Re: [xmca] Vygotsky, Saussure, and Wolves with different dreams: the concept-in-itself

[Steve Gabosch <stevegabosch@me.com>]

Your comments, quotes and links are very helpful, Andy, thank you.  I  
am still struggling to comprehend all this, but now have so much more  
to work with.  We now have several sequences from both Vygotsky and  
Hegel to consider:

1. (Vygotsky)  a) concept-in-itself, b) concept-for-others, c) concept- 
for-myself (Vygotsky, Thinking and Speech, 1986, pg 124).

2. (Hegel) thing-in-itself, b) thing-for-us, c) thing-for-itself.   
(Where is this from?)

3. (Vygotsky) a) reaching for an object, b) reaching for an object  
while another person reacts, c) pointing at an object expecting  
another person to react (Vygotsky, CW, Vol 4, pg 104).

4. (Hegel)  (a) animalistic action/reaction, (b) the collective  
consciousness of a cultural group, (c) individual consciousness (which  
is what Hegel meant by "psychology")  (Where is this from?)

5. (Hegel)  "§ 334:  The levels of this elevation of certainty to  
truth are: (a) consciousness in general, which has an object as such;  
(b) self-consciousness, for which the self is the object; (c) the  
unity of consciousness and self-consciousness, where the spirit sees  
itself as the content of the object and as in and for itself  
determinate; — as reason, the concept of the spirit."  (Hegel,  
Philosophy of Spirit, http://marx.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/ssconsci.htm#SS334)

I see your point about what I have listed above as item 5.  5a and 5b  
seem to fit in with the others, but not 5c.  I also have a question  
about 4a - whether that quite fits, either.

I like your general descriptions of what LSV seems to have meant.  I  
have the urge to push these concepts even further, to their full  
capacity.  In doing, I may be going too far, or perhaps I am combining  
them a little differently and incorrectly.  See what you think.  Allow  
me to think out loud here, and take this as far as I can for the moment.

You say:
> "Concept-in-itself" I take to be the unconscious use of words by a  
> small child as an indivisible part of an action, a "handle" for a  
> thing. This is close to the Hegelian idea, because the child is not  
> yet conscious of having a concept or thing-name at all; it is  
> indissolubly connected to the object itself.

Excellent point.  Wanting to expand on this, perhaps we can relate  
this stage to Vygotsky's emphasis on the importance of the naming  
stage beginning around age two.  Vygotsky explains in Thinking and  
Speech (ch 4) that "Stern provided the first and best description of  
this extraordinarily important event in the child's mental life.  He  
demonstrated that a vague consciousness of the significance of  
language and the will to master it is awakened in the child. The child  
makes what is the most significant discovery of his life the discovery  
that "each thing has its name" (Stern, 1922, p. 92)" (Vygotsky, CW,  
Vol 1, p. 111).  Vygotsky referred to this as the "signifying  
function" in Ch 3.

In other words, does "concept-in-itself" refers to **naming objects**?

You say:
> "Concept-for-others" I take to mean the use of a word for  
> communicative action, e.g. asking an adult for assistance, and it is  
> directed at the adult.

Another excellent observation.  Perhaps we can relate this stage to  
the **functional** use of language, to bring that key term in  
Vygotsky's work on concept formation into this discussion.  In  
"concept-for-others" (and actually, the use of the term concept any of  
these three phrases) I wonder if Vygotsky might be using the term  
"concept" not as in "true concept" but in its generic sense, referring  
to any kind of conceptual formation - syncretic, complexive,  
pseudoconceptual, true concepts, etc.  If so, perhaps we can expand  
this stage (the use of words for communicative action) beyond just  
children talking to adults to include talking to anyone - adults,  
other children, self, and even imaginary entities.

In other words, does "concept-for-others" refer to **using words to  
function socially**?

You say:
> "Concept-for-myself" is the use of language by the child to control  
> its own actions, speech growing in, as they say, towards silent  
> speech. I don't know if I entirely concur with Kozulin in saying  
> this, but the idea you quote from Kozulin is certainly closely  
> connnected, because the use of words to achieve intelligent  
> *control* of one's own actions is surely closely connected with  
> awareness of one's own consciousness (and behaviour). And I think  
> you can link LSV and Hegel with (a) and (b) but I can't see it with  
> (c).

Here, I am puzzling out the two excellent ideas pointed to here, the  
use of words for 1) self-regulation and 2) self-awareness.  My first  
question is, how is self-regulation, consciously controlling ones own  
actions and behaviors, not just another aspect of functionally using  
language?  For example, as Vygotsky discovered, when a child (or  
adult) talks to themselves, they are regulating their behaviors and  
actions.  This also relates to Vygotsky's discussion and experiments  
regarding auxiliary stimuli.  So I wonder if 1) self-regulation  
belongs more in the first category.

My second question, following your suggestions, Andy, is since self- 
consciousness clearly is a common theme in many of the examples we are  
considering for this third stage, what would be **different** about  
this self-awareness or self-consciousness at this third "stage" of  
concept formation?  Furthermore, if, as Vygotsky says, the first two  
stages as a rule **precede** the third stage (am using the term stage  
loosely here), then what is new and different about a person's self- 
awareness in the third stage?

Well, since we know where Vygotsky is going with his thinking about  
concept formation, let's fill in the blank and see how it fits.   
Perhaps at the stage of "concepts-for-myself" a person begins to  
**name objects** and **functionally use words** on a new level, in a  
new, **self-conscious** way.

And what would be the nature of this new, "self-conscious" way of  
using words?   Well, here is where we might be able to answer this,  
relying on Vygotsky's theory about the scientific or academic concept,  
that is, the conscious use of words to create **culturally-understood,  
logical generalizations** - that is, of course, **true concepts**.

In other words, does "concept-for-myself" refer to **self-consciously- 
produced true concepts**?

Well, that's as far as I'm getting, picking up from your very helpful  
points and references, Andy.  Thoughts?

Cheers,
~ Steve

PS.  Some Hegel quotes follow.

****************************

The following is passage § 334 in Hegel's Philosophy of Spirit that  
you refer to, Andy, plus the two preceding passages, § 332 and § 333,  
which seem to be in the same vein.  Opaque, for sure!   But still an  
interesting discussion of object-subject relations as well as the idea  
of consciousness developing - all of which I would like to understand  
better!

From http://marx.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/ 
ssconsci.htm#SS334

§ 332

Since the self does not exist as the concept, but only as a formal  
identity, the dialectical movement of consciousness does not seem to  
it to be its own activity, but seems to occur in itself that is, as a  
change in the object. Consciousness appears differently, therefore,  
according to the differences in the given object, and the ongoing  
development of consciousness appears as a development of the object.  
The observation of its necessary changes, however, the concept, falls,  
because it is still as such interior, within us.

[Note: the following paragraph is in a smaller font than the other  
paragraphs, not clear why. - sg]

Kantian philosophy may be most accurately described as having  
conceived of the spirit as consciousness, and as containing only  
determinations of the phenomenology, not the philosophy, of spirit.  
Kant views the self as the relation to a "thing in itself" lying  
somewhere beyond, and it is only from this perspective that he treats  
the intellect and the will. Though with the concept of reflecting  
judgment he does speak of the idea of the spirit, subject-objectivity,  
an intuitive understanding, and so on, and even the idea of nature,  
this idea is itself demoted to an appearance again, namely, to a  
subjective principle. Reinhold, it may therefore be said, correctly  
understood Kantianism, when he treated it as a theory of  
consciousness, under the name of the faculty of imagination. Fichtean  
philosophy adheres to the same point of view, for his "not-I" is only  
an object of the "I," only determined as in consciousness; it remains  
an infinite impulse, that is, a thing in itself. Both philosophies  
show, therefore, that they have not clearly reached the concept or the  
spirit as it is in and for itself but only as it is in relation to  
something else.

§ 333
The aim of the spirit as consciousness is to make its appearance  
identical with its essence, to raise the certainty of itself to truth.  
The existence of the spirit in consciousness is formal or general as  
such; because that is determined only abstractly, or it is only self- 
reflected as an abstract self its existence retains a content which is  
not yet its own.

§ 334
The levels of this elevation of certainty to truth are: (a)  
consciousness in general, which has an object as such; (b) self- 
consciousness, for which the self is the object; (c) the unity of  
consciousness and self-consciousness, where the spirit sees itself as  
the content of the object and as in and for itself determinate; — as  
reason, the concept of the spirit.

*******************************
<end of Hegel quotes>


On Aug 6, 2009, at 5:23 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:

> Mmm, well I had a read of the relevant passage in Hegel again last  
> night, Steve, and again modified my opinion of its meaning. Here is  
> a link to the point which is the nearest Hegel comes to this relation:
>
> http://marx.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/sp/ssconsci.htm#SS334
>
> I find this prettty opaque quite honestly, but I think if you read  
> it on the assumption that Hegel is talking about the differentiating  
> out of (c) individual consciousness (which is what Hegel meant by  
> "psychology") from (a) animalistic action/reaction and (b) the  
> collective consciousness of a cultural group, you might just get  
> some sense out of it.
>
> LSV put it this way:
>
> "All cultural development of the child passes through three basic  
> stages that can be described in the following way using Hegel’s  
> analysis." (LSV CW v. 4 p. 104) My paraphrase of the rest of the  
> paragraph: the development of a gesture as (1) reaching for an  
> object, (2) a reaction arises, but not on the part of the object,  
> but another person, who completes the grasping for the child, and in  
> being directed towards another person, the gesture becomes  
> contracted, and (3) becomes a gesture for oneself. And I think this  
> is as good as any a representation of the Hegel passage I have given  
> the link to.
>
> -----------
>
> Vygotsky may have learnt about this passage secondhand from Lewin.  
> But everyone knew about the Hegelian phrases "thing-in-itself",  
> "thing-for-us" and "thing-for-itself", since these were part of the  
> popular discourse around Hegel in Marxist circles. So I presume  
> "concept-in-itself," the "concept-for-others" and the "concept-for- 
> myself" is a kind of play on these concepts. But "concept-for- 
> myself" is just not something you'd find in Hegel. The concept is  
> always objective for Hegel.
>
> -----------
>
> Now what Vygotsky meant by it:
>
> "Concept-in-itself" I take to be the unconscious use of words by a  
> small child as an indivisible part of an action, a "handle" for a  
> thing. This is close to the Hegelian idea, because the child is not  
> yet conscious of having a concept or thing-name at all; it is  
> indissolubly connected to the object itself.
>
> "Concept-for-others" I take to mean the use of a word for  
> communicative action, e.g. asking an adult for assistance, and it is  
> directed at the adult.
>
> "Concept-for-myself" is the use of language by the child to control  
> its own actions, speech growing in, as they say, towards silent  
> speech. I don't know if I entirely concur with Kozulin in saying  
> this, but the idea you quote from Kozulin is certainly closely  
> connnected, because the use of words to achieve intelligent  
> *control* of one's own actions is surely closely connected with  
> awareness of one's own consciousness (and behaviour). And I think  
> you can link LSV and Hegel with (a) and (b) but I can't see it with  
> (c).
>
> That's where I'm at with all this Steve.
>
> Andy
>
>
> Steve Gabosch wrote:
> > Thanks, Andy.  I think I am being a little dense here, because now  
> > I am uncertain of both what Vygotsky meant, and what Hegel meant as  
> > well!  LOL
> > I get the **sense** of these distinctions, of course, but I don't  
> > think they are yet registering for me as clear **concepts**.  I  
> > might even be able to more or less correctly answer a question or  
> > two about what Vygotsky said on a school quiz, but I can tell I  
> > would only be doing so on the basis of pseudoconceptual reasoning,  
> > because I can memorize the genetic order that Vygotsky says that  
> > the concept-in-itself, the concept-for-others and the concept-for- 
> > myself appear in the child - but not because I really understand  
> > **why** they appear in that order, or because I understand just  
> > **what** these kinds of concepts actually are.  I couldn't,  
> > offhand, give you clear examples of these three kinds of concepts.   
> > Your quote from Hegel is helpful, but I have not fully  
> > conceptualized Hegel's treatment of these ideas, either.  I'm not  
> > so sure how I'd get very far on a school quiz on that!  LOL
> > So let me refine my questions regarding Vygotsky's points.  First,  
> > what did Vygotsky mean by the terms "concept-in-itself," "concept- 
> > for-others" and "concept-for-myself"?  Second, what are some  
> > examples of these kinds of concepts?  Third, why does he claim that  
> > the first two, as a rule, precede the latter in a child's  
> > intellectual development?

For further thought, here are some relevant quotes from the paper,  
from Vygotsky, and from Kozulin.

> > Here is what Paula and Carol said (pg 236 in Wolves):

> > "It is in this respect that Vygotsky notes that the genetic  
> > preconditions of the “concept-for-myself” are already present in  
> > the pseudoconcept in the form of the “concept-in-itself” and the  
> > “concept-for-others”, because these occur earlier in the child than  
> > the “concept-for-myself”: he further asserts that this sequence is  
> > not restricted to conceptual development because it occurs as a  
> > “rule rather than the exception in the intellectual development of  
> > the child” (p. 124)."

> > Here is the passage by Vygotsky from Alex Kozulin's translation of  
> > Thought and Language they refer to (pg 124):

> > "The concept-in-itself and the concept-for-others are developed in  
> > the child earlier than the concept-for-myself.  The concept-in- 
> > itself and the concept-for-others, which are already present in the  
> > pseudoconcept, are the basic genetic precondition for the  
> > development of real concepts.  This peculiar genetic situation is  
> > not limited to the attainment of concepts; it is the rule rather  
> > the exception in the intellectual development of the child." (7)

> > In Footnote (7) to the above passage in Thought and Language (on  
> > page 268),  Kozulin comments:

> > "7. Vygotsky's discussion of the phenomenon of pseudoconcepts has  
> > far-reaching philosophical implications.  First of all, if the  
> > conscious awareness of one's own intellectual operations ("concept- 
> > for-me") is only a secondary achievement, which follows the  
> > practical use of these operations, then the individual cannot be  
> > considered a self-conscious center of activity.  [Note from Steve:   
> > I don't grasp what Alex just said.]  The individual appears rather  
> > as a "construction" built at the crossroads of the inner and outer  
> > realities.  Second, the phenomenon of functional equivalence  
> > between real and pseudoconcepts warns us against taking the  
> > functional appearance of communication for its ultimate content.   
> > The usage of "one and the same" words and subsequent  
> > "understanding" may be illusory.  Such illusion of understanding,  
> > based on the confusion between functional and essential  
> > characteristics, constantly emerges in child-adult communication,  
> > in the dialogue between different social groups, and in contacts  
> > between different cultures.  For further discussion of this point,  
> > see Alex Kozulin, "Psychology and Philosophical Anthropology: The  
> > Problem of Their Interaction," *The Philosophical Forum*, 1984,  
> > 15(4):443-458."
> > <end>
> > On Aug 4, 2009, at 7:58 AM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> > > Steve Gabosch wrote:
> > > > What did LSV mean by a "concept-for-myself," (a phrase, I  
> > > > understand, is derived from Hegel)?
> > >
> > > Hegel would never have used quite the phrase, "concept-for- 
> > > myself", but the way Vygotsky is using the idea: first concept in- 
> > > itself, then for-others, and only last for-myself - i.e., self- 
> > > consciousness, is quite consistent with Hegel's idea. It's really  
> > > a play on Hegel.
> > >
> > > For example from Hegel's Introduction to the History of Philosophy:
> > >
> > > "But consciousness really implies that for myself, I am object to  
> > > myself. In forming this absolute division between what is mine and  
> > > myself, Mind constitutes its existence and establishes itself as  
> > > external to itself. It postulates itself in the externality."
> > >
> > > Andy
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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 (Erythrós Press and Media) http://www.erythrospress.com/
> Orders: http://www.erythrospress.com/store/main.html#books
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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