Re: [xmca] The theoretical reason of the "ban" on Vygotsky

[Mike Cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Ulvi--

To clarify my comment about dissident status in the 1990's. I was
particularly
talking about the group of scholars who continued to support the
Meshcheryakov work which in the 1970's was a post child, literally, for
the glories of Soviet psychology and by the 1990's had become a serious
source of disagreement that put Davydov, Ilenynkov, and others who continued
to support this "utopian" experiment into political disrepute.

Others were not centrally involved in support of the kids of Zagorsk and
whatever their inclinations were not what I was referring to. Sorry to be
unclear, but a quick email to one person may not prosper when reduced
and moved into larger context (besides, I might have been full of bs to
begin wtih!)
mike

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 5:16 AM, ulvi icil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com> wrote:

> Thank you Steve.
> Even though, I do not share some of the ideas in this quotation, it helps
> to
> have an insight into that period.
>
>
>
>
>
> On 17/02/2009, Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com> wrote:
> >
> > [The lengthy passage below is quoted from pg 17-19 of _Vygotsky Today: On
> > the Verge of Non-Classical Psychology_, by Alexander Asmolov, 1998, Nova
> > Science Publishers.  I am just now reading this book and am struck by its
> > insights and eloquence.  Asmolov's reflections on some of the excellent
> > questions Ulvil poses about the 1930's seem like a good way to kick off
> that
> > discussion.  He explains his reasoning for concluding that "The program
> of
> > cultural-historical psychology clearly diverged then with the program of
> > building a totalitarian socialism."  Btw, AA includes an excerpt from a
> > private letter by Vygotsky that some might find interesting.  - Steve]
> >
> >
> >
> > [From Vygotsky Today, 1998, by A Asmolov:]
> >
> > For D.B. Elkonin, L.S. Vygotsky's transition from an interpretation of
> > social environment as "factor" to the understanding of the "social as the
> > "*source*" of personality development symbolizes the beginning of the
> > *nonclassical psychology of consciousness*.
> >
> > And it is the strength of L.S. Vygotsky's cultural-historical psychology
> > rather than its weakness that this theory is often perceived as closer by
> > spirit to art than to psychology based on classical rational thinking.
> >
> >
> > The secret of L.S. Vygotsky's contemporaneity in the history of science
> was
> > nearly found by S. Toulmin, A. Puzyrei, A. Kozulin who, while speaking
> about
> > "the phenomenon of Vygotsky" as a riddle of twentieth century, come very
> > close to the solution in their characteristics of L.S. Vygotsky. S. Freud
> > taught that metaphors have hidden meaning. These authors compared
> Vygotsky
> > with Mozart, and his fate with the fates of literary characters by
> > M.Cervantes, T. Mann, H. Hesse and B. Pasternak, thus presenting a key to
> > the understanding of the "phenomenon of Vygotsky" and his special path in
> > science. Vygotsky always, even when his texts were clothed in
> behavioristic
> > or reflexological scientific terminology, maintained the profound
> position
> > of Master, genuine artist concerned with the construction of cultural
> > concrete human psychology. Cultural-historical psychology thus became a
> > product of a new culture of understanding the human being, generated in
> the
> > creative workshops of L.S. Vygotsky and his companions. In terms of the
> > poetic typology of Osip Mandelshtam, so much appreciated by Vygotsky
> > himself, one can say that Vygotsky was the "meaning-seeker" rather than
> > "rational formalist".
> >
> >
> > It is true, that the ideas of Vygotsky's school have been later put, as
> > some philosophers note, into anabiosis for years. But this was so not at
> all
> > because these ideas dealt with the spheres of logic, philosophy or
> > culturology, and psychologists had not understood their significance. The
> > cause of the delay of the development ofcultural-historical theory, its
> > slowing down and dividing into many outflows from the main channel, that
> > sometimes seem not connected to each other, lays in the social history of
> > society rather than in science itself.
> >
> >
> > In order to understand the social biography of cultural-historical
> > psychology, it is necessary first of all to place the mosaic of cultures
> > through human history at two poles - the pole of *usefulness* and the
> pole
> > of *dignity*.  *In the culture of usefulness* the idea that the universe
> is
> > like a huge clock started by a wise watchmaker prevails.  Everything is
> > measured, predictable and subordinated to the order of social activities
> > given once and forever. In fiction such a rational social world was
> > precisely depicted in the utopias "We" by E. Zamyatin and "1984" by G.
> > Orwell. But, as was sung in a Soviet song "we're born to make a tale come
> > true". Utopias of E. Zamyatin and G. Orwell have come true, become
> embodied
> > in the impersonal culture of usefulness. Any concrete human psychology to
> be
> > sure, humanistic cultural-historical psychology was alien to the essence
> of
> > this culture. By the fact of their existence they threatened the
> foundations
> > of this culture and thereby were dangerous and excessive for it.
> >
> >
> > The culture of usefulness is "equipped" with the sort of ideological
> > filters which sensitively determine which "human image" has a right to
> exist
> > in mentality and society, be a subject of scientific research. The image
> of
> > "marionette person", "behavioral robot", even if it was not realized by
> > researchers, was mostly justified by works in the field of conditional
> > reflexes, reflexology and reactology. It was just this image of
> > "reflexological robot" that was finally demanded by the
> > command-administrative system of totalitarian socialism.
> >
> >
> > In the 1930's a shadow of the totalitarian socialist culture of
> usefulness
> > slowly but consistently crawled into genetics, the philosophy of the
> > noosphere and pedagogy.  Alongside with genetics and philosophy preaching
> > the "principle of solidarity", even human science was ostracized.
> >
> >
> > Vygotsky's school of cultural-historical psychology had been rapidly
> > forming in those years as practical developmental psychology, the basis
> of
> > pedology - science of child development and education. But the
> > command-administrative system built in 1930s did not need psychological
> > research for the development of individuality, assessment of individual
> > abilities in children. It was a time when in the atmosphere of total
> > unification barrack-like pedagogy began to affirm.  The program of
> > cultural-historical psychology clearly diverged then with the program of
> > building a totalitarian socialism.
> >
> >
> > The culture of usefulness claimed to have the exclusive right to decide
> > where a person should go, where to be, what to think about. A sharp
> contrast
> > to the imperatives of culture of usefulness were the letters written by
> L.S.
> > Vygotsky in 1930 and 1931: "Every person must know where he/she is. You
> and
> > me - we also know it and must stand firmly. Therefore the result: you,
> > rather than someone else, should write about the reaction of choice, this
> > chapter about the developing human freedom from external constraints of
> > things and their will ... ". " ...It is impossible to live without
> > conceiving life spiritually. Without philosophy (own, personal, living)
> > there may be nihilism, cynicism, suicide, but not life. But everybody has
> > one's own philosophy. It is necessary to grow it in oneself, because it
> > supports life in us .... What can shake a person seeking truth? How much
> > inner light, heat, support is in this seeking and striving! And the most
> > important is the life itself - sky, sun, love, people, suffering. This is
> > real, not just words. This is genuine. This is interwoven in life. Crises
> > are not temporary states, but a path of inner life.  When we pass from
> > systems to fates fates.... birth and death of systems, we will see this
> > ourselves". ("It is impossible to live not conceiving life spiritually":
> > L.S. Vygotsky's letters to his disciples and colleagues. Published by A
> > Puzyrei, Znanie - Sila, 1990, N 7, p. 93-94). To comment on these lines,
> > their amazing irrelevance and absurdity in 1930's, would be like
> retelling
> > poetry in prose. This is enough to feel the drama of both L.S. Vygotsky's
> > fate and the fate of a whole program of cultural-historical psychology.
> >
> >
> > *The culture of usefulness does not need people and sciences oriented to
> > personal fate, to that what underlies each person - capacity to change,
> > variability, unpredictability. Such sciences, be it Vygotsky's
> > cultural-historical psychology, Vernadsky's noosphere or Vavilov's
> genetics,
> > are dangerous for the totalitarian system, because they assert the right
> for
> > unpredictability, variability in the society.*  By that, they call into
> > question the basic model of a transparent world which can be handled by
> an
> > all-seeing watchmaker according to a plan.
> > <end of quote>
> >
> >
> > [All the above is from pg 17-19 of _Vygotsky Today: On the Verge of
> > Non-Classical Psychology_, by Alexander Asmolov, 1998, Nova Science
> > Publishers.]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Feb 17, 2009, at 1:41 AM, ulvi icil wrote:
> >
> >  Hello,
> >>
> >> I would like to ask any reference book or article about the*
> >> theoretical*reasons of why Vygotsky was not recognized in Soviet Union
> >> starting from 30s
> >> until 60s (it seems that, according to Mike (Cole) , his students were
> >> still
> >> in a situation of dissidence even around 1990s.
> >>
> >> I know that there may be many absurd political reasons about the ban on
> >> Vygotsky and his colleagues.
> >>
> >> But rather than the political ones, I would like to know the theoretical
> >> reasons: What the Soviet power did not like in Vygotsky's theory and
> >> approach? Did such a reason exist which belonged not to politics but to
> >> science of psychology itself?
> >>
> >> I know that Vygotsky rejected to qualify psychology "Marxist" easily ,
> >> without truly obtaining a scientific, Marxist science of psychology (He
> >> emphasized that psychology can only be Marxist in "Historical Crisis").
> >>
> >> May be authorities did not like his approach in this regard. Also, in
> that
> >> period, authorities did not like people look also to the West in various
> >> areas, including the art and they preferred people create science, art
> etc
> >> which belong only to Soviet Union...etc
> >>
> >> So, is there any hint about there any big theoretical difference beween
> >> what Soviet authorities preferred and what Vygotsky followed?
> >>
> >> Is there any memoirs from Luria, Leontiev about this?
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Ulvi Icil
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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