Re: [xmca] RE: xmca Digest, Vol 75, Issue 5, Bladeless Knives Without Handles (David Kellogg)

[mike cole <lchcmike@gmail.com>]

Hi Nick-- What are your ideas about Fernando's paper?
mike

On Sat, Aug 6, 2011 at 1:09 AM, Nikolai Veresov <nveresov@hotmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> Dear all. I have no idea why Kellog refers to my "article" "Vygotsky before
> Vygotsky" in respect to periodization. I do not have an article called
> "Vygotsky before Vygotsky", I have the book "Undiscovered Vygotsky" (1999)
> which provides the periodization. The "article" Kellog refers to is terribly
> abridged Introduction of my Ph. D. theses. Somebody put it in Internet
> without my permission.  Everybody who are able to read my book (I hope there
> are some) can easily see that (1) I do not emphsize any negation and do not
> stress ABSOLUTE difference between the early Vygotsky and middle Vygotsky.
> In my book I do something absolutely opposite trying to find the links
> between the periods. (2) I do not split off early Vygotsky from Marxism.
> Everybody can easily see my approach in my paper "Marxist and non-Marxist
> aspects of the cultural-historical psychology of L.S. Vygotsky"   (
> http://ojs.statsbiblioteket.dk/index.php/outlines/article/viewFile/2110/1873)
> (3) I do not stress that I am THE FIRST to make the distinction. On the
> contrary, in my book I undertook an analysis of all other periodizations
> existed at that time (just to remind that the paper of Mauricio Ernica David
> Keelog refers to, was published in 2008 which is ten years AFTER my Ph. D.
> Theses). So I do not think it is OK to make conclusions about colleagues'
> works using expressions like "extravagant claims of priority and extreme
> claims of periodizationon" on the basis of short and abridged fragments of
> texts. It is always better to read the book before criticising its abstract.
> I have an impression that Kellog's attacks have no serious grounds and are
> based on his own (mis)interpretations which, in turn, can mislead the
> people. I also think that we have to avoid the criticism of personalities
> and concentrate on the content.
> Nikolai Veresov
>
> > a)    Both Rey and Veresov (in his article “Vygotsky Before
> Vygotsky†) emphasize NEGATION in their periodization: they stress absolute
> differences between the early Vygotsky (interested in art, literature,
> imagination, creativity, emotion, and personality) and middle Vygotsky
> (interested in completely unrelated notions such as history, culture,
> mediation, tools, symbols, and internalization). I think there is indeed a
> very important distinction to be made, but I think it is more like the
> distinction between explanans and explanandum than either writer would like
> to admit. For example, isn’t an artwork a kind of instrument? Doesn’t
> art work involve the use of both tools and symbols? It is more than a little
> suggestive that both Rey and Veresov appear to distinguish a “realâ€
>  Vygotsky concerned with individual development from a false, objectivist
> and institutionalized Vygotsky concerned with Marxist psychology and (to
> link this thread to the
> >  last discussion article) the Soviet social project. Rey does take this
> project much further than Veresov, and tries to split Vygotsky away from
> cultural-historical psychology altogether (whereas Veresov simply tries to
> split off the early Vygotsky from Marxism).
> > Â
> > b)Â Â Â  Both Rey and Veresov stress that they are the FIRST to make this
> distinction (and thus ignore each other, as well as writers (Mauricio
> Ernica, Gunilla Lindqvist) who have made similar points in a less ambitious,
> less absolutist and (as a result) more acceptable fashion. For example, van
> der Veer and Kozulin have taken into account the clear examples of
> reflexological terminology in “Psychology of Art† (even idiots like me!
> See “The Real Ideal† in the LCHC discussion papers pigeonhole); actually
> the whole work uses as a unit of analysis an “aesthetic reaction†.
> Oppositely, there are those pesky works by Vygotsky himself, e.g.
> “Imagination and Creativity in the Adolescent† which came out in 1931 at
> the very nadir of Vygotsky’s supposedly “objectivist† period. Of
> course, knowing how hard it is to get published in MCA, I quite understand
> the temptation to make extravagant claims of priority and extreme claims of
> periodization.
>
>
>  __________________________________________
> _____
> 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