in
the
> > coming Stalinist purges if he didn't die so early. Vygotsky was "stupid"
> if
> > the highest value of his life was his survival but probably it was
not...
> >
> > What do you think?
> >
> > Eugene
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 2:44 PM
> > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > >
> > > Gene,
> > >
> > > This comes as no great surprise. This was the very same regime that
> > > persecuted Vavilov and made Lysenko a Soviet hero.
> > >
> > > In my view Vygotsky was as thoroughly a Marxist as Ilyenkov and a far
> more
> > > consistent Historical Materialist than his students; Leontiev, Luria,
> > > Davydov etc. In fact, his theoretical and practical accomplishments
are
> > > among the best examples of creative scientific work explicitly linked
to
> > > materialist dialectics.
> > >
> > > By the way, some recent conversations with an agricultural advisor
late
> of
> > > the Ukraine suggests that most kolkhoz presidents were strictly
> political
> > > appointees who were especially proficient at making out false reports,
> > > giving special favors to their superiors and getting drunk for most of
> the
> > > day! I suspect that V&L were particularly circumspect in their
> > description
> > > of the kolkhoz president as "having difficulties with abstract
> thinking!"
> > >
> > > I have some reservations regarding Valsiner's description of the
> > > "insensitivity" of Leontiev and Luria. It requires much more than
> normal
> > > courage to oppose an oppressive regime. Let he who is innocent etc.
> etc.
> > > ....
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Victor
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
> > > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Sent: Wednesday, April 28, 2004 7:07 PM
> > > Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear Ana-
> > > >
> > > > Sorry for the delay - I was swamped with work when I cam back from
San
> > > Diego
> > > > (AERA).
> > > >
> > > > You asked,
> > > > > > I think a discussion between psychological tools mediating
higher
> > > > psychological functions
> > > > > and material tools meditating subject-object relations can
> > > interesting...
> > > >
> > > > My study of this question led me to the following summary of
Stalinist
> > > > critique of Vygotsky-Luria:
> > > > 1) Lack of VL's focus on class struggle as the explanation of
diverse
> > > > psychological phenomena.
> > > > 2) Lack of VL's focus on the Marxist notion of labor. Specifically
> > > Vygotsky
> > > > was accused for replacing the Marxist notion of labor with his
notion
> of
> > > > tools.
> > > > 3) Not appreciation of "upraising new Soviet man" in their Central
> Asia
> > > > studies: how come the kolkhoz president - a good example of "new
> Soviet
> > > man"
> > > > - did not have abstract thinking?!
> > > > 4) VL's insensitivities of calling formerly oppressed national
> > minorities
> > > > "primitives".
> > > > 5) VL's non-Marxist understanding of the notion of "culture" based
on
> > > > Durkheim and Levy-Bruhl's sociological and anthropological ideas
like
> > > tools,
> > > > practices, rituals, collectives rather on labor, surplus, means of
> > > > productions, productive relations, class, and so on.
> > > >
> > > > Read for more in (maybe they have more)
> > > > Veer, R. v. d., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A
quest
> > for
> > > > synthesis. Oxford, UK: Blackwell (pp. 253- 255; 374-389)
> > > >
> > > > By the way, on pages 245-246, Veer and Valsiner discussed how Luria
> and
> > > > Leotniev were politically "insensitive" praising Stalinist
> > > collectivization
> > > > (about 30 millions were killed) and developing "lie/loyalty
detectors"
> > for
> > > > Soviet secret police in the late 20s and 30s. Also, VV report about
> > Luria
> > > > weird behavior of keeping his close friend's brain in an alcohol jar
> for
> > > > further study in his office (I've hear about that in Russia but I
> never
> > > read
> > > > about that). Br-r-r-r! Weird times produce weird people!
> > > >
> > > > What do you think?
> > > >
> > > > Eugene
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: ana@zmajcenter.org [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 11:54 AM
> > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > >
> > > > > Dear Eugene and Steve,
> > > > >
> > > > > I also see now far better what went on. I was reacting mostly to
> what
> > I
> > > > perceived a negative
> > > > > tone, primarily set by the article's title.
> > > > >
> > > > > The substance of their article is far more complex and choke
filled
> > with
> > > > points that need to
> > > > > be carefully examined.
> > > > > Steve, thank's for clearing that up so carefully.
> > > > >
> > > > > Eugene, I know that Vygotsky and Luria were criticized by the
> > Stalinist
> > > > regime, but I don't
> > > > > know exactly what was the critique aimed at preciselly. Can you
tell
> > > us??
> > > > What did the
> > > > > Stalinist regime "find wrong" with Vygotsky/Luria's work?
> > > > >
> > > > > Ana
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 01:06 PM
> > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Ana--
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now, after reading Steve's analysis, I see where you might come
> > from.
> > > I
> > > > agree with Steve
> > > > > and you that the title of the critque is unnecessary sarcastic
that
> > > indeed
> > > > communicates
> > > > > negativity and agressivity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As to to the issue of "upbrining new Soveit men", I'm not sure
how
> > > much
> > > > Vygotsky and
> > > > > Luria committed to this political agenda if at all (I'd like to
hear
> > > from
> > > > Mike what was cut
> > > > > from Luria's book). I could not find any place in Vygotsky-Luria
> work
> > > > suggesting this
> > > > > political agenda. It is important to remember, that Stalinist
> > propaganda
> > > > machine severely
> > > > > criticized Luria-Vygotsky study. Someone could use their study for
> > this
> > > > politcal purpose,
> > > > > but nobody seemed to do.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think a discussion between psychological tools mediating
higher
> > > > psychological functions
> > > > > and material tools meditating subject-object relations can
> > > interesting...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eugene
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > > > From: Ana
> > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, April 19, 2004 12:34 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Eugene,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thank you a lot for the careful reading. I must admit that I
did
> > not
> > > > read their text so
> > > > > carefully and that I reacted more to what seemed to me a s a very
> > > negative
> > > > tone. The reason
> > > > > I "heard" their tone as negative was maybe subjective, or maybe I
> was
> > > very
> > > > tired from the
> > > > > trip to the conference... I also brought only one point into the
> > picture
> > > > -- and that was the way
> > > > > how to characterize Vygotky/Luria's research in Uzbekistan and
> > > Khirgizia.
> > > > I absolutely
> > > > > agree with Margaret and Carol that the
> > > > > >
> > > > > > the study was a golden opportunity
> > > > > > to test the long-standing and widespread debate among
> > > > > > ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as to whether
> > > categories
> > > > > > of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or whether
> > > > > > primitive and advanced technological cultures produced
different
> > > > > > levels of intellectual development (see Luria, 1979; van
> > > > > > der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But at the time -- I thought that although this indeed was a
> > golden
> > > > opportunity to study
> > > > > the change in the intellectual development, it still was a part of
> the
> > > > Soviet plan to create a
> > > > > "new citizen".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Anyway, I am very glad that when you found out that I was not
> > right,
> > > > you also explicitly
> > > > > said that you still love me. It makes it so much easier to
> reexamine
> > my
> > > > thoughts and say --
> > > > > oops!! I was wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In fact -- Margaret's and Carol's article have some very
> > interesting
> > > > points. One of them
> > > > > the "fact" that it was not Vygotsky who introduced "activity
> theory",
> > > but
> > > > it were
> > > > > > "Vygotsky's disciples [who]
> > > > > > turned his theory into an activity theory after his death,
> > replacing
> > > > > > the psychological tool as a mediator between objects of
> > > > > > action and mental functions with material activity as the
> > mediator,
> > > > > > and careless scholars attribute activity theory to Vygotsky."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To me it would be interesting to discuss whether people (on
this
> > > list)
> > > > today see
> > > > > "activity" as a mediator between "subject" and "object". Or is
> > > "activity"
> > > > something else?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ana
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eugene Matusov wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Ana and everybody-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I read/reread both articles and found that I agree with much of
> > > Margaret
> > > > > > Gredler and Carol Shields' criticism of Michael Glassman. Here
are
> > > > points of
> > > > > > my agreement with Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields (just from
> > their
> > > > first
> > > > > > page):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. Michael Glassman wrote, "Dewey would applaud Vygotsky's
> emphasis
> > on
> > > > > > everyday culture
> > > > > > as the lynchpin of the educational process." (p.4)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields disagreed, "... contrary to
> > > > Glassman's
> > > > > > (2001, p. 3) statements, Vygotsky did not advocate bringing
> everyday
> > > > > > activities into the classroom or the ways that human activity
> serves
> > > as
> > > > an
> > > > > > impetus to learning." (p.21)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I agree with Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields. Unlike Dewey,
> > > Vygotsky
> > > > was
> > > > > > rather critical about everyday culture/activities/concepts. I do
> not
> > > > know
> > > > > > any place in his writings where Vygotsky argued that "everyday
> > > culture"
> > > > (I'm
> > > > > > not sure I know what Michael Glassman meant by this term - I
never
> > > read
> > > > > > about it before, not in Vygotsky definitely) is the lynchpin of
> the
> > > > > > educational process. Did I miss something in Vygotsky?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. Michael Glassman wrote, "Vygotsky suggests that it is the
> ability
> > > to
> > > > > > develop cooperative activity through complex social
relationships
>
> > that
> > > > > > separates mature humans from all other animals (Vygotsky &
Luria,
> > > > 1993)."
> > > > > > (p.5)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields disagreed, "... neither
> Vygotsky
> > > and
> > > > > > Luria (1930/1993) nor Vygotsky's other writings state that
> > cooperative
> > > > > > activity separates humans from all other animals as Glassman
> (2001,
> > p.
> > > > 5)
> > > > > > asserts. Instead, "the absence of at least the beginnings of
> speech
> > .
> > > .
> > > > .
> > > > > > the lack of ability to make a sign or to introduce some
auxiliary
> > > > > > psychological means [in problem solving] . . . draws the line
> > between
> > > > the
> > > > > > ape and the most primitive human being" (Vygotsky & Luria,
> > 1930/1993,
> > > p.
> > > > > > 73). In another work, Vygotsky (1931/1997f) identifies
> > "signification,
> > > > that
> > > > > > is, the creation and use of signs" as the unique human behavior
> that
> > > > > > differentiates humans from animals (p. 55)." (p. 21)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Further in his article, Michael Glassman talked about "tools and
> > > > symbols" as
> > > > > > being very important for Vygotsky but I agree with Margaret
> Gredler
> > > and
> > > > > > Carol Shields that Michael Glassman's writing is very confusing
> and
> > > even
> > > > > > misleading at times on this issue.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 3. Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields wrote, "In addition,
> > Glassman's
> > > > (2001)
> > > > > > assertions that Vygotsky considered tools as "the means for
> > specific,
> > > > > > culturally approved consequences" (p. 5), believing that "tools
> and
> > > > symbols
> > > > > > are used in the service of culturally defined goals" (p. 6),3
and
> > > "free
> > > > > > inquiry is . . . eclipsed by culturally significant and
> appropriate
> > > > inquiry"
> > > > > > (p. 6) are inaccurate. Vygotsky did not discuss inquiry, and he
> > > > described
> > > > > > psychological tools as "the means of which we direct and realize
> the
> > > > > > psychological operations (e.g., memorizing, comparing,
selecting)
> > > > necessary
> > > > > > for the solution of the problem" (Vygotsky, 1997i, p. 86)." (p.
> 21)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again, in my view, Margaret and Carol are right.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I can go on and on and on... Actually, I could not find place in
> > > > Margaret
> > > > > > Gredler and Carol Shields' critique of Michael Glassman that I
did
> > not
> > > > > > agree... Did you? Did I miss something?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did not find Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields' tone angry or
> > > > aggressive
> > > > > > or negative. They disagreed with Michael Glassman about almost
> > > > everything (I
> > > > > > actually can add more disagreements with Michael). So what? I
did
> > not
> > > > find
> > > > > > anything disrespectful in their tone. Did I miss something in
> their
> > > > tone? (I
> > > > > > like to disagree with people, maybe this is why I do not see
> > anything
> > > > > > offensive in their critical article). Does disagreement mean
> > > "negative"?
> > > > For
> > > > > > me, "negative" means not constructive but I found Margaret
Gredler
> > and
> > > > Carol
> > > > > > Shields being very constructive. I feel that Margaret Gredler
and
> > > Carol
> > > > > > Shields are respectful to all community, including Michael
> Glassman,
> > > by
> > > > > > bringing supports for their claims and grounding their claims in
> > > > Michael's
> > > > > > text. What else are they supposed to write? In this message, for
> > > > example, I
> > > > > > disagree with Ana, but I do not feel to be negative to her,
angry
> > with
> > > > her,
> > > > > > or aggressive to her. I love Ana and respect her a lot and I'd
> love
> > to
> > > > hear
> > > > > > what she and the others may say in response even if she and the
> > other
> > > > people
> > > > > > completely disagree with me. I know that I can be wrong, she can
> we
> > > > wrong,
> > > > > > we both can wrong, and so on... But, we work together. I think
> that
> > > > Michael
> > > > > > made an interesting attempt to bring Vygotsky and Dewey
together.
> He
> > > > made
> > > > > > his shot but Margaret and Carol (and I) rejected it by providing
> > their
> > > > > > critique. He may choose to rebuff us and show us wrong - I do
not
> > know
> > > > as
> > > > > > Margaret and Carol, but I'll be happy to admit that I'm wrong if
> > > Michael
> > > > > > brings his convincing counter-arguments. It is not necessarily
> > > pleasant
> > > > to
> > > > > > read a critical review, in which the authors completely disagree
> > with
> > > > you.
> > > > > > But, hey, this is part of our profession: other colleagues can
> judge
> > > our
> > > > > > work as completely right, partially right, or completely wrong.
If
> > it
> > > is
> > > > the
> > > > > > latter, although it is unpleasant, I do not find anything
> negative,
> > > > angry,
> > > > > > or aggressive in it per se. Again, I may miss something and I'd
> like
> > > > what
> > > > > > other people see that makes Margaret Gredler and Carol Shields'
> (and
> > > > maybe
> > > > > > even my?) tone objectable.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eugene
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: ana@zmajcenter.org [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 8:43 AM
> > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Eugene,
> > > > > > I absolutely agree with you. It is dangerous to make conclusions
> > based
> > > > on
> > > > > > little evidence
> > > > > > and several quotes. I am not sure what was Glassman's point,
but
> > to
> > > me
> > > > it
> > > > > > did not seem
> > > > > > contradictory to Luria and Vygotsky's research in the the ways
> > that
> > > a
> > > > > > cultural historical
> > > > > > change produce changes in psychological processes. The "golden
> > > > > > opportunity" to study
> > > > > > these processes in a "natural experiment" was, at the same
time,
> > > > enabled
> > > > > > in part by the
> > > > > > Stalinist politics of forcefull collectivisation terror. Does
> that
> > > > mean
> > > > > > that you can
> > > > > > automatically align the researchers with the Stalinist
political
> > > > agenda?
> > > > > > No.
> > > > > > However, I was reactineg more to the tone of their debate than
> to
> > > the
> > > > fine
> > > > > > points they were
> > > > > > making. On the whole, they did not like Glassman's hypothesis
> that
> > > > > > Vygotsky's ideas can be
> > > > > > related to Dewey's in the way that Glassman did. And they
> > criticised
> > > > > > different aspects of
> > > > > > that comparison in Glassman's work in very forceful language.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ana
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Eugene Matusov [mailto:ematusov@udel.edu]
> > > > > > Sent: Friday, April 16, 2004 06:06 AM
> > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dear Ana-
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I did not have time to read Gredler and Shields' article (I'm
> still
> > in
> > > > > > San
> > > > > > Diego) but the quotes that you nicely put together make me
agree
> > > with
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > authors. It seems to me (and I can be wrong) that one of the
> > issues
> > > is
> > > > a
> > > > > > POLITICAL Soviet context. The rhetoric about "upbringing the New
> > > Soviet
> > > > > > person" (ridiculed later by dissidents as "homo Soveticus") was
> used
> > > in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > early 1930s by Stalinist propaganda. It seems to me that
> Glassman
> > > > > > dangerously aligned Vygotsky and Luria with the Stalinist
> propaganda
> > > > > > machine. I'm personally much more comfortable with Gredler and
> > > Shields'
> > > > > > formulation (as presented in your quote) than with Glassman's
one.
> > > > > > Although
> > > > > > it is well-documented (see Rogoff, 1990) that Luria overlooked
> the
> > > > > > political
> > > > > > context of his Uzbekistan experiments (i.e., Stalinist
> > > > collectivization
> > > > > > terror), there is no evidence that Vygotsky and Luria accepted
the
> > > > > > Stalinist
> > > > > > call for "upbringing the New Soviet person" as Glassman seems
to
> > > > > > suggest.
> > > > > > Knowing Soviet history, Glassman's statements cited below
about
> > > > Vygotsky
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > Luria make me VERY uncomfortable. In contrast, I'm very
> > comfortable
> > > > with
> > > > > > Gredler and Shields' statement that
> > > > > > Particularly important is that the study was a golden
> > > opportunity
> > > > > > to test the long-standing and widespread debate among
> > > > > > ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as to whether
> > categories
> > > > > > of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or whether
> > > > > > primitive and advanced technological cultures produced different
> > > > > > levels of intellectual development (see Luria, 1979; van
> > > > > > der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).
> > > > > > Sorry if my comments do not make sense because I did not
> > read
> > > > the
> > > > > > articles
> > > > > > but react only to the short quotes.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What do you think?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Eugene
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Ana [mailto:ana@zmajcenter.org]
> > > > > > Sent: Thursday, April 15, 2004 3:54 PM
> > > > > > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > > > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Peter, Bill
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I went and read the article. One thing is that it is
definitively
> > > > > > writen
> > > > > > in a very negative tone, almost angry and very agressive.
> > > > > > The other thing is that they give a lot of referrences one would
> > have
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > check in order to figure out if they have a point they claim
to
> > > have.
> > > > > > However, in one instance at least, I could see that they don't
> seem
> > to
> > > > > > understand exactly what they are criticizing. This is the case
of
> > the
> > > > > > famous Luria/Vygtsky research on changes introduced by soviet
> > literacy
> > > > > > programs. Here is a quote from their article
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ****
> > > > > > Glassman (2001, p. 6) cites Vygotsky and Luria (1930/1993) as
> > > > > > the source for his statements that (a) Vygotsky would agree with
> > > > > > Dewey that society has "a vested interest in the development and
> > > > > > maintenance of these [psychological] tools" and (b) Vygotsky
> > > > > > wanted "to use the educational process to teach new members
> > > > > > of the social community how to 'use' important, culturally
> developed
> > > > > > tools in an effective manner (a top-down/determinate
> > > > > > approach)." In contrast, Vygotsky and Luria (1930/1993) neither
> > > > > > stated nor alluded to such an agenda. The text, which addresses
> > > > > > cognitive development, discusses important landmarks
> > > > > > in the three different paths that account for human behavior-
> > > > > > evolutionary (phylogenetic), historical, and ontogenetic (p.
36).
> > > > > > For example, numeric operations and other early psychological
> > > > > > tools transformed the memory and thinking of primitive peoples.
> > > > > > Also discussed were the authors' experiments on the development
> > > > > > of children's cognitive processes and the cognitive development
> > > > > > of mentally retarded, physically impaired, and gifted
> > > > > > children.
> > > > > > Glassman (2001) then states that the cross-cultural research of
> > > > > > Luria and Vygotsky "hypothesized that the introduction of new
> > > > > > tools by a strong social organization (i.e., the Soviet Union)
> > > > > > would lead to the development of a 'new' type of citizen" (p.
6).
> > > > > > Instead, the hypothesis the researchers actually tested was that
> > > > > > "the structure of psychological processes changes as a function
of
> > > > > > history; consciousness does not have a constant, unchanging
> > > > > > structure" [italics added] (Luria, 1971, p. 160). More specifi-
> > > > > > cally, Luria (1976) clearly stated,
> > > > > > We hypothesized that people with a primarily graphic/functional
> > > > > > reflection of reality would show a different mental process from
> > > > > > people with a system of predominantly abstract, verbal, and
> logical
> > > > > > approach to reality. (p. 18)
> > > > > > Particularly important is that the study was a golden
opportunity
> > > > > > to test the long-standing and widespread debate among
> > > > > > ethnopsychologists, sociologists, and others as to whether
> > categories
> > > > > > of thinking are universal (the Gestalt view) or whether
> > > > > > primitive and advanced technological cultures produced different
> > > > > > levels of intellectual development (see Luria, 1979; van
> > > > > > der Veer & Valsiner, 1991).5 Conducted in the remote parts of
> > > > > > the Soviet Union (villages in Uzbekistan and Kirghizia) that
> > > > > > were undergoing rapid socioeconomic change, the study included
> > > > > > two isolated and illiterate groups and three groups with
> > > > > > varying literacy levels and some exposure to technological
> > > > > > change. The 600 interview protocols (van der Veer & Valsiner,
> > > > > > 1991, p. 248) indicated that practical activity and concrete
> > > > > > situations
> > > > > > dominated the perception, classification, and reasoning
> > > > > > skills of the nonliterate subjects whereas the others engaged
> > > > > > in categorical, abstract thinking (Luria, 1976, pp. 117-134;
> > > > > > ***
> > > > > > It seems to me that what they criticize is something that is not
> at
> > > > > > all
> > > > > > opposed to what they say "researchers actually tested [...]".
> And,
> > > > > > that
> > > > > > was their hypothesis that:
> > > > > > "the structure of psychological processes changes as a function
of
> > > > > > history; consciousness does not have a constant, unchanging
> > > > > > structure" .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Either they don't understand that the Soviet Imposed literacy
> > program
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > at the same time a historical, social process" or I don't know
> > what
> > > > > > they
> > > > > > want to say.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That is my first impression. No doubt that the article was
written
> > in
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > hostile tone, and I am surprised that it was published as such
> in
> > > the
> > > > > > educatinal researcher. Good game is a game where we all build
upon
> > > > > > each
> > > > > > other's thinking and research instead of bashing each other.
If
> > they
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > very important fine points about the differences between Dewey
> and
> > > > > > Vygotsky, why not just point that out in a friendly manner??
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And of course, I agree with Bill: No one's thinking ought to
> become
> > a
> > > > > > dogma - Einsten's, Vygotsky's or anyone elses. The point is to
> keep
> > > > > > moving ahead.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Ana
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Bill Barowy wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wow. Thanks Peter for provoking my interest in this
> > article.
> > > I
> > > > had
> > > > > > noted it
> > > > > > when it arrived, but I'll make sure to read it asap.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I have to say that i am uncomfortable with the kind of thinking
> and
> > > > > > writing
> > > > > > that you described. For example, while Vygotsky could be
> held
> > > as
> > > > the
> > > > > > kind of
> > > > > > genius Einstein was, one does not find folks saying so
much
> > they
> > > > know
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > Einstein "said and believed" to the condescension of
others.
> > > > Quite
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > contrary, it is expected to go beyond Einstein in our
> > > > understanding
> > > > > > -- he
> > > > > > may
> > > > > > have been a genius, but he was still only a human. And
> there
> > > are
> > > > now
> > > > > > better
> > > > > > reformulations of Einstein's core ideas than what Einstein
> > > > developed.
> > > > > > We
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > and do still admire Einstein for his contributions.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > But so, is this kind of publication the result of making
Vygotsky
> > > > > > into
> > > > > > such an
> > > > > > untouchable icon? Are we suffering the slings and arrows
of
> a
> > > > > > codeveloping
> > > > > > hegemonic discourse that attribute legitimacy more to
> > > replicating
> > > > > > exactly
> > > > > > an
> > > > > > individual's ideas than to the problems and the work? If
> so,
> > it
> > > > is
> > > > > > such
> > > > > > a
> > > > > > strange and ironic twist for activity theory research.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > bb
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat May 01 2004 - 01:00:07 PDT