Hi Mike and Martin,
Anna Stetsenko's remarks about incorrectness of translation are absolutely
exact.
>".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 existing forms."
In the same time that is not mere a problem of bad translation. Vygotsky
himself gives us a lot of occasions to be confused. The fact of the matter
is that he was only on his way to new dialectic and/or Marxist psychology
and made only first steps in this direction. His words "We had better let
others say of our psychology that it is Marxist than call it that
ourselves." were not mere a sign of modesty but substantially adequate
self-appraisal.
The situation with Vygotsky's Marxism is utterly contradictory. Most of
Russians and ex-Soviet psychologists are
<file:///E:\Users\MAPASON%20VISTA\AppData\Local\Temp\Word_0> moving heaven
and earth to cut LSV away from this disagreeable (for them) Marxism. In the
same time those who doesn't feel an antipathy to Marx and Marxism regarding
Vygotsky's theorizing as a classical example of Marxist, dialectic
thinking. Thus Andy Blunden asserts "Vygotsky's study of the relationship of
thought and language is a model of the materialist application of the
dialectical method of the first order of importance, both by reason of its
results and of its methods." Andy is my friend, but I can't share his
statement. Moreover I think that just that very case is very expressive
example of Vygotsky's failure in realizing dialectical approach. The first
idea that thinking and speech have different and independent roots is
basically incompatible with the next one concerning their "dialectical"
interaction. Those which are mutually alien are doomed to fruitful
superficial relation and any genuine dialectical relation in this case is
totally impossible.
The same difficulties we meet trying to understand Vygotsky's approach as
Marxist historicism. Alas, but we can hardly estimate it this way too. The
notion of development which starts from causal mechanical stimulus-reactive
relation and with aid of "cultural sign" jumps to free consciousness has
nothing to do with dialectic, but is nothing but banal dues ex machina.
There is no doubt that Vygotsky sincerely tried to realize Marxist approach,
moreover he left us a lot of brilliant theoretic insights in this field. But
in general he failed in realizing the task of formulating the new
dialectical psychology. We have to judge by researcher's deeds and not by
researcher's words. Vygotsky has left us many passionate arguments for
Marxist psychology and we agree with most of them. Thus he was the first
psychologist who indicated to ideas of Marx and Spinoza as to the key to
resolving of psychophysical problem. But Vygotsky had too short lifetime
and too insufficient theoretic tools to apply Marxist dialectic to real
psychological problems.
The problem of opposition of natural-scientific "materialist" approach and
descriptive "idealistic" approach as well as the problem of the "third way"
is one more example of theoretic difficulties faced by Vygotsky. Cutting
away one, say "idealistic", side of opposition we have no chance to gain a
materialistic theory as a prize. To have a chance to sublate this abstract
opposition we have to start from the solid starting point of rational
materialistic resolution of psychophysical problem. Otherwise we will face
the same problem under different mask. In other words to overcome the
metaphysical opposition of natural-scientific and descriptive we have to
base on Il'enkov-Spinozian idea of "thinking body" and his idea of ideality
as an attribute of human's material tool.
In other words, to understand Vygotsky's theoretic heritage we need to
analyze the problems and not his abstract texts. In this case we will win
double prize - understanding both Vygotsky and theoretic problems. Otherwise
we will sustain a defeat in solving of both tasks.
Sasha Surmava
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
Behalf Of Mike Cole
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 11:24 PM
To: Stetsenko, Anna
Cc: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; arievitch@mail.csi.cuny.edu
Subject: [xmca] Re: One more example: errors in translation/interpretation
Thanks for the additional identification of translation errors, Anna.
mike
On 3/24/08, Stetsenko, Anna <AStetsenko@gc.cuny.edu> wrote:
>
> Mike,
> One more example, and a very dramatic one at that, is the direct (not
> subtle) mistake in the translation of the very last (!!), crowining
sentence
> in the "Crisis" (this could have played a role in misinterpretation too).
>
> In the last sentence, accroding to translation, Vygotsky states while
> speaking about psychology in the future society:
>
> "There is NO NECESSITY for this psychology to correspond as little to the
> present one as -- in the worlds of Spinoza [1677/1955,p. 61] -- the
> constellation Dog corresponds to a dog, a barking animal" (v. 3, p. 343).
>
> However, the meaning of Vygotsky's words is exactly the opposite:
> he says: "Nuzhdi net, chto eta psihologija..." which means that "THERE IS
> NO TROUBLE in that this psychology will correspond as little to the
present
> one as .... the constellation Dog corresponds to a dog, a barking animal"
>
> Because the word "nuzhda" can mean 'necessity' indeed but also
> means 'trouble, need', the sentence is ambiguous but of course not if one
> understands the context.
>
> So, instead of saying that future psychology will not need to be different
> from the present one, Vygotsky states that it will be indeed drastically
> different -- as 'similar' to it as the stars constellation is similar to
the
> real dog.
>
> Hope this helps.
> Anna
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: Mike Cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
> Sent: Mon 3/24/2008 3:08 PM
> To: Stetsenko, Anna
> Cc: packer@duq.edu; arievitch@mail.csi.cuny.edu
> Subject: Re: errors in translation/interpretation
>
>
>
>
> 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...
>
> ________________________________
>
>
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
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 Mon Mar 24 21:01 PDT 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Apr 01 2008 - 00:30:03 PDT