May 3rd, 2012

lsv @ usd

STRUCTURE + MEANING / К теории культурно-исторической гештальт-психологии: структура + смысл

Оказывается, славная идея скрестить идею структуры (Gestalt, образ, форма, etc.) с идеей смысла (sense, meaning, significance, value, Sinn, etc.)--ну а вслед за смыслом, и с идеей общества и культуры--посетила не только Льва Семёновича Выготского, царствие ему небесное, но также и целый ряд его коллег по цеху и, возможно, даже с некоторым опережением. См., zum Beispiel, такое:

  • Ellis, Willis Davis , (1930). Gestalt psychology and meaning. Berkeley, CA, US: Sather Gate Book Shop, xi, 172 pp. doi: 10.1037/13527-001; оглавление/TOC

  • The second of the new categories to be incorporated by science was Sinn, a German word which has been variously translated as significance, value, and meaning. Without incorporating the meaning of experience and behavior, Koffka believed that science would doom itself to trivialities in its investigation of human beings;
  • См. также: Koffka, K. (1935). Principles of Gestalt psychology. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & World:
  • [P. 17] SIGNIFICANCE, VALUE. We turn to the last of our categories: significance. What we mean by that is harder to explain than the two previous concepts, and yet here lies one of the deepest roots of gestalt theory, one which has been least openly brought before the English-speaking public. The reason for this is easy to understand. There is such a thing as an intellectual climate, and the intellectual climate, just as meteorological, varies from country to country. [p. 18] And just as the growth of a plant depends upon the intellectual climate, so does the growth of an idea depend upon the intellectual climate. There can be no doubt that the intellectual climates of Germany and the United States are widely different. The idealistic tradition of Germany is more than an affair of philosophic schools; it pervades the German mind and appears most openly in the writings and teachings of the representatives of "Geistwissenschaften", the moral sciences. The meaning of a personality prominent in history, art or literature, seems to the German mind more important than the pure historical facts which make up his life and works; the historian is more interested in the relation to the events on the plan of the universe than in his relations to the events on the planet. Contrariwise, in America, the climate is chiefly practical; the here and now, the immediate present with its needs, holds the centre of the stage, thereby relegating the problems essential to German mentality to the realm of the useless and non-existing. In science this attitude makes for positivism, an overvaluation of mere facts and an undervaluation of very abstract speculations, a high regard for science, accurate and earthbound, and an aversion, sometimes bordering on contempt, for metaphysics that tries to escape from the welter of mere facts into a loftier realm of ideas and ideals.
            Therefore when the first attempts were made to introduce gestalt theory to the American public, that side of which would most readily appeal to the type of German mentality which I have tried to sketch was kept in the background, and those aspects which had a direct bearing on science were emphasized. Had the procedure been different, we might have incurred the danger of biassing our readers against our ideas. Living in a different intellectual climate they might have taken this aspect of gestalt theory for pure mysticism and decided not to have anything to do with the whole theory before they had had a chance of becoming acquainted with its scientific relevance.
            At the present moment, however, when gestalt theory has been taken up as a main source of discussion, it seems only fair to lift the old restriction and expose all its aspects.
            [p. 21]... The positivistic interpretation of the world and our knowledge of it is but one possibility; there is another one. The question is: Which is really true? Meaning, significance, value, as data of our total experience give us a hint that the latter has at least as good a chance of being the true one as the former. And that means: far from being compelled to banish concepts like meaning and value from psychology and science in general, we must use these concepts for a full understanding of the mind and the world, which is at the same time a full explanation.
    [ ]
  • Brown, J.F. Psychology and the Social Order. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1936. 529 pp.; (см. об авторе хоть что-то здесь oder hier); цитата из вступления к книге:
    [p. viii] My greatest professional debt is to Professor K. Lewin. It was as a student of his that I first became interested in the field-theo- [p. ix] retical approach to problems of sociology and psychology. The mathematical conceptions developed in this work were first applied by Lewin to problems of individual psychology. I must assume total responsibility, however, for their present application to problems of sociology and social psychology. I am not at all sure that Professor Lewin will agree with all the implications I derive from his general methodological positions for these sciences. But whether my work is found good or bad, Lewin's lectures and writings mainly influenced me to attempt it. I also had the great privilege of studying with Professor W. Kohler and Professor W. Wertheimer when the ideas I have developed here were maturing. How much I owe them will be obvious to those of my readers who are familiar with their writings.

Что же касается робких попыток Выготского и его команды скрестить гештальт со смыслом, например, здесь:
  • Соловьев-Элпидинский И.М. О так называемом «психическом насыщении» и его особенностях у умственно отсталых детей // Умственноотсталый ребенок / Под ред. Л.С. Выготского, И.И. Данюшевского. М.: Учпедгиз, 1935. С. 97–174

    или здесь:

  • Выготский Л.С. Проблема умственной отсталости (опыт построения рабочей гипотезы) // Умственноотсталый ребенок / Под ред. Л.С. Выготского, И.И. Данюшевского. М.: Учпедгиз, 1935. С. 7–34 --

то наверное самая яркая, хоть и до сих пор не оцененная попытка состоялась в работе Биренбаум и Зейгарник, опубликованной в 1935 году; см. такое:

  • Зейгарник Б.В., Биренбаум Г.В. К проблеме смыслового восприятия. Советская невропатология, психиатрия и гигиена 1935; 4(6): 57-74

    а особенно вот такое:

  • Биренбаум Г.В. и Зейгарник Б.В. К динамическому анализу расстройств мышления. Советская невропатология, психиатрия и гигиена 1935; 4(6): 75-98

И наконец, об истории культурно-исторической гештальтпсихологии в ее развитии в 1930е годы см.: