How Do Socio-Cultural-Historical Approaches to Psychology and Education
Travel? Translations and Implementations in Greece and Epistemological
Implications
Manolis Dafermοs
Department of Psychology, University of Crete, Greece
Michalis Kontopodis
Amsterdam Institute for Social Science Research, University of Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Anna Chronaki
Department of Early Childhood Education, University of Thessaly, Greece
Corresponding Author: Dr. Michalis Kontopodis, Amsterdam Institute of Social
Science Research, Universiteit van Amsterdam, Kloveniersburgwal 48, 1012 CX
Amsterdam, Tel. +31 (0) 20 525 2456, Email: michaliskonto@googlemail.com
Abstract
This article aims to map the ways in which socio-cultural-historical
approaches have been employed in Greece during the last three decades. It traces the
history of the employment of a variety of socio-cultural-historical approaches to
education and psychology in a range of practices, such as translations of original
works, university teaching, academic research, educational policy for primary and
secondary education, and in initiatives of engaged intellectuals active outside formal
university structures. The authors highlight the differences in the employment of
socio-cultural-historical approaches and psychological approaches in Greece and in
other regions, such as Germany or the US. Taking Greece as an exemplary case, with
its specific history of military dictatorship, constitutional change, the democratization
of the university, and current neoliberal reforms, the authors outline a broader
epistemological frame in order to explore and evaluate the various ways in which
socio-cultural-historical approaches have traveled across historical, institutional,
political, regional, and, increasingly, globalized contexts.
Keywords
Vygotsky, Bakhtin, Leontiev, Luria, translation, context, classic works
Introduction: When Socio-Cultural-Historical Approaches Travel…
Socio-cultural-historical approaches to education and psychology1 have become
popular in different contexts and in different ways since the 1970s. A great variety of
scholars, activists, teachers, and educational policy makers have drawn on sociocultural-historical thinking in extremely diverse settings. To name only a few
examples:
•
In the 70s and 80s, Vygotsky’s work was employed in the broader context of
cognitivism in the US – a version that quickly spread around the world
(Stetsenko & Arievitch, in press);
•
Socio-cultural-historical approaches inspired capitalism-critical psychological
theorizing by university professors who were members of the Communist
Party or engaged in other left-wing social movements in West Germany,
Denmark, and the Netherlands after May 1968, as well as in Brazil in the postdictatorship era (Bock, Gonçalves & Furtado, 2002, Markard, 2011);
•
Vygotsky’s work has been employed since 15-20 years by grass-root school
teachers’ organizations in Japan. They translated Vygotsky from Russian, and
often accused Japanese university professors of importing a US-made version
of Vygotsky2;
•
Vygotsky’s and Davydov’s writings have been used as a frame for all kinds of
curriculum reforms by ministries of education: in the German Democratic
Republic during the 60s, in Brazil in the last 15 years, and recently in Russia,
Greece, Australia and elsewhere.3
1
We use this term to refer to all possible versions of works influenced by L.S. Vygotsky, A.N.
Leontiev, A.R. Luria, M.M. Bakhtin, and V. Voloshinov. These approaches have often been referred to
as socio-cultural (Wertch, 1991), cultural-historical (Hedegaard, 2001), socio-historical (Bock et al.,
2002), etc. They are not necessarily limited to psychology and education, but this is the focus we keep
here.
2
The authors would like to thank Yuji Moro from the Institute of Psychology, University of Tsukuba,
Japan for this information.
3
The authors would like to thank Hartmut Giest (Germany), Martin Hildebrand-Nilshon (Germany),
Erineu Foerste (Brazil), Vitaly Rubtsov (Russia), and Marilyn Fleer (Australia) for this information.
2 The academic community does not seem to have adequately engaged with the
epistemological issues that this “theory-traveling” implies. In the most extreme case
two positions are juxtaposed: the “dogmatic” interpretation, which claims that one
particular version is the right one as opposed to all others (let’s say that of Engeström,
1987 or Hedegaard, 2001), and an oversimplified “post-modern mosaic”
interpretation, which runs the danger of implying that all possible theoretical
combinations and interpretations are legitimate. However different these two
positions might appear, they both overlook in similar ways the processes and contexts
of theory translation, building, traveling, and usage.
Theory-traveling can be seen as a metaphor to describe all the processes
involved in the translation, interpretation, usage, and re-usage of theoretical texts.
These processes involve mediating devices, technologies, funds, and infrastructures,
as well as personal motives and academic or other politics. Science and technology
scholars have recently introduced the term “doing theory” in order to emphasize these
practicalities and argue that different theories (or different versions of the same
theory) enact different versions of the world, i.e. different ontologies (Mol, 2002).
Such an approach sheds light on processes that dogmatic interpretations of sociocultural-historical approaches conceal. A meta-theory of how to do theory then
becomes necessary in order to shape and establish criteria of how to evaluate different
versions of e.g. Vygotsky’s work. The Marxist point of view that theory is only
meaningful to the extent in which it advances practice in the creation of a more equal
society could be taken as a point of departure for the formulation of such a metatheory (cf. Chaiklin, 2011).
By exemplarily studying the Greek context of the translation and interpretation
of socio-cultural-historical approaches, this article aims to shed light on the processes
of translation, implementation, and transformation of socio-cultural-historical
approaches in general, and to discuss broader epistemological issues concerning
traveling theories that should be taken into consideration in further socio-culturalhistorical theorizing. This article traces the history of the employment of a variety of
socio-cultural-historical approaches in a range of practices, such as the translations of
original works, university teaching, academic research, educational policy for primary
and secondary education, and initiatives by engaged intellectuals outside the
university. We suggest that each of these sections deserve more attention and could
become a separate area for further investigation – which can be seen as work for the
3 future. Despite their interwoven complexity, we attempt to denote possible
interrelations between all the different spaces in which socio-cultural-historical
approaches have been used.
It is important for us to make explicit that we consider ourselves a part of what
we study – which means that we cannot claim an external or neutral point of view.
We all come from Greece, but have studied in very different places (Dafermos in
Soviet Union/Russia; Chronaki in the UK; Kontopodis mainly in Germany). To some
extent we have different theoretical and political trajectories, too – so writing this
article was itself a process of bringing together each other’s distinct theoretical and
methodological tools, ideas, and points of view.
Arrival Station: Modern Greece
The Greek national state was first established in the 19th century. Modern Greece, in
the words of Stathis Gourgouris (1996), as an imaginary territory, exceeds however
narratives about its history, geography, and culture. Greece is located in Southern
Europe and has been an important crossroads for different cultures. According to
Liakos (2007), Greece cannot also be regarded in isolation from transnational
contexts and cultural exchanges that transcend its territorial and intellectual space.
During the Post-World-War II period, Greece was gradually encouraged to transform
from an agricultural to an urban society (Epitropoulos & Roudomet, 1998), while at
the same time many migrant Greek workers moved to Western Europe and the rest of
the world. Athens collected half of the whole country’s population.
From 1967 to 1974 Greece experienced a military dictatorship, which was
followed by social movements that slowly transformed the dominant political scene
from right-wing to social-democratic. Several scholars argue that a Southern welfare
model has dominated in Greece, characterized by a strong commitment to preserve
traditional familyhood and maximize dependence on the family (Esping-Andersen’s,
1990; Kalogeraki, 2009). At the same time, Greece as a semi-periphery state depends
on the major EU and global capitalist centers (Mouzelis, 1986). In this context, over
the last 30 years a so-called modernization has taken place in Greece in the context of
European Integration. The official policies of this modernization can be characterized
as neoliberal and technocratic (the best example of which are the current “measures”
against the debt crisis). Liakos (2011), in a recent interview given to the German
4 Lettre International, explains how Greece can no longer be seen as having a unified
national identity firmly rooted in its ancient past and external to what might be
considered modern Europe. Instead, Greek (and European) identities are fragmented,
fluid, and become inscribed simultaneously on dominant myths and stereotypes as
well as on emerging and alternative perspectives, due to the increasing complexities
of everyday life (i.e. the economic crisis, environmental uncertainty, immigration).
First Steps… with a Little Bit of a Delay
The Greek university as an institution played an important role against the military
dictatorship of the 70s. For this reason it has, until recently, been considered to be the
institution that safeguards democracy and ensures the free development and
circulation of ideas – at least on a symbolic level. In this context, private universities
have until recently not been recognized by the Greek constitution. Moreover, each
university has been responsible for the standards and the quality of its academic
programs, although in practice Greek universities “do not have significant
administrative and financial independence” (Mattew & Saiti, 2005, p. 5).
Following the constitutional change in the 70s, a reform of higher education
took place in 1982 in Greece. The institution of the academic chair that represented
the kudos of professorship was abolished and replaced by the department that
represented a specific scientific discipline and played the part of the basic
organizational unit of the universities. During the following years, university
departments were established, for various political reasons in locations away from the
big urban centers. As a consequence, the Greek university system slowly opened, and
university departments started employing scientists from various theoretical and
research trends and traditions, who had been educated in countries as diverse as the
US, Canada, the UK, France, Germany, Sweden, Russia/ Soviet Union, Poland, etc.
However, it took until the late 1980s for socio-cultural-historical approaches to
be introduced in Greece. During the years of the Cold War (approx. 1945-1991), a lot
of prejudice against the Soviet Union and socio-cultural-historical approaches to
science appeared in Greece. Socio-cultural-historical research was treated with
skepticism and even a conservative bias against all trends and approaches that came
from the USSR. The introduction of socio-cultural-historical approaches in Greece
was only slowly achieved by Greek scholars trained in countries such as the UK,
5 Germany, Poland, Russia, etc. – all of course countries with varied cultural and
scientific traditions. Returning to Greece, these scholars attempted to develop and
apply socio-cultural-historical approaches in the specific contexts of Greek academic
research, as well as in the contexts of quite diverse disciplines (psychology,
pedagogy/educational science, anthropology, philosophy, art history, linguistics, etc.).
University-based pedagogical departments, i.e. Departments of Primary and
Early Childhood Education, were amongst the first in the early 90s to adopt sociocultural-historical theory as a way to scientifically study issues of pedagogy and
learning. These departments were established as a political strategy for upgrading the
2-year Pedagogic Academies (i.e. training colleges for primary and early childhood
educators), and socio-cultural-historical theory served the need of the academics
employed there to create a “new” identity for their respective departments.
Christos Frangos was among the first in the Department of Early Childhood
Education at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki to introduce Vygotskian theory
and research. In the same time, Yiannis Papamichael at the Department of Education
of the University of Patras explored relationships between learning and teaching
within the frameworks of neo-Piagetian and Vygotskian approaches, also editing a
reader based on a collection of translated papers (Papamichael, 1984). Frangos (1992)
tried to develop a European teaching model based on the ideas and methods of
Socrates, Vygotsky, and Piaget. He also became quite active in ECERA (European
Early Childhood Research Association). At the same time, as we will see below,
engaged intellectuals outside the university published the first translations of sociocultural-historical approaches to psychological works.
Still, the first course devoted solely to the study of cultural-historical
psychology took place in 2002 in the Department of Psychology at the University of
Crete. Manolis Dafermos’s book The Cultural-Historical Theory of Vygotsky [in
Greek] was the basis of this course. Students claimed that cultural-historical
psychology was a completely different psychology than the dominant paradigm of
psychology they had been taught until then. Soon after, The Development of Children
by Cole, Cole & Lightfoot (2005) was translated and used as a textbook in many
departments of psychology and education in Greece, including a graduate course at
the Hellenic Open University where tutors with both a psychological and sociological
orientation work together.
6 The Translation and Publication of Major Works in Greek and Related
Problems
The translation of major socio-cultural-historical works began in the early 90s.
Vygotsky or Leontiev were not the only authors translated, with many others also
receiving attention: Bakhtin (2000), Voloshinov (1998, 2009), Luria (1995, 2002),
Elkonin, etc. (for a detailed list and timeline of all translations, see Appendix). A few
translations (e.g. by Vagenas, 2003) were directly from Russian, while others edited
by academics were translated from German or English (for details, see Appendix).
Although this work has been significant, at the same time it should be noted
that often translations do not reflect the meaning of the original text. Approaching
meaning in any text is a challenge, and to some an unending task. However, it also
requires a broader theoretical and philosophical knowledge of the history of concepts
employed. More importantly, a deep knowledge of culture(s), both the one that
produces and the one that receives the text (Spivak, 2000), is required. This has not
always been the case concerning the translations of socio-historical-cultural works,
into Greek or other languages (cf. van der Veer & Yasnitsky, 2011).
For example: the title of Vygotsky’s book Myshlenie i Rech was translated to
Greek as Σκέψη και Γλώσσα, i.e. “Thought and Language” instead of “Thinking and
Speech” (Vygotsky, 1993). Vygotsky used the term rech (“speech”) and not the word
iazyk (“language”). It is worth noting that Vygotsky had studied the book by the
Russian linguist A. Potebnya Мisl i iazyk (“Thought and Language”) and clearly
distinguished the concepts of language and speech (Gillen, 2000; Dafermos, 2002).
Also, the term myshlenie is better translated as noesis (“thinking”) than as skepsis
(“thought”). Such a translation conceals how a thought is merely a component and
product of thinking as a process (Dafermos, 2002).
There are also some serious problems with the Greek translation of Leontiev’s
book Activity, Consciousness, Personality. The translation of Leontiev’s book was
done without using the specific terminology of the original text. In many cases,
scientific terms were misunderstood. The phrase “changing man’s consciousness”
(izmenenie soznanija scheloveka) (Leontiev, 2004, p.28) has been translated in Greek
as τροποποίηση της συνείδησης (“modification of consciousness”), (Leontiev, w.d.,
p.45). “Changing man’s consciousness” is not the same as “modification of
consciousness.” “Modification of consciousness” refers to changes caused by external
7 forces, while “changing man’s consciousness” is connected to deep transformations
and the transition from one mode of organizing consciousness to another, which takes
place both intrinsically and extrinsically.
There is a significant misunderstanding of the differences between Vygotsky’s
and Leontiev’s research programs. We will give here just one example. According to
Vagenas,
A.N. Leontiev (1903 – 1979) distinguished in Vygotsky’s theory a fundamental idea, the
idea of activity, and he attempted to develop and concretize it. From this perspective,
activity theory is a continuation of the cultural historical school, which was founded by
Vygotsky (Vagenas, 2003, 18, translation from Greek by M. Dafermos).
However, Vygotsky rarely used the term “activity” in his works and gave it a
different meaning than Leontiev. As Veresov pointed out, in Vygotsky’s texts
between 1924 and 1927 the term deyatelnost was used not in the sense of Tätigkeit,
i.e. as “the practical, socially organised, object-related, goal-directed activity of an
individual… but in that of Aktivität, in line with typical and traditional usage in the
physiology and psychology of the time.” “Vygotsky used this term in the same sense
as Ivan Pavlov (“higher neural activity” – vysshaya nervnaya deyatelnost).” (Veresov,
2005, pp. 40-41)
It becomes clear that although the translation and employment of socio-culturalhistorical approaches began around 1990 in Greece, i.e. much later than in Germany,
the US, the UK, etc., the Greek translations have been very problematic. In many
cases (worldwide), the translation is based on already translated texts in English,
German, or French, not taking the original text(s) in Russian into serious
consideration. However, currently, access to all possible resources (as well as the
problematization of translation itself) has become much easier, and historiographical
and etymological/ philological knowledge is increasingly available.
Contexts, Trends, and Directions in Socio-Cultural-Historical Approaches in
Greece
8 Moving beyond the level of translation of original texts, one can identify at least four
distinctive trends of how socio-cultural-historical approaches to psychological theory
have since been employed in the Greek context:
1) within formal university practices, one trend aims explicitly to promote
cognitivist science and make it available to a wider educational audience,
both in research and pedagogy. Although the works in this trend do not relate
explicitly to any discussion of the political implications of socio-culturalhistorical approaches, they have been directed to policy-making and,
specifically, agendas of curriculum reforms.
2) within the formal university structures, another trend aims explicitly to
develop theory in critical ways (here referring to epistemology, social
critique, political critique, etc.). Although the works in this trend have been
critical, theorization has not been practiced dogmatically and takes a very
broad interdisciplinary and cross-theoretical spectrum of perspectives into
account.
3) outside the formal university context, a third trend formulates very explicit,
but sometimes narrow, political and ideological aspirations. Often, the aim
has not been to develop theory for changing practice, but to use theory for
promoting, at a symbolic level, political ideology.
4) outside formal university structures, the last trend is still directed towards the
context of state educational policy-making in curriculum reform, teacher
training, or textbook authoring. Very often, theory becomes utilized in
fragmented and opportunistic ways so as to safeguard the promotion of
certain practices.
The first trend is represented in the works of Stella Vosniadou, initially with the
Department of Primary Education at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki and
currently at the Department of Methodology, History, and Theory of Science at the
Kapodistrian University of Athens; and in the work of Anastasia Kostaridou-Efkleidi,
currently at the School of Psychology at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
Stella Vosniadou and Anastasia Kostaridou-Efklidi have played an important role in
framing discourses on cognitive (and socio-cognitive) development, school learning,
and educational psychology through their internationally acknowledged research
work. It is important to mention that both scholar, back in the early and middle 90s,
placed attention on sociocultural work and becsme active towards editing the
9 translation of major works such as Mind in Society (1997) and Cognitive
Development: Its Cultural and Social Foundations (1995). Vosniadou (2004) has also
edited a collection of essays in the foundation of cognitive science and was a
founding member of the newly convened journal, Noesis (see noesis). As series editor
of “Psychology” with Gutenberg publishing house, she has promoted the publishing
of books on socio-cognitive aspects of learning (e.g. dialogical perspectives on
learning, Karagiannopoulou, 2007, or on the zone of proximal development in
Vygotsky’s theory, Papadopoulou, 2009, etc). Kostaridou-Efkleidi is the chief editor
of Psychology, the journal of Greek Psychological Society, where she acts as
honorary president.
Second, in a broader, interdisciplinary, critical, and cross-theoretical spectrum,
Marios Pourkos at the University of Crete (initially in the Department of Psychology
and since 2000 at the Department of Early Childhood Education) and, later on,
Manolis Dafermos (Department of Psychology, University of Crete) and a series of
other university-based scholars have focused on the advancement of theoretical
aspects of Vygotskian and Bakhtinian studies with an emphasis towards discussing
epistemological and philosophical issues, as well as a focus on qualitative research
methodology. Pourkos edited a series of volumes that present original research by
Greek and international scholars who have been inspired by socio-cultural-historical
approaches. These volumes resulted from an equivalent number of conferences that
took place in a particular dialogical atmosphere at the University of Crete, and a few
of them also include Greek versions of previously untranslated Vygotsky works
(Pourkos, 2006, 2007, 2008a, 2008b).
Third, major socio-cultural-historical works were translated by engaged
political groups and public intellectuals outside the university interested in utilizing
theory for ideological reasons. Michalis Kouvelas, member of the Greek Communist
Party, and Elissaios Vagenas are amongst the main intellectuals who edited and
published translations of classic works and collections of various classic texts
(Kouvelas, 2007, 2009, Vagenas, 2003). We consider this trend as distinct from the
two mentioned above, because it does not primarily concern a research program
aimed at generating new texts and knowledge, but aims to enable access to the sociocultural-historical approaches to psychological and educational thinking for purposes
of political critique, political activism, and intervention.
10 As a fourth trend, in recent years, attempts have taken place to integrate
Vygotsky’s theory into the Greek national educational policy. For example, the
former president of the Greek Pedagogical Institute, which determines curriculum
content, argued that
The art of teaching and of learning – an adaptive constant reflection on the following
parameters: the learning environment, learning methods, and pedagogical principles –
can be applied for example on verbal or audiovisual learning in accordance with the
conclusions theory of the programmed learning of behaviorist approaches (Skinner),
active and constructive learning, and the sociocultural context (Piaget, Vygotsky,
Bruner) (Allahiotis, 2007, pp. 108-109, translation from Greek by M. Dafermos).
The point here is that distinct learning theories can be unproblematically
combined to organize the educational process. 4 To mention another example: in
Greece, in order to be employed as a secondary education teacher, a candidate must
pass a state examination. In the context described above, teachers must answer to
questions about Vygotsky’s theory as in the following example:
According to Vygotsky, the ZPD:
a) Is mainly associated with the assessment of teaching for the future academic
performance of students.
b) Is a central concept for understanding the links between development and learning.
c) Refers to estimating the abilities of the student when the student is under the
guidance of the teacher at school.
d) Is associated with theories of multiple intelligence and strengthens the student's
psychomotor skills
[Example of question for the state examination of teachers, ASEP, 2008, translation by
M. Dafermos]. (ASEP, Aνώτατο Συµβούλιο για την Επιλογή Προσωπικού 2008)
A limited, formal interpretation of socio-cultural-historical approaches dominates in
the official pedagogical discourse, and the ZPD is presented only as a psychological
unity and not as a socio-historical unit of study (cf. Newman & Holzman, 1993).
Vygotsky’s theory becomes a particular didactic model and a recipe for teaching and
4
We note here that in his work “The Historical Meaning of the Crisis of Psychology” (1997),
Vygotsky criticized such eclecticism, the easy borrowing from a variety of theories with contradictory
epistemological and philosophical backgrounds, and their mechanical combination.
11 the ZPD is presented as a fixed, stable cognitive scheme that can be associated with
other schemes from other pedagogical and psychological theories.
These four trends of employing socio-cultural-historical approaches in Greece
are clearly distinct from each other, involving different motives for using theory,
epistemological beliefs, and political and ideological values. On a macro-level these
four trends can be respectively linked to four processes, namely:
a) The first trend can be linked to the globalization of university research in
Greece. For example, Greek universities have in the late 90s increasingly
reproduced the dominant North Atlantic scientific paradigm of research
assessment exercise.
b) The second trend can be linked to the opening of the Greek university to
new ideas and paradigms in the post-dictatorship era, as briefly referred to
above
c) The third trend can be related to the opening of Greek society to new ideas
and paradigms in the post-dictatorship era, as briefly referred to above
d) The fourth trend can be related to the Europeanization of educational policy
concerning all educational levels in the 2000s. Following EU guidelines,
the Greek Ministry of Education and Research uses a jargon of Vygotskian
key-terms in order to institutionalize a pedagogic discourse for curriculum
reform and teachers in-service education.
Instead of an Epilogue: Towards a Broader Epistemological Frame
According to Daniels, Cole, and Wertsch, studying Vygotsky in context means that
we should define two different historical eras and multiple social milieus – the context
of the Soviet Union in the first half of the 20th century and different parts of the world
of the 21st century (Daniels, Cole & Wertsch, 2007). As outlined above, not only are
more than two spaces and temporalities involved (cf. Bhabha, 1994): one needs to
closely document, analyze, and meta-theorize a series of processes that make a theory
“travel.” Although the above analysis is brief, it becomes clear that it is important to
differentiate between two quite independent activity domains involved in theorytraveling: a) the translation of original texts and historiographical work, and b) the
employment of concepts and use of theory in research practices, academic networks,
12 educational interventions, national policy making, and other settings. Translation and
historiography in a certain sense can cumulatively – i.e. almost objectively – always
become richer, more detailed, and “better.” However, when referring to the uses of
theory, complex meta-theoretical tools are needed in order to explore, distinguish, and
eventually evaluate them. Better, richer, and more detailed translation and
historiographical work is a presupposition of, but itself does not lead to “proper”
theory uses in any linear way. The context of use is not only textual/semiotic, it might
also involve micro-political strategies for academic or other recognition, material
needs and resources, ideological values, etc. On both levels, that of translation/historiography and that of theory
development and implementation, the work is collective and distributed: even if in the
end one editor or author is praised or criticized for his/her translation or interpretation,
and however “situated” in a particular context this translation/interpretation might be,
there is always a whole community of scholars, spread over times, languages, and
places that has worked for this particular version of translation or interpretation to be
possible. This dimension is important and complicates even more the investigation
and assessment of processes of translation, implementation, and transformation of
theories.
Socio-cultural-historical approaches do not form a random theoretical sample,
but have initially been explicitly developed for political purposes. These political
aspirations have been varied and heterogeneous since the very beginning, and are
further subjected to traveling, translation, and re-contextualization, as is the theory
itself. It is thus impossible to adhere to the initial political aspirations as such. At the
same time one needs to reflect on and explicitly account for one’s political aspirations
when using the theory in one way or another. Even if one uses this highly politicized
theoretical corpus in “neutral”/“non-political” ways, this is still a political act.
Comparing different versions/uses of socio-cultural-historical approaches can
only happen by establishing a point of reference that is external to all of these
version/uses. Following the argumentation presented above, this reference point
cannot be the “original” text or the “original” context because of the two-level
distinction we introduced above, between a) the translation/historiography work and
b) the uses/implementations of theory. Instead of referring to the past and trying or
pretending to achieve “fidelity” to it, one can take the future as a reference point –
which is in line with the emphasis on practice by socio-cultural-historical approaches.
13 Thus, when comparing the cognitive approach of Vosniadou or Euklidis with
the interdisciplinary approach of Pourkos, the following set of questions emerges:
What do these approaches define or construct as a problem? What is seen as a
problem through the lenses of the one and the other approach? To which extent does
what is seen as a problem in theory correspond to what the problem is in practice?
Are the theory and the practice mutually transforming and developing each other?
How? What are the future implications of this mutual transformation and
development, and do we agree with them?
Answering these questions is not based on scientific, but on political,
aesthetical, ideological, or other criteria. This includes uncertainty, which renders the
whole undertaking very difficult. Thus, we have no easy and general solutions to
suggest here; we can only claim that transparency and dialogue concerning these
political, aesthetical, and ideological criteria are required in all interpretation work
and further theory-building. New challenges are currently emerging in Greece and all
over the world, to name a few: the environmental crisis, the economical crisis and
break-down of health and social security systems, the privatization of education vs.
new forms of learning and schooling based on digital technologies and environments,
the centralization vs. decentralization of political organization, or immigration (both
from Greece and to Greece). The open question for the future is how the existing
theoretical discussions, endeavors, and works inspired by socio-cultural-historical
approaches will flourish and deepen in order to address these challenges.
Note
This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public,
commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
Appendix: Timeline of the Translation and Publication of Major Socio-CulturalHistorical Works in Greek
Without date: A.N. Leontiev’s Activity, Consciousness, Personality was translated and
published in Greek (by Xenopoulos).
1990: K. Levitin’s book One is not Born a Personality was translated and published in Greek.
In this book, profiles and works of major socio-cultural-historical approaches and
14 educational psychologists are presented (Vygotsky, Leontiev, Luria, Meshcheryakov,
Davidov) (Transl. English to Greek by L. Karsera).
1993: Thought and Language was translated and published in Greek (Transl. German to
Greek by A. Rodi, Ed. P. Kondylis).
1995: Luria’s Cognitive Development was translated from English by M. Terzidou (Ed.
Kostadidou-Eukleidi) and published in Greek. According to A. Kostadidou-Eukleidi
(1995), evidence that Piaget’s theory of cognitive development is inadequate has been
accumulated and Vygotsky’s theory has provided a new theoretical framework to
explain cognitive development in terms of acultural-historical approach.
1997: Vygotsky’s Mind in Society was translated and published in Greek (Transl. English to
Greek by A. Bibou (Ed. S.Vosniadou).
1998: Voloshinov’s Marxism and Philosophy of Language was translated and published in
Greek by V. Alexiou.
2000: Bakhtin’s Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics was translated and published in Greek
(Transl. from English A. Ioannidou).
2002: Luria’s The Man with a Shattered World was translated and published in Greek (Transl.
English to Greek by N. Aggelopoulos).
2002: Dafermos’s Cultural-Historical Theory of Vygotsky: Philosophical, Psychological and
Pedagogical Aspects [in Greek]. This is the first systematic investigation of Vygotsky’s
theoretical legacy in Greece.
2003: An anthology of translated socio-cultural-historical approaches writings on psychology
with the title Socio-Cultural-Historical Approaches and Child Development [in Greek]
is published (by E. Vagenas, Ed., Transl. Russian to Greek by E. Vagenas).
2007: M. Kouvelas’s book Dialectical Ppsychology. In the Ffootsteps of Vygotsky [in Greek]
was published. The author of this book argues that Vygotsky is the founder of
dialectical psychology as an open-ended system of psychological knowledge that
reflects the reality. The application of dialectical materialism in psychological research
is the foundation of general psychology.
2009: Voloshinov’s The Word in Life and the Word in Poetry was translated from Russian
and published in Greek by V. Alexiou & M. Dafermos.
2009: The book General Psychology. Dialectical-Materialistic Approach [in Greek] is
published (by M. Kouvelas, Ed., Transl. Russian to Greek). This is a handbook of
translated works by different socio-cultural-historical psychologists on crucial
psychological issues (the development of mind, activity theory, personality, cognitive
functions, etc.).
15 2009: K. Papadopoulou’s book The Zone of Proximal Development in Theory of Vygotsky [in
Greek] was published. Papadopoulou argues that the zone of proximal development is
connected with the development of psychological functions and not the acquirement of
knowledge or learning skills.
In press is a special issue of the Greek journal Utopia on socio-cultural-historical approaches.
This issue includes contributions by several Greek researchers on cultural-historical
psychology and activity theory.
References
Allahiotis, S. (2007). Biology of education and education of interdisciplinary.
Didactics of Physical Sciences and new technologies in education. 5th
Conference Proceedings (vol.1, pp. 101-116). Athens.
ASEP
(2008).
Teachers Competition 2008.
Retrieved
from
the
website:
http://edu.klimaka.gr
Bakhtin, M. M. (2000) Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics [in Greek] (transl. from
English by A.Ioannidou). Athens: Polis
Bhabha, H. (1994). The Location of Culture. New York and London: Routledge
Bock, B. A.-M., Gonçalves, M. G. M., & Furtado, O. (Eds.). (2002). Psicologia
Sócio-Histórica: Uma Perspectiva Crítica em Psicologia. São Paulo, Brazil:
Cortez.
Chaiklin, S. (2011). The role of ‘practice’ in cultural-historical science. In M.
Kontopodis, C. Wulf & B. Fichtner (Eds.), Children, development and
education: Cultural, historical, anthropological perspectives (pp. 227-246).
Dordrecht, London, New Delhi and New York: Springer.
Chronaki, A. (2005). Learning about ‘learning identities’ in the school arithmetic
practice: The experience of two young minority Gypsy girls in the Greek
context of Education. European Journal of Psychology of Education, Vol. XX,
No 1, 61-74.
Chronaki A. & Matos, A. (under submission). Desiring /resisting change politics:
Mathematics, technology, and teacher narratives.
Cole, M., Cole, S. R., & Lightfoot C. (2005). The Development of Children. New
York: Worth.
Cole, M. & Engeström, Y. (2007). Cultural-historical approaches to designing for
development. In Valsiner, J. & Rosa, A. (Eds), The Cambridge Handbook of
16 Sociocultural Psychology (pp. 484-506). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gillen, J. (2000). Versions of Vygotsky. British Journal of Educational Studies, Vol.
48, No. 2, 183-198.
Greeno, J.G., Collins, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1996). Cognition and learning. In
D.C.Berliner & R.C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of Educational Psychology. New
York: McMillan.
Dafermos, D., Marvakis, A. & Triliva, S. (2006). (De)constructing Psychology in
Greece. Annual Review of Critical Psychology, 5, 180-191.
Dafermos, M. (2002). Cultural-historical theory of Vygotsky: Philosophical,
Psychological and Pedagogical Aspects. Athens: Atrapos. [in Greek]
Dafermos, M. & Marvakis, A. (2011). Mediated getting-to-know-the-worldApproaching learning with S.L. Rubinstein. In P. Stenner, J.
Cromby, J.
Motzkau, J. Yen & Υ. Haosheng (Eds), Theoretical Psychology: global
transformations and Challenges (pp.94-104). Ontario: Cactus Press.
Daniels, H., Cole, M. & Wertsch, J. (2007). Editors’ Introduction. In H. Daniels
M.Cole & J.Wertsch (Eds.), The Cambridge Companion to Vygotsky (pp.1-20).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dafermos, Μ. (2010). Historical Becoming of Psychology. Athens. Gutenberg.
Engeström, Y. (1987). Learning by Expanding: An Activity-theoretical Approach to
Developmental Research. Helsinki: Orienta-Konsultit Oy.
Engeström, Y. (2008). From Teams to Knots: Activity-theoretical Studies of
Collaboration and Learning at Work. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). Three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity
Press.
Epitropoulos, M.-F. G. & Roudomet, V. (Eds.) (1998). American culture in Europe:
interdisciplinary perspectives. Praeger Publisher.
Frangos, Ch. (1992). A European Teaching Model: From Vygotsky to Socrates via
Piaget. Proceeding ATEE conference. University of Helsinki. Retrieved from
the following website on 2012-02-18:
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&
ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED353048&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=
no&accno=ED353048
17 Frangoudakis, A. (1981). The impasse of educational reform in Greece: an
introduction, Journal of the Hellenic Diaspora, 8, 9, 8-19.
Gourgouris, S. (1996) Dream nation: Enlightenment, colonization, and the institution
of modern Greece. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Hedegaard, M. (2001). Learning in classrooms: a cultural-historical approach.
Aarhus: Aarhus University Press.
Kalogeraki, S. (2009). The Divergence Hypothesis in Modernization Theory Across
Three European Countries: the UK, Sweden and Greece. Culture Unbound,
Volume 1, 161-178.
Kanellopoulos, P. A. (2010). Towards a Sociological Perspective on Researching
Children’s
Creative
Music
Making
Practices:
an
Exercise
in
Self-
Consciousness. In R. Wright (Ed.), Sociology and Music Education (pp. 115138). London: Ashgate.
Karagiannopoulou, E. (2007). On Learning. Athens: Gutenberg.
Karasavvidis, I. (2009). Activity Theory as a conceptual framework for understanding
teacher approaches to Information and Communication Technologies.
Computers and Education, 52 (2), 436 – 444.
Katsarou, E. (2011). Multiliteracies and multimodality: two theories for meaning
making. Their epistemological origins and consequences on teaching. In
M.Pourkos
&
E.Katsarou
(Eds),
Lived
experience,
Metaphor
and
Multimodality: implications in communication, Education, Learning and
Knowledge (pp. 403-426). Athens: Nisides. [in Greek]
Kontopodis, M. (2012). Neoliberalism, Pedagogy and Human Development:
Exploring Time, Mediation and Collectivity in Contemporary Schools. London
and New York: Routledge/ Taylor & Francis.
Kostadidou-Eukleidi, A. (1995). Preface In A. Luria, Cognitive Development (p.911). Athina: Ellikika Grammata [in Greek]
Kouvelas, M. (2007). Dialectical psychology. In the footsteps of Vygotsky. Athens:
Ellinika Grammata. [in Greek]
Kouvelas, M. (Ed.) (2009). General Psychology. Dialectical-materialistic approach
(transl. from Russian by M. Kouvelas). Athens: Omilos Ekpaideutikou
provlimatismou. [in Greek]
18 Kozulin, A. (2003). Psychological tools and mediated learning. In A.Kozulin, B.
Gindis, V.Ageyev & S.Muller (Eds), Vygotsky’s educational theory in cultural
context (pp. 15-38). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lamprinidis, L. (2011). Investing to escape. Athens: Kritiki. [in Greek]
Langemeyer, I. & Roth W-M.
(2006). Is Cultural-Historical Activity Theory
Threatened to Fall Short of its Own Principles and Possibilities as a Dialectical
Social Science? Outlines, 2, 20-42.
Liakos, A. 2011. The Greeks and Europe: Interview to Frank Berberich. Lettre
International. Vol. 95. Winter 2011. pp. 19-24 (translated and re-published at
the book’s journal. January 2012)
Leontiev, A.N. (Without Date). Activity, consciousness, personality (Transl. by E.
Xenopoulos). Athens: Anagnostidi. [in Greek]
Leontiev, A.N. (1978). Activity, consciousness, personality. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall.
Levitin, K. (1990). One is not born a Personality (Transl. from by L. Karsera).
Athens: Syghroni Epochi-Ellika Grammata. [in Greek]
Luria, A. (1995). Cognitive Development (Transl. from English by M. Terzidou).
Athina: Ellikika Grammata. [in Greek]
Luria, A. (2002). The Man with a Shattered World (Transl. from English by N.
Aggelopoulos). Athens: Kastaniotis. [in Greek]
Mattew, D. & Saiti, A. (2005). The organization of academic work and university
organization: a qualitative study from Greece. Paper presented in the conference
Trends in the management of human resources in higher education. OECD.
Paris.
Markard, M. (2011). Einführung in die Kritische Psychologie. Hamburg and Berlin:
Argument.
Mol, A. (2002). The body multiple: ontology in medical practice. Durham: Duke
University Press.
Mouzelis, N. (1986). Politics in the Semi-Periphery: Early Parliamentarism and Late
Industrialisation in the Balkans and Latin America. London: Macmillan.
Newman, F. & Holzman, L. (1993). Lev Vygotsky. Revolutionary scientist. London
and New Υork: Rutledge.
19 Oren, M. (2009). Division of Labor in Science and Education. Mike Oren Logo.
http://www.mikeoren.com/2009/02/division-of-labor-in-science-and.html
Papadopoulos, D. (1996). Observations on Vygotsky’s reception in academic
psychology. In
C. W. Tolman (Ed.), Problems of theoretical psychology (pp.
145-155). North York, Ontario: Captus Press.
Papadopoulou, K. (2009). The zone of proximal development in theory of Vygotsky.
Athens: Gutenberg. [in Greek]
Papamichael, Υ. (Ed) (1984). Socio-cogntive approach to teaching and learning
processes of natural and logico-mathematical concepts in school. Athens:
Gutenberg [in Greek].
Plakitsi, K. (2010) Collective curriculum design as a tool for rethinking scientific
literacy. Cultural Studies of Science Education, 5, 3, 577-590.
Polakis, G. & Tzortzakakis, G. (in press). The Second life of Vygotsky. Thought on
educational applications of Vygotsky’s theory. Ytopia (in Greek).
Polyzou, A. (2005). Growth in teachers' knowledge while learning to teach with
multimedia: what has been learned from concrete educational experiences?
Technology, Pedagogy and Education. Vol.14, Iss.2, 205-223.
Pourkos, M. (Ed.) (2006). Socio-Historical and Cultural Approaches in Psychology
and Education. Αthens: Αtrapos Publications. [in Greek]
Pourkos, M. (Εd.) (2007). Literature-Dialogism-Psychology: Critical Approaches.
Αthens: Αtrapos Publications. [in Greek]
Pourkos, M. (Εd.) (2008a). Psychological and Psychopedagogical Dimensions of Art,
Play and Narrative. Athens: Topos Publications. [in Greek]
Pourkos, M. (Ed.) (2008b). Perspectives and Limits of Dialogism in Mikhail Bakhtin:
Applications in Psychology, Art, Education and Culture. Rethymnon:
University of Crete. [in Greek]
Sampson, G. P. (1984). Exporting language teaching methods from Canada to China.
TESL Canada Journal, 1 (1), 19-31.
Spivak. G. C. (2000). Translation as Culture. Parallax, 6, 1, 13-24.
Stetsenko, A., & Arievitch, I. (in press). Expanding Vygotsky's perspective on
teaching, learning, and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toomela, A. (2010). Modern Mainstream Psychology is the best? Noncumulative,
historically blind, fragmented, atheoretical. In A. Toomela, & J.Valsiner (Eds.),
20 Methodological thinking in psychology: 60 years gone astray? (pp.1-26).
Charlotte: Information Age Publishing, Inc.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated
Action. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Vagenas,
E.
(Ed.)
(2003).
Socio-cultural-historical approaches and child
development (transl. from Russian by E. Vagenas) Athens: Sychroni Epochi. [in
Greek]
Veresov, N. (2005). Marxist and non-Marxist aspects of the cultural-historical
psychology of L. S. Vygotsky. Outlines, 1, 31-49.
Veresov, N. (2010). Forgotten methodology: Vygotsky's case. In J. Valsiner & A.
Toomela (Eds.), Methodological Thinking in Psychology: 60 Years Gone
Astray? (p. 267- 295). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.
Vosniadou, S. (1999). Conceptual change research: state of art and future directions.
In W. Schnotz, S. Vosniadou, & M. Carretero (Eds.), New perspectives on
conceptual change (pp. 3–14). Oxford: Elsevier Science.
Vosniadou, S. (2001). How children learn. The International Academy of Education
(IAE), Palais des Académies. Brussels.
Vosniadou, S. (2004). Cognitive Science: a New Science of the Mind. Gutenberg.
Athens: Gutenberg.
Vosniadou, S. (2007). The cognitive-situative divide and the problem of conceptual
change. Educational Psychologist, 42(1), 55-66.
Vygotsky, L. (1993). Thought and language (Transl. from German by A.Rodi).
Athens: Gnosi. [in Greek]
Vygotsky, L. (1997). Mind in society (Transl. from English by A. Bibou). Athens:
Gutenberg. [in Greek]
Van der Veer, R. & Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky in English: What Still Needs to
Be
Done.
Integrative
Psychological
and
Behavioral
Science,
DOI:
10.1007/s12124-011-9168-5.
Voloshinov, V. (1998). Marxism and philosophy of language (Transl. from Russian
by V. Alexiou). Athens: Papazisis. [in Greek]
Voloshinov, V. (2009). The Word in Life and the Word in Poetry (Transl. from
Russian by V.Alexiou & M. Dafermos). Athens: Papazisis. [in Greek]
21 Vygotsky, L. (1997). The historical meaning of the Crisis In Psychology: a
Methodological Investigation, in R. Rieber & J. Wollock (Eds.), The Collected
Works of L.S.Vygotsky (Vol. 3, pp.233 - 344). New York: Plenum Press.
Yaroshevsky, M. & Gurgenitze, G. (1997). Epilogue. In R. Rieber & J. Wollock
(Eds.), The Collected Works of L.S.Vygotsky (Vol. 3, pp.346-369). New York:
Plenum Press.
Yasnitsky, A. (2011). Vygotsky Circle as a Personal Network of Scholars: Restoring
Connections Between People and Ideas. Integrative Psychological and
Behavioral Science, DOI: 10.1007/s12124-011-9168-5.
22