On "reflection theory" ...We have had some discussion on xmca on Vygotsky's writing on reflection - in T&S, right? Or wait, is it in Historical Crisis? Anyone recall the chapter?
What other writings on "Reflection" have been influential in CHAT circles?
One or two writings already referred to, another off the top of my head:**** Lenin, Materialism and Empirio-Criticism (1908) - a book length, very sharp polemic with certain Bolsheviks at the time, especially Alexander Bagdonov, over the relationship of dialectical materialism and natural science.
Here is a quote I happen to have underlined in Materialism and Empirio- Criticism, cross-referenced I believe from an Ilyenkov quote.
"Social consciousness *reflects* social being—that is Marx’s teaching. A reflection may be an approximately true copy of the reflected, but to speak of identity is absurd. Consciousness in general *reflects* being—that is a general principle of *all* materialism. It is impossible not to see its direct and *inseparable* connection with the principle of historical materialism: social consciousness *reflects* social being." Lenin CW, vol 14 p 323
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/six2.htmIt has been years since I have actually read this book cover to cover, if I actually got quite that far, but I do find myself getting pointed toward it from time to time, and looking around. I am definitely due for a re-reading, and a look into what all the fuss is about ...
**** Ilyenkov, Leninist Dialectics and the Metaphysics of Positivism (1980 in Russian, 1982 in English) is a short, breezy (for EVI) book that explains the political reasons for Lenin's 1908 polemic - Bogdanov, following Mach (Mach was a highly respected physicist at the time, but according to Ilyenkov, not much of a philosopher), along with other idealists (positivists) in the Bolshevik party, was saying that dialectical materialism is obsolete - that "natural science" (meaning positivism/idealism) is the way revolutionaries and Marxists should now go. Bogdanov was being taken very seriously by many in and around the party. It is actually a pretty interesting story if you look over the years leading up to this 1908 blowout, how that struggle mounted, letters Lenin wrote to Bogdanov and other Machists, numerous philosophical letters to Gorky (the author), who was in the middle of this all along, etc. Lenin himself had to do a lot of homework - and a lot of developing - to put out that 1908 book - it is quite impressive in the range of issues, philosophers, writers, languages it deals with.
Interestingly, Ilyenkov only mentions Lenin's "conception of reflection" in passing, in a favorable way, but not as a big deal - not the way so many others echoing "official" Soviet Marxism traditionally have, including, it seems Leontiev. And if Ilyenkov was ever going to bow down to that one himself, this book was certainly his chance!
As for Lenin himself, or Trotsky, or any of the original Bolshevik leaders, most of whom were fairly busy getting killed by the end of the '30's (pardon the bitter sound there), I am not aware of any of them seeing what Lenin wrote in regard to his "Theory of Reflection" as being that big a deal in Marxist theory - and that includes, again, Lenin. Ilyenkov may have it about right. It was a conception. In fact, to my knowledge - am I wrong? - Lenin never even calls anything a "theory of reflection."
As for where this 'theory' has actually been used in science, that is a pretty good question. Where? I know of only one place - and as far as I can see from what I have studied so far in zoopsychology, which isn't very much, it was put to pretty good use - Leontiev's theory of animal psychic evolution. Where else has this famous Theory of Reflection really been applied?
**** David Bakhurst, Consciousness and Revolution in the Soviet Union (1991) Chapter 4, the Leninist Stage in Soviet Philosophy. This chapter is very interesting to me because when I read it a few years ago, I found the first half persuasive. David argues that Lenin was ambiguous between conservative and radical realism. I found the second half flawed politically, where Bakhurst expresses dismay at Lenin's polemical and castigating style for a philosophy book, suggesting it did damage to philosophical discourse later. (I wouldn't blame Lenin for what happened later, but of course, others do). This second half of the chapter is a response to the aforementioned book by Ilyenkov. But that second half stuff is an aside from the theory of reflection business. I carefully read the first half of that chapter again recently and was surprised to see Bakhurst's argument very differently this time, and to be frank, philosophically flawed, which of course is fightin' words where David comes from. David's argument itself is actually logically flawless - its his premises about conservative and radical realism that need to be scrutinized. Lenin is "ambiguous" between the two because he does not actually agree with either view. Well, that is my reading, so far. Looks like I have some work ahead of my to try to line my ducks up, and see what David can shoot down. But over and above the secondary issues of who said what when, and what did Lenin really mean, and what the hell was a Bolshevik and why did they care so much about materialism and science anyway, I think core issues driven out by discussing materialist epistemology are important to CHAT, because so many of the object- subject problems of psychology are involved. These epistemological questions are in my opinion a good starting point for the new kind of psychological investigation CHAT and the Vygotsky school are laying a basis for.
And as for the idea that Lenin may have evolved between his 1908 study of materialism and his later studies of dialectics ... it would amaze me if he hadn't. Lenin was an astonishing intellect. But the subtle implication that the latter work negates the former is an entirely different question. Same with early/later Marx, early/later Vygotsky, etc. The thing about these kinds of Marxists is that once they get in that dialectical materialist groove, they tend to stay pretty consistent on the essential methodological questions ...
Anyway, this was supposed to be just a start to a little list of CHAT- relevant books on the theory of reflection. What other books/articles come to mind?
- Steve On Jan 4, 2009, at 8:50 PM, Mike Cole wrote:
The idea that always occurs to me about reflections is that in mirrors, leftand right are reversed. Sad? Or a reason to pause to think? Quien Sabe? mikeOn Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 7:43 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:Why sad? Martin Packer wrote:I know, but it would be sad to discover that Vygotsky was drawing so heavily from Lenin. On 1/4/09 9:42 PM, "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net> wrote: I might say as an aside, that "reflection" whatever it is inRussian, has a strong place in Russian Marxism. This is because Lenin made such a powerful attack on his philosophical enemies in "Materialism and Empirio-Criticism" written in 1908. Ilyenkov still defends this books in the mid-1970s, though almost all non-Russian Marxists would say that it is a terrible book and was written before Lenin had studied Hegel, etc. In M&EC Lenin makes reflection a central category, a universal property of matter, etc., and bitterly attacks the use of semiotics of any kind. I have an ambiguous attitude to M&EC myself. Apart from "sins of omission" perhaps, Lenin is right, but did he really have to shout it that loud? Well, in the historical context of the wake of the defeat of the 1905 Revolution, probably he did. Did all Russian Marxists for the next 100 years have to follow his lead? Probably not. I note that in Dot Robbins' book on Vygotsky and Leontyev's Semiotics etc., Dot defends the notion of reflection. The situation, as I see it, is that "reflection" has a strong advantage and an equally strong disadvantage in conveying a materialist conception of sensuous perception. On one side it emphasises the objectivity of the image-making - there is nothing in the mirror, or if there is, it is an imperfectionit which distorts the image. On the other side, mirror-imaging is an entirely passive process, a property of even non-living matter. Personally, I think "reflection" belongs to Feuerbachian materialism, not Marxism, but in historical context, the position of many Russians who use the concept, is understandable. That's how I see it anyway, Andy Ed Wall wrote:Martin It appears the root is more or less отрaжáть (отрaзить)and, at least according to my dictionary, has the sense of reflectingor having an effect. However, my qualifications are dated. Ed On Jan 4, 2009, at 7:01 PM, Martin Packer wrote:At the end of last year several of us were trying to figure out whether'reflection' is a good term to translate the way Vygotsky and leontievwroteabout 'mental' activity. Michael Roth pointed out that the German wordthatMarx used was Widerspiegeln rather than Reflektion (see below). I don't think anyone identified the Russian word that was used. I still haven't found time to trace the word in Vygotsky's texts, English and Russian.But an article by Charles Tolman suggests that the Russian term was'otrazhenie.' Online translators don't like this word: can any Russianspeakers suggest how it might be translated? Reflection (German: Widerspiegelung; Russian: otrazhenie)Tolman, C.W. (1988). The basic vocabulary of Activity Theory. ActivityTheory, 1, 14-20. Martin On 10/25/08 12:40 PM, "Wolff-Michael Roth" <mroth@uvic.ca> wrote: Hi Martin,Marx does indeed use the term "widerspiegeln" in the sentence youcite. Das Gehirn der Privatproduzenten spiegelt diesen doppelten gesellschaftlichenCharakter ihrer Privatarbeiten nur wider in den Formen, welche impraktischen Verkehr, im Produktenaustausch erscheinen - den gesellschaftlich nützlichen Charakter ihrer Privatarbeiten also inder Form, daß das Arbeitsprodukt nützlich sein muß, und zwar fürandre - den gesellschaftlichen Charakter der Gleichheit der verschiedenartigen Arbeiten in der Form des gemeinsamen Wertcharakters dieser materiell verschiednen Dinge, der Arbeitsprodukte.But the Duden, the reference work of German language says that there are 2 different senses. One is reflection as in a mirror, the other one that something brings to expression. In this context, I do notsee Marx draw on the mirror idea.For those who have trouble, perhaps the analogy with mathematicalfunctions. In German, what a mathematical function does is "abbilden," which is, provide a projection of, or reflection, orwhatever. You have the word Bild, image, picture in the verb. But when you look at functions, only y = f(x) = x, or -x gives you what you would get in the mirror analogy. You get very different thingswhen you use different functions, log functions, etc. Then therelationship between the points on a line no longer is the same inthe "image", that is, the target domain. We sometimes see the word "refraction" in the works of Russianpsychologists, which may be better than reflection. It allows you to think of looking at the world through a kaleidoscope, and you get allsorts of things, none of which look like "the real thing." Michael On 25-Oct-08, at 9:01 AM, Martin Packer wrote: Michael,Here's one example from Marx, and several from Leontiev, if we canget into the Russian too."The twofold social character of the labour of the individual appearstohim, when *reflected* in his brain, only under those forms which are impressed upon that labour in every-day practice by the exchange ofproducts." Marx, Capital, Chapter 1, section 4." Activity is a non-additive unit of the corporeal, material life ofthematerial subject. In the narrower sense, i.e., on the psychologicalplane,it is a unit of life, mediated by mental *reflection*, by an *image,*whosereal function is to orientate the subject in the objective world."Leontiev, Activity & Consciousness." The circular nature of the processes effecting the interaction oftheorganism with the environment has been generally acknowledged. Butthe mainthing is not this circular structure as such, but the fact that themental*reflection* of the objective world is not directly generated by the external influences themselves, but by the processes through which the subject comes into practical contact with the objective world, andwhichtherefore necessarily obey its independent properties, connections,and relations." ibid" Thus, individual consciousness as a specifically human form of the subjective *reflection* of objective reality may be understood onlyas theproduct of those relations and mediacies that arise in the course ofthe establishment and development of society." ibid Martin _______________________________________________ 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_______________________________________________ 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_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/ >+61 3 9380 9435 Skype andy.blundenHegel's Logic with a Foreword by Andy Blunden: http://www.marxists.org/admin/books/index.htm _______________________________________________ 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
_______________________________________________ xmca mailing list xmca@weber.ucsd.edu http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca