RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?

• Next message: Mike Cole: "attrocious behavior"
• Previous message: Eugene Matusov: "RE: Il'enkov: The ideal"
• In reply to: david.preiss@yale.edu: "RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?"
• Next in thread: eliza@pob.huji.ac.il: "RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Dear David-

I think all US soldiers in Iraq may feel that they are in constant
battlefield because of guerilla warfare over there. Of course, it depends on
specific area and the soldiers' attitudes but they all have good reason to
be apprehensive. However, I do not know how much this stress is a part of
the process that led those US soldiers to their sadistic "games." It was
pure speculation on my part.

What do you think?

Eugene
PS You wrote,
> One think is to negate that you are a killer
> in the middle of a battlefield (which all we ethically would do, your
> survival is at stake whatever the reason is why you ended up in there)...
I wonder how this is universally true or not. In history there have been
people who could not "cross the boundary" of murder even when they faced
self-defense or defense of others.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: david.preiss@yale.edu [mailto:david.preiss@yale.edu]
> Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 2:56 PM
> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> Subject: RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?
>
> Dear Eugene,
>
> My disagreement is just based on an uneducated guess, which is that the
> people involved in those sadistic games were not people that were -at
> that particular moment, in that particular place- in a situation that
> put their lifes at risk and that, according to some sources, may have
> been encouraged to act so. One think is to negate that you are a killer
> in the middle of a battlefield (which all we ethically would do, your
> survival is at stake whatever the reason is why you ended up in there),
> the other is to negate it while you are in a safe house. Unfortunately,
> these games bring me sad memories about the role played by the "School
> of the Americas" in the training of the Latin American soldiers that
> afterwards became dictators and repressors.
>
> David
>
> Quoting Eugene Matusov <ematusov@UDel.Edu>:
>
> > 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/
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >

• Next message: Mike Cole: "attrocious behavior"
• Previous message: Eugene Matusov: "RE: Il'enkov: The ideal"
• In reply to: david.preiss@yale.edu: "RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?"
• Next in thread: eliza@pob.huji.ac.il: "RE: Does no one read [between] Vygotsky's words?"
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Nov 09 2004 - 12:05:47 PST