Dear David-
Thanks for your disagreement (but can you elaborate on what you disagree
specifically - I put too many points in my message, please?). I think that
my main point might not be very clear. I think (or even claim) that military
has purpose to kill the enemy. Tim O'Brian and many other writers who
participated in combat pointed out how objectifying enemy is necessary for
being able to kill. When the moral boundary of killing was crossed, many
soldiers commented how easy for them was to keep killing other people - the
enemy. Also "the enemy" becomes a fuzzy defined category. Combat killing
creates excitement in its own. It creates a "grey area" where murder,
torture, and humiliation are blend together.
I agree with you that the Geneva Convention is helpful in setting limits to
that process but I do not think any rules or conventions can completely
limit the destructive forces of war that traumatize soldiers for life. It is
like pressing on the gas and break pedals at the same time - you can't drive
your car in this schizophrenic way for long. Again, I think that the more
institutional watch-dogs are in place the better. The more just, humane, and
clear the war objectives and ways it is conducted, the better too....
What do you think?
Eugene
> -----Original Message-----
> From: david.preiss@yale.edu [mailto:david.preiss@yale.edu]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 1:00 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
>
> 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