Abstract
Vygotsky’s concept of perezhivanie was only partly developed within his lifetime, and this fact, together with the apparent significance of the concept, has provided the impetus for attempts at further understanding and substantiating the concept. This introductory chapter provides an overview of interpretations of perezhivanie . I begin first with a brief history of its origins in Stanislavsky , dialectics and reflection theory . Next, I discuss three aspects of Vygotsky’s work (and work built on its foundations) that have been related to perezhivanie in attempts to illuminate its meaning: his early interest in emotion in The Psychology of Art, the concepts of social situation of development and word-meaning and its interpretation within Activity Theory . The interpretive landscape that is revealed provides a point of departure for theorists seeking to understand and use the concept.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Originally titled “Проблема среды в педологииi” [The problem of environment in paedology].
- 2.
There is debate as to whether Stanislavsky revised the latter by substituting it with the former or if this narrative of his theoretical development is a Western invention (see Carnicke 2009, p. 150; Whyman 2008, pp. 62–63). Regardless, Stanislavsky is quoted as advising his students in the last months of his life that: “One must give actors various paths. One of these is the path of action. There is also another path; you can move from feeling to action, arousing feeling first” (Vinogradskaia, as cited in Carnicke 2009, p. 173), indicating that both techniques existed in parallel.
- 3.
Blunden (2014) clarifies that the unity to which perezhivanie refers is an original, rather than synthetic, unity. That is, it is not a concept that combines two abstractions—thought and affect—but is in fact a concept that names the already existing unity, from which those very abstractions have been made. This also aligns with Dewey’s notion of an experience as being an original unity (see Blunden 2009).
- 4.
This understanding of perezhivanie as only what is developmentally significant (here, a crisis that has been overcome) draws with parallels with Dewey’s concept of an experience (as opposed to the category of experience, discussed above).
- 5.
It is worth noting that this statement echoes the dialectical law of reflection discussed above, wherein an object reflects within it the processes that gave rise to it.
- 6.
For example: perekrestok (crossroads), peregruzhen (overloaded), perepolnen (overcrowded), peremeshchenie (transition), and perestroika (reconstruction).
- 7.
It is unclear, however, whether the external and internal positions are both components of the social situation of development (as Karabanova 2010, has argued), or whether social situation of development only refers to external position.
- 8.
Karabanova (2010) gives a different translation as: “child’s attitude to surroundings, and vice versa, the way surroundings affect a child, are regarded through his emotional experience and activity, thus surroundings acquire a leading force through child’s perception”; while in the original Russian, it is “что среда определяет развитие ребенка через переживание [perezhivanie] среды… отношение ребенка к среде и среды к ребенку дается через переживание [perezhivanie] и деятельность самого ребенка; силы среды приобретают направляющее значение благодаря переживанию [perezhivaniyu] ребенка” (Vygotsky 1984, p. 383).
- 9.
This distinction between the investigation of potential/expected (social situation of development) and actually manifest (perezhivanie) development is, of course, identified in Bozhovich’s distinction between external and internal position, respectively. However, her characterisation of Vygotsky’s perezhivanie appears at odds with Vygotsky’s intended conceptualisation, for reasons discussed in the last section of this chapter. Thus, I have instead borrowed terminology from Chaiklin’s (2003) discussion of the ZPD, in which he distinguishes objective/normative (corresponding to the social situation of development) and subjective (corresponding to what a child can actually imitate and thus what is actually developmentally significant) ZPDs.
- 10.
From examining the Vygotsky family archives, Zavershneva (2010) ascertains that this new period in Vygotsky’s thinking began “not later than July 1932” (p. 52).
- 11.
Otnosheniye deyatel'nosti k perezhivaniyu (problema znacheniya).
- 12.
Support for the first interpretation can be found in Vygotsky’s (1997) notes, when he alludes to this distinction: “Meaning [znacheniye] is not the sum of all the psychological operations which stand behind the word [i.e. not sense, as defined in Thinking and Speech]. Meaning is something more specific-it is the internal structure of the sign operation” (p. 133). However, it is nonetheless evident that while Vygotsky uses Paulhan’s meaning and sense distinction in Thinking and Speech, he disagrees with Paulhan’s characterisation of meaning: “Word meaning is not a simple thing given once and for all (against Paulhan)” (p. 138). Therefore, Vygotsky either uses Paulhan’s meaning with a different definition, or subsumes both meaning (redefined as lexical definition) and sense within his own word-meaning construct. Indeed, Vygotsky (1987) writes that: “The actual meaning of the word [znacheniye slova] is inconstant …. Isolated in the lexicon, the word has only one meaning [znacheniye]. However, this meaning [znacheniye] is nothing more than a potential that can only be realised in living speech …” (p. 276). A possible interpretation of this apparently contradictory statement is that word-meaning is inconstant because it changes when the potential, abstract lexical meanings (i.e. dictionary definitions) of words are made concrete (i.e. used to refer to specific objects of discussion, rather than the entire class of objects to which a lexical definition would refer) in actual speech, and thus change from one context to another (including in inner/private speech contexts).
- 13.
The origins of the meaning–sense distinction in the work of Paulhan raise two further questions. The first is whether the distinction was fully developed and understood by Paulhan himself, as it is disregarded as being insignificant in his later work (Kellogg, 12February 2015). The second is whether Vygotsky’s usage of the distinction is in fact better explained as originating from the work of Volosinov (who distinguished between thema and meaning, corresponding roughly to actual and potential meaning, respectively), whose work was closely read by Vygotsky (Kellogg, 11 February 2015).
- 14.
The new direction for research can possibly be traced back to notes written on the back of library cards, examined by Zavershneva (2010), that reveal Vygotsky’s intention to begin to direct his attention inwards, to investigate the dynamics of meanings by way of “semic analysis” (p. 42).
- 15.
Vygotsky (1987) later quotes R.Shor: “in what is commonly called word meaning , we must distinguish two features…the meaning of the expression…and its object relatedness” (p. 152). This can be differently interpreted as making a distinction between: (1) two parts within word-meaning; (2) two functions of or within word-meaning (i.e. nomination/indication and signification); (3) the whole (where meaning means word-meaning) against a part (object relatedness) of itself; (4) lexical definition and object-relatedness, both of which are parts of word-meaning; or (5) between structure (meaning) and a function (object relatedness).
- 16.
Additionally, both Frege’s sense and Vygotsky’s word-meaning are, respectively, described as the mode of presentation.
- 17.
Before the writing of the last chapter, Vygotsky (1987) has either not distinguished between sense and meaning, or has taken the two terms to be contained within word-meaning , for example: “We were able… to observe how that which is perceived is isolated and synthesised, how it becomes the sense or meaning of the word, how it becomes a concept” (emphasis added, p. 164) and “the greatest difficulty for the adolescent and one that he overcomes only at the end of the transitional age is the further transfer of the sense or meaning of the developed concept to new concrete situations” (emphasis added, p. 161).
- 18.
Note that this quote from Vygotsky also supports the first interpretation of word-meaning as a unit of analysis for consciousness en toto: the meaning attached to signs shapes consciousness.
- 19.
This point is also made while using the metaphors of reflection theory discussed earlier in this chapter: “When we know the thing and the laws of reflection of light, we can always explain, predict, elicit, and change the [mirror image]. And this is what persons with mirrors do. They study not mirror reflections but the movement of light beams, and explain the reflection” (Vygotsky 1997, p. 327).
- 20.
And also echoed in the work of Bozhovich (2009), discussed earlier.
- 21.
The primacy of experience in consciousness is an interpretation also shared by Rubinstein (see, Fakhrutdinova 2010).
References
Abdul Rahim, F., Hood, P., & Coyle, D. (2009). ‘Becoming experts’: Learning through mediation. Malaysian Journal of Learning & Instruction, 6, 1–21.
Adams, M., & Fleer, M. (2015). Moving countries: Belongings as central for realizing the affective relation between international shifts and localized micro movements. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 6, 56–66. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2015.03.003
Anderson, K. (1995). Lenin, Hegel, and Western Marxism. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Antoniadou, V. (2011). Virtual collaboration, ‘perezhivanie’ and teacher learning: A socio- cultural-historical perspective. Bellaterra Journal of Teaching and Learning Language and Literature, 4(3), 53–70.
Beatty, B., & Brew, C. (2004). Trusting relationships and emotional epistemologies: A foundational leadership issue. School Leadership & Management, 24(3), 329–356. doi:10.1080/1363243042000266954
Beck, D. C. (2014). The legacy of Stanislavsky’s ideas in non-realistic theatre. In R. A. White (Ed.), The Routledge companion to Stanislavsky (pp. 213–229). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Benedetti, J. (2007). Translator’s foreword. In K. Stanislavsky (Ed.), An actor’s work on a role (pp. xv–xxii, J. Benedetti, Trans.). New York: Routledge.
Blair, D. (2009). Learner agency: To understand and to be understood. British Journal of Music Education, 26(02), 173. doi:10.1017/s0265051709008420
Blunden, A. (2009). Notes on perezhivanie. Retrieved from http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/seminars/perezhivanie.htm
Blunden, A. (2014). Word meaning is important: A response to W-M. Roth & Þ Jóhannsdóttir on perezhiavnie. Siberian Journal of Psychology, 54, 18–27.
Bozhovich, L. (2009). The social situation of child development. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 47(4), 59–86. doi:10.2753/rpo1061-0405470403
Brennan, M. (2014). Perezhivanie: What have we missed about infant care? Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood, 15(3), 284. doi:10.2304/ciec.2014.15.3.284
Burkitt, I. (2002). Complex emotions: Relations, feelings and images in emotional experience. The Sociological Review, 50(S2), 151–167. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954x.2002.tb03596.x
Carnicke, S. (2009). Stanislavsky in focus: An acting master for the twenty-first century (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
Chaiklin, S. (2003). The zone of proximal development in Vygotsky’s analysis of learning and instruction. In A. Kozulin, B. Gindis, V. Ageyev, & S. Miller (Eds.), Vygotsky’s educational theory and practice in cultural context (pp. 39–64). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chen, F. (2014). Parents’ perezhivanie supports children’s development of emotion regulation: A holistic view. Early Child Development and Care, 185(6), 851–867. doi:10.1080/03004430.2014.961445
Clarà, M. (2013). The concept of situation and the microgenesis of the conscious purpose in cultural psychology. Human Development, 56(2), 113–127. doi:10.1159/000346533
Clarà, M. (2015). Representation and emotion causation: A cultural psychology approach. Culture & Psychology, 21(1), 37–58. doi:10.1177/1354067x14568687
Connery, C. M. (2006). The sociocultural-semiotic texts of five and six year old emergent biliterates in non-academic settings (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico.
Cross, R. (2012). Creative in finding creativity in the curriculum: The CLIC second language classroom. Australian Education Research, 39(4), 431–445. doi:10.1007/s13384-012-0074-8
Daniels, H. (2010). Motives, emotion, and change. Cultural-Historical Psychology, 2010(2), 24–33.
Dormann, C., Whitson, J., & Neuvians, M. (2013). Once more with feeling: Game design patterns for learning in the affective domain. Games and Culture, 8(4), 215–237. doi:10.1177/1555412013496892
Esteban-Guitart, M., & Moll, L. (2014). Funds of Identity: A new concept based on the funds of knowledge approach. Culture & Psychology, 20(1), 31–48. doi:10.1177/1354067x13515934
Fakhrutdinova, L. R. (2010). On the phenomenon of “perezhivanie” (trans: Favorov, N.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(2), 31–47. doi:10.2753/RPO1061-0405480203
Ferholt, B. (2010). A synthetic-analytic method for the study of perezhivanie: Vygotsky’s literary analysis applied to play worlds. In M. C. Connery, John-Steiner, V. P., and A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: A cultural historical approach to play, meaning making, and the arts (pp. 163–180). New York: Peter Lang.
Fleer, M. (2013). Affective imagination in science education: Determining the emotional nature of scientific and technological learning of young children. Research in Science Education, 43(5), 2085–2106. doi:10.1007/s11165-012-9344-8
Fleer, M., & Hammer, M. (2013). “Perezhivanie” in group settings: A cultural-historical reading of emotion regulation. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 38(3), 127–134.
Fleer, M., & Pramling, N. (2015). A cultural-historical study of children learning science: Foregrounding affective imagination in play-based settings. New York: Springer.
Gajdamaschko, N. (2006). Theoretical concerns: Vygotsky on imagination development. Educational Perspectives, 39(2), 34–40.
Garratt, D. A. (2012). Students’ perceptions of the use of peer-to-peer ESL text chat: An introductory study (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of New Mexico.
Gibson, J. J. (1979/1986). The ecological approach to visual perception. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Glassman, M. (2001). Dewey and Vygotsky: Society, experience, and inquiry in educational practice. Educational Researcher, 30(4), 3–14. doi:10.3102/0013189x030004003
Golombek, P., & Doran, M. (2014). Unifying cognition, emotion, and activity in language teacher professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 39, 102–111. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2014.01.002
González Rey, F. L. (2009a). Historical relevance of Vygotsky’s work: Its significance for a new approach to the problem of subjectivity in psychology. Outlines, 11(1), 59–73.
González Rey, F. L. (2009b). La significación de Vygotski para la consideración de lo afectivo en la educación: Las bases para la cuestión de la subjetividad [Vygotsky’s significance for the consideration of the affective processes in education: A new basis for the topic of subjectivity]. Actualidades Investigativas en Educación, 9, 1–24.
Grimmet, H. (2014). The practice of teachers’ professional development: A cultural-historical approach. Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sense.
Hakkarainen, P. (2010). Editor’s introduction. Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(2), 3–4.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1970/2013). Hegel’s philosophy of nature (Vol. 3). New York: Routledge.
Immordino-Yang, M., & Damasio, A. (2007). We feel, therefore we learn: The relevance of affective and social neuroscience to education. Mind, Brain, and Education, 1(1), 3–10. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228x.2007.00004.x
Jóhannsdóttir, T., & Roth, W. (2014). Experiencing (pereživanie) as developmental category: Learning from a fisherman who is becoming (as) a teacher-in-a-vllage-school. Outlines, 3, 54–78.
Jones, K. S. (2003). What is an affordance? Ecological Psychology, 15(2), 107–114.
Karabanova, O. (2010). Social situation of child’s development—The key concept in modern developmental psychology. Psychology in Russia: State of Art, 3(1), 130. doi:10.11621/pir.2010.0005.
Kellogg, D. (2015a, February 11). Re: sense, meaning and inner aspect of word. [XMCA electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2015-02.dir/msg00120.html
Kellogg, D. (2015b, February 12). Re: sense, meaning and inner aspect of word. [XMCA electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2015-02.dir/msg00128.html
Kirschenmann, P. P. (1970). Information and reflection. New York: Humanities Press.
Korotaeva, G. S. (2001). Predisloviye [Foreword]. In L. S. Vygotsky (Ed.), Lektsii po pedologii [Lectures on pedology] (pp. 4–8). Ishevsk, Russia: Udmurt State University Publishing House.
Kotik-Friedgut, B. (2007, December 2). Re: [xmca] L. I. Bozhovich and perezhivanie [XMCA electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/mca/Mail/xmcamail.2007_12.dir/0013.html
Kozulin, A. (1990). Vygotsky’s psychology: A biography of ideas. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lantolf, J. P. (2000). Introducing sociocultural theory. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 1–26). Oxford University Press.
Larlham, D. (2014). Stanislavsky, Tolstoy, and the “life of the human spirit”. In R. A. White (Ed.), The Routledge companion to Stanislavsky (pp. 179–194). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Leitch, D. (2011). Vygotsky, consciousness, and the German psycholinguistic tradition. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(4), 305–318. doi:10.1080/10749031003713815
Lenin, V. I. (2003a). Conspectus of Hegel’s The science of logic. In Marxists Internet Archive (Ed.), Lenin’s collected works (Vol. 38, pp. 85–237, C. Dutt, Trans.). Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/cons-logic/index.htm (Original work published 1929).
Lenin, V. I. (2003b). On the question of dialectics. In Marxists Internet Archive (Ed.), Lenin’s collected works (Vol. 38, 353–362, C. Dutt, Trans.). Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/misc/x02.htm (Original work published 1925).
Lenin, V. I. (2014). Materialism and empirio-criticism. Retrieved from https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mec/ (Original work published 1909).
Leontiev, A. N. (2005). Study of the environment in the pedological works of L. S. Vygotsky: A critical study (N. Favorov, Trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 43(4), 8–28.
Levykh, M. (2008a). Personality, emotions, and behavioural mastery in the thought of Lev Vygotsky (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Simon Fraser University, Canada.
Levykh, M. (2008b). The affective establishment and maintenance of Vygotsky’s Zone of Proximal Development. Educational Theory, 58(1), 83–101. doi:10.1111/j.1741-5446.2007.00277.x
Mahn, H., & John-Steiner, V. (2000). Developing the affective ZPD. III Conference for Sociocultural Research, Brazil. Retrieved from https://www.fe.unicamp.br/br2000/trabs/1410.doc
Mahn, H., & John-Steiner, V. (2008). The gift of confidence: A Vygotskian view of emotions. In G. Wells, & G. Claxton (Eds.), Learning for life in the 21st century: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 46–58). Oxford: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9780470753545.ch4
Marjanovic-Shane, A., Connery, M. C., & John-Steiner, V. (2010). A cultural-historical approach to creative education. In M. C. Connery, V. John-Steiner, & A. Marjanovic-Shane (Eds.), Vygotsky and creativity: A cultural-historical approach to play, meaning making, and the arts (pp. 215–232). New York: Peter Lang.
Matusov, E. (2007). In search of ‘the appropriate’ unit of analysis for sociocultural research. Culture & Psychology, 13(3), 307–333. doi:10.1177/1354067x07079887
Mi-Song, K. (2010). Understanding Korean children’s L2 dialogue journals: Towards a model of creative apprenticeship for integrating teaching and learning. In O. Kwo (Ed.), Teachers as learners: Critical discourse on challenges and opportunities (pp. 65–86). Netherlands: Springer.
Michell, M. R. (2012). Academic engagement and agency in multilingual middle year classrooms (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10453/21824
Payne, T. (1968). S. L. Rubinstejn and the philosophical foundations of Soviet psychology. Dordrecht: D. Reidel.
Pitches, J. (2005). ‘Is it all going soft?’ The turning point in Russian actor training. New Theatre Quarterly, 21(2), 108–117. doi:10.1017/s0266464x05000023
Razfar, A. (2013). Dewey and Vygotsky: Incommensurability, intersections, and the empirical possibilities of metaphysical consciousness. Human Development, 56(2), 128–133. doi:10.1159/000346536
Robbins, D. (2001). Vygotsky’s psychology-philosophy. New York: Plenum Publishers.
Robbins, D. (2007, December 1). L. I. Bozhovich and perezhivanie [XMCA electronic mailing list message]. Retrieved from http://lchc.ucsd.edu/MCA/Mail/xmcamail.2007_12.dir/0009.html
Roth, W., & Jornet, A. (2013). Situated cognition. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 4(5), 463–478. doi:10.1002/wcs.1242
Roth, W., & Jornet, A. (2014). Toward a theory of experience. Science Education, 98, 106–126. doi:10.1002/sce.21085
Sannino, A. (2008). From talk to action: Experiencing interlocution in developmental interventions. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 15(3), 234–257. doi:10.1080/10749030802186769
Sato, K. (2010). Emotional experience and immanent expressive activity in human minds. Retrieved from Hokkaido University, Research and Clinical Centre for Child Development, Graduate School of Education. http://hdl.handle.net/2115/42961
Sayers, S. (1985). Reality and reason. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Smagorinsky, P. (2011a). Vygotsky’s stage theory: The psychology of art and the actor under the direction of perezhivanie. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 18(4), 319–341. doi:10.1080/10749039.2010.518300
Smagorinsky, P. (2011b). Vygotsky and literacy research: A methodological framework. Netherlands: Sense.
Smagorinsky, P., & Daigle, E. A. (2012). The role of affect in students’ writing for school. In. E. L. Grigorenko, E. Mambrino, & D. D. Preiss (Eds.), Writing: A mosaic of new perspectives (pp. 293–307). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Stern, R. (2009). Hegelian metaphysics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone, L., & Thompson, G. (2014). Classroom mood and the dance of stance: The role of affective and epistemic stancetaking in the development of a classroom mood. Learning, Culture and Social Interaction, 3(4), 309–322. doi:10.1016/j.lcsi.2014.06.002
Tolstoy, L. N. (1896/1996). What is art? (A. Maude, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.
Vadeboncoeur, J., & Collie, R. (2013). Locating social and emotional learning in schooled environments: A Vygotskian perspective on learning as unified. Mind, Culture, and Activity, 20(3), 201–225. doi:10.1080/10749039.2012.755205
Valsiner, J., & van der Veer, R. (1993). The encoding of distance: The concept of the zone of proximal development and its interpretations. In R. Cocking & A. Renninger (Eds.), The development of meaning and psychological distance (pp. 35–62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
van der Veer, R., & Valsiner, J. (1991). Understanding Vygotsky: A quest for synthesis. Oxford: Blackwell.
van Lier, L. (2000). From input to affordance: Social-interactive learning from an ecological perspective. In J. P. Lantolf (Ed.), Sociocultural theory and second language learning (pp. 254–269). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
van Lier, L. (2004). The ecology and semiotics of language learning: A sociocultural perspective. Boston: Kluwer Academic.
van Lier, L. (2008). The ecology of language learning and sociocultural theory. In A. Creese, P. Martin, & N. H. Hornberger (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Language and Education. Ecology of language (Vol. 9, 2nd ed., pp. 53–65). New York: Springer.
van Oers, B. (2012). Meaningful cultural learning by imitative participation: The case of abstract thinking in primary school. Human Development, 55(3), 136–158. doi:10.1159/000339293
Varshava, B., & Vygotsky, L. (1931). Psihologicheskii slovar [Psychological dictionary]. Moscow, Gosudarstvennoye Uchebno-pedagogicheskoye Izdatelstvo.
Vasilyuk, F. (1991). The psychology of experiencing. New York: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
Veresov, N. (2004). Zone of proximal development (ZPD): The hidden dimension? In A. Ostern, & R. Heila-Ylikallio (Eds.), Language as culture—Tensions in time and space (pp. 13–30). Vasa.
Veresov, N. (2014). Refocusing the lens on development: Towards genetic research methodology. In M. Fleer & A. Ridgway (Eds.), Visual methodologies and digital tools for researching with young children (pp. 129–149). New York: Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1971). The psychology of art. Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1984). Sobraniye sochenii tom chetvertyi: Detskaya psikhologiya [Collected works Vol. 4: Child psychology] (D. B. Elkonin, Ed.). Moscow, Russia: Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1987). Thinking and speech. In R. W. Rieber & A. S. Carton (Eds.), The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 39–285, N. Minick, Trans.). New York: Plenum Press.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1994). The problem of the environment. In R. van der Veer & J. Valsiner (Eds.), The Vygotsky reader (pp. 338–354). Oxford: Blackwell.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1997). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of the theory and history of psychology (R. W. Rieber and J. Wollock, Eds., Vol. 3). New York: Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1998). The collected works of of L. S. Vygotsky: Child psychology. (R. W. Rieber, Ed., Vol. 5). New York: Springer.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1999). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Scientific legacy. (R. W. Rieber, Ed., Vol. 6), New York: Springer.
Wertsch, J. V. (1978). Recent trends in Soviet psycholinguistics. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
Wertsch, J. V. (1985). Vygotsky and the social formation of mind. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
Whyman, R. (2008). The Stanislavsky system of acting. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Zavershneva, E. I. U. (2010). The Vygotsky family archive: New findings. Notebooks, notes, and scientific journals of L. S. Vygotsky (1912–1934) ( S. Shabad, Trans.). Journal of Russian and East European Psychology, 48(1), 34–60. doi:10.2753/RPO1061-0405480102
Zinchenko, V. P. (1985). Vygotsky’s ideas about units for the analysis of mind. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.), Culture, communication, and cognition (pp. 94–118). Cambridge University Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Mok, N. (2017). On the Concept of Perezhivanie: A Quest for a Critical Review. In: Fleer, M., González Rey, F., Veresov, N. (eds) Perezhivanie, Emotions and Subjectivity. Perspectives in Cultural-Historical Research, vol 1. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4534-9_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4534-9_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-10-4532-5
Online ISBN: 978-981-10-4534-9
eBook Packages: EducationEducation (R0)