These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
These files are maintained strictly for historical reference, research, and recordkeeping purposes, and the content has not been altered or updated since archiving. Content on this site may not meet current digital accessibility standards. If you require an alternative, accessible format of any information found on this site, please contact Bruce Jones, bjones@ucsd.edu to request an accommodation.
David,
I certainly agree that 'analysis' is a method that Vygotsky got from
Capital, and he uses Marx's 'abstraction' as an illustration of it. At the
same time he wrote that historical materialism was too specific to be
transfered directly to psychology, and that what was needed instead was a
'biological materialism and psychological materialism' which had not yet
been invented.
Martin
On 2/16/08 11:44 PM, "David Kellogg" <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm much less sure about Martin's critique of David Bakhurst. As you can
> probably tell, I think that LSV really DID get his method (that is, his actual
> analytical technique, though not the actual unit of analysis) from Capital. I
> think that word meaning really IS his unit of analysis for consciousness, and
> that rote, role, and rule are the equivalent of commodities that are things in
> themselves, commodities that are things for others (exchange values) and
> commodities that are things for us (use values).
_______________________________________________
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
Received on Tue Feb 19 07:50 PST 2008
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Thu Mar 06 2008 - 10:37:02 PST