A CRITIQUE OF VYGOTSKIAN SCHOLARSHIP IN WRITING AND LITERACY STUDIES: THE ROLE OF MARXIST DIALECTICS IN THE DISCUSSIONS OF METHOD A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO KENT STATE UNIVERSITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY BY YURI MAZIEV MAY, 2011 Dissertation written by Yuri Maizev Voronezh State Pedagogical University, 1999 M.A., Kent State University, 2004 Ph.D., Kent State University, 2011 Approved by Professor Raymond Craig, Chair, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Professor Brian Huot, Professor Pamela Takayoshi, Members, Doctoral Dissertation Committee Professor James Zebroski, Professor Kevin Floyd, Professor Kenneth Bindas, Accepted by Dr. Ron Corthell, Chair, Department of English Dr. John R.D. Stalvey, Dean, College of Arts and Sciences ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.…………………………………………….…v INTRODUCTION: Problem statement.………………………………….1 Chapter I. An overview of Lev Vygotsky’s cultural-historical theory of human psychological development……………………………………………..14 II. Applications of Lev Vygotsky’s Cultural-Historical Psychology and Alexei Leont’ev’s activity theory in writing studies……………………………………………………34 Witte: A critical examination of Leont’ev’s activity theory and its relation to Vygotsky’s original framework…………...34 Russell: Reification of the concept of activity……………68 Zebroski: Mediation as a conceptual foundation for overcoming the mind-body divide in the humanities………………………………………………...97 Bazerman and Smagorinsky: Attempts to achieve an amalgamation of Vygotsky’s and Leont’ev’s theoretical ideas with other explanatory paradigms……………………………………………..…..112 III. Chapter IV: Marxist dialectics for scientific analysis….…129 IV. Chapter V: The unit of analysis and the dialectical method in social and psychological studies: Lev Vygotsky’s theoretical framework, its relation to activity theory………………………………………………….…..158 Dialectics and the choice of the unit of analysis in literacy and writing studies……………………………………….…….158 Inattention to the role of Marxist dialectics in Lev Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology: Sylvia Scribner’s account.................................................................................165 The relationship between Lev Vygotsky’s cultural-historical psychology and A. N. Leont’ev’s activity theory………………………….……………………….......183 iii CONCLUSION…………..………………………………………….……..192 REFERENCES………………………………………………………….….198 iv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This dissertation work is my personal, modest contribution to the legacy of Dr. Stephen Witte who founded the Program in Literacy, Rhetoric, and Social Practice at the English Department of Kent State University. When I first met him, we discovered a common interest in the works of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky who formulated a cultural-historical theory of human psychological development Dr. Witte was intrigued by the parallels that he saw between social constructionism and Vygotsky’s theory which, in Dr. Witte’s opinion, could lead to a formulation of a robust theoretical position and a comprehensive research program into various areas of human literate functioning. Regrettably, fate had other plans for my aspirations to study under Dr. Witte: he succumbed to a severe illness shortly after I joined the program. This dissertation is my attempt to help build a more robust theoretical position in the field – inspired by Professor Witte. I would also like to express my sincere gratitude to my Dissertation Director, Professor Raymond Craig without whose patience and guidance this work would not have come to fruition. I am equally indebted to my dissertation committee and outside readers – Professors Brian Huot, Pamela Takayoshi, James Zebroski, Kevin Floyd, and Kenneth Bindas – for their suggestions and intellectual challenge. v INTRODUCTION: Problem statement James Zebroski (1998) wrote about a chasm dividing theoreticians in English departments. He argued that while the majority of them were embracing post-modernist scholarship, little attention was paid to linking such theorizing to actual writing practices that took place both inside and outside the composition classroom. To counteract these trends, Zebroski called for “a theory of theory in composition” (1998, p. 32). The need for such a meta-discourse, a meta-theory of writing activity and, more generally, literate functioning, continues to be pressing. This is evident from the sheer number of explanatory paradigms that have had currency in the field of rhetoric and composition. These include, but are not limited to, symbolic interactionism (e.g. Goffman [1959]), discourse analysis (e.g. Gee [1999], Schiffrin, Tannen, and Hamilton [2001]), distributed cognition and learning (e.g. Lave [1988], Hutchins [1995], Russell [2002]), genre theory (Derrida [2000], Bakhtin [1994], Swales [1990], Bazerman [1995], Chandler [2002], Gee [1992]), classical and neo-classical rhetoric (Aristotle, Plato, Cicero, Burke [1962], Perelman [1969], Bitzer [1968], Campbell [1961], Toulmin [1958], Richards [1965], MacLuhan [1964, 1967, 1970, 1988]), multimodality, visual rhetoric, and digital literacy e.g. (Kress, G. [2000], Cope et al. M. [2000]), gender and race studies, and feminist rhetoric e.g. (Barron [1996], Adams [2001]), grounded theory (e.g. Glaser and Strauss [1967], Clarke [2005]), actor network theory (Latour [1987]), narrative studies, ethnographies and community literacy (e.g. Harris [1988], Heath [1993], Brandt [2001]), and ethnomethodology, ethnophilosophy, and conversation studies (e.g. Garfinkel [1967, 2002], Suchman [1987]). 1 2 Earlier Zebroski (1983) drew a much more pessimistic characterization of the situation, regarding competing research methodologies in the field of writing and literacy studies. He described the state of affairs within the discipline as theoretical eclecticism, a viewpoint holding that all philosophical or methodological systems are of value because some measure of the truth is likely to be found in all of them. Zebroski’s indictment of this position was nothing short of scathing: If it is argued that two approaches coming form completely opposite and contradictory premises and sets of assumptions are equally valid, are equally acceptable in some respect, then one can also argue that they can be just equally invalid. If they are equally invalid, then theory is simply the playing of a very stupid intellectual game, a game that only academics isolated from the real world have the time to engage in. Thus an eclectic theoretical approach basically leads to practice alone, practice unguided by theory, practice that is always accepting whatever “works.” (Zebroski, 1983, pp. 19-20) While the methodological diversity in theory making that is obvious from the overview given above is, in a sense, commendable, it also precludes the field from articulating a comprehensive theoretical position. The situation is exacerbated by the institutional forces that tacitly endorse certain methodological orientations. For example, Richard Haswell (2005) maintains that empirical research that relies on overarching theoretical paradigms, hard data, and rigorous analysis procedures has been falling out of favor: My topic concerns the two flagstaff houses of postsecondary writing teachers: the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE; established in 1911) and the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC; established in 1949). They have been at scholarship for a long time. Only in the past two decades have they been at war with it. It might be more accurate to say that they have been at war with part of it, but if that part turns out to be vital to the whole, then with its defeat falls the whole. The scholarship these organizations target goes by different names: empirical inquiry, laboratory studies, data gathering, experimental investigation, formal research, hard research, and sometimes just research. (Haswell, 2005, pp. 199-200) Moreover, Haswell (2005) suggests that, historically, the kind of writing scholarship that have ventured into questions of scientificity and epistemology have received less institutional attention 3 than other kinds of scholarly work. Even though some may argue that this has been changing of late, the lack of scientific emphasis in the field still persists, which is reflected in its relative stature in academia: Right now, rhetoric and composition is not a category in the National Research Council classification of disciplines used by accrediting agencies, nor a numerical code in its Annual Survey of Earned Doctorates, nor a category in the Chronicle of Higher Education for new academic books, nor a field used by the National Endowment for the Humanities for grants. (Haswell, 2005, p. 219) Even though the discipline has recently made important steps to full institutional recognition, Haswell’s argument still implies that the dominant sentiment in the field has been one of apprehension concerning theory building and philosophical questions of scientificity. Furthermore, he argues that the problems of the discipline of writing studies are not limited to theoretical eclecticism (Zebroski, 1983), but extend to its institutional status: as evident from his opinion, two major administrative bodies do not recognize it as a legitimate field. Haswell’s plea, however, is one of reconciliation; he calls for equality in diversity, arguing that all methodological flavors should enjoy equal institutional support. On the other hand, his position with respect to empirical methodologies and scientific rigor is less placatory. Haswell suggests