[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: FW: [xmca] On Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky by Nikolai Veresov
Andrew:
Thank you for doing so, I stand corrected. I also apologize for any
misrepresentation.
eric
"Andrew Coppens"
<acoppens@ucsc.e To: "'eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity'" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
du> cc: "'Barbara Rogoff'" <brogoff@ucsc.edu>
Sent by: Subject: FW: [xmca] On Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the
xmca-bounces@web cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky by Nikolai Veresov
er.ucsd.edu
02/25/2009 05:13
PM
Please respond
to "eXtended
Mind, Culture,
Activity"
Hi everyone,
I forwarded Eric's response regarding Barbara Rogoff's position on the
inside/outside issue, wanting to offer Barbara the opportunity to comment.
The following is a response from her ...
______
Andrew D. Coppens
Doctoral Student
Department of Psychology
University of California, Santa Cruz
-----Original Message-----
From: Barbara Rogoff [mailto:brogoff@ucsc.edu]
Sent: Wednesday, February 25, 2009 2:21 PM
To: Andrew Coppens
Subject: Re: [xmca] On Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the
cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky by Nikolai Veresov
Hi Andrew,
Thanks for forwarding this. Here's a brief response, which I'd
appreciate your passing on to the listserv:
My stance is misrepresented by the author who wrote that I believe
that nothing is internal but rather appears in the collective.
In fact, I have been arguing in print for at least 20 years, in
several books and articles, that the inside/outside dichotomy is a
deadend -- my stance is that human development involves mutually
constituted relations between individuals and cultural communities.
Similarly, the nature/nurture dichotomy leads us astray; like
Vygotsky and Scribner, I see moment-to-moment learning, development
across individual lifespans, socio/cultural/historical change, and
phylogenetic change to be different grains of analysis of unified
dynamic phenomena.
Perhaps my clearest exposition of this stance is in Chapters 2 and 3
of my 2003 book, The Cultural Nature of Human Development (Oxford).
It also appears in my 1990 book and several articles around 1995.
The mutually constituting stance that I and others take seems to
require a paradigm shift for people to be able to see it, if they are
working within the inside/outside dichotomy.
My views are very similar to what Vera expressed when she said,
> Hi everybody concerned with "inside" and "outside",
> I am having difficulty in participants' discomfort with this
> distinction. Why can't we have a socially situated and initiated
> process
> be both
> external to the organism and also "internal"? That is, when a person
> participates in an activity and engages with all that she/he is,
> and has at his/her disposal, that participation is simultaneously
> internal and external.. Clearly our hands change as we engage in
> labor,
> why can't we accept our brains changing while participating in
> learning
> and relying on memory? The fact that the brain is enclosed makes is
> less accessible to observation than the hand. But the principle of the
> appropriated consequences of activity which changes different
> parts of
> the participant refers to a process of interwoven changes not to a
> frozen dichotomy.
With regards to what age period of development my approach applies to
-- I have focused on childhood, but the general framework seems to be
applicable to adolescence, infancy, and adulthood. (I'm not sure why
the writer thinks otherwise.)
In any case, thanks for passing this along.
Regards,
Barbara
On Feb 25, 2009, at 12:16 PM, Andrew Coppens wrote:
> Did you hear your ears ringing yesterday? :) (see below)
>
> I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the accuracy of the
> "nothing is
> internal" representation of your position, and what you thought about
> whether this position is "limited to the development of the child
> and loses
> explanatory powers when it moves into the realm of the adolescent".
> I'll ask
> you about this next time there's a minute (or much longer!) to do so.
>
> Andrew
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-
> bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On
> Behalf Of Ali Hussain
> Sent: Tuesday, February 24, 2009 10:55 PM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] On Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the
> cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky by Nikolai Veresov
>
> On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 12:51 AM, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Vera; i certainly want to give a vote of confidence to your
>> position on
>> this. I believe the issue is that there is a strong contingent
>> that does
>> not want to give credit to anything being initiated from human
>> consciousness. I know Barbara Rogoff is not a member of this
>> listserv but
>> she has been drawn into this discussion in the past and I know she
>> is a
>> firm believer that nothing is internal but rather appears in the
>> collective. Although her research is extremely valuable, I
>> believe it is
>> limited to the development of the child and loses explanatory
>> powers when
>> it moves into the realm of the adolescent.
>> eric
>>
>>
>>
>> Vera
>> John-Steiner To:
>> mcole@weber.ucsd.edu, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> <vygotsky@unm.ed <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> u> cc:
>> Sent by: Subject: Re: [xmca] On
>> Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the
>> xmca-bounces@web cultural-historical
>> psychology of L.S. Vygotsky by Nikolai Veresov
>> er.ucsd.edu
>>
>>
>> 02/24/2009 11:06
>> AM
>> Please respond
>> to "eXtended
>> Mind, Culture,
>> Activity"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Hi everybody concerned with "inside" and "outside",
>> I am having difficulty in participants' discomfort with this
>> distinction. Why can't we have a socially situated and initiated
>> process
>> be both
>> external to the organism and also "internal"? That is, when a person
>> participates in an activity and engages with all that she/he is,
>> and has at his/her disposal, that participation is simultaneously
>> internal and external.. Clearly our hands change as we engage in
>> labor,
>> why can't we accept our brains changing while participating in
>> learning
>> and relying on memory? The fact that the brain is enclosed makes is
>> less accessible to observation than the hand. But the principle of
>> the
>> appropriated consequences of activity which changes different
>> parts of
>> the participant refers to a process of interwoven changes not to a
>> frozen dichotomy. To me, the very way Vygotsky handles this issue is
>> the hallmark of his reliance on dialectics.
>> Vera
>>
>> Mike Cole wrote:
>>> You are using XMCA just fine, Ulvi.
>>>
>>> David-- As usual there is a lot to discuss in your comments. I
>>> want to
>> pick
>>> up on just one where you and I either disagree or talk past each
>>> other.
> I
>>> would like exclude the latter possibility so we could hone in on
>>> what
> the
>>> disgreement is and what its resolution might be.
>>>
>>> You write:
>>> For Vygotsky the sources of the crisis, like the neoformation
>>> itself,
>> lies
>>> within the child. (Whether Martin likes it or not, that is what he
>> says!).
>>>
>>> What constantly confuses me in such statements is what "within the
> child"
>>> means (and this is probably related to the use of perezhivanie as
>>> a unit
>> of
>>> analysis for the study of ontogenetic development, to echo a prior
>> message).
>>>
>>> The biological development of the pre-frontal cortex is clearly
>>> one of
>> the
>>> systemic changes that is taking place in the years of roughly
>>> 5-10 that
>> are
>>> a part of an important crisis in development a la Vygotsky. And,
>>> conventionally, we can say that these changes are happening
>>> "within" the
>>> child. But they are happening in a culturally organized social
>>> situation
>> of
>>> development. That SSD
>>> is, as I understand it, both outside the child AND inside the
>>> child (as
>>> previously appropriated, interiorized, and transformed, features
>>> of the
>>> social interactions of which the child has been a part). The
>> confrontation
>>> of these changing contributions to developmental change give rise
>>> to a
>>> neoformation which is..... inside the child (?), inside the child
>>> but
>>> manifested externally where they have an influence on, contribute
>>> to the
>>> SSD?
>>>
>>> How do you, David, and, according to you interpretation, LSAV,
>>> manage to
>>> keep so clearly in mind what is inside and outside the child?
>>>
>>> Thank you for reminding me to check the polls. We will close
>>> tomorrow
> and
>>> make the article with the most votes availalbe as soon as possible.
>>>
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 4:47 AM, ulvi icil <ulvi.icil@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thank you David for your valuable remarks and apologizes from
>>>> all but
>>>> especially from Nikolai Veresov also if I used xmca in a wrong
>>>> way.
>>>>
>>>> Ulvi
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 22/02/2009, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear Ulvi:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your long and very considered reply. I think that the
>>>>> relationship between Vygotsky's psychology and larger
>>>>> philosophical
>>>>>
>>>> issues
>>>>
>>>>> (including Marxism) is a topic that will not go away, whether
>>>>> you and
> I
>>>>> continue it or not.
>>>>>
>>>>> Very often, I think, we make the mistake of choosing articles for
>>>>> discussion that emphasize these philosophical issues; the
>>>>> reasoning is
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>> the more abstractly we approach the problems, the more the
>>>>> solutions
>> will
>>>>>
>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>> applicable to everybody. We are a VERY diverse group, which is
>>>>> another
>>>>>
>>>> way
>>>>
>>>>> of saying we are a highly inclusive one!
>>>>>
>>>>> It seems to me, however, that the way to solve these questions is
>> really
>>>>> through PRAXIS, and through discussing articles where the larger
>>>>> philosophical issues (e.g. Marxism) have immediate relevance
>>>>> for data
>> and
>>>>> for the conclusions we draw from data.
>>>>>
>>>>> So for example in Mariane Hedegaard's article (which I hope
>>>>> will soon
>> be
>>>>> chosen and made freely available for discussion) I think an
>>>>> absolutely
>>>>>
>>>> KEY
>>>>
>>>>> question is whether or not her formulation of "the crisis" is
>> compatible
>>>>> with Vygotsky's Is the "crisis" of Jens in kindergarten (where he
>> refuses
>>>>>
>>>> to
>>>>
>>>>> settle down and listen to a fairy story and will not accept that a
>>>>>
>>>> picture
>>>>
>>>>> of a baby whale shows a "baby") a good example of a REVOLUTIONARY
>>>>> restructuring of the relationship between psychological
>>>>> functions and
>>>>>
>>>> the
>>>>
>>>>> precocious (adventurist) SEIZURE of POWER by the child's
>>>>> psychological
>>>>> neoformations? In what sense does Halime's failure to attend camp
>>>>>
>>>> represent
>>>>
>>>>> the emergence of a new form of mental life (a neoformation)? .
>>>>>
>>>>> I certainly did NOT mean to imply that Vygotsky rejected Marxism.
> There
>>>>>
>>>> is
>>>>
>>>>> no evidence that this is the case. All the evidence in mature
>>>>> Vygotsky
>>>>> suggests that his methodology was getting more and more Marxist
>>>>> (e.g.
>> his
>>>>> emphasis on word meaning as a unit of analysis comparable to the
>>>>>
>>>> commodity).
>>>>
>>>>> Like you, I believe that Vygotsky refusal to call his psychology
>>>>>
>>>> "Marxist"
>>>>
>>>>> was partly a matter of hygiene. Yes, Vygotsky felt some disdain
>>>>> for
> the
>>>>> noisy "Marxists" who were clearly using the word to get ahead and
>>>>>
>>>> discarding
>>>>
>>>>> the methodology.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I understand this very well. In China, "Marxism" (which
>>>>> meant
>>>>>
>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>> you supported a very gruesome set of 19th Century Marketist
>>>>> "reforms")
>>>>>
>>>> was a
>>>>
>>>>> meal ticket. I never called myself a Marxist there. In Syria, a
> country
>>>>>
>>>> very
>>>>
>>>>> close to your own, "Marxism" was a ticket to prison; the
>>>>> Marxists I
> met
>>>>> there were of considerably better quality.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that Vygotsky probably despised "Marxist" psychologists
>>>>> like
>>>>> Zalkind, who tried to show how social circumstances were rather
>>>>>
>>>> mechanically
>>>>
>>>>> mirrored in psychology, and in fact for any approach that saw the
>> crises
>>>>>
>>>> as
>>>>
>>>>> being EXTERNALLY determined. For Vygotsky the sources of the
>>>>> crisis,
>> like
>>>>> the neoformation itself, lies within the child. (Whether Martin
>>>>> likes
>> it
>>>>>
>>>> or
>>>>
>>>>> not, that is what he says!)
>>>>>
>>>>> To be a Marxist, as opposed to noisily calling yourself one,
>>>>> means to
>>>>> understand that Marxism is a science, and a science simply
>>>>> cannot be
>>>>>
>>>> applied
>>>>
>>>>> in a mechanical way to every realm of human understanding, the
>>>>> way a
>>>>>
>>>> child
>>>>
>>>>> with a hammer sees every problem as a nail. Marxism is a very
>>>>> specific
>>>>>
>>>> form
>>>>
>>>>> of historical understanding developed in response to a particular
>> problem
>>>>> set.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think these problems include sex and death, or spelling in
>>>>> kindergarten and learning that the word "baby" is also applied to
>> whales.
>>>>>
>>>> In
>>>>
>>>>> fact, I think that Marxism applied to phylogenetic evolution,
>> ontogenetic
>>>>> growth and even to microgenesis in the classroom is Marxism
> misapplied.
>>>>>
>>>> As
>>>>
>>>>> Vygotsky liked to say, it is a bullfrog puffed up until it is
>>>>> the size
>> of
>>>>>
>>>> a
>>>>
>>>>> cow, a theory that has compromised its explanatory power through a
>>>>>
>>>> process
>>>>
>>>>> of intellectual inflation and disciplinary imperialism.
>>>>>
>>>>> David Kellogg
>>>>> Seoul National University of Education
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>> --
>> Vera John-Steiner, Ph.D.
>> Regents' Professor of Education and Linguistics
>> vygotsky@unm.edu (505) 277-4324
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Ali Hussain Jiwani
> Professional Web-Designer (http://b4db0y.com)
> _______________________________________________
> 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