Rethinking Cultural-Historical Theory: A Dialectical Perspective to Vygotsky

By Manolis Dafermos

This book is an exploration of science in the making. It offers readers the opportunity to critically reflect on the process of development of Vygotsky's research program from the perspective of dialectics, focusing on the dramatic process of building and rebuilding cultural historical theory. Vygotsky's creative and dramatic journey is no less important than the concrete results of his research. An epistemological and historical investigation of the formulation of cultural historical theory sheds light on the process of knowledge production and reveals hidden dimensions of creativity in science.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Springer
• Release date: May 17, 2018
• ISBN: 9789811301919

Book preview

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Manolis DafermosRethinking Cultural-Historical TheoryPerspectives in Cultural-Historical Research4https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0191-9_1

1. Introduction

Manolis Dafermos¹  

(1)

Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece

Manolis Dafermos

Email: [e-mail]

It is in general the principle of all motion, of all life, and of all activation in the actual world. Equally, the dialectical is also the soul of all genuinely scientific cognition .

(Hegel 1991, Encycl. Logic, Part I, Sect. 81)

Abstract

This chapter provides a broad overview of the theoretical and methodological background of the book. It is argued that the fragmentation and decontextulization of Vygotsky’s theory constitutes an obstacle to its understanding and further development. It is proposed that a dialectical perspective to Vygotsky’s theory offers a new framework for its critical reflection as a developing research program in the broader landscape of the history of science and philosophy. Dialectic as a way of thinking focused on the investigation of the development of Vygotsky’s theory through the prism of its internal contradictions in terms of a drama of ideas.

Despite his short life, Lev Semyonovich Vygotsky (1896–1934) opened up new perspectives not only in psychology as a discipline, but in a wide interdisciplinary field (linguistics, pedagogy, sociology, theory of Art) . Vygotsky’s ‘second life,’ connected with the dissemination and expansion of his theory across different countries and continents, is no less exciting than his short and dramatic ‘first life.’

Diverse ways of interpreting and conceptualizing Vygotsky’s legacy in different parts of the globe have been developed. The diversity of interpretations and implementations of Vygotsky’s insights has been reflected at the Congresses of the International Society for Cultural-historical Activity Research. ISCAR was established in June of 2002 as a result of the integration of two different organizations—the International Society for Cultural Research and Activity Theory (ISCRAT) and the Conference for Sociocultural Research. The coexistence and scientific communication between cultural-historical, activity theory and sociocultural approaches in the same International Society constitutes one of the biggest theoretical and practical challenges for ISCAR. The question of similarities and differences between these approaches provokes debates and controversy (Wertsch 1985; Toomela 2000, 2008; Ageyev 2003; Matusov 2008; Dafermos 2015).

Various applications of Vygotsky’s insights have emerged in different fields such as developmental and educational psychology (Cole 1996; Langford 2005; Zuckerman 2014; Arievitch and Stetsenko 2014; Stetsenko 2017), learning (Hedegaard and Chaiklin 2005; Van Oers et al. 2008; Rubtsov 2016; Engeström 2015), language theory (Robbins 2001; Byrnes 2006; Jones 2008; Wertsch and Smolka 1993; Kellogg 2014), literacy research (Smagorinsky 2011), cognitive science (Falikman 2014), semiotics (Ivanov 2014), children’s study (Hedegaard and Fleer 2008, 2013; Hedegaard et al. 2012), pedagogy (Daniels 2001; Magalhães 2011; Liberali 2008; Mascia et al. 2017), Special Needs Education (Daniels and Hedegaard 2011; Gindis 1995), sociology (Daniels 2012), workplace (Engeström 2007; Holzman 2009), psychotherapy (Holzman 2014, Zaretskii and Kholmogorova 2017; Kholmogorova 2017), clinical psychology (Burlakova and Oleshkevich 2017), neuropsychology (Akhutina 2003; Toomela 2014; Kotik-Friedgut and Adrila 2014), theory of Art (Bulgakowa 2014).¹

The expansion and implementation of a scientific idea beyond the boundaries of the field of its initial appearance and formation raises important epistemological and methodological issues. This question preoccupied Vygotsky in his work The historical meaning of the crisis in psychology.

It can be said of any important discovery in any area, when it transcends the boundaries of that particular realm, that it has the tendency to turn into an explanatory principle for all psychological phenomena and lead psychology beyond its proper boundaries into broader realms of knowledge. In the last several decades this tendency has manifested itself with such amazing strictness and consistency, with such regular uniformity in the most diverse areas, that it becomes absolutely possible to predict the course of development of this or that concept, discovery, or idea (Vygotsky 1997, p. 241).

Vygotsky argued that this tendency has manifested itself in the most diverse areas. Moreover, Vygotsky attempted to conduct a methodological investigation of the development of scientific ideas in the field of psychology in the early twentieth century. The epistemological and methodological investigation of psychology as a discipline was carried out by Vygotsky before the emergence of his cultural-historical theory. Vygotsky attempted to establish the methodology of his scientific research on the basis of a reflection on the history of science (more particularly of the reflection of the history of psychology as a discipline). It points to the possibility of a scientific methodology built on a historical foundation (Vygotsky 1997, p. 241).

A dehistoricized and decontextualized reception and implementation of separated Vygotsky’s ideas which, without sufficient understanding of their theoretical foundation and their place in the developing of Vygotsky’s research program inevitably provokes confusion and misunderstandings. As a result of the present Vygotsky boom in North America and Western Europe, a transformation of Vygotsky into a ‘chewing gum’ for everybody, every day, and every occasion has taken place (Dafermos and Marvakis 2011, p. 95). The whole complexity of Vygotsky’s theory has been lost.

Vygotsky seems to be increasingly well-known in international psychology, while remaining little understood. The roots of his thinking in international philosophical and psychological discourse remain largely hidden. His ideas have rarely been developed further, along either theoretical or empirical lines (Valsiner 1988, p. 117).

Contemporary post-Vygotskian researchers, in their fascination for Vygotsky’s ideas, tend often to assimilate Vygotsky’s theory into their own theories originated from different research traditions (Van der Veer and Valsiner 1994). Τhereby, the implicit assumptions of the reception and implementation of Vygotsky’s theory nowadays in different parts of the globe as well as in the context of its formation in the 1920–early 1930 in the Soviet Union remain to a significant extent unrevealed.

It is worth mentioning that Vygotsky was very critical of the methodological unscrupulousness and eclecticism which gained widespread acceptance in our whole eclectic epoch (Vygotsky 1997, p. 260). The existing trend in Vygotsky’s epoch of the mechanical transposition of bits of a foreign system into one’s (Vygotsky 1997, p. 260) became even more attractive in our times as a result of the advent of postmodernism connected with the celebration of fragmentation and incoherence.

The book is an attempt to reconstruct Vygotsky’s research program not as a given, static set of ready-made concepts and ideas, but as a developing process. Becoming detached from the theoretical system in which they are embedded, certain ideas or concepts lose their meaning and can be converted into its opposite. For Vygotsky, the word acquires its sense in the phrase. The phrase itself, however, acquires its sense only in the context of the paragraph, the paragraph in the context of the book, and the book in the context of the author’s collected works (Vygotsky 1987, p. 276).

Moreover, the book offers an analysis of the main stages of development of Vygotsky’s theory and highlights changes in the mutual correlation of the concepts in different stages of its becoming. The works of Yaroshevsky (1989), Kozulin (1990), Van der Veer and Valsiner (1991), Veresov (1999) and other scholars constitute significant contributions to an understanding of the history of development of Vygotsky’s ideas. However, considerable work has to be done toward an epistemological reflection of the development of Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory in the broader landscape of the history of psychology and philosophy. Derry (2013) focuses on the significance of Vygotsky’s philosophical background and challenges the claim that …Vygotsky holds abstract rationality as the pinnacle of thought (Derry 2013, p. 1). Derry (2013) highlights the influence of Spinoza’s and Hegel’s philosophical ideas on the formation of Vygotsky’s theory. The investigation of the philosophical underpinnings of Vygotsky’s theory remains yet as an open-ended question.

The study of the history and philosophical foundation of science constitutes one of the most difficult tasks in the field of science. Einstein demonstrated the relevance of history and the philosophy of science to physics:

I fully agree with you about the significance and educational value of methodology as well as history and philosophy of science. So many people today—and even professional scientists—seem to me like somebody who has seen thousands of trees but has never seen a forest. A knowledge of the historic and philosophical background gives that kind of independence from prejudices of his generation from which most scientists are suffering. This independence created by philosophical insight is—in my opinion—the mark of distinction between a mere artisan or specialist and a real seeker after truth (Einstein to Thornton, 7 December 1944, EA 61–574, cited by Howard 2004)

It seems that in the field of contemporary psychology, researchers tend to lose sight of the forest for the trees as a result of the cult of empiricism (Toulmin and Leary 1985). The reconstruction of the view of the forest is important for the understanding of a tree in the case of cultural-historical theory as a part of the history of science . An epistemological and methodological reflection on cultural-historical theory is especially helpful for the perception of the history and theoretical foundation of psychology, because it offers a creative insight from the perspective of a theory, which although having a growing fascination with it remains at the margins of the discipline.

Vygotsky argued that

The regularity in the replacement and development of ideas, the development and downfall of concepts, even the replacement of classifications etc.,-all this can be scientifically explained by the links of the science in question with (l) the general socio-cultural context of the era; (2) the general conditions and laws of scientific knowledge ; (3) the objective demands upon the scientific knowledge that follow from the nature of the phenomena studied in a given stage of investigation (in the final analysis , the requirements of the objective reality that is studied by the given science) (Vygotsky 1997, p. 242).

According to Vygotsky, the development of ideas can be scientifically explained by three aspects:

(1)

the general sociocultural context of the era;

(2)

the general conditions and laws of knowledge;

(3)

the objective demands upon scientific knowledge that follow from the nature of the phenomena that are studied in a given stage of investigation (Vygotsky 1997).

Vazjulin (1975) argued that it is necessary to take into account three interconnected aspects for the analysis of a concrete cognitive juncture: the character and the level of development of the subject matter of the investigation; the level of development of scientific knowledge on that subject matter; the level of development of the concrete scientist and the degree and forms of his (her) integration in the production of new knowledge. The foundation of the cultural-historical approach to psychological development was a result of a complex interaction of social, cultural, scientific and personal forces that historically have been shaped within the specific historical and cognitive juncture. The production of the new knowledge is not timeless and spaceless, but it occurs in a concrete ‘chronotope,’² a complex intertwining of temporal and spatial relationships.

From my perspective, in the analysis of the development of scientific ideas, there should be also included two aspects: a study of particular subjects involved in the production and application of scientific knowledge and the personal network of these subjects and their relations to the scientific community.

By reformulating the previous insights, the investigation of the development of a theory (in this particular case, cultural-historical theory) includes the study of the following interconnected aspects:

(1)

the sociohistorical context within which a theory is formed,

(2)

the scientific context , trends in the field of philosophy and science,

(3)

the specific characteristics of the subject matter of the investigation,

(4)

the particular subjects involved in the production and application of scientific knowledge, the development of their research program,

(5)

a study of the personal network of these subjects and their relations to the scientific community.

The reconstruction of the development of Vygotsky’s research program ³ encompasses an analysis of the historical and the scientific juncture in which Vygotsky was situated. Such kind of historical reconstruction of the genesis of cultural-historical theory cannot be accomplished independently from the examination of Vygotsky’s stance on the surrounding social environment and historical epoch in different stages of his life course .

Recently, rare and inaccessible works of Vygotsky have been republished (Vygotsky 2015; Yasnitsky 2010). The investigation of Vygotsky’s archive by Zavershneva and her associates offers new possibilities for rethinking Vygotsky’s legacy (Zavershneva 2009, 2010a, b; Zavershneva and Osipov 2012; Van der Veer and Zavershneva 2011; Zavershneva and Van der Veer 2018). Especially important are archival publications in the Journal of Russian and East European Psychology. Making available for the scientific community valuable archival materials, such as private notes and correspondence between Vygotsky and his disciples and colleagues, the archive revolution in Vygotskian studies offers the opportunity to rethink Vygotsky and his theory in a new light.

Recent studies in Vygotskian textology are extremely important, but they are not sufficient for a theoretical reconstruction of the dynamic logic of the development of Vygotsky’s theory during his lifetime. It requires additional efforts to contextualize Vygotsky’s life in the wider social and cultural environment as well as in the history of science. It may provide the opportunity to develop a deeper understanding of the very philosophical foundation of Vygotsky’s theory and especially its relation to dialectics.

Although Vygotsky criticized fragmentation and eclecticism in science, his theory has been fragmented in contemporary literature and many contemporary post-Vygotskian scholars tend to combine it eclectically with other theories and approaches (semiotics, constructivism , pragmatism) (Edwards 2007; Ivanov 2014). Without sufficient understanding of its philosophical background and the complex process of its formation, cultural-historical theory may be fundamentally misconceived.

Vygotsky was involved in a critical dialogue on the theories of the prominent psychologists and philosophers of his times such as William James (1842–1910), Edward Thorndike (1874–1949), Karl Bühler (1879–1963), Kurt Koffka (1886–1941), Wolfgang Köhler (1887–1967), Kurt Lewin (1890–1947), Sigmund Freud (1856–1939), Jan Piaget (1896–1980), Wilhelm Wundt (1832–1920), Wilhelm Dilthey (1833–1911), Edmund Husserl (1859–1938), and others. Rethinking the basic directions and trends in the international and Russian psychology served as a necessary prerequisite for the development of cultural-historical theory by Vygotsky.

In contrast to the dominant empiricist tradition in contemporary Vygotskian Academia, this book proposes the investigation of cultural-historical theory from a dialectical perspective. Dialectics as a way of thinking emerged in opposition to metaphysics as a static mode of thinking which assumes fixed and stable divisions of being (Haug 2005). Dialectics grasps and represents the developmental process of a concrete object in its interconnections with other objects (Pavlidis 2010). From a dialectical perspective, cultural-historical theory is examined as a developing, unfinished project that emerged and formed historically in the process of solving concrete conceptual and practical tasks. One of the first attempts to investigate the dynamic logic of the development of Vygotsky’s views during the prehistory of cultural-historical theory was done by Veresov (1999). Expanding on this kind of historical and methodological investigation, the present book suggests the reconstruction of the logic and dynamics of the development of a theory in different stages of his life course . From a dialectical perspective, the internal contradictions of a concrete object constitute the basic source of its own development. Moreover, the emergence and resolution of contradictions can be considered as a course of development of scientific knowledge .

Dialectics consists in bringing to light in facts , in the set of facts that constitute the system of conditions of the unsolved task, their own contradiction, in lending this contradiction the utmost clarity and purity of expression, and then in finding its resolution again in facts—in the unique fact that is not yet in the field of view and that needs to be found (Ilyenkov 2007, p. 27)

Dialectics opens up new perspectives for the investigation and theoretical reconstruction of the internal contradictions as a driving force of the development of Vygotsky’s theory. The development of thinking goes through conflicts and contradictions, rather than as a simple, progressive accumulation of empirical data. From a dialectical perspective, mistakes and failures constitute essential moments in the process of the production of new knowledge. The negation is a painful but necessary moment in the development of thinking. A dialectical approach brings to light the logic of the development of Vygotsky’s theory in terms of a drama of ideas and discloses zigzags, returns and loops in the process of its building, rather than a linear accumulation of new knowledge.

One of the difficulties in grasping the essence of cultural-historical theory is connected with the devaluation of the dialectic underpinnings of cultural-historical theory. In fact , the dominant version of Vygotsky’s theory in North American and West European psychology, with few exceptions…is a psychology in crisis because it is drained of its dialectics and consciousness is ignored (Elhammoumi 2002, pp. 92–93). Indeed, the significance of the dialectical method in Vygotsky’s creative laboratory has escaped the attention of many contemporary Vygotskian scholars. It is really difficult to fill the serious gaps that exist in contemporary interpretations of Vygotsky’s theory without understanding that Vygotsky’s project was …the first attempt in psychology and education to apply the principles of Marxist dialectics in developing theory of human development and learning (Stetsenko 2010, p. 70). Developing a dialectical understanding of cultural-historical theory as a historically developing project embedded in social practice remains as yet an open-ended task.

Additionally, it should be taken into account that even the most brilliant scientist or thinker cannot be fully aware of his own consciousness and development of his (or her) own thinking. It requires special research of the dynamic logic of development of the investigation of a scientist or a thinker that reveals its contradictions and dramatic tensions as well as the transitions, shifts, and transformations that are provoked in different stages of his (or her) life course. Dialectics offers an advanced theoretical framework for the conceptualization not only of the movement, change, and development of the social world but also the logic of thinking that reflects it.

The gist of the argument of the book is that Vygotsky’s theory should be examined not as a static and closed system of ideas, but as a developmental process. The study of Vygotsky’s creative development illustrates that mistakes and failures emerge inevitably in the process of the production and application of the new knowledge. Being aware, to a significant extent, of the limitations of his own views, Vygotsky was seeking to overcome his own contradictions and simultaneously contradictions at the concrete stage of the historical development of psychology.

The book is an exploration of science in the making. The emphasis is placed on the dramatic process of the building and rebuilding of cultural-historical theory. Vygotsky’s creative and dramatic journey, his attempt to overcome multiple difficulties and crises (social, scientific, personal, etc.) is more important than his concrete results and achievement. Such a kind of epistemological and historical investigation might shed light on the process of knowledge production and reveal hidden dimensions of creativity in science.

The book consists of nine chapters. The first chapter details the books background and purpose. It provides an outline of the book’s content. The second chapter explores the historical and scientific context of the genesis of cultural-historical theory. It examines the issue of the impact of societal change on the building of a new theory. It proposes that the formation of cultural-historical theory can be examined in the context of various theories on the crisis in psychology that emerged in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century.

The third chapter defines the main subject matters of Vygotsky’s investigation. Consciousness and cultural development are considered as the core subject matters of Vygotsky’s investigation during different stages of his life course . The same chapter discusses the periodization of the development of Vygotsky’s theory.

The fourth chapter proposes an analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of Vygotsky’s theory. It focuses on the treatment of the philosophical ideas of Spinoza , Hegel , Feuerbach and Marx . It is argued that cultural-historical theory emerged as an attempt to overcome the crisis in psychology through a critical reflection of classical philosophical tradition. Without a developed philosophical reflection, it was difficult to deal with the key theoretical, methodological, and practical issues that arose in the domain of psychology.

The next three chapters offer a historical account of cultural-historical theory. The fifth chapter sketches the shifts and transformations during the prehistory of Vygotsky’s theory. The task of this chapter is to explore the process of creating the conditions for the emergence of cultural-historical theory. Special attention has been given to the study of Vygotsky’s transition from the subjectivism of his early years to a natural-scientific, objective analysis of consciousness and his attempt to overcome the tension between objectivism and subjectivism in his own research.

The sixth chapter is dedicated to an analysis of the period of the primary appearance of cultural-historical theory. It is argued that the primary appearance of cultural-historical theory was connected with launching the idea that sign-mediating activity lies at the basis of the development of higher mental functions and uses the method of genetic-experimental method for their investigation.

The seventh chapter examines the period of the formation of cultural-historical theory. It is argued that Vygotsky reformulated his own theory through developing a set of new concepts such as psychological system , perezhivanie , meaning and sense , neoformation and crisis. Additionally, it is proposed that Vygotsky’s studies of the relation between thinking and speech, and investigation of emotions can be considered as a part of his wider project to develop a theory of consciousness.

The following two chapters address two crucial theoretical and methodological issues on the basis of an overall view of the dynamics of development of cultural-historical theory: the issue of creativity in science and the issue of dialectics. The eighth chapter turns to the exploration of creativity in science through highlighting several crucial moments of Vygotsky’ s life course and development of his theory. This chapter aims to explore crucial facets of Vygotsky’s creative laboratory and draws attention to the importance of dialectics in creativity research.

The ninth chapter turns to the concept of dialectics and its significance for the study of the methodological foundation of cultural-historical theory. This chapter includes a brief account of the history of dialectics. In the chapter, several key methodological issues of dialectics and their relations to Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory are examined. Moreover, the chapter proposes a critical reflection on the post-Vygotskian discussion about dialectics and its implications for psychology.

The tenth chapter of the book brings out the relevance of Vygotsky’s theory in the context of the contemporary attempts at its implementation and further development in different parts of the globe. It is argued that dialectics as a way of conceptualizing contradictions can offer a profound insight into antinomies and tensions that contemporary scientific thinking has been confronted with.

References

Ageyev, V. S. (2003). Vygotsky in the mirror of cultural interpretations. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. S. Ageyev, & S. M. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural context (pp. 432–449). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Akhutina, T. V., Vygotsky, L. S., & Luria, A. R. (2003). Foundations of neuropsychology. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,41(3/4), 159–190.Crossref

Arievitch, I. M., & Stetsenko, A. (2014). Developmental trajectories and transformations of cultural mediation: From symbiotic action to psychological process. In A. Yasnitsky, R. van der Veer, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 217–244). New York: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Bulgakowa, O. (2014). From expressive movement to the ‘basic problem’. The Vygotsky-Luria-Eisensteinian theory of Art. In A. Yasnitsky, R. Van der Veer, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 423–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Burlakova, N., & Oleshkevich, V. (2017). Elaboration of cultural-historical approach in developmental and clinical psychology: Tendencies and levels of analysis. Revue Internationale du CRIRES: Innover dans la Tradition de Vygotsky,4(1), 219–227.

Byrnes, H. (Ed.). (2006). Advanced language learning: The contribution of Halliday and Vygotsky. London: Continuum.

Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology. A once and future discipline. Harvard: Harvard University Press.

Dafermos, M. (2015). Critical reflection on the reception of Vygotsky’s theory in the international academic communities. In B. Selau, & R. Fonseca de Castro (Eds.), Cultural-historical theory: Educational research in different contexts (pp. 19–38). Porto Alegre: EDIPUCRS.

Dafermos M.,& Marvakis A. (2011). Mediated getting-to-know-the-world-approaching learning with S.L. Rubinstein. In P. Stenner (Eds.), Theoretical Psychology: Global transformations and Challenges (pp. 94–104). Ontario: Cactus Press.

Daniels, H. (Ed.). (2012). Vygotsky and sociology. London: Routledge.

Daniels, H. (2001). Vygotsky and pedagogy. London: Routledge.

Derry, J. (2013). Vygotsky philosophy and education. Oxford: Willey Blackwell.Crossref

Daniels, H., & Hedegaard, M. (Eds.). (2011). Vygotsky and special needs education: Rethinking support for children and schools. London: Continuum.

Different methods of help from the cultural-psychological viewpoint. Revue Internationale du CRIRES: Innover dans la Tradition de Vygotsky, 4(1), 134–153.

Edwards, A. (2007). An interesting resemblance: Vygotsky, Mead, and American pragmatism. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 77–100). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Elhammoumi, M. (2002). To create psychology’s own capital. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour,32(1), 89–104.Crossref

Engeström, Y. (2007). Putting Vygotsky to work: The change laboratory as an application of double stimulation. In H. Daniels, M. Cole, & J. V. Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge companion to Vygotsky (pp. 474–487). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Engeström, Y. (2015). Learning by expanding: An activity-theoretical approach to developmental research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Falikman, M. (2014). Cognition and its master: New challenges for cognitive science. In A. Yasnitsky, R. Van der Veer, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 423–448). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gindis, B. (1995). The social/cultural implication of disability: Vygotsky’s paradigm for special education. Educational Psychologist,30(2), 77–81.Crossref

Haug, W. F. (2005). Dialectics. Historical Materialism,13(1), 241–266.Crossref

Hedegaard, M., & Chaiklin, S. (2005). Radical-local teaching and learning. A cultural-historical approach. Aarhus: Arhus University Press.

Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (Eds.). (2008). Studying children: A cultural-historical approach. Berkshire: Open University Press.

Hedegaard, M., & Fleer, M. (2013). Play, learning, and children’s development: Everyday life in families and transition to school. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Hedegaard, M., Edwards, A., & Fleer, M. (Eds.). (2012). Motives in children’s development: Cultural-historical approaches. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hegel, G. W. F. (1991). Encyclopaedia of philosophical sciences (T. F. Geraets, W. A. Suchting, & H. S. Harris, Trans.) (part 1). Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.

Holzman, L. (2009). Vygotsky at work and play. London: Routledge.

Holzman, L. (2014). Vygotskian-izing psychotherapy. Mind, Culture and Activity,22(3), 184–199. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10749039.​2013.​828312.Crossref

Howard, D. (2004). Einstein’s philosophy of science. Retrieved August 25, 2017, from http://​plato.​stanford.​edu/​entries/​einstein-philscience/​.

Ilyenkov, E. (2007). Our schools must teach How to think! Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,45(4), 9–49.Crossref

Ivanov, V. (2014). Cultural-historical theory and semiotics. In A. Yasnitsky, R. van der Veer, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 488–516). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Jones, P. (2008). Language in cultural-historical perspective. In B. Van Oers, W. Wardekker, E. Elbers, & R. Van der Veer (Eds.), The transformation of learning: Advances in cultural historical activity theory (pp. 76–99). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Kellogg, D. (2014). The great globe and all who it inherit: Narrative and dialogue in story-telling with Halliday, Vygotsky, and Shakespeare. Rotterdam, Boston, Taipei: Sense Publishers.Crossref

Kholmogorova, A. (2017). A. Beck’s cognitive psychotherapy and L. S. Vygotsky’s cultural -historical psychology. Revue Internationale du CRIRES: Innover dans la Tradition de Vygotsky, 4(1), 209–218.

Kotik-Friedgut, B., & Adrila, A. (2014). Cultural-historical theory and cultural neuropsychology today. In A. Yasnitsky, R. van der Veer, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 378–402). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s Psychology. A biography of ideas. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Langford, P. E. (2005). Vygotsky’s developmental and educational Psychology. New York: Psychology Press.

Liberali, F. C. (2008). School teachers in favela contexts: Metaphors and metony-mies they live by. In M. S. Zanotto, I Cameron, & M. C. Cavalcanti (Orgs.), Confront-ing metaphor in use: An applied linguistic approach (pp. 267–285). Amsterdam, Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing Company.

Magalhães, M. C. C. (2011). Pesquisa Crítica de Colaboração: Escolhas epistemo-metodológicas na organização e condução de pesquisas de intervenção no contexto escolar [Critical collaborative research: Methodological-epistemic choice in the organization and conduction of interventionist research in educational contexts]. In M. C. C. Magalhães & S. S. Fidalgo (Eds.), Questões de método e de linguagem na formação docente [Issues about methods and language in teaching education] (pp. 13–40). Campinas, São Paulo: Mercado de Letras.

Mascia, M. A. A., Dias dos Anjos, D., & Smolka, A. B. (orgs.). (2017). Leituras de Vigotski-Debates interdisciplinares. Sao Paulo: Mercado de Letras Publisher.

Matusov, E. (2008). Applying a sociocultural approach to Vygotskian academia: ‘Our tsar isn’t like yours, and yours isn’t like ours’. Culture and Psychology,14(1), 5–35. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1354067X07085808​.Crossref

Pavlidis, P. (2010). Critical thinking as dialectics: A Hegelian Marxist approach. Journal for Critical Education Policy Studies,8(2), 75–101.

Robbins, D. (2001). Vygotsky’s psychology-philosophy: A metaphor for language theory and learning. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.Crossref

Rubtsov, V. V. (2016). Cultural-historical scientific school: The issues that L. S. Vygotsky brought up. Cultural-Historical Psychology,12(3), 4–14. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17759/​chp.​2016120301.Crossref

Smagorinsky, P. (2011). Vygotsky and literacy research: A methodological framework. Boston: Sense.Crossref

Smardon, R. (2010). A Sociological Response to Stetsenko. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/structuring science education: ReUniting psychological and sociological perspectives (pp. 89–98). New York: Springer.Crossref

Stetsenko, A. (2010). Standing on the shoulders of giants: A balancing act of dialectically theorizing conceptual understanding on the grounds of Vygotsky’s project. In W.-M. Roth (Ed.), Re/structuring science education: ReUniting psychological and sociological perspectives (pp. 53–72). New York: Springer.

Stetsenko, A. (2017). The transformative mind: Expanding Vygotsky’s approach to development and education. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Toomela, A. (2000). Activity theory Is a dead end for cultural-historical psychology. Culture and Psychology,6(3), 353–364. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1354067X0063005.Crossref

Toomela, A. (2008). Vygotskian cultural-historical and sociocultural approaches represent two levels of analysis: Complementarity instead of opposition. Culture Psychology,14, 57–69. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​1354067X07085812​.Crossref

Toomela, A. (2014). There can be no cultural-historical psychology without neuropsychology. And vice versa. In A. Yasnitsky, R. van der Veer, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 313–349). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Toulmin, S., & Leary, D. E. (1985). The cult of empiricism in psychology, and beyond. In S. Koch & D. E. Leary (Eds.), A century of psychology as science (pp. 594–617). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Valsiner, J. (1988). Developmental psychology in the Soviet Union. Brighton, Sussex: Harvester Press.

Van der Veer, R. (1985). The cultural-historical approach in psychology: A research program? The Quarterly Newsletter of the laboratory of comparative human cognition,7(4), 108–113.

Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky. A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.

Van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1994). Introduction. In R. Van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 1–9). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishers.

Van der Veer, R., & Zavershneva, E. (2011). To Moscow with love: Partial reconstruction of Vygotsky’s trip to London. Integrative Psychological and Behavioral Science,45, 458–474. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12124-011-9173-8.Crossref

Van Oers, B., Waedekker, W., Elbers, E., & der Veer, V. (Eds.). (2008). The transformation of learning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vazjulin, V. A. (1975). Stanovlenie methoda nauschnovo issledovanija Karla Marxa [The formation of the method of scientific investigation of Karl Marx]. Moscow: MGU.

Veresov, N. (1999). Undiscovered Vygotsky. Frankfurt am Main and New York: Peter Lang.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber, & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285). New York: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The Historical Meaning of the crisis of psychology. In R. Rieber, & J. Wolloc (Eds.), The Collected works of L. S. Vygotsky (Vol.3, pp. 233–344). New York, London: Plenum Press.

Vygotsky, L. (2015). Polnoe, sobranie soschinenii [Complete Collection of Works]. In V. S. Sobkin (Eds.) (Vol. I). Moscow: Lev.

Wertsch, J. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Wertsch, J. V., & Smolka, A. L. B. (1993). Continuing the dialogue: Vygotsky, Bakhtin, and Lotman. In H. Daniels (Ed.), Charting the agenda (pp. 69–92). London: Routledge.

Yaroshevsky, M. G. (1989). Lev Semenovich Vygotsky. New York: Progress.

Yasnitsky, A. (2010). Archival revolution in Vygotskian studies? Uncovering Vygotsky’s archives. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,48(1), 3–13.Crossref

Zaretskii, V., & Kholmogorova, A. (2017). Pedagogical, Psychological and psychotherapeutic help in overcoming learning difficulties to facilitate development.

Zavershneva, E. (2009). Issledovanie rukopisi L. S. Vygotskogo Istoricheskii smysl psichologicheskogo krizisa [Investigation of the original of Vygotsky’s manuscript The historical sense of crisis in psychology]. Voprosy psikhologii,6, 119–137.

Zavershneva, E. (2010a). The Vygotsky family archive: New findings. Notebooks, notes, and scientific journals of L. S. Vygotsky (1912–1934). Journal of the Russian and East European Psychology,48(1), 34–60.Crossref

Zavershneva, E. (2010b). The Way to Freedom (On the publication of documents from the family archive of Lev Vygotsky). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology,48(1), 61–90.Crossref

Zavershneva, E., & Osipov, M. E. (2012). Comparative analysis of the manuscript The (Historical) meaning of psychological crisis and its version published in Vol. 1, the collected works of LS Vygotsky (1982) edited by M. G. Yaroshevsky. Dubna Psychological Journal, 3, 41–72.

Zavershneva, E., & Van der Veer, R. (2018). Vygotsky’s notebooks: A selection. Singapore: Springer.

Zuckerman, G. (2014). Developmental education. In A. Yasnitsky, R. Van der Veer, & M. Ferrari (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of cultural-historical psychology (pp. 177–202). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Crossref

Footnotes

1

Despite the widespread dissemination of Vygotsky’s theory, it continues to be marginalized in psychology, sociology, and other disciplines (Smardon 2010).

2

The concept of chronotope was used by Bakhtin in order to demonstrate the complex configuration and interrelation of time and space in language and discourse. He used the Greek words chronos (time) and topos (space).

3

Van der Veer (1985) demonstrates the applicability of Lakatos’s theory for the consideration of a cultural-historical approach as a fruitful research program in psychology.

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Manolis DafermosRethinking Cultural-Historical TheoryPerspectives in Cultural-Historical Research4https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-0191-9_2

2. The Historical and Scientific Background to the Genesis of Cultural-Historical Theory

Manolis Dafermos¹  

(1)

Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Rethymnon, Greece

Manolis Dafermos

Email: [e-mail]

My entire generation was infused with the energy of revolutionary change-the liberating energy people feel when they are part of a society that is able to make tremendous progress in a very short time…This atmosphere immediately following the Revolution provided the energy for many ambitious ventures. An entire society was liberated to turn its creative powers to constructing a new kind of life for everyone. The general excitement, which stimulated incredible levels of activity, was not at all conducive, however, to systematic, highly organized scientific inquiry.

(Luria, The autobiography of Alexander Luria)

Abstract

This chapter is dedicated to the analysis of the historical and scientific background of the genesis of cultural-historical theory. It is proposed to conceptualize Vygotsky’s theory in the broader context of the history of psychology and philosophy. Particular emphasis is given to the analysis of the crisis of psychology and its various interpretations which were carried out in the late 19th and early 20th century. It is argued that the tension between objectivism and subjectivism can be considered as one of the most important expressions of the crisis in psychology . The chapter includes also an account of an intriguing discussion on crisis and the ways to overcome it in Soviet philosophy and psychology in 1920s.

2.1 Societal Change and New Theory Building

The historical conditions for the emergence and the formation of cultural-historical theory were formed in the last period of Czarist Russia (1860–1917) and the first two decades of the Soviet period. It was the period of the crisis and collapse of the Russian empire and the emergence and formation of the Soviet Union .

The abolition of serfdom in Russia (1861) paved the way for the development of capitalism which was much slower in relation to the other countries of Western Europe. However, in the early 20th century a high concentration of the capitalist production was achieved. Despite the rapid industrialization in the early 20th century, the agrarian sector continued to dominate the economy of the Russian empire with strong remnants of feudalism such as the large feudal property in land and absolutism. The contradictory combination of advanced industrial forms with archaic, pre-capitalist structures was one of the significant peculiarities of Russia.

Already during the 19th century the question of the path of the historical development of Russia had led to the fight between two fundamentally different intellectual movements: Slavophiles advocated the return to the Russian indigenous way of life prior to the reforms of Peter I. Westernizers believed that Russia should follow the historical development of Western Europe and imitate its political system, culture, etc. The question on the path of historical development of Russia found its literary expression at the end of the novel Dead Soul in which Gogol compared Russia with a troika careering to an unknown destination.

Despite the significant achievements of Russian scientists (I.P. Mendeleev, I. Pavlov, K. Timiryazev) and the blossoming of cultural life (Russian literature , Art , music, theater ) the bulk of the population of tsarist Russia remained illiterate (73.7% according to the 1897 census) (Chubarov 2001). There was a mismatch between the bureaucratic education system of Russia and the urgent demands for economic and social development.

In the early 20th century the economic and social inequalities were reinforced. Russia experienced dramatic social turmoil and continual economic and political crises. Three revolutions took place in Russia from 1905 to 1917. The October Revolution set out to do nothing less than destroy an entire social system and replace it with a society superior to anything that had existed hitherto in human history (Smith 2002, p. 1).

This radical societal change had a great impact on the development of science. Luria in his autobiography compared the experiences of Western and American psychologists, who …spent their lives in a comparatively quiet, slow-moving environment and their work consists of doing research and sometimes moving from university to university (Luria 2010, p. 17) with his own experiences of living in …the fantastically stimulating atmosphere of an active, rapidly changing society. My entire generation was infused with the energy of revolutionary change-the liberating energy people feel when they are part of a society that is able to make tremendous progress in a very short time (Luria 2010, p. 17). Luria pointed out that the atmosphere immediately following the October revolution stimulated incredible levels of activity in scientific inquiry.

The issue of the impact of societal change on the growth of scientific knowledge provoked tension and controversy. The dominance of an internalist examination of the growth of scientific knowledge as exclusively determined by internal factors (mainly cognitive factors) in the traditional historiography of science led to an underestimation of the importance of the study of the historical epoch, the social environment and its impact on the production of scientific knowledge. In contrast to the traditional internalist historiography of psychology, the new history of psychology has an externalist orientation by focusing on economic and other societal factors (Madsen 1988). However, social influence on the process of the production of knowledge is not reduced to a sum of external factors. In contrast to intellectualistic accounts of the development of science, contemporary research especially in the field of sociology of science tended to draw attention on the social nature of scientific knowledge production.

The great societal changes reinforced the need for a reflection and reconsideration of existing scientific knowledge in the light of new historical reality. The deep societal shifts provoked profound transformations in the field of social theory. To understand the turns in the field of philosophy and social sciences a study of the historical era and the social context in which all these changes occur is required. For example, it would be difficult to explain comprehensively Kant’s and Hegel’s philosophical theories without understanding their connection with the French Revolution.

Hegel (2001, p. 467) labeled French Revolution as glorious mental dawn and examined it as political realization of the notion of freedom . Α brilliant analysis of the great societal changes and their influence on the development of human thought was provided by Hegel:

…it is not difficult to see that ours is a birth-time and a period of transition to a new era. Spirit has broken with the world it has hitherto inhabited and imagined, and is of a mind to submerge it in the past, and in the labour of its own transformation….But just as the first breath drawn by a child after its long, quiet nourishment breaks the gradualness of merely quantitative growth-there is a qualitative leap, and the child is born-so likewise the Spirit in its formation matures slowly and quietly into its new shape, dissolving bit by bit the structure of its previous world, whose tottering state is only hinted at by isolated symptoms. The frivolity and boredom which unsettle the established order, the vague foreboding of something unknown, these are the heralds of approaching change. The gradual crumbling that left unaltered the face of the whole is cut short by a sunburst which, in one flash, illuminates the features of the new world (Hegel 2004, pp. 6–7).

The changes in philosophy and social sciences after the October Revolution might be compared to the transition to the new historical era as described by Hegel .

With regard to the above-mentioned situation, it is important to mention that Hegelian dialectic was labeled by Herzen (1812–1870) as the algebra of revolution: The philosophy of Hegel is the algebra of revolution; it emancipates a Man in an unusual way and leaves not one stone upon another of the Christian world, of the world of tradition that has outlived itself (Herzen 1868, Chap. XXV)

In order to avoid simplistic representation of the growth of scientific knowledge , Ι would emphasize that social revolutions do not automatically cause scientific revolutions, nor do some historical events lead immediately to the emergence of new theories in the field of social sciences . In every historical juncture, complex mediating forms of the interconnection between external and internal moments in the production of new knowledge develop.

In the early stages of the development of science in the USSR the new knowledge was not yet sufficiently differentiated from the social practice . Social knowledge was embedded in the real world of changing social relations and transformative social practice. However, after the October 1917 revolution, a contradictory cognitive domain can be detected: on the one hand, the enthusiasm and optimism of the post-revolutionary period stimulated seeking new knowledge—the revolutionary state of that historical period contributed to unprecedented interest in promoting of social sciences in academia (David-Fox 1997, p. 20). On the other hand, the urgent practical priorities in that historical period and the expansion of a narrow empiricism reduced the range of possibilities for systematic theoretical research. At that historical juncture, a simplistic approach to knowledge as an instrument of propaganda was spread and the philosophy became heavily politicized. Without understanding the contradictory nature of that historic juncture is difficult to grasp the genesis of cultural-historical theory.

The Russian thinker Nikolai Berdiaev (1874–1948), who took a hostile stance to revolution, offered an interesting description of the social situation that was developing in Soviet Russia:

In France, there is no freedom , and Soviet young people cannot breathe, because it is impossible to change their lives and build a new life. So-called freedom is such that everything remains the same, every day is similar to the previous days. Every week the ministry can be overthrown, but everything remains the same. Therefore, the Man who had come from Russia to France is boring. In Soviet and communist Russia, there is a real freedom,