[xmca] method/methodology --> Andy's paper

Hello all:

Wanted to reintroduce Sasha's thinking on the subject in light of the
discussion of Andy's paper, I believe it to be highly relevant:

This appeared on XMCA on August 28, 2006

Hi all,
The number of posts I have to reply is threateningly growing so I have do
my
best to survive under them :-).
First of all I have to give a clarification of my provocative tone
concerning this at the first sight banal term.
According to tradition formed from early sixties of the past century in
Russian (Soviet) psychology, the tradition that has noting to do neither
with Marxism as it is nor with ideas of Ilyenkov (Vasilij Davydov was
extremely alone among soviet psychologists with his consistent Marxism and
Ilyenkovism) so called methodology is practically an euphemism for
non-marxist philosophy.
Realizing that serious theoretic analysis is impossible without a
philosophic reflection and having no case to use openly one of non-marxist
philosophies (I have to repeat, that genuine nonideological Marxism with
some minor exceptions was in the Soviet Union and lately in Russia
practically unknown among serious investigators) they rename this
philosophical or logical reflection into "methodology", as if it was an
independent from philosophy, positive, free from ideology discipline.
According to this attitude the curriculum of psychological faculties even
now includes a courses of so called "methodology of psychology" which has
nothing to do neither with classical philosophy nor with definite
psychological theory. It has nothing to do with any kind of specific
experimental methods as well. As a rule it is a florid, eclectical
reflection based on popular here and now ideas or philosophical systems.
Only one quality unifies all those reflections that's its non-marxist
character.
One of the best and mostly typical examples of such "methodology" proposes
Vladimir Petrovitch Zinchenko. (Here I have to underline, that I deeply
appreciate Vladimir Petrovitch as an outstanding scientist and a very kind
person, moreover I'm seriously insisting that I regard him as one of my
principal teachers in psychology. It was Zinchenko who pushed me to pay
attention at Nikolai Bernstein - the greatest Russian physiologist with its
ideas of alive movement. Unfortunately our mutual understanding is
finishing
as soon as we enter a field of so called "methodology".)
VPZ stands openly on anti-Marxist position and in the same time pretends to
be a vigotskianist. He claims marxist method as extremely nonproductive and
in the same time tries to tackle the problem of germ cell. He put forward a
brilliant Bernstein's idea of alive movement as a germ cell of psyche and
there and then "enriches" it adding such additional "germ cells" as signs,
symbols, speech and. God-Man. He modestly doesn't pretend to formulate a
new
psychological theory and in the same time he tries to formulate new
pluralistic methodology combining with ease the materialistic and
idealistic
elements. Finally he pretends to be a profound methodologist and in the
same
time boasting that he have never read Spinoza or Hegel and that his
university test on philosophy was written by Vasia Davydov.
I want to repeat, the VPZ's understanding of "methodology" is typical for
modern Russian psychology. And the case of VPZ is not the worst.
I can repeat after Steve "I certainly agree that there is no such thing as
a
methodology without theory, but I also would agree with the statement that
there is no such thing as a theory without methodology." In other words
theory and methodology are initially connected so that bad methodology is
equal to bad theory and vice versa. Nowadays one can rarely meet in Russian
psychological journals an article pretending to formulate some new
theoretic
idea, or containing serious critic of basic theoretic concepts. But each
journal have a special part concerning "methodological questions" and the
mostly popular position in modern methodology is "methodological
liberalism"
or simply banal eclecticism and pantophagy.
That is why I'm usually insisting that I have nothing to do with
methodology, I am a psychologist.
The other side of the issue is connected with the name of Georgi Petrovitch
Schedrovitsky who called himself a methodologist, a methodologist without
any additional definition. G.P. was an influential figure in seventies and
left after himself many followers.
But, again I have to add a drop of poison into my appreciation. All his
followers in striking contrast to their dainty methodological reflection
give us very modest theoretic results, the results interesting and
understandable as a rule only for their narrow close circle.
And this result is natural. If we as investigators are trying to work with
subject matter or PREDMET which is created by a methodologist we are
dealing
with those narrow content which was put in it by a methodologist whereas
the empirical object of our theorizing stays misunderstood. The point is
that according to marxist logic the process of constituting of PREDMET of
any science is the objective historical process funded in historically
developing material practice instead of pure intellectual product of one
genial scientist or methodologist.
The best critical analysis of this issue contains in brilliant book of
EVI's
friend, co-author and disciple as well as a member of our newborn ISCAR's
"Dialectical psychology" section Lev Naumenko <Monism as a principal of
dialectical logic>. Those of XMCA members who know Russian can find this
book on my website http://www.voxnet.ru/~monada/archive.php?lng=ru . The
subject is discussed in the second part of the book in paragraph 2.
Printsip
gomogennosti. Ob'ekt nauki i ee predmet.
Many years ago at the time of the first conference on Vygotsky's theory at
the Moscow Institute of Psychology in 1981 I weighed in on the debate with
G.P. on the round table concerning the methodological problems. (A funny
detail was that this time being an evening department psychological faculty
student I was working in Davydov's Institute as cloakroom attendant. So the
discussion started in academic circumstances in "Malaya" auditorium
continued and finished in cloakroom.) I've asked G.P. about the role of
methodologist in real scientific process. I insist that so called
methodology, or methodological reflection is an inseparable part of any
real
cognition process and all big theorists had to be in the same time big
methodologists, that division of labor between scientists and
methodologists
is something equivocal, that scientist that alienates his rights on
methodological reflection to anybody looks like a husband who alienates his
wife or daughter to the first who comes along.
The G.P's answer was literally the following: Marx, Vygotsky, Einstein were
high-brow highbrow and they really can realize not only scientific
investigation but a methodological reflection as well. But the actual
scientists are far from high philosophical culture (and often from any
culture) so they are need of him as a Methodologist. ( I suspect that the
utmost openness of the answer was provoked by the circumstances of
cloakroom
:-) ).
Mike wrote:
>> Once stabilized (if stabilized?) we arrive at what Schedrovitsky refers
to as scientific activity. My
>> main reservation is that I am unsure that there is ever a really stable
relationship where the
>> methodology is conventionalized.
I can subscribe to Mike's reservation an add that stabilization of
methodology simply means the death of science because substantial movement
can't be realized without permanent specification and development of its
methods.
Peter wrote:
>>> I'd be interested to know what you think about this usage of the term
"methodology." If this sense
>>> of the term is acceptable, can we not say that Aristotle, Galileo,
Descartes, Newton, Marx were all
>>> doing "methodological work"?
I think that I completely formulate my attitude to G.P.'s terminology. I
think that any serious thinker is in the same time a theorist and
methodologist. Aristotle, Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Marx can't be the
exception.
Victor's dissertation on Spinoza is very interesting for me especially the
footnote. It can be interesting to organize some time a special discussion
concerning Spinoza and EVI, Spinoza and LSV. By the way I am going to put
on
my website the materials (meanwhile in Russian) of current and very bitter
dispute concerning the EVI's interpretation of Spinoza. The dispute is
taking place among the EVI's followers.
Cheers,
Sasha

_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Sun Jan 6 07:44 PST 2008