Dear Victor-
You wrote,
>Can we condemn men for the very human motives of careerism and peer
pressure in
> situations were these lead to collective acts of inhuman treatment of
others?
>I really don't know.
In "my" view (I actually do not know how much it is really "my view" or the
view of a community I came from), when the question that you raise is not
hypothetical but urgent and real, it is extremely important to condemn
people who creatively add miseries to others (for whatever rationalizations
they use) because under insane, inhumane conditions it is very important to
establish and support an informal moral compass in communities. Moral
condemnation is one of very few weapons that powerless are often left with.
When the political situation is changed for better and there is not urgency,
it may be OK to say "I don't know". It is very "generous" and, in many ways,
may be even honest to say "let's not to condemn" since you were not in shoes
of those people who had career, fear, and peer pressures.
However, I think this approach of "I don't know what I would do under those
circumstances" or "their motives were very human" is too individualistic for
me and have its limitations (along with its strengths). We have
responsibilities not only toward ourselves - how honest we may be in
recognition of our own (possible) weaknesses (after all, we often do
compromises with our own conscience) but we have responsibility toward
others. In my view, we should be very careful in order not to offend memory
of those who were victims of the cruel "creativity." Many those who were
victims of the creative cruelty expected that future generations of free
people would condemn the perpetrators. Being in a "dialogue" with people who
suffered (and are still suffering) because of creative cruelty (my own
losses like losing jobs and a brief KGB arrest and interrogation were
very-very minor in comparison with those of people I have in mind) I do not
think it is right to betray their hopes and expectations.
Also, if people do not learn lessons from past, the past has tendency to be
repeated. If a society feels that it is justifiable (i.e., "not to be
condemned") to be creatively cruel to advance your own career or peer
pressure, it can lowered whatever moral struggle the person may have in
future (and current) historical situations when society will be under a
cruel political regime. After living in US and seeing how easily people can
trade their freedoms for security, I do not share optimism that it may not
happen in any society.
All-in-all, I'd be more willing to accept a position of "condemnation with
understanding" rather than no condemnation at all. I agree that we should
not demonize people who creatively added suffering to others under a cruel
political regime and we should consider all mediating circumstances but at
the end of the day (so to speak), our judgment of condemnations has to pass
on these ugly deeds unambivalently.
On this pessimistic note, what do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oudeyis [mailto:victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il]
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 8:40 AM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
> Gene and Dave:
> Since Hanna Arendt wrote The Banality of Evil a considerable number of
> studies have been published concerning the willingness of ordinary men to
> participate in terrific crimes in the name of the state, the party and
> people. Some of the most interesting of these deal with the with the
> participation of the most anonymous of men - most of us - in high crimes
> against humanity. Not surprisingly much of this literature deals with the
> inconcievable practice of systematic murder on the part of many very
> ordinary German soldiers during WW II. Here are a few such works
(including
> the blurbs of the publisher in parentheses:
>
> 1.Browning, Christopher R., *Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101
and
> the Final Solution in Poland* (From 1942 to 1944, a unit of 500 German
> family men too old for army service was responsible for the deaths of
83,000
> Polish Jews. Drawing on postwar interrogations of 210 former members of
the
> battalion, Browning suggests that they were acting less out of deference
to
> authority or fear of punishment than from the insidious motives of
careerism
> and peer pressure. 8 pages of photographs. 2 maps)
>
> 2.Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah, *Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary
Germans
> and the Holocaust* (In this extraordinarily controversial interpretation
of
> the Holocaust, Goldhagen proposes that virulent anti-Semitism was so
> ingrained in German culture that the stage was set for the mass slaughter
of
> the Jews long before Adolf Hitler rose to power.)
>
> I found Browning's book especially interesting since it concerns a
military
> unit very similar to the one (not a police battalion thank god) I served
in
> for many years. Among the most surprising of Browning's finding was, how
few
> of these ordinary men actually refused to participate in these crimes
> despite the virtual absence of all official pressure for active
> participation. In the case of Reserve Police Battalion 101 a miniscule
> proportion of officers and men explicitly refused to take part in the
> genocidal mission assigned to the battalion, and these were released from
> that duty and transferred - without exception - to other units, and more
> often than not to positions of higher authority and responsibility!
>
> For those of us who are actively committed to humane practices it's
> difficult to regard wanton cruelty without immediate condemnation, but how
> can we relate to the findings of researchers such as Browning and
Goldhagen?
> We should by now be aware of the fact that the activities of the
> overwhelming majority of the ordinary Germans in Reserve Police Battalion
> 101are not specially German, no more than the cruelties of the Cossack
> troopers described by I. Babel in *Red Cavalry* are particularly Russian
or
> the war-crimes perpetrated by US soldiers in Vietnam are particularly
> American. The issue of collaboration in creative acts of adding misery to
> others is complex and not easily resolved. Can we condemn men for the
very
> human motives of careerism and peer pressure in situations were these lead
> to collective acts of inhuman treatment of others? I really don't know.
>
> There's an old Jewish adge that might be relevant here. It goes something
> like this: "In the place where there are no men, try to be a man."
>
> Highest regards,
> Victor
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Eugene Matusov" <ematusov@UDel.Edu>
> To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Friday, April 30, 2004 2:15 AM
> Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
>
> > 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 - 01:00:08 PDT