Dear Eugene,
I respectfully disagree. One thing is to make use of forceful measures
to obtain relevant info for self defense; one different thing is to
make a sadistic use of POW, make fun of it and take pictures for
private enjoyment. In such cases, what applies is not a cultural
understanding of the event, but the dictums of the Geneva Convention.
David
Quoting Eugene Matusov <ematusov@udel.edu>:
> Dear Alisa-
>
> I think your posting raises important issues such is whether military
> is
> inherently evil and whether "creative cruelty" like we see in Iraq
> is
> (in)avoidable (there are other issues, of course).
>
> In my view, military, as legitimized murder, is inherently evil
> but,
> sometimes, it is unavoidable evil - meaning not having military can
> be even
> more evil. A good example is Tutsi army that stopped genocide in
> Rwanda.
>
> I think that cruelties like those exposed in Iraq have to be expected
> from
> any army and then to think how to counteract it and minimize it. I
> remember
> reading in Sartre that if revolution can't win quickly, it will
> socialize in
> methods of its enemy. I think he made this observation based on his
> participation in French resistance. Recent revelations by McNamara
> about his
> participation in WWII also (about allies' deliberate and large scale
> efforts
> to terrorize and kill civilians of Germany and Japan to win the war)
> support
> this interactive socialization in the methods of enemy. I think
> this
> phenomena of military "crueltization" has to be study to learn how
> to
> minimize it (again I do not think it is possible to completely
> eliminate it
> from military practice).
>
> Also, it is important to study this phenomenon of military
> crueltization
> contextually and historically. How many political, military, and
> social
> "mistakes" can be done in Iraq before US military institution can
> be
> completely demoralized and crueltized and the public can say it's
> enough?
> What is alternative now?
>
> What do you think?
>
> Eugene
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: eliza@pob.huji.ac.il [mailto:eliza@pob.huji.ac.il]
> > Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 8:10 AM
> > To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> >
> > Concerning cruelty and motivation: My daughter, aged 17, is in a
> religious
> > high-school. Since the outbreak of violence in Oct. 2000 where
> children
> and
> > their mothers have been murdered like yesterday, or the case of
> Revital
> > Ochayon and her infants from Kibbutz Metzer etc. etc., my daughter
> and her
> > friends have been motivated to serve in the army because they feel
> that
> only a
> > military training can improve their ability for self defense. In
> religious
> > schools the whole issue of women serving in the army is taboo. But
> seeing
> > these cases have outweighed the social taboo. As a parent I feel
> uncomfortable
> > that my child should be exposed to 2-3 yrs of military life but on
> the
> other
> > hand I feel that part of her general education should involve
> also
> learning to
> > survive in situations like we face here today. In our day and age
> violence
> and
> > terror have unfortunatly become a fact of life. I can't help
> thinking that
> the
> > only Jews (including members of my family) who had the chance of
> defending
> > themselves during the holocaust where those who joined the
> partisans and
> got a
> > military training like for example those teenagers from the Vilna
> Ghetto.
> >
> > Alisa L.
> >
> > > David,
> > > Your most welcome.
> > > I agree that the practical issue is really the objective social
> processes
> > > that engender these systematic cruelties. Duhring regarded
> the
> struggle
> > > for political power over others as the motivating factor.
> Engel's
> argued
> > > that Duhring had it all backwards and that politcal economy set
> the
> basic
> > > conditions for systematic exploitation and oppression of men by
> other
> men.
> > > While I prefer Engel's - and Marx's - reasoning to that of
> Duhring, it's
> > > obvious that the argument from political economic conditions is
> hardly
> > > concrete enough to account for events that are currently
> producing
> > > expressions of outrage in the xmca forum.
> > >
> > > We have here a chain of violence, terror and war comprised of a
> complex
> > > collection of interwoven histories of religious, communal, and
> political
> > > conflicts going back 500 to 1000 years and going forward from
> almost 100
> > > years of frustrated struggle to fully participate in the
> developments of
> the
> > > modern industrial world and the expression of this frustration
> by
> > > unimaginable internal violence and the much more publicized
> violence of
> the
> > > most disappointed (mostly the better educated and more aware
> groups)
> towards
> > > the 'complacent innocents' of Europe and North America. Surely
> the
> issue of
> > > cheap energy and the vast fortunes made from it plays a central
> role
> here,
> > > but I find it hard to account for the casual cruelty of a unit
> of
> Marines by
> > > so abstract a concept as oil imperialism. Especially since the
> exercise
> of
> > > callous and murderous practices is not exclusive to them alone (I
> hope I
> > > don't have to elaborate here).
> > >
> > > If political economic conditions are too remote from the actual
> practice
> of
> > > systematic cruelty to effectively explain it fully, Milgrim's
> researches
> are
> > > too general. Milgrim's experiments demonstrated the obvious, that
> the
> > > activity of individuals is almost entirely the function of
> objective
> social
> > > conditions; whatever the practices considered. A more fruitful
> avenue
> of
> > > research could be based on researching the development of a
> society of
> > > mutual violence. Conditions in which the most casual aggression
> and
> > > suspicion of aggression instigates a cycle of escalating
> violence and
> > > distrust that generates mutual demonization; demonization
> producing in
> its
> > > turn extreme forms of negative discrimination up to and
> including
> genocide.
> > > Add to that formula political and economic interests that can see
> the
> > > possibilities of profiting from this kind of cycle and have the
> resources to
> > > feed it and you have a sure formula for the kinds of extreme
> violence we
> are
> > > witnessing in Iraq today.
> > >
> > > Military units and militant groups in general are extremely
> susceptible
> to
> > > cycles of escalating violence. They are extremely socialized
> (check
> Paul
> > > Adler's paper on this definition of socialization of labour),
> are
> prepared
> > > and poised to participate in encounters of the violent kind, and
> are
> often
> > > quite isolated from the non-military social relations that
> might
> moderate
> > > their relations with those outside their unit. Think of it: a
> platoon
> of
> > > Marines, none of whom speak Arabic or have any but the most
> remote
> relations
> > > with the civilian population and who have just experienced a
> frightening
> > > week of incessant guerilla warfare in the streets of Fallujah.
> Now,
> let's
> > > imagine (we have no hard data - only those pictures) that one of
> the
> > > soldiers in this unit read or heard that one of the ways in which
> the
> Iraqi
> > > security service imposed control over their prisoners was to have
> them
> strip
> > > in the presence of female officers (actually, this has been
> reported -
> > > though, peace, Mike - I've seen no verification)... etc. etc.
> All
> militant
> > > and military organizations may suffer from seemingly aimless
> collective
> > > criminal activity of this sort from - though it is most
> characteristic
> of
> > > small units under stress. Since the emergence of this cycle of
> violence
> and
> > > dehumanization is usually accompanied by increasing isolation of
> the
> group
> > > from contacts with any information that might moderate it and
> since the
> very
> > > isolation of the group enhances the grip of objective internal
> social
> > > conditions on the activity of group members, the group's
> behavior
> becomes
> > > positively strange to any but its members. In a sense the
> group's
> members
> > > become victims of the internal dynamics of the group and do
> things that
> they
> > > would not concieve of doing under virtually any other
> circumstance.
> > >
> > > Well, what do you think?
> > > Victor
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: <david.preiss@yale.edu>
> > > To: <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Sent: Sunday, May 02, 2004 5:27 AM
> > > Subject: Re: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Dear Victor,
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the references. Your question phrased in a different
> way,
> > > > it is one of the big pending questions for cultural psychology.
> CHAT
> > > > has ussually focused more on the positive side of cultural
> > > > amplification and has left to historians and social
> psychologists in
> > > > the Milgram's tradition to elucidate how a totalitarian
> society/mind
> > > > are built. Yet I think that CHAT has advanced a theorethical
> framework
> > > > rich enough to provide an alternative explanation of the
> banality of
> > > > evil. I don't think it should drive us to forgive or to
> condemn. Let
> > > > us give that work to the courts. But, at least, it can provide
> us an
> > > > account of what are the cultural processes involved in the
> > > > construction of a totalitarian mind that goes beyond pseudo-
> > > > evolutionary speculations.
> > > >
> > > > David
> > > >
> > > > Quoting Oudeyis <victor@kfar-hanassi.org.il>:
> > > >
> > > > > 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 mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 12:05:47 PST