I’m beginning to write a chapter on the state of Critical Psychology for a Chinese journal and I’ve spent a few hours flipping through writings, both mine and colleagues of mine. It’s part of how I create an environment for having a new thought, for allowing others (including myself!) inspire me. One of  the things I re-read was a piece I wrote in 2005 for a book of narratives by psychologists about their life and work. (There’s some interesting lives in the volume, so you might want to check it out:  Yancy, G. and Hadley, S. (Eds.), (2005) Narrative identities: Psychologists engaged in self-construction. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.) One part of the essay did spark an idea for something I want to address in the new article I’m writing. I want to explore the distinction between Critical Psychology as an academic subject and critical psychology as a daily practice anyone can engage in. Over the last decade, from what I see and experience, the distinction is blurring some, and that’s a good thing. Here’s the excerpt. (If you want to read the entire essay, it’s called Performing a Life (Story).

“Hi, my name is Lois Holzman. I teach psychology. I’m out here today because I think it’s so important to support young people doing something positive for their communities. That’s what the All Stars Talent Show Network, a city wide anti-violence program, is. I’m talking to people like you and asking you to support the young people of the All Stars by giving a dollar or 5 dollars or 25 dollars.”

This was the “R and D” for what became known in the activist community of which my work is a part as “the street performance.” Like all the programs my colleagues and I created, the All Stars Talent Show Network was built by volunteers like me reaching out to ordinary people—for financial support, for participants, for audiences, for fellow builders. For years we had gone door to door in city apartment houses and suburban homes. Now the idea was to talk a little bit to a lot of people. We created a 45 second “rap” that could stop and engage passersby on NYC’s busy street corners. Five or six of us set up a literature table as home base, fanned out a bit into the crowd, made eye contact with someone and delivered our personal versions of the rap. Those who were interested we would speak with in more depth at another time. (We invited people to give us their names and phone numbers so we could call them back, give them an update and ask them to contribute more. Many, many did.)

Of all the research I’ve done, this is the project I’m most proud of. Today the All Stars not only continues to reach tens of thousands of New York City kids, but through its expansion to cities up and down the east and west coasts, thousands more are participating. My involvement with this extraordinary youth development/supplemental education project is many-faceted (some of them more psychological in the traditional sense), but to have contributed in this way is very special to me.

How was it that I and artists, actors, social workers, teachers, doctors and secretaries could do this? We could and did by performing as other than who we were. We created the “stage” upon which we could perform bold and friendly and outgoing and proud of what we were doing, rather than behaving shy and intimidated and embarrassed. And in doing so, we became bold and friendly and outgoing and proud.

This kind of grassroots fundraising is essential if you’ve decided to be independent from government, university and corporate funding (as all the projects I’m involved in are). But it’s more than just a way to raise money. It’s community organizing. It’s relationship building. It’s giving people the opportunity to do something small. It’s allowing them to be touched and to be giving, if they choose. It’s finding out what people think. It’s discovering that they care. For about twenty years I regularly talked in this way to people on the street and at their doors, as a community organizer who happens to be a psychologist. It’s an antidote to cynicism.

Gita Vygodskaya (Lev Vygotsky’s daughter) died on July 13. She was in her mid-80s. I and so many Vygotskians around the world will miss her wonderful stories, her warmth and sparkle, and the joy she took in meeting people the world over whose work was inspired by her father’s writings.

Gita was nine years-old when her father died at age 37 in 1934. His works were then banned by Stalin and   his widow and two daughters kept the manuscripts safe under their beds in their apartment in Moscow for years. When her mother died, Gita took charge of keeping the  manuscripts safe and getting a volume of them finally published in 1956. Over the next two decades she worked, along with some of Vygotsky’s students, to turn the manuscripts into six volumes of his works published in Russia in the 1980s. She received her  doctorate in psychology from Moscow University in 1959 and worked with deaf children for many years.

I first met Gita in Moscow in 1993 when she invited me to visit her in her apartment. She shared memorabilia and stories of her childhood with her father, something she continued doing with people until her final days. The next year, I and the East Side Institute brought her to the US for her first ever visit to visit with our community, visit the Vygotskian school we were running at the time (Barbara Taylor School) and give a conference presentation.  Over the years, Gita and I saw each other a few more times. Our last visit was this past November at the home outside of Moscow she shared with her daughter, son-in-law and their family. With friends Carrie Lobman, Elina Lampert-Shepel and Dot Robbins, I spent a memorable and lovely night there.

Anyone who knows me and/or visits this site knows I’m an avid supporter of the All Stars Project and have been since it began some decades ago. The All Stars’ program are exquisite applications of the social therapeutic approach to human development because they are uniquely suited to the conditions that young people—especially those who are poor or “of color”—face today. So it was a special honor to be recognized this week at the All Stars Project’s National Gala Benefit, “Out of Crisis: Helping the World’s Youth to Grow.”

At the Lincoln Center event (which raised $3 million), I was given the All Stars Ambassador for Development award  by All Stars’ Board Chair Rich Sokolow and Dr. Elouise Joseph, youth programs manager for the Bay area All Stars and a member of the team I led in March bringing the All Stars’ approach to play to teachers in China.

What made the honor even more meaningful was that it was followed by the 2010 Bridge Building Awards for Leadership in Community Relations, presented to five countries for their exemplary leadership in providing aid to Haiti in the aftermath of January’s devastating earthquake.  All Stars’ youth leaders presented the awards to: Ambassador Osmar V. Chohfi, Consul General of Brazil in New York;  John McNab, Deputy Consul General of Canada in New York; Ambassador Pedro Núñez Mosquera, Permanent Representative of Cuba to the United Nations; Philippe Lalliot, Consul General of France in New York and Asaf Shariv, Consul General of Israel in New York. And Haiti’s Consul General in New York, Felix Augustin, accepted them. It was an honor to be in such company.

I ended 2009 with two adventures—one in Russia and the other in Serbia. Two different trips, two different countries, two different organizing milieus—connected in our collective histories with each other and with Vygotsky.

I spent a week in Moscow and its surrounds, mostly at the 10th Annual Vygotsky Memorial Conference, organized by psychologist Elena Kravtsova of the Vygotsky Institute of Psychology at the Russia State University for the Humanities and aided immeasurably by Dot Robbins. For many years, Elena has been implementing the ideas of  her grandfather Lev Vygotsky in creative and significant ways in schools and university training, along with her husband Gennady Kravtsov.  (They were featured  at a conference on Vygotsky and Culture that I and the late Leslie Williams of Teachers College Columbia University convened in 1997; a chapter in my book, Schools for Growth, is devoted to one aspect of their work, based on first-hand experience in the late 90s.)

The conference offered a lot: a chance to experience first-hand several voices of Russian non-classical/Vygotskian psychology; the fun and challenge of leading a performatory workshop for more than 100 Russian university students with my dear  colleague Carrie Lobman; the privilege of  delivering a plenary address with the incomparable translation of another dear colleague Elina Lampert-Shepel; being reunited with Gita Vygodskaya after after nearly a decade (in addition to being together in Moscow and parts of Europe a few times, I and the Institute hosted Gita’s first ever visit to the US in the mid-1990s); and walking, talking with and learning from many of the other participants.

What I offered was a “Vygotsky without truth” — by which I meant the work of the Institute and its broader performance and development community.  I shared some of the theory/practice of truthless therapy and truthless developmental learning in and outside of schools, where it has come from, and how I understand it to be a worthwhile pursuit in the current social-cultural-political climate.

I think that the talk was challenging. For one thing, it didn’t do what many talks (not just at this conference but in most academic and intellectual contexts) do, which is to focus on what Vygotsky meant by something he wrote and make the argument for the correctness of that interpretation (“the truth”). I actually love following the train of thought of such speakers and authors and admire their smarts. It’s just not what I chose—or choose—to do. For another, putting “Vygotsky” and “therapy” together in the same sentence was completely new to the majority of the audience and, understandably, it took awhile for them to wrap their heads around it. It was fascinating and gratifying to me that it was the Russian psychologists who caught a glimpse of the newness and potential of our social therapeutic approach to emotionality and were the most eager to pursue the topic. The conversation continues!

I returned home for about two weeks and then traveled to Serbia, something I’ve been doing nearly every year since 1998. I go at the invitation of Zdravo da Ste (“Hi Neighbor”) to participate in their annual meeting. Zdravo da Ste is a unique organization initiated by volunteer developmental psychologists in 1992 originally to provide support to refugees—its work is Vygotskian based and delightfully focused on play, creativity and performance in all of their programs. Each year, guests like myself create a panel discussion and lead workshops on the theme chosen by the organization (this year it was play and development). Others who have become regular participants are Volker Bunzendahl (Denmark), Lina Kostarova-Unkovska (Macedonia), Paul Murray (UK and Serbia), Thomas Sorensen (Denmark), and Leif Strandberg (Sweden)—we were joined this year by Tim Prentki (UK). We’re an odd lot—academically trained (and somewhat academically located, on the fringe) practitioners and researchers who persist in creating environments for play, and who love to theorize about it too.

At the annual meeting (which took place in Golubac, a village in northeast Serbia) and again in Belgrade, Zdravo da Ste hosted a book launch for the Serbian edition of Let’s Develop! A Guide to Continuous Personal Growth, by Fred Newman (Institute co-founder, colleague, friend and mentor). A popular seller in English since 1994, the translation and publication came about through the efforts of  Zdravo da Ste psychologists (Vesna Ognjenovic and Bojana Skorc in particular), along with publisher Dragan Stojkovic and MOSTART.

Thus completed a year of travels, rich with new performances for me and others in our modest efforts to help the world develop. Here are some slides of some of the people and places I visited and people I worked and played with. It is great privilege to be building these relationships with colleagues who playfully and passionately resist “the tyranny of the normal.”

Quite a few readers have asked  to read the entire chapter I quoted from in my post, Could Developmental After School Eliminate the Need for Remediation?  So I’ve just added it to articles/chapters/talks (above). The title of the chapter is Without Creating ZPDs There is no Creativity

In a few weeks, I’ll begin working (and playing) with a new International Class—grass roots community activists and scholars who will gather at the East Side Institute for their first residency. Coming from different places and professions, they share a desire to change the world—and an eagerness to take advantage of the unique opportunity that the International Class offers them to create a global support network, to engage the philosophical, political and psychological issues of their practice, and to study and train as developmentalists with the creators of social therapeutic methodology.

At the same time as this new grouping is forming (it’s the sixth year of the program), recent grads continue to work together and support each other. Some of them composed letters/emails sharing their experiences of the Class and its impact on their work and lives. Before sending them to colleagues, they posted them to each other. For the past week or so they’ve been discussing how people in therapy are referred to in their different cultures, and engaging in a fascinating deconstruction of various terms. I asked their permission to post some of their conversation here (they said yes!).

The catalyst was part of the letter Lisa, alum from Brooklyn, NY, wrote:

During this time I also came into social therapy as a patient. I had been in therapy before. Some of it was helpful. But for the most part it was focused on understanding myself—why I was the way I was, what was wrong with me, how to fix my problems. In social therapy the focus was on the group—on what and how I could create with other people in the process of building the group. Social therapy didn’t fix me or take away my craziness, but it helped me build relationships and create my life without being overdetermined by my craziness and my problems.

When they read Lisa’s letter (which they liked overall), some alum questioned the word “patient.”

Peter, in Uganda, commented:

Hi everyone,

Great to read from everyone. I really have enjoyed your writings, thank you.

Lisa, thank you for that piece, I think it’s great. However, I wanted to comment on the word “Patient” as used in the 2nd paragraph. ”… having been a patient for a number of years…..”

Since you have not sent it to the people you don’t know yet, I thought we could change that to another word, though I really don’t know the best word to use, probably “Client”, but I am not sure. Maybe I can invite the group/Lois to comment on it. Otherwise, it’s great.

Lisa responded:

I am open to changing the word “patient,” but I am curious to know more about why you think it would be a good idea and also what everyone else thinks.

One of the things that I think is revolutionary about social therapy is the concept that the “patient” is not a vulnerable, passive, stigmatized person but rather a powerful, active agent in changing his or her life and the world. Or to put it another way, in creating his/her group/therapy. That’s why I am inclined to use/challenge that word. But I could also say “client” or “member of a social therapy group.” Thoughts?

The conversation continued.

From Esben, in Denmark:

I had the same response as you, Lisa – I like the word patient because it’s somewhat of a joke, in the sense that it does not refer to the conventional meaning of patient as passive vulnerable recipient/victim – however, I don’t know if you should make the point clearer, i.e. that in social therapy the patient is “a powerful, active agent in changing his or her life and the world. Or to put it another way, in creating his/her group/therapy.”. I do think using the term patient in this way does help to deconstruct and destigmatize the ‘role’ of patient.

I also just wanted to note that I feel so privileged every time I discover an email from my international friends and colleagues – we’re quite a task force ;o)

Hugs,

From Simon, in Canada:

Hi All,

Regarding the use of the word patient: At first, I thought that the use of the word was just fine; however, when the word was singled out for discussion, I started to think how I dislike the word client, but it also serves a function, just like the word patient, right? Nevertheless, technically, I now wonder if Lisa was ever a patient or was she more like a client? I mean to say that this all seems to be an interesting language game or a real good “joke” (as Esben says). I am not sure Lisa was a patient when I think about - I mean, will the readers get what Lisa is doing linguistically? Well, I would like to think some will. I come to “understand” a patient to be one who has simply received medical treatment; so, the question for me is, has Lisa ”undergone” and is “undergoing” or ”involved in” a psycho-therapy treatment, which would be considered to be providing medical treatment? In North America and many other places in the world, a client is a person taking advice from an attorney, accountant, or another professional person – and in this case, what arises for me is the idea of professionalism and what is a professional? A therapist seem to me to be a professional – so is Lisa a client – does Lisa take advice and does the therapist really give advice? or does the relationship consist of something more allusive . . . is it a unquantifiable exchange or more to the point, is it not a building of community, which is so much more complicated than the capitalistic client-customer-patient model can address? In other words, the relationship between the therapist and Lisa – found within the context of social therapy - is unclear to me actually – the line of client and/or patient seems to me to be blurred, not just because money exchanges hands, which makes Lisa a customer . . . a client . . . a buyer of mental goods (however you want to describe it); but more importantly, if the patient, as a concept “is to be understood as vulnerable, passive, stigmatized person, rather than a powerful, active agent in changing his or her life”. . . I agree with those that have suggested that as long as the point is made clear – as I believe Lisa has done – that Lisa’s idea of being a patient is her “becoming a powerful, active agent in creating her group/therapy,” which is in turn, allows her to create developmental possibilities – WELL, so be it – in this case, if it is good for her, it is good for me.

It was Fun playing with you all Thank you for the opportunity – what a wonderful debate :-)

From Ishita, in India:

Dear Friends

This reminds me of the debate going on worldwide to change the term Schizophrenia. But changing the name does not always change its impact. We need to change people’s outlook, transform the perception of the community towards people suffering from mental illness. Any person can be a patient any time (either suffering from physical or mental illness), so to me patient is a state of human being at particular time and place and not a description of the human being at all.

But we in our center use the term beneficiaries.

Love to all

From Prativa, in India:

I feel that in general the term “Patient” itself refers to a sick person either physical or mental. As we have seen in social therapy sessions, each member of the group is creating an environment for emotional development where they are trying to overcome stigma related to the terms “patient” and “illness.” Lisa, you are also too bold in your expression that I could not match the term patient with you. But I appreciate your revolutionary thought and attempt in using the term “patient.”

From Peter, in Uganda:

Wow, this turns into an interesting conversation, thanks for everyone’s contribution and I feel they are all great.

I commented about the word “Patient” in the context that we (the group) are trying to invite people (both that we know and we don’t know) to learn about Social Therapy and the International Class. And it’s the reason I said to Lisa that it was good she had not sent it out to the people she doesn’t know.

This was because, echoing Prativa’s word that the term “Patient” refers to a sick person, it’s quite easy for one to exonerate/excuse themselves that they are not patients (sick) to join social therapy. But believe me or not, so many people out there, (we are all) either mentally, physically or emotionally “sick”, but they (we) don’t want to believe or accept the fact that they (we) are sick.

Quoting Ishita’s words too (by the way, thank you Ishita for your wonderful contributions), that “we need to change people’s outlook, transform the perception of the community towards people suffering from mental illness,” is another example to show that people don’t want to associate themselves to “illness.” ?I may agree with Lisa when she says, “A patient” is not a vulnerable, passive, stigmatized person but rather a powerful, active agent in changing his or her life and the world, but for any person to understand that, they need to first join and learn/understand what social therapy is all about and to whom it is intended.

Maybe if we may ask Ishita why do you (at your center) use the term “Beneficiaries” to mean “Patients”? probably it will also help us to understand more why we may or may not use the word “Patient.”

From Ishita, in India:

I am enjoying our group discussion.

These are all mainly game of language. But it has some inner meaning too. I think when you are going to a doctor, teacher, lawyer, you expect to be benefited from these professionals. So we use the term beneficiaries who are coming to our center for that particular time for getting some benefit in their life which may be due to some reason they cannot do on their own. Peter, I agree with you as people often refuse to accept themselves as patient when suffering from mental illness, but in the case of chronic schizophrenia or other problems we have seen people prefer to remain in that state as it appears to them a comfortable situation where they need not be active, face challenges of life and think, “I cannot do that because I am a patient.” They do not want to change their performance and they play the same old role day in and day out.

Popular books, especially if they relate to current events, get reviewed  as soon as they are published—and sometimes before. Not so academic books. Alas, it’s typically a year before a review appears in print. So I was pleasantly surprised today to find an email in my inbox from Routledge’s marketing department with two reviews of my book Vygotsky at Work and Play.

One appears in the August 2009 The Psychologist, a journal of the British Psychological Association. The reviewer, Tania Heap from the Open University, seemed to me to “get” the book and was completely engaged by it being a  first person account. I was happy with her concluding words: “Anyone who has in interest in human learning and development should have this original piece of work on their shelves.”

The other review, by organizational psychologist Stephanie L. Brooke, appears in the American Psychological Association’s monthly review of books (online PsycCritiques/Contemporary Psychology) also in August 2009. This review is a rather lengthy and straightforward summary of the contents of the book. This reviewer is clearly more conflicted about the personal style, commenting that “Although subjective, the work is well thought out and well referenced.” Question: When did subjectivity and thinking become opposites?

I’ll keep you posted. Meanwhile, feel free to write a review!!!!

I’ll keep you posted!

“It is not only a Vygotskian atmosphere where professionals share different backgrounds, but a zone where you may improve your human skills and to help others to perform a better world.” –Ignacio Dalton, educational researcher, Buenos Aires Argentina

“The class has been such a wonderful support system, helping me to deepen my consultancy with the youth and staff I work with in non-profit organizations.  The group has inspired me to be more creative in my work, to take more risks, and to build more.  It has been an honor to be part of such a group that is dedicated to human development, even when life, social, and political circumstances challenge us.”–Kim Sabo Flores, evaluation consultant, Brooklyn NY

“The International Class has made me learn to challenge some of my old beliefs and to peel off the rigid self image that we all try to portray in our life. The cultural and economic differences of all the countries of the student has made us get an even broader viewpoint on all the topics which were discussed.”–Ishita Sanyal, psychologist, Calcutta India

The International Class is a course of study in postmodern and activity-theoretic approaches to human development and learning. Emphasis is on social therapeutics, a methodology utilized in diverse mental health, educational, youth development and community organizing settings in the US and internationally.

I began this program in the fall of 2003 and I lead it with a great faculty. We provide a unique opportunity for practitioners and scholars from the US and countries around the world to study together, learn the Institute’s cutting edge developmental methodology, and build ties and support for themselves and their communities.

A creative playground and postmodern academy, participants create a dynamic zone of development in which they can engage the philosophical, political and psychological questions emerging from their practice.

The ten-month program combines residencies in New York City and seminars, supervision and project development sessions conducted online. Students come together to work with Institute faculty and others in the broader development community and advance their programs and research.

Residencies. The International Class meets at the Institute three times during the academic year (two six-day and one twelve-day residency period) to work together as a group with Institute faculty and associates. Site visits, observations, participant observations and experiential learning activities supplement daily seminar activity.

At Home. In between residencies, students study the social therapeutic method in relation to socio-cultural activity theory, theories of performance, postmodernism, group process and community development. Learning formats include on-line seminars, mentoring, dialogues with guest colleagues of the Institute, supervision and conference calls with faculty and mentors.

The International Class is cross-disciplinary and open to practitioners and scholars with a broad range of educational and life experiences—and a passion for innovation. Applications for the 2009-2010 program will be accepted through July 2009. Tuition is $3200. A limited number of full and partial scholarships are available.

For more information, including dates, applications and scholarship forms, contact me! To read more about the program, go to http://www.eastsideinstitute.org/internationalclass/index.html

I’ve been making a series of presentations in recent months around New York City and I’ve thoroughly enjoyed speaking with diverse audiences of undergraduates, graduate students, faculty and staffs at universities, conferences and human service organizations. The topics of my talks have varied—”Play is the Thing,” “Learning in Groups,” “Language Learning as Vygotskian Performance”—and the conversations have taken many different directions. But they are all relate to certain concepts of Vygotsky’s that have intrigued and inspired me for a long, long time.  I try to capture these concepts with quotes from Vygotsky’s writings. What do you think? Do they resonate with you? Intrigue? Inspire?

“The search for method becomes one of the most important problems of the entire enterprise of understanding the uniquely human forms of psychological activity. In this case, the method is simultaneously prerequisite and product, the tool and the result of the study.” (Mind in Society, 1978, p. 65)

“In play a child always behaves beyond his average age, above his daily behavior; in play it is as though he were a head taller than himself.” (Mind in Society, 1978, p. 102). 

“The development of a corresponding concept is not completed but only beginning at the moment a new word is learned. The new word is not the culmination but the beginning of the development of a concept. Here, as everywhere, the development of the meaningful aspect of speech turns out to be the basic and decisive process in the development of the child’s thinking and speech.” (Thinking and Speech, 1987, p. 241)

“The relationship of thought to word is not a thing but a process, a movement from thought to word and from word to thought … Thought is not expressed but completed in the word. We can, therefore, speak of the establishment (i.e., the unity of being and nonbeing) of thought in the word … The structure of speech is not simply the mirror image of the structure of thought. It cannot, therefore, be placed on thought like clothes off a rack. Speech does not merely serve as the expression of developed thought. Thought is restructured as it is transformed into speech. It is not expressed but completed in the word.” (Thinking and Speech, 1987, p. 250-1)

I am compelled to comment on this last quote, because it is so provocative and evocative! Here’s what my colleague Fred Newman and I think about its implications: If speaking is the completing of thinking, if the process is continuously creative in socio-cultural space (that is, if mind is in society), then it follows that the “completer” does not have to be the one who is doing the thinking. Others can complete for us. In doing so, they are no more saying what we are thinking than we are saying what we are thinking when we complete ourselves. This implication is key to our understanding of emotional growth in social therapeutics.

I am happy to report that a new documentary film, Lev Vygotsky: One Man’s Legacy through his Life and Theory, is being released this month. The filmmaker is Valerie Lowe who, in addition to making films, is an adult educator, corporate consultant and staff trainer in British Columbia — and a completely lovely person. I got to know Val when she was just beginning this project a few years ago and have been following its development. 

I also got  pre-release glimpses of the film this past fall when Val showed segments at the ISCAR (International Society for Cultural Activity Research) conference in San Diego and the Performing the World 2008 (PTW’08) conference in New York City. The film uniquely combines the political-cultural history of Vygotsky’s life with illustrations of contemporary Vygotskian practices in several countries, and is comprised of interviews with Vygotsky family members Gita L. Vygodskaya and Elena Kravtzova, photographs, archival footage, and commentaries by contemporary Vygotksian scholars, Michael Cole, Lois Holzman, Vera John-Steiner, Alex Kozulin, Tamara Lifanova, Luciano Mecacci, and James Wertsch. You can view sections of the film at the website media page. (You can see about 5 seconds of me in one of them.)

It was a  privilege to have been included in “Lev Vygotsky” and, even more, to have been able to introduce Val and viewers to the some extraordinary Vygotskian practitioners.

Some colleagues and I are now planning a New York premiere of the film to take place in March or April. Watch for the announcement!