[Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
Andy Blunden
ablunden@mira.net
Wed Jul 22 08:45:48 PDT 2015
Well, they're Yrjo's words so he will have to tell you, but
I can tell you how I've construed them.
Not until you asked, did I see that there is ambiguity in
the phrase. I had always taken it that the purpose and
motive is "in the nature" of the Arbeitsgegenstand. I think
Yrjo gives an example somewhere of a person who is ill - it
is obvious that the illness needs to be cured. So I read "in
itself" literally. "in it" would be the same.
But there is an alternative Hegelian reading, that in the
Arbeitsgegenstand, the is an OBJECT which is only "in
itself," that is, not yet realised, and that makes good
sense. It slides over the point that Larry raised, that the
OBJECT is not in the Arbeitsgegenstand alone but in the
relation of the Arbeitsgegenstand to the Subject, but that
is consistent with how Hegel uses the phrase "in itself."
Andy
------------------------------------------------------------
*Andy Blunden*
http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
On 23/07/2015 1:24 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
> That was a very helpful entry, Andy. Thanks!
> I see that our treatment of object in the paper is very much in line with the notion of Arbeitsgegenstand as you describe it.
>
> I have many questions, most of which I should find in the literature rather than bother here. But I would like to ask one here. It concerns the quote that the object "carries in itself the purpose and motive of the activity." What does "in itself" mean here?
> Thanks again for a very informative post,
> Alfredo
> ________________________________________
> From: xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
> Sent: 22 July 2015 08:31
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>
> If I could try to do my thing and draw attention to some
> distinctions in this field ... we have at least three
> different versions of Activity Theory involved here plus
> Leigh Star's theory and in addition the theories that have
> spun off from Leigh Star's initial idea. Each is using the
> word "object" in a different way, all of them legitimate
> uses of the English word, but all indexing different
> concepts. So for the sake of this discussion I will invent
> some different terms.
>
> The German word Arbeitsgegenstand means the object of
> labour, the material which is to be worked upon, the
> blacksmith's iron. It is objective, in that if may be a nail
> to a man with a hammer and waste material for a man with a
> broom, but it is all the same Arbeitsgegenstand. Engestrom
> use the word "Object" in the middle of the left side of the
> triangle to mean Arbeitsgegenstand, and when it has been
> worked upon it becomes "Outcome." The hammer that the
> blacksmith uses is called "Instruments" or now
> "instrumentality," and the Rules, whether implicit or
> explicit, these are respectively the base and apex of the
> triangle.
>
> Engestrom says " The object carries in itself the purpose
> and motive of the activity." So this "purpose or motive" is
> not shown on the triangle, but I will call it the OBJECT.
> This is what Leontyev meant by "object" when he talks about
> "object-oriented activity." The OBJECT is a complex notion,
> because it is only *implicit* in the actions of the
> subject(s); it is not a material thing or process as such.
> Behaviourists would exclude it altogether. But this is what
> is motivating all the members of the design team when they
> sit down to collaborate with one another. Bone one of the
> team thinks the OBJECT is to drive the nail into the wood
> and another thinks the OBJECT is to sweep the
> Arbeitsgegenstand into the wastebin. These OBJECTs change in
> the course of collaboration and in the End an OBJECT Is
> *realised* which is the "truth" of the collaboration, to use
> Hegel's apt terminology here.
>
> Surely it is important to recognise that while everyone
> shares the same Arbeitsgegenstand, and ends up with Outcome
> as the same OBJECT, along the road they construe the object
> differently. This is what Vygotsky showed so clearly in
> Thinking and Speech. It is not the Arbeitsgegenstand or some
> problem carried within it alone which motivates action, but
> *the concept the subject makes of the Arbeitsgegenstand*!
>
> Then Leigh Star comes along and applies (as Lubomir astutely
> notices) postmodern ideology critique to the collaboration
> within an ostensibly neutral infrastructure - that is, in
> Engestrom's terms Rules and Instruments, which are naively
> supposed to be there just to aid collaboration. And Leigh
> Star shows that this is an illusion; the Rules and
> Instruments are in fact residues of past collaborations
> which carry within them the Outcomes, i.e., realised OBJECTs
> of past collaborations. It is these one-time OBJECTs,
> now-Instruments+Rules which are the Boundary Objects.
>
> But it seems that other have grasped the postmodern critique
> elements of this idea, that apparently ideologically neutral
> obJects (in the expanded sense of socially constructed
> entities, usually far more than OBJects - as things, or
> artefacts, including institutions - fossilised "systems of
> activity") and recognised the shared OBJECT as a Boundary
> Object, reflecting the fact not everyone has the same
> concept of the OBJECT, as Vygotsky proved.
>
> But what Engestrom has done, by placing the Boundary Object
> in the place of Object on his triangle, joining two "systems
> of activity," for the purpose of looking not at cooperation
> but rather the conflict within the broader collaboration.
> The reconstrual of the Arbeitsgegenstand is deliberate and
> aimed to change the relation between Subject and obJECT
> (here referring to the Hegelian "Object" usually rendered as
> "the Other.") thereby introducing yet a different strand of
> postmodern critique into the equation, namely Foucault's
> Poststructuralism, to mind mind, with great effect.
>
> OK, so we have Arbeitsgegenstand. OBJECT, Boundary Object,
> OBject, obJECT and obJect. And I might say, the situation is
> almost as bad in Russian and German,
>
> Andy
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> *Andy Blunden*
> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
> On 22/07/2015 5:46 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote:
>> Thanks a lot for your appreciation, Lubomir.
>>
>> To clarify my question in the previous e-mail, I wish to add that I am a bit familiar with the distinction between object and tool in activity theory, though not enough yet. I can see, and we were aware through the process, that what we describe in the paper has to do with how the object of design emerged and developed for the team in and as they were dealing with, developing, and resorting to particular means or tools. But I guess we could say that in our analyses there is a lack of a historical account of the object that goes over and above the particular instances analyzed. Although we provide with some ethnographic contextualization of the team's developmental trajectories, all of our discussion is grounded on concrete events and their transactional unfolding. We did not resort to the distinction between object and means because it seemed to be the same thing in the there and then of the episodes analyzed, at least in what participants' orientations concerned. If they ori
>> ented towards anything beyond what was there in the meetings, it was in and through the meetings' means. How would then the distinction between means and object have added to our understanding of the events? (And this is not to doubt of the contribution from such a distinction, I really mean to ask this question for the purpose of growing and expanding; and as said before, part of the answer may be found in Engestrom et al. contribution).
>>
>> As to how we would position our contribution with regard to activity theory, I would reiterate what we said when introducing the paper for discussion: we begun with the purpose of working outside any particular framework and think, as we think Star did, broadly, drawing from several sources. These included cultural historical psychology, ethnomethodology, and discourse analysis. But also the ideas about Experience (in the Deweyan/Vygotskyan sense) that have been the topic in this discussion were in the background all the time, but we did not operationalize them in terms of any particular theory. This is not to say that we went for the "anything goes;" we tried our best to keep internal coherence between what we said about the data, and what the data was exhibiting for us. Perhaps Rolf would like to add to this.
>>
>> I think the questions you are rising about activity theory are very much in the spirit of what I am after, and I am not the best to answer them; but this xmca list may be one of the best places to be asking those questions.
>>
>> Alfredo
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Lubomir Savov Popov <lspopov@bgsu.edu>
>> Sent: 21 July 2015 21:16
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Dear Alfredo and Rolf,
>>
>> There are also a few other things that I would like to bring to this discussion.
>>
>> First, you have a wonderful project and a great article. It is a great example of an interpretativist approach to everyday life phenomena. Really interesting and fascinating. It is all about our minds, culture, and activity.
>>
>> However, how is your approach related to classic Activity Theory? Some people might find that it is a Symbolic Interactionist approach; others might say it one of the Deconstructivist approaches that emerge right now or have emerged in the last decades; still other people might look for connections to ethnomethodology, discourse analysis, etc. I am not trying here to impose a template or categorize your methodology -- just raising a question about its connection to Activity Theory. And again, I am not saying that this is a shortcoming -- I would like to clarify certain things for myself.
>>
>> For example: What are the limits and boundaries of Activity Theory? How much we can fuse Activity Theory and Postmodernist approaches? What do we gain when we infuse new methodological, epistemological, and ontological realities into Activity Theory? What do we lose? What is the threshold when it is not Activity Theory anymore? (I mean here Activity Theory as research methodology.) Do we need to call something Activity Theory if it is not? If we create a new approach starting with Activity Theory, do we need to call it Activity Theory?
>>
>> Activity Theory is a product of Modern thinking, Late Modernism. The discourse you use in your paper borrows strongly from Postmodern discourses and approaches. I am not sure that Modernist and Postmodernist discourses can be fused. We can borrow ideas across the range of discourses, but after we assimilate them for use in our project, they will "change hands" and will change their particular discourse affiliation and will become completely different components of a completely different discourse. Mostly because the epistemologies and ontologies are different; and the concepts are very different despite of the similarities in ideas and words used to name these ideas.
>>
>> Just a few questions that I hope will help me understand better what is going on in the realm of CHAT.
>>
>> Thank you very much for this exciting discussion,
>>
>> Lubomir
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+lspopov=bgsu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil
>> Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2015 11:36 AM
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; Andy Blunden
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Andy, all,
>> I just recently begun to read Engeström and cols. contribution to the special issue, which is very interesting. I have particular interest in the difference that they point out between boundary object on the one hand, and object and instrumentality as different aspects of activity theory on the other. Rolf and I came across this distinction while writing our own paper. We noticed that the museum space, through multiple forms of presentations (e.g., the room itself, a floor plan, performances of being in the room while not being there, etc), was a means, an instrument for achieving a final design product.
>>
>> At the same time, the museum space begun to become the object of the designers' activity. Since this were interdisciplinary designs, and the partners had multiple, sometimes opposite interests, what seemed to be a common object for all them was the museum as place. Thus, most representations of it begun to be made in terms of narratives about being there. That was the orientation that seemed to stick them together.
>>
>> Thus, the museum space was both object and instrument. We wondered whether we should do connections to notions of object of activity and tools, but we felt that that road would take us away from the focus on body and experience. We ended up drawing from Binder et al (2011), who differentiate between object of design, the design thing that work delivers, and the object's constituents (or means of presentation before the design thing is finished).
>>
>> When bringing the notion of boundary object into the picture, we could discuss the history of development of these relations between the different forms of presentations of the museum means towards the object without necessarily articulating the differences between the two. One advantage was that boundary objects focus on the materiality, which, as already mentioned, is not about materials in themselves, but about consequences in action. From the point of view of the persons implicated in the process, the museum space as object of design was an issue in and through the working with some material, some form of presenting it or changing it. Both object and instrument seemed to be moments of a same experience. But I still want to learn what we may get out of making the distinction between object and tool, as Engeström and colleagues do (so I should perhaps read more carefully their study rather than be here thinking aloud).
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>> Alfredo
>>
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu> on behalf of Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net>
>> Sent: 21 July 2015 14:38
>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The Emergence of Boundary Objects
>>
>> Henry, anything. But the point is objects which play some
>> role in mediating the relation between subjects, probably a
>> symbolic role, but possibly an instrumental role, too, and
>> one subject challenges that role and turns the object into
>> its opposite, and changes the terms of collaboration.
>> A number of examples spring to mind.
>>
>> * Loaded, especially pejorative words, such as Queer, are
>> embraced by a despised group who take control of the
>> word and assertively embrace it;
>> * The post-WW2 women's peace movement who deployed their
>> stereotype as housewives and mothers to magnificant effect;
>> * ISIS's hatred and fear of women turned into a weapon
>> against them by Kurdish women fighters (ISIS flee before
>> them rather than in shame);
>> * The Chartists who turned the British govt's stamp which
>> put newspapers out of reach of workers against them by
>> printing the Northern Star as a stamped newspaper and
>> obliging workers to club together in groups to buy and
>> read it, thus making the paper into a glorious
>> organising tool;
>> * the naming of Palestine and the Occupied Territory /
>> Israel is the struggle over the meaning of a shared
>> object (the land);
>> * Gandhi's use of the landloom as both a weapon and tool
>> for Indian independence and self-sufficiency, raising it
>> from the status of obsolete and inferior technology to a
>> symbol of India.
>>
>> In think this is not what Susan Leigh Star had in mind when
>> she introduced the term, but core point is that the
>> ideological construction placed upon an object is subject to
>> contestation, and if successful, the re-marking of an
>> artefact is a tremendously powerful spur to subjectivity.
>>
>> Yrjo raises the question: is the"boundary object" a
>> mediating artefact or the object of work
>> (/Arbeitsgegenstand/)? I think the answer is that in these
>> cases it is a mediating artefact, tool or symbols according
>> to context. In principle it is not the Object in the
>> Engestromian sense, though it might happen to be.
>>
>> Andy
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> *Andy Blunden*
>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>> On 21/07/2015 12:27 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote:
>>> Rolf, Alfredo, Andy,
>>> I got to thinking about the photographs as boundary objects. What about video?
>>> Henry
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Jul 20, 2015, at 6:07 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Yes, thinking about this overnight, I came to see that it was the photographs that Thomas was endeavouring to turn to use to recover his humanity. This is consonant with how Yrjo was using the idea in relation to the subsistence farmers' movement in Mexico and their corn.
>>>> Thanks Rolf!
>>>> Andy
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>> On 21/07/2015 3:04 AM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>>>>> This makes sense to me, Andy. I could also interpret the photographs as boundary objects as they support the coordination of therapy activities between Thomas and the nurse. I think it depends on the aspect of activity one is attempting to explore as opposed to the definite identification of what may or may not be a boundary object. This is only my opinion though!
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 3:49 PM, Andy Blunden <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Or alternatively, the boundary object in question is
>>>>> Thomas's aged body, which is subject to an
>>>>> interpretation which Thomas contests by showing
>>>>> photographs of far away places and explaining how
>>>>> well-travelled he is, seeking an interpretation of
>>>>> himself as a well-travelled and experiences
>>>>> man-of-the-world.
>>>>> Does that make better sense?
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> On 20/07/2015 11:27 PM, Andy Blunden wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I agree. My own interest is in social theory
>>>>> and I'd never heard of "boundary objects." It
>>>>> seems to me that what BOs do is introduce some
>>>>> social theory into domains of activity (scientific
>>>>> and work collaborations for example) where the
>>>>> participants naively think they are collaborating
>>>>> on neutral ground. So it is not just granularity,
>>>>> but also the ideological context.
>>>>>
>>>>> In Yjro Engestrom's article, the home care workers
>>>>> collaborate with the old couple according to rules
>>>>> and regulations, communications resources,
>>>>> technology, finance and so on, which in the
>>>>> unnamed country, the old couple are apparently
>>>>> cast as "patients". Isn't it the case that here it
>>>>> is those rules and regulations, etc., which are
>>>>> the "boundary objects"?
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> On 20/07/2015 11:13 PM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that a particular institution or
>>>>> government system could potentially be a
>>>>> boundary object depending on how the concept
>>>>> is applied. Star describes three criteria: 1)
>>>>> interpretive flexibility 2) material/
>>>>> organizational structure and 3) scale/
>>>>> granularity in which the concept is useful.
>>>>>
>>>>> She argues that boundary objects are typically
>>>>> most useful at the organizational level - so I
>>>>> would say that one would have to justify the
>>>>> utility of applying the concept to a
>>>>> particular institution, as opposed to, say, an
>>>>> object within an institution.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 2:46 PM, Andy Blunden
>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Phew!
>>>>> So would it be correct to describe the
>>>>> government
>>>>> institutions and political system are
>>>>> "boundary objects"?
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> On 20/07/2015 9:42 PM, Rolf Steier wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Andy -
>>>>> Good catch! I believe that is a typo
>>>>> and should
>>>>> read "despite a LACK of consensus".
>>>>> Thank you for
>>>>> pointing that out.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I also wanted to follow up on a
>>>>> suggestion that
>>>>> Greg made in the other thread
>>>>> suggesting we look
>>>>> at David McNeill's work. I had only
>>>>> been familiar
>>>>> with his earlier work on gesture, but
>>>>> after doing
>>>>> a bit of reading over the weekend, I
>>>>> found his
>>>>> concept of 'unexpected metaphors'
>>>>> potentially
>>>>> useful in dealing with some of my
>>>>> questions.(
>>>>> http://mcneilllab.uchicago.edu/pdfs/unexpected_metaphors.pdf
>>>>> )
>>>>>
>>>>> Here is a relevant quote describing
>>>>> unexpected
>>>>> metaphors as a form of gesture:
>>>>>
>>>>> /The logic is that unexpected
>>>>> metaphors arise
>>>>> from the
>>>>> need to create images when the
>>>>> culture does
>>>>> not have
>>>>> them readily at hand. These images
>>>>> join linguistic
>>>>> content as growth points and
>>>>> differentiate what
>>>>> Vygotsky (1987) called psychological
>>>>> predicates, or
>>>>> points of contrast in the
>>>>> immediate ongoing
>>>>> context of
>>>>> speaking. Unexpected metaphors,
>>>>> precisely
>>>>> because they
>>>>> are outside the conventions of
>>>>> language and
>>>>> culture,
>>>>> can capture abstractions in novel
>>>>> ways and
>>>>> provide the
>>>>> fluidity of thought and language
>>>>> that is the
>>>>> essence
>>>>> of ongoing discourse./
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jul 20, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Andy
>>>>> Blunden
>>>>> <ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net
>>>>> <mailto:ablunden@mira.net>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Rolf, what did you mean by "the
>>>>> achievement of
>>>>> cooperation despite consensus"?
>>>>> p. 131,
>>>>>
>>>>> Andy
>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> *Andy Blunden*
>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> <http://home.pacific.net.au/%7Eandy/>
>>>>> On 17/07/2015 8:45 AM, Rolf Steier
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Are we allowed to ask
>>>>> questions about our
>>>>> paper as
>>>>> well? I hope so!
>>>>>
>>>>> For a little context -in our
>>>>> paper, we
>>>>> identified
>>>>> particular kinds of
>>>>> episodes in which participants
>>>>> from different
>>>>> disciplines seek coherence
>>>>> and continuity of shared
>>>>> representations
>>>>> through
>>>>> bodily action. These
>>>>> actions include gesture,
>>>>> movement and physical
>>>>> performance linking the
>>>>> present material artifacts to
>>>>> objects of
>>>>> design.
>>>>> Most of these episodes
>>>>> seem to involve some form of
>>>>> improvisation,
>>>>> resourcefulness or creativity,
>>>>> and I'm not fully sure how to
>>>>> characterize
>>>>> these
>>>>> aspects of the
>>>>> interactions. In most cases, the
>>>>> participants seem
>>>>> to be searching for the
>>>>> best words or material
>>>>> representation to
>>>>> convey a
>>>>> particular intention -
>>>>> when this becomes problematic
>>>>> or limiting
>>>>> - they
>>>>> almost fall back on what
>>>>> is available - these
>>>>> improvised bodily
>>>>> performances - as a way of
>>>>> maintaining continuity, and of
>>>>> inviting
>>>>> co-participants into a shared and
>>>>> imagined space. These bodily
>>>>> actions don't
>>>>> seem to
>>>>> begin the proposals, but
>>>>> are in a sense *discovered* by the
>>>>> participants.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think there is something
>>>>> really fascinating
>>>>> about this kind of creativity
>>>>> and resourcefulness in
>>>>> interaction that
>>>>> could be
>>>>> explored more deeply - and
>>>>> that I'm having trouble
>>>>> articulating.
>>>>> Maybe some
>>>>> of you have some thoughts
>>>>> on this? Alfredo - I know
>>>>> we've talked
>>>>> about this
>>>>> a bit before so maybe you
>>>>> can add a little clarity to my
>>>>> question.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 9:37
>>>>> PM, HENRY SHONERD
>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Alfredo,
>>>>> Thank you very much for
>>>>> the sketch of your
>>>>> roots. I taught English in
>>>>> Puigcerda and Barcelona
>>>>> for 5 years
>>>>> back in
>>>>> the early 70s, just before
>>>>> Franco died. (He died the
>>>>> day I
>>>>> boarded the
>>>>> plane back to the U.S.) Place
>>>>> and language are interesting,
>>>>> especially where
>>>>> language varieties meet.
>>>>> Boundaries. I know mostly
>>>>> from my
>>>>> familiarity
>>>>> with the music of Catalunya
>>>>> and Mallorca that the speech
>>>>> communities in
>>>>> each of those places treasure
>>>>> their unique languages
>>>>> (Catalan and
>>>>> Mallorquin), yet see a
>>>>> commonality
>>>>> vis-a-vis their
>>>>> separateness from
>>>>> Castilian
>>>>> Spanish, the national language
>>>>> of Spain from 1492 on. I
>>>>> see a parallel
>>>>> between your work on boundary
>>>>> objects, where individual
>>>>> persons
>>>>> collaborate
>>>>> to create spaces, AND
>>>>> boundary objects
>>>>> "negotiated" by groups of
>>>>> people who live in real
>>>>> spaces.
>>>>> I am thinking, among other
>>>>> things, of
>>>>> indigeneity, a big topic
>>>>> here in New
>>>>> Mexico, with so many
>>>>> Native Americans.
>>>>> Assymetries of power.
>>>>> Bullying.
>>>>> Testing and curriculum become
>>>>> instruments of
>>>>> war by other means. I hope my
>>>>> tone does not distract
>>>>> from, nor
>>>>> diminish, the
>>>>> optimism created by this
>>>>> thread. Yet I think that
>>>>> optimism is so
>>>>> precious because of the
>>>>> ground (the
>>>>> world) of the dialog.
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 16, 2015, at
>>>>> 12:13 PM, Alfredo
>>>>> Jornet Gil
>>>>> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, you could say
>>>>> that I am partly
>>>>> Catalan. I grew up in
>>>>> the province
>>>>>
>>>>> of Valencia, where Catalan
>>>>> language is
>>>>> official language together
>>>>> with
>>>>> Castilian Spanish.
>>>>> Although Valencia (the
>>>>> county) and Catalonia are
>>>>> different regional
>>>>> counties, Catalan
>>>>> is spoken
>>>>> in Catalonia, Valencia, and
>>>>> the Balear Islands. Some
>>>>> call the three
>>>>> together as the Catalan
>>>>> Countries.
>>>>> I don't like borders, but
>>>>> I respect
>>>>> and enjoy
>>>>> cultural diversity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Standardized testing,
>>>>> and the whole
>>>>> assumptions behind it,
>>>>> are an issue
>>>>>
>>>>> also in Spain and in
>>>>> Catalonia; but
>>>>> education
>>>>> has been so battered during
>>>>> the last years of right-wing
>>>>> government that I
>>>>> the debate have been more
>>>>> about means and access
>>>>> than about
>>>>> contents and
>>>>> aims. Which in some sense
>>>>> may be good because it
>>>>> moves the
>>>>> debates away
>>>>> from performance. But I have
>>>>> been living outside of
>>>>> Spain for eight
>>>>> years
>>>>> now, so I am not the best to
>>>>> update you on this either.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From:
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>> on
>>>>> behalf of
>>>>> HENRY SHONERD
>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: 16 July 2015 19:54
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind,
>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re:
>>>>> The Emergence of
>>>>> Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Alfredo,
>>>>> Yes, you have answered
>>>>> my question
>>>>> very
>>>>> nicely! I especially
>>>>> appreciate
>>>>>
>>>>> that you were willing to
>>>>> wrestle with my
>>>>> question, despite your lack of
>>>>> familiarity with the
>>>>> issues here in
>>>>> the U.S.
>>>>> Am I wrong, or are you
>>>>> Catalan? In which case
>>>>> your experience in
>>>>> Catalunya would take you to a
>>>>> different place in critiquing
>>>>> schooling there,
>>>>> though not necessarily
>>>>> unconnected to yours and
>>>>> Rolf's work on
>>>>> boundary objects. I just
>>>>> met for
>>>>> the second day in a row
>>>>> with a friend
>>>>> who is
>>>>> the liaison between our public
>>>>> school district and a
>>>>> children's science
>>>>> museum called Explora. I
>>>>> feel like
>>>>> I'm swimming in this
>>>>> thread, talk about a
>>>>> mixed metaphor!
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 16, 2015,
>>>>> at 12:18 AM,
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>> Jornet Gil
>>>>> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry, Henry,
>>>>> but I am
>>>>> not very
>>>>> familiar with
>>>>> high-stakes
>>>>>
>>>>> standardized testing (as
>>>>> different to
>>>>> standardized testing in
>>>>> general) or
>>>>> with common core (which I
>>>>> quickly read
>>>>> is an
>>>>> issue in US). But I would say
>>>>> that, if (school)
>>>>> curricula were to be
>>>>> consistent with the view of
>>>>> education as the practice
>>>>> of creating
>>>>> conditions for certain
>>>>> attitudes and
>>>>> dispositions to
>>>>> emerge--which is what
>>>>> I was
>>>>> suggesting in the
>>>>> paragraph you
>>>>> copy--curricula would not
>>>>> be so much about
>>>>> standardized contents, but
>>>>> about
>>>>> human sensitivities and
>>>>> relations. So,
>>>>> I would
>>>>> say, no, standardized
>>>>> testing is not in
>>>>> principle in line
>>>>> with what
>>>>> I was trying to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> I was trying to
>>>>> make a distinction
>>>>> between trying to
>>>>> design someone's
>>>>>
>>>>> particular experience, and
>>>>> trying to
>>>>> design
>>>>> conditions for the development
>>>>> of attitudes and
>>>>> orientations. The
>>>>> first is
>>>>> likely impossible. The second
>>>>> seems to make more sense.
>>>>>
>>>>> One may of course
>>>>> wonder
>>>>> whether those
>>>>> attitudes and
>>>>> orientations can
>>>>>
>>>>> be considered general, and
>>>>> then form
>>>>> part of
>>>>> standardize measures instead
>>>>> of the traditional
>>>>> "contents and
>>>>> skills". But
>>>>> measuring assumes some
>>>>> quantitative increment in
>>>>> a particular
>>>>> aspect
>>>>> as the result of learning.
>>>>> Growth and development,
>>>>> however, are about
>>>>> qualitative change. So, as
>>>>> soon
>>>>> as you start measuring you
>>>>> would be
>>>>> missing
>>>>> growth and development. So,
>>>>> again, no. I would not say
>>>>> that
>>>>> high-stakes
>>>>> standardized testing is in
>>>>> line
>>>>> with what I was trying to say.
>>>>>
>>>>> I hope I have
>>>>> answered your
>>>>> question,
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From:
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>> on
>>>>> behalf of
>>>>> HENRY SHONERD
>>>>> <hshonerd@gmail.com <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com
>>>>> <mailto:hshonerd@gmail.com>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: 16 July 2015
>>>>> 07:48
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind,
>>>>> Culture,
>>>>> Activity
>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l]
>>>>> Re: The
>>>>> Emergence of
>>>>> Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Alfredo, you say:
>>>>>
>>>>> "However, we
>>>>> cannot aim at
>>>>> determining
>>>>> any particular
>>>>>
>>>>> situation/experience. The
>>>>> same may be said
>>>>> about EDUCATION. We cannot
>>>>> intend to communicate the
>>>>> curriculum
>>>>> and make
>>>>> it the content of the
>>>>> students' experience in
>>>>> the way we
>>>>> intend. But
>>>>> we can try to create the
>>>>> conditions for certain
>>>>> attitudes and
>>>>> dispositions to emerge."
>>>>>
>>>>> Would you say that
>>>>> high-stakes
>>>>> standardized
>>>>> testing is in
>>>>> line with
>>>>>
>>>>> your construal of
>>>>> curriculum design?
>>>>> How about
>>>>> common core?
>>>>>
>>>>> Henry
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 15,
>>>>> 2015, at 5:29 PM,
>>>>> Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>>>> <a.j.gil@iped.uio.no <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no
>>>>> <mailto:a.j.gil@iped.uio.no>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks a lot
>>>>> for the
>>>>> clarifications. I see now
>>>>> why it
>>>>> may be said that
>>>>>
>>>>> designers can aim at
>>>>> designing for
>>>>> constrains
>>>>> but not for affordances. I
>>>>> see that this way of
>>>>> talking is part of a
>>>>> designers' way to get things
>>>>> done, and that it may
>>>>> indeed be an
>>>>> effective
>>>>> way to design for
>>>>> place-making, as in the
>>>>> example that
>>>>> Michael
>>>>> gives of MOMA. Indeed, much of
>>>>> what we report in our
>>>>> study is about
>>>>> designers
>>>>> talking about how spatial
>>>>> features might afford some
>>>>> experiences
>>>>> in the
>>>>> museum while constraining
>>>>> others.
>>>>>
>>>>> I must admit,
>>>>> however, that I
>>>>> still consider
>>>>> the distinction
>>>>>
>>>>> problematic from an
>>>>> analytical perspective
>>>>> whenever our object of
>>>>> study is
>>>>> experience, situated
>>>>> action, or design as
>>>>> situated practice. A more
>>>>> correct
>>>>> way to talk is that
>>>>> affordances and
>>>>> constrains
>>>>> are the positive and
>>>>> negative
>>>>> sides/interpretations of a single
>>>>> unitary category. As an actual
>>>>> and concrete phenomenon,
>>>>> walking into
>>>>> a musuem
>>>>> implies both affordances and
>>>>> constrains at the same
>>>>> time, whether
>>>>> intended
>>>>> or not. Which makes me wonder
>>>>> whether other terminology,
>>>>> such as
>>>>> Ingold's
>>>>> notion of "correspondence,"
>>>>> might be more appropriated
>>>>> when we
>>>>> talk about
>>>>> how materials and actions
>>>>> become entangled into
>>>>> particular
>>>>> trajectories.
>>>>>
>>>>> In any case,
>>>>> and as Rolf
>>>>> emphasizes,
>>>>> what the
>>>>> designers in
>>>>> our study
>>>>>
>>>>> indeed do is to IMAGINE
>>>>> ways of being
>>>>> in the
>>>>> museum. Imagination versus
>>>>> prediction may be an
>>>>> interesting topic
>>>>> emerging here for further
>>>>> inquiry
>>>>> into design work.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another
>>>>> important (and
>>>>> related)
>>>>> issue that I
>>>>> think is
>>>>> emerging here
>>>>>
>>>>> has to do with the level
>>>>> of generality at
>>>>> which design intentions can be
>>>>> expected to work (just as
>>>>> Bateson
>>>>> argued with
>>>>> regard to prediction). At the
>>>>> level of generic social
>>>>> processes, and
>>>>> given a
>>>>> particular
>>>>> cultural-historical
>>>>> background, we as
>>>>> designers may try to make some
>>>>> generic situations more
>>>>> likely to
>>>>> occur than
>>>>> others (facilitating that more
>>>>> or less people end up
>>>>> together in a given
>>>>> place). However, we cannot
>>>>> aim at
>>>>> determining any particular
>>>>> situation/experience. The
>>>>> same may be
>>>>> said about
>>>>> EDUCATION. We cannot intend to
>>>>> communicate the
>>>>> curriculum and make it the
>>>>> content of the students'
>>>>> experience in
>>>>> the way
>>>>> we intend. But we can try to
>>>>> create the conditions for
>>>>> certain
>>>>> attitudes
>>>>> and dispositions to emerge.
>>>>>
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From:
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>> on
>>>>> behalf of
>>>>> Glassman, Michael
>>>>> <glassman.13@osu.edu <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: 15 July
>>>>> 2015 23:30
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind,
>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject:
>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: The
>>>>> Emergence of
>>>>> Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alfredo,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Rolf
>>>>> may have
>>>>> addressed
>>>>> the question
>>>>> of the
>>>>> differences
>>>>>
>>>>> between affordances and
>>>>> constraints in his
>>>>> post. The way he described the
>>>>> designers as possibly
>>>>> setting up the
>>>>> corner
>>>>> with Pollock at MOMA. It
>>>>> was a
>>>>> long time ago so I'm not
>>>>> sure if this
>>>>> is the
>>>>> way it was or the way I
>>>>> remember it, but let's
>>>>> just believe
>>>>> this is
>>>>> the way it was. The painting,
>>>>> I think there were three
>>>>> were set up in a
>>>>> corner off a main
>>>>> corridor. The
>>>>> lighting was dark, which
>>>>> if you have
>>>>> ever been
>>>>> to MOMA is different, in
>>>>> many other parts of the
>>>>> museum there
>>>>> is a good
>>>>> deal of natural light (there
>>>>> was this great fountain, I
>>>>> wonder if it is
>>>>> still there). The paintings
>>>>> were on tripods rather
>>>>> than hung on
>>>>> the walls
>>>>> and they were surrounded on
>>>>> three sides by walls. All
>>>>> of these I
>>>>> think
>>>>> would be considered restraints
>>>>> - pushing me in to the
>>>>> works rather than
>>>>> stepping back away. It was
>>>>> impossible for more than
>>>>> two or three
>>>>> people
>>>>> to view the paintings at one
>>>>> time and movement was
>>>>> limited, so
>>>>> there were
>>>>> fewer chances for social
>>>>> interactions (you were not
>>>>> going to
>>>>> pick up
>>>>> anybody looking at Jackson
>>>>> Pollock). The atmosphere was
>>>>> brooding, making
>>>>> it more likely that viewers
>>>>> would move towards internal
>>>>> reflection. All
>>>>> of these were constraints that
>>>>> canalized perspectives and
>>>>> feelings
>>>>> viewing
>>>>> the paintings. You really had
>>>>> only two choices, you
>>>>> moved in to the
>>>>> paintings or you moved on,
>>>>> which I
>>>>> had done every previous
>>>>> time coming
>>>>> upon them.
>>>>>
>>>>> The painting
>>>>> itself though
>>>>> became
>>>>> an
>>>>> affordances, an object
>>>>> at the
>>>>>
>>>>> nexus of my journey
>>>>> through the
>>>>> museum, where
>>>>> I was in my life, and my
>>>>> abilities to perceive the
>>>>> painitings. This
>>>>> was something that could
>>>>> not be
>>>>> designed I think because
>>>>> nobody could
>>>>> think
>>>>> that moment was going to
>>>>> happen. So then what is
>>>>> a perceived
>>>>> affordance. Way back when
>>>>> there was
>>>>> also a Manet room. It was
>>>>> a round
>>>>> room with
>>>>> different variations of his
>>>>> water lilies in a circle.
>>>>> Almost the
>>>>> exact
>>>>> opposite in constraints it was
>>>>> large, airy, a lot of
>>>>> natural light. If you
>>>>> were looking to brood you went
>>>>> somewhere else. In the
>>>>> middle of the
>>>>> room was
>>>>> a wooden structure (not an
>>>>> obvious bench), but you
>>>>> realized as random
>>>>> colors dissolved into water
>>>>> lilies that you wanted to
>>>>> sit down. You
>>>>> naturally moved to the
>>>>> center of
>>>>> the room and sat
>>>>> (wondering if a guard
>>>>> would
>>>>> come and tell you it was
>>>>> actually an important
>>>>> piece of art and you
>>>>> should get off). The designer
>>>>> anticipates a desire to
>>>>> soak in the
>>>>> room, to
>>>>> almost get dizzy in the
>>>>> lights, and included in
>>>>> the design the
>>>>> piece
>>>>> of wood that will have the
>>>>> perceived affordance for
>>>>> sitting, changing
>>>>> your concept of time and
>>>>> space.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original
>>>>> Message-----
>>>>> From:
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>> [mailto:
>>>>>
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+glassman.13=osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:osu.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>] On Behalf
>>>>> Of Alfredo
>>>>>
>>>>> Jornet Gil
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent:
>>>>> Wednesday, July 15,
>>>>> 2015 3:01 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind,
>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject:
>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: The
>>>>> Emergence of
>>>>> Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks Michael,
>>>>>
>>>>> I think we are
>>>>> saying the same
>>>>> things,
>>>>> indeed, or at
>>>>> least more or
>>>>>
>>>>> less. I am quite certain
>>>>> that Bateson
>>>>> referred
>>>>> to energy, and that he used
>>>>> the mentioned examples (or
>>>>> similar
>>>>> ones) to
>>>>> show how the energy that moves
>>>>> the pig is not a direct
>>>>> transfer of energy
>>>>> from the kick, whereas in the
>>>>> case of the billiard
>>>>> balls, the
>>>>> movement of
>>>>> one ball is caused by the
>>>>> energy that the kicking
>>>>> ball brings. I
>>>>> might
>>>>> be wrong in the context within
>>>>> which Bateson was
>>>>> discussing the
>>>>> example, and
>>>>> I see that your account is in
>>>>> that regard is more
>>>>> accurate. But the
>>>>> point is
>>>>> the same: you can not intend
>>>>> the outcomes of a system
>>>>> by addressing
>>>>> only
>>>>> its parts as if they were
>>>>> connected directly, in a
>>>>> linear causal
>>>>> fashion; as if the whole
>>>>> was the sum
>>>>> of its parts. I do see a
>>>>> link with
>>>>> Vygotsky's
>>>>> rejection of S-R and his
>>>>> inclusion of a third
>>>>> element that
>>>>> transforms
>>>>> the whole system.
>>>>>
>>>>> But I totally
>>>>> agree with your
>>>>> comments on design
>>>>> intentions as they
>>>>>
>>>>> relate to ecology, and I,
>>>>> as I know
>>>>> also Rolf
>>>>> does, also like very much the
>>>>> notion of ecology to
>>>>> address these issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> If I read you
>>>>> correctly, and
>>>>> citing Don
>>>>> Norman (whose
>>>>> work I
>>>>> ignore),
>>>>>
>>>>> you suggest the
>>>>> possibility that the
>>>>> relations
>>>>> between design intentions
>>>>> and actual experience
>>>>> could be thought
>>>>> of in
>>>>> terms of different levels?
>>>>> That one thing is to
>>>>> design for what is
>>>>> general, but that we
>>>>> cannot design
>>>>> for the particular. Is
>>>>> that right? If
>>>>> so, I
>>>>> think that Bateson had a
>>>>> similar argument on
>>>>> prediction, does
>>>>> not him?
>>>>> That we can predict on
>>>>> general levels (e.g.
>>>>> population), but
>>>>> not at
>>>>> the level of the particular
>>>>> (e.g., individual). I
>>>>> haven't gone
>>>>> that way,
>>>>> but seems a promising road to
>>>>> consider this jumps
>>>>> between levels of
>>>>> generality or scales.
>>>>>
>>>>> Finally, I am
>>>>> not sure if
>>>>> I get
>>>>> what you mean
>>>>> when you say
>>>>> that we can
>>>>>
>>>>> design for constrains but
>>>>> not for
>>>>> affordances.
>>>>> I still see that the one
>>>>> presupposes the other; you can
>>>>> separate them
>>>>> in talk, but, to me, in actual
>>>>> experience, a constrain is an
>>>>> affordance and
>>>>> vice-versa. I don't see how
>>>>> the road has any inherent
>>>>> constrain
>>>>> that could
>>>>> not be an affordance at the
>>>>> same time. Of course, if
>>>>> you take the
>>>>> normative stance that
>>>>> roads are for
>>>>> cars driving through them,
>>>>> you may be
>>>>> right.
>>>>> But if we think of roads as
>>>>> asphalt on the ground, as
>>>>> yet more
>>>>> ground only
>>>>> of a different shape,
>>>>> texture, and color, how is
>>>>> that a
>>>>> constrain
>>>>> but not an affordance? Or an
>>>>> affordance but not a
>>>>> constrain? Of course,
>>>>> culture constrains once
>>>>> you are
>>>>> within the road and you
>>>>> are driving.
>>>>> But then,
>>>>> the constrain is not in the
>>>>> road, as you seem to
>>>>> suggest, but in the
>>>>> journey; in the journeyman
>>>>> that
>>>>> carries some cultural way
>>>>> of orienting and
>>>>> affectively relating to its
>>>>> environment so that particular
>>>>> constrains are
>>>>> taken for granted despite the
>>>>> possibility of being
>>>>> otherwise. But I
>>>>> might
>>>>> not have thought it well/long
>>>>> enough and of course I
>>>>> might be wrong.
>>>>> I would
>>>>> like to understand your
>>>>> position here better.
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>>
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From:
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>> on
>>>>> behalf of
>>>>> Glassman, Michael
>>>>> <glassman.13@osu.edu <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: 15 July
>>>>> 2015 20:32
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind,
>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject:
>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: The
>>>>> Emergence of
>>>>> Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Alfredo,
>>>>>
>>>>> I have been
>>>>> reading Bateson
>>>>> through a
>>>>> cybernetics lens
>>>>> lately
>>>>> (Bateson
>>>>>
>>>>> along with Lewin and his
>>>>> wife Margaret
>>>>> Mead
>>>>> were part of the original
>>>>> Sears
>>>>> conferences) and I'm not
>>>>> sure that's
>>>>> right or
>>>>> I am victim to the "when you
>>>>> have a hammer, everything
>>>>> looks like a
>>>>> nail"
>>>>> but....
>>>>>
>>>>> I think
>>>>> Bateson was
>>>>> arguing with
>>>>> those looking
>>>>> to apply the
>>>>> more
>>>>>
>>>>> physical/mathematical
>>>>> origins of
>>>>> cybernetics
>>>>> to human or really (pace the
>>>>> pig story) and system that
>>>>> moves
>>>>> beyond simple
>>>>> physical feedback loops. I
>>>>> think his larger point is that
>>>>> everything has
>>>>> a response within the larger
>>>>> feedback system that
>>>>> exists but we
>>>>> cannot go -
>>>>> what Bateson refers to as
>>>>> MIND. Attempts to create
>>>>> and control
>>>>> feedback
>>>>> loops, to try and design a
>>>>> system for specific types
>>>>> of feedback is a
>>>>> dangerous proposition.
>>>>>
>>>>> This I think
>>>>> is the reason
>>>>> that
>>>>> affordances
>>>>> really can't
>>>>> be designed
>>>>>
>>>>> into an ecology, only a
>>>>> recognition of the
>>>>> context in which actions are
>>>>> taking place (and I say
>>>>> this having no
>>>>> idea
>>>>> what Gibson's relationship to
>>>>> cybernetics was). Taking
>>>>> Larry's
>>>>> example of
>>>>> the girl it is perhaps also
>>>>> likely that the girl could
>>>>> have taken the
>>>>> fixing of hair as a
>>>>> criticism, an
>>>>> attack, and it might have
>>>>> destroyed her
>>>>> confidence. Both make
>>>>> sense in
>>>>> terms of feedback loops,
>>>>> but only ad
>>>>> hoc. So
>>>>> if a designer does in some
>>>>> way design that experience
>>>>> into the
>>>>> action,
>>>>> even without meaning they are
>>>>> taking a large chance,
>>>>> because they do not
>>>>> know the trajectory it will
>>>>> take. We simply need
>>>>> objects that are
>>>>> part of
>>>>> our journey, part of the
>>>>> larger context but not
>>>>> designed for
>>>>> purpose,
>>>>> for feedback. There is no
>>>>> assumption about trajectory.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think Don
>>>>> Norman sort of
>>>>> muddied
>>>>> the waters on
>>>>> this, but in an
>>>>>
>>>>> interesting way. That we
>>>>> can assume
>>>>> people
>>>>> are going to want to do
>>>>> certain
>>>>> things in a very general
>>>>> environment -
>>>>> when you enter a dark room
>>>>> you want
>>>>> light, so it is possible
>>>>> to design objects
>>>>> that meet that need that
>>>>> we are
>>>>> more likely to find in the
>>>>> moment that
>>>>> we need
>>>>> them. But I think that is
>>>>> very different from the
>>>>> idea of
>>>>> specifically
>>>>> guiding feedback loops that
>>>>> even take generalized
>>>>> experience in a
>>>>> certain
>>>>> direction. I am thinking
>>>>> about Dewey, and he makes
>>>>> a similar
>>>>> argument
>>>>> to Bateson with his concept of
>>>>> transactions. Although he
>>>>> does seem
>>>>> to think
>>>>> that it is possible to create
>>>>> a larger field of action
>>>>> so we can see at
>>>>> least local
>>>>> interrelationships.
>>>>> But his idea of experience
>>>>> is also
>>>>> very much
>>>>> one of discovery based on
>>>>> needs at the immediate
>>>>> moment - social
>>>>> relations act as a vehicle
>>>>> for these
>>>>> discoveriesn(Dewey of
>>>>> course was writing
>>>>> before Gibson and for most
>>>>> of his
>>>>> life before cybernetics. I also
>>>>> wonder what
>>>>> he thought of cybernetics).
>>>>>
>>>>> I think I
>>>>> disagree with you,
>>>>> constraints
>>>>> are not about the
>>>>> journey but
>>>>>
>>>>> about the road. If you
>>>>> build a road
>>>>> on the
>>>>> side of the river you are
>>>>> constrained because no
>>>>> matter what,
>>>>> you cannot
>>>>> turn right. Your direction
>>>>> has already been partially
>>>>> determined
>>>>> by the
>>>>> designer of the road. But the
>>>>> mistake we make is in
>>>>> thinking that also
>>>>> controls the trajectory of the
>>>>> individual's journey. The
>>>>> effect of
>>>>> designers
>>>>> on trajectories of action is
>>>>> important, but limited.
>>>>>
>>>>> The primary
>>>>> place that
>>>>> designers
>>>>> have influence on
>>>>> affordances it
>>>>>
>>>>> seems to me is by being
>>>>> able to create a
>>>>> unique context for an
>>>>> individual's
>>>>> and a group's that limit
>>>>> possible
>>>>> trajectories
>>>>> on an individual's journey.
>>>>> But we should never
>>>>> mistake those
>>>>> constraints
>>>>> for affordances. I think
>>>>> Bateson might argue it is
>>>>> hubris to do so.
>>>>> Perhaps this is what you are
>>>>> saying Alfredo.
>>>>>
>>>>> Michael
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original
>>>>> Message-----
>>>>> From:
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+mglassman=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces+mglassman
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman>
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%252Bmglassman>>
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%2Bmglassman
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%252Bmglassman>
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%252Bmglassman
>>>>> <mailto:xmca-l-bounces%25252Bmglassman>>>=ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:ehe.ohio-state.edu@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>] On
>>>>> Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent:
>>>>> Wednesday, July 15, 2015
>>>>> 12:38 PM
>>>>> To: Rolf
>>>>> Steier; eXtended
>>>>> Mind,
>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject:
>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: The
>>>>> Emergence of
>>>>> Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd like to
>>>>> follow up on
>>>>> Michael's
>>>>> post by asking
>>>>> a question:
>>>>> Are not
>>>>>
>>>>> affordances presupposed by
>>>>> constraints
>>>>> and are
>>>>> not constraints presupposed
>>>>> by affordances? If so, I
>>>>> would wonder
>>>>> whether
>>>>> it makes sense to ask whether
>>>>> museums should be designed for
>>>>> affordances and
>>>>> constraints.
>>>>>
>>>>> What I think
>>>>> is clear from the
>>>>> anecdote that
>>>>> you bring
>>>>> about the
>>>>>
>>>>> Jackson Pollock corner is
>>>>> that whatever
>>>>> EXPERIENCE emerges from being
>>>>> somewhere (i.e. being
>>>>> someone at some
>>>>> time in
>>>>> some place) cannot be
>>>>> INTENDED. And I think this
>>>>> applies both to
>>>>> designers and users, to those
>>>>> who set things up for you to
>>>>> experience and to
>>>>> you, who could not foresee
>>>>> what your experience was
>>>>> going to turn you
>>>>> into before you go through it.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think that
>>>>> the big issue
>>>>> that
>>>>> you bring on
>>>>> the table (to
>>>>> continue
>>>>>
>>>>> with Larry's metaphor) has
>>>>> to do with a
>>>>> difference between physical
>>>>> relations and social
>>>>> relations, and
>>>>> the idea
>>>>> of MEDIATION. Gregory Bateson
>>>>> noticed that the relations
>>>>> that are the
>>>>> subject matter in physics
>>>>> are not
>>>>> the same as those that are
>>>>> the subject
>>>>> matter
>>>>> in communication. He noticed
>>>>> that physical relations
>>>>> (relations
>>>>> that are
>>>>> the object of study of
>>>>> physics)
>>>>> transfer energy in direct
>>>>> manners: a
>>>>> billiard
>>>>> ball hits another ball and we
>>>>> can anticipate the exact
>>>>> speed and
>>>>> direction
>>>>> that the second ball will take
>>>>> based on the energy that
>>>>> is in the
>>>>> system ball
>>>>> + ball + someone hitting. In
>>>>> living beings, the things
>>>>> are different.
>>>>> Bateson explained, if we
>>>>> kick a
>>>>> pig's ass (I think he used
>>>>> this somehow
>>>>> bizarre example) the
>>>>> reaction of
>>>>> the pig is not accounted
>>>>> for by the energy
>>>>> that is contained in the kick,
>>>>> at least not in a direct
>>>>> manner. The
>>>>> energy
>>>>> that moves the pig is from a
>>>>> different source. Before
>>>>> Bateson, it was
>>>>> Vygotsky and his notion of
>>>>> mediation who would most
>>>>> clearly state
>>>>> that
>>>>> social relations are not
>>>>> direct, but mediated.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, how can
>>>>> design go
>>>>> about this?
>>>>> If we, along
>>>>> with Dewey and
>>>>>
>>>>> Vygotsky, consider
>>>>> experience to be a
>>>>> unity of
>>>>> person and environment, and
>>>>> we assume as well that
>>>>> this is a
>>>>> social (not
>>>>> just individual) category, and
>>>>> that how a situation is
>>>>> experienced is
>>>>> also
>>>>> refracted through the social
>>>>> relations within which we
>>>>> engage, the most
>>>>> designers can do is to foster
>>>>> social relations go on, giving
>>>>> afordances to
>>>>> prcesses of signification,
>>>>> without intending to embed
>>>>> meanings. It is
>>>>> about affordances/constraints,
>>>>> but not about how to interpret
>>>>> something, but
>>>>> about going about
>>>>> interpreting. I think.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best wishes,
>>>>> Alfredo
>>>>> ________________________________________
>>>>> From:
>>>>> xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <xmca-l-bounces+a.g.jornet=iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu
>>>>> <mailto:iped.uio.no@mailman.ucsd.edu>>>> on
>>>>> behalf of
>>>>> Glassman, Michael
>>>>> <glassman.13@osu.edu <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu
>>>>> <mailto:glassman.13@osu.edu>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent: 15 July
>>>>> 2015 18:04
>>>>> To: Rolf
>>>>> Steier; eXtended
>>>>> Mind,
>>>>> Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject:
>>>>> [Xmca-l] Re: The
>>>>> Emergence of
>>>>> Boundary Objects
>>>>>
>>>>> So after
>>>>> reading the
>>>>> article and
>>>>> the e-mail
>>>>> discussion I'm
>>>>> beginning
>>>>>
>>>>> to think there is a really
>>>>> big issue
>>>>> here that
>>>>> I am trying to grapple with,
>>>>> especially in terms of
>>>>> boundary
>>>>> objects (which
>>>>> I admittedly do not
>>>>> understand very well). And it relates
>>>>> to the
>>>>> metaphor of the table (both
>>>>> as discussed by Larry and
>>>>> Ingold as
>>>>> interpreted by Rolf). It
>>>>> is this, in
>>>>> the museum should the
>>>>> place be set up as
>>>>> affordances, perceived
>>>>> affordances, or
>>>>> constraints? It seems the
>>>>> museum in the study has
>>>>> potential affordances for
>>>>> the users. The
>>>>> cultural historical moment
>>>>> (unable to think of any
>>>>> other word) of the
>>>>> museum sets the context,
>>>>> meaning
>>>>> those walking through the
>>>>> museum are
>>>>> going to
>>>>> be restricted by the
>>>>> historical and cultural
>>>>> boundaries
>>>>> leading up
>>>>> to the art work, along with
>>>>> the expectations and needs
>>>>> of the
>>>>> individuals
>>>>> moving through the museum,
>>>>> but they will come across
>>>>> objects/artifacts
>>>>> that they think meets the
>>>>> needs
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
More information about the xmca-l
mailing list