Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


( 10 comments — Leave a comment )
(Deleted comment)
Oct. 3rd, 2010 04:16 pm (UTC)
To hell with Vygotsky, especially so since there is no any Vygotsky's concept of "drama"--at least no well-developed concept that could be of use to us in our research and practice today--in my humble opinion. However, -- :)

The guys out there are indeed talking about "theatrical metaphor" in psychological research. You might be interested to have a look at:

Moghaddam, F. M., & Harré, R. (1992). Rethinking the laboratory experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 36(1), 22-38
Oct. 3rd, 2010 06:33 pm (UTC)
Ok, I try to understand...

But "there is no a well definite concept of 'drama' in Vygotsky's
works", even you just recognize that will be not the same that
"there is no any Vygotsky's concept of 'drama'"...

If I can not have permission to use the word "concept", maybe I
could talk about some kind of "meaning" of this word is his works...
some kind of "generalization" process, even not a "conceptual" one,
for this word along some of his works...

Even so, N. Veresov as talked about the concept of "category"
in Vygotsky as a "dramatic event", in the Silver Age of Russian
Culture context... In relation to the "general genetic law of cultural
developmental"... what is a not a so peripheral and/or secondary
question in Vygotsky's "generalizations" about human development.

This is one of the motives because my "drama" was between comas,
then, please, read "concept" in comas as well... Research and practice
maybe must be related to human social reality. Then the first question,
in my naive opinion, must be if human social reality has or not a
"dramatic" character, and in which way we can say something like this.

Of course something like a "dramatic character" of human social exis-
tence, can be much polysemic, but maybe "polysemia" could not be totally
banned from psychological science just because this could be another
constitutional aspect for all human signification process. If there was
not "polysemia", maybe would be no more psychological "books", only
perfect dictionaires for all the "terms" and "names"...

And then all we will lost our jobs, don't you think so?

Thank you for the "American Behavioral Scientist" paper. Let Stanislvasky,
and Eisenshtein, and Meyerhold, and Vygotsky rest in peace in the Hell.
Of course, soon I must stay there, as well, probably not at the same
apartments of such noble and important persons. :-)

Best wishes.


P.S. J-P. Sartre wrote that "The hell are the others"... I don't think so,
many times the hell is when we have not the opportunity of good meetings
with the others we admire and desire to stay together and talk a little
bit... When this occurs it there can be a be a little glance of paradise,
as well.
Oct. 5th, 2010 07:01 pm (UTC)
I am in a hurry, sorry, just two remarks at this point:

1. To hell with - I'm disgusted with, get rid of, as in To hell with that plan; it's ridiculous, or The hell with that so-called genius; he's made a serious mistake in this report
Thus, your ideas on the Hell, life and death, etc. -- most interesting as they certainly are -- are of little relevance to our discussion of the topic, I am afraid.

2. Re: N. Veresov as talked about the concept of "category" in Vygotsky as a "dramatic event", in the Silver Age of Russian Culture context... In relation to the "general genetic law of cultural developmental"... what is a not a so peripheral and/or secondary question in Vygotsky's "generalizations" about human development --

I have been thinking about this argumentation for a while and have to confess: Frankly, I do not buy this stuff, after all. See different phrasing of Vygotsky's "main law":

Изучая процессы высших функций у детей, мы пришли к следующему потрясшему нас выводу: всякая высшая форма поведения появляется в своем развитии на сцене дважды - сперва как коллективная форма поведения, как функция интерпсихологическая, затем как функция интрапсихологическая, как известный способ поведения

presentation "On psychological systems", October, 1930

Same thing in English:

When we studied the processes of the higher function in children we came to the following staggering conclusion: each higher form of behavior enters the scene twice in its development--first as a collective form of behavior, as an inter-psychological function, then as an intra-psychological function, as a certain way of behaving (Vygotsky, 1930/1997, p. 95)

As you can see, there are no traces of this cryptic "category" in the second quote: instead, we have pretty reasonable "function", and this is what I believe "category" in Vygotsky's other quote means.

Not to mention the fact that, despite considerable effort, I failed to confirm the claim that "category" means--or ever meant for anybody--"collision" in Russian language.

Finally, and I guess this is remark #3: have a look at the paper by Moghaddam, F. M., & Harré, R., you might find it way more refreshing than the old stuff of the dead guy :)...
Oct. 31st, 2010 10:50 pm (UTC)
Л. С. Выготский •


Изучение этого у ребенка.
Экскурс! Ср. Полицер: психология = драма. Совпадение: конкретная
психология и Дильтей (о Шекспире) 24. Но драма действительно
полна такого рода связей: роль страсти, скупости, ревности в данной
структуре личности. Один характер разложен на два у Макбета—•


Драма действительно полна внутренней борьбы невозможной в органических
системах: динамика личности есть драма.


во сне жена изменила (Отелло) — убить: трагедия. Драма всегда
борьба таких связей (долг и чувство, страсть etc.). Иначе не может
-•быть драмы, т. е. столкновения систем. Психология «гуманизируется


Не то — высшие:
если признать, что органы создаются • извне, регуляция мозга извне,
личность = сгусток общественных отношений... связи типа «сон кафра»
•извне, динамика личности = драма, то социогенез — единственно верная
точка зрения, т. е. механизмы, созидаются в среде (конструкции)


Конспект: Личность — совокупность общественных отношений.
Высшие психические функции создаются в коллективе. Связи типа:
«сон кафра». Содержание личности. Личность как участник драмы.
Драма личности*. Конкретная психология. [На полях]. Функции меняют
свою роль: сон, мышление, практический интеллект.



й. ,
Сравни: природные данные актера (амплуа) определяют круг его
ролей, но все же каждая драма ( = личность) имеет свои роли.
Commedia del'arte: закрепленные роли, играют амплуа (Коломбина,
Арлекин etc.), которые меняют драму, но роль одна и та же = самой
себе. Драма с закрепленными ролями = представление старой психологии.
Новая: в круге амплуа — изменение ролей. Сон в драме (личности)

Nov. 11th, 2010 04:28 pm (UTC)
Cool quotes, thnx alot!

But what are they all supposed to mean?..
Nov. 12th, 2010 03:08 pm (UTC)
Dear professor...

Certainly I have no English language resources. Perhaps nor in Portuguese my thinking and speech could be very useful as well. You, please, forgive me. But this is what i feel. Of course if try to talk to you in a joke maner, with metaphors I have no success. You can say "To hell with" (this is a very common expression, I dont need dictionary to understand) - but you give me no permission to answer to you with the same joke. "to hell with a lot with things, including me" (it was the same meaning, I only add another joke = "for them a more good apartment" = "some people ridiculous" but "I the more ridiculous")... At the beggining you give me no permission to think in "high voice" about some problems, because there was not crucial relevance for it (I dont understante why we can only talk about the "essential"). And now you give me no permission for my words have meaning. It is not a good way to teach.

Why dont you yourself answer your own question about what means the "quotes", for instance?

First I must to know, do you want that I explain: (a) What means the own quotes? or (b) what means my act in post the quotes? And mainly: (c) what means "to mean"? For instance: c.1 “to mean” as "what was author is saying at that moment about that terms "personality", "drama", "conflict", "psychology humanization", etc.? or (c.2) "what as the relevance of this 'inner speech' of that author for the future investigations? Of course there two kinds of different "to mean"... AND = About both you can answer better than I, because you can see a broader historical development and I have only some pieces of the puzzle (the is no picture in the box to help, if you permit one more naive metaphor)...

But if your question is about what mean my act in quote this fragments, you try to explain, the last time.

1) I never spoke nothing about this is a problem of the "genius" contribution. And I do not understand why you are so concerned in prove me this obvious thing. Well... Its ok, you must have your motives. I respect, but this not with me, and above all not with this topic.

2) You correct me about my word "concept" - saying to me "There is not any concept of drama in Vygotsky" - and I clearly accept your correction, and change my word to "generalization", "meaning", you must agree that we can understand that a concept had a "formation"... but, its ok. I correct myself. But you are even not satsfied. This must be not only wrong but also ridiculous - showing me dictionary etc, etc, etc.
Nov. 12th, 2010 03:09 pm (UTC)
3) You criticize (I don't know if this is the correct word, but something like "dont buy this stuff" - there is this expression in Portuguese too, dont put all your coins in this, ok, ok) the interpretation from Nikolai, because the "sign" "category" was not present all the times in the formulation of "general genetic law" (it could exist something like this, etc., is not the point)... Then - you show that your concernings sometimes reduces "meaning" to "concept" and more "meaning" to "sign"... But, we can also ask for meanings in a more broad sistem of semantic relations - I please to you that you consider this possibility, even more in a forum like this, in which we stay not simple to sell a idea, but also to inquire, and construct as well.

4) Even so, if the problem is the "word", the literal "word" "drama" not present in the passages with "category" (not repeated), etc., my quotes can show that in 1929 Vygotsky made this retorical resource to the term "drama" in analogy to contradictory, conflicting, character of human personality dynamics. Therefore, if the problem was about the "word", the "word" stay there. If the problem was about theoretical discussion, please begin the discussion, if/when you wish/have time. Because until now, you only refuses to talk about...

5) When some person like me, not so instructed like you, made a silly question as mine, is not about we think that you are not important. But because we desire to learn about. But your approach did not help to learn about... Because : (1) you disconsider the possible sense of the question; (2) you not attempt to the own nature of the question. I will to explain: (a) if I said "concept" then consider only "notion" - because it is there, bad or good. (b) if I ask if some Stanislavsky's elaborations could help to develop more that "notion", of course there are, at least 2 (two) presuppositions in the question: b1. The notion is not well developed... b2. Stanislavsky can be for help or not. Therefore, nothing was a thesis...
Nov. 12th, 2010 03:09 pm (UTC)
6). Not only Vygotsky have some concerns about psychology and drama around that times. Georges Politzer was another. And L. Binswanger, was another. Is not stupid to ask for. But you was most concerned in prove the stupidity of the questions than in show why this problem could be so pernicious...

7) I thank you about your suggestion of the other text. Even more linking to a available cool pdf file. This is very important, no much people do this that you did. But my concerning was not really "how to do psychology as drama today?" (independently of the approach), but more about what could mean this propositions in LSV works, what was its contradictions to. Not to follow the great "guru", but to create critical spaces for debate around a subject that could be "emergent" or not... But I understand to be better to discuss before reject forever...


I don´t know. Sometimes I perceive that this was a great mistake I stay here since the very beggining, because all you have many other important things to do. Certainly to post only a image and a little question, without more additional explanation was not a good tactics to make you spend minus time. Then, even if I wrote many paragraphs I can't say something really meaningful for you... Well. Its all. not diplomatic question's in international relations but only learner-professor relationships.

Thank you very much.

Jun. 7th, 2011 05:05 pm (UTC)
All the world's a stage (c)
Speaking of drama bla-bla-bla, please feel free to have a look at this one, it might entertain you:
Michael Pettit, “The Con Man as Model Organism: The Methodological Roots of. Erving Goffman's Dramaturgical Self,” History of the Human Sciences, 2011

And this one is also pretty curious:
Lipovetsky, Mark. Charms of the Cynical Reason: The Trickster's Transformation in Soviet and Post-Soviet Culture (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2011)
Jun. 7th, 2011 09:20 pm (UTC)
Re: All the world's a stage (c)
Thank you...
Well I was not concerned with 'all the world is a stage'...
The main problem is more the question about "to act"...
There was not only greek "drama" as act, but even "poesis", and "praxis"...
Drama was more related with choices... as for Agamemnon and Hamlet, in
certain way, and the fictional vygotskian judge/husband
well, bla-bla-bla, etc. =)
Thank you.
Nice to see you again in this cyberstage.
( 10 comments — Leave a comment )




Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Jamison Wieser