[Xmca-l] Re: Nissen on working with youth

[Larry Purss]

Andy,
In the way Nissen asked about the transfer of meaning from conscience to
consciousness to conscientization as modelled and travelling across
traditions, I wonder if "a" collective motive may have a shared "image".
Is it possible that "a" motive that is collective is also a motive that is
"figured". The singularity of the collective motive as a project to be
"embodied" is a metaphor and therefore an image.  In bringing the
shared motive to actuality [being embodied]this act must be envisioned as
possible.

Andy you wrote, "figured world is just a field of individual competition
for rewards"

and this may be the standard meaning of the concept "figured world".

I was using the term "figured" [ personal sense] as being collectively
imagined and therefore participating in collective motives actualizing
"worlds". [personal sense]  How this personal sense becomes "meaning" which
is expressing collective motive is what I was attempting to indicate. This
"place" of empowerment involving recognition as participating in recognized
collectives.

The main reason I posted to was acknowledge Nissen's understanding of
"collectives" and "prototypical" as helping to expand my understanding
beyond personal sense to shared meaning.

Larry

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:09 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:

> In Nissen's theory a collective is a project, not something imagined. A
> project does entail a figured world a la Dot Holland, but a figured world
> lacks a collective motive which unites the collective. A figured world is
> just a field of individual competition for rewards.
> Andy
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>
>
> Larry Purss wrote:
>
>> This thread is focusing on Nissen's work as presented in the two articles
>> attached.
>>
>> I would like to return to the "journal of Dialogic Pedagogy" article on
>> page A25.
>>
>> He describes his concept of *"collective" *as a term which brings together
>> meaning and sense.
>> He writes,
>>
>> "I suggest the concept of *collective* as a kind of *subject*.  A
>> community
>> whose singular existence is no longer accidental, nor simply a function of
>> a shared project, but self-constituted and self-conscious, mediated by its
>> precarious relations to other subjects - including, importantly,
>> participants - as these relations are formed *in and with* cultural
>> standards under singular circumstances.  Recognizing itself as recognized
>> by these others.  In the terms of Hegel's dialectics, it is a singular
>> "we"
>> that exists *in and for itself *as an "us".  The implication is that
>> empowerment involves recognition as participant of recognized
>> collectives."
>>
>> I would suggest that Nissen's concept "collective" may be considered a
>> "figural world" that in being seen "as such" becomes that which is
>> imagined.
>>
>> Another central concept that Nissen uses is "prototypical" as indicating
>> the way or approach of modelling practises as "embodying" concrete
>> universals.  Another world with similar quality would be "incarnating"
>> concrete universals. Nissen is suggesting Freire's work on
>> "conscientization" can be used as a "prototypical model" and in this way
>> can be transported to other places and times such as Copenhagen and
>> working
>> with youth on the streets.
>> Nissen is asking how concepts such as "collectives" and "prototypical" can
>> be related to different traditions that carry what seem like different
>> meanings but may potentially share a common sense. [theme]
>>
>> For example he asks,
>>
>> "How did *conscientization* develop from Christian *conscience* and
>> Enlightenment *consciousness*, and how did it later transform into a
>> psychologized empowerment?" This question is addressed as this movement is
>> explored in the article.
>>
>> Prototypical concrete universals are *theoretical, but they do not easily
>> translate* to an immediate common sense. They must be mediated within
>> *collectives* and therefore do not lend themselves to simple and
>>
>> reductionist standardized concepts. [such as in dictionaries].
>> To understand prototypical concepts we need time and effort to first take
>> the prototypes seriously, in their own right, and then time and effort [as
>> models] to make them relevant as they are translated across space and
>> time.
>>
>> I hope I have done justice to Morten Nissen's understanding of the
>> concepts
>> "collectives" and "prototypes" which found insightful and I hope to
>> explore
>> further. I would recommend reading the two articles. He has thought deeply
>> on these "themes"
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:45 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Very interesting, Larry. So some ideas are tracking here.
>>>
>>> Concerning:
>>>
>>> He points out that within a Bahktinian perspective znachenie [meaning] is
>>> the *arena* for the evolution of the opposition between the I/you.
>>>
>>> And not from a Vygotskian perspective? Do Bakhtin and Voloshinov part
>>> ways
>>> here?
>>> I am pre-occupied with a series of other tasks and cannot turn back to
>>> these texts
>>> at present but am reading the discussion with a lot of interest and doing
>>> my best to keep up.
>>> mike
>>>
>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Thanks Mike for this lead. I will google her work.
>>>>
>>>> I also have downloaded the other Morten Nissen article written for the
>>>> Journal of Dialogic Pedagogy. That paper referenced a work by Fernanda
>>>> Coelho Liberali [Creative Chain in the Process of Becoming a Totality]
>>>> In the article is an extended discussion of "meaning" and "sense"
>>>>
>>>>
>>> comparing
>>>
>>>
>>>> and contrasting Vygotsky's and Bahktin's approaches to these ideas.
>>>> It is interesting that Vygotsky references "smysl" as "sense" while
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Bahktin
>>>
>>>
>>>> references "smysl" as "themes".
>>>>
>>>> I will offer a glimpse into the way Liberali is approaching "meaning" .
>>>>
>>>> He points out that within a Bahktinian perspective znachenie [meaning]
>>>> is
>>>> the *arena* for the evolution of the opposition between the I/you.
>>>>
>>>> A. A. Leontiev [2002a] affirms that mastery of meaning is the most
>>>> important way in which individual behaviour can be mediated through
>>>>
>>>>
>>> social
>>>
>>>
>>>> experience ... realized through various significations ....
>>>> Therefore znachenie introduces an idea of the power of existence *yet to
>>>> come. The power of becoming *or "zone" of potential development. In
>>>> *this
>>>> sense *[of meaning] the "zone" leads to the possibility of creativity...
>>>> Fundamentally, it indicates meaning *as the potential for human beings
>>>> within the "zone"*.  The "place" where human beings get together to
>>>>
>>>>
>>> create
>>>
>>>
>>>> new meanings through the sense they share together in the chain of
>>>> activities they take part in throughout their lives.
>>>>
>>>> I once again return to Zinchenko's "hypothesis" that it is in the act of
>>>> imagining "inner form" that inner form comes into being. It is for this
>>>> "reason" that I use this "method" of presenting versions of znachenie
>>>> and
>>>> smysl and in this process of presenting versions am participating in a
>>>>
>>>>
>>> zone
>>>
>>>
>>>> of shared creation through imagining inner form [and outer form].
>>>> As Zinchenko mentioned he is haunted by the image of  oscillating sense
>>>>
>>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>>
>>>> meaning.
>>>>
>>>> If others would like a copy of Liberali's article I could send.  It is
>>>>
>>>>
>>> only
>>>
>>>
>>>> one version of one perspective of meaning and sense but is engaging with
>>>> the power of becoming within zones.
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:26 PM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Larry.
>>>>>
>>>>> Locally we have been attracted by the idea of "figured worlds" which we
>>>>> learned from the work of Dotti Holland. A local colleague, Chandra
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Mukerji,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> has written persuasively about, for example, the construction of the
>>>>> gardens at Versaille and is many practices as creating the space to
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> imagine
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Paris as the new (imagined!) Rome.  This idea seems to capture of a lot
>>>>> what you are gesturing toward in your invocations of space, field,
>>>>> ,,,,,,,,,etc. and that activities that constituted it as a space.
>>>>>
>>>>> mike
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 10:44 AM, Larry Purss <lpscholar2@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Greg,
>>>>>> I would answer "yes" that everywhere peoples "care" about "forming
>>>>>> persons".
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So from this recognition of multiple centers of "care" [and also
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> multiple
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> standards] how do we embrace "bildung" but avoid ideological
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> imperialism??
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> I would suggest the notion of "places" as "spaces of formation" that
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> are
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> exploring "situated care" and "situated agency".  This involves
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ethical
>>>
>>>
>>>> questions of "care"  to be explored and developed within novel
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> formations
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> [places].  I would point out that many of these places are using
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> notions
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> such as "hybrid" places that are not merely subjective and not merely
>>>>>> objective but "third spaces" of transformation. I would also suggest
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> they
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> are imagining certain "kinds" of persons with certain "dispositions"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> that
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> abide within these formative "places" [or spaces]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Places where we can [with care] bring our notions of "bildung" and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> ask
>>>
>>>
>>>> questions of who decides, about what, in which situations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Places [zones, clearings, fields, circles, etc] from which we
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> form
>>>
>>>
>>>> hybrid cultural forms.
>>>>>> Places not as "literal" but "imaginal" could be ... places, possible
>>>>>> places, which in creating/discovering THIS "scene" [as an
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> instantiation
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the possible]  is realizing and articulating "our culture".  [and
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> making
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "real"]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does this forming places always have to be a dialectical struggle??
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Is
>>>
>>>
>>>> my
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> question a pastoral utopian type question which will not be able to
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> breath
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> and come "to life"??
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Interpretive community is another way to picture or figure this
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> "place".
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> How powerful are "models" for showing or indicating the possibility
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> of
>>>
>>>
>>>> bringing to form an ethical kind of "approach"??  Not standards but a
>>>>>> different notion of "facets" [as faces of the possible] Always
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> situated,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> never re-producible but using "models" to show the possibility.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Always in full recognition that one person's utopia may be another's
>>>>>> ideological imperialism.
>>>>>> Never going beyond the ethical [as the piety of questions].
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> De-constructing
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> the Eurocentric notion of "bidung" and opening a place for hybrid
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> forms
>>>
>>>
>>>> neither purely subjective nor purely objective.  Third spaces.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Greg Thompson <
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> greg.a.thompson@gmail.com>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And note that this piece articulates very nicely with the issues on
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> that
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> other thread about the transferrability of pedagogy across
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> socio-cultural
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> contexts, or as Nissen says:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> " the question whether and how standards of educational practice
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> can
>>>
>>>
>>>> be
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> transferred across great spatio-temporal and socio-cultural
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> distances
>>>
>>>
>>>> is
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> far from straightforward
>>>>>>> ​ ​
>>>>>>> and simple: addressing a Brazilian audience with Danish
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> experience, I
>>>
>>>
>>>> was
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> impelled to reconsider it."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I would add that this piece also articulates with Martin Packer's
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> issues
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> of
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "constitution" in that Nissen suggests that pedagogy is the
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> "forming
>>>
>>>
>>>> of
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> persons".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That also takes us back to bildung - is this ideological
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> imperialism?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I would argue, with Nissen (I think), that it is not, but rather
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> approaches
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a cultural universal. The particular forms vary dramatically from
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> one
>>>
>>>
>>>> cultural context to the next but it seems to me that peoples
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> everywhere
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> care very much about "forming persons".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -greg
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:17 AM, mike cole <mcole@ucsd.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Morten's article from J. Dialogical Pedagogy, "Meeting youth in
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> movement
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> and on neutral ground" attached. I thought this had been posted
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> before
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> part of the discussion. Apologies.
>>>>>>>> mike
>>>>>>>> PS-- Check out the journal. Open access, interesting, or so I
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> think.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> an
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> object
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Gregory A. Thompson, Ph.D.
>>>>>>> Assistant Professor
>>>>>>> Department of Anthropology
>>>>>>> 880 Spencer W. Kimball Tower
>>>>>>> Brigham Young University
>>>>>>> Provo, UT 84602
>>>>>>> http://byu.academia.edu/GregoryThompson
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> object
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an
>>> object
>>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>