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

[Huw Lloyd]

I get the impression I'm joining a discussion started elsewhere but I took
that 2005 article as an exercise in checking my understandings.  Basically,
I concur with where Victor arrived at (model c), however he seems to have
omitted the relation between compelling motive and true motive.  If one
understands "true motive" as the origin of the compelling motive, then
there's isn't a discrepancy on this issue.

Best,
Huw




On 5 October 2014 05:38, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> I found Kaptelinin's article in MCA invaluable, Mike. Bonnie Nardi I had
> the great pleasure of meeting for the first time at ISCAR, and if she has
> written something on "object" that is very good news.
> I don't think the problem is intractable, though I don't think one good
> book or one good article is enough. But for example, for a long while I
> have been jumping up and down about how people use the word "perezhivanie"
> without an article (the, a, an some, etc) implying it is some kind of
> "substance" whereas in Russian it is a count noun. While there remains
> outstanding differences about what perezhivanie means, I notice that almost
> all bar one now use it with an article. So, however that happened that is a
> step forward, and people are aware of the differences in interpretation and
> they are being discussed. I think if we talk about "object" for a while,
> maybe this can be straightened out. I know the task of conceptual
> consistency in our research community seems to be a hopeless task, but I am
> optimistic.
>
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> mike cole wrote:
>
>> 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 <mailto:
>> 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/
>>     <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>