Re: [xmca] Humans and nature

Dear Mike, thanks a lot! I am familiar at some extent with the work of
A. Lang, but I am a younger member of MCA and did not know that such
discussions have already taken place. I will look into the archives.

'Expanding' the concept of mediation of Vygotsky in a similar way to
that of Latour and others, would probably prove important for theory,
practice and research in regard to educational technologies,
transnational internet projects for youngsters etc.

What's more: if psychological knowledge (and cultural-historical
approaches, too) are m e d i a t e d, we may view our own discourses
and practices on children and childhood in new ways.

However: if their is no Peirceian influence on Vygotsky himself, I
would suggest that one should be very careful in expanding Vygotsky in
such a way.

I have indeed more questions in regard to this issue than answers,

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 4:09 PM, Mike Cole wrote:

> I believe a lot of people are thinking along lines you suggest,
> Michalis.
> I do not know of any direct influence of Pierce on Vygotsky, but you
> can
> certainly
> find it on people like Arne Raeithel and Alfred Lang who
> participated in
> this discussion
> in earlier years; in the discussions among Latour, Engestrom,
> Hutchins in
> MCA, and
> more. The discussion in MCA by Meitennen on AT and ANT and his
> discussion of
> Dewey
> in this regard are very worthwhile.
>
> Could the Vygotskian concept of 'mediation' be used in a non-modern
> way, as Serres or Latour would define it?
>
> My answer is, of course. The question then becomes why, to what end,
> with
> what results.
> mike
>
> On Thu, Mar 20, 2008 at 7:27 AM, Michalis Kontopodis <
> michalis.kontopodis@staff.hu-berlin.de> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 08:44 PDT 2008