THEORETICAL-METHODOLOGICAL ASSUMPTIONS OF SOCIAL-HISTORICAL PSYCHOLOGY FOR RESEARCH IN EDUCATIONABSTRACT
This article aims to present to the reader, who begins his journey in the educational research field, in general and specifically, in research in School and Educational Psychology, the essential foundations of the study and research in education based on historical-dialectical materialism and in social-historical psychology. These foundations are essential for the knowledge and explanation of social reality and the human individual, in their multiple determinations. Historical-dialectical materialism and social-historical Psychology are presented as a theoretical-methodological framework necessary for understanding concrete reality. Through theoretical study, it presents a synthesis of the categories understood as fundamental for research in education in the social-historical Psychology approach. This approach has an important contribution, which is the theoretical-methodological confrontation of individualizing, naturalizing, pathologizing perspectives, which hide the social character of the contradictions that constitute the individual and social phenomena.
Keywords:
subjectivity; meaning; educational research; education; social psychology - history
RESUMO
Este artigo tem como objetivo apresentar ao leitor, que inicia seu percurso no campo da pesquisa educacional, em geral e em específico, na pesquisa em Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, os fundamentos essenciais do estudo e da pesquisa em educação fundamentada no materialismo histórico-dialético e na Psicologia sócio-histórica. Esses fundamentos são imprescindíveis para o conhecimento e explicação da realidade social e do indivíduo humano, em sua múltipla determinação. O materialismo histórico-dialético e a Psicologia sócio-histórica são apresentados como arcabouço teórico-metodológico necessário à apreensão da realidade concreta. Por meio de estudo teórico, apresenta uma síntese das categorias entendidas como fundamentais para a pesquisa em educação na abordagem da Psicologia sócio-histórica. Essa abordagem tem uma importante contribuição, que é o enfrentamento teórico-metodológico das perspectivas individualizantes, naturalizantes, patologizantes, que ocultam o caráter social das contradições que constituem o indivíduo e os fenômenos sociais.
Palavras-chave:
subjetividade; significado; pesquisa educacional; educação; psicologia social - história
RESUMEN
En este artículo se tiene como objetivo presentar al lector, que inicia su recorrido en el campo de la investigación educacional, en general y, en específico, en la investigación en Psicología educacional y escolar, los fundamentos esenciales del estudio y de la investigación en educación fundamentada en el materialismo histórico-dialéctico y en la Psicología sociohistórico. Esses fundamentos son imprescindibles para el conocimiento y explicación de la realidad social y del individuo humano, en su múltiple determinación. El materialismo histórico-dialéctico y la Psicología sociohistórica son presentados como estructura teórico-metodológico necesario a la aprensión de la realidad concreta. Por intermedio de estudio teórico, presenta una síntesis de las categorías entendidas como fundamentales para la investigación en educación en el abordaje de la Psicología sociohistórica. Ese abordaje tiene una importante contribución, que es el enfrentamiento teórico-metodológico de las perspectivas individualizantes, naturalizantes, patologizantes, que ocultan el carácter social de las contradicciones que constituyen el individuo y los fenómenos sociales.
Palabras clave:
subjetividad; significado; pesquisa educacional; educación; psicología social - historia
INTRODUCTION
Education, as an activity by means of which humans support and amplify the cultural-historical basis of production of science, of arts, of humanities, and of all derivative areas, according to Vigotski (1996, 1930/2004) and Patto (1999), also constitutes a field for scientific production and debate on the specific processes that make it and its history (Lukács, 1971; Patto, 1999; Bock, 1999).
Alfredo (2013), based on Vigotski (1996), defends the importance of theoretical-methodological care, from outlining the object of the study up to the conclusions on possible contributions to the field of educational research, and highlights what converts a fact into a scientific object and affirms that “researchers, both in the field of psychology and in the field of pedagogy, still find themselves in a so-called theoretical cul-de-sac” (Alfredo, 2013, p. 25), in view of the accumulation of productions that restrict themselves to the description of the fact, without an explanation of the social-historical notions that exist in the process that constitute it. The promotion of the production of theoretical-methodological debates in the field of educational research, and in the field of school and education psychology might contribute to the achievement of the purpose of finding what can be considered the way out of this theoretical cul-de-sac.
In this article, in view of the possibility of contributing to the historical movement of academic-scientific production in the field of Education in general, and more specifically, in the field of research in School and Education Psychology, there is an explanation of the theoretical-methodological assumptions, while highlighting its roots in the works of Lev S. Vigotski (1896-1934) and his collaborators, Alexander R. Luria (1902-1977) and Alexis N. Leontiev (1903-1979), who, in turn, were based on the dialectical-historical materialism proposed by Marx (1818-1883) and Engels (1920-1895).
The appropriation of these theoretical-methodological foundations is not an easy process for beginner researchers and scholars, who take on the task of understanding and comprehension of educational phenomena, considering their materiality, procedures, dialectical nature, and their relation with social-historical totality. Quite often, research works that show theoretical affiliation to the foundations of dialectical-historical materialism and of social-historical Psychology are based on the fragile support of the method in question, and often result in an idealistic production, based on formal logic, without showing its connections with social-historical totality.
The experiences of the authors of this article, in teaching and in research, mediated by the historical-dialectical materialistic method and social-historical psychology, more specifically regarding the production of the doctoring thesis of one of the authors, led to the production of this theoretical study, which aims at introducing to readers the fundamental elements for research in Education, and in School and Education Psychology, which intends to be based on historical-dialectical materialism and on social-historical psychology, explaining categories, considered “ways of being, determinations of existence” (Marx, 2011, p. 59) indispensable for knowledge and for explaining reality, in its multiple determination.
THE HISTORICAL-DIALECTICAL MATERIALISTIC METHOD
In the historical trajectory of scientific development, issues regarding the possibility of knowledge, its form and its content and the relation between the object to be known and the one who knows it, configure themselves as fundamental matters, both for Philosophy and for science. It is understood that the answers to these issues might constitute themselves as theoretical assumptions in the process of investigation of the social phenomenon that we intend to get to know, in this case, the ones who belong to the field of Education, and of School and Education Psychology.
The matters that drive philosophy and science, promoting possibilities to understand and rationally explain nature, as well as social phenomena, according to historical-dialectical materialism, were produced by means of social-historical settings that are determinant for knowing reality, based on the material necessities of human beings at every historical moment. The history of scientific knowledge expresses the material conditions of a certain moment (Andery et al., 2014).
The production of ideas, of representations and of conscience are first and foremost directly and indirectly linked to material activity and to the material commerce of men; it is the language of real life [...]. Conscience does not determine life, life determines conscience. (Marx & Engels, 2007, pp. 25-26).
However, philosophy and science have not always affirmed the primacy of material life. In fact, the answers to epistemological questions were based on two fields of epistemic production: materialism and idealism. Therefore, we must demonstrate the epistemological bases for the sake of rigorousness in the production of knowledge of reality, which is a responsibility of researchers, that is, the theoretical-methodological assumptions that support its conception of human beings, of society, and of the very possibility of knowledge.
In general terms, the synthesis produced by Novack (2015, pp. 32-33) characterizes the materialistic perspective of knowledge. According to the author:
a) The basic proposition of materialism refers to the existence of reality, regardless of the existence of humanity. It refers to the primordial substance, the essence of reality. The phrase, “mother nature” expresses this thought. This means, in materialistic terms, that nature is the ultimate source of everything in the universe, from intergalactic terms to the most intimate and audacious thought by homo sapiens; b) The aspect of materialism refers to the relations between matter and thought. (...) matter produces thought, and it never exists regardless of matter. Thought is the most elevated product of material development and animal organization. It is the most complex human activity; c) This means nature exists irrespective of thought, but thought cannot exist without matter. The material world already existed way before the beginning of humanity or any thinking being; d) thus, we can exclude the existence of some god, or gods, spirits, ghosts, or any other immaterial entities, which supposedly drive the actions of nature, of society, and of man, or at least have influence over those. (Novack, 2015, pp. 32-33).
The implications of one form of knowledge of reality has ethical-political reverberations in social practice, because “the antagonisms that are present in each mode of production and the transformations from one mode of production into another will be transported into the scientific ideas elaborated by man.” (Andery et al., 2014, p. 13). Thus, it is possible to identify, in the history of philosophy and science, rupture points, which are intrinsically connected to the contradictions created by the mode of production of material life; thus, it is possible to affirm that: “one of the dialectical methods for explaining something consists of demonstrating how it relates with its opposite.” (Novack, 2015, p. 32).
It is possible to say that French Revolution and the industrial revolution produced important transformations and inaugurated what social theorists name modernity. The transition from the feudal system into capitalism did not happen linearly. It was rather created in the historical process of contradictions and emergence of a new political and economic class: the bourgeoisie. The ideals of liberty, equality, and fraternity did not make themselves effective in social practice. The contradictions of the process were hidden and denied with the support of production areas of emerging scientific knowledge that was important for the production and reproduction of bourgeoisie social life such as Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology.
Sociology, Anthropology, and Psychology constituted themselves by means of social historical conditions engineered by the new mode of economic production and, until recently, “[...] did not contest the dominant world view. The way they conceive legitimate social life of classes and its inherent social inequality.” (Patto, 1999, p. 35). We argue that it is indispensable to analyze critically the determinations of ahistorical, acritical scientific productions; and we in due course affirm the relevance of the analysis of epistemological affiliations.
With the consolidation of bourgeoisie society, materialism gains centrality and well-delimitated outline. Thus, in view of the fight against medievalism and the development of sciences, from the 16th to the 19th century, there was an intensification of the contradiction between idealism and materialism (Novack, 2015).
Science is not neutral, it’s historical. Its foundations need explaining in the middle of antagonistic relations of forces, which the material life of humans imposes as scientific knowledge. In this sense, it is necessary to overcome the conception for the sake of the possibility of explaining human beings regardless of the notions that reciprocally constitute them as well as the societies in which they live. It is a task of Psychology to produce concepts and theories that explain these constitutive notions (Bock, 1999).
There is a way, a method of investigation based on the materialistic assumption which is based on the primacy of matter over ideas. Objective reality does not exist because of human conscience. That is the reason why, “current materialism does not affirm that things are the way we perceive them, or that our immediate and banal representations coincide with what is real. In fact, materialism responds to what is real according to a law that is up to us to investigate.” (Lefebvre, 1975, p. 68).
Based on the principle of dialectics that the real is movement, how would it be possible for this reality to be apprehended by conscience without reifying it, that is, without crystalizing it by means of the principle of positivistic identity in which things are, which is contrary to the dialectic principle of the movement of matter, which affirms that things are being? Thus, it is necessary to find a way to reach the knowledge of reality, it is necessary to assume a premise and its methodological rigor.
Kosik (1976) affirms that the context of reality and the context of theory produce a pedagogical synthesis of the dialectic that is present in the process of appropriation of reality, based on the principle of the movement of matter, which leads to a first approximation for analysis of the phenomenon.
The materialistic theory distinguishes a double context for facts: the context of reality, in which things exist originally and primordially, and the context of theory, in which facts are secondary mediately ordinated after having previously been ripped off the original context of the real. How is it possible, however, to speak of the real context, in which facts exist primarily and originally, if such context can only be known by means of the mediation of facts that were ripped off the real context? Man cannot know the context of the real unless they are ripped off the facts of the context, isolating them and making them relatively independent. So here is the foundation of all knowledge: the split of the whole. [...] The absolutization of this activity of the method (and such activity is undeniable) leads to the idealistic illusion that thought creates the concrete, and that facts acquire a meaning and a signification only in the human mind. (Kosik, 1976, p. 57).
The affirmation of reality as movement presupposes a logic, that is, a form of organization of thought that is not delimitated exclusively by the principle of identity. Learning the movements of social phenomena means considering them in their totality, in their identity and in their negativity. However, “dialectic logic adds, according to the ancient logic, the caption of the transitions, of the movements of ‘internal and necessary connection’ of the part of the whole.” (Lefebvre, 1975, p. 21).
Logic as a way of thinking is neutral. However, when it is thought by means of object and content, it cannot be completely neutral, because it leads researchers to the consideration of social historical circumstances, on which object and content depend. Not even mathematics can be considered neutral, because it serves the determination of interests of class “when they enter social practice, when they serve the purposes of a pedagogy that moves towards certain people and not others etc.” (Lefebvre, 1975, p. 19).
The analysis by Marx and Engels (1844/2003) on the development of capitalism was the foundation of the dialectic-historical materialistic method; appropriating the history of Science and Philosophy, it questions the heuristic potential of the knowledge produced until that historical moment.
Concerning the undertaken method, Marx, in 1890, affirms that the investigation presupposes the appropriation of the thing that constitutes matter. According to its specifications, it means understanding and explaining the different forms of development that this matter manifests. Also, according to the author, in order to complete the analytical process it is necessary “to inquire whether the close connection between them can be mirrored, in the ideal plan, the life of the researched reality, which might produce the impression of a construction a priori.” (Marx, 1867/1996, p. 16.).
The process, which can be denominated apprehension of matter, does not happen immediately, that is, the real does not present itself in its phenomenon appearance, because “all science would be superfluous if phenomenon form and essence coincided directly.” (Marx, 1867/1996, p. 825). Therefore, it is necessary to highlight the ontological assumption that reality is immediately. Without the comprehension of the mediation category, it restricts itself to the description of the empirical, and to history and chronological facts. It is possible to affirm that the set of mediations is dialectically propelled towards what is left of the immediate in concrete reality by human activity. Thus, the immediate constitutes itself as a moment, a starting point for the process that must be radically investigated, producing explanations for all its elements.
Considering the ontological principle of the movement of mediation and of matter, as an essential property of the way of being, at a given moment of this constitutive movement of matter, it is possible to categorically affirm that reality is historical. The historicity of matter is, therefore, the general dialectic of things, because it leads to an understanding of the movement of phenomena, including the historical constitution of individuals. In this sense, it is a category my means of which individuals aim at understanding the constitutive processes of reality and of the study object, so that they can be understood not only as a simple chronological succession of facts in a random and/or ungoverned movement. Contrarily, the historical movement is determined by relations of dialectically articulated forces, which were molded in the course of the existence of such an object (Lukács, 1979).
The thing that moves reality is constituted by the constant struggle of contrary forces. In other words, things in reality only exist because their movement of historical constitution is also realized as its negation, how they are not. This apparent dichotomy is in fact the principle of the unit of contrary elements. The object of research, in a dialectic-historical perspective, must be explained in its positivity or negativity; therefore, and its contradictory character, because “if the real is contradictory, may our thought be aware of contradiction.” (Lefebvre, 1975, p. 174). So, the unity of contrary elements consists of ‘properties, aspects, and tendencies for objects and phenomena of nature, our society and our thought that exclude themselves and at the same time assume each other, that is, they do not exist without each other.” (Llanos, 1988, p. 208).
Without the help of Lukács (1979), it is possible to affirm that the apprehension of reality, as movement, can only be realized by means of the explanation of its constitutive determinations, that is, of the essential property of social beings in their phenomenon manifestation, which, can be investigated in its historicity by means of constitutive notions of the transitions of the development of the internal and necessary connections between the parts and the whole. Lefebvre (1975) emphasizes that a phenomenon can only be understood in its process quality if it is considered in the totality in which it is inserted.
So it is possible to assume the concrete totality as methodological principle, that is, it is not possible to know, and it’s radicality, a phenomenon in an isolated way without considering the intimate dialectic relation with other phenomena, which are somehow related to it and still constitute reality in a structured and dynamic way. Kosik (1976), warns us against the banality of considering totality, as if everything were in connection with thing and that all other things are just parts. This poses an epistemological problem: the idea that totality would be incomprehensible to human reason because human beings are not capable of knowing all facts. In view of this so-called theoretical cul-de-sac, it is possible to mystify and reify the totality category, emptying it of its radical content. Totality must be understood, according to Lukács in his statement to Abendroth, Holz and Kofler (1969, p. 136), as:
a complex and complex is that is extraordinarily rich and provided with two poles in reciprocal relation: on the one hand the totality of society, which in a last analysis determines the reciprocal action of the singular complexes; on the other hand, the complex constituted by human individuals, which forms the reducible minimum unit of the process.
Society considered as totality is historically moved by the mediation of multiple elements. In this dialectic movement, specific complexes articulate themselves and change in a reciprocal and continuous way.
So it is possible to affirm that the fundamental assumptions for the undertaking of any research mediated by historical dialectic materialism, considering that such ontological and epistemological assumptions are indispensable for the comprehension of society. Thus, it is possible to declare that mediation, historicity, contradiction, and totality are categories proposed as indispensable to the comprehension and analysis of educational processes, considering that such categories are the result of an intricate complex of social relations that promote development of the means of production and support of human existence.
SOCIAL-HISTORICAL PSYCHOLOGY
Social-historical psychology is a branch of psychology that gets energized with the production of Silvia Lane (1933-2006) and a group of professors from the Pontifícia Universidade Católica of São Paulo, who have been studying social and individual phenomena for over 20 years by means of the theoretical-philosophical framework of dialectic-historical materialism and having as most important theoretical figures from psychology, Lev Semionovitch Vigotski (1896-1934), Alexander Romanovich Luria (1902-1977) and Alexei Nikolaevich Leontiev (1903-1979) from Russia. The theoretical production of this branch focuses on human development issues, and primarily dialectically affirming that material life is what determines the social, political, and individual lives of human beings, rather than the opposite. Thus, we can see in the horizon an ethical political commitment with social transformation.
It is possible to affirm that, in the productions based on the so-called social-historical psychology, the process of production of significations is defended as psychological phenomenon, which realizes itself as individual synthesis and at the same time collective synthesis of the symbolic world, and considers society and its culture as objective and subjective bases for its development.
According to the propositions of social-historical psychology, in order to understand human beings as synthesis of numberless relations, it is necessary to consider historical and cultural aspects of the material life that constitute it. Thus, human beings are not conceived as holders of a supposed natural essence, given to them a priori in their existence, but as active beings that constitute themselves in history, while acting upon the circumstances in which they live, and producing culture and being modified by these same social-historical circumstances.
In these social historical circumstances, human beings realize the educational process, primordially, spontaneously, and a posteriori, in an organized way. Jovine (1971, p. 174), analyzing the pedagogy of A. S. Makarenko (1888-1939), affirms that “true pedagogy is the one that repeats the pedagogy of all of our society”. Therefore, the author emphasizes the selection of contents and the methods of education as objectives, which are determined by the society in which they are realized. In order to understand this determination process, which is historical and multiple, it is necessary to develop a method that leads to the explanation of these determinations when they are created.
In agreement with the theoretical methodological assumptions of historical dialectic materialism, for the explanation of educational processes, Vigotski (1934/2010) Proposes 3 principles: the centrality of the investigation that leans over the process and not over the object; the production of explanations on the object, the overcoming of mere description and, finally, actions for confronting the fossilized behavior problem.
According to Vigotski (1930/2004, p. 6), “Education must play a central role in the transformation of man, in this trajectory of conscious formation of new generations, education must be the basis for changing the historical human type.” In order to understand this process, it is important to go beyond the description of the phenomenon and understand it in its causal dynamic essence, which is constitutive of its historical concreteness, as synthesis of multiple determinations.
The problem of fossilized behavior is the theoretical methodological confrontation in its explanation, which apparently established itself as something natural and ahistorical. According to Vigotski (1934/2010), it is necessary to search for the genetic origins of a certain psychological phenomenon which is considered “automatized”.
Bock (1999), affirming that social-historical conception of the psychological phenomenon, synthesizes the fundamentals for confronting ahistorical psychology, which is alienated from social historical process that determine it: the inexistence of an inorganic human nature. Thus, what exists is the human condition, produced by concrete human beings, as active, social, and historical actors. Thus, concrete human beings humanize themselves and must be understood as human creations because they are the result of a process that is multi determined.
Regarding the analysis of the theoretical methodological assumptions exposed so far, it is possible to affirm that the object of psychology is the concrete human being. Concrete, in this sense, must not be mistaken as empirical - what is palpable and observable -, quite the opposite; the concrete is the dynamic and processual reconstitution of thought, of what presents itself as a product; it is the comprehension of the constitutive process of the phenomenon, as synthesis of multiple determinations. It is “the unity of diversity” (Marx, 1859/2003, p. 248).
Therefore, based on ontological, epistemological, and the methodological assumptions, social-historical psychology confronts the liberal vision of natural, ahistorical, reified man and assumes the commitment to constitute a critical psychology because it finds in historical-dialectic materialism the presuppositions for the proposition of knowledge in psychology that provide an answer to social reality and to the everyday life with individuals and that benefit the realization of effective interventions in social reality.
Assuming concrete human beings as the object of Psychology means confronting the dichotomy that is present in the history of science between individuals and society. Such comprehension creates conditions for social-historical Psychology to constitute itself into a fundamental mediation for Education Psychology, and thus helping educational and school practices to avoid resorting to mistakes such as meritocracy or the naturalization of processes that are socially-historically produced.
Furtado (1998), by theoretically and methodologically developing the question of the subjectivity objectivity dichotomy, produces a synthesis of fundamental importance to the explanation of the relations of individuals with concrete social totality, and of the constitution of the subjectivity of individuals as product, including the production of this superstructural dimension of social phenomena: the subjective dimension of reality because until then there was no category that would articulate the connection between psychism and the social environment.
It is possible to affirm that, by the mediation of the subjective-dimension-of-reality category, it is possible to explain the presence of individuals with their beliefs, values, affections, and significations of objective reality, while moving it, and constituting it as objective reality, which contradictorily contains as essential element the subjective dimension. It is possible to defend the view that the possibility of apprehending this dimension of reality comes up against one of the most important issues in social-historical psychology: the negation of the objectivity-subjectivity dichotomy, which generates the naturalization and the idealization that reinforce liberal thought.
The conceptions promoted by social-historical psychology are essential for the movement of criticism to neoliberal proposals, which according to Daniel Cara (2021), increasingly consider education as nothing but an economic component, that is, as one more element that drives economy. This reality is aggravated by the abandonment of the “public responsibility in certain areas or activities, especially social ones, leading to an environment in which private capital develops its accumulation” (Marques, Leite, Berwig, & Depieri, 2021, p. 31).
Thus, this study does not intend to do a superficial analysis that is naive and mystifying of ideological processes that permeate the production of scientific knowledge, and that is connected to the material and historical conditions of social life and to the mode of production. Most importantly, there is a proposal to explain how this dichotomy constitutes a reality, and the materiality that is benefited by social contradictions themselves, making it difficult to understand concrete human beings and the scope of the production of human sciences, more specifically, in the scope of scientific production on educational phenomena. Thus, it also becomes difficult to intervene for the sake of education as a means of the promotion of human emancipation.
That way, explaining the subjective dimension of reality means affirming the presence of the subjectivity of individuals, which is characterized by “elements of significations (values, feelings, ideas, meanings), which are currently anchored on the subjectivity and objectivity of social reality and the relations experienced among human beings.” (Bock & Aguiar, 2016, p. 49).
Gonçalves and Bock (2009) affirm that the subjective dimension of reality as synthesis, which constitutes itself with elements of the material conditions of existence and of subjective production of each reality. Thus, it is possible to say that the subjective dimension of reality refers to the objectivation of “subjective experiences in a certain material field, in a process in which both the subjective and the objective poles change.” (Gonçalves & Bock, 2009, p. 143).
With Kosik (1976, p. 49), it is possible to affirm that the social phenomenon is susceptible to analysis, as “moments of a certain whole” and operating with “double function, the only one that is capable of effectively making it historical fact”, making it very depletion possible and, “on the other hand, define the whole”. Thus, this fact can be considered reciprocally as product and its own producer, and explain itself in its determination, benefiting is decoding, and thus “benefiting the open tick meaning itself and at the same time providing a sense of something else.” (Kosik, 1976, p. 49).
The confirmation of social-historical psychology - monistic and dialectic - leading to an understanding of the phenomena in their multiple determinations, takes advantage of the theoretical construct that we have already presented, as a category that expresses its heuristic potential and confronting the dichotomizing and reified analyses of social phenomena. Thus, it is possible to affirm that:
The subjective dimension is a dimension of reality and not of individuals, but it is exactly the dimension of reality that affirms the presence and the contribution of individuals to its construction. They are individual and collective constructions that result in certain products and in objectivity that are recognized as of subjective nature. These products are always social and economic; they are evidence of the presence of individuals in the collective world and result from human action over the world. It is important to emphasize that they are elements of subjective nature, but they are placed in the world and therefore, they are a dimension of objective reality. (Bock & Aguiar, 2016, p. 49).
The objective of the study of Psychology is the concrete human being, by means of the study of its subjective constitution in dialectic relation with objectivity; this means that this object must be understood and explained in its multiple relations. Thus, it is possible to say that the unit of analysis of Psychology for the comprehension of psychological and social phenomena are the significations - dialectic units of meanings and significations. They are the materiality that leads to an entrance into subjectivity and, thus, it must be understood in its historicity, as a process that is characteristic of human and social beings.
By highlighting the significations as units of analysis, we do not intend to do a linguistic analysis, we rather wish to “position ourselves in the field of analysis of the subjectivity of the historically constituted individual” (Bock & Aguiar, 2016, p. 50), because this individual is active, it participates and appropriates the social-historical legacy of humanity, by the mediation of the signs of culture, by means of language. In other words, the analysis of the significations does not restrict itself to the mere semantic dimension of the word, according to Vigotski (1934/2010), it is possible to believe that the word does not express the totality of the possibilities of registration of reality, but does not constitute a neutral medium, by means of which it would be possible to reflect or describe the world impartially, but as a central constituent of the dialectic historical movement of social life (Gomes, Ribeiro, & Alfredo, 2018).
By considering subjectivity, according to Gonçalves and Furtado (2016, p. 35), as a “set of all psychological aspects produced by psychism and by psychological phenomena in an active process of relation between the individual and objective reality”, the significations become indispensable for the apprehension of the subjective dimension of social phenomena, because they constitute the empirical, the starting point in the constitution of the concrete individual’s thought. The significations are constituted by meanings and significations, and express social-historical syntheses, sometimes contradictory, that lead to the communication and socialization of human experiences. In a nutshell, “each object that is perceived, observed, or elaborated by man is part of a whole, and more precisely, this whole that is not perceived explicitly is the light that reveals the singular object, observed in its singularity and in its signification.” (Kosik, 1976, p. 31).
Here, we deal with subjectivity and with the subjective dimension of reality as categories that do not exclude each other; both, in their specificities, explain the social-historical movement that constitutes the dialectic relation between individuals and society.
FINAL CONSIDERATIONS
Social-historical Psychology has an important contribution to offer to Education, as a field of production and academic-scientific debate, on specific processes that form it, in its history, which consists of the theoretical-methodological confrontation against individualizing, naturalizing, and pathologizing perspectives that hide the social character of the contradictions that constitute individuals and the educational process. The possibility of the production of a critical knowledge lies on the ethical-political commitment with social transformation and in the methodological rigor that drives the knowledge of concrete reality. Therefore, this theoretical exposition did not intend to exhaust the presentation of theoretical-methodological presuppositions, which orient studies and research works mediated by the production of authors of social-historical psychology, but intended to situate the reader in the study of the categories considered fundamental to the knowledge of reality.
It is possible to affirm that the theoretical study, on which this exposition was based, demands that it be considered as a starting point, and more in-depth studies be realized, which will certainly lead to the demonstration of many other categories that are constitutive of the educational process. According to Marx (1847/1982, p. 25), it is believed that “the conscience of man does not determine his being; instead, his social being determines his conscience”. Thus, it is possible to propose the presentation of this study as synthesis of presuppositions for research works in education, interlocked with the rigorous process of analysis, interpretation, and transformation of reality, by means of the theoretical-methodological framework of social-historical Psychology
References
- Abendroth, W., Holz, H. H., & Kofler, L. (1969). Conversando com Lukács Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
- Alfredo, R. A. (2013). A análise da pedagogia de Makarenko por Lukács e a relação entre o processo educativo e o de desenvolvimento histórico-social do ser humano: Contribuições à psicologia sócio-histórica (Doctoral thesis). Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo-SP.
- Andery, M. A., Micheletto, N., Sério, T. M. P., Rubano, D. R., Moroz, M., Pereira, M. E., Giois, S. C., Gianfaldoni, M., Savioli, M. R., & Zanotto, M. L. (2014). Para a ciência: Uma perspectiva histórica Rio de Janeiro: Garamond.
- Bock, A. M. B. (1999). Aventuras do Barão de Münchhausen na Psicologia São Paulo: EDUC. 207p.
- Bock, A. M. B., & Aguiar, W. M. J. (2016). A dimensão subjetiva: um recurso teórico para a Psicologia da Educação. In Aguiar, W. M. J., & Bock, A. M. B. (Eds.), A dimensão subjetiva do processo educacional: Uma leitura sócio-histórica (pp. 43-59). São Paulo: Cortez
- Cara, D. T. (2021). Contra a barbárie, o direito à educação. In: Cara, D. Educação contra a barbárie (pp. 25-31). São Paulo: Boitempo.
- Furtado, O. (1998). Dimensões subjetivas da realidade: Um estudo de subjetividade social no Brasil (Doctoral thesis). Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo, São Paulo-SP.
- Gomes, F. A., Ribeiro, I., & Alfredo, R. A. (2018). Análise sócio-histórica de significações produzidas por docentes acerca das diferenças culturais.Revista de Psicología, 54(1), 175-185.
- Gonçalves, M. G. M., & Bock, A. M. B. (2009). A dimensão subjetiva dos fenômenos sociais. In Gonçalves, M. G. M., & Bock, A. M. B. (Eds.), A dimensão subjetiva da realidade: Uma leitura sócio-histórica (pp. 116-157). São Paulo: Cortez .
- Gonçalves, M. G. M., & Furtado, O. (2016). A perspectiva sócio-histórica: uma possibilidade crítica para a psicologia e para a educação. In Aguiar, W. M. J., & Bock, A. M. B. (Eds.), A dimensão subjetiva da realidade: Uma leitura sócio-histórica (pp. 27-42). São Paulo: Cortez .
- Jovine, D. B. (1971), Principi di pedagogia socialista Roma: Editori Riuniti.
- Kosik, K. (1976). Dialética do concreto São Paulo: Paz e Terra.
- Lefebvre, H. (1975). Lógica formal, lógica dialética (C. N. Coutinho. Trad.). Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
- Llanos, A. (1988). Introdução à dialética Rio de Janeiro: Civilização Brasileira.
- Lukács, G. (1971). Der sozialistische Aufbau und die Entstehung dês neuen Menschen - Makarenko: “Der Weg ins Leben”. In Lukács, G. Probleme des Realismus II: Der russische Realismus in der Weltliteratur (pp. 417-471). Berlim: Luchterhand.
- Lukács, G. (1979). Ontologia do ser social: Os princípios ontológicos fundamentais de Marx (C. N. Coutinho, Trad.). São Paulo: Livraria Ciências Humanas.
- Marques, R. M., Leite, M. G., Berwig, S. E., & Depieri, M. Á. L. (2021). Pandemias, Crises e Capitalismo São Paulo: Expressão Popular.
- Marx, K. (1982). Miséria da filosofia: Resposta à Filosofia da miséria do Sr. Proudhon (J. P. Netto, Trad.). São Paulo: LECH. (Original work published in 1847).
- Marx, K. (1996). O capital: Crítica da economia política (Os Economistas, v. 1). São Paulo: Nova Cultural. (Original work published in 1867).
- Marx, K. (2003). Contribuição à crítica da Economia Política São Paulo: Martins Fontes. (Original work published in 1859).
- Marx, K. (2011). Grundrisse: Manuscritos econômicos de 1857-58: esboços da crítica da economia política São Paulo: Boitempo.
- Marx, K.; Engels, F. (2003). A sagrada família São Paulo: Boitempo. (Original work published in 1844).
- Marx, K., & Engels, F. (2007). A ideologia alemã São Paulo: Boitempo.
- Novack, G. (2015). As origens do materialismo São Paulo: Sundermann.
- Patto, M. H. S. (1999). A produção do fracasso escolar: Histórias de submissão e rebeldia São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo.
- Vigotski, L. S. (1996). O significado histórico da crise da psicologia: uma investigação metodológica. In: Vigotski, L. S. Teoria e método em psicologia(pp. 203-417). São Paulo: Martins Fontes.
- Vigotski, L. S. (2010). A construção do pensamento e da linguagem São Paulo: Martins Fontes . (Original work published in 1934).
-
Vigotski, L. S. (2004). A transformação socialista do homem. In: Marxists Internet Archive (N. Dória, Trad.). MIA. Recovered from: https://www.marxists.org/portugues/vygotsky/1930/mes/transformacao.htm (Original work published in 1930).
» https://www.marxists.org/portugues/vygotsky/1930/mes/transformacao.htm
