tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post1683525447431477228..comments2023-07-16T04:38:04.407-05:00Comments on Spinuzzi: Reading :: Vygotsky in PerspectiveClay Spinuzzihttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-5859442295018778722022-05-04T12:29:45.092-05:002022-05-04T12:29:45.092-05:00One more thing on that Vygotsky piece in Soviet Ps...One more thing on that Vygotsky piece in Soviet Psychology. The piece was published in 1989, well before Cole's 1996 book being criticized by Miller. The editor of that special issue of Soviet Psychology? Michael Cole. Clay Spinuzzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-50711154945414518272022-05-03T10:46:57.061-05:002022-05-03T10:46:57.061-05:00I just reread this article, which is from an unpub...I just reread this article, which is from an unpublished Vygotsky piece from 1929, found in his family archives:<br /><br />Vygotsky, L. S. (1989). Concrete human psychology. Soviet psychology, 27(2), 53-77.<br /><br />Although Miller thinks that the subject-object-mediator triangle (referenced in Engestrom 1996 and used as the "top" of Engestrom's activity system triangle) is made up of whole cloth, it appears in this publication on p.62! It is contrasted with the S1-sign-S2 triangle that Miller discusses. Here, Vygotsky is illustrating how the first triangle represents mediation of labor with a tool, directed outward -- but then the tool becomes a sign, "placed between me and my memory" (p.61). That is, Vygotsky is not just delineating between tools and signs, he is showing how one leads to another.Clay Spinuzzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-67439551516745134742017-04-28T10:29:10.117-05:002017-04-28T10:29:10.117-05:00Yes, I highly recommend Revisionist Revolution as ...Yes, I highly recommend Revisionist Revolution as well as Van der Veer and Valsiner's bio and Kozulin"s Psychology in Utopia. These authors have all praised Miller, so you have an idea of their view of Vygotsky, but their discussion of his development is far more textured. <br /><br />I do want to note that Kozulin describes the Vygotsky-Leontiev split as a personal betrayal. This view makes sense if you think of Vygotsky the way he described himself at the end, as Moses leading his people to the River Jordan. But if you think of this split as a genuine disagreement, perhaps flavored by Leontiev's healthy sense of self-preservation, I think you get a fairer view. But see what you think!Clay Spinuzzihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13356273383001825508noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-33273315.post-23740258311634080292017-04-28T08:31:18.779-05:002017-04-28T08:31:18.779-05:00Wow. The kind of "standard image" of Vy...Wow. The kind of "standard image" of Vygotsky in UK & maybe US psychology is a complete mess and it looks like Miller had just had it up to here.<br /><br />I'm planning to start back into Vygotsky & "all that" from June. I was thinking I'd re-read Thinking and Speech, but really I need a better sense of how his thinking developed, and of the problems of the available texts. Possibly that "Revisionist revolution" book will be a good place to start.<br /><br />Also the debate around his work and ideas is bringing other work further into the limelight: beyond Luria and Leontiev to Davydov, Rubinstein, etc. (& a bit later the philosophers).<br /><br />Ivanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11173073865060093049noreply@blogger.com