Re: [xmca] Humans and nature

Dear Steve, I have been reading your contributions since long time and
very much approve of your positions. I have also read the 'socialist
alteration of man' as a very interesting and indicative for Vygotsky's
Trotskian and Nietzscheian influences piece of work.

Addressing this remark to everybody in the list I would like to relate
my following argumentation to the recent discussion about agency and
Latour.

Vygotsky in the Socialist Alteration of the Man, as also in other
pieces of his work, is absolutely modernist. Not only he reproduces
the modern dichotomy between human and non-human (or in-human), he
does also refer to the general 'Man', the ideal human subject that is
of course historically constituted, however totally abstract.

Quite a lot of social movements have posed the notion of the ideal
human subject in question (not only speaking about class, but also
about gender, ethnicity, color, etc.). Thus the notion
'subjectivities' came into play. Other terms that seem to gain
attention in critical theory are these of 'techno-science' or of
'species'. In my view, it is possible to be critical, reflective,
utopian etc. and follow a very different theoretical direction than
that outlined in the Socialist Alternation of Man-- a non-modern or
anti-modern one:
Not only late scholarship such as the last book of D. Haraway (When
Species Meet), the work of I. Stengers (philosophy of science,
'Cosmopolitiques' etc.), the 'Reassembling the Social' of Latour etc.
but also the natural philosophy of the beginning of the 20th century
(at some extent contemporary to Vygotsky) have examined radical
alternatives in conceptualizing the relations between humans and
nature, subjectivities and objectivities.

The works of Whitehead, of Peirce and/or of Dewey provide different
examples of such theoretical attempts. Does anybody know at which
extend Vygotsky has been influenced by Peirce?

Could the Vygotskian concept of 'mediation' be used in a non-modern
way, as Serres or Latour would define it?

just some introductory thoughts,

thanks a lot,

Michalis Kontopodis

research associate
humboldt university berlin
tel.: +49 (0) 30 2093 3716
fax.: +49 (0) 30 2093 3739
http://www.csal.de
http://www.iscar.org/de/culthistanthpsy/

On Mar 20, 2008, at 1:02 AM, Steve Gabosch wrote:

> Here are the words Vygtotsky used to describe his take on the humans
> over nature question in the essay The Socialist Alteration of Man ...
>
> "The second source from which springs the alteration of man resides
> in fact that at the same time as the old fetters disappear, an
> enormous positive potential present in large scale industry, the
> ever growing power of humans over nature, will be liberated and
> become operative."
>
> My interpretation of this is that Vygotsky believed that large scale
> industry increases humankind's power (the term 'triumph' seems odd,
> not a term I would personally would use) over nature, and this ever
> growing potential is a positive thing. I have little doubt that LSV
> would be horrified to see how modern industry as we know it has also
> been laying the basis for destroying more and more of the planet as
> a viable habitat for humans and many other species. I also have
> little doubt that like many socialists of his time, especially those
> supportive of the Russian revolution, Vygotsky would have been quick
> to point out that industry organized under socialism is a totally
> different entity from industry organized under capitalism. But that
> only begs the question.
>
> In Crisis, Vygotsky refers to Marx's core idea of social revolution:
> that the potential for revolution becomes ripe when new forces of
> production outgrow and can no longer be organized by the old social
> system and its old relations of production. Some would argue that
> this also applies to the environment and nature, which are the
> ultimate sources of production. Capitalism, according to this
> thinking, is less and less able to rationally organize an integrated
> system of the forces and sources of production, and in fact, is
> becoming more and more of an obstacle. The ever growing capacities
> of modern technology, the steady growth of world population, and the
> ever-growing expectations about the right to and hope for health,
> peace and prosperity that continue to sweep across the human race,
> are causing people everywhere to ask what kind of a social system
> *could* integrate human society and nature in a way that, to use
> Stephen Jay Gould's excellent term, fulfills humankind's role as
> "steward" of the planet earth and all its species, while also
> creating a just and plentiful world for humanity.
>
> Mike's point that humans trying to "triumph" "over" nature is a
> problem, is well taken. And perhaps Vygotsky's term "power" over
> nature is a little old-fashioned, now that we know so much more
> about how the forces and sources of production must work together
> ecologically and sustainably. Human beings are certainly *in* and
> *of* nature, and this must be our starting point. But because we
> are the species of activity, we also act *upon* nature, and there is
> the rub.
>
> - Steve
>
> PS Thanks all for the tip on the Foster book, I will look for it.
>
>
>
>
>
> On Mar 19, 2008, at 12:36 PM, Martin Packer wrote:
>
>> I second this recommendation: it's an excellent book
>>
>> Martin
>>
>> On 3/19/08 11:04 AM, "C Barker" <C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> Mike, Steve, Peter (hullo Peter!)
>>>
>>> I think Mike is right. So, I think, would good old Karl Marx.
>>> There's a very
>>> good
>>> discussion in Marx's Ecology: Materialism and Nature, by John
>>> Bellamy Foster,
>>> Monthly
>>> Review Pres 2000
>>>
>>> Colin Barker
>>>
>>> Steve & Peter. In 2007 you have no difficulty with the idea of
>>> "Man's
>>> triumph *OVER *nature?? I have other concerns with other points,
>>> but this
>>> one strikes me as really dangerous. Human beings are in and of
>>> nature. We
>>> are consuming and "triumphing" ourselves out of existence.
>>>
>>> Check it out.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 19, 2008 at 3:35 AM, Peter HICK <P.Hick@mmu.ac.uk>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for that Steve,
>>>> an excellent contribution, very interesting
>>>> Pete Hick (new member, Manchester UK)
>>>
>>> Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should
>>> read the
>>> Manchester
>>> Metropolitan University's email disclaimer available on its website
>>> http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
Received on Thu Mar 20 07:48 PDT 2008