Re: [xmca] Universalism, Relativism, and Developmentalism

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

David--  Have read as far as your nice laying out of the three perspectives,
universal, relativistic, developmental. That was rich enough for the time
being.

It occurred to me as I read your summary of each position that they map
rather nicely on to phylogenetic, cultural historical, and ontogenetic time
scales. Is that fair? If so, seems like a really aligning of discourses.
mike

On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 2:12 AM, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>wrote:

> Dear David
>
> Thank you for your extremely enlightening series of examples, especially
> since they are also relevant to my other work--English language. I am
> constantly astonished at how diligent my colleagues/comrades are in making
> an extended point/reply.  I will reply off-line.
> Carol
>
> PS Andy also sent me a helpful comment off-line.  I owe you guys.
>
> On 14 July 2010 10:37, David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Dear Carol:
> >
> > I don't think what I said was illogical, just historical. History appears
> > to contradict itself not infrequently. But the mere fact that something
> > appears completely impossible on paper does remarkably little to prevent
> it
> > from actually occuring. And even less to render it comprehensible.
> >
> > For example, one might, with some exaggeration, divide the last five
> > hundred years of English language teaching into three very rough two
> hundred
> > year periods:
> >
> > a) a first, very basic, transactional-interpersonal period which mostly
> > dealt with cross-channel trade and the influx of Huguenot refuges,
> lasting
> > from roughly the invention of printed language learning materials by
> William
> > Caxton around 1480 to the death of Comenius in 1670.
> >
> > b) a second, much more textually based period which dealt with the
> creation
> > of an English canon as a secular equivalent to the Greek and Latin
> classics,
> > lasting from roughly the revocation of the edict of Nantes by Louis the
> > XIVth in 1685 until the birth of the Reform Movement around 1870 with the
> > work of Sweet and later Palmer, West, and Hornby.
> >
> > c) the current period, which has seen the rise of a more meaning-based
> > method, first in the rather predictable forms of
> structuralism-behaviorism
> > (which although it had different names in the US and the UK had much the
> > same audiolingual-oral-situational content) and then in the more
> > unpredictable form of "communicative methodology" (which although it has
> the
> > same name in the US and the UK has completely different and in some ways
> > completely opposite content, because the Yanks kept structuralism and
> > ditched behaviorism while the Brits kept behaviorism and ditched
> > structuralism).
> >
> > Now, the reason I raise all this ancient history is not simply to deny
> that
> > we are at the beginning of a new epoch (although I DO deny it, as I deny
> > that the Communicative Method represented anywhere a complete break with
> > structuralism-behaviorism). I raise it to point out that there are
> moments
> > of this ancient history which are:
> >
> > 1) Universal. That is, the same kinds of questions keep coming up again
> and
> > again, viz. How do we know, when we translate, that children understand
> the
> > English word and not the translation? How do we "present" and "practice"
> > something like meaning, as opposed to mere sound? Do we learn grammar the
> > subconsciously, unconscioiusly, or deliberately and volitionally? etc.
> >
> > 2) Relativistic. That is, there are very different answers to all of
> these
> > questions, and not one of them appears to be always right at any given
> time.
> > Children sometimes understand and retain the English word and
> > sometimes forget it instantly and only retain the translation or retain
> the
> > English word but go on using the mother tongue concept as its meaning.
> There
> > appear to be very different kinds of meaning, some of which are
> repeatable
> > and others of which are not, and this is not in any direct way relatable
> to
> > their learnability, contrary to what we might suppose. Some grammar is
> > subconscious, some of it is unconscious, and a very great deal of it is,
> > like murder and other crimes, completely premeditated.
> >
> > 3) Developmental. That is, some aspects of language teaching appear to
> > change cumulatively, and others merely proliferate, producing variation
> > without any obvious progress. There is no real sense, that I can see, in
> > which English teaching today is "better" than the teaching of Latin or
> Greek
> > in Comenius's time (and there is also no real sense in which English is
> more
> > of a "global" language than Latin or Greek or French was). But there is
> > certainly a very real sense in which our understanding of how language
> works
> > (for example, what kinds of meaning there are, and what kinds of grammar
> > there are) has managed to sum up the past, complexify our present
> > understanding, and go forward to new applications of that
> > richer understanding.
> >
> > It's really not the case, as I once thought, that teaching practice just
> > produces variations without any real evolution, while educational
> research
> > produces the very opposite, by "theory culling". Theory and practice seem
> > much more mutually interpenetrated, so that there are theories which
> > proliferate without any real refinement or even differentiation (I think
> the
> > theory of "comprehensible input" is a good example of this) and there are
> > practices which are very clearly and demonstrably more efficient than
> others
> > (e.g. the keyword method of vocabulary learning, or the practice of
> teaching
> > grammar by using examples before rules).
> >
> > But it really is the case, I now think, that in English teaching (and I
> > suspect also in cultural psychology, or cultural historical activity
> theory,
> > or socioculturalism, or phylo-socio-onto-microgenetic epistomology) that
> > there are some areas of what we do where universalism is the underlying
> > basis, others where relativism is an observeable fact, and still others
> > where progress is not only possible but palpable. Do I contradict myself?
> > Well then, I contradict myself; I am large, and like any other
> > language-using animal, I contain worlds.
> >
> > Sorry, I meant "words".
> >
> > David Kellogg
> > Seoul National University of Education
> >
> >
> > --- On Tue, 7/13/10, Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> > From: Carol Macdonald <carolmacdon@gmail.com>
> > Subject: Re: [xmca] The Missing Part
> > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > Date: Tuesday, July 13, 2010, 6:34 AM
> >
> >
> > Eric
> >
> > What does this mean?  Am I dense or is there a word missing:
> >
> > but I have turned the corner and *believe we are who were
> > and wherever you go there you are. *
> >
> > I loved D's illogicality:
> > *
> > But it's also why there can be, at one and the same moment, universalism
> > ("We're all the same"), relativism ("We're all different, but equal") and
> > developmentalism ("We're all different, and the differences matter") at
> > one and the same time.*
> >
> > But, for me relativism is a farce--e.g. the witchdoctor having the same
> > power as a nuclear physicist? USAID and DFiD don't believe this, and
> > neither
> > do I.
> >
> > And on what grounds do we see Shweder as having Mike's stature? (David)
>  My
> > students hated him (Shweder, by the way, they thought he was a sellout,
> too
> > close to mainstream psychology.)
> >
> > Carol
> >
> > PS Sorry for spoiling the line of argument: I have missed a part.
> >
> > On 13 July 2010 15:15, <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org> wrote:
> >
> > > How very idealistic of you David.  I don't share in your optimistic
> view
> > > of bringing about a kumbaya utopia.  This veil of tears we share has
> been
> > > shared by our ancestors and shall continue to be shared in all its
> > > brilliance and hair covered moles.
> > >
> > > At one time I did possibly believe that humans were developing
> > > phylogenetically but I have turned the corner and believe we are who
> were
> > > and wherever you go there you are.  It is what it is or as the WWII
> vets
> > > say  "comme ci comme ca"
> > >
> > > eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:   David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
> > > To:     Culture ActivityeXtended Mind <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Date:   07/12/2010 06:53 PM
> > > Subject:        Re: [xmca] The Missing Part
> > > Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > eric:
> > >
> > > No, as usual, you have my point pretty much exactly, only without the
> > > silly flourishes I sometimes add. Remember, though, that Mike's magnum
> > > opus was entitled "A Once and Future Discipline" .
> > >
> > > Mike says this was an accident; Bradd Shore dibsed the title he really
> > > wanted, ("Culture in Mind") so he went and stole this one from Mallory
> > > ("The Once and Future King", i.e. Arthur).
> > >
> > > It's not as catchy, but "The Once and Future Discipline" is a better
> > title
> > > than "Culture in Mind" for three reasons:
> > >
> > > a) it suggests, correctly, that the key cross cultural insights are not
> > > actually Mike's, but date from a much earlier period, when ethnography
> > was
> > > actually a pretty dirty business. (This is not just true of
> ethnography,
> > > by the way, Yerkes, who provides a fair amount of the monkey business
> in
> > > Chapter Four of Thinking and Speech, was involved in army
> "intelligence"
> > > research dedicated to finding which soldiers were dumb enough to be
> used
> > > to clear minefields, and his interest in teaching apes to talk is
> partly
> > > motivated by his theories that some of us are more closely related to
> > apes
> > > than others.)
> > >
> > > b) it suggests, correctly, that in order to use this stuff we need to
> > > think a little more about where it came from in the light of where we
> > want
> > > to go with it, to purge it of its geographical, social and cultural
> > > specificity and to harness it for a future where insights made in one
> > > corner of the globe become the common property of all its corners and
> all
> > > the bits in between as well.
> > >
> > > c) it suggests that cultural psych is transdisciplinary rather than
> > > interdisiciplinary, that it's a discipline in the process of
> transcending
> > > its historical self rather than one which is merely exchanging
> > ambassadors
> > > with bordering disciplines. That is actually what accounts for its
> > > temporary eclipse, and it is equally what will account for its future
> > > resurgence.
> > >
> > > Shweder, for example, from whom I stole the idea of universalism vs.
> > > relativism vs. developmentalism, is still embroiled in a controversy
> > about
> > > whether anthropologists in Afghanistan can and should collaborate with
> > the
> > > US Army in the occupation of remote provinces. Shweder's position is
> that
> > > they can and should, because their presence will help troops understand
> > > local customs (e.g. the custom of "Loving Thursdays" whereby village
> > > elders undertake the sexual initiation of young boys).
> > >
> > > Whatever you may think of Shweder's view, it certainly corroborates the
> > > idea that cultural psychology (of which Shweder is probably the leading
> > > advocate after Mike himself) has feet of clay, that it has not yet
> > > entirely freed itself from its roots as an adjunct of imperialist
> > > occupation, and that we have a ways to go before we can really say it
> has
> > > something to offer every human being it purports to study.
> > >
> > > Take English as a global language (PLEASE! Take it away before it hurts
> > > somebody!). English even in its benign forms is a lousy language for
> > world
> > > communication precisely because it is a perfect language for world
> > > domination, a perfect exclusive language for the global community of
> > > airport hopping rich folks.
> > >
> > > English is a nightmare choice for a world language. It is
> phonologically
> > > bizarre, grammatically opaque, and pragmatically obscurantist. It has a
> > > dark past, rooted in a dominance born of genocide and slavery. But it
> > also
> > > has a certain promise, a certain future, a certain freedom which we see
> > > whenever we teach it in a country like Korea, and we see that the more
> we
> > > teach it, the less English it becomes.
> > >
> > > I think these problems with English are roughly the same problems that
> > > cultural psychology had in Vygotsky's time. Bleuler, who was Piaget's
> > > teacher and certainly knew Levy-Bruhl's work extremely well, broke with
> > > both Piaget and Levy-Bruhl precisely over the theorized from of these
> > > problems, the developmental issue of whether "autistic" thinking was
> > > developmentally primary, ontogenetically or sociogenetically.
> > >
> > > Bleuler, and Vygotsky too, turned the Europocentric view right
> > > upside-down; they believed tha autism, far from being developmentally
> > > atavistic, required a certain stage of development to achieve: you had
> to
> > > be able to remember first and only then could you really think about
> your
> > > wishes, dreams, desires. They also believed that thinking
> > "irrealisically"
> > > about wishes and desires led in a fairly direct way to more
> > > realistic hopes and plans.
> > >
> > > For that very reason it was wrong to consider "autism" as an
> > > underdeveloped stage; autism, or as he liked to call it, "irrealism"
> was
> > > simply that part of human thinking that was genuinely relativistic,
> where
> > > neither an adult nor a man "at the pinnacle of civilization" (Bleuler
> is
> > > certainly being ironic here since he is writing at the outset of World
> > War
> > > One) may claim superiority. There may be other areas where one form of
> > > thinking includes, subsumes, and sublates earlier forms (e.g.
> mathematics
> > > and science generally) but in the humanities we find variation without
> > > development, at least without development in the sense of the emergence
> > of
> > > superior forms which asymmetrically include earlier ones.
> > >
> > > That Vygotsky took this on board is very clear from his writings on
> > > creativity and imagination. That Vygotsky went even further than
> Bleuler
> > > is clear from his argument that irrealist thinking and realist thinking
> > do
> > > not turn in parallel, like the wheels of a desk, only in response to
> the
> > > external environment, but have an internal connection, an axle, or
> rather
> > > a differential, which allow them to influence each other, so that in
> > > science too we shall find variation without development and in art and
> > the
> > > humanities some genuine, common, universally valuable (because
> > universally
> > > shareable) developments alongside the dazzling and dizzying variations
> > > which for the most part are hard to share.
> > >
> > > Nevertheless I think Vygotsky shares Bleuler's basic insight,which we
> see
> > > here in the chapter which begins with the Missing Part. By putting the
> > > "autistic" function at the beginning of development, and by lumping
> > > selfishness, stupidity, schizophrenia, and perfectly normal cultural
> > > variation into a single syncretic heap, Freud, Levy-Bruhl and Blondel
> are
> > > behaving more like idealist savages than intellectual scientists.
> > >
> > > So it goes. From Bleuler to Vygotsky, and from Vygotsky to Mike, and
> from
> > > Mike to me, and then from me to you, with each of us forgetting
> something
> > > and each of us adding on at every step of the way. This is why Vygotsky
> > > comes up with the confusing image of a chain that has a "central" link.
> > > But it's also why there can be, at one and the same moment,
> universalism
> > > ("We're all the same"), relativism ("We're all different, but equal")
> and
> > > developmentalism ("We're all different, and the differences matter") at
> > > one and the same time.
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Seoul National University of Education
> > >
> > > --- On Mon, 7/12/10, ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > From: ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org <ERIC.RAMBERG@spps.org>
> > > Subject: Re: [xmca] The Missing Part
> > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Date: Monday, July 12, 2010, 6:24 AM
> > >
> > >
> > > David:
> > >
> > > This indeed is an important passage in understanding LSV's
> developmental
> > > theories.  But I believe cross-cultural research speerheaded by Cole
> and
> > > others has discounted 'primitive' cultures as being less developed in
> > > thought and practice when compared to 'western' culture.  Or am I
> > > misunderstanding your point?
> > >
> > > eric
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > From:   David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
> > > To:     xmca <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> > > Date:   07/12/2010 02:38 AM
> > > Subject:        [xmca] The Missing Part
> > > Sent by:        xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > This is the beginning of Chapter Two of Thinking and Speech that was
> not
> > > translated into English. I posted it once several years ago, and Anton
> > > thought it didn't add very much.
> > >
> > > I think it does: it structures the whole chapter, because it makes it
> > > clear that Freud, Levy-Bruhl, and Blondel share a common idealist basis
> > as
> > >
> > > well as a common canonical stature.
> > >
> > > &Lt;Мы полагаем, . говорит он, . что настанет день, когда мысль ребенка
> > по
> > >
> > > отношению к мысли нормального цивилизованного взрослого будет помещена
> в
> > > ту же плоскость, в какой находится &Lt;примитивное мышление&Gt;,
> > > охарактеризованное Леви-Брюлем, или аутистическая и символическая
> мысль,
> > > описанная Фрейдом и его учениками, или &Lt;болезненное сознание&Gt;,
> если
> > > только это понятие, введенное Блонделем, не сольется в один прекрасный
> > > день с предыдущим понятием&Gt; (1, с.408).1 Действительно, появление
> его
> > > первых работ по историческому значению
> > > этого факта для дальнейшего развития психологической мысли должно быть
> по
> > > справедливости сопоставлено и сравнено с датами выхода в свет &Lt;Les
> > > fonctions mentales dans les societes inferieures&Gt; Леви-Брюля, &Lt;Т
> > > олкования сновидений&Gt; Фрейда или &Lt;La conscience morbide&Gt;
> > > Блонделя.
> > > Больше того, между этими явлениями в различнейших областях научной
> > > психологии есть не только внешнее сходство, определяемое уровнем их
> > > исторического значения, но глубокое, кровное, внутреннее родство .
> связь
> > > по самой сути заключенных и воплощенных в них философских и
> > > психологических тенденций. Недаром сам Пиаже в огромной мере опирался в
> > > своих исследованиях и построениях на эти три
> > > работы и на их авторов.
> > >
> > >
> > > “It is therefore our belief", says (Piaget), "that the day will come
> when
> > > child thought will be placed on the same level in relation to adult,
> > > normal, and civilized thought as ‘primitive mentality’, as defined by
> > > Lévy-Bruhl, as autistic and symbolical thought as described by Freud
> and
> > > his disciples and as ‘morbid consciousness,’ assuming that this last
> > > concept, which we owe to M. Ch. Blondel, is not simply fused with the
> > > former.” (p. 201-202). In reality, the appearance of this first works,
> in
> > > regard to the historic importance as a fact for future reference in the
> > > development of psychological thought must be on the compared with the
> > > appearance of “Les fonctions mentales dans les societes inferieures” of
> > > Levi- Bruhl, Freud’s “The interpretation of dreams’, or Blondel’s “La
> > > conscience morbide”. It is not simply that between these phenomena in
> the
> > > development of the field of scientific psychology there is a formal
> > > resemblance, determined by their level of historic importance, but that
> > > there is a deep, internal kinship, a connection in essence which is
> > > visible in their philosophical and psychological tendencies. Not
> without
> > > reason does Piaget himself base in enormous measure his own studies and
> > > constructions on these three works and on their authors.
> > >
> > > Last night I was re-reading Bleuler's criticisms of Freud in "Autistic
> > > Thinking" and I also came upon these words, which Vygotsky quotes
> > > approvingly.
> > >
> > > "Examining the more grown-up child, I also do not much observe that he
> > > would prefer the imaginary apple to the real. The imbecile and the
> savage
> > > are alike practitioners of Realpolitik and the latter, (exactly like
> us,
> > > who stand at the apex of cognitive ability) makes his autistic
> > stupidities
> > >
> > > only in such cases when reason and experience prove insufficient: in
> his
> > > ideas about the universe, about the phenomena of nature, in his
> > > understanding of diseases and other blows of destiny, in adopting
> > measures
> > >
> > > to shield himself from them, and in other relationships which are too
> > > complex for him.”
> > >
> > > It seems to me that here and elsewhere in this chapter Bleuler is
> arguing
> > > for, and Vygotsky is agreeing with, a position that is simultaneously
> > > universalist, relativist, and developmentalist. It is universalist in
> the
> > > sense that it argues for a universal human autistic response to areas
> of
> > > experience of which we are ignorant. It is relativist in the sense that
> > it
> > >
> > > argues for the independence of an "autistic" response from rationality
> > and
> > >
> > > an autonomous art and autonomous humanities based on that independence
> > > that is in no way subordinate to rationality. It is developmentalist in
> > > the sense that it argues for an autistic response which develops out of
> a
> > > narrow, immediately realistic (perception based?) reality function
> rather
> > > than vice versa (as in Freud, Janet, and Levy-Bruhl).
> > >
> > > David Kellogg
> > > Seoul National University of Education
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > xmca mailing list
> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> > > http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -----Inline Attachment Follows-----
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > WORK as:
> > Visiting Researcher
> > Wits School of Education
> > HOME
> > 6 Andover Road
> > Westdene
> > Johannesburg 2092
> > +27 (0)11 673 9265   +27 (0)82 562 1050
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> WORK as:
> Visiting Researcher
> Wits School of Education
> HOME
> 6 Andover Road
> Westdene
> Johannesburg 2092
> +27 (0)11 673 9265   +27 (0)82 562 1050
> _______________________________________________
> 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