[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [xmca] A.A. Leontiev on his father: very sad and lamentable :))
Thanks Lubmomir, the article by AA Leontiev does a nice job, I think, of crediting people who are less famous than the 10 or so people associated with LSV whose names have survived history. Rene van der Veer has also helped to bring others into the picture (chapter in Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky). That sort of archeological work always helps to challenge the "lone genius" narrative that often accompanies success. I'm reading Chuck (Charles) Bazerman's The Languages of Edison's Light, and CB shows how TE led a large team of technicians/inventors that also relied on allies in the press, lawyers working the patent angle, and many many others to establish his reputation (which he worked hard to do at the expense of competitors). History often favors those who promote themselves, although I don't think I'd put LSV in that category. p
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 2:40 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Greg Thompson
Subject: RE: [xmca] A.A. Leontiev on his father: very sad and lamentable :))
Dear Colleagues,
Leontiev was an exceptional scholar. He was very productive and made an era in the Soviet psychology. He also become a household name, at least for the people who have taken a course in psychology in high school or university. Those people believed that he is the best psychologist.
There was definitely power struggle in the Soviet psychological community. The people who manage to gain the support of the Party elite tried to subdue the voices of the competition. They managed to publish more and become more prominent. There was quite strong sense for intellectual competition. The name of Leontiev was mentioned so many times that it is suspicious. There were many worthy psychologists that were not published that much and were somewhat sidelined. One example is Rubinstein. Some people credit him as a founder of activity theory or at least an important contributor. When we speak about activity theory, we also need to mention the Moscow Methodological Circle. If they had the support of the Party, we might have witnessed the spread of different ideas and a very different activity theory.
That is life. Making science without power is a difficult task.
Best wishes,
Lubomir Popov
-----Original Message-----
From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen
Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:34 PM
To: eXtended Mind, Culture,Activity; Greg Thompson
Subject: Re: [xmca] A.A. Leontiev on his father: very sad and lamentable :))
I agree with Greg's suggestion that some scholarship, maybe most, had been motivated by a "beef." I don't think of this as a darker force, however.
I think it's the desire to have the question at hand include everyone.
You know how so many books on learning theory begin with a semi-historical sweep across other thinkers? And then the author seems to be saying, "Yes, very good, but what about.....?" This sweep is different on the one hand from just drawing a historical chart of influences with lines connecting names and dates, and different on the other hand from Knud Illeris' book "Contemporary Theories of Learning: Learning Theorists ...in their own words" -- which is certainly not a beef-generated book. It lets people say what they think in their own words so you can hear how the way they write fleshes out their ideas. And then there's Smokey Wilson's book, "What about Rose? Using teacher research to reverse failure," which is clearly a book written in order to bring into the discussion a particular kind of student that she feels is left out.
I think of this as legitimate, not "dark." Of course I have been grumbling for years about how the learning of workers about how to survive the social relations of work is "left out" of most learning theory. That's my beef, and I don¹t consider it dark. I consider it worth doing.
Helena
On 6/25/13 8:58 AM, "Greg Thompson" <greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> wrote:
>Larry, I agree with the niceness of a spirit of collaborative inquiry,
>but I wonder if this doesn't miss one of the most important forces in
>the history of intellectual work - deep antagonism.
>It seems that many of the most productive scholars have been motivated
>by a "beef" they had with someone else, or because someone had called
>them out in one way or another, or because they split with someone and
>wanted to prove the value of their position.
>I'd rather if collaboration were enough (and maybe for some it is - and
>I'll continue to hold out hope for this position), but seems like there
>is often a darker force involved...
>-greg
>
>
>On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> How,
>>
>> The *style* of *presentation* of disputes may be a key aspect of
>> *facts* when presented.
>> The expression "let the facts speak for themselves"
>> may under estimate the formation of facts within particular styles
>> of presentation.
>>
>> However some particular styles of presentation may be more
>>facilitative of double stimulation within co-ordinated projects such
>>as collaborative inquiry AS shared quests.
>> This collaborative inquiry is the *spirit* I encounter on this
>>listserv and the style of presentation as much as the facts generated
>>[or emerging from the beyond as new beginnings] is critical for its
>>common sense of inquiry AS quest.
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 24, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Huw Lloyd <huw.softdesigns@gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > It is certainly interesting to hear history disputed. I don't
>>understand
>> > why it requires mocking however -- whatever one has to say is
>> > surely polluted by it.
>> >
>> > Huw
>> >
>> > On 24 June 2013 21:26, Anton Yasnitsky <the_yasya@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Very sad and lamentable indeed.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > In contrast to this ungrounded piece of hagiography and
>> > > propaganda produced the late Alexei Leontiev, fils
>> > >
>> > > see two recent works that provide nice evidence against this
>> mythological
>> > > account of how 'zee bloody KGB'
>> > >
>> > > [virtually fully] destroyed Vygotsky and his legacy.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 1. Contra the legend of continuity:
>> > > See the most recent paper that has just come out in the
>>Interamerican
>> > > Journal of Psychology --
>> > >
>> > > Da relação Vigotski e Leontiev Alguns apontamentos a respeito
>> > > da história da psicologia soviética by Joao Batista Martins
>> > > (full text available online)
>> > >
>> > > http://journals.fcla.edu/ijp/article/view/76642
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > This one is in Portuguese, but quite incidentally, a somewhat
>>similar
>> > > publication is going to come out soon
>> > >
>> > > in English, Portuguese and Russian in the most well-known all
>> > > over
>>the
>> > > globe Russian psychological journal PsyAnima, Dubna Psychological
>> > > Journal [ http://www.psyanima.ru/ ],
>> fully
>> > > available online.
>> > >
>> > > If interested, don't miss the revolutionary and revisionist
>> > > special
>> > issues
>> > > of this edition.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > 2. Contra the legend of the Stalinist suppresion of Vygotsky :
>> > >
>> > > See the forthcoming refutation of the piles of the age-old lies
>>about
>> the
>> > > "Vygotsky ban" in the groundbreaking study
>> > >
>> > > conducted most recently by young -- but very promising -- scholar
>>Jenn
>> > > Fraser (remember this name!):
>> > >
>> > > Jenn Fraser
>> > >
>> > > Deconstructing
>> > > Vygotsky¹s Victimization Narrative:
>> > > A
>> > > Re-Examination of the Stalinist ³Suppression² of Vygotskian
>> > > Theory
>> > >
>> > > Other than that, A.A. Leontiev's piece is a fairly entertaining
>> > > and somewhat amazing read, indeed :)
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > >
>> > > AY
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
>> > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> > > Sent: Monday, June 24, 2013 1:39:51 PM
>> > > Subject: [xmca] A.A. Leontiev on his father
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I've had an opportunity to read the attached historical account
>> > > that
>> > Haydi
>> > > sent a week or so ago (re-attached here). It's quite fascinating,
>>too
>> > long
>> > > to reduce easily to a listserv post, but I'll try.
>> > >
>> > > The essay helps to complicate some issues that I have
>>oversimplified in
>> > > the past. One of the main points of the account is to challenge
>> > > the
>> > belief
>> > > that Leontiev and LSV had a severe break when Leontiev left for
>> Kharkov.
>> > > The narrative I've always accepted is that Leontiev shifted away
>>from
>> the
>> > > ideal and toward activity, and in so doing shifted away from LSV
>>both
>> > > professionally (and geographically) and personally. AA Leontiev's
>> account
>> > > of his father's relationship with Vygotsky sees their departure
>> > > as
>> > lacking
>> > > the hostility generally attributed to it, and also sees
>> > > Vygotsky's
>>work
>> > > involving the seeds of activity as a unit of analysis, thus
>>challenging
>> > the
>> > > idea of a complete professional break. I think that Michael Roth
>>tried
>> to
>> > > persuade me that their differences were not so great, and this
>> > > essay
>> > would
>> > > support that view. It's worth reading if you have interest in the
>> > > disposition of their relationship shortly before Vygotsky's death.
>> > >
>> > > The second area I found interesting (and tragic) is the idea that
>> > > Vygotsky's depression over the impending pedology decree (which
>> rendered
>> > > his own work anti-Marxist and incorrect) led him to bring on his
>> > > own
>> > death.
>> > > Mike Cole mentioned to me a few years ago that he thought
>> > > Vygotsky
>> > allowed
>> > > himself to die rather than face the inevitable destruction of his
>>life
>> > and
>> > > career in the Stalinist crackdown of the 1930s. This account
>> > > fully
>> > supports
>> > > that perspective, with evidence of LSV's careless health habits
>>toward
>> > the
>> > > end in spite of his delicate bodily functions (he began smoking,
>> stopped
>> > > shielding himself from the Russian winters, lived in unhealthy
>> > environments
>> > > without concern for health effects). Very sad and lamentable.
>> > >
>> > > The essay concludes with the post-Vygotskian repression of his
>> followers
>> > > and their shattered careers in the face of accusations of
>>anti-Marxism
>> > and
>> > > accompanying arrests, dismissals, and deaths.
>> > >
>> > > Thanks for sharing. I'm the richer for having read it, even as my
>>brief
>> > > summary here does the essay insufficient justice. p
>> > >
>> > > -----Original Message-----
>> > > From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>[mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>> > On
>> > > Behalf Of Haydi Zulfei
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2013 6:05 AM
>> > > To: "ablunden@mira.net"; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity"
>> > > Subject: Fw: Fw: Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Excuse me . I forgot to attach a son's defense of his father .
>> > > Haydi
>> > > ----- Forwarded Message -----
>> > > From: Haydi Zulfei <haydizulfei@rocketmail.com>
>> > > To: "ablunden@mira.net" <ablunden@mira.net>; "eXtended Mind,
>>Culture,
>> > > Activity" <xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 14:23:38
>> > > Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Dear Michael Cole
>> > > If I may , and if I might be able to have a very little talk to
>> > > your supreme greatness , and if I'm not to be reproached to have
>> > > decided
>>to
>> > > write in a foreign language , then to your benevolent permission
>>will I
>> > > dare to tell you : I do know I'm not the one who can discuss such
>> matters
>> > > with you but as everybody has reasons for their claims , I'm
>>willing to
>> > > relate : USSR was gone and you were relieved of many monstrous
>>maladies
>> > > there , not just of Stalinism , the destruction of which and whom
>> > > is
>> the
>> > > unique slogan of the whole world , but also of Leninism , Marxism
>>(to
>> > which
>> > > Vygotsky credited his time and energy) , ... , and especially of
>> > > the
>> dark
>> > > terrible atmosphere in which you , of your own decision and care
>> > > and
>> > desire
>> > > , with wife and children or child , could gaspingly and
>> > > suffocatedly breathe , live , learn , get skilled and ... become
>> > > the Global
>>Figure
>> > > (Yasnitsky in LiveJournal) mostly because of the knowledge and
>> > > wit
>>and
>> > > wisdom (professionally) you
>> > > got there of the [Marxian] [Materialistic] [Vygotskian] [School]
>> > > and
>> the
>> > > much-appreciated works you did later in THIS respect . You were
>> > > not
>> with
>> > > the common people ; you were with the [Great Scholars] of that
>> > > time
>> > WITHIN
>> > > THE SOVIET UNION , no need to mention the Names , as for one of
>> > > them
>> the
>> > > Poor Bratus you denounced shortly recently .
>> > > The knowledge accumulated within the body or psyche of , or , as
>> > > you
>> like
>> > > to say , the 'spirit' or the soul of these renown scholars came
>> > > ONLY
>> from
>> > > their MOTHERS and from the Uteros thereof ? or from the Tsar ?
>> > > After
>> all
>> > ,
>> > > you always refer to the one experiment according to which 'culture'
>> > > accumulates and then exits through the Uterus . Just one question
>> > remains :
>> > > why tolerate so much toiling and troubles going there ? The Land
>> > > of
>> > Ghosts
>> > > and Man-Eater Dragons ? Are not great figures products of their
>> > > time
>> and
>> > > environment (Revolution meant) ? Mourning is still on for the
>> > > Huge
>> Losses
>> > > but this is just one side of the coin !
>> > > Now , very shortly , you are Ok with all your assertions and
>>beliefs .
>> > Why
>> > > so much focusing on the Dead and not on the Living ?? What is
>> > > your PRESCRIPTION for the unprecedented huge numerous
>> > > incalculable inhumanitarian soul-exterminatig vicious maladies ,
>> > > vices , and beast-natured acts of the American Adminstration and
>> > > their
>>profiteering
>> > > Mother-and-Daughter CORPORATIONS all over the world (apologies to
>>great
>> > > American people) , MONOPOLIES , COHORTS , BEN-LADIN BEARING
>>OCTOPUSES ,
>> > > ETC. ETC. ETC.
>> > > WE ARE JUST VICTIMS TO SANCTIONS IMPOSED ON 'PEOPLE' NOT
>> ADMINISTRATION .
>> > > WE ARE BEING SANDWICHED AND STAMPED UNDER TERROR , CRUELTY AND
>> > > THE
>> > > OTHERNESS?- MEDDLING WITH OUR OWN AFFAIRS ; WE JUST SHOWED OUR
>>WILL ,
>> > WAY
>> > > AND FATE BUT GRANDPA? IS ALIEN AND KILLER TO HOMO SAPIENS GENUS ,
>>LET
>> > ALONE
>> > > , WISE CONSCIOUS DIGNIFIED PEACEFUL CREATURES .
>> > > It's the same with people of Egypt , Jordon , Libya , Turkey ,
>> > > Iraq
>>,
>> > > Afghanistan , etc. From the American Administration perspective ,
>>what
>> > > might partially ? be a Spring Time is within the Arabian Peninsula .
>> > There
>> > > , too , heads go off the air with a sword so that extra cheap oil
>>can
>> > > overflow within the storage huge bankers of the U.S. Better
>> > > handle
>> > nearby
>> > > Problems !!
>> > > Best
>> > > Haydi
>> > >
>> > > Request : no naming of nationales , thanks !
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > ________________________________
>> > > From: Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> > > To: lchcmike@gmail.com; "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <
>> > > xmca@weber.ucsd.edu>
>> > > Sent: Tuesday, 18 June 2013, 9:59:46
>> > > Subject: Re: Fw: Re: [xmca] Double Stimulation?
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Just on the question of Luria, Mike. I am not all that familiar
>> > > with Luria's distinct contribution, for which I have only myself
>> > > plus
>>having
>> > > only one lifetime to blame. But if he is famous for the use of
>> > > the
>> > > *idiographic* methodology, then as I see it that is indeed
>> > > something
>> > which
>> > > dates from Goethe, and I have never particularly highlighted that
>>in my
>> > own
>> > > work. The Urphaenomen is another aspect of Romantic Science. So
>>these
>> are
>> > > different things, closely related and having the same roots.
>> > > Maybe
>>it
>> is
>> > > time for me to use the great Luria On-line Library you have
>> > > created
>>to
>> > > educate myself about Luria.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Andy
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > mike cole wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > I fear this does not help me a whole lot, Andy.
>> > >
>> > > > Sorry I cannot grasp the method of Goethe properly. I guess
>> > > > Luria
>> > > probably failed
>> > >
>> > > > as well. Or maybe he succeeded and I have misunderstood him?
>>Entirely
>> > > possible.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > I did not ask what what is at odds. I asked for what the
>>empirical
>> > > consequences of the the distinctions you are making are. I cannot
>> follow
>> > > the path to reforming all of the educational system of the USSR
>> > > or
>> > Russia,
>> > > which, so far as I know, neither
>> > >
>> > > > Vygotsky nor anyone else associated with Activity Theory every
>> > > accomplished. Nore have I ever seen claims that they have. (The
>>Finns
>> > > appear to have done well recently using an approach, the
>>relationship
>> to
>> > > activity theory I have no knowledge of, but perhaps our Finnish
>> > colleagues
>> > > do).
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Here is what would help me, and I suspect others on XMCA. Take
>> > > > an
>> > > already published piece of work that uses the expanded triangle
>> > > Yrjo proposes in Learning by Expanding. Say, the work on cleaners
>> > > in the
>> early
>> > > work. Tell us about the mistaken conclusions that arise because
>> > > of misunderstandings that confusion of the triangle for
>> > > "activity" (no
>> > > modifiers) causes. Suggest how we might improve our
>> > >
>> > > > understanding. Or tell us why that example works, but some
>> > > > other
>> > example
>> > > (teachers in schools, nurses and doctors in a hospital, etc.)
>> > > does
>>not.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Or suggest an entirely different way of looking at matters so
>> > > > that
>> when
>> > > we go into
>> > >
>> > > > classrooms, housing projects, work places, we can more
>> > > > effectively
>> > > understand what is going on and be of more help to those with
>> > > whom
>>we
>> > work
>> > > that publishing another article in MCA.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > I guess I am asking that you rise to the concrete here, keeping
>>the
>> > > object of analysis constant.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > My apologies if this seems unreasonable. Perhaps it is
>> > > > approaching
>> > > senility, but
>> > >
>> > > > I am failing to track you.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > mike
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Lost in the words here.
>> > >
>> > > > mike
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:57 PM, Andy Blunden
>> > > > <ablunden@mira.net
>> > <mailto:
>> > > ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Yes, in Yjro's (1986) words, it is a "root model". (The
>> derivation
>> > >
>> > > > of it is a beautiful piece of work, too, close to Hegel's
>>early
>> > >
>> > > > "System of Ethical Life". Deserves to remain in print).
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > But modelling a complex process is not the same as the
>> > > > method
>>of
>> > >
>> > > > Goethe, Hegel, Marx and Vygotsky. As you know, Mike, in
>> > > > order
>>to
>> > >
>> > > > understand this approach, which Luria called Romantic
>>Science, I
>> > >
>> > > > had to go back to its origins c. 1787 when Goethe was doing
>>his
>> > >
>> > > > Journey in Italy, studying all the plant life, and its
>>variation
>> > >
>> > > > by altitude, latittude, nearness to the sea, etc., and in
>> > >
>> > > > conversation with J G Herder, arrived a his conception of
>> > >
>> > > > Urphaenomen. The Urphaenomen is not a model.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > It is an abstraction, true. And yes, the understanding of a
>> > >
>> > > > complex process by the "romantic" method is indeed, the
>>rising to
>> > >
>> > > > the concrete, the logical-historical reconstruction of the
>>whole
>> > >
>> > > > process from this abstract germ.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > As I remarked (somewhere) I find Yrjo's work over the past
>>couple
>> > >
>> > > > of years, which focuses more on the germ cell than the
>>triangle,
>> > >
>> > > > closer to what I am trying to do. The germ cell is not a
>> > > > model
>> > > either.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > What is at odds here is whether a real, complex situation
>>(such
>> as
>> > >
>> > > > reforming the education system in a nation in Africa,
>> > > > rather
>>than
>> > >
>> > > > in the USSR or Finland) can be based on a conception which
>> > >
>> > > > isolates a "system of activity", whilst dozens of different
>> > >
>> > > > ethnic groups, NGOs, government(s), trade unions and so
>> > > > on,
>>are
>> > >
>> > > > all contesting the aims and benefits of "education." Every
>>person
>> > >
>> > > > in such a situation is committed to more than one project,
>> > > > and
>> > >
>> > > > deploys concepts (institutionalised projects) frequently at
>>odds
>> > >
>> > > > with one another. What is needed is a process whose basic
>>units
>> > >
>> > > > are (1) units and not systems, and (2) processes of
>>development,
>> > >
>> > > > processes in which people are struggling to realise ideas,
>> > >
>> > > > processes of formation. And we need the algebra through
>> > > > which
>> such
>> > >
>> > > > units interact with one another, rather than declaring any
>>single
>> > >
>> > > > such interaction to be an entire new "unit" - i.e. coupled
>> systems.
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Andy
>> > >
>> > > > mike cole wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Isn't the trangle a "model, " Andy? A model of the root
>> > >
>> > > > metaphor. Still an abstraction... waiting to see if it
>> > > > can
>> > >
>> > > > rise to the concrete? Perhaps?
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Empirically speaking, what is at odds here? For whom?
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > mike
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > __________________________________________
>> > >
>> > > _____
>> > >
>> > > 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
>>
>
>
>
>--
>Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>Visiting Assistant Professor
>Department of Anthropology
>883 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>Brigham Young University
>Provo, UT 84602
>http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>__________________________________________
>_____
>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