[xmca] Re: errors in translation/interpretation

Thanks a lot for sending along your note, Anna. I hereby forward to xmca. At
the botttom of your message I have a couple of remarks/questions.
---------------------

On 3/24/08, Stetsenko, Anna <AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
> Hi Mike and Martin, here is the long promised note on mistranslation (I
> don't mind if you share this with xmca participants):
>
>
>
> Martin quotes the following sentence from Vygotsky's 'The Crisis', (Vol.
> 3, p. 301): "Nobody contests that the general psychology will not be a third
> psychology added to the two struggling parties, but one of them."
>
>
>
> A substantial part of Martin's paper is based in this arguement -- that
> psychology will have to take the form of one of the two presently (in
> Vygotsky's times) exisiting ones.
>
>
>
> However, the meaning of what Vygotsky is saying and what his 'Crisis'
> calls for is the opposite. In the original (Sobranie Sochinenij, v.1, p.
> 381) the text goes as follows: "Nikto ne sporit o tom, chto sozdanie obshej
> psihologii yavitsja ne tretjej psihologiej k dvum borjushimsja, a odnoj iz
> dvuh." The meaningful translation should be something like: "Nobody [in
> the competing camps in the discussion] argues that the general psychology
> will not be a third psychology to the two struggling ones, but one of them."
>
>
>
>
> From the context of the preceding discussion, it is rather clear that
> Vygotsky means than noone among the participants in the ongoing discussions,
> the ones he critiques (e.g., Kornilov), even comes to realize that there
> is a need for a third psychology. In the paragraph that this sentese comes
> in, Vygotsky makes two statements: 1) he asserts that there presently (in
> his time) exist just two forms/types of psychology and not multitudes of
> psychologies (with these two exisiting psychologies subsuming all other
> forms in them, all the seeming diversity of 'psychologies' notwithstanding).
> Vygotsky states that this point has been well understood and noone argues
> against this (he does not argue against this himself) and 2) there presently
> is a discussion about ONLY these two forms of psychology and noone seems to
> realize that the general psychology will not be one of the two existing
> forms but soemthing different.
>
>
>
> The text -- and the translator's mistake -- is rather subtle but the
> overall context makes clear that Vygotsky is arguing for a radically new
> approach and new psychology that cannot be reduced to either one of the
> exisiting forms. In this, he goes against the prevailing views by his
> contemporaries none of whom came to realize this important point.
>
>
>
> regrads and see you at AERA,
>
> Anna
> ps. I am cc-ing this to Igor because he noticed several other errors...
> ------------------------------
>
I cannot really get a new meaning from the different translation, Anna,
perhaps because of the Nobody .... not construction, I am not sure. I am
perfectly happy with your conclusion at the bottom of the note, but did not
read martin as saying that LSV wanted to adopt one of the two approaches,
just that whatever approach was developed was going to be materialist .
Certainly LSV was not advocating adoption of the EXISTING materialist
version of psychology but a third way. I thought we were being perplexed
about the idea of killing off one of the two.... Anyway....

One thing that became clear from my reading of Crisis is that LSV talked
about the same topic at several places. Perhaps bringing together such
comments that may help enrich our sorting out this topic.. a task for a
later time.

Thanks again for contributing to the discussion.
mike

PS-- Your and Igor's paper on "Vygotsky's project....." is at xmca on the
papers for discussion page now. As I recall, you wanted folks to refer to
that in talking about the early history of CHAT.

.
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Mon Mar 24 13:01 PDT 2008