[Xmca-l] Re: how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion

[mike cole]

Those certainly seem like lively topics, Andy.

I had in mind specifically topics that are on peoples' minds that go U
discussed. I hope that the time spent at ISCAR produces a shower of
interesting ideas. Isn't that the object of such gatherings?  (Whatever
object means!).  :-). The Nardi and Kaptelinin chapter on basics of AT is
one good source, but it seems the problem is intractable!

Mike

On Saturday, October 4, 2014, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> I don't know, but it's hardly surprising if things were a little slow this
> last week as a lot of xmca-ers are also iscar-ers and we were all chatting
> like crazy in Sydney at the ISCAR Congress. Everyone (and I mean everyone,
> including every passenger on a Sydney suburban train as well) has their
> iPhones and tablets etc., so they could read/write on xmca, but I guess
> they were oversupplied with correspondents and protagonists.
>
> My impressions of CHAT research:
> On the positive side: very diverse, and at its best, sharp and critical in
> relation to the dominant political forces, and still way out in front in
> understanding the several developmental processes which all contribute to
> our actions (phylogenesis, historical genesis, mesogenesis, ontogenesis,
> microgenesis), and not focussing on just one. And I have to say it is a
> great community of research, relatively lacking in the competitiveness and
> jealousy which infects most research communities.
>
> On the negative side:
>
>    * Most CHAT people still have a concept of "society" as some
>      homogeneous, abstract entity which introduces problems into the
>      social situation on which they try to focus, i.e., people lack a
>      viable social theory or the ability to use theory they have to
>      analyse the wider social situation in a differentiated way.
>    * The idea of "unit of analysis" is almost lost to us. Only a small
>      minority know what it means and use the idea in their research.
>    * The concept of "object" is at the centre of a lot of confusion;
>      few researchers using the concept are clear on what the concept
>      is. This is related to an unwillingness to confront and attempt to
>      resolve the methodological differences (I refer to systematic
>      difference, rather than accidental misunderstandings) within the
>      CHAT community; perhaps it's fear of losing the relatively civil
>      relations between researchers - people prefer to let differences
>      just fester without openly discussing them. The old Soviet
>      approach is gone, but perhaps we have gone too far the other way. :)
>
> Andy
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> mike cole wrote:
>
>> Hi-- I assume you grabbed it from my erroneous response to someone who
>> wrote backto xmca instead of me.
>>
>> Had dinner with tim ingold yesterday evening. Such an interesting and
>> unassuming guy.
>>
>> Any ideas about how to broaden/enliven the xmca discussion??
>>
>> mike
>>
>>
>>
>
>

-- 
It is the dilemma of psychology to deal with a natural science with an
object that creates history. Ernst Boesch.