{"title":"论维果茨基科学中的修正主义。亚斯尼茨基和拉姆丹对《1941年8月》的评论(2017)","authors":"T. Akhutina","doi":"10.17759/chp.2021170319","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In this article we analyze the shift in Vygotskian science from “archival revolution” to the revelatory “revisionist revolution”, which Yasnitsky and colleagues proclaimed in 2012. The aim of revisionist revolu¬tion supporters is a critical analysis of the scientific heritage of Vygotsky, Luria and their colleagues, and the demythologization of Vygotsky’s personality as well as the scientific contribution of his school. We ana¬lyze in detail a selected set of the papers within “revisionist” movement and describe their advantages and disadvantages, and further question the soundness of statements of these papers. We justify our disagree¬ment with the exposed by revisionist papers undervaluation of the results of Luria’s Central Asian expedi¬tions. We also refute the assumptions of Yasnitsky and his colleagues about the absence of documentary evidence demonstrating that the heritage and name of Vygotsky were under administrative prohibition during the years of Stalinism, and provide corresponding documents. We conclude that ignorance of one group of facts, tendentious analysis of the other facts, and partiality in the discussion lead the researchers who work on “revisionist revolution” to misrepresent psychological science development.","PeriodicalId":44568,"journal":{"name":"Kulturno-Istoricheskaya Psikhologiya-Cultural-Historical Psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"3","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On Revisionism in Vygotskian Science. Commentary on «In August of 1941» by Yasnitsky and Lamdan (2017)\",\"authors\":\"T. Akhutina\",\"doi\":\"10.17759/chp.2021170319\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In this article we analyze the shift in Vygotskian science from “archival revolution” to the revelatory “revisionist revolution”, which Yasnitsky and colleagues proclaimed in 2012. The aim of revisionist revolu¬tion supporters is a critical analysis of the scientific heritage of Vygotsky, Luria and their colleagues, and the demythologization of Vygotsky’s personality as well as the scientific contribution of his school. We ana¬lyze in detail a selected set of the papers within “revisionist” movement and describe their advantages and disadvantages, and further question the soundness of statements of these papers. We justify our disagree¬ment with the exposed by revisionist papers undervaluation of the results of Luria’s Central Asian expedi¬tions. We also refute the assumptions of Yasnitsky and his colleagues about the absence of documentary evidence demonstrating that the heritage and name of Vygotsky were under administrative prohibition during the years of Stalinism, and provide corresponding documents. We conclude that ignorance of one group of facts, tendentious analysis of the other facts, and partiality in the discussion lead the researchers who work on “revisionist revolution” to misrepresent psychological science development.\",\"PeriodicalId\":44568,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kulturno-Istoricheskaya Psikhologiya-Cultural-Historical Psychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"3\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kulturno-Istoricheskaya Psikhologiya-Cultural-Historical Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2021170319\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kulturno-Istoricheskaya Psikhologiya-Cultural-Historical Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17759/chp.2021170319","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
On Revisionism in Vygotskian Science. Commentary on «In August of 1941» by Yasnitsky and Lamdan (2017)
In this article we analyze the shift in Vygotskian science from “archival revolution” to the revelatory “revisionist revolution”, which Yasnitsky and colleagues proclaimed in 2012. The aim of revisionist revolu¬tion supporters is a critical analysis of the scientific heritage of Vygotsky, Luria and their colleagues, and the demythologization of Vygotsky’s personality as well as the scientific contribution of his school. We ana¬lyze in detail a selected set of the papers within “revisionist” movement and describe their advantages and disadvantages, and further question the soundness of statements of these papers. We justify our disagree¬ment with the exposed by revisionist papers undervaluation of the results of Luria’s Central Asian expedi¬tions. We also refute the assumptions of Yasnitsky and his colleagues about the absence of documentary evidence demonstrating that the heritage and name of Vygotsky were under administrative prohibition during the years of Stalinism, and provide corresponding documents. We conclude that ignorance of one group of facts, tendentious analysis of the other facts, and partiality in the discussion lead the researchers who work on “revisionist revolution” to misrepresent psychological science development.