Re: [xmca] Redundancy in "Tool and Sign" (teh beginning of the "Second Vygotskian Revolution")

[Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>]

Mike, thank you very much for asking and suggesting: terrific points, all of them! I would like to just briefly sketch some ideas that I think are crucial, below. The rest will follow in a scholarly piece that I hope will come out of my quill some day when proper research will have been done.


I have kept criticizing Mind in Society (1978), and, as you certainly know, am positive the book has been a terrific success, and an important source, but must go away now, as a reference in countless publications paying nothing but a lip service, a kind of brief node of politeness to Vygotsky by virtue of just referring to "Vygotsky (1978)". But then, when I started analyzing the sources, I discovered how weird the text of Tool and Symbol (recte: Sign) is. That is, the source of the first four chapters of the seminal Mind and Society (1978). So, I tend to think that Cole et al. did a really great job trying to make sense of those materials that they received from Luria in mid-1970s. Furthermore, as an aside, I am now torn apart between apparently contradicting desire to retranslate the whole of Vygotsky exactly as the stuff was published or ever existed in manuscripts, AND, on the other hand, inclination NOT to retranslate BUT rather reinterpret the
 theory in terms of contemporary psychological discourse. Anyway, back to the issue.

First. Mike, I would really die to be able to see Luria's manuscript, so any tip as to where it is and how I might get a copy of it would be most appreciated!

Second. These days I tend to focus on the rupture in Vygotsky's thought rather than continuity. At least this is how I interpret extensive self-criticism that can be found in multiple places in Vygotsky's works, and what I believe to be a systematic revision of his earlier experimental studies and theoretical discoveries of the earlier period (i.e. the 1920s) during the last years of his life (roughly, 1931-34). I would argue most of Vygotsky's views of 1933-1934 are just incompatible with his earlier ideas. Back to your question, Mike, I am positive this period is of utmost importance to us now, as opposed to Vygotsky's naive reductionist and mechanistic speculations of the earlier, "instrumental" period. 

Third. Thus, "the real Vygotsky we need today" is the scholar who was increasingly involved in:
* various human-environments studies (exemplified by his interst the such "cultural-environmental" notions as "social situation of development" and "zone of proximal development", perhaps, the notoriously unclear "perezhivanie", or,"emotional sense-making", as I like to think about it, belongs here, too), 
* intellect-affect-volition processes (sure Kurt Lewin and everything the guy and his Berlin gang did and wrote are most relevant to the topic of topological psychology!), and  
* the issues of the interrelations between psychological functions and their cerebral correlates.
All these marvels took place against the background of the nascent--but, as we know now, unfinished--theory of consciousness (or rather: the theory of *cognizing*, since Vygotsky's "consciousness" is clearly a process rather than a state). 

This is the most interesting--and no doubt most usable in contemporary psychology!--part of the story that has so little to do with Vygotsky's earlier speculations as, using his own (or probably not so much own) words, "constellation Canis (i.e. "dog", in Latin) resembles a dog, barking animal".

In other words, there is still a lot of work in psychology today, and new discoveries and most important syntheses are ahead: just make sure that you don't miss the beginning of the "Second Vygotskian Revolution"! :)

AY


________________________________
From: mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>
To: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2011 2:18:42 PM
Subject: Re: [xmca] Redundancy in "Tool and Sign" (mind the falsifications, especially of Vygotsky's Tool and Symbol!)


I found that a little difficult to understand, Anton. But I gather that you are saying that the text that appeared in Mind and Society (which was a part of the longer piece) was made up by Luria in the 1970's? The copy I had has his handwriting on it and he died in 1977.

That issue aside, I want to repeat my question posed earlier but not answered. What seems to me crucial in this discussion is that we, as contemporary thinkers, get clear about the issues involved. What discrepancies that are emerging from this soup appear to have major empirical consequences that reinforce mistaken  theoretical
conceptions? We really need to identify those crucial points and see if new interpretations prove instructive.

I believe this is what David has been driving at in this discussions of development; the issues there are really confusing. The whole bundle of issues around the topic of "social situation of development" has not, to my mind, been satisfactorily dealt with.
At present I am enamored of Andy's idea of predicament (затруднительное положение-- " a situation full of difficulties, Anton?).

Maybe we need some Levin and ecological psychology here?? 

mike 


On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com> wrote:

Phenomenal memory *might* be an explanation, although it certainly runs contrary to Vygotsky's notorious verboseness and non-verbatim repetitiveness. 
>
>
>However, in this particular case of "Tool and Sign" please keep in mind a remark by the editors of Vygotsky Reader (1994), van der Veer and Valsiner:
>
>
>p. 171
>
>footnote 20:
>
>Here is the first major discrepancy between the English original text printed here and the
>Russian version. The English original text continues directly to the next sub-part, while
>the Russian version of 1984 includes a number of pages that are word-for-word repetitions
>of parts of text that occurs later. Most probably these repetitions were a result of
>editorial manipulation of the Russian text in the 1970s/1980s, since the following exact
>repetitions occur (references to the pages of the published Russian version): pp. 14-15 are
>a repetition of pp. 69-70; pp. 15-16 of pp. 74-5 and pp. 16-17 of pp. 71-2.
>
>
>Generally, Tool and Sign (Symbol) looks like the *most heavily* edited Vygotsky's text. Moreover, it even looks as if somebody just rewrote an old paper of 1920s sometime not earlier than in the end of 1932, perhaps much-much later. Numerous inconsistencies and self-contradictions in the text seem to support this hypothesis. 
>
>Ironically, this is exactly the text that served as a foundation of the first half of the most popular Vygotsky's book to date--Mind in Society--the book that he never wrote! :)
>
>AY
>
>
>
>________________________________
>From: David Kellogg <vaughndogblack@yahoo.com>
>To: xmca <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>Sent: Saturday, July 9, 2011 4:11:44 AM
>Subject: [xmca] Redundancy in "Tool and Sign"
>
>The version of "Tool and Sign" that is printed in the Vygotsky Reader (van der Veer and Valsiner, 1994; can be downloaded for free from Andy's Vygotsky site on MIA) has eliminated many MANY pages of redundancy in the interest of readability.
> 
>At first I thought this was a good idea. But the other day it occurred to me that this was exactly the reason given by Hanfmann and Vakar for eliminating nearly HALF of Thinking and Speech when it was translated into English.
> 
>Anton has pointed out that compilations like "Mind in Society" performed an extremely important function: without "Mind in Society", I would not be reading "Tool and Sign" today.
> 
>But Anton ALSO pointed out that this function really lies in our past now. Vygotsky is here, and he's not going to disappear, at least not as a name. The real danger now is that the Vygotsky everybody is reading will bear no resemblance to the Vygotsky that Vygotsky wrote.
> 
>Anton even pointed out what we need to do about it: produce an edition of Vygotsky's work that is authoritative and annotated, like the sort of thing done by the Freud Society and the Jean Piaget society.
> 
>That means going back to see if the redundancies are really redundancies. And the answer is YES and NO.
> 
>Here's an example:
> 
>
>Chapter Two: Такие функции, как произвольное внимание, логическая память, высшие формы всприятия и движения, которые до сих пор изучались в изоляции, как отдельные психологические факты, теперь в свете наших экспериментов выступают по существу как явления одного порядка .
>
>Chapter Three: Такие функции, как произвольное внимание, логическая память, высшие формы восприятия и движения, которые до сих пор рассматривались изолированно, как частные психологические факты, выступают в свете наших экспериментов в качестве явлений одного психологического порядка,
> 
>In other words (roughly):
> 
>Chapter Two: Functions such as arbitrary attention, logical memory, highest forms of sensation and motion which until now were studied in isolation as separate psychological facts, now in light of our experiments emerge as actually phenomena of one and the same order.
> 
>Chapter Three: Functions such as arbitrary attention, logical memory, higher forms of perception and movement are still considered in isolation, as isolated psychological facts appear in the light of our experiments, as the phenomena of one psychological order,
> 
>
>This is just an example! Actually, there are several pages of this, where Vygotsky and Luria simply uptake what they said at the end of the previous chapter. You can see that the idea is repeated--but not word for word.
> 
>It's not just "Tool and Sign" either. There is a moment in the middle of Chapter Six in Thinking and Speech when Vygotsky appears to begin the whole book all over again from the very beginning (6-2-28). 
> 
>So what's going on? I think what is happening is that Vygotsky has a PHENOMENAL but memory for words. He carries around GREAT chunks of almost completed text in his head, and uses them in lectures, internal seminars, discussions, and also on paper. When he sits down to write, the argument comes out almost, but not quite, word for word. And then he forgets what he said and says it again, SLIGHTLY differently. 
> 
>What is to be done? I guess what we are going to do (in the Korean version of this book) is to go ahead and print the redundancies, but set them off in a different font so that the reader can skip them if he or she so chooses, following the principle that in an authoritative addition all of the changes to a historical text have to be reversible by the reader so that the original authorial text is recoverable by the reader.
> 
>And then annotate it! That's really the fun part. Here's what I really think Vygotsky's getting at in this passage. Imagine looking at an actual scene (say, a night-time view from your balcony).The ability to distinguish the distant background from the proximal foreground is a natural function. A small child or even an animal could probably do the same thing in much the same way.
> 
>Now imagine looking at van Gogh’s “Starry Night”. The ability to distinguish the distant background from the proximal foreground is no longer given; it must be learned. We know, for example (from experiments that I have done here in Korea) that small children can find it difficult to distinguish the reflection of the lights in the water from the lights on the horizon, and the lights on the horizon from the stars in the Big Dipper. An animal would certainly not treat this as a real scene or even a picture of a scene.
> 
>Finally, imagine reading a text (e.g. F. Scott Fitzgerald’s Great Gatsby, where the hero has to pick out a light on his one-time lover’s dock amidst the night-time stars). When we read a text we are easily able to discern the main characters from the minor ones (we can pick out Gatsby and Daisy from a host of lesser characters, such as Wolfsheim, Dan Cody and even Nick Carraway, the narrator, who is not actually a central character). But a child could never do this, even if the child could read (nor could an animal if we showed the animal a movie). The child would assume that the narrator is a main character, because being able to tell the figure from the ground is a skill that is fundamentally transformed when it is structured in words.
> 
>Vygotsky thinks that these are NOT co-existing and qualitatively different functions (which is what Thorndike thinks). Nor are they one and the SAME skill (which is what the Gestaltists think). Instead, the thinks that they are different moments in the cultural formation (note: formation, and not evolution) of the child’s personality out of words.
> 
>We can see that this has DIRECT relevance for the argument that Vygotsky is going to make years later in defense of GENERAL, LIBERAL education (Herbart), where one GENERAL skill such as grammar, mathematics, and foreign language learning can have a radical effect on many others .  (See Thinking and Speech, 6-3-23~27). No wonder Vygotsky likes to repeat himself--there is an AWFUL lot there to assimlate, and none of us are going to get it the first time.
> 
>Vygotsky liked to say, "In the beginning was the deed. But that was just the beginning, you know!" For me, in the beginning, there was "Mind in Society" (where you can actually still find this bit of text if you look hard enough). But that was just the beginning.
> 
>David Kellogg
>Seoul National Univesity of Educaiton
>__________________________________________
>_____
>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