技术与符号:维果茨基、勒罗伊-古尔汉和斯蒂格勒的人类起源。

IF 1.6 3区 哲学 Q1 HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences Pub Date : 2022-11-01 DOI:10.1007/s40656-022-00539-2
Chris Drain
{"title":"技术与符号:维果茨基、勒罗伊-古尔汉和斯蒂格勒的人类起源。","authors":"Chris Drain","doi":"10.1007/s40656-022-00539-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This paper reconstructs L.S. Vygotsky's account of anthropogenesis with respect to the work of anthropologist André Leroi-Gourhan and late philosopher Bernard Stiegler, situating Vygotsky as a forerunner to recent theories that posit cultural scaffolding and niche construction as the main drivers of human cognitive evolution. One might think there is an immediate affinity between Vygotsky and the techno-centric accounts of Leroi-Gourhan and Stiegler. Following Leroi-Gourhan, Stiegler argues that \"technics\" is the main driver in the anthropogenic development of \"reflective consciousness.\" Vygotsky likewise claims that \"psychological tools\" are responsible for the development of uniquely human forms of consciousness. However, closer inspection reveals deep disparities between Vygotsky and the French thinkers. In Stiegler's philosophical redeployment of Leroi-Gourhan's anthropology, \"reflective\" cognition is the product of a prehistorical rupture in which some threshold of technical-cortical complexification is breached. For Vygotsky, on the other hand, the inverse scenario obtains. Technical development initially proceeds in tandem with the complexification of biologically based signaling behavior until the introduction of signs, which then radically restructure the cognitive apparatus. Due to inconsistencies regarding the equivalency of the technical and semiotic in Stiegler and Leroi-Gourhan, I advance a Vygotskian account where anthropogenesis is the result of semiotic rather than technical intervention. This aims to establish Vygotsky's \"Cultural Historical\" approach, and the Marxian-dialectical tradition from which he draws, as not only presaging recent naturalistic accounts of development, but offering a relevant theoretical program that may continue to inspire contemporary enculturated accounts of anthropogenesis.</p>","PeriodicalId":56308,"journal":{"name":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Technics and signs: anthropogenesis in Vygotsky, Leroi-Gourhan, and Stiegler.\",\"authors\":\"Chris Drain\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40656-022-00539-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This paper reconstructs L.S. Vygotsky's account of anthropogenesis with respect to the work of anthropologist André Leroi-Gourhan and late philosopher Bernard Stiegler, situating Vygotsky as a forerunner to recent theories that posit cultural scaffolding and niche construction as the main drivers of human cognitive evolution. One might think there is an immediate affinity between Vygotsky and the techno-centric accounts of Leroi-Gourhan and Stiegler. Following Leroi-Gourhan, Stiegler argues that \\\"technics\\\" is the main driver in the anthropogenic development of \\\"reflective consciousness.\\\" Vygotsky likewise claims that \\\"psychological tools\\\" are responsible for the development of uniquely human forms of consciousness. However, closer inspection reveals deep disparities between Vygotsky and the French thinkers. In Stiegler's philosophical redeployment of Leroi-Gourhan's anthropology, \\\"reflective\\\" cognition is the product of a prehistorical rupture in which some threshold of technical-cortical complexification is breached. For Vygotsky, on the other hand, the inverse scenario obtains. Technical development initially proceeds in tandem with the complexification of biologically based signaling behavior until the introduction of signs, which then radically restructure the cognitive apparatus. Due to inconsistencies regarding the equivalency of the technical and semiotic in Stiegler and Leroi-Gourhan, I advance a Vygotskian account where anthropogenesis is the result of semiotic rather than technical intervention. This aims to establish Vygotsky's \\\"Cultural Historical\\\" approach, and the Marxian-dialectical tradition from which he draws, as not only presaging recent naturalistic accounts of development, but offering a relevant theoretical program that may continue to inspire contemporary enculturated accounts of anthropogenesis.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56308,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-022-00539-2\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40656-022-00539-2","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY & PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

本文结合人类学家安德烈·勒罗伊-古尔汉和已故哲学家伯纳德·斯蒂格勒的研究成果,重构了维果茨基关于人类发生的理论,将维果茨基定位为最近一些理论的先驱,这些理论认为文化脚手架和生态位构建是人类认知进化的主要驱动力。有人可能会认为维果茨基与勒罗伊-古尔汉和斯蒂格勒以技术为中心的叙述之间有着直接的联系。继勒罗伊-古尔汉之后,斯蒂格勒认为,“技术”是“反思意识”人为发展的主要驱动力。维果茨基同样声称,“心理工具”对人类独特意识形式的发展负有责任。然而,仔细观察就会发现维果茨基与法国思想家之间存在着深刻的差异。在斯蒂格勒对勒罗伊-古尔汉人类学的哲学重新部署中,“反思性”认知是一种史前断裂的产物,在这种断裂中,某些技术-皮层复杂化的门槛被打破了。另一方面,对维果茨基来说,情况正好相反。技术发展最初是与基于生物学的信号行为的复杂化同步进行的,直到符号的引入,然后从根本上重构了认知装置。由于斯蒂格勒和勒罗伊-古尔汉在技术和符号学的等同性方面的不一致,我提出了一个维果茨基式的解释,其中人类的发生是符号学而不是技术干预的结果。其目的是建立维果茨基的“文化历史”方法,以及他从中汲取的马克思主义-辩证传统,不仅预示了最近的自然主义发展描述,而且提供了一个相关的理论程序,可以继续启发当代人类形成的文化描述。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Technics and signs: anthropogenesis in Vygotsky, Leroi-Gourhan, and Stiegler.

This paper reconstructs L.S. Vygotsky's account of anthropogenesis with respect to the work of anthropologist André Leroi-Gourhan and late philosopher Bernard Stiegler, situating Vygotsky as a forerunner to recent theories that posit cultural scaffolding and niche construction as the main drivers of human cognitive evolution. One might think there is an immediate affinity between Vygotsky and the techno-centric accounts of Leroi-Gourhan and Stiegler. Following Leroi-Gourhan, Stiegler argues that "technics" is the main driver in the anthropogenic development of "reflective consciousness." Vygotsky likewise claims that "psychological tools" are responsible for the development of uniquely human forms of consciousness. However, closer inspection reveals deep disparities between Vygotsky and the French thinkers. In Stiegler's philosophical redeployment of Leroi-Gourhan's anthropology, "reflective" cognition is the product of a prehistorical rupture in which some threshold of technical-cortical complexification is breached. For Vygotsky, on the other hand, the inverse scenario obtains. Technical development initially proceeds in tandem with the complexification of biologically based signaling behavior until the introduction of signs, which then radically restructure the cognitive apparatus. Due to inconsistencies regarding the equivalency of the technical and semiotic in Stiegler and Leroi-Gourhan, I advance a Vygotskian account where anthropogenesis is the result of semiotic rather than technical intervention. This aims to establish Vygotsky's "Cultural Historical" approach, and the Marxian-dialectical tradition from which he draws, as not only presaging recent naturalistic accounts of development, but offering a relevant theoretical program that may continue to inspire contemporary enculturated accounts of anthropogenesis.

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
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences
History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 综合性期刊-科学史与科学哲学
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.00%
发文量
58
期刊介绍: History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences is an interdisciplinary journal committed to providing an integrative approach to understanding the life sciences. It welcomes submissions from historians, philosophers, biologists, physicians, ethicists and scholars in the social studies of science. Contributors are expected to offer broad and interdisciplinary perspectives on the development of biology, biomedicine and related fields, especially as these perspectives illuminate the foundations, development, and/or implications of scientific practices and related developments. Submissions which are collaborative and feature different disciplinary approaches are especially encouraged, as are submissions written by senior and junior scholars (including graduate students).
期刊最新文献
Controlling systems and controlling legacies: Barbara McClintock’s 1961 conversation with two bacterial geneticists Constraint-based reasoning in cell biology: on the explanatory role of context. A history of childhood schizophrenia and lessons for autism. The life sciences and the history of analytic philosophy. States of Resistance: nosocomial and environmental approaches to antimicrobial resistance in Lebanon.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1