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)

IF 0.6 Q4 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
T. Akhutina
{"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}
引用次数: 3

摘要

在本文中,我们分析了维果茨基科学从“档案革命”到亚斯尼茨基及其同事在2012年宣布的启示性“修正主义革命”的转变。修正主义革命支持者的目的是对维果茨基、卢里亚及其同事的科学遗产进行批判性分析,并对维果茨基的个性及其学派的科学贡献进行去神话化。我们详细分析了“修正主义”运动中选定的一组论文,并描述了它们的优点和缺点,并进一步质疑这些论文陈述的合理性。我们有理由不同意修正主义论文所揭露的低估卢里亚中亚考察结果的观点。我们也驳斥亚斯尼茨基和他的同事关于没有书面证据证明维果茨基的遗产和名字在斯大林主义时期受到行政禁止的假设,并提供相应的文件。我们的结论是,对一组事实的无知、对另一组事实的倾向性分析以及讨论中的偏袒导致了从事“修正主义革命”的研究人员对心理科学发展的歪曲。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.60
自引率
12.50%
发文量
13
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信