[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [xmca] Vygotsky's claims



Yes, Natalia. The treatment of egocentric speech is an excellent example of
Vygotsky's assumption that one needs to consider the mediational means and
the (imagined!) reality, events we call "practical activity."

I fear from Andy's comment, and perhaps yours, that my little bit of
quotation and "translation" starting with the sentence in Vygotsky's preface
was not properly conceptualized. I wrote that note having
just spent time trying to understand the discussion about Vygotsky,
Leontiev, & Piaget. David had
pointed out that there was good evidence that more emphasis was put on
activity among the Kharkovites,
but I was confused by the interesting "changing of partners" as one
considered the relationship between
the three thinkers ideas. In the ensuing discussion, Martin pointed to the
preface of T&L (I assume in the T&S 1987 version) and I went back to read.
Which I did and then produced that strange note.

My basic point was that reading that preface one could easily make the case
that LSV ignored activity. If, for example, one were trying to distance
himself from notions of idealism and cosmipolitism, physically by getting
out to the edges of the shadow of the Kremlin, intellectually by placing
(deserved!) attention on mind-in-activity/activity-in-mind this chapter
would be one very fine bit of text haul out at your show
trial and condemn the man with.

I have personally found Leontiev very helpful in thinking through ways of
designing educational activities, thanks in large part to being able to work
with Peg Griffin. I work in the after-school, informal sector, so we have
unusual opportunities to design theoretically interesting activities. The
example i have in mind in is a group reading activity for the instruction of
reading. But Vygotsky has been no less important in my thinking about this
same line of work.

There more to be said, of course, but I have wandered off the end of the
screen.
mike
On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 9:37 AM, Natalia Gajdamaschko <nataliag@sfu.ca>wrote:

>
> Hi Dear All,
> I thought you may enjoy this quote from Vygotsky himself to be added to the
> discussion on Piaget-Vygotsky.  LSV wrote it while discussing cultural
> development a child.  And his surprise is about absence of a culture and
> history in child’s development in Piagetian theory. And, ironically, absence
> of the child himself, the personality of the child, in the process of
> development:
>
> "We would suggest that absence of two factors with Piaget first discussion
> on narrow issue of egocentric speech. What is missing, then, in Piaget’s
> perspective, is reality and the child’s relationship to that reality. What
> is missing is the child’s practical activity. This is fundamental. Even the
> socialization of the child’s thinking is analyzed by Piaget outside the
> context of practice” (vol. 1, p. 87).
>
> Natalia.
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andy Blunden" <ablunden@mira.net>
> To: lchcmike@gmail.com, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Friday, February 11, 2011 8:38:29 PM
> Subject: [xmca] Vygotsky's claims
>
>
> Mike, my reading of it is this: Vygotsky poses a question: "What is the
> relation between thought and word?"
> Then he provides an answer: "The relation between thinking and speaking is
> an action: namely, word meaning.
>
> The relation between thinking and speaking is an enquiry into the
> intellect, ie., symbolic activity. It seems to me that many CHAT writers
> have interpreted "meaning" not as something which inheres in a word, but an
> action , ie., a basic unit of activity, viz., using a word. In my own
> Hegelian interpretation of Vygotsky and Activity Theory I connect everything
> up on the idea that action = meaning = particular.
>
> I think this is something general. You don't start off with the mediating
> element. That has to be discovered. You start off with the problem which can
> be cast in the form: "What mediates between A and B?" Your answer may be C,
> i.e., "A->C->B." There are other possible solutions to the same question,
> e.g. "A->D->B."
>
> Does that make any sense?
>
> Andy
>
> mike cole wrote:
>
> Thank you, Martin, brilliant as you are doomed to be.
>
> I turned from your note, picked up Thinking and Speech, and read the
> preface. That in itself is worth a good deal of discussion. But, just this,
> to begin with. I think its relevant to the issue of Vygotsky's ideas about
> the relationship of mediation and activity.
>
> Look at what you get if you complete the following phrase as a "stem" that
> needs to be completed. Vygotsky writes.
>
> All our work is focused on a single basic problem, on the genetic analysis
> of thought and word.........
>
> American contextualist completion of the sentence..... Of course, we
> constantly have to keep in mind that the meaning of words depends upon the
> context.
>
> A Russian cultural-historical theorist completion of the sentence...... Of
> course, we constantly have to keep in mind that words are constituitive of
> human activity.
>
> In the 5 claims LSV makes for the accomplishments of the book in the
> preface, not a single one refers to context/activity.
>
> Yet later in the text (earlier in his life?), he makes explicit reference
> to
> the importance of practical activity.
>
> Who among us is it who has Barthes reminding us that failing to re-read is
> failing to learn from experience, or some such aposite thought. Sure
> benefited from that bit of re-reading!
>
>
> mike
>
> On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 4:57 PM, Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu> wrote:
>
> On Feb 10, 2011, at 9:04 PM, David Kellogg wrote:
>
> more than mildly brilliant. Thank you, David. I generally shoot for
> bitterly brilliant, and usually hit
> mildly stupid.
>
> I don't disagree with much of what you say about Piaget. I suspect he knew
> of LSV's critique before the 1960s, and I suspect he didn't pay much
> attention. Anyone who received 80 honorary degrees in his lifetime didn't
> need to pay much attention to criticism. Did he develop? I think he was
> *always* a genetic epistemologist; I am not sure he ever saw himself as a
> psychologist, so in that sense no. He was interested, it seems to me, in
> how
> a biological organism (a baby) becomes a logical organism (a scientist),
> one
> who has certain and necessary knowledge. In that respect he was thoroughly
> Kantian, though he felt Kant had gone 'too far' (as he put it, if I recall)
> in assuming that the categories of the transcendental ego were innate. Even
> his interest in morality clearly had Kantian roots. He was more an
> empirical
> philosopher  than a psychologist; not that that's a bad thing to be. The
> same might be said of LSV, but his philosophical starting point was very
> different.
>
> And I agree that, as you suggest, it is very important to recognize the
> importance LSV attributed to practical activity. It runs through the length
> of Thought & Language - from the preface where he says that it is the
> book's
> practical task that unifies its parts - and of course in Crisis he insisted
> that practical concerns would drive the new, general psychology.
>
> Martin__________________________________________
> _____
> 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
>
> --
>
> Hegel Summer School: The New Atheism: Just Another Dogma?
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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