Re: [xmca] Re: One more example: errors in translation/interpretation

Thanks Sasha--- I(ts great to see your voice again!!

As you saw in my note yesterday, I agree with the conclusion, just having
trouble with the two variants of the translation.

What conclusions or considerations in Martin's paper result in what you
consider errors as a result of the mistranslation? What implications do they
have for how one should, in your view, conduct concrete research.

With respect to the "two lines of development" argument concrerning natural
and cultural lines, how would you reformulate the relations between culture
and phylogeny (my own reformulation, probably also inadequate, is in chapter
7 of *CulturalPsychology*
mike

On 3/24/08, Alexander Surmava <monada@netvox.ru> wrote:
>
> 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 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 Tue Mar 25 04:59 PDT 2008