Archivo
“El Poder, la Actividad y la Plenitud Humana”: Andy Blunden
La Teoría de la Actividad es antes que nada una teoría sobre la plenitud humana. «Plenitud humana» es la traducción que se suele hacer de la palabra griega eudaimonia, el concepto central de la ética de Aristóteles. En su calidad de corriente del pensamiento científico, la Teoría de la Actividad tiene el gran mérito de que su concepto central –el «proyecto colaborativo», al que se refiere también como «una actividad»– es a la vez un concepto descriptivo, explicativo y normativo.
Es decir, la Teoría de la Actividad es una teoría científica que es simultáneamente una teoría ética. No solo vemos el mundo como formado por proyectos colaborativos, y usamos los proyectos colaborativos en la consecución de la plenitud humana, sino que también propugnamos la colaboración como norma de la vida secular. La forma en que las personas deberían relacionarse es colaborando unas con otras en proyectos.
“An Interdisciplinary Concept of Activity”: Andy Blunden
Abstract
It is suggested that if Cultural-Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) is to fulfil its potential as an approach to cultural and historical science in general, then an interdisciplinary concept of activity is needed. Such a concept of activity would provide a common foundation for all the human sciences, underpinning concepts of, for example, state and social movement equally as, for example, learning and personality. For this is needed a clear conception of the ‘unit of analysis’ of activity, i.e., of what constitutes ‘an activity’, and a clear distinction between the unit of analysis and the substance, i.e., ultimate reality underlying all the human sciences: artifactmediated joint activity.
It is claimed that the concept of ‘project collaboration’ – the interaction between two or more persons in pursuit of a common objective – forms such a unit of activity, the single ‘molecule’ in terms of which both sociological and psychological phenomena can be theorised. It is suggested that such a clarification of the notion of activity allows us to see how individual actions and societal activities mutually constitute one another and are each construed in the light of the other.
“La actividad como un concepto clave para la psicología cultural”: Carl Ratner
Presentación y traducción: Efraín Aguilar
Además de ser uno de los pioneros de la neuropsicología y de la patopsicología (ciencias privilegio de los psicólogos, la segunda no aprovechada todavía) Vygotski ha generado mediante su teoría histórico-cultural ideas muy esclarecedoras para comprender “al otro” desde lo antropológico así como desde lo psicológico. Basado en esa teoría y con la idea de actividad como herramienta conceptual, en este artículo Ratner busca transmitir a los psicólogos culturalistas, sobre todo a los inscritos en el idealismo, el concepto de actividad como práctica sociocultural organizada y el cómo ésta regulariza las funciones psicológicas, y a la inversa en un proceso de interacción dialéctica. El interés de Ratner por Vygotski se refleja en su prólogo al tomo V de los Collected Works, a más de variados artículos entre los que figura uno publicado en español (Psicología y Ciencia Social, 1: 55-61, 1997) titulado Vygotski, el Einstein de la psicología parafraseando –desde lo cognitivo- al filósofo Stephen Toulmin quien hace más de veinte años bautizara –desde lo afectivo- a Liev Semiónovich como “el Mozart de la psicología”.
LA ACTIVIDAD COMO UN CONCEPTO CLAVE PARA LA PSICOLOGÍA CULTURAL
Carl Ratner
Activity as A Key Concept for Cultural Psychology
Culture & Psychology, 1996, 2, 407-434.
Resumen. Este trabajo articula un concepto de cultura como actividad humana práctica, socialmente organizada. La cultura no sólo consiste de entendimientos conceptuales compartidos, como creen muchos psicólogos culturales. Se explora en detalle la manera como la actividad cultural organiza las funciones psicológicas. También se describe la influencia recíproca de las funciones psicológicas con la cultura.
Palabras clave: psicología cultural, actividad, dialéctica, praxis, estructura social
“The Concept of the Ideal”: Evald Ilyenkov
Before discussing the concept itself we must first consider the terms “ideal” and “ideality”, that is to say, we must first define the range of phenomena to which these terms may be applied, without analysing the essence of these phenomena at this point.
Even this is not an easy task because usage in general, and scientific usage in particular, is always something derivative of that very “understanding of the essence of the question” whose exposition our definition is intended to serve. The difficulty is by no means peculiar to the given case. It arises whenever we discuss fairly complex matters regarding which there is no generally accepted interpretation and, consequently, no clear definition of the limits of the object under discussion. In such cases discussion on the point at issue turns into an argument about the “meaning of the term”, the limits of a particular designation and, hence, about the formal attributes of phenomena that have to be taken into consideration in a theoretical examination of the essence of the question.
“Cultural-Historical Theory” and “Cultural-Historical School”: From Myth (Back) to Reality”: P. Keiler
“The word is a philosophy of the fact; it can be its mythology and its scientific theory“.
Lev S. Vygotsky
Summary
Contrary to the common opinion, the label “cultural-historical theory [kul‟turno-istoricheskaia teoriia]” is no authentic designation for the conceptions elaborated by L.S. Vygotsky together with A.R. Luria, A.N. Leontiev, and a number of collaborators more between 1927/28 and 1931/32. Likewise, the denomination “cultural-historical school [kul‟turno-istoricheskaia shkola]” does not reflect the genuine self-concept of the respective researchers. Rather, both designations originally were introduced in the mid-30s by critics with defamatory aims and have been later accepted in consequence of a defense-mechanism, which by psychoanalysts is called “identification with the aggressor.” In the aftermath of the “thaw”-period, when the once “beaten” turned out to be the “victorious” ones, those labels became generally accepted (though in several respects quite problematic) shibboleths.
The author
Keiler, Peter, Ph. D. habil., Dipl.-Psych., apl. Professor at the Department of Psychology, Free University of Berlin. Research interests: over three decades of research on the history of psychology and the reconstruction of materialist traditions in psychology. Books and papers (including online publications) in several fields of psychology (general psychology, history of psychology, philosophical-methodological fundamentals of psychology, general developmental psychology).
“Origins on CHAT: German Philosophy and Marx”: Andy Blunden
Talk given at the Monash Education Research Community, within the Department of Education at Monash University, by Andy Blunden on 20 April 2010.
The talk is the first of a two-part seminar for the International Course on Cultural Historical Activity Theory. It covers the contributions to this current of thought derived from Descartes, J G Herder, Goethe and Hegel. Part Two, deals with Marx. See marx.org/subject/philosophy/german.htm for readings, home.mira.net/~andy/works/origins-chat.htm for text of this talk and ethicalpolitics.org/chat/Genealogy-CHAT.htm for a diagram of the historical sources of CHAT more widely.
“Working With Cultural-Historical Activity Theory”: Wolff-Michael Roth, Luis Radford & Lionel LaCroix
Abstract: This article focuses on the experiences of two researchers, Wolff-Michael ROTH and Luis RADFORD, using cultural-historical activity theory in mathematics education. The aim is to provide insights into the ways these researchers see and engage with activity theory, how they have come to adopt and expand it, and some of the challenges and concerns that they have had using it. These questions are not usually addressed within typical scientific papers. Yet, they are important for understanding both the dynamics of research and the practical use of cultural-historical activity theory. Since the format of research report papers is not necessarily well suited to convey personal experiences and thinking, the present article takes the form of a conversation, which provides an effective vehicle for exploring and articulating these matters. This provides a basis for understanding more deeply the underlying assumptions of this theory; its dynamics and how it is applied in research of mathematics practice, thinking, and learning; and insights into the manner in which experienced researchers grapple with the theoretical dimensions of their research.
Key words: cultural-historical activity theory; dialectical thinking; Leont’ev; Vygotsky; mathematics education; objectification; subjectification
“Breaking away from Capital? Theorising activity in the shadow of Marx”: Peter E Jones
Abstract
The paper reflects on the relationship between the understanding of human activity which Marx expresses in Capital and the theoretical model of activity offered by an influential contemporary variant of Activity Theory. The paper argues that this variant departs significantly from Marx’s conception of human activity and its role in what he calls the ‘labour process’. In particular, Activity Theory has failed to distinguish between the labour process and the valorization process, a distinction which is fundamental to Capital and to Marx’s theoretical and political perspective more generally. The paper also argues that this conceptual conflation is also evident in the theoretical discourse of the founders of the Activity Theory tradition. The paper goes on to consider the theoretical and practical implications of this departure from the method and conclusions of Capital.
“Vygotskian Analysis of the Crisis in Psychology”: III International ISCAR
Vídeo:
III International ISCAR Summer University for PhD students “Moving with and beyond Vygotsky” 2-8 July 2012 MSUPE, Russia — Prof. Pentti Hakkarainen, lecture “Research paradigms of cultural-historical approach” and “Methodology of DWR” http://www.iscarschool.ru
“Lo inconsciente: una perspectiva desde la psicología sociohistórica”: Carl Ratner
Muchos académicos, incluidos filósofos sociales de la escuela de Frankfurt y psicoantropólogos, han dicho que un abordaje cultural o sociohistórico de la psicología no podría explicar completamente los fenómenos psicológicos. Según ellos, la psicología cultural puede comprender la organización sociohistórica de los fenómenos conscientes tales como actitudes o costumbres, pero no puede explicar los procesos inconscientes arcanos, subterráneos. Así, la psicología sociohistórica debe complementarse con los conceptos freudianos que comprenden lo inconsciente. Hace poco, Dorothy Holland (1992), una psicoantropóloga, se ha quejado de que la teoría cognitivo-social no aborda los fenómenos inconscientes tales como la “censura” y el “conflicto psíquico”, y se dedica a importar otras teorías tales como el psicoanálisis para llenar este hueco.
Voy a participar en este debate. Procuraré demostrar que un análisis psicológico sociohistórico puede iluminar fenómenos llamados inconscientes1.
“Much Learning does Not Teach Understanding” (A Conversation with Vasili Davydov): Karl Levitin
Professor Davydov, your books, articles and public statements suggest that present-day psychology needs new, drastically different methods and is therefore on the eve of a radical change of theory, and hence in practical application. Can you elaborate on that idea?
To begin with, I must say that contemporary psychology has split into a number of disciplines each having its own object of study. They are general psychology, psychophysiology, peer group, developmental and educational psychology, social, medical, the psychology of law, the psychology of labour, art, sport, and so on. In looking for answers to the questions put forth by life, psychologists are forging ahead with their investigations and have come up with a lot of valuable results. In a sense, such differentiation of psychological disciplines is useful as it gives deeper insights into the psychological laws of whatever happens to be the particular object of study. On the other hand, it results in the loss of something general that should unite all psychological studies. For a long time now the prevalent trend has been to allow not relative but complete autonomy to every branch of what used to be the one psychological tree: let everyone do his own job and forget about what the man next door is doing. And the connection between the psychology of art, peer group psychology, and psychology of labour, for example, is considered a problem of no particular interest, or else a task for another discipline.
“La actividad humana en la Psicología Histórico-cultural”: Rosalia Montealegre
Resumen
“Agency and Vygotskyan theory”: Arturo Escandón
By introducing a ‘complex mediated act’ as the unit to account for the development of higher psychological functions, Vygotsky opened a way for a non-deterministic account of agency whereby the individual is acted upon and acts upon society.
A talk given on September 2010
“The russian spinozists”: Andrey Maidansky
ABSTRACT. The article deals with the history of Russian Spinozism in the 20th century, focusing attention on three interpretations of Spinoza’s philosophy – by Varvara Polovtsova, Lev Vygotsky, and Evald Ilyenkov. Polovtsova profoundly explored Spinoza’s logical method and contributed an excellent translation of his treatise De intellectus emendatione. Later Vygotsky and Ilyenkov applied Spinoza’s method to create activity theory, an explanation of the laws and genesis of the human mind.
KEY WORDS: philosophy of Spinoza, Spinozism, Polovtsova, Vygotsky, Ilyenkov, Russian Marxism, activity theory, logical method
When looking over the legion of interpretations which have escorted Spinoza’s philosophy in the course of the past three centuries, one immediately recalls an ironic phrase of the scholastics: auctoritas nasum cereum habet. It seems that Spinoza’s teaching has been interpreted in all possible ways. It was already Hegel who had sufficient reason to complain that Spinoza’s doctrine had been too often judged in a rough and ready manner.1 In Russia of XIX century this ordinary state of affairs was complicated by a generally hostile attitude towards the philosophy of Spinoza. Though his doctrine appeared at the epicenter of impassioned polemics with the participation of leading Russian philosophers – Vladimir Solov’ëv, Alexander Vvedenskij, Lev Shestov, Semën Frank, – not one of them declared his devotion to Spinoza’s teaching. Only somewhat later would V. Polovtsova, L. Vygotskij and E. Il’enkov devote themselves to continue his inquisitio veri. They had to go against the general current of Russian philosophy, although at times the latter was becoming more sympathetic to Spinoza’s (or rather to alleged Spinozistic) ideas. I do not intend here to survey the various Spinozistic tendencies in Russian philosophy; I would like to explore somewhat of its Spinozistic “mainstream.”
“Vygotsky & the Concept of Consciousness”: Andy Blunden
Vygotsky’s Immanent Critique of Reflexology
VYGOTSKY came to psychology by way of aesthetics. At the time, in the wake of the Russian Revolution, aesthetics was the scene of intense ideological struggles between Symbolists and Formalists and Phenomenologists. Vygotsky claimed that aesthetics had to be based on psychology and this is how he came to Psychology, more in tune with semiotics than medicine. This was not the usual training for the psychology of the time, dominated by reflexology and other variants of physiological behaviourism.
But in his first speech to the Congress of Psychoneurology in 1924, Vygotsky spoke in the language of reflexology, building up to a point where he declared:
“Consciousness is only the reflex of reflexes. If to claim that consciousness too has to be understood as a reaction of the organism to its own reactions, one has to be a bigger reflexologist than Pavlov himself. So be it” (1997).
Reading Marx’s Capital with David Harvey
La Rosa Blindada
Revista Laberinto
Setmanari de comunicació Directa
