Re: [xmca] RE: CHAT/SCT - A voice from the past

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

What you write makes sense to me, Jorge, in that what people say depends a
lot on who one is addressing/responding to. I believe that Eugene was saying
there is an affinity between behaviorism/learning theory and whatever one
choose to call a "vygotskian approach" which used such terms as "double
stimulation" but I easily could be misunderstanding him. But I am unsure.
For sure he talked through reflexology for a while, even, as Andy notes,
while he insisted that he wanted a psychology of consciousness. For sure it
is possible to find a similarities between "mediated action" and what was
called "mediated stimulus-response theory" in the, then nascent,
developmental learning theory research and theorizing.

mike


On Fri, Nov 26, 2010 at 1:21 PM, Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns <
jlarream@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:

> No, Mike, I actually found Eugene's list very useful myself. What I was
> after, and certainly I expressed myself not quite efficiently was not a
> paradigmatic account, but a historical one. I know little about what the
> academic and intellectual life was like when, within the Soviet Union,
> Vygotsky's ideas were emerging and being received, and at the same time one
> had a milieu I guess pervaded by behaviorism of some kind. Vygotsky had them
> as interlocutors, which was somewhat a difference with the SCT, which had
> cognitivists as the most direct audience. Does it make any sense?
>
> Jorge
>
>
>
>
> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
> Profesor Asociado y Director
> Departamento de Psicología
> Universidad de los Andes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Nov 26, 2010, at 1:02 PM, mike cole wrote:
>
> > Jorge. I think you are misinterpreting Eugene's very useful list of
> > potential differentia between SCT and CHAT. Eugene wrote:
> >
> > Good question. Currently, I'm kind of fixating a bit on functionalism and
> I
> > see all "other" differences as related to functionalism, like:
> >
> > a) focus on observable "external" behavior, actions, movements,
> mediations,
> > tools, constrains, schedules, and so on by people;
> > b) distrust to "spiritualism" and "metaphysics" and "retrospections";
> > c) focus on changing reality rather than just studying it;
> > d) "formative experiment", "double stimulation";
> > e) distrust to nativism and prioritization of nurture versus nature;
> > f) interest in history of processes;
> > g) what else? I probably missed a lot other important aspects...
> >
> > and, of course, distrust to structuralism....
> >
> > As I interpret this list, it provides us with one side of an implied
> "other"
> > position that is somehow
> > in contrast with a-g above. Its that "otherness" that intrigues me here.
> It
> > seems that each of us should be
> > able to look at the items on the list and ask themselves, "does that
> apply
> > to me"?
> >
> > Eugene-- Can you provide a parallel list? In some cases it is possible to
> do
> > so, but in others it seems
> > unclear.
> >
> > mike
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 5:05 PM, Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns <
> > jlarream@uniandes.edu.co> wrote:
> >
> >> Right, Andy. But I'm, perhaps, after the products of the historical
> sharing
> >> of the two lines of thought. That's what intrigues me, at least for the
> time
> >> being, not the differences, but the similarities, the shared background,
> as
> >> Eugene made it explicit.
> >>
> >> Jorge
> >>
> >>
> >> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
> >> Profesor Asociado y Director
> >> Departamento de Psicología
> >> Universidad de los Andes
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Nov 25, 2010, at 7:27 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
> >>
> >>> http://www.marxists.org/archive/vygotsky/works/1925/reflexology.htm
> >>>
> >>> I think that Vygotsky's re-assertion of the need for the concept of
> >> "consciousness" to take its place as the central concept of Psychology
> marks
> >> the difference between CHAT and Behaviourism, Jorge, and Vygotsky marked
> out
> >> this difference right at the beginning, in the same speech where he
> >> expresses his solidarity with Wm James.
> >>>
> >>> Andy
> >>>
> >>> Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns wrote:
> >>>> Eugene,
> >>>> I once had a conversation with Andy Blunden about  concepts and
> >> mentioned the fact that in the behaviorist tradition concepts are often
> >> interpreted as patterns of behavior, a definition that has fascinated me
> >> ever since I learned about it. Then, I realized that, within the
> behaviorist
> >> tradition, such a foundational notion (I mean, concept) was defined not
> in
> >> mentalistic terms, but in terms that refer, I have to confess,
> ultimately,
> >> to the person's actions, as opposed, say, to a set of mental
> representations
> >> of sorts (of course, behaviorists have no conception of person). I'm
> fully
> >> aware of the distinctions between the traditions (meaning, behaviorist
> and
> >> else), , some of which are related to the very opposition, in terms of
> >> Giddens, between action and movement. As you may recall, action in the
> >> behaviorist tradition was reduced to an externality, void of connections
> >> with history, goals, and context. But the point, is that no recourse was
> >> made i the behaviorist tradition to a representational, cognitive, kind
> of
> >> entity. I know the history in the American psychology, the raise and
> fall of
> >> Watson, but I wonder, historically, about the connections between the
> >> behaviorism in the Soviet Union and the emergence of Vygotsky's ideas.
> The
> >> two intellectual traditions seem to me, at some point, neighbors. Good
> or
> >> bad, of course, is a matter of perspective. Any thoughts?
> >>>>
> >>>> Jorge
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> bne
> >>>> On Nov 25, 2010, at 6:21 PM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Dear Jorge–
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: Jorge Fernando Larreamendy Joerns
> >>>>>> [mailto:jlarream@uniandes.edu.co]
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, November 25, 2010 4:39 PM
> >>>>>> To: ematusov@UDel.Edu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] RE: CHAT/SCT - A voice from the past
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Eugene,
> >>>>>> Do you see any other similarities between Vygotskian approaches and
> >>>>>> behaviorist ones besides being functionalists? I wonder.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> Good question. Currently, I'm kind of fixating a bit on functionalism
> >> and I
> >>>>> see all "other" differences as related to functionalism, like:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> a) focus on observable "external" behavior, actions, movements,
> >> mediations,
> >>>>> tools, constrains, schedules, and so on by people;
> >>>>> b) distrust to "spiritualism" and "metaphysics" and "retrospections";
> >>>>> c) focus on changing reality rather than just studying it;
> >>>>> d) "formative experiment", "double stimulation";
> >>>>> e) distrust to nativism and prioritization of nurture versus nature;
> >>>>> f) interest in history of processes;
> >>>>> g) what else? I probably missed a lot other important aspects...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> and, of course, distrust to structuralism....
> >>>>>
> >>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Eugene
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Jorge
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Jorge Larreamendy-Joerns, Ph.D.
> >>>>>> Profesor Asociado y Director
> >>>>>> Departamento de Psicología
> >>>>>> Universidad de los Andes
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Nov 25, 2010, at 2:38 PM, Eugene Matusov wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dear Mike and everybody-
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Here is my two cents on this interesting topic besides minor
> >>>>>>> correction that the Sociocultural conference in Madrid was I think
> in
> >>>>>>> 1992, not in 1994 (I
> >>>>>>> think):
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 1)      You seem suggest that the differences between CHAT and SCT
> as
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> they
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> have emerged in the "West" (i.e., outside of former Soviet Union)
> >> have
> >>>>>>> been historically rooted in the Soviet debates. Am I right in
> >>>>>>> understanding of your point? If so, I'm not sure that it is true or
> >>>>>>> fully true. I want to hear more from you about your reasoning
> >> connecting
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> these two debates.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2)      I think in your original message, you were alluding that,
> at
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> least,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> in part the disagreements among the Soviet scholars were caused by
> >>>>>>> their political squabbles within the "Stalinist science" (the term
> >>>>>>> that was coined by Krementsov, I think) or in the "post-Stalinist
> >>>>>>> science". In any case, what makes you think that way? Also, do you
> >>>>>>> think that there was any "substance" in these debates or not? For
> >>>>>>> example, you wrote, "At the same time, they criticized Leont'ev for
> >>>>>>> placing too much emphasis on activity as external conditions,
> >> likening
> >>>>>>> him to a behaviorist (Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, 1980)." It can be a
> >>>>>>> fluke, but I have noticed that some former behaviorists became
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> Vygotskians. Mike, can you, yourself, be an example of this pattern?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> If my observation is correct, it can suggest some interesting
> >> affinity
> >>>>>>> between behaviorism and Vygotskian family of approaches (e.g., both
> >>>>>>> are functional approaches).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 3)      I have noticed, and I can be wrong, that you want to
> diminish
> >>>>>>> differences in Vygotskian family of approaches rather than explore
> >>>>>>> possible differences and differentiations among them. For me, even
> >>>>>>> this posting goes along with this tendency. Am I right about that?
> If
> >>>>>>> so, can you elaborate on that? Basically, I want to ask you if you
> >>>>>>> PREFER that there are no differences rather than you do simply do
> not
> >>>>>>> see any differences but would be EQUALLY HAPPY if the differences
> >> really
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> exist.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What do you think?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Eugene
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---------------------
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Eugene Matusov, Ph.D.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Professor of Education
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> School of Education
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> University of Delaware
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 16 W Main st.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Newark, DE 19716, USA
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> email: ematusov@udel.edu
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> fax: 1-(302)-831-4110
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> website: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu <
> http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/
> >>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> publications: http://ematusov.soe.udel.edu/vita/publications.htm
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Dialogic Pedagogy Forum: http://diaped.soe.udel.edu
> >>>>>>> <http://diaped.soe.udel.edu/>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> <
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=
> >>>>>> 8
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 893>
> >>>>>>> Description: Journey into dialogic pedagogy Matusov, E. (2009).
> >>>>>>> Journey into dialogic pedagogy
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> <
> https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=
> >>>>>> 8893> .
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ---------------------
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> From: mike cole [mailto:lchcmike@gmail.com]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 2:37 PM
> >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity
> >>>>>>> Cc: Luis Moll; Eugene Matusov
> >>>>>>> Subject: CHAT/SCT - A voice from the past
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I know some people who care a lot to distinguish CHAT and SCT. I
> >>>>>>> wonder if there is any consensus on what the critical differences
> are
> >>>>>>> between them. Here is what I wrote at the Sociocultural Conference
> in
> >>>>>>> Madrid about 1994 where Jim Wertsch, who edited the 1981 book on
> >>>>>>> Soviet activity theory,  as a major player and lead editor on the
> >>>>>>> subsequent volume - socicultural theories of mind.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> More than 15 years have passed since this was written. I may have
> >> been
> >>>>>>> dead wrong then and making the same argument now may seem really
> >>>>>>> mistaken. You will see traces of this same discussion in various
> >>>>>>> messages being posted around the P&L article.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> How should I proceed to find out?? Where are all the L2 people here
> >> to
> >>>>>>> help us out here? Other than publishers in applied linguistics
> >>>>>>> preferring SCT, what's in those names that makes people get
> irritated
> >>>>>>> with each other? Who are the bad people? What are the special
> virtues
> >>>>>>> of the good people?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> mike
> >>>>>>> ------------------------------
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> For the past several years I have been striving, with rather
> limited
> >>>>>>> success, to understand the intellectual issues that divide the
> >>>>>>> Vygotskian and activity theory approaches, as well as the division
> >>>>>>> between activity
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> theorists who follow Leont'ev and those who follow Rubinshtein.
> This
> >>>>>>> task is complicated because, insofar as I can understand,
> >> contemporary
> >>>>>>> followers of Leont'ev continue to adhere to the major principles
> >>>>>>> articulated by Vygotsky, Luria, and Leont'ev in the 1920s and early
> >>>>>>> 1930s, arguing in effect that Vygotsky was an activity theorist,
> >>>>>>> although he focused less on issues of the object-oriented nature of
> >>>>>>> activity than on processes of mediation in his own work
> (Engestrorn,
> >>>>>>> 1987; Hyden, 1984). Followers ofRubinshtein, on the other hand,
> deny
> >>>>>>> that Vygotsky was an activity theorist and tax him with
> >>>>>>> "signocentricisrn," which in the overheated debates of the last
> >> decade
> >>>>>>> of Soviet power seemed to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> be roughly equivalent to "idealist," a sin at that time
> (Brushlinsky,
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>> 1968).
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> At the same time, they criticized Leont'ev for placing too much
> >>>>>>> emphasis on activity as external conditions, likening him to a
> >>>>>>> behaviorist (Abulkhanova-Slavskaya, 1980).
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I do not want to minimize the possible scientific benefits to be
> >>>>>>> derived from attempting to understand these disagreements more
> >>>>>>> thoroughly, although I am not certain how productive such attempts
> >>>>>>> will
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> be for non-Russian psychologists. From existing historiographical
> >>>>>>> evidence, debates among Russian adherents of these various
> positions
> >>>>>>> appear to have been tightly bound up with the wrenching political
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> upheavals that racked the Soviet Union repeatedly between 1917 and
> >>>>>>> 1991 (and which arc by no means over) (Van der Veer & Valsiner,
> >> 1991).
> >>>>>>> What I am almost positive of, however, is that it would not be
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> productive for adherents of the various positions to carry those
> >>>>>>> battles into the international sphere except insofar as they have
> >>>>>>> international intellectual merit.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> What most concerns me is that for whatever combination of reasons,
> >>>>>>> there has not yet been close cooperation on an international scale
> >>>>>>> among psychologists who work under the banner of activity theory
> and
> >>>>>>> those who use some version of the concept of sociocultural
> psychology
> >>>>>>> as
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> their conceptual icon. At the first Activity Theory Congress in
> >> Berlin
> >>>>>>> in 1986, there was only one major address that took the work of
> >>>>>>> Vygotsky and Luria to be coequally relevant to the proceedings with
> >>>>>>> that
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> of Leont'ev, and individual talks that proceeded from a more or
> less
> >>>>>>> Vygotskian perspective were relatively rare. At the second Activity
> >>>>>>> Theory Congress in 1990, there was a far richer mix of viewpoints,
> >> but
> >>>>>>> many of the people prominent in organizing the current meeting in
> >>>>>>> Madrid were preoccupied with preparatory work for the current
> meeting
> >>>>>>> and did not contribute.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It would be most unfortunate if adherents of the various streams of
> >>>>>>> psychological thinking whose history I have sketched were to
> continue
> >>>>>>> their work in isolation from each other. The common intellectual
> >>>>>>> issues facing different streams of cultural-historical,
> >> sociocultural,
> >>>>>>> activity based conceptions of human nature are too difficult to
> yield
> >> to
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> piecemeal efforts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It is time for those who have come to questions about the
> >>>>>>> socio-cultural-historical constitution of human nature to join in a
> >>>>>>> cooperative search for their common past and to initiate
> cooperative
> >>>>>>> efforts to address the difficult intellectual issues and staggering
> >>>>>>> national and international problems facing humanity in the
> post-Cold
> >> War
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>> era.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> __________________________________________
> >>>>>>> _____
> >>>>>>> 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*
> >>> Joint Editor MCA: http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Journal/
> >>> Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/ <http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/><
> http://home.mira.net/%7Eandy/>
> >>> Videos: http://vimeo.com/user3478333/videos
> >>> Book: http://www.brill.nl/default.aspx?partid=227&pid=34857
> >>> MIA: http://www.marxists.org
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> __________________________________________
> >>> _____
> >>> 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