Commentary: Building a New House out of Old Materials—and with Sharpened Tools

Abstract

I discuss Eugene Matusov's claim that there is a clash between the cultural-historical paradigm and the sociocultural paradigm within Vygotskian academia. I argue that even though the paradigms may look quite opposite, none of them seem to be based on a dialectical (Hegelian) analysis of culture and on the concreteness of cultural change and development. The lack of dialectics in general tends to lead to mechanical socioculturalism and mechanical ideas of development. The example of headscarves used among Muslims girls and women to gain potentials for action illustrates the dynamic nature of cultural change. It is argued that we need to get beyond a point where the notion of culture is based on philosophical elementarism (so strongly criticized by William James). In general, I argue for an indeterminist-dialectical version of cultural-historical change which, hopefully, will vaporize false dichotomies like `if something is contextual, it cannot be universal'. Thus, for the sake of discussion, I am trying to challenge the way Matsuov presents the problem of `clashes between paradigms' in the first place.