Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of functions, Vygotsky & Kurt Lewin's Uebergang)

[Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>]

Ouch! Beware of the *beeeeep* t-word!


You certainly meant to say "National TRAINING Laboratories", Michael :)...


AY



________________________________
 From: Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>
To: ablunden@mira.net; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu> 
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 12:15:58 PM
Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of functions, Vygotsky & Kurt Lewin's Uebergang)
 
Hi Andy,

I think the reason Lewin gave short shrift to Aristotle is that he was less interested in getting Aritstotle right and more interested in attempting to foster change in the way psychologists and others think by pushing the Gallilean model.  It's funny, but it seems Lewin was always throwing things out or picking them up based on the needs of the moments.  Before 1946 Lewin was committed to social research as a documentable science.  But after 1946 and his work in Action Research and his starting of the National Testing Laboratory he said that maybe we shouldn't be worrying so much about science for the foreseeable future and concentrate on the processes of change - which had half of his team at MIT doing backflips, and the other half (led by Festinger) pulling their hair out.

The more I read about him the more I think this guy must have been a hoot to be around - not your normal academic.

Michael

________________________________

From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden
Sent: Fri 6/22/2012 11:53 AM
To: Anton Yasnitsky; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of functions, Vygotsky & Kurt Lewin's Uebergang)



Well Anton, thanks to Martin, I have now read the Lewin paper. If Lewin
had sent this paper to Vygotsky c. 1926, I could believe that it caused
some reconsideration in his approach. But you say this happened c. 1930.
I find this odd. The "Aristotlean" features of science which Lewin
critiques I find Vygotsky well on top of at least from 1928. I don't
tend to put a lot of weight on his pre-1928 works and rely mostly on T&S
and the manuscripts of the last period, so maybe I'm missing something.
The critique of "neo-Aristotleanism" applies to mainstream trends of
psychology to this day but I don't see them as relevant to criticism of
Vygotsky. And also, I am surprised that Lewin treats Aristotle in such a
one-sided way. There is much in the very things for which he condemns
Aristotle which were given a rational form in Hegel's critique of
positivist science, but Lewin makes no mention of this. But I had always
assumed that Lewin was a significant source of LSV's knowledge of Hegel.

Andy

Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
> Michael,
>
>
> Yep, there is such evidence. In his letters (published by now) there are several references to the fact that he had just received
> the book from Lewin (i.e. directly from him). Also, here and there in his writings one can come across references to Lewin's methodological ideas
>
> before the Uebergang paper, i.e. to the methodological works of mid-1920s that he apparently started reading and--even more importantly--
> understanding by the end of the decade. I tend to interpret this process as truly groundbreaking experience for Vygotsky that started gradual change in
>
> his mindset from the mechanicism of his instrumental period of 1920s to really holisitc psychology of the last couple years of his life. Indeed, everything was changing
>
> very fast, but that's the way it was for late Vygotsky, i.e. for Vygotsky from the end of 1930 until the summer of 1934. In terms of languages, I believe our character
>
> was way more comfortable with German, but I still would assume that he could read English with relative fluency, too. On the other hand, judging by the
>
> quotes from Shakespeare's Hamlet, one of the most essential fiction oeuvre for him, he read it in Russian translation. So, in other words, I am not quite sure
> about English, but given that he directly corresponded with Lewin, the author could have easily sent him the work in the original, i.e. in German.
>
> In addition, there were a bunch of guys there with first-hand knowledge of Lewin and his work(s), with whom he could converse in their native Russian:
>
> the fact is that three former Lewin's students eventually landed in Moscow and, from 1930 were working/collaborating with Vygotsky and Luria too, I guess.
>
>
> As to Lewin's field theory and its impact on Vygotsky I should say that as far as I can see it NOW, Lewin's impact, whatever profound it must have been,
>
> was not too much reflected in Vygotsky's finished work of 1930s. But, in any case, the fact is that in some writings of 1930s the high frequency of the use of "field"
>
> in various combinations and diverse phrasal expressions is really telling. Not to mention the famous/notorious "zone of possible [proximal, nearest] development" and the
>
> not so famous "social situation of development", the phrases that, to me, are very much resemblant of Lewin's topological framework.
>
>
> Final note: the interrelations between Vygotsky-Luria and Lewin-Koffka are a topic of a research in progress. Something has already been published,
>
> in Russian only, I am afraid, something will be published shortly.
>
>
> AY
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>  From: Michael Glassman <MGlassman@ehe.osu.edu>
> To: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,  Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 7:33:00 PM
> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of functions)
> 
> Anton,
>
> This is interesting.   Is there any evidence that Vygotsky read Lewin's work on the move from an Aristotelian to Galiliean perspective of relationships.  It would have been a short window I think, and Vygotsky probably would have had to read the original articles in German - or perhaps he just discussed them with people.
>
> Do you think this would have also had an impact on how he viewed social relationships.  The teaching/learning aspects of Vygotsky are often presented as being hierarchical in nature, but I'm thinking the Galilean perspective was Lewin's entry point into Field theory.  Did Vygotsky see information relationship as more dynamic in his later writings?
>
> Michael
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu on behalf of Anton Yasnitsky
> Sent: Thu 6/21/2012 7:19 PM
> To: Martin Packer; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy (Systems of functions)
>
>
>
> Martin,
>
>
> Right, this is exactly my point: much criticized for fairly mechanistic distinction between the lower and the higher in his earlier work of 1920s,
> Vygotsky rejected this binary opposition in his later writings of the 1930, although he kept using  phrases "higher functions" or, rather,
> "higher processes" and the like. The idea of "higher" perfectly fit his notion of "peak psychology" of 1932-1934, but the distinction higher-lower was gone.
> Indeed, the introduction of the idea of systems of functions and inter-functional connections/relations rather than isolated functions was instrumental in 
>
> this theoretical shift. In a couple of places he clearly states that psychological processes are not built "in two storeys", but are rather recombinations
>
> of more or less the same set of components, well, let's call them functions.
>
> Following Kurt Lewin's methodological works (such as the one on the transition from Aristotelian to Galileian thinking),
> in 1930s Vygotsky gradually revised his earlier naive binary oppositions and his later concepts, I believe, are better thought of as gradients than valuative and rigid oppositions.
>
> That's how I understand the evolution of Vygotsky's thought and conceptual system, at least.
>
> As to imagination, I am not quite sure that in his late texts he refers to it as a function, although he might well have done so here and there, given his
>
> fairly inconsistent and imprecise use of psychological terminology. As to leading, I do not quite recall him referring to any function as leading, but, more precisely,
> I believe he discusses "leading activity", which makes some difference. In any case, indeed, it is really hard to say if imagination is really a "higher" hmmmm....
> psychological phenomenon, especially so, given its transitory character in children's development from total boundedness with "visual field" towards
>
> abstract thinking and volitional behaviour. So, it is "higher" than purely motor-perceptual system of an infant, a prerequisite for preschoolers play, and,
>
> I guess, from Vygotsky's perspective, might be regarded as not so high in relation to the "higher" abstract thinking of adolescents and, obviously, adults.
>
>
> AY
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Martin Packer <packer@duq.edu>
> To: Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com>; "eXtended Mind, Culture,  Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:38:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>
> Anton,
>
> Is your point that LSV moved away from the notions of lower and higher psychological functions, towards that of systems of functions? I've been mulling over the fact that in his late texts on child development imagination is a leading function in early childhood, and it seems odd to call that either lower or higher. Or perhaps I'm misinterpreting your posts.
>
> Martin
>
> On Jun 21, 2012, at 8:05 AM, Anton Yasnitsky wrote:
>
>  
>> Like I said, I am under the impression that Vygotsky's expression "higher psychological [mental] functions" for Vygotsky means so many things
>> (although in different texts authored in different periods of his life) that it is bordering on total meaninglessness. Therefore, rephrasing our character,
>> "everything can be ... higher mental function", no problem with that :)
>>
>>
>> Thus, if I may reformulate the question, we are looking for the textual proof that Vygotsky did refer to creativity as higher mental/psychological function, right, Peter?
>>
>>
>> AY
>>
>>
>> P.S.
>>
>> By the way, speaking of mental/psychological, here is a funny thing: despite his virtually boundless flexibility in many respects, Vygotsky NEVER
>> used the word "mental" (literally: psychic, psychical -- psikhicheskie) when he referred to functions, but only "psychological". Later on, this phrase
>> was pretty consistently "corrected" by his devoted best students in many --but not all--of his posthumous publications of  Soviet period. Curious detail,
>> isn't it? A recent study that has been done back in Germany demonstrates this mysterious peculiarity of Vygotsky's discourse of his lifetime period
>> as opposed to his posthumous publications, and will be published shortly in several international languages in PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological Journal
>> ( http://www.psyanima.ru/journal/2011/4/index.php ).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ________________________________
>> From: Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:23:57 AM
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>
>> In any case, in service of the scholarly discussion, I'm genuinely puzzled by the idea that creativity is a higher mental function, and would appreciate further clarity to that provided by Anton. Thx,p
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Peter Smagorinsky
>> Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 6:20 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: RE: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>
>> My apologies to Francine if my mnemonic sounded snide--I was going from the pronunciation guide on the article that I had scanned, and I have no idea of who put it there. With a name like Smagorinsky (which also might be an Ellis Island adjustment), making fun of people's names is not usually part of my approach. I'm glad to have the correction. Peter
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of larry smolucha
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 20, 2012 9:22 PM
>> To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> Subject: [xmca] Smolucha - pronunciation/genealogy
>>
>>
>> Message from Francine Smolucha:
>> I have been a member of XMCA for several years - anyone could haveasked me how to pronounce my last name.
>> I not surprised that the discussion of the work my husband and I have donebegins with a snide comment about our last name.Growing up in Chicago as a Polish-American, other ethnic groupswould often make fun of your last name, and tell insulting Polish jokes abouthow stupid Poles are. Polish immigrants often had their last names Americanizedby immigration officials at Ellis Island. In order for other ethnic groups to be able topronounce, and spell a Polish last name, Poles would typically use an easy English pronunciation.
>> My husband's family would usually say Smo-lou-ka.Some family members would say Smo-lou-cha.The proper Polish pronunciation is Smo-whoo-ha (Smolucha has an umlaut over the u).The Smolucha family 'Y' chromosome is Scandinavian (Vikings who settled Eastern Europecirca 800 A.D.) - we had the National Geographic Society's Genoanthropology project do aDNA analysis.
>> When I married into the Smolucha family, I chose to use my married name out of respect formy husband's family. By the way, my maiden name is Polish too.
>> As I have been working on my new paper titled "A Vygotskian Theory of Cultural Synergy andCultural Creativity", my conversation with a Latin-American colleague required that I debunksome popular misconceptions about 'white ethnics.' So I retell the story here:
>> My own family is 'Celtic' Polish in origin (the Krakov area was settled by Celts, Vienna was originally a Celtic village). The European Celts disappeared from history. Poland itself did not existfor over 150 years (from approximately 1760 until 1918) - while it was divided among Prussia(then Germany), Austria, and Russia. [The Palestinian loss of statehood is not unique in history.]One of my great grandmothers ran an illegal underground school in her farmhouse near Vilna where she taught children how to read and write the Polish language. The Czar had orderedanyone doing so to be shot. Her son (my grandfather) had to be smuggled out of St. Petersburgon a cattle ship bound for Canada after the aborted 1905 Russia revolution - he was a memberof a student group being hunted down by the Czar's orders. Back in Krakov, my other grandfatherwas serving in Austrian Emperor Franz Joseph's 'Polish' cavalry (Austrian occupied Poland beingrenamed Galactia) -
>> grandpa's wife was Spanish Hapsburg.
>> My parents, both first generation Americans, did not attend high school, instead my Dad worked in the Chicago Stock Yards as a teenager (you might recall Upton Sinclair's book The Jungle.)My mom was a factory girl. They grew up in that famous Chicago ghetto known as Back-of-the-Yards.Five months after they were married, Pearl Harbor was attacked -  my Dad served in the Army fieldartlllery, doing four beachheads in the South Pacific (Aleutians, Kwajelian, Philippines, & Okinawa).His unit would have landed in the first wave in the Invasion of Japan - which was cancelled whenJapan surrendered after the atomic bombs were dropped. Mom spent the war years building fighterplanes in a defense plant - yes, Rosie the Riveter.
>> We come from a family heritage of people who think for themselves and are honor bound to do theright thing.
>> If anyone is interested in discussing the Vygotsky Theory of Creativity that we have been publishing in thelast 27 years, I welcome the scholarly discourse. In addition to my 1992 Reconstruction of Vygotsky'sTheory of Creativity, you might read our 2012 publication Vygotsky's Theory of Creativity: Figurative thinking Allied withLiteral Thinking [in Contemporary Perspectives on Research in Creativity in Early Childhood Education}.
>>
>>
>>                            __________________________________________
>> _____
>> 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
>>    
> __________________________________________
> _____
> 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://www.tandfonline.com/toc/hmca20/18/1
Home Page: http://home.mira.net/~andy/
Book: http://www.brill.nl/concepts


__________________________________________
_____
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