Re: [xmca] Dynamics of Learning and Development

From: Mike Cole <lchcmike who-is-at>
Date: Sun Nov 25 2007 - 16:32:52 PST

I'll let others more familiar with the personages involved comment on who is
a vulgar marxist (and who the non-vulgar one's are!)... and to explain the
deeper meaning of the dominant/reflexological polemics.
I'll email you when the tapes arrive and will set about getting them
digitized and posted.
On Nov 25, 2007 4:26 PM, David Kellogg <> wrote:

> Dear Mike:
> Sorry--I meant Zalkind, not Blonsky!
> Apparently, both were pedologists of a distinct vulgar materialist bent,
> but it's Zalkind who LSV takes to task in the passage a few pages before the
> one on the internal origins of the crisis and the defense of the bourgeois
> point of view in child psychology. (Funny, though, the notes to the Russian
> edition take LSV to task for being insufficiently critical of Zalkind, at
> least in associating "interest" with a reflexological "dominant"!)
> I also think differently about learning/development depending on which
> trouser leg I put on first or which side of the bed I get up on. Today I'm
> not so sure that forgotten knowledge is developmentally inert. After all,
> LSV says ALL neoformations (e.g. negativism, autonomous speech) disappear
> entirely and their role is completely catalytic. Forgotten knowledge might
> play a similar role? (Hope so...I have a terrible memory!)
> I MAILED you the tapes today. I couldn't figure out how to digitalize
> them!
> David Kellogg
> Seoul National University of Education
> ------------------------------
> Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try
> it now.<*;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ%0A>
xmca mailing list
Received on Sun Nov 25 16:33 PST 2007

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Dec 11 2007 - 10:18:42 PST