[Xmca-l] Re: Activity Setting: Shared Meaning

[Cliff O'Donnell]

I appreciate your contribution to this discussion, Larry. Putting on  
my community psychology hat,
help me understand whether we would have developed a different  
intervention plan if we used forming
instead of formed intersubjectivity. Or if not in that situation, are  
there other interventions where it would make a difference?

Cliff

On Aug 13, 2013, at 5:30 PM, Larry Purss wrote:

> Cliff,
>
> To further reflect on the other central term *intersubjectivity*  
> within the
> article. In the native community the adults observed the youth and
> reflected from a distance and composed reasons [within the adult
> conversations] ABOUT the youth. John Shotter would describe that  
> type of
> knowing [knowing-that] The youth also reflected on the adults and  
> composed
> reasons why they were turning away from the adult community [knowing- 
> that]
> Shotter is drawing our attention to a realm of intersubjectity which  
> occurs
> as [knowing from within]. This is not an intersubjectivity that is  
> formed
> [past tense as reflected intersubjectivity]. It is an  
> intersubjectivity
> forming within our ways of talking as direct conversation [con=with]
> This is reminiscent of Mead's conception of "calling out the  
> response of
> the other"
> Alfred Schultz also explored *intersubjectivity* as a situation of
> elliptical communicative practices: one situation, two subjective
> perspectives. Schultz assumed the two subjects within the situation if
> sharing complementary or common purposes would relegate the coexisting
> individual differences to the background as the communicative common
> situation *constitutes* a "we-relationship. Notice the highlighting  
> of the
> relational we-relationship as primaryand not highlighting the *I* or  
> the
> *other*.
> Schultz said it was in the face to face TURNING towards the other  
> [and the
> other responding by turning] which constituted the *we-relationship*  
> within
> the action of intentionally turning toward the other.
> I read Mead, Schultz, Shotter, exploring a different realm of forming
> intersubjectivity in contrast to formed intersubjectivity.
>
> Schultz used the term *intercommunication* to draw attention to the
> contrast of focusing on one way communication [knowing-that, or
> knowing-how] on the one hand, TOWARDS  what he, Mead, and Shotter are
> privileging as *knowing-within* as we-relationship.
>
> The act of each turning toward the other as  reciprocal  
> intersubjective
> forming within conversation contrasts with the reflective [past]  
> awareness
> of formed intersubjectivity as we come to share common meanings and  
> goals.
>
> The quality Mead is presenting [calling out the response of the  
> other by
> turning toward the other] I read as a *moral question* about how we  
> ought
> to respond to the call of the other. This is an intersubjective   
> conception
> but may emphasize another aspect of intersubjectivity.
>
> Community and culture within this understanding of intersubjectivity  
> must
> include both shared meanings, shared activities, but also include how
> culture and community encourage calling out and turning towards the  
> call
> and responding.
>
> Cliff, the question of intersubjectivity [forming and formed] within
> activity settings, which brings in other discourses [genres] exploring
> intersubjectivity may be my own  idiosyncratic perspective. Shared  
> meaning
> may form when perception and action are mediated TROUGH affective  
> turning
> towards the other, as well as shared activities where activity  
> develops
> shared meanings. I sense the forming and formed intersubjectivity as
> complementary but wanted to bring to the fore another realm of  
> knowing.
> What Shotter calls knowing of a third kind [knowing from within as a  
> moral
> activity]
> Larry
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 13, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Cliff O'Donnell <cliffo@hawaii.edu>  
> wrote:
>
>> Thanks for your thoughts, Lubomir and David. We agree that  
>> community and
>> culture can be defined many ways for different purposes. One of the
>> purposes of our article was to invite others to offer ways that  
>> they would
>> unite the concepts. We also agree that individuals in the same  
>> cultural
>> community may differ in their personal understanding of the shared  
>> meanings
>> of the cultural community, just as individuals differ in their  
>> skills,
>> thoughts, experiences, and emotions. All of us are a combination of  
>> the
>> cultures of gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, social  
>> economic
>> status, etc.
>>
>> In our formulation, defining community by shared activities allows  
>> the
>> assessment of communities by the degree and attributes of the  
>> activities
>> they share. Also, defining culture by shared meanings allows the  
>> assessment
>> of cultures by the meanings they share. In our example of the youth  
>> and
>> adults in a Native American community, the activities and meanings  
>> of those
>> activities differed dramatically between the youth and adults. The
>> difference was so pronounced that the groups formed different  
>> cultural
>> communities, even though they all lived in the same small town and  
>> were all
>> from the same Native American tribe. Knowledge of their activities  
>> and
>> shared meanings was essential in developing an intervention plan  
>> and is an
>> example of cultural community psychology using CHAT concepts.
>>
>> Thanks again for your contributions to this discussion.
>>
>> Cliff
>>
>>
>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 11:50 AM, David H Kirshner wrote:
>>
>> Just to add a thought on the tricky notion of "shared meaning" that
>>> Lubomir focusses on in discussion of culture and community; it seems
>>> important to differentiate shared meaning from shared  
>>> understanding. What
>>> is shared in a culture or community are categories of meaning.  
>>> Individuals
>>> who are participants in the culture, or members of the community,  
>>> may draw
>>> quite differently from the shared categories in constructing  
>>> personal
>>> understandings. To push this a bit further, we might say that a  
>>> culture may
>>> be comprised of (or may encompass) a range of discrete categories or
>>> paradigms of meaning. Cultures can be distinguished from one  
>>> another by
>>> substantially different constellations of categories. However,  
>>> communities,
>>> as more local entities constituted within cultures, are defined in  
>>> terms of
>>> a politics of interpretation. Personal understandings within a  
>>> community
>>> are bounded by community norms regarding appropriate categories of  
>>> meaning
>>> that can be drawn upon with respect to those critical matters of  
>>> interest
>>> that define the community.
>>>
>>> David
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.**edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
>>> >[mailto:
>>> xmca-l-bounces@**mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l- 
>>> bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On
>>> Behalf Of Lubomir Savov Popov
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:25 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Activity Setting
>>>
>>> Dear Cliff,
>>>
>>> Just to respond to your request:
>>> You have good grounds for the integration of culture and  
>>> community. In
>>> sociology and anthropology, it is pretty common to treat a  
>>> community as a
>>> culture. On the other hand, a culture can or might define a  
>>> community,
>>> build cohesion, we-feeling, etc. Of course, the
>>> definition/conceptualization of community is very complex, but I  
>>> am talking
>>> only in respect to the question you formulated.
>>>
>>> Culture can be conceptualized in the framework of the subject; in  
>>> the
>>> framework of activity, and as on object of study by itself.  
>>> Culture is also
>>> materialized in the object of activity, but this forms a different  
>>> plane of
>>> study. Other options are possible too. I need to keep short here.
>>>
>>> Community can be conceptualized as an activity system, as a  
>>> culture, as a
>>> social group, etc., depending on the scholarly objectives. When  
>>> community
>>> is conceptualized as an activity system, culture can be treated as  
>>> an
>>> inherent component of activity. However, this is not the only way  
>>> to treat
>>> culture in this situation. I just mention this one. Culture is  
>>> about shared
>>> meanings, but it is also more than shared meanings. Of course, you  
>>> can keep
>>> that shared meaning definition if you interpret many other  
>>> components as
>>> shared or shared meanings.
>>>
>>> You focus on the development of shared meanings in shared  
>>> activities.
>>> However, the concept of community can be delineated with different  
>>> foci
>>> depending on the scholarly objectives. We cannot describe or  
>>> analyze all
>>> aspects of a phenomenon. We have to select several. I mean when we  
>>> are
>>> interdisciplinary. Otherwise, we select only one aspect that is  
>>> core for a
>>> particular discipline or a research goal.
>>>
>>> Community is a very complex category. It stands for many types of  
>>> social
>>> groups and also for many other social and cultural phenomena. I  
>>> will stop
>>> here.
>>>
>>> Best wishes,
>>>
>>> Lubomir
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.**edu <xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu 
>>> >[mailto:
>>> xmca-l-bounces@**mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l- 
>>> bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu>] On
>>> Behalf Of Cliff O'Donnell
>>> Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:06 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Activity Setting
>>>
>>> Thanks, Larry. You are highlighting a key point in our article.
>>> Quoting again,
>>>
>>> "If we define community by shared activity and culture by shared
>>> meanings, the basis for a theoretical integration of the concepts of
>>> community and culture into cultural community psychology becomes  
>>> apparent.
>>> The key concept needed for such integration is one that can show  
>>> how shared
>>> meanings develop from shared activities. That key concept is
>>> intersubjectivity." (p. 23)
>>>
>>> Following up on that point, we would greatly appreciate the  
>>> thoughts of
>>> the XMCA group on the value of integrating the concepts of culture  
>>> and
>>> community. Our article presents the implications of doing so for  
>>> cultural
>>> community psychology. What implications does the XMCA group see  
>>> for CHAT?
>>>
>>> Cliff
>>>
>>> On Aug 13, 2013, at 7:36 AM, Larry Purss wrote:
>>>
>>> Cliff,
>>>> The shift from the individual TO *intersubjective* within activity
>>>> settings seems central.
>>>> As we explore activity settings, *inter-subjectivity* is also a
>>>> central term Larry
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Aug 12, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Cliff O'Donnell <cliffo@hawaii.edu 
>>>> >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for your response, Lubomir. Roger Barker was an important
>>>>> influence on my thinking earlier in my career. His work is highly
>>>>> respected in community psychology. Quoting from our article,  
>>>>> here is
>>>>> the distinction we see between behavior setting and activity  
>>>>> setting:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The subjective focus of activity settings distinguishes them from
>>>>> the behavior settings developed by Barker
>>>>> (1960 , 1968 ). In behavior settings, the focus is on objective  
>>>>> molar
>>>>> behavior specified by time and place. Behaviors are defined by the
>>>>> roles or positions of people in the setting and activity is used  
>>>>> to
>>>>> coordinate their behaviors. Suggestions have been made to alter
>>>>> behavior setting theory to include a wider range of individual
>>>>> behaviors, cognitions, and interventions in the setting (e.g.,  
>>>>> Luke
>>>>> et al. 1991 ; Schoggen
>>>>> 1989 ; Wicker 1987 ). In contrast, activity setting theory unifies
>>>>> the objective and subjective by showing how activity is influenced
>>>>> and intersubjectivity developed.
>>>>> Rather than a collection of individual behaviors and cognitions,
>>>>> intersubjectivity develops as a setting characteristic that  
>>>>> becomes
>>>>> the shared meanings of culture and provides the basis for cultural
>>>>> community psychology." (p. 24)
>>>>>
>>>>> For a more thorough presentation of our use of the concept of
>>>>> activity setting, please see:
>>>>>
>>>>> O'Donnell, C. R. & Tharp, R. G. (1990). Community intervention  
>>>>> guided
>>>>> by theoretical developments. In A. S. Bellack, M. Hersen, & A. E.
>>>>> Kazdin (Eds.), International handbook of behavior modification and
>>>>> therapy, 2nd Edition (pp. 251-266). New York: Plenum Press.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cliff
>>>>>
>>>>> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D.
>>>>> Professor Emeritus
>>>>> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA
>>>>> Division 27)
>>>>>
>>>>> University of Hawai'i
>>>>> Department of Psychology
>>>>> 2530 Dole Street
>>>>> Honolulu, HI 96822
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Aug 12, 2013, at 7:12 AM, Lubomir Savov Popov wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andy,
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am also interested to find the term "activity setting" in
>>>>>> Vigotsky's writings or those of his followers, including  
>>>>>> everyone in
>>>>>> the East European activity theory tradition. I would appreciate
>>>>>> articles or specific references and page numbers. I need this to
>>>>>> anchor some ideas and to pay tribute to earlier theorists if they
>>>>>> have worked on this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I am also interested if there are people on this list who work on
>>>>>> the development of the concept of activity setting or on activity
>>>>>> theory in relation to the planning and design of built  
>>>>>> environment.
>>>>>> They can contact me at the e-mail below my signature or via this
>>>>>> list, whichever is more convenient. I was going to make such a
>>>>>> request on this list some time ago, but now is a good occasion  
>>>>>> for
>>>>>> this.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> To my knowledge, no one in the East European activity theory
>>>>>> tradition has used the term "activity setting," at least till the
>>>>>> late 1980s. If I have missed something, it is good to catch up.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I personally work (on and off) on the concept of activity setting
>>>>>> since the early 1980s. However, I develop it as a methodological
>>>>>> category for the study of built environment. I have to  
>>>>>> acknowledge
>>>>>> that I got the idea for activity setting from Roger Barker's
>>>>>> "behavior setting." At that time, in East Europe, the concept of
>>>>>> behavior was considered one-sided and with less explanatory power
>>>>>> than the concept of activity. There was no way to introduce the
>>>>>> behavior setting concept without setting the reaction of  
>>>>>> mainstream
>>>>>> social scientists. Even if someone dared to suggest the behavior
>>>>>> setting concept in an article, the reviewers will automatically
>>>>>> recommend to rework it as "activity setting." In East European
>>>>>> social science of that time, behavior referred mostly to the
>>>>>> visible, mechanistic aspects of activity or in the sense of
>>>>>> "demeanor."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Bob Bechtel has done a good work in the early 1980 expanding on
>>>>>> Barker's behavior setting, operationalizing his ideas for the  
>>>>>> field
>>>>>> of Environment and Behavior (Architecture and Human Behavior;
>>>>>> Man-Environment Systems).
>>>>>> However, this work didn't continue. On the other hand, at that  
>>>>>> time,
>>>>>> it was too early to talk about activity settings in the USA. It  
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> early even now, in particular in the field of Environment and
>>>>>> Behavior. Many people in that field resent the idea of ditching
>>>>>> behavior for activity. They believe that the concept of behavior
>>>>>> setting is good enough and there is no need to introduce one more
>>>>>> concept of similar kind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In relation to the field of Environment and Behavior, I  
>>>>>> personally
>>>>>> believe that Barker has offered very useful ideas and they can
>>>>>> become a stepping stone for developing the concept of activity
>>>>>> setting. The activity setting concept will allow us to use the
>>>>>> apparatus of activity theory which is more powerful than the  
>>>>>> concept
>>>>>> of behavior. I also believe that the development of the activity
>>>>>> setting theory for the fields of teaching or management or social
>>>>>> work and community building will be somewhat different. Their  
>>>>>> focus
>>>>>> will be different and this will lead to working on different
>>>>>> details. As usual, it is not possible to study everything about  
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> object of study. We have to make difficult choices regarding  
>>>>>> aspects
>>>>>> and depth: what to study first, what to defer, and what to skip.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Barker had a lot of conflicts with main stream psychologists (not
>>>>>> activity theorists). I have heard from Bob Bechtel (a student of
>>>>>> Barker)
>>>>>> that psychologists were telling Barker: Roger, you think just  
>>>>>> like a
>>>>>> sociologist, which in psychological parlance meant Roger, you  
>>>>>> are a
>>>>>> SOB.
>>>>>> This illustrates the disciplinary biases and divisions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lubomir
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lubomir Popov, Ph.D.
>>>>>> School of Family and Consumer Sciences American Culture Studies
>>>>>> Affiliated Faculty Bowling Green State University
>>>>>> 309 Johnston Hall,
>>>>>> Bowling Green, Ohio 43403-0059
>>>>>> Lspopov@bgsu.edu
>>>>>> 419.372.7835
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D.
>>> Professor Emeritus
>>> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA
>>> Division 27)
>>>
>>> University of Hawai'i
>>> Department of Psychology
>>> 2530 Dole Street
>>> Honolulu, HI 96822
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D.
>> Professor Emeritus
>> Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA  
>> Division 27)
>>
>> University of Hawai‘i
>> Department of Psychology
>> 2530 Dole Street
>> Honolulu, HI 96822
>>
>>
>>

Clifford R. O'Donnell, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus
Past-President, Society for Community Research and Action (APA  
Division 27)

University of Hawai‘i
Department of Psychology
2530 Dole Street
Honolulu, HI 96822