Eugene, Leif, Mike, all,
Thank you. What great posts on many very
important questions. Much more can and needs to
be researched and analyzed - and debated. Who
else has written on these issues? Some of the
material by Bakhurst in Consciousness and
Revolution in Soviet Philosophy (1991) comes to mind, for example.
- Steve
At 09:54 PM 3/14/2006 -0500, you wrote:
>Dear Leif and everybody--
>
>
>
>I respectfully disagree with Leif that the Great Stalinist terror started
>after Luria-Vygotsky cross-cultural research in 1932. There is evidence that
>the terror actually peaked around 1931-1932. About 10-20 million of people
>were killed around this time -- mostly illiterate peasants. One of the
>cryptic stories was that Stalin’s wife Nadezhda Alliluyeva committed suicide
>in 1932 after she witnessed the tragedy of collectivization
>http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health
><http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DEEDB113FF937A
>25757C0A96E948260> &res=940DEEDB113FF937A25757C0A96E948260. But I understand
>Leif because it is rather common to think that the Great Terror was around
>1937 when city-based literate intelligencia became its target. However
>tragic, it could not be compared with the crime of so-called
>collectivization in terms of the scope of the organized terror. You can read
>about that in Solzhenitsyn's Archipelago GULAG.
>
>
>
>I agree with Steve that this is very important to keep in mind when reading
>Luria and Vygotsky’s discussion of their cross-cultural work. It is
>important to consider the responsibility of scholars, especially in our
>paradigmatic family, when they (we?) participate in social engineering.
>
>
>
>Leif asked about “who paid for tickets”. Good question. There is some
>evidence that Nikolai Bukharin one of the top Party leaders was one of
>their big supporters. The fall of Luria and Vygotsky from leading Marxist
>psychologists was in part associated also with the fall of Bukharin. I wrote
>an XMCA message about that in 2000 (see below). By the way, the expedition
>was supposed to be international with participation of mainly German Gestalt
>Psychologists but it did not work out (Koffka participated but for very
>short time). See the book by Valsiner and Veer “Understanding Vygotsky”.
>
>
>
>I also agree with Mike that many scholars from former USSR think that CHAT
>and sociocultural rejection of the deficit model promoted by Luria and
>Vygotsky is nothing more than “political correctness.” Like Mike, I tried
>many times to convince them to the contrary but in vain. I recently wrote a
>paper about that analyzing the fate of Vygotsky legacy in South Africa and
>in US.
>
>
>
>What do you think?
>
>
>
>Eugene
>
>
>
>
>RE: Luria in Uzbekistan
>
>
>From: Eugene Matusov (
><mailto:ematusov%20who-is-at%20udel.edu?Subject=RE:%20Luria%20in%20Uzbekista
>n&In-Reply-To=%3CNCBBJJPJODEAKNMOFEBKIEHDDFAA.ematusov@udel.edu%3E>
>ematusov@udel.edu)
>Date: Wed Jan 26 2000 - 15:46:37 PST
>
>* Next message: Sara
><http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2000_01.dir/0297.html> L. Hill:
>"RE: documenting the flow"
>* Previous message: Paul
><http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2000_01.dir/0295.html> Dillon: "Re:
>middle class/intellectual labor"
>* In reply to: Mike
><http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2000_01.dir/0289.html> Cole: "Luria
>in Uzbekistan"
>* Next in thread: Peter
><http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2000_01.dir/0309.html> Farruggio:
>"Re: Luria in Uzbekistan"
>* Messages sorted by: [
><http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2000_01.dir/date.html#296> date ] [
><http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2000_01.dir/index.html#296> thread
>] [ <http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2000_01.dir/subject.html#296>
>subject ] [
><http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2000_01.dir/author.html#296> author
>]
>
> _____
>
>Hi Mike and everybody--
>
>One brief comment on Luria.
>
>Mike wrote,
> > Second, Luria's work was never published in the USSR at the time
> > and could hardly have been a cause of anything... until we get
> > to the first report in 1970-71 and then 75-76 in Russian and
> > English. Very different times.
>
>It is true that Luria's work was never published in the USSR at the time.
>But why? There is some historical evidence that Vygotsky and his colleagues
>were supported in part by Bukharin, one of the top party leaders of that
>time. Luria-Vygotsky research glorified rather consciously and deliberately
>collectivization of peasant farms and (forced) schooling that were on the
>political agenda of the time. However, their affiliation with Bukharin and
>some other top communist functionaries that became increasingly unpopular
>with Stalin led them into troubles (among other things). My point is that
>the only reason that the Luria-Vygotsky research did not (hopefully) play
>any role in the tragedy of those days was that they by themselves became a
>target of political attacks (especially Vygotsky). I want to remind that the
>
>Luria-Vygotsky work in Uzbekistan was done when Stalin organized artificial
>famine in rural parts of the Soviet Union to force peasants (especially
>those who were "from remote villages") to join collective farms. According
>to some estimations between 10 and 20 million of people died (or better to
>say "killed") during that time of early 30th. I personally very glad that
>neither Vygotsky nor Luria contributed to this crime but they were very
>close to such contribution.
>
>Taking this into account I'm very sympathetic with Jim Wretsch's position
>described by Mike
> > First, this exchange indexes with special clarity why people like
> > jim wertsch prefer the term socio-cultural to cultural historical
> > or activity theory. Luria was a modernist. Not the only one around
> > at the time in either Russia or the US. In so far as history
> > implied progress/development, it is a very unfortunate term to
> > use as a paradigm name. Or at least, some think so.
>
>What do you think?
>
>Eugene
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
>
> > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
>
> > Behalf Of Leif Strandberg
>
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 14, 2006 2:41 AM
>
> > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] Luria & the USSR
>
> >
>
> > Hi,
>
> >
>
> > The Luria-conversation is great - and important. Important from many
>
> > perspectives:
>
> >
>
> > The historical context 1932 when Luria and his team went to
>
> > Uzbekistan was not the Great terror - it started 2-3 years later. The
>
> > context was The war against the peasants. And the purpose of the Luria
>
> > expedition was an investigation of peasants (!) and nomads.
>
> >
>
> > Here comes a team of young and enthusiastic students from Moscow (the
>
> > Capital) to the fpeasants. Who paid the tickets? The same rulers who
>
> > now killed the peasants.
>
> >
>
> > They came with a lot of logical premises (one of them: Moscow is more
>
> > advanced than Tasjkent. Another: The concept (!) of collective farms is
>
> > more advanced than working with goats and camels in Bohara). They -
>
> > the team - came with The Truth to people with "Lower Mental Functions".
>
> > Of course the team was not - as far as I can see - in a subjective
>
> > sense against the farmers in Uzbekistan absolutely not! - but if we
>
> > look at the expedition from the perspective of Activity Theory it is
>
> > easy to see the inequality of the relations between the researchers and
>
> > the Uzbeki people.
>
> >
>
> > The use of Aristotelian logic is also surprising - as the team wanted
>
> > to explore mind in culture - why use a typical cognitivstic (Platon!
>
> > Bucharin!) method?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Inspired by Harold Pinter (the Nobel Prize winner 2005 - You know,
>
> > Pinter is always interested in power relations in ordinary
>
> > conversations) I wrote down the test protocols (from Making of Mind)
>
> > and read them from a "Pinter-angle" trying to see what the farmers
>
> > actually said to the researchers. Reading the protocols in such a way
>
> > it is - to me - easy to see that the conversation was reciprocal: The
>
> > farmers had something to say to the young men (I have not found any
>
> > female researcher in the team):
>
> >
>
> > - Do not have illusions! (about what is going on) The farmers did not
>
> > only reflected on the Muller-Lyers arrows!)
>
> > - Do not have prejudices when talking about other parts of the country
>
> > (the cotton- and bear-example)
>
> > etcetera
>
> >
>
> > If we create such a languge-game with the text we will find something
>
> > else than the cognitive analysis. It is also clear that Vygotskij did
>
> > not gave full support to the expedition of Luria. "It is your
>
> > expedition".
>
> > There are so many methodolgical errors in the research (errors - if we
>
> > want to explore what mind in culture can be. From a Piagetian
>
> > perspective the results are more okay. (But Piaget did often the same
>
> > mistakes as Luria did 1932)
>
> >
>
> > I am not saying that the expedition is bad or unintersting. It was and
>
> > is very interesting - (the fact that psychologists "came out" from the
>
> > Insitutes is per se interesting) - but to me the expediton says more
>
> > about the risks when we do investigations on The Other than it says
>
> > about peasants' IQ:s
>
> >
>
> > The team members were young, naive and captured in some false premises
>
> > and they knew to little about farmers and the history and the great
>
> > culture of Samarkand. But they were not racists - which was the common
>
> > case in most of the research from that time. In my country - Sweden -
>
> > we had a Race-Institute from which "researchers" came to my part of
>
> > Sweden - The North - doing research on Sami people - with a very clear
>
> > racistic perspective. Compared to their "research" the Luria expedition
>
> > is more than great. But, from a cultural-historical perspective there
>
> > are many thing to say. I have tried to say some of these things.
>
> >
>
> > Read:
>
> > Harold Pinter - The Cartetaker (and Pinter's Nobelprize-speech)
>
> > Frantz Fanon "Les damnés de terre"
>
> > Aleksandr Etkind "Psychoanalysis in the time of the Russian Revolution"
>
> > (Eros Nevosmomozjngo" from 1993.
>
> > Osip Mandelstam
>
> >
>
> > I am looking forward to read Mike's new book - I have not found it yet
>
> > - perhaps some of what I am saying here will be changed after reading
>
> > Mike's book.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Greetings from Leif, a peasant from The Arctic Circle in Sweden
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 2006-03-14 kl. 06.07 skrev Steve Gabosch:
>
> >
>
> > > Mike describes some of the reaction to Luria's research among the
>
> > > Kashgars on page 214-215 of his "Epilogue: A Portrait of Luria" in
>
> > > Luria's autobiography, The Making of Mind. His research and
>
> > > explanations in this work "met with strong, not to say vitriolic,
>
> > > disapproval."
>
> > >
>
> > > Although Mike does not go into this, I think it is vital to point out
>
> > > that this kind of poisonous attack - one that represented a "mixing of
>
> > > scientific and political criticism in 1934" - took place during the
>
> > > full-scale Stalinization of nearly every aspect of Soviet society,
>
> > > including all the sciences. It was not the *content* of Luria's
>
> > > cross-cultural studies but its *suppression* that satisfied "Soviet
>
> > > doctrine" (whatever "soviet doctrine" was in Stalin's brutal campaign
>
> > > to drive out scientific discussion and debate in the USSR beginning
>
> > > with Lenin's death, and reaching a fever pitch prior to WWII).
>
> > > Excepting Stalin, the entire original leadership of the Bolshevik
>
> > > revolution had been killed, imprisoned or exiled by the end of the
>
> > > 1930's, culminating in Trotsky's assassination in 1940. In the late
>
> > > 1920's and throughout the 1930's, a death grip was being placed on
>
> > > scientific work, which included, among much other repression, the
>
> > > banning of Vygotsky's writings. Lysenko's quack theories of genetic
>
> > > inheritance and his mismanagement of Soviet agricultural research was
>
> > > a shining example of the scientific "accomplishments" of this
>
> > > Stalinization process.
>
> > >
>
> > > This does not mean that Luria's analysis of the Kashgars (how they
>
> > > used syllogisms, etc.) is above scientific and political criticism. I
>
> > > think ARL did make certain errors (seeking cognitive rather than
>
> > > socio-economic, historical and class explanations for his results),
>
> > > along with creating brilliant precedents for conducting this kind of
>
> > > field research. I also think Luria would have welcomed such
>
> > > commentary. But there is no reason to believe that the poison-filled
>
> > > reaction to his work - and the suppression apparently of even any
>
> > > mention of this work - was an aspect of any coherent doctrine, let
>
> > > alone a worthy scientific critique. Rather, as I see it, the poison
>
> > > campaign Luria endured was part of the general Stalinization process
>
> > > of destroying independent thinking in the scientific community.
>
> > >
>
> > > - Steve
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > At 05:45 PM 3/13/2006 -0400, you wrote:
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Dear XMCARs,
>
> > >>
>
> > >> A class of mine was studying Luria by the last 2 weeks, Mike's DVD
>
> > >> included,
>
> > >> and one of the questions that arose was that of the conclusions of
>
> > >> the Asia
>
> > >> studies and whether the way they were skecthed in the book published
>
> > >> by
>
> > >> Harvard's press in the late 1970s would have been the same in case
>
> > >> the book
>
> > >> would have been published after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
>
> > >> That is:
>
> > >> >From all what is said in the book, what can be attributed to the
>
> > >> needs to
>
> > >> satisfy Soviet doctrine and what can be attributed to the real
>
> > >> thinking of
>
> > >> Luria. Maybe it would help us to elarn what were the ideas related to
>
> > >> that
>
> > >> study that kept it unpublished for so many years and whether they had
>
> > >> to be
>
> > >> sublimated to reach final publication. I know that's a difficult
>
> > >> question,
>
> > >> but maybe it can be answered by some of you here that knew Luria
>
> > >> personally.
>
> > >> Feel free to reply to all since I am copying to my students. All of
>
> > >> them
>
> > >> will be very grateful of your imputs.
>
> > >>
>
> > >> Thanks!
>
> > >> David
>
> > >>
>
> > >> David D. Preiss Ph.D.
>
> > >> Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile
>
> > >> www.uc.cl/psicologia
>
> > >>
>
> > >> _______________________________________________
>
> > >> xmca mailing list
>
> > >> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> > >> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> > >
>
> > >
>
> > > _______________________________________________
>
> > > xmca mailing list
>
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > xmca mailing list
>
> > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>
> > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>_______________________________________________
>xmca mailing list
>xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Apr 01 2006 - 01:00:13 PST