From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Fri Apr 1 01:44:21 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 11:44:21 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: With Marx and Engels In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David is right, he has a lot of naivetes, but also not totally a childish manner. This is not aiming to object you Huw. But what is important in my opinion is that in this dark age, from within a deep darkness, he could grasp the essence, that is human history can advance only and only through revolutions, that marxism, leninism has a unique value to understand the reality, that october is also of unique value for the advancement of human society. Finally, it is very interesting that he cites UK as a country in which a socialist revolution can occur, and that this is not a mere naive idea for him, he substantiates his view on some observations about the recent situation of the working-class. All in all, it is valuable that he owns the essential, that is only a socialist revolution can emancipate humanity. This is something great scientists can not see, wise marxists, even leninists do not want to see in today's world. Ulvi 1 Nis 2016 05:56 tarihinde "Huw Lloyd" yazd?: > A remarkable story, David. And some compelling footage in the film. Of > those that stayed it seems that Veneris was the most committed to his new > home. > > The media U.S. media coverage presented and the accounts of those returning > seems harsh too. > > I haven't looked at young Max's writings, other than to find out how long > he'd been blogging them -- a year apparently. No doubt they are confusions > present. At that age and condition perhaps one is closer to a "utopian" > sense, and looking for a language to frame in. > > Best, > Huw > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Mon Apr 4 15:45:05 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 08:45:05 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Medium, Agent, and Range Message-ID: A lot of Andy's work can be seen as an attempt to rehabilitate the subject, and to rescue activity theory from a simplistic object-orientation that inheres in the use of terms like "aim" and "goal" and in the activity theory tendency to collapse sign and tool. In some ways, the "collaborative project" is a step in that direction, so long as we accept that collaborative projects are NOT a step in the direction of non-differentiation between subject and object but rather in the direction of multi-variate differentiation: subjects can have objects (goals), but they can also be themselves the medium of a fairly unbounded process (agents), or direct activity to within a range (scope). Compare: "I'm having a bad reaction to chemo." (goal) "I'm suffering." (agent) "I'm feeling like I want to die and nobody cares." (range) Right now, I'm working on Vygotsky's lectures on the Crisis at Three. There are two--the first one, which is the one you can read in Volume Five of the English CW (4 in the Russian CW) is deeply unsatisfactory by Vygotsky's own standards: he says he's going to tell us the neoformations (critical neoformations which will "melt into thin air" or at least become dependent parts of the next stable neoformation, namely play), he's going to give us the lines of development and above all he's going to tell us the next zone of development (the ZPD, which of course he measures in YEARS and nobody else bothers to!) He doesn't do ANY of this. Instead, he gives us some pop science, on the level of the "Terrible Twos", which in Russian is really called the "Seven Stars" (i.e. the Pleiades, or maybe the Big Dipper): negativism, stubbornness, obstinacy, wilfulness, protest/rebellion, rejectionism, and despotism/jealousy. That's a set of parent complaints, not a theory. He does start to analyse the complaints, and he promises two case studies. But then he simply winds up the lecture with two conclusions that he could have easily drawn from his analysis of the first two stars of the Pleiades. Fortunately, there's more--a LOT more--in the Korotaeva manuscript, which is three times as long as the fragment in the CW. Vygotsky DOES analyse the first two stars by distinguishing precisely between an object-oriented negativism and a negativism oriented towards the social situation of development--towards others in the environment. He does the same thing with stubbornness. But in order to see him do it, you MUST have Andy's more complex understanding of subject-object relations. You also have to have a clear sense of a critical period as one where the child tries to become the medium and the agent, tries to "turn the tables" on the environment, becoming, for a brief and unsuccessful period, the SOURCE and not just the SITE of development. (I was thinking this morning that this was the great tragedy of the USSR--when the German revolution failed, people went without shoes and waited for it to succeed. Until Stalin told them that the USSR would be the medium and not the beneficiary, the SOURCE and not just the SITE of revolutionary development....) David Kellogg Macquarie University From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Tue Apr 5 16:20:58 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 23:20:58 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Medium, Agent, and Range In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <89064672-B839-4241-B40E-B4FAC1635F7D@uniandes.edu.co> Any possibility that you are translating the German text into Korean via an English intermediary, David? Martin > On Apr 4, 2016, at 5:45 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > A lot of Andy's work can be seen as an attempt to rehabilitate the subject, > and to rescue activity theory from a simplistic object-orientation that > inheres in the use of terms like "aim" and "goal" and in the activity > theory tendency to collapse sign and tool. In some ways, the "collaborative > project" is a step in that direction, so long as we accept that > collaborative projects are NOT a step in the direction of > non-differentiation between subject and object but rather in the direction > of multi-variate differentiation: subjects can have objects (goals), but > they can also be themselves the medium of a fairly unbounded process > (agents), or direct activity to within a range (scope). > > Compare: > > "I'm having a bad reaction to chemo." (goal) > > "I'm suffering." (agent) > > "I'm feeling like I want to die and nobody cares." (range) > > Right now, I'm working on Vygotsky's lectures on the Crisis at Three. There > are two--the first one, which is the one you can read in Volume Five of the > English CW (4 in the Russian CW) is deeply unsatisfactory by Vygotsky's own > standards: he says he's going to tell us the neoformations (critical > neoformations which will "melt into thin air" or at least become dependent > parts of the next stable neoformation, namely play), he's going to give us > the lines of development and above all he's going to tell us the next zone > of development (the ZPD, which of course he measures in YEARS and nobody > else bothers to!) > > He doesn't do ANY of this. Instead, he gives us some pop science, on the > level of the "Terrible Twos", which in Russian is really called the "Seven > Stars" (i.e. the Pleiades, or maybe the Big Dipper): negativism, > stubbornness, obstinacy, wilfulness, protest/rebellion, rejectionism, and > despotism/jealousy. That's a set of parent complaints, not a theory. He > does start to analyse the complaints, and he promises two case studies. But > then he simply winds up the lecture with two conclusions that he could have > easily drawn from his analysis of the first two stars of the Pleiades. > > Fortunately, there's more--a LOT more--in the Korotaeva manuscript, which > is three times as long as the fragment in the CW. Vygotsky DOES analyse the > first two stars by distinguishing precisely between an object-oriented > negativism and a negativism oriented towards the social situation of > development--towards others in the environment. He does the same thing with > stubbornness. But in order to see him do it, you MUST have Andy's more > complex understanding of subject-object relations. You also have to have a > clear sense of a critical period as one where the child tries to become the > medium and the agent, tries to "turn the tables" on the environment, > becoming, for a brief and unsuccessful period, the SOURCE and not just the > SITE of development. > > (I was thinking this morning that this was the great tragedy of the > USSR--when the German revolution failed, people went without shoes and > waited for it to succeed. Until Stalin told them that the USSR would be > the medium and not the beneficiary, the SOURCE and not just the SITE of > revolutionary development....) > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 5 20:41:00 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 13:41:00 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Agent, Range, and Beneficiary Message-ID: Martin: No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: it's the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. My Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My English isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it for free.) It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. But he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are pure Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring back to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, Vygotsky delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give the "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT zone of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion amongst impatient Western scholars). This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not just the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to substitute his own developing volition for the influence of the environment. Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and "Beneficiary" are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming increasingly important in English (and is already very important in languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary to, the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English grammars. Compare: "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) "The door shut". (Ergative) "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The car drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites form") are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed either way: "I am battling cancer." (SVO) "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: one structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object in his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject (the "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" explanation of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the other is much more internal and insidious. Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these nature/nurture explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither nature nor nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. David Kellogg Macquarie University From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Wed Apr 6 04:12:16 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 07:12:16 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Watch "Paul C. Mocombe @ the 2016 race, gender, class conference the University of New Orleans" on YouTube Message-ID: <61eft99ocv5a5ogcfd7yqw8h.1459941136540@email.android.com> https://youtu.be/toIv70ZojA8 Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Wed Apr 6 08:19:46 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:19:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> Right, but my question was whether there is an English version of your translation. Martin > On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Martin: > > No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: it's > the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any > language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. My > Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My English > isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it for > free.) > > It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the > concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. But > he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are pure > Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). > > In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring back > to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, Vygotsky > delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the > central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give the > "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT zone > of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion > amongst impatient Western scholars). > > This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the > tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not just > the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to substitute his > own developing volition for the influence of the environment. > > Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and "Beneficiary" > are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming > increasingly important in English (and is already very important in > languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a > process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the > medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary to, > the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English > grammars. > > Compare: > > "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) > "The door shut". (Ergative) > "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) > "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) > > Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The car > drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites form") > are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed either > way: > > "I am battling cancer." (SVO) > "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) > "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) > "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) > > You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: one > structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object in > his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of > activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject (the > "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One > corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" explanation > of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the > other is much more internal and insidious. > > Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these nature/nurture > explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither nature nor > nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University From yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi Wed Apr 6 12:01:06 2016 From: yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi (=?utf-8?B?RW5nZXN0csO2bSwgWXJqw7YgSCBN?=) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:01:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious managerialism in Finnish universities Message-ID: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi> Dear colleagues, Finnish universities are undergoing the worst crisis of their history. 12 professors of University of Helsinki have initiated a petition to change the course of the development of Finnish universities. I invite you to read the petition and consider whether you could sign it to show your support. The petition and the names of those who have signed it can be found at: http://yliopistokaanne.fi/in-english/ Sincerely, Yrj? Engestr?m From C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk Wed Apr 6 12:14:47 2016 From: C.Barker@mmu.ac.uk (C Barker) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 19:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious managerialism in Finnish universities In-Reply-To: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi> References: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi> Message-ID: <43D64DEFED150742AAEBE9D668275880018E6FC91B@exmb2> Dear Yrj? Signed! Best wishes Colin Barker ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Engestr?m, Yrj? H M [yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi] Sent: 06 April 2016 20:01 To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious managerialism in Finnish universities Dear colleagues, Finnish universities are undergoing the worst crisis of their history. 12 professors of University of Helsinki have initiated a petition to change the course of the development of Finnish universities. I invite you to read the petition and consider whether you could sign it to show your support. The petition and the names of those who have signed it can be found at: http://yliopistokaanne.fi/in-english/ Sincerely, Yrj? Engestr?m "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Apr 6 14:04:27 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 07:04:27 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary In-Reply-To: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> References: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Martin: A couple of years ago I asked on the list if anybody would be willing to edit the English version, and the silence was deafening. So we've just been publishing them in Korean. I now have an undergraduate helping to edit them for free and he's pretty good. The real problem is the publisher. I've approached a few publishers but nobody is seriously interested yet. Interesting, no? Considering how often people mine poor Vygotsky for jargon, often jargon that isn't even his but only a little gold dust seeded by some previous miner in the hope of jacking up the price of his claim ("scaffolding", "microgenesis", "psychological tool", etc.). Take, for example, the ZPD. When you read Vygotsky, it's measured in years. When your read anybody else, it isn't. Doesn't anybody ever wonder why? Well, the answer is right here--in Korean. Today our seventh volume is coming out. Here's the cover! dk On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer wrote: > Right, but my question was whether there is an English version of your > translation. > > Martin > > > > > > On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Martin: > > > > No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: > it's > > the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any > > language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. My > > Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My > English > > isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it > for > > free.) > > > > It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the > > concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. But > > he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are pure > > Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). > > > > In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring > back > > to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, > Vygotsky > > delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the > > central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give > the > > "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT > zone > > of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion > > amongst impatient Western scholars). > > > > This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the > > tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not just > > the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to substitute > his > > own developing volition for the influence of the environment. > > > > Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and > "Beneficiary" > > are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming > > increasingly important in English (and is already very important in > > languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a > > process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the > > medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary > to, > > the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English > > grammars. > > > > Compare: > > > > "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) > > "The door shut". (Ergative) > > "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) > > "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) > > > > Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The > car > > drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites > form") > > are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed > either > > way: > > > > "I am battling cancer." (SVO) > > "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) > > "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) > > "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) > > > > You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: one > > structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object in > > his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of > > activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject (the > > "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One > > corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" > explanation > > of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the > > other is much more internal and insidious. > > > > Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these > nature/nurture > > explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither nature > nor > > nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Cover.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 2698029 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160407/acce704e/attachment-0001.pdf From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Wed Apr 6 14:28:57 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 21:28:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary In-Reply-To: References: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> Message-ID: Hi David, I don?t have to time to take on a serious editing role, but as you know I?ve made good use of your English version of Thinking & Speech, and even sent back to you some suggested edits. I?m not using it in class now, because for better or worse there are Spanish translations. But it continues to be very helpful to my ongoing efforts to surpass the jargon and better understand Vygotsky. So if you might be willing to share your English intermediate drafts of this text, I would be very interested in reading them. My own understanding of children?s development has been much influenced by Vygotsky?s lectures, but as you note what?s available in English is very limited. Martin > On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:04 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Martin: > > A couple of years ago I asked on the list if anybody would be willing to > edit the English version, and the silence was deafening. So we've just been > publishing them in Korean. > > I now have an undergraduate helping to edit them for free and he's pretty > good. The real problem is the publisher. I've approached a few publishers > but nobody is seriously interested yet. > > Interesting, no? Considering how often people mine poor Vygotsky for > jargon, often jargon that isn't even his but only a little gold dust seeded > by some previous miner in the hope of jacking up the price of his claim > ("scaffolding", "microgenesis", "psychological tool", etc.). > > Take, for example, the ZPD. When you read Vygotsky, it's measured in years. > When your read anybody else, it isn't. Doesn't anybody ever wonder why? > > Well, the answer is right here--in Korean. Today our seventh volume is > coming out. Here's the cover! > > dk > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Right, but my question was whether there is an English version of your >> translation. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Martin: >>> >>> No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: >> it's >>> the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any >>> language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. My >>> Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My >> English >>> isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it >> for >>> free.) >>> >>> It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the >>> concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. But >>> he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are pure >>> Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). >>> >>> In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring >> back >>> to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, >> Vygotsky >>> delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the >>> central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give >> the >>> "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT >> zone >>> of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion >>> amongst impatient Western scholars). >>> >>> This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the >>> tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not just >>> the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to substitute >> his >>> own developing volition for the influence of the environment. >>> >>> Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and >> "Beneficiary" >>> are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming >>> increasingly important in English (and is already very important in >>> languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a >>> process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the >>> medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary >> to, >>> the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English >>> grammars. >>> >>> Compare: >>> >>> "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) >>> "The door shut". (Ergative) >>> "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) >>> "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) >>> >>> Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The >> car >>> drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites >> form") >>> are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed >> either >>> way: >>> >>> "I am battling cancer." (SVO) >>> "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) >>> "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) >>> "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) >>> >>> You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: one >>> structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object in >>> his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of >>> activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject (the >>> "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One >>> corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" >> explanation >>> of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the >>> other is much more internal and insidious. >>> >>> Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these >> nature/nurture >>> explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither nature >> nor >>> nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >> >> >> > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Wed Apr 6 15:05:53 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 22:05:53 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary In-Reply-To: References: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> , Message-ID: <1459980361188.86502@iped.uio.no> Hi David, Congratulations for the huge accomplishment! As Martin, I would also (as I guess many in this list) be VERY interested in reading the English intermediate drafts of this text. On a side note, I was wondering on the origin and history of the painting in the book's cover (apropos recent discussions on xmca on pictures and semiosis), if you wanted to share. Also, regarding ZPD and measurement in years, I wonder whether, in today's context, it would make sense to continue talking about measurement (or diagnosis) (not that I think Vygotsky's uptake in current literature is always acquainted with even the English translations, or with his larger project, but just trying to see what the gains/loses implicit in your complain). Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer Sent: 06 April 2016 23:28 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary Hi David, I don?t have to time to take on a serious editing role, but as you know I?ve made good use of your English version of Thinking & Speech, and even sent back to you some suggested edits. I?m not using it in class now, because for better or worse there are Spanish translations. But it continues to be very helpful to my ongoing efforts to surpass the jargon and better understand Vygotsky. So if you might be willing to share your English intermediate drafts of this text, I would be very interested in reading them. My own understanding of children?s development has been much influenced by Vygotsky?s lectures, but as you note what?s available in English is very limited. Martin > On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:04 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Martin: > > A couple of years ago I asked on the list if anybody would be willing to > edit the English version, and the silence was deafening. So we've just been > publishing them in Korean. > > I now have an undergraduate helping to edit them for free and he's pretty > good. The real problem is the publisher. I've approached a few publishers > but nobody is seriously interested yet. > > Interesting, no? Considering how often people mine poor Vygotsky for > jargon, often jargon that isn't even his but only a little gold dust seeded > by some previous miner in the hope of jacking up the price of his claim > ("scaffolding", "microgenesis", "psychological tool", etc.). > > Take, for example, the ZPD. When you read Vygotsky, it's measured in years. > When your read anybody else, it isn't. Doesn't anybody ever wonder why? > > Well, the answer is right here--in Korean. Today our seventh volume is > coming out. Here's the cover! > > dk > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer > wrote: > >> Right, but my question was whether there is an English version of your >> translation. >> >> Martin >> >> >> >> >>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>> >>> Martin: >>> >>> No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: >> it's >>> the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any >>> language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. My >>> Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My >> English >>> isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it >> for >>> free.) >>> >>> It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the >>> concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. But >>> he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are pure >>> Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). >>> >>> In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring >> back >>> to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, >> Vygotsky >>> delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the >>> central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give >> the >>> "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT >> zone >>> of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion >>> amongst impatient Western scholars). >>> >>> This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the >>> tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not just >>> the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to substitute >> his >>> own developing volition for the influence of the environment. >>> >>> Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and >> "Beneficiary" >>> are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming >>> increasingly important in English (and is already very important in >>> languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a >>> process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the >>> medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary >> to, >>> the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English >>> grammars. >>> >>> Compare: >>> >>> "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) >>> "The door shut". (Ergative) >>> "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) >>> "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) >>> >>> Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The >> car >>> drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites >> form") >>> are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed >> either >>> way: >>> >>> "I am battling cancer." (SVO) >>> "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) >>> "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) >>> "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) >>> >>> You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: one >>> structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object in >>> his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of >>> activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject (the >>> "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One >>> corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" >> explanation >>> of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the >>> other is much more internal and insidious. >>> >>> Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these >> nature/nurture >>> explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither nature >> nor >>> nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. >>> >>> David Kellogg >>> Macquarie University >> >> >> > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Wed Apr 6 15:41:06 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (greg.a.thompson@gmail.com) Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2016 15:41:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary In-Reply-To: <1459980361188.86502@iped.uio.no> References: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> <1459980361188.86502@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <913312CB-65C1-49C7-B3EB-B1B9AA024C07@gmail.com> And David, Yes congratulations for all the work that you and your group have done translating Vygotskys works into Korean (how many books have you guys put out in Korean?). I was just wondering if you could share with us some of the crass appropriations that Koreans have made of Vygotsky? I assume that the uptake of Vygotsky isn't perfect in Korea (as if there were such a thing as "perfect understanding") and I assume that there are different things folks out there feel are important about Vygotskys work. Just wondering what those might be? (And although I know that the influence of American academic culture is substantial, I'd like to think that it isn't totally hegemonic, and I'll hold out hope that your answer isn't going to be "scaffolding", "micro genesis", and "psychological tool"). I also wonder if there might be a richer uptake of Vygotsky there in Korea (this is partly evidenced by your prior mention of rather substantial numbers of sales of Vygotskys books in Korean). I also because I wonder if maybe Korean scholars could teach American scholars a thing or two about Vygotsky? Greg Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > > Hi David, > > Congratulations for the huge accomplishment! As Martin, I would also (as I guess many in this list) be VERY interested in reading the English intermediate drafts of this text. > > On a side note, I was wondering on the origin and history of the painting in the book's cover (apropos recent discussions on xmca on pictures and semiosis), if you wanted to share. > > Also, regarding ZPD and measurement in years, I wonder whether, in today's context, it would make sense to continue talking about measurement (or diagnosis) (not that I think Vygotsky's uptake in current literature is always acquainted with even the English translations, or with his larger project, but just trying to see what the gains/loses implicit in your complain). > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Martin John Packer > Sent: 06 April 2016 23:28 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary > > Hi David, > > I don?t have to time to take on a serious editing role, but as you know I?ve made good use of your English version of Thinking & Speech, and even sent back to you some suggested edits. I?m not using it in class now, because for better or worse there are Spanish translations. But it continues to be very helpful to my ongoing efforts to surpass the jargon and better understand Vygotsky. > > So if you might be willing to share your English intermediate drafts of this text, I would be very interested in reading them. My own understanding of children?s development has been much influenced by Vygotsky?s lectures, but as you note what?s available in English is very limited. > > Martin > > > > >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:04 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >> >> Martin: >> >> A couple of years ago I asked on the list if anybody would be willing to >> edit the English version, and the silence was deafening. So we've just been >> publishing them in Korean. >> >> I now have an undergraduate helping to edit them for free and he's pretty >> good. The real problem is the publisher. I've approached a few publishers >> but nobody is seriously interested yet. >> >> Interesting, no? Considering how often people mine poor Vygotsky for >> jargon, often jargon that isn't even his but only a little gold dust seeded >> by some previous miner in the hope of jacking up the price of his claim >> ("scaffolding", "microgenesis", "psychological tool", etc.). >> >> Take, for example, the ZPD. When you read Vygotsky, it's measured in years. >> When your read anybody else, it isn't. Doesn't anybody ever wonder why? >> >> Well, the answer is right here--in Korean. Today our seventh volume is >> coming out. Here's the cover! >> >> dk >> >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer >> wrote: >> >>> Right, but my question was whether there is an English version of your >>> translation. >>> >>> Martin >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:41 PM, David Kellogg wrote: >>>> >>>> Martin: >>>> >>>> No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: >>> it's >>>> the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any >>>> language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. My >>>> Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My >>> English >>>> isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it >>> for >>>> free.) >>>> >>>> It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the >>>> concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. But >>>> he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are pure >>>> Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). >>>> >>>> In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring >>> back >>>> to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, >>> Vygotsky >>>> delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the >>>> central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give >>> the >>>> "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT >>> zone >>>> of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion >>>> amongst impatient Western scholars). >>>> >>>> This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the >>>> tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not just >>>> the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to substitute >>> his >>>> own developing volition for the influence of the environment. >>>> >>>> Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and >>> "Beneficiary" >>>> are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming >>>> increasingly important in English (and is already very important in >>>> languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a >>>> process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the >>>> medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary >>> to, >>>> the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English >>>> grammars. >>>> >>>> Compare: >>>> >>>> "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) >>>> "The door shut". (Ergative) >>>> "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) >>>> "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) >>>> >>>> Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The >>> car >>>> drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites >>> form") >>>> are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed >>> either >>>> way: >>>> >>>> "I am battling cancer." (SVO) >>>> "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) >>>> "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) >>>> "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) >>>> >>>> You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: one >>>> structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object in >>>> his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of >>>> activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject (the >>>> "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One >>>> corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" >>> explanation >>>> of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the >>>> other is much more internal and insidious. >>>> >>>> Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these >>> nature/nurture >>>> explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither nature >>> nor >>>> nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. >>>> >>>> David Kellogg >>>> Macquarie University >>> >>> >>> >> > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Apr 6 22:48:26 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 15:48:26 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary In-Reply-To: <1459980361188.86502@iped.uio.no> References: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> <1459980361188.86502@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Alfredo: Glad you asked! All the covers of our books are by the same artist, described below, who specialized in rural schools. With every cover we usually have a note on the inside jacket in which we thank the Russian museum which donated the painting and explain how we think it's connected to the book. Here's what we wrote this time (more or less): "The cover picture, ?Visitors?, by Nikolai Bogdanov-Belsky (1868-1945), was generously provided by the Museum of Art of Arkhangel in Russia. It is one of a whole series of paintings done by the artist on the theme of village children visiting a teacher. In this picture, the children are visiting the teacher on the day of lanterns, a Russian holiday which celebrates the risen Christ and which also celebrates Christ?s first miracle, which was turning water into wine at the Wedding in Cana. "Vygotsky uses this metaphor in one of his earliest books, ?The Psychology of Art?, to describe how human imagination does not simply reproduce images or recombine them (as Christ does later when he multiplies the loaves and fishes). Imagination can?t be explained by the socialization of an everyday experience. Instead, imagination (which includes the creation of academic concepts as well as higher aesthetic ones) is better explained at the reverse process: The individuation of a supra-individual experience. Creating academic concepts and higher aesthetic feelings are not so much like multiplying ordinary loaves and everyday fishes; they are more like turning the water of everyday life into wine. "Notice how different the children's expressions are: curious, expectant, and even a little suspicious. Note how this is liked to but distinct from their "calendar" or "passport" age. Vygotsky sees psychological development as the child?s individuation of the cultural endowment. In this book, Vygotsky begins to show us what a very long journey that is, how many ages it takes, and how many times the path twists and turns back upon itself in crises. " And here's what the other covers look like: http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/common/wseriesitem.aspx?SRID=25565 I don't see anything wrong with ideas like "scaffolding", or "mediation", or "psychological tools". But I think that if we really do admire the ideas and not simply the name, we need to understand that none of these are originally his, and in fact he devotes quite a few pages of Chapter Two in HDHMF to why "psychological tools" should not be used. I don't think people HAVE to like Vygotsky--you are free to prefer Bruner if you want to discuss scaffolding, and Hegel if you want to mention mediation, and Bodrova and Leong or Descartes if you want to talk about psychological tools. Actually, all of those names will give you better street cred in Korean universities, and probably elsewhere too. But the zone of proximal development is a diagnostic device, and it's measured in years when Vygotsky formulates it. Shouldn't we find out why before we decide he didn't know what he was talking about? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi David, > > Congratulations for the huge accomplishment! As Martin, I would also (as I > guess many in this list) be VERY interested in reading the English > intermediate drafts of this text. > > On a side note, I was wondering on the origin and history of the painting > in the book's cover (apropos recent discussions on xmca on pictures and > semiosis), if you wanted to share. > > Also, regarding ZPD and measurement in years, I wonder whether, in today's > context, it would make sense to continue talking about measurement (or > diagnosis) (not that I think Vygotsky's uptake in current literature is > always acquainted with even the English translations, or with his larger > project, but just trying to see what the gains/loses implicit in your > complain). > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin John Packer > Sent: 06 April 2016 23:28 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary > > Hi David, > > I don?t have to time to take on a serious editing role, but as you know > I?ve made good use of your English version of Thinking & Speech, and even > sent back to you some suggested edits. I?m not using it in class now, > because for better or worse there are Spanish translations. But it > continues to be very helpful to my ongoing efforts to surpass the jargon > and better understand Vygotsky. > > So if you might be willing to share your English intermediate drafts of > this text, I would be very interested in reading them. My own understanding > of children?s development has been much influenced by Vygotsky?s lectures, > but as you note what?s available in English is very limited. > > Martin > > > > > > On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:04 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Martin: > > > > A couple of years ago I asked on the list if anybody would be willing to > > edit the English version, and the silence was deafening. So we've just > been > > publishing them in Korean. > > > > I now have an undergraduate helping to edit them for free and he's pretty > > good. The real problem is the publisher. I've approached a few publishers > > but nobody is seriously interested yet. > > > > Interesting, no? Considering how often people mine poor Vygotsky for > > jargon, often jargon that isn't even his but only a little gold dust > seeded > > by some previous miner in the hope of jacking up the price of his claim > > ("scaffolding", "microgenesis", "psychological tool", etc.). > > > > Take, for example, the ZPD. When you read Vygotsky, it's measured in > years. > > When your read anybody else, it isn't. Doesn't anybody ever wonder why? > > > > Well, the answer is right here--in Korean. Today our seventh volume is > > coming out. Here's the cover! > > > > dk > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > wrote: > > > >> Right, but my question was whether there is an English version of your > >> translation. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:41 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>> > >>> Martin: > >>> > >>> No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: > >> it's > >>> the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any > >>> language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. My > >>> Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My > >> English > >>> isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it > >> for > >>> free.) > >>> > >>> It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the > >>> concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. > But > >>> he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are pure > >>> Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). > >>> > >>> In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring > >> back > >>> to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, > >> Vygotsky > >>> delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the > >>> central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give > >> the > >>> "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT > >> zone > >>> of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion > >>> amongst impatient Western scholars). > >>> > >>> This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the > >>> tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not > just > >>> the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to substitute > >> his > >>> own developing volition for the influence of the environment. > >>> > >>> Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and > >> "Beneficiary" > >>> are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming > >>> increasingly important in English (and is already very important in > >>> languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a > >>> process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the > >>> medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary > >> to, > >>> the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English > >>> grammars. > >>> > >>> Compare: > >>> > >>> "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) > >>> "The door shut". (Ergative) > >>> "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) > >>> "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) > >>> > >>> Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The > >> car > >>> drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites > >> form") > >>> are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed > >> either > >>> way: > >>> > >>> "I am battling cancer." (SVO) > >>> "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) > >>> "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) > >>> "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) > >>> > >>> You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: > one > >>> structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object > in > >>> his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of > >>> activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject > (the > >>> "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One > >>> corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" > >> explanation > >>> of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the > >>> other is much more internal and insidious. > >>> > >>> Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these > >> nature/nurture > >>> explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither nature > >> nor > >>> nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >> > >> > >> > > > > > From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Apr 6 23:17:34 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 16:17:34 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary In-Reply-To: <913312CB-65C1-49C7-B3EB-B1B9AA024C07@gmail.com> References: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> <1459980361188.86502@iped.uio.no> <913312CB-65C1-49C7-B3EB-B1B9AA024C07@gmail.com> Message-ID: Greg: I think the main way in which the NAME "Vygotsky" is propagated in Korea is through a very successful private cram school that specializes in child literacy. There are Vygotsky cards and Vygotsky songs and expensive Vygotsky daycare centres and so on. Here's an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xLnX_-UQfY There are also a lot of books ABOUT Vygotsky, but, as you surmise, they tend to reflect the interpretations of American scholars. (After we published our translation of "Thinking and Speech" a group of Russian professors at Korea University got together and translated--Minick's ENGLISH translation of the book! There is also a translation of Hanfmann and Vakar's English translation available.) Our books, which are actually BY Vygotsky, are mostly read by radical teachers, many supporters of the banned teachers' union. There have been a number of books put out by radical teachers ABOUT our books: "How to Read 'Thinking and Speech: An Easy Way" (which is, by the way, not an easy book to read--it's mostly a set of quotations from Vygotsky which teachers discuss in group study). Last year some teachers put together a collection on HDHMF called "Vygotsky: A Relational Pedagogy". These books sell in the thousands, but not in the tens of thousands. Is the Korean Vygotsky different from the American one? He's not an activity theorist, and he's also not a Piagetian, or a neo-behaviorist. In fact, he's not really a psychologist at all. I suppose he's quite close the European Vygotsky: a pedologist with a very strong linguistic bent and a Marxist background, attractive to left-wing teachers, repellent to professors, and repugnant to the government (remember that the current regime expelled the third largest opposition labor party from government, dissolved it, and gave the leaders twelve year prison sentences....). As a result I would say we have little or no impact on Korean scholars, and that is probably the biggest difference between our Vygotsky and yours. Andy Blunden kindly offered to publish English versions of our books on the Marxists.org website, but he wants us to remove the annotations. To tell you the truth, over half of our books are made up of annotations, because without the annotations, our readers have a hard time studying him (as "Thinking and Speech the Easy Way" attests--the first book only had endnotes and not marginal annotations!) And people DO meet and study him: one of our group is currently teaching Vygotsky to a regular class of part-time "Paduk" teachers (that is, teachers of the Japanese game of "Go"!) David Kellogg Macquarie University On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:41 AM, wrote: > And David, > Yes congratulations for all the work that you and your group have done > translating Vygotskys works into Korean (how many books have you guys put > out in Korean?). > > I was just wondering if you could share with us some of the crass > appropriations that Koreans have made of Vygotsky? > > I assume that the uptake of Vygotsky isn't perfect in Korea (as if there > were such a thing as "perfect understanding") and I assume that there are > different things folks out there feel are important about Vygotskys work. > Just wondering what those might be? > (And although I know that the influence of American academic culture is > substantial, I'd like to think that it isn't totally hegemonic, and I'll > hold out hope that your answer isn't going to be "scaffolding", "micro > genesis", and "psychological tool"). > > I also wonder if there might be a richer uptake of Vygotsky there in Korea > (this is partly evidenced by your prior mention of rather substantial > numbers of sales of Vygotskys books in Korean). > > I also because I wonder if maybe Korean scholars could teach American > scholars a thing or two about Vygotsky? > > Greg > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Apr 6, 2016, at 3:05 PM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > > Hi David, > > > > Congratulations for the huge accomplishment! As Martin, I would also (as > I guess many in this list) be VERY interested in reading the English > intermediate drafts of this text. > > > > On a side note, I was wondering on the origin and history of the > painting in the book's cover (apropos recent discussions on xmca on > pictures and semiosis), if you wanted to share. > > > > Also, regarding ZPD and measurement in years, I wonder whether, in > today's context, it would make sense to continue talking about measurement > (or diagnosis) (not that I think Vygotsky's uptake in current literature is > always acquainted with even the English translations, or with his larger > project, but just trying to see what the gains/loses implicit in your > complain). > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin John Packer > > Sent: 06 April 2016 23:28 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary > > > > Hi David, > > > > I don?t have to time to take on a serious editing role, but as you know > I?ve made good use of your English version of Thinking & Speech, and even > sent back to you some suggested edits. I?m not using it in class now, > because for better or worse there are Spanish translations. But it > continues to be very helpful to my ongoing efforts to surpass the jargon > and better understand Vygotsky. > > > > So if you might be willing to share your English intermediate drafts of > this text, I would be very interested in reading them. My own understanding > of children?s development has been much influenced by Vygotsky?s lectures, > but as you note what?s available in English is very limited. > > > > Martin > > > > > > > > > >> On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:04 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > >> > >> Martin: > >> > >> A couple of years ago I asked on the list if anybody would be willing to > >> edit the English version, and the silence was deafening. So we've just > been > >> publishing them in Korean. > >> > >> I now have an undergraduate helping to edit them for free and he's > pretty > >> good. The real problem is the publisher. I've approached a few > publishers > >> but nobody is seriously interested yet. > >> > >> Interesting, no? Considering how often people mine poor Vygotsky for > >> jargon, often jargon that isn't even his but only a little gold dust > seeded > >> by some previous miner in the hope of jacking up the price of his claim > >> ("scaffolding", "microgenesis", "psychological tool", etc.). > >> > >> Take, for example, the ZPD. When you read Vygotsky, it's measured in > years. > >> When your read anybody else, it isn't. Doesn't anybody ever wonder why? > >> > >> Well, the answer is right here--in Korean. Today our seventh volume is > >> coming out. Here's the cover! > >> > >> dk > >> > >> On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Right, but my question was whether there is an English version of your > >>> translation. > >>> > >>> Martin > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:41 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>>> > >>>> Martin: > >>>> > >>>> No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: > >>> it's > >>>> the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any > >>>> language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. > My > >>>> Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My > >>> English > >>>> isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it > >>> for > >>>> free.) > >>>> > >>>> It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the > >>>> concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. > But > >>>> he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are > pure > >>>> Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). > >>>> > >>>> In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring > >>> back > >>>> to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, > >>> Vygotsky > >>>> delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the > >>>> central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give > >>> the > >>>> "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT > >>> zone > >>>> of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion > >>>> amongst impatient Western scholars). > >>>> > >>>> This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the > >>>> tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not > just > >>>> the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to > substitute > >>> his > >>>> own developing volition for the influence of the environment. > >>>> > >>>> Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and > >>> "Beneficiary" > >>>> are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming > >>>> increasingly important in English (and is already very important in > >>>> languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a > >>>> process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the > >>>> medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary > >>> to, > >>>> the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English > >>>> grammars. > >>>> > >>>> Compare: > >>>> > >>>> "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) > >>>> "The door shut". (Ergative) > >>>> "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) > >>>> "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) > >>>> > >>>> Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The > >>> car > >>>> drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites > >>> form") > >>>> are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed > >>> either > >>>> way: > >>>> > >>>> "I am battling cancer." (SVO) > >>>> "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) > >>>> "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) > >>>> "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) > >>>> > >>>> You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: > one > >>>> structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object > in > >>>> his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of > >>>> activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject > (the > >>>> "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One > >>>> corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" > >>> explanation > >>>> of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the > >>>> other is much more internal and insidious. > >>>> > >>>> Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these > >>> nature/nurture > >>>> explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither > nature > >>> nor > >>>> nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. > >>>> > >>>> David Kellogg > >>>> Macquarie University > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > > > > > From carolmacdon@gmail.com Thu Apr 7 01:49:41 2016 From: carolmacdon@gmail.com (Carol Macdonald) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 10:49:41 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious managerialism in Finnish universities In-Reply-To: <43D64DEFED150742AAEBE9D668275880018E6FC91B@exmb2> References: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi> <43D64DEFED150742AAEBE9D668275880018E6FC91B@exmb2> Message-ID: Yrjo Signed Carol Macdonald. I signed because I feel that this is a global issue and that Finland can show us the way out of this morass. On 6 April 2016 at 21:14, C Barker wrote: > Dear Yrj? > > Signed! > > Best wishes > > Colin Barker > > > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] > on behalf of Engestr?m, Yrj? H M [yrjo.engestrom@helsinki.fi] > Sent: 06 April 2016 20:01 > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious > managerialism in Finnish universities > > Dear colleagues, Finnish universities are undergoing the worst crisis of > their history. 12 professors of University of Helsinki have initiated a > petition to change the course of the development of Finnish universities. I > invite you to read the petition and consider whether you could sign it to > show your support. > > The petition and the names of those who have signed it can be found at: > http://yliopistokaanne.fi/in-english/ > > Sincerely, > > Yrj? Engestr?m > "Before acting on this email or opening any attachments you should read > the Manchester Metropolitan University email disclaimer available on its > website http://www.mmu.ac.uk/emaildisclaimer " > > -- Carol A Macdonald Ph.D (Edin) Developmental psycholinguist Honorary Research Fellow: Department of Linguistics, Unisa alternative email address: tmacdoca@unisa.ac.za From charles.max@uni.lu Thu Apr 7 01:59:00 2016 From: charles.max@uni.lu (Charles Joseph MAX) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 08:59:00 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious managerialism in Finnish universities In-Reply-To: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi> References: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi> Message-ID: <8668A535-F82E-425C-8F52-46C5CE38BE30@uni.lu> Dear Yrj?m Signed! Good luck and best wishes Charles Max > On 06 Apr 2016, at 21:01, Engestr?m, Yrj? H M wrote: > > Dear colleagues, Finnish universities are undergoing the worst crisis of their history. 12 professors of University of Helsinki have initiated a petition to change the course of the development of Finnish universities. I invite you to read the petition and consider whether you could sign it to show your support. > > The petition and the names of those who have signed it can be found at: http://yliopistokaanne.fi/in-english/ > > Sincerely, > > Yrj? Engestr?m From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Thu Apr 7 02:42:31 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:42:31 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious managerialism in Finnish universities In-Reply-To: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi> References: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi> Message-ID: Another evidence that capitalist world was standing on its feet thanks to socialism, USSR. No need for science, for culture, for art anymore. Ulvi 6 Nis 2016 22:03 tarihinde "Engestr?m, Yrj? H M" yazd?: > Dear colleagues, Finnish universities are undergoing the worst crisis of > their history. 12 professors of University of Helsinki have initiated a > petition to change the course of the development of Finnish universities. I > invite you to read the petition and consider whether you could sign it to > show your support. > > The petition and the names of those who have signed it can be found at: > http://yliopistokaanne.fi/in-english/ > > Sincerely, > > Yrj? Engestr?m > From b.bligh@lancaster.ac.uk Thu Apr 7 02:48:59 2016 From: b.bligh@lancaster.ac.uk (Bligh, Brett) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 09:48:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious managerialism in Finnish universities In-Reply-To: <8668A535-F82E-425C-8F52-46C5CE38BE30@uni.lu> References: <2525E9AF-FAC8-4896-9A5A-BA1B96EDC714@helsinki.fi>, <8668A535-F82E-425C-8F52-46C5CE38BE30@uni.lu> Message-ID: I have signed myself and also sent the link via Twitter to the UK academics' trade union UCU. Hopefully that will pick up a few international signatories for the petition..... Best wishes, Brett Bligh Dr. Brett Bligh Lecturer Department for Educational Research Lancaster University County South, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster, United Kingdom, LA1 4YL http://www.lancaster.ac.uk/fass/edres/profiles/brett-bligh b.bligh@lancaster.ac.uk +44 (0) 1524 592863 ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] on behalf of Charles Joseph MAX [charles.max@uni.lu] Sent: 07 April 2016 09:59 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Petition for stopping dismissals, cuts and imperious managerialism in Finnish universities Dear Yrj?m Signed! Good luck and best wishes Charles Max > On 06 Apr 2016, at 21:01, Engestr?m, Yrj? H M wrote: > > Dear colleagues, Finnish universities are undergoing the worst crisis of their history. 12 professors of University of Helsinki have initiated a petition to change the course of the development of Finnish universities. I invite you to read the petition and consider whether you could sign it to show your support. > > The petition and the names of those who have signed it can be found at: http://yliopistokaanne.fi/in-english/ > > Sincerely, > > Yrj? Engestr?m From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Thu Apr 7 12:07:07 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 19:07:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary In-Reply-To: References: <24F72750-35D0-4D2A-8D73-1BDC3909A291@uniandes.edu.co> <1459980361188.86502@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1460056040558.36113@iped.uio.no> Thank you David for the nice elaboration on Bogdanov-Belsky's work, and the particular painting's relevance to Vygotsky. I like it very much when several volumes (in literature, in music) are conceived as forming a coherent whole, and not only conceptually but also aesthetically. On the use of concepts, I totally agree that we need to understand their historical origin and development, and can't but acknowledge the lack of and limitations associated with such an inquiry in most of today's uptakes. I am personally very interested in understanding the how, why and what-for of Vygotsky's concepts and writings and how to build upon in current theorizing. If I raised the question was just because I also see how notions such as ZPD, in the work of authors such as (just as an example) Newman & Holzman (1993), who in my view do their best to keep true to Vygotsky's epistemological orientations and concerns, get out of the notion a lot without limiting it to a function of diagnosis and without keeping it within the context of the problem of age. Another thing, of course, is whether the different uses of terms such as "diagnosis" or "the problem of age" may be very different and even incommensurable across use-settings. Thanks and again congratulations for your beautiful and laudable work. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 07 April 2016 07:48 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary Alfredo: Glad you asked! All the covers of our books are by the same artist, described below, who specialized in rural schools. With every cover we usually have a note on the inside jacket in which we thank the Russian museum which donated the painting and explain how we think it's connected to the book. Here's what we wrote this time (more or less): "The cover picture, ?Visitors?, by Nikolai Bogdanov-Belsky (1868-1945), was generously provided by the Museum of Art of Arkhangel in Russia. It is one of a whole series of paintings done by the artist on the theme of village children visiting a teacher. In this picture, the children are visiting the teacher on the day of lanterns, a Russian holiday which celebrates the risen Christ and which also celebrates Christ?s first miracle, which was turning water into wine at the Wedding in Cana. "Vygotsky uses this metaphor in one of his earliest books, ?The Psychology of Art?, to describe how human imagination does not simply reproduce images or recombine them (as Christ does later when he multiplies the loaves and fishes). Imagination can?t be explained by the socialization of an everyday experience. Instead, imagination (which includes the creation of academic concepts as well as higher aesthetic ones) is better explained at the reverse process: The individuation of a supra-individual experience. Creating academic concepts and higher aesthetic feelings are not so much like multiplying ordinary loaves and everyday fishes; they are more like turning the water of everyday life into wine. "Notice how different the children's expressions are: curious, expectant, and even a little suspicious. Note how this is liked to but distinct from their "calendar" or "passport" age. Vygotsky sees psychological development as the child?s individuation of the cultural endowment. In this book, Vygotsky begins to show us what a very long journey that is, how many ages it takes, and how many times the path twists and turns back upon itself in crises. " And here's what the other covers look like: http://www.aladin.co.kr/shop/common/wseriesitem.aspx?SRID=25565 I don't see anything wrong with ideas like "scaffolding", or "mediation", or "psychological tools". But I think that if we really do admire the ideas and not simply the name, we need to understand that none of these are originally his, and in fact he devotes quite a few pages of Chapter Two in HDHMF to why "psychological tools" should not be used. I don't think people HAVE to like Vygotsky--you are free to prefer Bruner if you want to discuss scaffolding, and Hegel if you want to mention mediation, and Bodrova and Leong or Descartes if you want to talk about psychological tools. Actually, all of those names will give you better street cred in Korean universities, and probably elsewhere too. But the zone of proximal development is a diagnostic device, and it's measured in years when Vygotsky formulates it. Shouldn't we find out why before we decide he didn't know what he was talking about? David Kellogg Macquarie University On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi David, > > Congratulations for the huge accomplishment! As Martin, I would also (as I > guess many in this list) be VERY interested in reading the English > intermediate drafts of this text. > > On a side note, I was wondering on the origin and history of the painting > in the book's cover (apropos recent discussions on xmca on pictures and > semiosis), if you wanted to share. > > Also, regarding ZPD and measurement in years, I wonder whether, in today's > context, it would make sense to continue talking about measurement (or > diagnosis) (not that I think Vygotsky's uptake in current literature is > always acquainted with even the English translations, or with his larger > project, but just trying to see what the gains/loses implicit in your > complain). > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Martin John Packer > Sent: 06 April 2016 23:28 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Agent, Range, and Beneficiary > > Hi David, > > I don?t have to time to take on a serious editing role, but as you know > I?ve made good use of your English version of Thinking & Speech, and even > sent back to you some suggested edits. I?m not using it in class now, > because for better or worse there are Spanish translations. But it > continues to be very helpful to my ongoing efforts to surpass the jargon > and better understand Vygotsky. > > So if you might be willing to share your English intermediate drafts of > this text, I would be very interested in reading them. My own understanding > of children?s development has been much influenced by Vygotsky?s lectures, > but as you note what?s available in English is very limited. > > Martin > > > > > > On Apr 6, 2016, at 4:04 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > > > Martin: > > > > A couple of years ago I asked on the list if anybody would be willing to > > edit the English version, and the silence was deafening. So we've just > been > > publishing them in Korean. > > > > I now have an undergraduate helping to edit them for free and he's pretty > > good. The real problem is the publisher. I've approached a few publishers > > but nobody is seriously interested yet. > > > > Interesting, no? Considering how often people mine poor Vygotsky for > > jargon, often jargon that isn't even his but only a little gold dust > seeded > > by some previous miner in the hope of jacking up the price of his claim > > ("scaffolding", "microgenesis", "psychological tool", etc.). > > > > Take, for example, the ZPD. When you read Vygotsky, it's measured in > years. > > When your read anybody else, it isn't. Doesn't anybody ever wonder why? > > > > Well, the answer is right here--in Korean. Today our seventh volume is > > coming out. Here's the cover! > > > > dk > > > > On Thu, Apr 7, 2016 at 1:19 AM, Martin John Packer < > mpacker@uniandes.edu.co> > > wrote: > > > >> Right, but my question was whether there is an English version of your > >> translation. > >> > >> Martin > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>> On Apr 5, 2016, at 10:41 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > >>> > >>> Martin: > >>> > >>> No, we use the Russian. There isn't a German text for these lectures: > >> it's > >>> the 2001 "Lectures on Pedology" which has not been translated into any > >>> language. I think we're the first, and it's going to be into Korean. My > >>> Korean is still not publishable, so I use English, that's all. (My > >> English > >>> isn't really publishable either, but I found somebody who will edit it > >> for > >>> free.) > >>> > >>> It's true that Vygotsky uses German words when he first introduces the > >>> concepts: "Eigensinn" for wilfulness and "Trotz alter" for obstinacy. > But > >>> he switches into Russian right away, and a lot of his examples are pure > >>> Russian (e.g. "Hu da!" for the critical threenager). > >>> > >>> In the second (2001, Korotaeva) lecture, which he begins by referring > >> back > >>> to the unfinished work of the first (1984/1998 RCW/ECW) fragment, > >> Vygotsky > >>> delivers the goods: he really does describe what is new, consider the > >>> central and peripheral lines of development that leads to it, and give > >> the > >>> "zone of its proximal development"--that is, its relation to the NEXT > >> zone > >>> of development (measured in years and not in minutes as is the fashion > >>> amongst impatient Western scholars). > >>> > >>> This is the clearest example of critical periods as a "turning of the > >>> tables"--a moment when the child tries to become the SOURCE and not > just > >>> the SITE of development, a moment when the child attempts to substitute > >> his > >>> own developing volition for the influence of the environment. > >>> > >>> Sorry--I got the title wrong last time. "Agent", "Range", and > >> "Beneficiary" > >>> are part of Halliday's ergative model, a model which is becoming > >>> increasingly important in English (and is already very important in > >>> languages like Chinese). It's a model which gives the "Medium" of a > >>> process equal importance with the "Process" which unfolds through the > >>> medium, and in that sense it's quite different from, but complementary > >> to, > >>> the kind of Subject-Verb-Object transitivity we see in most English > >>> grammars. > >>> > >>> Compare: > >>> > >>> "He shut the door." (Subject-Verb-Object) > >>> "The door shut". (Ergative) > >>> "She boiled the kettle." (Subject-Verb-Object) > >>> "The kettle boiled." (Ergative) > >>> > >>> Cooking verbs ("The stew boiled"), verbs for operating machinery ("The > >> car > >>> drives well"), and a wide range of scientific English ("Stalactites > >> form") > >>> are better analysed ergatively, but pain and disease can be analysed > >> either > >>> way: > >>> > >>> "I am battling cancer." (SVO) > >>> "The cancer metastasized." (Ergative) > >>> "I am having a bad reaction to chemotherapy." (SVO) > >>> "Chemotherapy really sucks." (Ergative) > >>> > >>> You can see that there are different theories of experience at work: > one > >>> structure is good for emphasizing the role of man acting on an object > in > >>> his environment (the "tool" relation which is placed at the centre of > >>> activity theory), while the other tends to work through the subject > (the > >>> "internalization" relationship which Vygotsky himself emphasizes). One > >>> corresponds to the environmentalist, "brainwashing and torture" > >> explanation > >>> of why 21 Americans didn't return home after the Korean war, while the > >>> other is much more internal and insidious. > >>> > >>> Both are wrong of course, but that's the way with all these > >> nature/nurture > >>> explanations: the truth lies beyond both extremes, since neither nature > >> nor > >>> nurture nor even the two put together can ever give us free will. > >>> > >>> David Kellogg > >>> Macquarie University > >> > >> > >> > > > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Apr 7 18:30:04 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 01:30:04 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Support the photographic arts Message-ID: Hello Xmcars! I spied this kickstarted project today, which is quite close to making its goal!!!! https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1890976381/the-last-resort-the-strange-beauty-of-soviet-sanat At the time I accessed the page the artist has 421 backers and possesses pledges of $21,473 USD so far! BUT needs to reach $21,857 USD to make her goal in the next 12 days. I figured that the $384 dollars might be easily generated from members of this list, considering the topic of her photographic inquiry. The smallest donation is $7.00 and the highest is $724.00 (for which you can stay at one of the sanatariums for three nights with a friend! Hot dog.) I am planning to contribute my meager $7.00 so that would make $377, but in return I'll receive some vintage postcards. Nice! The photographers make superb work. Please consider supporting their art. Having a wonderful time, and wish you were here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1890976381/the-last-resort-the-strange-beauty-of-soviet-sanat Kind regards, as always! Annalisa From mcole@ucsd.edu Thu Apr 7 20:27:39 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 20:27:39 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Support the photographic arts In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What an interesting perspective o consumption in the USSR. The comment about not wasting a minute of the task of producing a more productive worker was a sad commentary on interiorization run amok, or the cynical comment of a worker to a stranger taking picures! Interesting about the haven for adventurous architecture being sanatoria. Mike On Thursday, April 7, 2016, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello Xmcars! > > > I spied this kickstarted project today, which is quite close to making its > goal!!!! > > > https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1890976381/the-last-resort-the-strange-beauty-of-soviet-sanat > > > At the time I accessed the page the artist has 421 backers and possesses > pledges of $21,473 USD so far! BUT needs to reach $21,857 USD to make her > goal in the next 12 days. > > > I figured that the $384 dollars might be easily generated from members of > this list, considering the topic of her photographic inquiry. The smallest > donation is $7.00 and the highest is $724.00 (for which you can stay at one > of the sanatariums for three nights with a friend! Hot dog.) > > > I am planning to contribute my meager $7.00 so that would make $377, but > in return I'll receive some vintage postcards. Nice! > > > The photographers make superb work. Please consider supporting their art. > > > Having a wonderful time, and wish you were here: > > > https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1890976381/the-last-resort-the-strange-beauty-of-soviet-sanat > > > Kind regards, as always! > > > Annalisa > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From annalisa@unm.edu Fri Apr 8 08:44:57 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:44:57 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Support the photographic arts In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: This just in! [If you have made a donation to kickstarter, then you will know this already....] As of right now, there are 569 donors! That's up from 471 yesterday evening! They have surpassed their pledge to $30,217 USD with 11 days to go! almost $8500 USD past the goal. That is so so fabulous! For any Xmcars who donated, I personally thank you! Full disclosure: I don't benefit except to know we are supporting good, meaningful art. It's a kind of project that will connect people on so many levels, like perhaps getting your teeth fixed by a handsome young dentist? Kind regards, Annalisa ================ Project update #4 Posted by Maryam Omidi (Creator) We did it! With the help and support of 471 backers we've reached our funding goal with 11 days to go! The Soviet sanatoriums book is going to happen! We could not be more excited! You can follow our journey, starting this May, by following us on Instagram and Facebook where we'll be posting photos and updates . Thanks for your help in spreading the word. The additional funding will go to our photography team, some of whom are keen to use film instead of digital cameras. It will also mean that we can visit more sanatoriums than planned to bring you an even better book! THANK YOU! The Soviet sanatoriums team From smago@uga.edu Fri Apr 8 08:46:59 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 15:46:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Weekly Limited Submission Announcements - 04/08/2016 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Sent from my Windows Phone ________________________________ From: Limited Submissions Sent: ?4/?8/?2016 10:28 AM To: GRANT-ANNOUNCE@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: Weekly Limited Submission Announcements - 04/08/2016 Weekly Limited Submission Announcements Friday, April 08, 2016 New Internal Competition: U.S.-Russia Peer-to-Peer Dialogue Program To help foster greater contacts between Americans and Russians, the U.S. Department of State, U.S. Embassy Moscow, announces the FY 2016 U.S.-Russia Peer-to-Peer Dialogue Program, which will provide multiple awards, up to $100,000 each, to support unique projects centered on Russian-American, peer-to-peer collaboration, including an exchange of best practices between Russians and Americans on a topic of mutual interest. Projects must be non-political in nature and focus on Russian-American peer-to-peer dialogue or people-to-people engagement on themes of mutual interest that support greater understanding of shared values, institutional and professional development and strengthen the awareness of the merits of inclusive societies. Applicants are encouraged to incorporate innovative methodologies to accomplish program goals and foster interaction among peers. Successful projects will result in a product or outcome which enhances interaction and understanding between our two societies. If you are interested in competing for this program, please view the full announcement at the following link: https://announcements.ovpr.uga.edu/limited-submissions/us-russia-peer-to-peer-dialogue-program/ New Internal Competition: SEC Faculty Travel Program The Southeastern Conference (SEC) Faculty Travel Program is intended to enhance faculty collaboration that stimulates scholarly initiatives between SEC universities. It gives faculty members from one SEC university the opportunity to travel to another SEC campus to exchange ideas, develop grant proposals and conduct research. Each SEC university will be able to access up to $10,000 per year from the SEC for faculty members participating in the travel program. The faculty member may visit any SEC institution, and consideration must be given to how many other SEC faculty will be on a particular campus that year and/or in the same timeframe. (All travel must occur between August 1, 2016, and July 31, 2017.) The faculty member should contact a host unit (e.g., department, research center, school etc.) that he or she wishes to visit to determine that unit?s receptivity and availability. During the visit, the faculty member may consult with faculty and/or students, offer lectures, present concerts, conduct research, etc. If you are interested in competing for this program, please view the full announcement at the following link: http://announcements.ovpr.uga.edu/limited-submissions/sec-faculty-travel-program/ This email is sent on behalf of UGA?s Office of the Vice President for Research. View our calendar for all Upcoming and Completed Limited Submissions. If you would like to unsubscribe from this list, please click here. From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Sat Apr 9 08:51:21 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 18:51:21 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: For your information. Ulvi ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Adrian Kent Date: 9 April 2016 at 13:46 Subject: To: Ulvi ??il Dear Ulvi, Thank you for the very touching idea of leaving Max a red flower on behalf of young Turkish communists. Here it is, by the memorial photos in the church in which, at Max's request (and despite his undiminished atheism) his funeral took place. I wanted to say a little about Max's politics and his family. It wouldn't be right to leave you with the impression that we are all a family of Marxists. For example, I am a member of the UK Liberal Democrats. Max's politics were his own, a result of his own reading and thinking about the world, and his natural kindness and sense of justice. Of course, he certainly influenced his close family's political thinking, both because of his lovely personality and the clarity of his thought. But it wouldn't be right to assume everyone agreed with him on every topic. with all good wishes Adrian -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 20160408_110355.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 4858457 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160409/e8b82fb0/attachment-0001.jpg From mcole@ucsd.edu Sat Apr 9 17:27:57 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2016 17:27:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Ulvi, The family note put me in mind of David's remarks about him and emphasize his own important role in creating his own path; and they, though not of one mind, had the good sense/grace not to suppress is voice. mike On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > For your information. > > Ulvi > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Adrian Kent > Date: 9 April 2016 at 13:46 > Subject: > To: Ulvi ??il > > > Dear Ulvi, > > Thank you for the very touching idea of leaving Max a red flower on behalf > of young Turkish communists. Here it is, by the memorial photos in the > church in which, at Max's request (and despite his undiminished atheism) > his funeral took place. > > I wanted to say a little about Max's politics and his family. It wouldn't > be right to leave you with the impression that we are all a family of > Marxists. For example, I am a member of the UK Liberal Democrats. Max's > politics were his own, a result of his own reading and thinking about the > world, and his natural kindness and sense of justice. Of course, he > certainly influenced his close family's political thinking, both because of > his lovely personality and the clarity of his thought. But it wouldn't be > right to assume everyone agreed with him on every topic. > > with all good wishes > Adrian > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Sun Apr 10 04:14:32 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 14:14:32 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Exactly the same made me think Mike, besides, I had the impression that, some family members were influenced positively by his thoughts. 10 Nis 2016 03:30 tarihinde "mike cole" yazd?: > Thanks Ulvi, > > The family note put me in mind of David's remarks about him and emphasize > his own important role in creating his own path; and they, though not of > one mind, had the good sense/grace not to suppress is voice. > > mike > > On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Ulvi ??il wrote: > > > For your information. > > > > Ulvi > > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > From: Adrian Kent > > Date: 9 April 2016 at 13:46 > > Subject: > > To: Ulvi ??il > > > > > > Dear Ulvi, > > > > Thank you for the very touching idea of leaving Max a red flower on > behalf > > of young Turkish communists. Here it is, by the memorial photos in the > > church in which, at Max's request (and despite his undiminished atheism) > > his funeral took place. > > > > I wanted to say a little about Max's politics and his family. It > wouldn't > > be right to leave you with the impression that we are all a family of > > Marxists. For example, I am a member of the UK Liberal Democrats. > Max's > > politics were his own, a result of his own reading and thinking about the > > world, and his natural kindness and sense of justice. Of course, he > > certainly influenced his close family's political thinking, both because > of > > his lovely personality and the clarity of his thought. But it wouldn't > be > > right to assume everyone agreed with him on every topic. > > > > with all good wishes > > Adrian > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Apr 10 09:30:37 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 16:30:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Everyday and Scientific concepts Message-ID: Hi everyone, As I was reading this Guardian Long Read by Yanis Varoufakis (still reading, actually, as it is a long read, as billed), I consider the transition of everyday concepts to scientific ones, and how good teachers are able to help make that transformation. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/apr/05/yanis-varoufakis-why-we-must-save-the-eu Varoufakis has been quite busy these days running about in a Euro zone of proximal development! Kind regards, Annalisa From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Sun Apr 10 12:07:14 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:07:14 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: NYTimes.com: Why Talented Black and Hispanic Students Can Go Undiscovered Message-ID: Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" Date: 4/10/2016 12:29 PM (GMT-05:00) To: pmocombe@mocombeian.com Subject: NYTimes.com: Why Talented Black and Hispanic Students Can Go Undiscovered From The New York Times: Why Talented Black and Hispanic Students Can Go Undiscovered Relying on teachers and parents to identify candidates for gifted programs appears to discriminate against minority and poor children. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/upshot/why-talented-black-and-hispanic-students-can-go-undiscovered.html?mwrsm=Email Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 10 12:39:55 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 12:39:55 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> <8B7D4F7E-4C09-48D4-A43E-11564B179A5F@umich.edu> Message-ID: Ed-- I received a copy of the book, Dramatic Interactions in Education. I wondered if you could review it for mca, given your involvement in the Heathcoate discussion and your outsider status with respect to whatever was causing a dust up around this topic on xmca? mike On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > Sue > > Let me begin for thanking you for your recommendation of that > collection of Heathcote?s writings on Education and Drama (O?Neill?s > updated version). I am about 1/3 of the way through and at times am gripped > by regret that I did not know of her take on teaching until after I left > teacher education. There is much that she says that generalizes across > teaching - and she seems very much aware of this - and much that she > pragmatically undertakes which mirrors some thinking and actions of my own. > I once suggested sans knowledge of Heathcote - I once taught was one of the > few schools in the US with a Masters program in Educational Theatre - that > we, the faculty, take advantage of possible expertise in ?drama? in our > general teacher education program so as to craft some experiences for > pre-service teachers. The Director of Educational Theatre was somewhat > intrigued, the rest of my colleague were fairly dismissive (sort of like > the experience Heathcote relates). > > I think you continue to project your understandings of mathematics > into our discussion. I don?t have a problem with this and I think, given > the way mathematics is presented (including the way Lockart?s presents > mathematics), this is quite reasonable. In a sense, I agree with Lockart > about mathematics being about problems, but I would shift the emphasis to > 'mathematics is the study of pattern? and add that, in a sense, art is > about problems and the study of patterns. You quote Vygotsky as saying, art > is ?social technique of emotion.? I think if you watch young children in > their play you will see them use mathematics in emotive socially sanctioned > ways (your further quotes "just as people long ago learned to express their > internal states through external expressions, so do the images of > imagination serve as an internal expression of our feelings? He goes on to > say that emotion can influence imagination and imagination influences > emotion?? serves to further bolster my argument as mathematics, properly > construed, is highly imaginative). Heathcote, herself, references drama > that includes "A class of learning-impaired students, aged 12?14, focus on > mathematics, weights, dimensions, critical timing using watches.? However, > all this begins to get messy and I expect I need to address ?social > techniques of emotion? within, at least, (1) the teaching of mathematics; > (2) doing of mathematics; (3) using mathematics. > Teaching of mathematics. I would argue - and I am reasonably sure > Heathcote would agree - that teaching (and it is important to note that she > - although drawing on her experience in drama - often addresses teaching > more broadly) can be quite artful in the sense that Vygotsky mentions. I > have observed those she would probably term ?excellent teachers? and, one > might say, they ?dance' in the classroom. [This is a place Heathcote has > been more than helpful for me, as I now grasp a bit better some of what she > points at and that I had always ?seen?] > Doing of (and not doing of) mathematics: I don?t like to think of > some of what is going on as artful, but there is no denying what I often > see might be categorized as a ?social technique of emotion.? There are, for > example, socially accepted expressions of ?inadequacy.' - "I was never any > good at mathematics"; socially accepted expressions of ?frustration? - > "this is stupid or ?when are we ever going to use this??? On the other > hand, mathematics doing can offer, among others, feelings of completeness, > stability and tranquility (Edna St. Vincent MIlay has an interesting > ?argument' and there is the reflections of Dirac on the wave equation). > Lastly there is using: Here we have work of Heathcote herself. > However, things are more complicated as, in a sense (and especially if you > are somewhat Kantian - smile), something like art is built, in may ways on > the mathematical. I wonder how Vygotsky would feel, if I were to say (with > some justification), art is emotive social expression of the mathematical > (smile)? > > However, I agree (and I am fairly sure Heathcote would agree) every > discipline has its strengths and the Arts certainly have "special qualities > in terms of the social expression of > emotion that is not the same as for mathematics.? This, I think, is a > given. However, I also think the line is difficult to draw and sometimes > has been drawn unthinkingly to the detriment of both Art and mathematics. I > close with a quote from Heathcote?s writings, "The very word ?creativity? > frightens me; it is much overused like ?expert? and I suspect that it is > biased towards the arts rather than the sciences. It seems that there is > more evidence from the arts but I don?t think they own the field by any > means.? [I apologize by the way about the absence of line numbers as I am > reading on a Kindle - although, with some detective work, I may be able to > figure it out). This together with your above quote from Vygotsky about > imagination seems to imply that ?social emotive techniques? are not owned > by the Arts by any means. However, more importantly what concerns me (and I > think Heathcote would agree) is that when teachers do not capitalize on > commonalities among disciplines (or ideas), children (or pre-service > teachers) are invariably left confused, frustrated, and alienated. > > > Oh, I note from my reading that Heathcote discusses something she > terms ?tension.? I was wondering if you have given any thought on how this > might ?feed? imagination? > > Again thanks, > > Ed > > > On Mar 5, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Susan Davis wrote:. > > > > Hi Ed, > > I have read the Mathematician?s Lament - thank you for that (I trust this > > is the right article > > https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf). I can > > see how you can argue Mathematics might be an art form and how formal > > educational has tended to kill off most people?s ability to see it as > such > > (and the music and painting analogies he draws are not so far fetched as > > you might think in some cases). > > > > I do like his point about children not being exposed to the ideas and > > history of mathematical thinking and why and how humans have grappled > with > > such? > > "They were never told the history of mankind?s relationship with numbers? > > no ancient > > Babylonian problem tablets, no Rhind Papyrus, no Liber Abaci, no Ars > > Magna. More importantly, no chance for them to even get curious > > about a question; it was answered before they could ask it.? > > > > "Mathematics is about problems, and problems must be made the focus of a > > students > > mathematical life. Painful and creatively frustrating as it may be, > > students and their teachers > > should at all times be engaged in the process? having ideas, not having > > ideas, discovering > > patterns, making conjectures, constructing examples and counterexamples, > > devising arguments, > > and critiquing each other?s work. Specific techniques and methods will > > arise naturally out of this > > process, as they did historically: not isolated from, but organically > > connected to, and as an > > outgrowth of, their problem-background? > > > > > > > > I?m still not sure that Mathetmatics has the same qualities as an art > form > > in the way Vygotsky identified as a ?social technique of emotion?. For > > example when someone (including children) spontaneously or intentionally > > want to share and express certain emotions they may do so through certain > > art forms ? For example a child who is feeling joyful doing a ?happy? > > dance, or someone who is grieving or sad painting using black, browns and > > greys. I?m not sure I can see the same occurring using Mathematics as the > > expressive form? and others reading it as such? > > > > While people can read the art of others differently, in many cases > similar > > emotions may be identified and ideas arouses in others in response. One > > of the things Vygotsky talks of is a ?dual expression of feeling? whereby > > ?every feeling has not only an exxternal, physical expression, but an > > internal expression associationed with the choice of thoughts, images, > and > > impressions?. Just as people long ago learned to express their internal > > states through external expressions, so do the images of imagination > serve > > as an internal expression of our feelings? ? (Vygotsky 2004, p. 18). He > > goes on to say that emotion can influence imagination and imagination > > influences emotion? > > > > So I I would return again to this notion of expressive form? and whether > > some forms are more ready vehicles for the intentional expression of > > emotion and feelings than others, and perhaps that is where the arts > might > > still have some special qualities in terms of the social expression of > > emotion that is not the same as for mathematics? I daresay you may argue > > otherwise!! > > > > I look forward to hearing your thoughts and of course those of others as > > well! > > > > Kind regards > > > > Sue > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4/03/2016 3:21 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > > > >> Susan > >> > >> Yes, this is the sort of thing re Heathcote focus for which I was > >> hoping. I look forward to some reading (smile). > >> > >> Your characterization of mathematics is, unfortunately, one that > >> continues to reinforced by many; I run into it all the time if the form > >> of "I was never any good at mathematics." I really recommend you read a > >> Mathematician?s Lament - if for no other reason to see how such > >> characterizations perpetuate or for a laugh. A well known researcher at > >> Columbia in Early Childhood once did an assessment of what young > children > >> did during free play and found that 30% (I think this is right) of the > >> time they engaged in something mathematical and this 30% was, by far, > the > >> largest percentage spent in a single activity. So, I disagree, most > young > >> children do use mathematics for their creative vehicle sharing their > >> ideas and emotions. On the other hand, I very much agree most older > >> children and adults do not use mathematica as a creative vehicle, but I > >> am far from convinced that the problem is mathematics itself. > >> So while I do sympathize with your views (and I recognize that > >> mathematics teachers are largely to blame), I have plenty of evidence - > >> and, of course, some personal - from observing that your > characterization > >> (while descriptive of much that is out there) is somewhat misleading > and, > >> in fact, covers up the issues. I note purely in a jocular way (I don?t > >> mean to cast aspersions on either you or Ana as I respect you both), > you, > >> perhaps, are acting as a ?Spoilsport.? Unfortunately, Eisner (who I > >> greatly respect) seems to know little about young children as, in fact, > >> the colors and lines are quite important. He is right in thinking that > >> parents and teachers (and perhaps, unfortunately, himself and others) do > >> not think them of importance. However, that is a very, very different > >> matter. > >> > >> Thanks for your definition of ?feeding.? This is quite helpful. I > >> note that I also used to teach pre-service education students; who > >> invariably said, one way or the other, "I don?t really like > mathematics?; > >> which, by the way, I think can be translated as ?I?m not creative, qua > >> mathematics.? I remember one young woman - in an early Childhood masters > >> cohort - who had her BS from a place which emphasized the performing > >> arts. The first day of class she came up in tears saying she had been > >> told (by some of my quite un-thoughtful colleagues!) she would not need > >> to know or teach any mathematics (I was teaching a mathematics methods > >> course for Early Childhood pre-service masters students). I told her > >> otherwise, but said she and I would work on the difficulties (which > >> turned out to be large since from her early elementary days, her mother > >> screamed at her when she could not do her mathematics homework). I > >> usually gave ?creative? mathematics homework as a weekly > >> assignment (and I would characterize it now as ?feeding? the > >> imagination sufficiently) and she, to her astonishment I suspect, both > >> liked it and did quite well (I hasten to add that she would, most > likely, > >> never be comfortable with teaching mathematics beyond second grade > >> because of those elementary school experiences). I also told her to > >> listen to her students (those in the Early Childhood cohort most usually > >> were teaching in some capacity in pre-Kindergarten). Her children - I > >> would say of course (smile) - loved anything that was ?creatively? > >> mathematical and she began to love creating mathematics with them. She > >> has been quite successful in her teaching career. > >> > >> My point in this overly long story is to parallel you in that I am > >> saying that we all actually are creatively mathematically and we can be > >> more - in our own way - if we wish, but you (and, at times, we together) > >> have to ?feed? your imagination. I respect the fact that people don?t > >> want to do so. However, as you say there are the others; the > ?beyonders'. > >> Magdalene Lampert once gave them a name ?Students of Teaching.? > >> > >> Ed > >> > >>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Ed, > >>> I thought you were after the more traditional theoretical writings from > >>> Heathcote. She used many many theoretical concepts in her work and she > >>> did actually talk about imagination quite specfically in some of > >>> the tapes I analysed, mainly when talking about the preparation she did > >>> before teaching and the use of a projective imagination. This was > about > >>> envisaging the different ways things might play out and considering > >>> alternatives. She also talked about how she was a highly visual thinker > >>> and that options played out in her mind as if it were a movie. At > other > >>> times she talks about the creative > >>> process and she also talks about imagination even if not explicitly. > I?d > >>> have to go back to my transcripts for some examples. > >>> > >>> I am well aware of arguments that other areas beyond the arts are > >>> concerned with imagination and feelings/emotions etc (and yes my > >>> defining > >>> of the arts extends well beyond Art to the many different ways people > >>> use > >>> materials, movement, sound, action and even their own lives > >>> expressively). > >>> However I?d still come back to intention, > >>> primary purpose and form, the primary purpose of Maths is not to > express > >>> feelings and emotions, however in much arts practice it is. I?d also > >>> consider the accessibility of an area like Math > >>> for expressive potential for school aged children. There are not many > >>> children who could/would be able to use math forms as their creative > >>> vehicle for sharing their ideas and emotions socially. It is also > about > >>> the qualities of such that are available for them to be able to > >>> manipulate > >>> in combination. Elliot Eisner talked in a keynote address in 2011 about > >>> how when a child writes a Math formula the content of such is important > >>> but the qualities and how they are used (e.g. Red pen or blue pen, > lined > >>> paper or plain) are less so, however in the arts the quality of > >>> qualities > >>> remains very important. They encourage the cultivation of judgment, > >>> thinking and feeling. > >>> > >>> In terms of my use of the term ?feeding? the imagination and creativity > >>> perhaps if I explain how I first came to use that term. When I work > with > >>> pre-service education students in the arts, many of them begin the > >>> course > >>> by saying ?I?m not creative?. What I say to them is that we are all > >>> creative, and you make creative decisions in your life every day, > >>> however > >>> you can be more creative (in the arts) if you want to be but you have > to > >>> ?feed? your creativity. i.e. In their case choose an arts area you want > >>> to > >>> explore and be more creative in, practice it, look at lots of examples > >>> of > >>> other art work, identify what you like, would like to have a go at. We > >>> also provide them with different materials they can use, different > >>> examples and techniques they can try out... So as Vygotsky put it > adding > >>> to the richness and variety of their experience. If people don?t want > >>> to > >>> engage in that (and some do nothing beyond what we do in class) so be > >>> it, > >>> but the ones who do go beyond that, and start observing, practising and > >>> deliberately ?feeding? their own creativity and imagination inevitably > >>> create more interesting and imaginative work in the long run and also > >>> feel > >>> a great sense of satisfaction and pride. > >>> > >>> So I know this is not totally focussed on imagination? but more like > >>> imagination, art, creativity and the possibilities of working with > >>> expressive forms. > >>> > >>> Cheers > >>> Sue > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 3/03/2016 2:45 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hi Susan > >>>> > >>>> I assume you noticed how I tried to be slightly ambiguous in my use > >>>> of the word ?theoretical? so what you say is disappointing as I know > >>>> many > >>>> ?good? teachers who use imagination without really focusing on > >>>> imagination as something in itself (it is something that is, for > >>>> example, > >>>> one ?feeds,' but qua ?feed? what does that entail). That doesn?t > >>>> detract > >>>> from what they do, but makes it difficult to ?talk? (in the present > and > >>>> in the past) with them about their teaching. However, that doesn?t > >>>> mean I > >>>> cannot learn much from Heatcote (and you) and I thank you for making > >>>> the > >>>> book available. > >>>> > >>>> I cannot resist noting that the term ?art? is used in wider contexts > >>>> than the usual although those that use art with a capital A usually > >>>> resist (I remember a conversation where Maxine Greene basically said > >>>> she > >>>> wasn?t going to consider mathematics - smile). There is a interesting > >>>> book by Corrandi Fiumara that argues, in a sense, that all disciplines > >>>> are concerned with "emotions, ideas, and qualities of such" and I have > >>>> always taken Alastair MacIntyre as making similar arguments in his > >>>> discussion of practice. That is not to say that Art doesn?t have a > >>>> particular role, but its ?social? characterization may be a little > more > >>>> complicated than it seems (there is an amusing - sort of - commentary > >>>> on > >>>> this on the web titled the Mathematician?s Lament). Thus I would hope > >>>> that all, including Artists, would engage in the less socially > standard > >>>> arts. I always found it interesting that my colleagues who worked in > >>>> the > >>>> Arts were always intrigued by my interest in how they co > >>>> -created instances that enabled "people to explore, externalise and > >>>> share such through various crystallised means", but - except in one > >>>> remembered instance - were a bit put-off at the idea I was engaged in > >>>> similar work and it might usefully behove them to take an interest > >>>> (smile). > >>>> > >>>> Again, thank you for the conversation and thank you for the book. > >>>> > >>>> Ed > >>>> > >>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Ed > >>>>> > >>>>> In response to some of your questions and reflections. > >>>>> > >>>>> As far as I know Heathcote did not theorise imagination extensively > >>>>> and > >>>>> certainly not in any published form. She tended to write > extensively, > >>>>> but > >>>>> not necessarily theoretically and often it has been colleagues and > >>>>> students of hers who have interpreted her work in various ways > against > >>>>> theory. > >>>>> > >>>>> In terms of the role of art and imagination. Like Vygotsky I believe > >>>>> the > >>>>> arts do play a particular role, largely because the arts are > primarily > >>>>> concerned with the emotions, ideas and qualities of such. Through > >>>>> various > >>>>> artistic forms, they also enable people to explore, externalise and > >>>>> share > >>>>> such through various crystallised means crystallise. And this is not > >>>>> confined to ?artists? everyone can engage in such activities and > >>>>> perhaps > >>>>> should do! > >>>>> > >>>>> Vygotsky said: > >>>>> Art is the social technique of emotion, a tool of society which > brings > >>>>> the most intimate and personal aspects of our being into the circle > of > >>>>> social > >>>>> life. (Vygotsky, 1971, p. 249) > >>>>> > >>>>> I would agree that in many collective drama processes the exercising > >>>>> of > >>>>> imagination is both conceptual and sensory and embodied and social ? > >>>>> and > >>>>> that it is a constantly recurring imaginative/embodied experience. > >>>>> Imaginative ideas feed into the doing and the doing informs the > >>>>> developing > >>>>> imaginative ideas. I?m sure there?s probably theoretical work out > >>>>> there > >>>>> about that, as there is a lot of interest in ?embodied? learning > >>>>> emerging > >>>>> from dance and drama circles in recent times, though I can?t provide > >>>>> references off the top of my head. > >>>>> > >>>>> And in terms of Goffman, actually Heathcote drew upon Goffman?s work > >>>>> on > >>>>> framing to inform the different ways you might structure a dramatic > >>>>> encounter and as her colleague (and scholar) Gavin Bolton says what > >>>>> different framing can provide is the means to both protect ?from? but > >>>>> also > >>>>> ?into? emotional experiences (Bolton 1986). The framing would also > >>>>> enable > >>>>> certain imaginative possibilities and these would shift depending on > >>>>> the > >>>>> framing. The framing therefore provides some parameters and ?tools? > as > >>>>> it > >>>>> were for the imaginative activity. So for example if someone was > >>>>> framed > >>>>> in role as a reporter in a dramatic event, how they respond to the > >>>>> situation and what they create will be different to if they are > framed > >>>>> as > >>>>> the protagonist of the event, or a casual observer. So I guess this > >>>>> is > >>>>> an > >>>>> example also of what I was saying about ?feeding? the imagination. > >>>>> That > >>>>> might also be done through bringing in different texts or objects > that > >>>>> can > >>>>> act as what Cecily O?Neill called ?pre-texts? as the launching off > >>>>> materials for a drama. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers > >>>>> Sue > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 2/03/2016 3:16 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Susan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thank you for the reply. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Since I know little about Heathcote (although a fair amount about > >>>>>> ?good? teachers) I can only say that I agree with many of your > quotes > >>>>>> and > >>>>>> I find Vygotsky as one in a long line of thinkers who sees > >>>>>> imagination > >>>>>> as > >>>>>> integral making meaning (I have hedged here a bit as I want to > >>>>>> include > >>>>>> other thinkers in conversations about imagination). I note, by the > >>>>>> way, > >>>>>> you did not include my favorite quote (Imagination and Creativity in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> Adolescent, p163) on this matter from Vygotsky as it, for me, > >>>>>> embodies > >>>>>> a > >>>>>> lot about how I have been thinking about imagination: ?From our > point > >>>>>> of > >>>>>> view the imagination is a transforming, creative activity directed > >>>>>> from > >>>>>> the concrete towards a new concrete? - although this is certainly > >>>>>> captured in the quotes you give. > >>>>>> In any case, what I found of most interest is what follows those > >>>>>> quotes of Vygotsky and what I assume is, in part, an > >>>>>> assessment/description of Heathcote?s stance. However, Heathcote > >>>>>> viewed > >>>>>> Vygotsky (or whoever else she drew from) she seems to have been a > >>>>>> ?good? > >>>>>> teacher (I am talking about a comparative quality, but that would > >>>>>> take > >>>>>> me > >>>>>> to far afield here) and ?good? teachers translate what might be > >>>>>> called > >>>>>> pristine theory into what might be called messy practice. In some > >>>>>> writing > >>>>>> I?m doing I been looking for some careful description of a teacher?s > >>>>>> doings who, perhaps, one might say has spent some time attempting to > >>>>>> ?feed? imagination (this is your word so I?m not entirely sure what > >>>>>> is > >>>>>> meant) and seems to recognize that certain imaginations can and > >>>>>> should > >>>>>> be > >>>>>> ?stabilized? or one might say ?verified.? There seems, in > interesting > >>>>>> cases that I am thinking about, to be sort of a hybrid > >>>>>> sensory-imagination (teacher, peers, materials, etc) transforming > >>>>>> though imagination (perhaps individual) to sort of a hybrid > >>>>>> reasoning-imagination (teacher, peers, materials, etc). From my > >>>>>> perspective I see, in your description of Heathcote, her doing > >>>>>> something > >>>>>> like this and your indication that students are allowed to sit out > >>>>>> is, > >>>>>> it > >>>>>> seems, a sort of confirmation. It is not that I don?t know other > >>>>>> teachers > >>>>>> who act like Heathcote (every discipline contains such and there is > >>>>>> nothing unique about ?art' per se from a certain perspective on > >>>>>> teaching > >>>>>> - I am fine with loud disagreements here :)) - I have been very > lucky > >>>>>> in > >>>>>> that regard (and Maxine Greene was one) - but most don?t ?theorize? > >>>>>> imagination in some fashion (I mean make it a !particular! teaching > >>>>>> focus) and I am hoping your writings in Heathcote's regard might > give > >>>>>> me > >>>>>> a better perspective on what is possible more generally. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Oh, being writeable seems, to me, to be an integral part of the > >>>>>> verification process. Also I note that in all disciplines I know > >>>>>> about > >>>>>> you can play it multiple times and in different ways. However, I > >>>>>> admit > >>>>>> to > >>>>>> being influenced by Goffman in this regard. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ed > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Susan Davis > >>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Ed > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Both Vygotsky and Heathcote both understood that the work of the > >>>>>>> imagination is not only an individual mental exercise but in > >>>>>>> inspired > >>>>>>> by > >>>>>>> and is expressed through interactions with others, conceptual tools > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> ultimately material means and artefacts. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I think Vygotksy described the different ways imagination worked > >>>>>>> very > >>>>>>> well > >>>>>>> indeed and I have summarised that in the book. Some key quotes from > >>>>>>> him > >>>>>>> include: > >>>>>>> Everything the imagination creates is always based on elements > taken > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>> reality, from a person?s previous > >>>>>>> experience. The most fantastic creations are nothing other than a > >>>>>>> new > >>>>>>> combination of elements that have ultimately been extracted from > >>>>>>> reality. > >>>>>>> (p. 13) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The first law of creativity: The > >>>>>>> act of imagination depends directly on the richness and variety of > a > >>>>>>> person?s > >>>>>>> previous experience because this experience provides the material > >>>>>>> from > >>>>>>> which > >>>>>>> the products of creativity are constructed. The richer a person?s > >>>>>>> experience, > >>>>>>> the richer is the material his imagination has access to. Great > >>>>>>> works > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> discoveries are always the result of an enormous amount of > >>>>>>> previously > >>>>>>> accumulated experience. The implication of this for education is > >>>>>>> that, > >>>>>>> if > >>>>>>> we > >>>>>>> want to build a relatively strong foundation for a child?s > >>>>>>> creativity, > >>>>>>> what we > >>>>>>> must do is broaden the experiences we provide him with.(pp. 14-15) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The right kind of education > >>>>>>> involves awakening in the child what already exists within him, > >>>>>>> helping > >>>>>>> him to > >>>>>>> develop it and directing this development in a particular > direction. > >>>>>>> (p. > >>>>>>> 51) > >>>>>>> ?Vygotsky, > >>>>>>> L. (2004) ?Imagination and creativity in childhood.? Journal of > >>>>>>> Russian > >>>>>>> and Was tEuropean PsychologyVol. 42 No. 1. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This work recognises therefore that to inspire imagination means > >>>>>>> ?feeding? > >>>>>>> the imagination and it is therefore the teacher?s responsibility to > >>>>>>> work > >>>>>>> with children and bring in various tools, processes and > provocations > >>>>>>> that > >>>>>>> will draw them into creative processes. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In terms of working in drama I think the notion of the social > >>>>>>> imagination > >>>>>>> comes into play (though that is a term more closely associated with > >>>>>>> Maxine > >>>>>>> Green) and collectively a group creates something together - > >>>>>>> something > >>>>>>> that did not exist previously and which would not exist in the same > >>>>>>> form > >>>>>>> if created individually. In that sense it is helpful to draw on > the > >>>>>>> language of improvised drama to understand the process - someone > >>>>>>> generally makes an ?offer? to begin the imaginative exploration, > >>>>>>> practically speaking in embodied action it can be a physical or > >>>>>>> verbal > >>>>>>> offer. Multiple offers can at times be made but one has to be > >>>>>>> accepted, > >>>>>>> and then extended upon. This process keeps going and as those who > >>>>>>> have > >>>>>>> studied improvised drama knows, the key is then to draw the threads > >>>>>>> together and find an appropriate conclusion. Now what this means > in > >>>>>>> practice is a fluid interplay of power shifts as people forfeit > >>>>>>> their > >>>>>>> right to have their every idea accepted (which is unworkable), > >>>>>>> trusting > >>>>>>> that if they go with the one that is on the table or seems to > ?grab? > >>>>>>> people, they will be able to contribute and that the outcome will > >>>>>>> be > >>>>>>> something that they are a part of and will be worthwhile. That is > >>>>>>> social > >>>>>>> imagination in action. Decisions are often made in the moment - not > >>>>>>> after > >>>>>>> exhaustive dialogue - although reflection on what has gone on and > >>>>>>> been > >>>>>>> created often occurs afterwards. This is especially the case if you > >>>>>>> were > >>>>>>> to be devising a new work. The whole process has to be underpinned > >>>>>>> by > >>>>>>> a > >>>>>>> sense of trust and a belief that as a group the give and take of > the > >>>>>>> process will generate something that has been worth the effort. It > >>>>>>> doesn?t > >>>>>>> always, but that is often part of the educational process with > >>>>>>> children > >>>>>>> and participants - 'what do you feel worked, what didn?t, what > >>>>>>> offers > >>>>>>> ended up proving fruitful, were there ?blocks? that we couldn?t > work > >>>>>>> around? If we did it again what would you change?? and so on. (see > >>>>>>> some > >>>>>>> of Keith Sawyer?s work on improvisation for more insights on how > >>>>>>> these > >>>>>>> processes work and why he believes improvised theatre is perhaps > the > >>>>>>> highest form of creativity) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It is writerly in Barthes sense in that while a ?text' has often > >>>>>>> been > >>>>>>> initiated, it is deliberately left unfinished and the participants > >>>>>>> must > >>>>>>> make imaginative leaps, connections and new solutions to be able to > >>>>>>> complete the text or dramatic encounter. What is also interesting > >>>>>>> in a > >>>>>>> drama process is that you can play it multiple times, from > different > >>>>>>> perspectives and something different can be revealed each time. In > >>>>>>> Boal?s > >>>>>>> work with forum theatre people from an audience and the > >>>>>>> disenfranchised > >>>>>>> are also invited to step up and take on a role within a version (as > >>>>>>> spectactors), therefore finding ways to shift power dynamics and to > >>>>>>> explore alternative solutions. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I hope this is of interest. > >>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>> Sue > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 1/03/2016 4:58 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Susan > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Coming a little late to this conversation and thinking about your > >>>>>>>> comments last July on Vygotsky and imagination, I was wondering if > >>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> that played a large role in your book. In particular and if so, > how > >>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>> Heathcote, one might say, pragmatically theorize imagination? It > >>>>>>>> seems, > >>>>>>>> given, what you have written in the present thread that she seems > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>> created moments through a stance that "respected and worked with > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the > >>>>>>>> implications and working dialogically with very alternative views > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> her own.? This, in some of the literature, is indicative of an > >>>>>>>> imaginative ?leap? that is stabilized in the ?waking state.? In a > >>>>>>>> sense, > >>>>>>>> the moment becomes, in somewhat the sense of Barthes, ?writeable.' > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ed Wall > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Susan Davis > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks Robert, > >>>>>>>>> It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. > The > >>>>>>>>> book > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling > >>>>>>>>> Role > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> the digital age?. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and > >>>>>>>>> -p > >>>>>>>>> ra > >>>>>>>>> xi > >>>>>>>>> s/ > >>>>>>>>> learning-that-matters/ > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a > >>>>>>>>> ?master? > >>>>>>>>> teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching > >>>>>>>>> practice > >>>>>>>>> in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such > >>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>> Mantle > >>>>>>>>> of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position > >>>>>>>>> children > >>>>>>>>> as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She > >>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>> invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of > >>>>>>>>> trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with > the > >>>>>>>>> same > >>>>>>>>> common context, but from their particular frame or subject > >>>>>>>>> perspective. > >>>>>>>>> The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but > >>>>>>>>> groups > >>>>>>>>> regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of > what > >>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>> gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited > >>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>> revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to > >>>>>>>>> assist > >>>>>>>>> with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in > >>>>>>>>> conceptualising > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> understanding this work. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like > >>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>> could have been writing about education today! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, > >>>>>>>>> teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of > >>>>>>>>> concepts > >>>>>>>>> always > >>>>>>>>> proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any > >>>>>>>>> teacher > >>>>>>>>> setting out > >>>>>>>>> on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of > >>>>>>>>> words, > >>>>>>>>> mere > >>>>>>>>> verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> imitation > >>>>>>>>> of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a > >>>>>>>>> vacuum. > >>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>> such cases, the child assimilates not > >>>>>>>>> concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his > >>>>>>>>> thinking. > >>>>>>>>> As a > >>>>>>>>> result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt > to > >>>>>>>>> apply > >>>>>>>>> any of > >>>>>>>>> this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of > >>>>>>>>> teaching/learning > >>>>>>>>> concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, > which > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> condemned > >>>>>>>>> by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition > of > >>>>>>>>> living > >>>>>>>>> knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, > >>>>>>>>> represents > >>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>> most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>> 1934/1994a, > >>>>>>>>> pp. > >>>>>>>>> 356-7) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you > >>>>>>>>> have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like > >>>>>>>>> drama > >>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>> entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run > >>>>>>>>> ? > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>> pretending actually. And we use words > >>>>>>>>> like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that > it?s > >>>>>>>>> ephemeral > >>>>>>>>> and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>> need to > >>>>>>>>> look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a > dummy > >>>>>>>>> run? > >>>>>>>>> It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not > >>>>>>>>> being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent > >>>>>>>>> now. > >>>>>>>>> (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>>>> Sue > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Dr Susan Davis > >>>>>>>>> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher > >>>>>>>>> Education > >>>>>>>>> Division > >>>>>>>>> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > >>>>>>>>> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > >>>>>>>>> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E > >>>>>>>>> s.davis@cqu.edu.au > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy > >>>>>>>>>> Heathcote > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> CHAT > >>>>>>>>>> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If > >>>>>>>>>> anyone > >>>>>>>>>> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has > >>>>>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>>>> five > >>>>>>>>>> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will > >>>>>>>>>> become > >>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>> more important in this era of standardized everything. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.p > >>>>>>>>>> df > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to > >>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>> 5 > >>>>>>>>>> minutes into this. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ewall@umich.edu Sun Apr 10 13:06:58 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:06:58 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> <8B7D4F7E-4C09-48D4-A43E-11564B179A5F@umich.edu> Message-ID: Mike I would very much like to review it. Would you mind if I reviewed it as a mathematics educator as it has much to offer? Did it seem like a dust up as regards my responses? Susan?s discussion of Heathcote has had a substantial impact on my thinking as to how one makes, one might say, imagination productive (or, as Susan put it, how does one ?feed' imagination) . However, and Heathcote is careful not to do this, I think Susan (and others) have a tendency to marginalize - in regard to art - disciplines like mathematics when, and this is my opinion, caricatures of mathematics seem primarily to grow out of and are maintained through cultural biases (and mathematicians are significantly at fault here). As Susan seemed thoughtful I was trying to respectfully raise her awareness in this regard as I was truly interested in responses grounded in her expertise. Ed > On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Ed-- > > I received a copy of the book, Dramatic Interactions in Education. I > wondered if you could review it for mca, given your involvement in the > Heathcoate discussion and your outsider status with respect to whatever was > causing a dust up around this topic on xmca? > > mike > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > >> Sue >> >> Let me begin for thanking you for your recommendation of that >> collection of Heathcote?s writings on Education and Drama (O?Neill?s >> updated version). I am about 1/3 of the way through and at times am gripped >> by regret that I did not know of her take on teaching until after I left >> teacher education. There is much that she says that generalizes across >> teaching - and she seems very much aware of this - and much that she >> pragmatically undertakes which mirrors some thinking and actions of my own. >> I once suggested sans knowledge of Heathcote - I once taught was one of the >> few schools in the US with a Masters program in Educational Theatre - that >> we, the faculty, take advantage of possible expertise in ?drama? in our >> general teacher education program so as to craft some experiences for >> pre-service teachers. The Director of Educational Theatre was somewhat >> intrigued, the rest of my colleague were fairly dismissive (sort of like >> the experience Heathcote relates). >> >> I think you continue to project your understandings of mathematics >> into our discussion. I don?t have a problem with this and I think, given >> the way mathematics is presented (including the way Lockart?s presents >> mathematics), this is quite reasonable. In a sense, I agree with Lockart >> about mathematics being about problems, but I would shift the emphasis to >> 'mathematics is the study of pattern? and add that, in a sense, art is >> about problems and the study of patterns. You quote Vygotsky as saying, art >> is ?social technique of emotion.? I think if you watch young children in >> their play you will see them use mathematics in emotive socially sanctioned >> ways (your further quotes "just as people long ago learned to express their >> internal states through external expressions, so do the images of >> imagination serve as an internal expression of our feelings? He goes on to >> say that emotion can influence imagination and imagination influences >> emotion?? serves to further bolster my argument as mathematics, properly >> construed, is highly imaginative). Heathcote, herself, references drama >> that includes "A class of learning-impaired students, aged 12?14, focus on >> mathematics, weights, dimensions, critical timing using watches.? However, >> all this begins to get messy and I expect I need to address ?social >> techniques of emotion? within, at least, (1) the teaching of mathematics; >> (2) doing of mathematics; (3) using mathematics. >> Teaching of mathematics. I would argue - and I am reasonably sure >> Heathcote would agree - that teaching (and it is important to note that she >> - although drawing on her experience in drama - often addresses teaching >> more broadly) can be quite artful in the sense that Vygotsky mentions. I >> have observed those she would probably term ?excellent teachers? and, one >> might say, they ?dance' in the classroom. [This is a place Heathcote has >> been more than helpful for me, as I now grasp a bit better some of what she >> points at and that I had always ?seen?] >> Doing of (and not doing of) mathematics: I don?t like to think of >> some of what is going on as artful, but there is no denying what I often >> see might be categorized as a ?social technique of emotion.? There are, for >> example, socially accepted expressions of ?inadequacy.' - "I was never any >> good at mathematics"; socially accepted expressions of ?frustration? - >> "this is stupid or ?when are we ever going to use this??? On the other >> hand, mathematics doing can offer, among others, feelings of completeness, >> stability and tranquility (Edna St. Vincent MIlay has an interesting >> ?argument' and there is the reflections of Dirac on the wave equation). >> Lastly there is using: Here we have work of Heathcote herself. >> However, things are more complicated as, in a sense (and especially if you >> are somewhat Kantian - smile), something like art is built, in may ways on >> the mathematical. I wonder how Vygotsky would feel, if I were to say (with >> some justification), art is emotive social expression of the mathematical >> (smile)? >> >> However, I agree (and I am fairly sure Heathcote would agree) every >> discipline has its strengths and the Arts certainly have "special qualities >> in terms of the social expression of >> emotion that is not the same as for mathematics.? This, I think, is a >> given. However, I also think the line is difficult to draw and sometimes >> has been drawn unthinkingly to the detriment of both Art and mathematics. I >> close with a quote from Heathcote?s writings, "The very word ?creativity? >> frightens me; it is much overused like ?expert? and I suspect that it is >> biased towards the arts rather than the sciences. It seems that there is >> more evidence from the arts but I don?t think they own the field by any >> means.? [I apologize by the way about the absence of line numbers as I am >> reading on a Kindle - although, with some detective work, I may be able to >> figure it out). This together with your above quote from Vygotsky about >> imagination seems to imply that ?social emotive techniques? are not owned >> by the Arts by any means. However, more importantly what concerns me (and I >> think Heathcote would agree) is that when teachers do not capitalize on >> commonalities among disciplines (or ideas), children (or pre-service >> teachers) are invariably left confused, frustrated, and alienated. >> >> >> Oh, I note from my reading that Heathcote discusses something she >> terms ?tension.? I was wondering if you have given any thought on how this >> might ?feed? imagination? >> >> Again thanks, >> >> Ed >> >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Susan Davis wrote:. >>> >>> Hi Ed, >>> I have read the Mathematician?s Lament - thank you for that (I trust this >>> is the right article >>> https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf). I can >>> see how you can argue Mathematics might be an art form and how formal >>> educational has tended to kill off most people?s ability to see it as >> such >>> (and the music and painting analogies he draws are not so far fetched as >>> you might think in some cases). >>> >>> I do like his point about children not being exposed to the ideas and >>> history of mathematical thinking and why and how humans have grappled >> with >>> such? >>> "They were never told the history of mankind?s relationship with numbers? >>> no ancient >>> Babylonian problem tablets, no Rhind Papyrus, no Liber Abaci, no Ars >>> Magna. More importantly, no chance for them to even get curious >>> about a question; it was answered before they could ask it.? >>> >>> "Mathematics is about problems, and problems must be made the focus of a >>> students >>> mathematical life. Painful and creatively frustrating as it may be, >>> students and their teachers >>> should at all times be engaged in the process? having ideas, not having >>> ideas, discovering >>> patterns, making conjectures, constructing examples and counterexamples, >>> devising arguments, >>> and critiquing each other?s work. Specific techniques and methods will >>> arise naturally out of this >>> process, as they did historically: not isolated from, but organically >>> connected to, and as an >>> outgrowth of, their problem-background? >>> >>> >>> >>> I?m still not sure that Mathetmatics has the same qualities as an art >> form >>> in the way Vygotsky identified as a ?social technique of emotion?. For >>> example when someone (including children) spontaneously or intentionally >>> want to share and express certain emotions they may do so through certain >>> art forms ? For example a child who is feeling joyful doing a ?happy? >>> dance, or someone who is grieving or sad painting using black, browns and >>> greys. I?m not sure I can see the same occurring using Mathematics as the >>> expressive form? and others reading it as such? >>> >>> While people can read the art of others differently, in many cases >> similar >>> emotions may be identified and ideas arouses in others in response. One >>> of the things Vygotsky talks of is a ?dual expression of feeling? whereby >>> ?every feeling has not only an exxternal, physical expression, but an >>> internal expression associationed with the choice of thoughts, images, >> and >>> impressions?. Just as people long ago learned to express their internal >>> states through external expressions, so do the images of imagination >> serve >>> as an internal expression of our feelings? ? (Vygotsky 2004, p. 18). He >>> goes on to say that emotion can influence imagination and imagination >>> influences emotion? >>> >>> So I I would return again to this notion of expressive form? and whether >>> some forms are more ready vehicles for the intentional expression of >>> emotion and feelings than others, and perhaps that is where the arts >> might >>> still have some special qualities in terms of the social expression of >>> emotion that is not the same as for mathematics? I daresay you may argue >>> otherwise!! >>> >>> I look forward to hearing your thoughts and of course those of others as >>> well! >>> >>> Kind regards >>> >>> Sue >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/03/2016 3:21 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: >>> >>>> Susan >>>> >>>> Yes, this is the sort of thing re Heathcote focus for which I was >>>> hoping. I look forward to some reading (smile). >>>> >>>> Your characterization of mathematics is, unfortunately, one that >>>> continues to reinforced by many; I run into it all the time if the form >>>> of "I was never any good at mathematics." I really recommend you read a >>>> Mathematician?s Lament - if for no other reason to see how such >>>> characterizations perpetuate or for a laugh. A well known researcher at >>>> Columbia in Early Childhood once did an assessment of what young >> children >>>> did during free play and found that 30% (I think this is right) of the >>>> time they engaged in something mathematical and this 30% was, by far, >> the >>>> largest percentage spent in a single activity. So, I disagree, most >> young >>>> children do use mathematics for their creative vehicle sharing their >>>> ideas and emotions. On the other hand, I very much agree most older >>>> children and adults do not use mathematica as a creative vehicle, but I >>>> am far from convinced that the problem is mathematics itself. >>>> So while I do sympathize with your views (and I recognize that >>>> mathematics teachers are largely to blame), I have plenty of evidence - >>>> and, of course, some personal - from observing that your >> characterization >>>> (while descriptive of much that is out there) is somewhat misleading >> and, >>>> in fact, covers up the issues. I note purely in a jocular way (I don?t >>>> mean to cast aspersions on either you or Ana as I respect you both), >> you, >>>> perhaps, are acting as a ?Spoilsport.? Unfortunately, Eisner (who I >>>> greatly respect) seems to know little about young children as, in fact, >>>> the colors and lines are quite important. He is right in thinking that >>>> parents and teachers (and perhaps, unfortunately, himself and others) do >>>> not think them of importance. However, that is a very, very different >>>> matter. >>>> >>>> Thanks for your definition of ?feeding.? This is quite helpful. I >>>> note that I also used to teach pre-service education students; who >>>> invariably said, one way or the other, "I don?t really like >> mathematics?; >>>> which, by the way, I think can be translated as ?I?m not creative, qua >>>> mathematics.? I remember one young woman - in an early Childhood masters >>>> cohort - who had her BS from a place which emphasized the performing >>>> arts. The first day of class she came up in tears saying she had been >>>> told (by some of my quite un-thoughtful colleagues!) she would not need >>>> to know or teach any mathematics (I was teaching a mathematics methods >>>> course for Early Childhood pre-service masters students). I told her >>>> otherwise, but said she and I would work on the difficulties (which >>>> turned out to be large since from her early elementary days, her mother >>>> screamed at her when she could not do her mathematics homework). I >>>> usually gave ?creative? mathematics homework as a weekly >>>> assignment (and I would characterize it now as ?feeding? the >>>> imagination sufficiently) and she, to her astonishment I suspect, both >>>> liked it and did quite well (I hasten to add that she would, most >> likely, >>>> never be comfortable with teaching mathematics beyond second grade >>>> because of those elementary school experiences). I also told her to >>>> listen to her students (those in the Early Childhood cohort most usually >>>> were teaching in some capacity in pre-Kindergarten). Her children - I >>>> would say of course (smile) - loved anything that was ?creatively? >>>> mathematical and she began to love creating mathematics with them. She >>>> has been quite successful in her teaching career. >>>> >>>> My point in this overly long story is to parallel you in that I am >>>> saying that we all actually are creatively mathematically and we can be >>>> more - in our own way - if we wish, but you (and, at times, we together) >>>> have to ?feed? your imagination. I respect the fact that people don?t >>>> want to do so. However, as you say there are the others; the >> ?beyonders'. >>>> Magdalene Lampert once gave them a name ?Students of Teaching.? >>>> >>>> Ed >>>> >>>>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Ed, >>>>> I thought you were after the more traditional theoretical writings from >>>>> Heathcote. She used many many theoretical concepts in her work and she >>>>> did actually talk about imagination quite specfically in some of >>>>> the tapes I analysed, mainly when talking about the preparation she did >>>>> before teaching and the use of a projective imagination. This was >> about >>>>> envisaging the different ways things might play out and considering >>>>> alternatives. She also talked about how she was a highly visual thinker >>>>> and that options played out in her mind as if it were a movie. At >> other >>>>> times she talks about the creative >>>>> process and she also talks about imagination even if not explicitly. >> I?d >>>>> have to go back to my transcripts for some examples. >>>>> >>>>> I am well aware of arguments that other areas beyond the arts are >>>>> concerned with imagination and feelings/emotions etc (and yes my >>>>> defining >>>>> of the arts extends well beyond Art to the many different ways people >>>>> use >>>>> materials, movement, sound, action and even their own lives >>>>> expressively). >>>>> However I?d still come back to intention, >>>>> primary purpose and form, the primary purpose of Maths is not to >> express >>>>> feelings and emotions, however in much arts practice it is. I?d also >>>>> consider the accessibility of an area like Math >>>>> for expressive potential for school aged children. There are not many >>>>> children who could/would be able to use math forms as their creative >>>>> vehicle for sharing their ideas and emotions socially. It is also >> about >>>>> the qualities of such that are available for them to be able to >>>>> manipulate >>>>> in combination. Elliot Eisner talked in a keynote address in 2011 about >>>>> how when a child writes a Math formula the content of such is important >>>>> but the qualities and how they are used (e.g. Red pen or blue pen, >> lined >>>>> paper or plain) are less so, however in the arts the quality of >>>>> qualities >>>>> remains very important. They encourage the cultivation of judgment, >>>>> thinking and feeling. >>>>> >>>>> In terms of my use of the term ?feeding? the imagination and creativity >>>>> perhaps if I explain how I first came to use that term. When I work >> with >>>>> pre-service education students in the arts, many of them begin the >>>>> course >>>>> by saying ?I?m not creative?. What I say to them is that we are all >>>>> creative, and you make creative decisions in your life every day, >>>>> however >>>>> you can be more creative (in the arts) if you want to be but you have >> to >>>>> ?feed? your creativity. i.e. In their case choose an arts area you want >>>>> to >>>>> explore and be more creative in, practice it, look at lots of examples >>>>> of >>>>> other art work, identify what you like, would like to have a go at. We >>>>> also provide them with different materials they can use, different >>>>> examples and techniques they can try out... So as Vygotsky put it >> adding >>>>> to the richness and variety of their experience. If people don?t want >>>>> to >>>>> engage in that (and some do nothing beyond what we do in class) so be >>>>> it, >>>>> but the ones who do go beyond that, and start observing, practising and >>>>> deliberately ?feeding? their own creativity and imagination inevitably >>>>> create more interesting and imaginative work in the long run and also >>>>> feel >>>>> a great sense of satisfaction and pride. >>>>> >>>>> So I know this is not totally focussed on imagination? but more like >>>>> imagination, art, creativity and the possibilities of working with >>>>> expressive forms. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Sue >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 3/03/2016 2:45 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Susan >>>>>> >>>>>> I assume you noticed how I tried to be slightly ambiguous in my use >>>>>> of the word ?theoretical? so what you say is disappointing as I know >>>>>> many >>>>>> ?good? teachers who use imagination without really focusing on >>>>>> imagination as something in itself (it is something that is, for >>>>>> example, >>>>>> one ?feeds,' but qua ?feed? what does that entail). That doesn?t >>>>>> detract >>>>>> from what they do, but makes it difficult to ?talk? (in the present >> and >>>>>> in the past) with them about their teaching. However, that doesn?t >>>>>> mean I >>>>>> cannot learn much from Heatcote (and you) and I thank you for making >>>>>> the >>>>>> book available. >>>>>> >>>>>> I cannot resist noting that the term ?art? is used in wider contexts >>>>>> than the usual although those that use art with a capital A usually >>>>>> resist (I remember a conversation where Maxine Greene basically said >>>>>> she >>>>>> wasn?t going to consider mathematics - smile). There is a interesting >>>>>> book by Corrandi Fiumara that argues, in a sense, that all disciplines >>>>>> are concerned with "emotions, ideas, and qualities of such" and I have >>>>>> always taken Alastair MacIntyre as making similar arguments in his >>>>>> discussion of practice. That is not to say that Art doesn?t have a >>>>>> particular role, but its ?social? characterization may be a little >> more >>>>>> complicated than it seems (there is an amusing - sort of - commentary >>>>>> on >>>>>> this on the web titled the Mathematician?s Lament). Thus I would hope >>>>>> that all, including Artists, would engage in the less socially >> standard >>>>>> arts. I always found it interesting that my colleagues who worked in >>>>>> the >>>>>> Arts were always intrigued by my interest in how they co >>>>>> -created instances that enabled "people to explore, externalise and >>>>>> share such through various crystallised means", but - except in one >>>>>> remembered instance - were a bit put-off at the idea I was engaged in >>>>>> similar work and it might usefully behove them to take an interest >>>>>> (smile). >>>>>> >>>>>> Again, thank you for the conversation and thank you for the book. >>>>>> >>>>>> Ed >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Susan Davis wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Ed >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In response to some of your questions and reflections. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> As far as I know Heathcote did not theorise imagination extensively >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> certainly not in any published form. She tended to write >> extensively, >>>>>>> but >>>>>>> not necessarily theoretically and often it has been colleagues and >>>>>>> students of hers who have interpreted her work in various ways >> against >>>>>>> theory. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> In terms of the role of art and imagination. Like Vygotsky I believe >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> arts do play a particular role, largely because the arts are >> primarily >>>>>>> concerned with the emotions, ideas and qualities of such. Through >>>>>>> various >>>>>>> artistic forms, they also enable people to explore, externalise and >>>>>>> share >>>>>>> such through various crystallised means crystallise. And this is not >>>>>>> confined to ?artists? everyone can engage in such activities and >>>>>>> perhaps >>>>>>> should do! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Vygotsky said: >>>>>>> Art is the social technique of emotion, a tool of society which >> brings >>>>>>> the most intimate and personal aspects of our being into the circle >> of >>>>>>> social >>>>>>> life. (Vygotsky, 1971, p. 249) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I would agree that in many collective drama processes the exercising >>>>>>> of >>>>>>> imagination is both conceptual and sensory and embodied and social ? >>>>>>> and >>>>>>> that it is a constantly recurring imaginative/embodied experience. >>>>>>> Imaginative ideas feed into the doing and the doing informs the >>>>>>> developing >>>>>>> imaginative ideas. I?m sure there?s probably theoretical work out >>>>>>> there >>>>>>> about that, as there is a lot of interest in ?embodied? learning >>>>>>> emerging >>>>>>> from dance and drama circles in recent times, though I can?t provide >>>>>>> references off the top of my head. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And in terms of Goffman, actually Heathcote drew upon Goffman?s work >>>>>>> on >>>>>>> framing to inform the different ways you might structure a dramatic >>>>>>> encounter and as her colleague (and scholar) Gavin Bolton says what >>>>>>> different framing can provide is the means to both protect ?from? but >>>>>>> also >>>>>>> ?into? emotional experiences (Bolton 1986). The framing would also >>>>>>> enable >>>>>>> certain imaginative possibilities and these would shift depending on >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> framing. The framing therefore provides some parameters and ?tools? >> as >>>>>>> it >>>>>>> were for the imaginative activity. So for example if someone was >>>>>>> framed >>>>>>> in role as a reporter in a dramatic event, how they respond to the >>>>>>> situation and what they create will be different to if they are >> framed >>>>>>> as >>>>>>> the protagonist of the event, or a casual observer. So I guess this >>>>>>> is >>>>>>> an >>>>>>> example also of what I was saying about ?feeding? the imagination. >>>>>>> That >>>>>>> might also be done through bringing in different texts or objects >> that >>>>>>> can >>>>>>> act as what Cecily O?Neill called ?pre-texts? as the launching off >>>>>>> materials for a drama. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>> Sue >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 3:16 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Susan >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you for the reply. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Since I know little about Heathcote (although a fair amount about >>>>>>>> ?good? teachers) I can only say that I agree with many of your >> quotes >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> I find Vygotsky as one in a long line of thinkers who sees >>>>>>>> imagination >>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>> integral making meaning (I have hedged here a bit as I want to >>>>>>>> include >>>>>>>> other thinkers in conversations about imagination). I note, by the >>>>>>>> way, >>>>>>>> you did not include my favorite quote (Imagination and Creativity in >>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>> Adolescent, p163) on this matter from Vygotsky as it, for me, >>>>>>>> embodies >>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>> lot about how I have been thinking about imagination: ?From our >> point >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> view the imagination is a transforming, creative activity directed >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> the concrete towards a new concrete? - although this is certainly >>>>>>>> captured in the quotes you give. >>>>>>>> In any case, what I found of most interest is what follows those >>>>>>>> quotes of Vygotsky and what I assume is, in part, an >>>>>>>> assessment/description of Heathcote?s stance. However, Heathcote >>>>>>>> viewed >>>>>>>> Vygotsky (or whoever else she drew from) she seems to have been a >>>>>>>> ?good? >>>>>>>> teacher (I am talking about a comparative quality, but that would >>>>>>>> take >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> to far afield here) and ?good? teachers translate what might be >>>>>>>> called >>>>>>>> pristine theory into what might be called messy practice. In some >>>>>>>> writing >>>>>>>> I?m doing I been looking for some careful description of a teacher?s >>>>>>>> doings who, perhaps, one might say has spent some time attempting to >>>>>>>> ?feed? imagination (this is your word so I?m not entirely sure what >>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>> meant) and seems to recognize that certain imaginations can and >>>>>>>> should >>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>> ?stabilized? or one might say ?verified.? There seems, in >> interesting >>>>>>>> cases that I am thinking about, to be sort of a hybrid >>>>>>>> sensory-imagination (teacher, peers, materials, etc) transforming >>>>>>>> though imagination (perhaps individual) to sort of a hybrid >>>>>>>> reasoning-imagination (teacher, peers, materials, etc). From my >>>>>>>> perspective I see, in your description of Heathcote, her doing >>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>> like this and your indication that students are allowed to sit out >>>>>>>> is, >>>>>>>> it >>>>>>>> seems, a sort of confirmation. It is not that I don?t know other >>>>>>>> teachers >>>>>>>> who act like Heathcote (every discipline contains such and there is >>>>>>>> nothing unique about ?art' per se from a certain perspective on >>>>>>>> teaching >>>>>>>> - I am fine with loud disagreements here :)) - I have been very >> lucky >>>>>>>> in >>>>>>>> that regard (and Maxine Greene was one) - but most don?t ?theorize? >>>>>>>> imagination in some fashion (I mean make it a !particular! teaching >>>>>>>> focus) and I am hoping your writings in Heathcote's regard might >> give >>>>>>>> me >>>>>>>> a better perspective on what is possible more generally. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Oh, being writeable seems, to me, to be an integral part of the >>>>>>>> verification process. Also I note that in all disciplines I know >>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>> you can play it multiple times and in different ways. However, I >>>>>>>> admit >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>> being influenced by Goffman in this regard. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ed >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Susan Davis >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Ed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Both Vygotsky and Heathcote both understood that the work of the >>>>>>>>> imagination is not only an individual mental exercise but in >>>>>>>>> inspired >>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>> and is expressed through interactions with others, conceptual tools >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> ultimately material means and artefacts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I think Vygotksy described the different ways imagination worked >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> well >>>>>>>>> indeed and I have summarised that in the book. Some key quotes from >>>>>>>>> him >>>>>>>>> include: >>>>>>>>> Everything the imagination creates is always based on elements >> taken >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> reality, from a person?s previous >>>>>>>>> experience. The most fantastic creations are nothing other than a >>>>>>>>> new >>>>>>>>> combination of elements that have ultimately been extracted from >>>>>>>>> reality. >>>>>>>>> (p. 13) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The first law of creativity: The >>>>>>>>> act of imagination depends directly on the richness and variety of >> a >>>>>>>>> person?s >>>>>>>>> previous experience because this experience provides the material >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> which >>>>>>>>> the products of creativity are constructed. The richer a person?s >>>>>>>>> experience, >>>>>>>>> the richer is the material his imagination has access to. Great >>>>>>>>> works >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> discoveries are always the result of an enormous amount of >>>>>>>>> previously >>>>>>>>> accumulated experience. The implication of this for education is >>>>>>>>> that, >>>>>>>>> if >>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>> want to build a relatively strong foundation for a child?s >>>>>>>>> creativity, >>>>>>>>> what we >>>>>>>>> must do is broaden the experiences we provide him with.(pp. 14-15) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The right kind of education >>>>>>>>> involves awakening in the child what already exists within him, >>>>>>>>> helping >>>>>>>>> him to >>>>>>>>> develop it and directing this development in a particular >> direction. >>>>>>>>> (p. >>>>>>>>> 51) >>>>>>>>> ?Vygotsky, >>>>>>>>> L. (2004) ?Imagination and creativity in childhood.? Journal of >>>>>>>>> Russian >>>>>>>>> and Was tEuropean PsychologyVol. 42 No. 1. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> This work recognises therefore that to inspire imagination means >>>>>>>>> ?feeding? >>>>>>>>> the imagination and it is therefore the teacher?s responsibility to >>>>>>>>> work >>>>>>>>> with children and bring in various tools, processes and >> provocations >>>>>>>>> that >>>>>>>>> will draw them into creative processes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> In terms of working in drama I think the notion of the social >>>>>>>>> imagination >>>>>>>>> comes into play (though that is a term more closely associated with >>>>>>>>> Maxine >>>>>>>>> Green) and collectively a group creates something together - >>>>>>>>> something >>>>>>>>> that did not exist previously and which would not exist in the same >>>>>>>>> form >>>>>>>>> if created individually. In that sense it is helpful to draw on >> the >>>>>>>>> language of improvised drama to understand the process - someone >>>>>>>>> generally makes an ?offer? to begin the imaginative exploration, >>>>>>>>> practically speaking in embodied action it can be a physical or >>>>>>>>> verbal >>>>>>>>> offer. Multiple offers can at times be made but one has to be >>>>>>>>> accepted, >>>>>>>>> and then extended upon. This process keeps going and as those who >>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>> studied improvised drama knows, the key is then to draw the threads >>>>>>>>> together and find an appropriate conclusion. Now what this means >> in >>>>>>>>> practice is a fluid interplay of power shifts as people forfeit >>>>>>>>> their >>>>>>>>> right to have their every idea accepted (which is unworkable), >>>>>>>>> trusting >>>>>>>>> that if they go with the one that is on the table or seems to >> ?grab? >>>>>>>>> people, they will be able to contribute and that the outcome will >>>>>>>>> be >>>>>>>>> something that they are a part of and will be worthwhile. That is >>>>>>>>> social >>>>>>>>> imagination in action. Decisions are often made in the moment - not >>>>>>>>> after >>>>>>>>> exhaustive dialogue - although reflection on what has gone on and >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> created often occurs afterwards. This is especially the case if you >>>>>>>>> were >>>>>>>>> to be devising a new work. The whole process has to be underpinned >>>>>>>>> by >>>>>>>>> a >>>>>>>>> sense of trust and a belief that as a group the give and take of >> the >>>>>>>>> process will generate something that has been worth the effort. It >>>>>>>>> doesn?t >>>>>>>>> always, but that is often part of the educational process with >>>>>>>>> children >>>>>>>>> and participants - 'what do you feel worked, what didn?t, what >>>>>>>>> offers >>>>>>>>> ended up proving fruitful, were there ?blocks? that we couldn?t >> work >>>>>>>>> around? If we did it again what would you change?? and so on. (see >>>>>>>>> some >>>>>>>>> of Keith Sawyer?s work on improvisation for more insights on how >>>>>>>>> these >>>>>>>>> processes work and why he believes improvised theatre is perhaps >> the >>>>>>>>> highest form of creativity) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> It is writerly in Barthes sense in that while a ?text' has often >>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>> initiated, it is deliberately left unfinished and the participants >>>>>>>>> must >>>>>>>>> make imaginative leaps, connections and new solutions to be able to >>>>>>>>> complete the text or dramatic encounter. What is also interesting >>>>>>>>> in a >>>>>>>>> drama process is that you can play it multiple times, from >> different >>>>>>>>> perspectives and something different can be revealed each time. In >>>>>>>>> Boal?s >>>>>>>>> work with forum theatre people from an audience and the >>>>>>>>> disenfranchised >>>>>>>>> are also invited to step up and take on a role within a version (as >>>>>>>>> spectactors), therefore finding ways to shift power dynamics and to >>>>>>>>> explore alternative solutions. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I hope this is of interest. >>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>> Sue >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2016 4:58 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Susan >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Coming a little late to this conversation and thinking about your >>>>>>>>>> comments last July on Vygotsky and imagination, I was wondering if >>>>>>>>>> any >>>>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>>>> that played a large role in your book. In particular and if so, >> how >>>>>>>>>> did >>>>>>>>>> Heathcote, one might say, pragmatically theorize imagination? It >>>>>>>>>> seems, >>>>>>>>>> given, what you have written in the present thread that she seems >>>>>>>>>> to >>>>>>>>>> have >>>>>>>>>> created moments through a stance that "respected and worked with >>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>> material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the >>>>>>>>>> implications and working dialogically with very alternative views >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> her own.? This, in some of the literature, is indicative of an >>>>>>>>>> imaginative ?leap? that is stabilized in the ?waking state.? In a >>>>>>>>>> sense, >>>>>>>>>> the moment becomes, in somewhat the sense of Barthes, ?writeable.' >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Ed Wall >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Susan Davis >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Robert, >>>>>>>>>>> It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. >> The >>>>>>>>>>> book >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling >>>>>>>>>>> Role >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> the digital age?. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and >>>>>>>>>>> -p >>>>>>>>>>> ra >>>>>>>>>>> xi >>>>>>>>>>> s/ >>>>>>>>>>> learning-that-matters/ >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a >>>>>>>>>>> ?master? >>>>>>>>>>> teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching >>>>>>>>>>> practice >>>>>>>>>>> in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes such >>>>>>>>>>> as >>>>>>>>>>> Mantle >>>>>>>>>>> of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to position >>>>>>>>>>> children >>>>>>>>>>> as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She >>>>>>>>>>> also >>>>>>>>>>> invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of >>>>>>>>>>> trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with >> the >>>>>>>>>>> same >>>>>>>>>>> common context, but from their particular frame or subject >>>>>>>>>>> perspective. >>>>>>>>>>> The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but >>>>>>>>>>> groups >>>>>>>>>>> regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of >> what >>>>>>>>>>> has >>>>>>>>>>> gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited >>>>>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>>>>> revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes to >>>>>>>>>>> assist >>>>>>>>>>> with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualising >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> understanding this work. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt like >>>>>>>>>>> they >>>>>>>>>>> could have been writing about education today! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, >>>>>>>>>>> teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of >>>>>>>>>>> concepts >>>>>>>>>>> always >>>>>>>>>>> proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any >>>>>>>>>>> teacher >>>>>>>>>>> setting out >>>>>>>>>>> on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition of >>>>>>>>>>> words, >>>>>>>>>>> mere >>>>>>>>>>> verbalization in children, which is nothing more than simulation >>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>> imitation >>>>>>>>>>> of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a >>>>>>>>>>> vacuum. >>>>>>>>>>> In >>>>>>>>>>> such cases, the child assimilates not >>>>>>>>>>> concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his >>>>>>>>>>> thinking. >>>>>>>>>>> As a >>>>>>>>>>> result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt >> to >>>>>>>>>>> apply >>>>>>>>>>> any of >>>>>>>>>>> this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of >>>>>>>>>>> teaching/learning >>>>>>>>>>> concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, >> which >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> condemned >>>>>>>>>>> by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition >> of >>>>>>>>>>> living >>>>>>>>>>> knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, >>>>>>>>>>> represents >>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>> most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky >>>>>>>>>>> 1934/1994a, >>>>>>>>>>> pp. >>>>>>>>>>> 356-7) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you >>>>>>>>>>> have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks like >>>>>>>>>>> drama >>>>>>>>>>> is >>>>>>>>>>> entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy run >>>>>>>>>>> ? >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> are >>>>>>>>>>> only >>>>>>>>>>> pretending actually. And we use words >>>>>>>>>>> like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that >> it?s >>>>>>>>>>> ephemeral >>>>>>>>>>> and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to me >>>>>>>>>>> we >>>>>>>>>>> need to >>>>>>>>>>> look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a >> dummy >>>>>>>>>>> run? >>>>>>>>>>> It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not >>>>>>>>>>> being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its urgent >>>>>>>>>>> now. >>>>>>>>>>> (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers >>>>>>>>>>> Sue >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Dr Susan Davis >>>>>>>>>>> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher >>>>>>>>>>> Education >>>>>>>>>>> Division >>>>>>>>>>> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | >>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 >>>>>>>>>>> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E >>>>>>>>>>> s.davis@cqu.edu.au >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy >>>>>>>>>>>> Heathcote >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> CHAT >>>>>>>>>>>> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". If >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone >>>>>>>>>>>> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It has >>>>>>>>>>>> been >>>>>>>>>>>> five >>>>>>>>>>>> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will >>>>>>>>>>>> become >>>>>>>>>>>> more >>>>>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>>>>> more important in this era of standardized everything. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.p >>>>>>>>>>>> df >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to >>>>>>>>>>>> about >>>>>>>>>>>> 5 >>>>>>>>>>>> minutes into this. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> >> > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Apr 10 14:14:47 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 21:14:47 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] How Professors Fight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This seems to be a good accompaniment to the previous article I posted earlier today. http://www.theguardian.com/books/2016/apr/01/chronicles-thomas-piketty-weak-suffer-yanis-varoufakis-review The most arresting sentence for me was: "How, in the modern world, do leftwing professors fight?" You are free to make your own conclusions, whether in the 1st person singular/plural, 2nd person singular/plural, or 3rd person singular/plural. That covers everyone here, I think. :) Kind regards, Annalisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 10 15:08:13 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 08:08:13 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Is Property "Natural"? Message-ID: I'm reading Merleau-Ponty's Sorbonne lectures on Child Psychology and Pedagogy. On p. 76 he takes Engels to task for not explaining the origins of private property, and informs him, brimming with confidence, that according to Hegel the origins of private property are simply an attempt by man to extend the sovereignty he exercises over his own body. (On p. 77 he once again scolds Engels for explaining partriarchy as a form of slavery, and once again calls on Hegel to inform Engels that there exists a "special relationship" between husband and wife!) I leave aside whether Hegel is really to blame for this reasoning (it later transpires that the real culprit is Freud). I leave aside the fact that none of this does what Merleau-Ponty is trying to do. He is trying to show that property is not natural, but foreign (I think what he means is "cultural" or maybe "social"). Merleau-Ponty only succeeds in arguing that, since it is supposedly an extension of the body and of the will to reproduction property and patriarchy really ARE natural. Even while Hegel was still alive, Hazlitt was arguing that the self who profits from the enjoyment of property requires far more imagination than has less immediacy to children than the other selves who take pleasure and pain in our good times and bad (You would think that the author "Phenomonology of Perception" would be all too ready to acknowledge this!). Actually, it now appears that this is something we share with other primates. Although chimps and bonobos are not particularly well known for their business acuity, it appears that even capuchin monkeys are acutely sensitive to wage disparity. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMoK48QGL8 I remember showing a North Korean monster movie to a toddler as part of an elaborate attempt to elicit certain forms of stative verb that have a moral as well as an aesthetic dimension: instead, the toddler pointed to some characters who were sleeping caves and asked "How can they sleep there, in the wet, while we are so comfortable here in this apartment?" When I read Max's work, I am struck by how "natural" it is that a young person who is not starving or on the street should look at those who are, and respond with solidarity, indignation, and above all incredulity at its supposed necessity. David Kellogg Macquarie University From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 10 15:52:24 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 15:52:24 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Heathcote and Immagination In-Reply-To: References: <1D219F01-CF79-47CF-9A0E-86E720B47526@umich.edu> <8B7D4F7E-4C09-48D4-A43E-11564B179A5F@umich.edu> Message-ID: Great, Ed. What is an address to send the book to? I was thinking of the note from Ana Shane which questioned the interpretation of Heathcoate's method-in-use. Overall I thought the discussion interesting. Yes, math tends to be especially specially separated from art in such discussions and reviewing from that perspective is fine with me. mike On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 1:06 PM, Ed Wall wrote: > Mike > > I would very much like to review it. Would you mind if I reviewed it > as a mathematics educator as it has much to offer? > > Did it seem like a dust up as regards my responses? Susan?s > discussion of Heathcote has had a substantial impact on my thinking as to > how one makes, one might say, imagination productive (or, as Susan put it, > how does one ?feed' imagination) . However, and Heathcote is careful not to > do this, I think Susan (and others) have a tendency to marginalize - in > regard to art - disciplines like mathematics when, and this is my opinion, > caricatures of mathematics seem primarily to grow out of and are maintained > through cultural biases (and mathematicians are significantly at fault > here). As Susan seemed thoughtful I was trying to respectfully raise her > awareness in this regard as I was truly interested in responses grounded in > her expertise. > > Ed > > > On Apr 10, 2016, at 2:39 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > Ed-- > > > > I received a copy of the book, Dramatic Interactions in Education. I > > wondered if you could review it for mca, given your involvement in the > > Heathcoate discussion and your outsider status with respect to whatever > was > > causing a dust up around this topic on xmca? > > > > mike > > > > On Mon, Mar 7, 2016 at 10:05 AM, Ed Wall wrote: > > > >> Sue > >> > >> Let me begin for thanking you for your recommendation of that > >> collection of Heathcote?s writings on Education and Drama (O?Neill?s > >> updated version). I am about 1/3 of the way through and at times am > gripped > >> by regret that I did not know of her take on teaching until after I left > >> teacher education. There is much that she says that generalizes across > >> teaching - and she seems very much aware of this - and much that she > >> pragmatically undertakes which mirrors some thinking and actions of my > own. > >> I once suggested sans knowledge of Heathcote - I once taught was one of > the > >> few schools in the US with a Masters program in Educational Theatre - > that > >> we, the faculty, take advantage of possible expertise in ?drama? in our > >> general teacher education program so as to craft some experiences for > >> pre-service teachers. The Director of Educational Theatre was somewhat > >> intrigued, the rest of my colleague were fairly dismissive (sort of like > >> the experience Heathcote relates). > >> > >> I think you continue to project your understandings of mathematics > >> into our discussion. I don?t have a problem with this and I think, given > >> the way mathematics is presented (including the way Lockart?s presents > >> mathematics), this is quite reasonable. In a sense, I agree with Lockart > >> about mathematics being about problems, but I would shift the emphasis > to > >> 'mathematics is the study of pattern? and add that, in a sense, art is > >> about problems and the study of patterns. You quote Vygotsky as saying, > art > >> is ?social technique of emotion.? I think if you watch young children in > >> their play you will see them use mathematics in emotive socially > sanctioned > >> ways (your further quotes "just as people long ago learned to express > their > >> internal states through external expressions, so do the images of > >> imagination serve as an internal expression of our feelings? He goes > on to > >> say that emotion can influence imagination and imagination influences > >> emotion?? serves to further bolster my argument as mathematics, properly > >> construed, is highly imaginative). Heathcote, herself, references drama > >> that includes "A class of learning-impaired students, aged 12?14, focus > on > >> mathematics, weights, dimensions, critical timing using watches.? > However, > >> all this begins to get messy and I expect I need to address ?social > >> techniques of emotion? within, at least, (1) the teaching of > mathematics; > >> (2) doing of mathematics; (3) using mathematics. > >> Teaching of mathematics. I would argue - and I am reasonably sure > >> Heathcote would agree - that teaching (and it is important to note that > she > >> - although drawing on her experience in drama - often addresses teaching > >> more broadly) can be quite artful in the sense that Vygotsky mentions. I > >> have observed those she would probably term ?excellent teachers? and, > one > >> might say, they ?dance' in the classroom. [This is a place Heathcote has > >> been more than helpful for me, as I now grasp a bit better some of what > she > >> points at and that I had always ?seen?] > >> Doing of (and not doing of) mathematics: I don?t like to think of > >> some of what is going on as artful, but there is no denying what I often > >> see might be categorized as a ?social technique of emotion.? There are, > for > >> example, socially accepted expressions of ?inadequacy.' - "I was never > any > >> good at mathematics"; socially accepted expressions of ?frustration? - > >> "this is stupid or ?when are we ever going to use this??? On the other > >> hand, mathematics doing can offer, among others, feelings of > completeness, > >> stability and tranquility (Edna St. Vincent MIlay has an interesting > >> ?argument' and there is the reflections of Dirac on the wave equation). > >> Lastly there is using: Here we have work of Heathcote herself. > >> However, things are more complicated as, in a sense (and especially if > you > >> are somewhat Kantian - smile), something like art is built, in may ways > on > >> the mathematical. I wonder how Vygotsky would feel, if I were to say > (with > >> some justification), art is emotive social expression of the > mathematical > >> (smile)? > >> > >> However, I agree (and I am fairly sure Heathcote would agree) > every > >> discipline has its strengths and the Arts certainly have "special > qualities > >> in terms of the social expression of > >> emotion that is not the same as for mathematics.? This, I think, is a > >> given. However, I also think the line is difficult to draw and sometimes > >> has been drawn unthinkingly to the detriment of both Art and > mathematics. I > >> close with a quote from Heathcote?s writings, "The very word > ?creativity? > >> frightens me; it is much overused like ?expert? and I suspect that it is > >> biased towards the arts rather than the sciences. It seems that there is > >> more evidence from the arts but I don?t think they own the field by any > >> means.? [I apologize by the way about the absence of line numbers as I > am > >> reading on a Kindle - although, with some detective work, I may be able > to > >> figure it out). This together with your above quote from Vygotsky about > >> imagination seems to imply that ?social emotive techniques? are not > owned > >> by the Arts by any means. However, more importantly what concerns me > (and I > >> think Heathcote would agree) is that when teachers do not capitalize on > >> commonalities among disciplines (or ideas), children (or pre-service > >> teachers) are invariably left confused, frustrated, and alienated. > >> > >> > >> Oh, I note from my reading that Heathcote discusses something she > >> terms ?tension.? I was wondering if you have given any thought on how > this > >> might ?feed? imagination? > >> > >> Again thanks, > >> > >> Ed > >> > >>> On Mar 5, 2016, at 7:42 PM, Susan Davis wrote:. > >>> > >>> Hi Ed, > >>> I have read the Mathematician?s Lament - thank you for that (I trust > this > >>> is the right article > >>> https://www.maa.org/external_archive/devlin/LockhartsLament.pdf). I > can > >>> see how you can argue Mathematics might be an art form and how formal > >>> educational has tended to kill off most people?s ability to see it as > >> such > >>> (and the music and painting analogies he draws are not so far fetched > as > >>> you might think in some cases). > >>> > >>> I do like his point about children not being exposed to the ideas and > >>> history of mathematical thinking and why and how humans have grappled > >> with > >>> such? > >>> "They were never told the history of mankind?s relationship with > numbers? > >>> no ancient > >>> Babylonian problem tablets, no Rhind Papyrus, no Liber Abaci, no Ars > >>> Magna. More importantly, no chance for them to even get curious > >>> about a question; it was answered before they could ask it.? > >>> > >>> "Mathematics is about problems, and problems must be made the focus of > a > >>> students > >>> mathematical life. Painful and creatively frustrating as it may be, > >>> students and their teachers > >>> should at all times be engaged in the process? having ideas, not having > >>> ideas, discovering > >>> patterns, making conjectures, constructing examples and > counterexamples, > >>> devising arguments, > >>> and critiquing each other?s work. Specific techniques and methods will > >>> arise naturally out of this > >>> process, as they did historically: not isolated from, but organically > >>> connected to, and as an > >>> outgrowth of, their problem-background? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> I?m still not sure that Mathetmatics has the same qualities as an art > >> form > >>> in the way Vygotsky identified as a ?social technique of emotion?. For > >>> example when someone (including children) spontaneously or > intentionally > >>> want to share and express certain emotions they may do so through > certain > >>> art forms ? For example a child who is feeling joyful doing a ?happy? > >>> dance, or someone who is grieving or sad painting using black, browns > and > >>> greys. I?m not sure I can see the same occurring using Mathematics as > the > >>> expressive form? and others reading it as such? > >>> > >>> While people can read the art of others differently, in many cases > >> similar > >>> emotions may be identified and ideas arouses in others in response. > One > >>> of the things Vygotsky talks of is a ?dual expression of feeling? > whereby > >>> ?every feeling has not only an exxternal, physical expression, but an > >>> internal expression associationed with the choice of thoughts, images, > >> and > >>> impressions?. Just as people long ago learned to express their internal > >>> states through external expressions, so do the images of imagination > >> serve > >>> as an internal expression of our feelings? ? (Vygotsky 2004, p. 18). > He > >>> goes on to say that emotion can influence imagination and imagination > >>> influences emotion? > >>> > >>> So I I would return again to this notion of expressive form? and > whether > >>> some forms are more ready vehicles for the intentional expression of > >>> emotion and feelings than others, and perhaps that is where the arts > >> might > >>> still have some special qualities in terms of the social expression of > >>> emotion that is not the same as for mathematics? I daresay you may > argue > >>> otherwise!! > >>> > >>> I look forward to hearing your thoughts and of course those of others > as > >>> well! > >>> > >>> Kind regards > >>> > >>> Sue > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On 4/03/2016 3:21 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > >>> > >>>> Susan > >>>> > >>>> Yes, this is the sort of thing re Heathcote focus for which I was > >>>> hoping. I look forward to some reading (smile). > >>>> > >>>> Your characterization of mathematics is, unfortunately, one that > >>>> continues to reinforced by many; I run into it all the time if the > form > >>>> of "I was never any good at mathematics." I really recommend you read > a > >>>> Mathematician?s Lament - if for no other reason to see how such > >>>> characterizations perpetuate or for a laugh. A well known researcher > at > >>>> Columbia in Early Childhood once did an assessment of what young > >> children > >>>> did during free play and found that 30% (I think this is right) of the > >>>> time they engaged in something mathematical and this 30% was, by far, > >> the > >>>> largest percentage spent in a single activity. So, I disagree, most > >> young > >>>> children do use mathematics for their creative vehicle sharing their > >>>> ideas and emotions. On the other hand, I very much agree most older > >>>> children and adults do not use mathematica as a creative vehicle, but > I > >>>> am far from convinced that the problem is mathematics itself. > >>>> So while I do sympathize with your views (and I recognize that > >>>> mathematics teachers are largely to blame), I have plenty of evidence > - > >>>> and, of course, some personal - from observing that your > >> characterization > >>>> (while descriptive of much that is out there) is somewhat misleading > >> and, > >>>> in fact, covers up the issues. I note purely in a jocular way (I don?t > >>>> mean to cast aspersions on either you or Ana as I respect you both), > >> you, > >>>> perhaps, are acting as a ?Spoilsport.? Unfortunately, Eisner (who I > >>>> greatly respect) seems to know little about young children as, in > fact, > >>>> the colors and lines are quite important. He is right in thinking that > >>>> parents and teachers (and perhaps, unfortunately, himself and others) > do > >>>> not think them of importance. However, that is a very, very different > >>>> matter. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for your definition of ?feeding.? This is quite helpful. I > >>>> note that I also used to teach pre-service education students; who > >>>> invariably said, one way or the other, "I don?t really like > >> mathematics?; > >>>> which, by the way, I think can be translated as ?I?m not creative, qua > >>>> mathematics.? I remember one young woman - in an early Childhood > masters > >>>> cohort - who had her BS from a place which emphasized the performing > >>>> arts. The first day of class she came up in tears saying she had been > >>>> told (by some of my quite un-thoughtful colleagues!) she would not > need > >>>> to know or teach any mathematics (I was teaching a mathematics methods > >>>> course for Early Childhood pre-service masters students). I told her > >>>> otherwise, but said she and I would work on the difficulties (which > >>>> turned out to be large since from her early elementary days, her > mother > >>>> screamed at her when she could not do her mathematics homework). I > >>>> usually gave ?creative? mathematics homework as a weekly > >>>> assignment (and I would characterize it now as ?feeding? the > >>>> imagination sufficiently) and she, to her astonishment I suspect, > both > >>>> liked it and did quite well (I hasten to add that she would, most > >> likely, > >>>> never be comfortable with teaching mathematics beyond second grade > >>>> because of those elementary school experiences). I also told her to > >>>> listen to her students (those in the Early Childhood cohort most > usually > >>>> were teaching in some capacity in pre-Kindergarten). Her children - I > >>>> would say of course (smile) - loved anything that was ?creatively? > >>>> mathematical and she began to love creating mathematics with them. She > >>>> has been quite successful in her teaching career. > >>>> > >>>> My point in this overly long story is to parallel you in that I am > >>>> saying that we all actually are creatively mathematically and we can > be > >>>> more - in our own way - if we wish, but you (and, at times, we > together) > >>>> have to ?feed? your imagination. I respect the fact that people don?t > >>>> want to do so. However, as you say there are the others; the > >> ?beyonders'. > >>>> Magdalene Lampert once gave them a name ?Students of Teaching.? > >>>> > >>>> Ed > >>>> > >>>>> On Mar 2, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Susan Davis wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Hi Ed, > >>>>> I thought you were after the more traditional theoretical writings > from > >>>>> Heathcote. She used many many theoretical concepts in her work and > she > >>>>> did actually talk about imagination quite specfically in some of > >>>>> the tapes I analysed, mainly when talking about the preparation she > did > >>>>> before teaching and the use of a projective imagination. This was > >> about > >>>>> envisaging the different ways things might play out and considering > >>>>> alternatives. She also talked about how she was a highly visual > thinker > >>>>> and that options played out in her mind as if it were a movie. At > >> other > >>>>> times she talks about the creative > >>>>> process and she also talks about imagination even if not explicitly. > >> I?d > >>>>> have to go back to my transcripts for some examples. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am well aware of arguments that other areas beyond the arts are > >>>>> concerned with imagination and feelings/emotions etc (and yes my > >>>>> defining > >>>>> of the arts extends well beyond Art to the many different ways people > >>>>> use > >>>>> materials, movement, sound, action and even their own lives > >>>>> expressively). > >>>>> However I?d still come back to intention, > >>>>> primary purpose and form, the primary purpose of Maths is not to > >> express > >>>>> feelings and emotions, however in much arts practice it is. I?d also > >>>>> consider the accessibility of an area like Math > >>>>> for expressive potential for school aged children. There are not > many > >>>>> children who could/would be able to use math forms as their creative > >>>>> vehicle for sharing their ideas and emotions socially. It is also > >> about > >>>>> the qualities of such that are available for them to be able to > >>>>> manipulate > >>>>> in combination. Elliot Eisner talked in a keynote address in 2011 > about > >>>>> how when a child writes a Math formula the content of such is > important > >>>>> but the qualities and how they are used (e.g. Red pen or blue pen, > >> lined > >>>>> paper or plain) are less so, however in the arts the quality of > >>>>> qualities > >>>>> remains very important. They encourage the cultivation of judgment, > >>>>> thinking and feeling. > >>>>> > >>>>> In terms of my use of the term ?feeding? the imagination and > creativity > >>>>> perhaps if I explain how I first came to use that term. When I work > >> with > >>>>> pre-service education students in the arts, many of them begin the > >>>>> course > >>>>> by saying ?I?m not creative?. What I say to them is that we are all > >>>>> creative, and you make creative decisions in your life every day, > >>>>> however > >>>>> you can be more creative (in the arts) if you want to be but you have > >> to > >>>>> ?feed? your creativity. i.e. In their case choose an arts area you > want > >>>>> to > >>>>> explore and be more creative in, practice it, look at lots of > examples > >>>>> of > >>>>> other art work, identify what you like, would like to have a go at. > We > >>>>> also provide them with different materials they can use, different > >>>>> examples and techniques they can try out... So as Vygotsky put it > >> adding > >>>>> to the richness and variety of their experience. If people don?t > want > >>>>> to > >>>>> engage in that (and some do nothing beyond what we do in class) so be > >>>>> it, > >>>>> but the ones who do go beyond that, and start observing, practising > and > >>>>> deliberately ?feeding? their own creativity and imagination > inevitably > >>>>> create more interesting and imaginative work in the long run and also > >>>>> feel > >>>>> a great sense of satisfaction and pride. > >>>>> > >>>>> So I know this is not totally focussed on imagination? but more like > >>>>> imagination, art, creativity and the possibilities of working with > >>>>> expressive forms. > >>>>> > >>>>> Cheers > >>>>> Sue > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On 3/03/2016 2:45 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Hi Susan > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I assume you noticed how I tried to be slightly ambiguous in my use > >>>>>> of the word ?theoretical? so what you say is disappointing as I know > >>>>>> many > >>>>>> ?good? teachers who use imagination without really focusing on > >>>>>> imagination as something in itself (it is something that is, for > >>>>>> example, > >>>>>> one ?feeds,' but qua ?feed? what does that entail). That doesn?t > >>>>>> detract > >>>>>> from what they do, but makes it difficult to ?talk? (in the present > >> and > >>>>>> in the past) with them about their teaching. However, that doesn?t > >>>>>> mean I > >>>>>> cannot learn much from Heatcote (and you) and I thank you for making > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> book available. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I cannot resist noting that the term ?art? is used in wider contexts > >>>>>> than the usual although those that use art with a capital A usually > >>>>>> resist (I remember a conversation where Maxine Greene basically said > >>>>>> she > >>>>>> wasn?t going to consider mathematics - smile). There is a > interesting > >>>>>> book by Corrandi Fiumara that argues, in a sense, that all > disciplines > >>>>>> are concerned with "emotions, ideas, and qualities of such" and I > have > >>>>>> always taken Alastair MacIntyre as making similar arguments in his > >>>>>> discussion of practice. That is not to say that Art doesn?t have a > >>>>>> particular role, but its ?social? characterization may be a little > >> more > >>>>>> complicated than it seems (there is an amusing - sort of - > commentary > >>>>>> on > >>>>>> this on the web titled the Mathematician?s Lament). Thus I would > hope > >>>>>> that all, including Artists, would engage in the less socially > >> standard > >>>>>> arts. I always found it interesting that my colleagues who worked in > >>>>>> the > >>>>>> Arts were always intrigued by my interest in how they co > >>>>>> -created instances that enabled "people to explore, externalise and > >>>>>> share such through various crystallised means", but - except in one > >>>>>> remembered instance - were a bit put-off at the idea I was engaged > in > >>>>>> similar work and it might usefully behove them to take an interest > >>>>>> (smile). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Again, thank you for the conversation and thank you for the book. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Ed > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 4:54 PM, Susan Davis > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Hi Ed > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In response to some of your questions and reflections. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> As far as I know Heathcote did not theorise imagination extensively > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> certainly not in any published form. She tended to write > >> extensively, > >>>>>>> but > >>>>>>> not necessarily theoretically and often it has been colleagues and > >>>>>>> students of hers who have interpreted her work in various ways > >> against > >>>>>>> theory. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> In terms of the role of art and imagination. Like Vygotsky I > believe > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> arts do play a particular role, largely because the arts are > >> primarily > >>>>>>> concerned with the emotions, ideas and qualities of such. Through > >>>>>>> various > >>>>>>> artistic forms, they also enable people to explore, externalise and > >>>>>>> share > >>>>>>> such through various crystallised means crystallise. And this is > not > >>>>>>> confined to ?artists? everyone can engage in such activities and > >>>>>>> perhaps > >>>>>>> should do! > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Vygotsky said: > >>>>>>> Art is the social technique of emotion, a tool of society which > >> brings > >>>>>>> the most intimate and personal aspects of our being into the circle > >> of > >>>>>>> social > >>>>>>> life. (Vygotsky, 1971, p. 249) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I would agree that in many collective drama processes the > exercising > >>>>>>> of > >>>>>>> imagination is both conceptual and sensory and embodied and social > ? > >>>>>>> and > >>>>>>> that it is a constantly recurring imaginative/embodied experience. > >>>>>>> Imaginative ideas feed into the doing and the doing informs the > >>>>>>> developing > >>>>>>> imaginative ideas. I?m sure there?s probably theoretical work out > >>>>>>> there > >>>>>>> about that, as there is a lot of interest in ?embodied? learning > >>>>>>> emerging > >>>>>>> from dance and drama circles in recent times, though I can?t > provide > >>>>>>> references off the top of my head. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And in terms of Goffman, actually Heathcote drew upon Goffman?s > work > >>>>>>> on > >>>>>>> framing to inform the different ways you might structure a dramatic > >>>>>>> encounter and as her colleague (and scholar) Gavin Bolton says what > >>>>>>> different framing can provide is the means to both protect ?from? > but > >>>>>>> also > >>>>>>> ?into? emotional experiences (Bolton 1986). The framing would also > >>>>>>> enable > >>>>>>> certain imaginative possibilities and these would shift depending > on > >>>>>>> the > >>>>>>> framing. The framing therefore provides some parameters and ?tools? > >> as > >>>>>>> it > >>>>>>> were for the imaginative activity. So for example if someone was > >>>>>>> framed > >>>>>>> in role as a reporter in a dramatic event, how they respond to the > >>>>>>> situation and what they create will be different to if they are > >> framed > >>>>>>> as > >>>>>>> the protagonist of the event, or a casual observer. So I guess > this > >>>>>>> is > >>>>>>> an > >>>>>>> example also of what I was saying about ?feeding? the imagination. > >>>>>>> That > >>>>>>> might also be done through bringing in different texts or objects > >> that > >>>>>>> can > >>>>>>> act as what Cecily O?Neill called ?pre-texts? as the launching off > >>>>>>> materials for a drama. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>> Sue > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 3:16 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Hi Susan > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thank you for the reply. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Since I know little about Heathcote (although a fair amount about > >>>>>>>> ?good? teachers) I can only say that I agree with many of your > >> quotes > >>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>> I find Vygotsky as one in a long line of thinkers who sees > >>>>>>>> imagination > >>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>> integral making meaning (I have hedged here a bit as I want to > >>>>>>>> include > >>>>>>>> other thinkers in conversations about imagination). I note, by the > >>>>>>>> way, > >>>>>>>> you did not include my favorite quote (Imagination and Creativity > in > >>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>> Adolescent, p163) on this matter from Vygotsky as it, for me, > >>>>>>>> embodies > >>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>> lot about how I have been thinking about imagination: ?From our > >> point > >>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>> view the imagination is a transforming, creative activity directed > >>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>> the concrete towards a new concrete? - although this is certainly > >>>>>>>> captured in the quotes you give. > >>>>>>>> In any case, what I found of most interest is what follows those > >>>>>>>> quotes of Vygotsky and what I assume is, in part, an > >>>>>>>> assessment/description of Heathcote?s stance. However, Heathcote > >>>>>>>> viewed > >>>>>>>> Vygotsky (or whoever else she drew from) she seems to have been a > >>>>>>>> ?good? > >>>>>>>> teacher (I am talking about a comparative quality, but that would > >>>>>>>> take > >>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>> to far afield here) and ?good? teachers translate what might be > >>>>>>>> called > >>>>>>>> pristine theory into what might be called messy practice. In some > >>>>>>>> writing > >>>>>>>> I?m doing I been looking for some careful description of a > teacher?s > >>>>>>>> doings who, perhaps, one might say has spent some time attempting > to > >>>>>>>> ?feed? imagination (this is your word so I?m not entirely sure > what > >>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>> meant) and seems to recognize that certain imaginations can and > >>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>> ?stabilized? or one might say ?verified.? There seems, in > >> interesting > >>>>>>>> cases that I am thinking about, to be sort of a hybrid > >>>>>>>> sensory-imagination (teacher, peers, materials, etc) transforming > >>>>>>>> though imagination (perhaps individual) to sort of a hybrid > >>>>>>>> reasoning-imagination (teacher, peers, materials, etc). From my > >>>>>>>> perspective I see, in your description of Heathcote, her doing > >>>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>> like this and your indication that students are allowed to sit out > >>>>>>>> is, > >>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>> seems, a sort of confirmation. It is not that I don?t know other > >>>>>>>> teachers > >>>>>>>> who act like Heathcote (every discipline contains such and there > is > >>>>>>>> nothing unique about ?art' per se from a certain perspective on > >>>>>>>> teaching > >>>>>>>> - I am fine with loud disagreements here :)) - I have been very > >> lucky > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>> that regard (and Maxine Greene was one) - but most don?t > ?theorize? > >>>>>>>> imagination in some fashion (I mean make it a !particular! > teaching > >>>>>>>> focus) and I am hoping your writings in Heathcote's regard might > >> give > >>>>>>>> me > >>>>>>>> a better perspective on what is possible more generally. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Oh, being writeable seems, to me, to be an integral part of the > >>>>>>>> verification process. Also I note that in all disciplines I know > >>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>> you can play it multiple times and in different ways. However, I > >>>>>>>> admit > >>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>> being influenced by Goffman in this regard. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Thanks > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Ed > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Feb 29, 2016, at 2:39 PM, Susan Davis > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Ed > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Both Vygotsky and Heathcote both understood that the work of the > >>>>>>>>> imagination is not only an individual mental exercise but in > >>>>>>>>> inspired > >>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>> and is expressed through interactions with others, conceptual > tools > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> ultimately material means and artefacts. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I think Vygotksy described the different ways imagination worked > >>>>>>>>> very > >>>>>>>>> well > >>>>>>>>> indeed and I have summarised that in the book. Some key quotes > from > >>>>>>>>> him > >>>>>>>>> include: > >>>>>>>>> Everything the imagination creates is always based on elements > >> taken > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> reality, from a person?s previous > >>>>>>>>> experience. The most fantastic creations are nothing other than a > >>>>>>>>> new > >>>>>>>>> combination of elements that have ultimately been extracted from > >>>>>>>>> reality. > >>>>>>>>> (p. 13) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The first law of creativity: The > >>>>>>>>> act of imagination depends directly on the richness and variety > of > >> a > >>>>>>>>> person?s > >>>>>>>>> previous experience because this experience provides the material > >>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>> the products of creativity are constructed. The richer a person?s > >>>>>>>>> experience, > >>>>>>>>> the richer is the material his imagination has access to. Great > >>>>>>>>> works > >>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>> discoveries are always the result of an enormous amount of > >>>>>>>>> previously > >>>>>>>>> accumulated experience. The implication of this for education is > >>>>>>>>> that, > >>>>>>>>> if > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>> want to build a relatively strong foundation for a child?s > >>>>>>>>> creativity, > >>>>>>>>> what we > >>>>>>>>> must do is broaden the experiences we provide him with.(pp. > 14-15) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> The right kind of education > >>>>>>>>> involves awakening in the child what already exists within him, > >>>>>>>>> helping > >>>>>>>>> him to > >>>>>>>>> develop it and directing this development in a particular > >> direction. > >>>>>>>>> (p. > >>>>>>>>> 51) > >>>>>>>>> ?Vygotsky, > >>>>>>>>> L. (2004) ?Imagination and creativity in childhood.? Journal of > >>>>>>>>> Russian > >>>>>>>>> and Was tEuropean PsychologyVol. 42 No. 1. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> This work recognises therefore that to inspire imagination means > >>>>>>>>> ?feeding? > >>>>>>>>> the imagination and it is therefore the teacher?s responsibility > to > >>>>>>>>> work > >>>>>>>>> with children and bring in various tools, processes and > >> provocations > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>> will draw them into creative processes. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> In terms of working in drama I think the notion of the social > >>>>>>>>> imagination > >>>>>>>>> comes into play (though that is a term more closely associated > with > >>>>>>>>> Maxine > >>>>>>>>> Green) and collectively a group creates something together - > >>>>>>>>> something > >>>>>>>>> that did not exist previously and which would not exist in the > same > >>>>>>>>> form > >>>>>>>>> if created individually. In that sense it is helpful to draw on > >> the > >>>>>>>>> language of improvised drama to understand the process - someone > >>>>>>>>> generally makes an ?offer? to begin the imaginative exploration, > >>>>>>>>> practically speaking in embodied action it can be a physical or > >>>>>>>>> verbal > >>>>>>>>> offer. Multiple offers can at times be made but one has to be > >>>>>>>>> accepted, > >>>>>>>>> and then extended upon. This process keeps going and as those who > >>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>> studied improvised drama knows, the key is then to draw the > threads > >>>>>>>>> together and find an appropriate conclusion. Now what this means > >> in > >>>>>>>>> practice is a fluid interplay of power shifts as people forfeit > >>>>>>>>> their > >>>>>>>>> right to have their every idea accepted (which is unworkable), > >>>>>>>>> trusting > >>>>>>>>> that if they go with the one that is on the table or seems to > >> ?grab? > >>>>>>>>> people, they will be able to contribute and that the outcome > will > >>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>> something that they are a part of and will be worthwhile. That is > >>>>>>>>> social > >>>>>>>>> imagination in action. Decisions are often made in the moment - > not > >>>>>>>>> after > >>>>>>>>> exhaustive dialogue - although reflection on what has gone on and > >>>>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>>> created often occurs afterwards. This is especially the case if > you > >>>>>>>>> were > >>>>>>>>> to be devising a new work. The whole process has to be > underpinned > >>>>>>>>> by > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>> sense of trust and a belief that as a group the give and take of > >> the > >>>>>>>>> process will generate something that has been worth the effort. > It > >>>>>>>>> doesn?t > >>>>>>>>> always, but that is often part of the educational process with > >>>>>>>>> children > >>>>>>>>> and participants - 'what do you feel worked, what didn?t, what > >>>>>>>>> offers > >>>>>>>>> ended up proving fruitful, were there ?blocks? that we couldn?t > >> work > >>>>>>>>> around? If we did it again what would you change?? and so on. > (see > >>>>>>>>> some > >>>>>>>>> of Keith Sawyer?s work on improvisation for more insights on how > >>>>>>>>> these > >>>>>>>>> processes work and why he believes improvised theatre is perhaps > >> the > >>>>>>>>> highest form of creativity) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> It is writerly in Barthes sense in that while a ?text' has often > >>>>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>>> initiated, it is deliberately left unfinished and the > participants > >>>>>>>>> must > >>>>>>>>> make imaginative leaps, connections and new solutions to be able > to > >>>>>>>>> complete the text or dramatic encounter. What is also interesting > >>>>>>>>> in a > >>>>>>>>> drama process is that you can play it multiple times, from > >> different > >>>>>>>>> perspectives and something different can be revealed each time. > In > >>>>>>>>> Boal?s > >>>>>>>>> work with forum theatre people from an audience and the > >>>>>>>>> disenfranchised > >>>>>>>>> are also invited to step up and take on a role within a version > (as > >>>>>>>>> spectactors), therefore finding ways to shift power dynamics and > to > >>>>>>>>> explore alternative solutions. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I hope this is of interest. > >>>>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>>>> Sue > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 1/03/2016 4:58 am, "Ed Wall" wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Susan > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Coming a little late to this conversation and thinking about > your > >>>>>>>>>> comments last July on Vygotsky and imagination, I was wondering > if > >>>>>>>>>> any > >>>>>>>>>> of > >>>>>>>>>> that played a large role in your book. In particular and if so, > >> how > >>>>>>>>>> did > >>>>>>>>>> Heathcote, one might say, pragmatically theorize imagination? It > >>>>>>>>>> seems, > >>>>>>>>>> given, what you have written in the present thread that she > seems > >>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>> have > >>>>>>>>>> created moments through a stance that "respected and worked with > >>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> material they offered, drawing out significance, considering the > >>>>>>>>>> implications and working dialogically with very alternative > views > >>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>> her own.? This, in some of the literature, is indicative of an > >>>>>>>>>> imaginative ?leap? that is stabilized in the ?waking state.? In > a > >>>>>>>>>> sense, > >>>>>>>>>> the moment becomes, in somewhat the sense of Barthes, > ?writeable.' > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Ed Wall > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Feb 24, 2016, at 5:32 AM, Susan Davis > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Thanks Robert, > >>>>>>>>>>> It?s great to have the book published as part of your series. > >> The > >>>>>>>>>>> book > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>> called ?Learning that matters: Revitalising Heathcote?s Rolling > >>>>>>>>>>> Role > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> the digital age?. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/imagination-and > >>>>>>>>>>> -p > >>>>>>>>>>> ra > >>>>>>>>>>> xi > >>>>>>>>>>> s/ > >>>>>>>>>>> learning-that-matters/ > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> For those who haven?t heard of Heathcote before, she was a > >>>>>>>>>>> ?master? > >>>>>>>>>>> teacher who achieved international recognition for her teaching > >>>>>>>>>>> practice > >>>>>>>>>>> in the 70s and 80s - in particular for pioneering processes > such > >>>>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>>> Mantle > >>>>>>>>>>> of the Expert - which use role and fictional contexts to > position > >>>>>>>>>>> children > >>>>>>>>>>> as ?experts? and active agents in investigative processes. She > >>>>>>>>>>> also > >>>>>>>>>>> invented this system called ?Rolling Role? which is a form of > >>>>>>>>>>> trans-disciplinary learning - where multiple classes work with > >> the > >>>>>>>>>>> same > >>>>>>>>>>> common context, but from their particular frame or subject > >>>>>>>>>>> perspective. > >>>>>>>>>>> The beauty of it is that no one group ?owns? the outcome, but > >>>>>>>>>>> groups > >>>>>>>>>>> regularly ?publish? and share artefacts and outcomes throughout > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> process, with each group having to use and ?roll? the work of > >> what > >>>>>>>>>>> has > >>>>>>>>>>> gone before. It was a system she believed was perfectly suited > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>> revisiting in the digital age? so that is what the book hopes > to > >>>>>>>>>>> assist > >>>>>>>>>>> with? the Vygotskian and CHAT work was very helpful in > >>>>>>>>>>> conceptualising > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> understanding this work. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> At times reading the work of Vygotsky and Heathcote it felt > like > >>>>>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>>>>> could have been writing about education today! > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Educational experience, no less than theoretical research, > >>>>>>>>>>> teaches us that, in practice, a straightforward learning of > >>>>>>>>>>> concepts > >>>>>>>>>>> always > >>>>>>>>>>> proves impossible and educationally fruitless. Usually, any > >>>>>>>>>>> teacher > >>>>>>>>>>> setting out > >>>>>>>>>>> on this road achieves nothing except a meaningless acquisition > of > >>>>>>>>>>> words, > >>>>>>>>>>> mere > >>>>>>>>>>> verbalization in children, which is nothing more than > simulation > >>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>> imitation > >>>>>>>>>>> of corresponding concepts which, in reality, are concealing a > >>>>>>>>>>> vacuum. > >>>>>>>>>>> In > >>>>>>>>>>> such cases, the child assimilates not > >>>>>>>>>>> concepts but words, and he fills his memory more than his > >>>>>>>>>>> thinking. > >>>>>>>>>>> As a > >>>>>>>>>>> result, he ends up helpless in the face of any sensible attempt > >> to > >>>>>>>>>>> apply > >>>>>>>>>>> any of > >>>>>>>>>>> this acquired knowledge. Essentially, this method of > >>>>>>>>>>> teaching/learning > >>>>>>>>>>> concepts, a purely scholastic and verbal method of teaching, > >> which > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>> condemned > >>>>>>>>>>> by everybody and which advocates the replacement of acquisition > >> of > >>>>>>>>>>> living > >>>>>>>>>>> knowledge by the assimilation of dead and empty verbal schemes, > >>>>>>>>>>> represents > >>>>>>>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>>> most basic failing in the field of education. (Vygotsky > >>>>>>>>>>> 1934/1994a, > >>>>>>>>>>> pp. > >>>>>>>>>>> 356-7) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> So ? getting rid of the dummy run. On the face of it you > >>>>>>>>>>> have a rather interesting paradox in drama, because it looks > like > >>>>>>>>>>> drama > >>>>>>>>>>> is > >>>>>>>>>>> entirely artificial and that the whole thing would be a dummy > run > >>>>>>>>>>> ? > >>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>> only > >>>>>>>>>>> pretending actually. And we use words > >>>>>>>>>>> like pretend and play and in our culture it does suggest that > >> it?s > >>>>>>>>>>> ephemeral > >>>>>>>>>>> and there?s no real work/life purpose for it?. So it seems to > me > >>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>> need to > >>>>>>>>>>> look and see what it is that makes something NOT feel like a > >> dummy > >>>>>>>>>>> run? > >>>>>>>>>>> It seemed to me that one of the important aspects of not > >>>>>>>>>>> being a dummy run is that it matters now, we feel like its > urgent > >>>>>>>>>>> now. > >>>>>>>>>>> (Heathcote 1993, Tape 9) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Cheers > >>>>>>>>>>> Sue > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Dr Susan Davis > >>>>>>>>>>> Senior Lecturer | School of Education & the Arts | Higher > >>>>>>>>>>> Education > >>>>>>>>>>> Division > >>>>>>>>>>> CQUniversity Australia, Noosa Campus | > >>>>>>>>>>> PO Box 1128, Qld 4566 > >>>>>>>>>>> P +61 (0)7 5440 7007 | X 547007 | M +61 400 000 000| E > >>>>>>>>>>> s.davis@cqu.edu.au > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On 24/02/2016 12:14 am, "Robert Lake" > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> ?Susan Davis has published a book that weaves LSV, Dorothy > >>>>>>>>>>>> Heathcote > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> CHAT > >>>>>>>>>>>> into one seamless, present tense unfolding of "rolling role". > If > >>>>>>>>>>>> anyone > >>>>>>>>>>>> would like to write a review of it I can get you a copy. It > has > >>>>>>>>>>>> been > >>>>>>>>>>>> five > >>>>>>>>>>>> years since Heathcote's passing and I suspect her work will > >>>>>>>>>>>> become > >>>>>>>>>>>> more > >>>>>>>>>>>> and > >>>>>>>>>>>> more important in this era of standardized everything. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *Robert Lake* > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >> https://www.sensepublishers.com/media/2709-learning-that-matters.p > >>>>>>>>>>>> df > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> For a sense of the dynamic of Dorothy's pedagogy, scroll to > >>>>>>>>>>>> about > >>>>>>>>>>>> 5 > >>>>>>>>>>>> minutes into this. > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owKiUO99qrw > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 From mpacker@uniandes.edu.co Sun Apr 10 16:09:37 2016 From: mpacker@uniandes.edu.co (Martin John Packer) Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2016 23:09:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Is Property "Natural"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <358034F1-D89F-466C-968C-872B664B2F04@uniandes.edu.co> David, I think he means that private property seems ?natural? to us, now. But when it first emerged it must have seemed ?foreign? to people at the time. Martin > On Apr 10, 2016, at 5:08 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > I leave aside whether Hegel is really to blame for this reasoning (it later > transpires that the real culprit is Freud). I leave aside the fact that > none of this does what Merleau-Ponty is trying to do. He is trying to show > that property is not natural, but foreign (I think what he means is > "cultural" or maybe "social"). Merleau-Ponty only succeeds in arguing that, > since it is supposedly an extension of the body and of the will to > reproduction property and patriarchy really ARE natural. From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 10 17:54:45 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2016 10:54:45 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Is Property "Natural"? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <570AF5D5.5010709@mira.net> I think M-P's characterisation of Hegel's views is fairly accurate in this instance, David. Whether that is reason for criticising the Engels of the 1870s/80s is another matter altogether. And that humans share these particular characteristics with animals would be as expected, since rudimentary human characteristics are invariably shared with other animals. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 11/04/2016 8:08 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > I'm reading Merleau-Ponty's Sorbonne lectures on Child Psychology and > Pedagogy. On p. 76 he takes Engels to task for not explaining the origins > of private property, and informs him, brimming with confidence, that > according to Hegel the origins of private property are simply an attempt by > man to extend the sovereignty he exercises over his own body. (On p. 77 he > once again scolds Engels for explaining partriarchy as a form of slavery, > and once again calls on Hegel to inform Engels that there exists a "special > relationship" between husband and wife!) > > I leave aside whether Hegel is really to blame for this reasoning (it later > transpires that the real culprit is Freud). I leave aside the fact that > none of this does what Merleau-Ponty is trying to do. He is trying to show > that property is not natural, but foreign (I think what he means is > "cultural" or maybe "social"). Merleau-Ponty only succeeds in arguing that, > since it is supposedly an extension of the body and of the will to > reproduction property and patriarchy really ARE natural. > > Even while Hegel was still alive, Hazlitt was arguing that the self who > profits from the enjoyment of property requires far more imagination than > has less immediacy to children than the other selves who take pleasure and > pain in our good times and bad (You would think that the author > "Phenomonology of Perception" would be all too ready to acknowledge > this!). Actually, it now appears that this is something we share with > other primates. Although chimps and bonobos are not particularly well known > for their business acuity, it appears that even capuchin monkeys are > acutely sensitive to wage disparity. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dMoK48QGL8 > > I remember showing a North Korean monster movie to a toddler as part of an > elaborate attempt to elicit certain forms of stative verb that have a moral > as well as an aesthetic dimension: instead, the toddler pointed to some > characters who were sleeping caves and asked "How can they sleep there, in > the wet, while we are so comfortable here in this apartment?" When I read > Max's work, I am struck by how "natural" it is that a young person who is > not starving or on the street should look at those who are, and respond > with solidarity, indignation, and above all incredulity at its supposed > necessity. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Tue Apr 12 12:38:36 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 15:38:36 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: CSA Newsletter - April 2016 Edition Message-ID: Fyi... Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: newseditor@caribbeanstudiesassociation.org Date: 4/12/2016 12:29 AM (GMT-05:00) To: pmocombe@mocombeian.com Subject: CSA Newsletter - April 2016 Edition ? The Official Newsletter of the Caribbean Studies Association CSA Executive Council, 2015-2016 President: Carole Boyce-Davies Cornell University Vice President: Keithley Woolward College of The Bahamas Immediate Past CSA President: Jan DeCosmo Florida A&M University Treasurer: Dwaine Plaza Oregon State University Secretary: Mala Jokhan University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Editor, Newsletter: Meagan Sylvester University of the West Indies, St. Augustine Student Representative: Lauren Pragg York University Executive Council Michael Barnett Vilma Diaz Karen Flynn Terry-Ann Jones Heather Russell Join/Renew Membership Please join CSA if you are not a member or if you have not paid your dues for 2015.? You may also make a donation to CSA - all donations go directly to our programs. ? JOIN TODAY ? UPDATE MEMBER INFO. CSA CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENTS Secondary Hotels We have made arrangements for reasonable rates with two hotels.? We will arrange daily shuttles for CSA conference attendees (only in the morning and evening) from these two hotels. 1. Le Plaza,? is a beautiful hotel in the heart of Port-au-Prince. Please note that this hotel is about 15-20 minutes drive from the conference hotel/site, and with morning/evening traffic, it could take much longer. 2. The Royal Oasis, Petionville - with reasonable rates and many more double rooms made available to CSA. Bed & Breakfast Pension Esther Bed & Breakfast/Cafe is located in a a quaint, welcoming, green, and eco-conscious environment. CLICK HERE for details ------------------------- Airport Shuttles Marriott and Plaza (Airport welcome and transportation being arranged by LOC) Best Western: to and from airport at $11.00 per person each way for a group of 7 guests ($77.00) at a time to get this special rate. Royal Oasis ($10.00 RT to and from airport, must be booked with hotel reservation) CLICK HERE for details ------------------------- Notice to All Students All persons who have registered at the student rate are required to present a valid student ID at the registration desk in order to collect their conference package. CALL FOR PAPERS Revista Cuadernos de Literatura del Caribe e Hispanoam?rica Richard E. Greenleaf Library Fellowships The Southern Quarterly: A Journal of Arts & Letters in the South Global Migration: Rethinking Skills, Knowledge and Culture ? NEW SCHOLARSHIP Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro-Latin American Biography This summer (June 1, 2016) the Dictionary of Caribbean and Afro-Latin American Biography (Oxford University Press) will be on the shelves. This is the third biography collection published by OUP that focuses on people of African descent, and it is a project that will continue to grow online as part of the Hutchins Center for African & African American Research (W. E. B. Du Bois Research Institute at Harvard University). The volumes are now available for pre-ordering and will ship on May 2, 2016. CLICK HERE for details ------------------------- Reading by Olive Senior - Available on dLOC We would like to share the video of a special reading by Olive Senior with you.? Olive is a distinguished Jamaican poet, novelist, short story and non-fiction writer.? In this reading she discusses her book, Dying to Better Themselves: West Indians and the Construction of the Panama Canal. CLICK HERE to view the video Issue:? April 2016 NEW CSA CONFERENCE LOGO Join us in celebrating the arrival of a new conference logo, an artistic representation by Philippe Dodard of our conference theme:? Caribbean Global Movements. Philippe Dodard who is a leading Haitian artist, Director of ENARTS and one of our Local Organizing Committee co-chairs, is ?the artist on whose work the logo which we used initially was based. He has designed a new logo for this year?s CSA-Haiti 2016 conference. ?The design layout of the conference banner was created by Haitian graphic artist Archangelo Celestin who works with the Department of Communications in Haiti which will create airport welcome banners and street flags with this image. Please note as well that we have added Papimento in the languaging of the conference logo for the first time so that we have another representative Caribbean language ensuring the Dutch-speaking Caribbean is included, thanks to Guido Roger.?The last logo was a portion of a mural at the Karibe Hotel which was the originally proposed site of the conference until it was pre-booked ahead of us by another organization. You will get a chance to see that full piece of art anyway since we will do our Cultural Night at the Karibe.? Thank you Philippe Dodard for this new logo which will be available to members as the Conference Poster which is normally included in the? conference? bags. MESSAGE FROM THE PRESIDENT Carole Boyce-Davies OPENING ALL THE GATES There is a vodou chant which travelled with African diasporic people to the Caribbean and which has become a familiar trope in the works of many of poets, artists, novelists, essayists. This is Paule Marshall?s version, used as well as larger thematizing of? Praisesong for the Widow (1983): Papa Legba, ouvri barri?re pou? mw? ? Vodun Introit, Haiti (p. 148). Indeed we are at the implementation phase in the delivery of our Caribbean Studies Association Conference for 2016 and being held in Haiti, we pay respects and ask for smooth passage from the gods of the crossing. On a recent pre-conference site visit to Haiti last week, arriving in what was Holy Thursday,? Port au Prince was buzzing with activity.? I arrived at the same time as the soccer team from Panama which was scheduled to play a game against Haiti a couple days later. The next day,? from my window in the Marriott Hotel,? I could see thousands doing a traditional ?churchical? Good Friday procession.?? But by that evening, rara, the costumed street music moving festivals which still carry resistance in their history and presence, was everywhere.? A beautiful day trip from Port au Prince, through the beautiful Haitian countryside bordered by amazing mountainscapes, to Jacmel,? on Saturday encountered at least 4 rara groups in each direction. I was told that they travel from village to village all night,? resting during the day, some not returning home until after the season ends. Political machinations though remained in the background as a second nominated prime minister was confirmed and a new interim government was put in place.??Many breathed a sigh of relief that at least there is a government in place. Still visible signs of large campaign posters remind that this is an interim government and another election will have to be organized. The assumption is that this government will be in place through our conference. But for the moment, new ministers and their assistants were easily encountered at the Marriott.? All offered full support whenever we met them for the CSA-Haiti 2016 conference and were excited that we were bringing about 800 people (the number of papers submitted) to Haiti. While the first nominated Prime Minister, the well-respected, Fritz Jean was not confirmed, some say because he was of the same party as the President, we look forward to his presentation on one of our opening plenary sessions at the conference.? He has confirmed his presence and this promises to be an event that many look forward to as his theory of economic development of Haiti is well respected and will be the basis of his forthcoming publication. Our Program Chairs have worked feverishly to have a draft program ready and on line as scheduled. This year, we have designed a new format with ?Themed Opening Sessions? featuring leading scholars every day, as opposed to empty rooms with a few graduate students presenting early in the morning.? We want to use the space efficiently.? So these will be followed throughout each day by panels, literary salons, film and performance tracks. And on Saturday we are having for the first time an extra conference day, dedicated to Education to which over 200 Haitian teachers will be invited.? We have actually exhausted the Marriott space and are locating additional rooms for conference presentations in the surrounding community and have found some good possibilities. Meanwhile, our Local Organizing Committee,? chaired by Mme Pierre-Louis and two co-Chairs, Philippe Dodard (Logistics) and Jhon Byron Picard (academic coordination),? is energized and has moved to implementation mode. ?? (Photo below). They plan with the various relevant ministries to have a nice welcome to Haiti for all conferees and their guests.? Remember the hotels are giving us the conference rate for the weekend before and after the conference.? So if you have never been to Haiti, we will have some local touring companies available so that you can book day trips to Jacmel or even a longer trip to the Cap Haitien and the Citadelle. Basically our conference is creating more buzz, or as much buzz, as CARIFESTA which was held in Haiti last August and indeed we have a larger number of participants from abroad as our community is fully international. There is quite a lot of interest as well from local audience. We have confirmed Dany LaFerri?re, Haitian writer and now member of the French Academy, for our opening event.? Gloria Rolando from Cuba will attend the conference and show her latest film ?Reembarque.?? And we have confirmed the famous racine group Boukman Eksperyans for the Banquet and closing fete. There are 2 new hotels to choose from if you have not yet reserved a room. Both of them have airport shuttles.? The Royal Oasis and the Best Western are both in Petionville and have airport shuttles which you can reserve when you make your reservation. We will provide shuttle service from The Oasis and The Plaza to the Marriott mornings and evenings and for special events. They have given us good conference rates.? The Oasis has many double rooms available for sharing. See our website conference page under Hotel Accomodation for details. And please make your reservations early as these rooms are also being taken pretty quickly and like the Marriott will be soon filled to capacity. We will also have an art exhibition and a roundtable discussion and an evening open to visit the newly refurbished Gingerbread Houses, sponsored by FOKAL, one of our main conference partners. Our Cultural Night sponsored by FOKAL will be at the Karibe Hotel in Petionville featuring Jean Rene Delsion Dance Company and some Rara and a promised good cultural experience.? This is organized as a joint event with ACURIL which has its conference at the same time as ours.?The LOC is working on having an arts and crafts village at the Marriott every day and our Haitian fashion and design expo featuring Haitian textiles and accents is being prepared. CSA-Haiti2016 is getting ready for the road. Carole Boyce Davies CSA President 2015-2016 Espa?ol ABRIMOS TODAS LAS PUERTAS Hay un canto vud? que viaj? con la di?spora africana al Caribe y se ha convertido en un tropo familiar en las obras de muchos poetas, artistas, novelistas, ensayistas. Esta es la versi?n de Paule Marshall, utilizada ampliamente como tema de Praisesong for the Widow (1983): Papa Legba, ouvri barri?re pou? mw? ? Vodun Introit, Haiti (p. 148). Nos encontramos en la fase de implementaci?n para celebrar nuestra Conferencia 2016 de la Asociaci?n de Estudios del Caribe, y ya que la celebraremos en Hait?, presentamos nuestros respetos y pedimos a los dioses del cruce y la traves?a un paso tranquilo. Durante una reciente visita pre-conferencia a Hait? la semana pasada, arribando en Jueves Santo, Puerto Pr?ncipe bull?a de actividad. Llegu? al mismo tiempo que el equipo de f?tbol de Panam?, cuyos integrantes jugar?an un partido contra Hait? unos d?as despu?s. Al d?a siguiente, desde mi ventana en el Hotel Marriott, pude ver miles de personas en la tradicional procesi?n religiosa de Viernes Santo. Pero durante la tarde, Rara, los acostumbrados festivales itinerantes de m?sica callejera que a?n llevan la resistencia en su historia y presencia, estaban en todas partes. Durante un hermoso d?a de paseo por Puerto Pr?ncipe el s?bado ?del hermoso campo haitiano, enmarcado por la incre?ble vista de monta?as, a Jacmel? encontr? por lo menos 4 grupos Rara en cada direcci?n. Me dijeron que viajan de pueblo en pueblo durante la noche, y descansan en el d?a, que algunos no regresan a casa hasta que la temporada termina. Sin embargo, las manipulaciones pol?ticas siguen en el trasfondo, pues un segundo primer ministro nominado fue confirmado y se instal? un nuevo gobierno. Se puede suspirar de alivio de que al menos hay un gobierno. No obstante, los posters, signos visibles de una campa?a mayor, nos recuerdan que este es s?lo un gobierno interino y que tendr? que organizarse otra elecci?n. El supuesto es que este gobierno se mantendr? durante nuestra conferencia. Por el momento, los nuevos ministros y sus asistentes fueron muy accesibles durante nuestro encuentro en el Marriott. Todos ellos ofrecieron apoyo completo en cada ocasi?n en que nos reunimos para hablar sobre la Conferencia CSA (AEC)-Hait? 2016, y estaban emocionados de que traeremos a Hait? alrededor de 800 personas (el n?mero de propuestas recibidas). Aunque el primer Primer Ministro nominado, el muy respetado Fritz Jean, no ha sido confirmado ?algunos dicen que la raz?n es que pertenece al mismo partido que el Presidente?, esperamos con ansia su presentaci?n en una de nuestras sesiones plenarias de apertura en la conferencia. Ha confirmado su asistencia, y este promete ser un evento que muchos est?n esperando, pues su teor?a de desarrollo econ?mico de Hait? es muy respetada y ser? la base de su pr?xima publicaci?n. Nuestras Co-Directoras del Programa trabajan arduamente para tener listo y en l?nea el borrador del programa en los pr?ximos d?as. Este a?o hemos dise?ado un nuevo formato en el que contaremos todos los d?as con ?Sesiones de Apertura Tem?ticas?, a cargo de acad?micos expertos, en vez de tener habitaciones vac?as con algunos estudiantes de grado presentando sus propuestas temprano por la ma?ana. Queremos usar el espacio eficientemente. A estas sesiones, seguir?n cada d?a mesas panel, salones literarios, presentaciones de filmes y artes esc?nicas. Y el s?bado tendremos, por primera vez, un d?a extra de conferencia, dedicado a la Educaci?n y en el que estar?n como invitados 200 profesores haitianos. Hemos agotado verdaderamente el uso del espacio en el Marriott y estamos localizando habitaciones adicionales en la comunidad circundante para las presentaciones de la conferencia; hemos encontrado muy buenas opciones. Mientras tanto, nuestro Comit? Local, dirigido por Mme Pierre-Louis y dos Co-Directores, Phillipe Dodard (Log?stica) y Jhon Byron Picard (Coordinaci?n Acad?mica), est? lleno de energ?a y ha comenzado la fase de implementaci?n (ver abajo la fotograf?a). Junto con varios de los ministerios relevantes, est?n planeado una c?lida bienvenida a Hait? para todos los conferencistas y sus invitados. Recuerden que el hotel est? ofreci?ndonos una tarifa especial por la conferencia el fin de semana anterior y posterior a esta. As? que si nunca han estado en Hait?, contaremos con la disponibilidad de algunas agencias de turismo locales para que puedan planear un paseo a Jacmel, o incluso uno m?s largo a Cap Haitien y la Citadelle. Nuestra conferencia est? creando tanta o m?s excitaci?n como CARIFESTA, que se celebr? en Hait? en junio pasado, y de hecho contamos con un mayor n?mero de participantes del extranjero, pues nuestra comunidad es totalmente internacional. Tambi?n hay mucho inter?s por parte de la audiencia local. Hemos confirmado a Dany LaFerri?re, escritor haitiano y ahora miembro de la Academia Francesa, para nuestro evento de apertura. Gloria Rolando de Cuba asistir? a la conferencia y presentar? su ?ltima cinta ?Reembarque?. Y hemos confirmado al famoso grupo rasin Boukman Eksperyans para el Banquete y fiesta de clausura. Hay dos nuevos hoteles para elegir en caso de que no hayan reservado a?n. Ambos cuentan con servicios de enlace (shuttles) al aeropuerto. The Royal Oasis y el Best Western se encuentran ambos en Petionville y cuentan con servicios de enlace al aeropuerto que pueden reservar al momento de hacer la reserva de la habitaci?n. Tendremos shuttles disponibles en el Royal Oasis y el Marriott por las ma?anas y las tardes. Nos han ofrecido tarifas especiales por la conferencia. El Royal Oasis cuenta con varias habitaciones dobles disponibles para compartir. Pueden revisar los detalles en nuestro sitio web, en la pesta?a Hospedaje. Reserven sus habitaciones lo m?s pronto posible, pues las habitaciones disponibles reducen en n?mero r?pidamente y el hotel estar?, como el Marriott, completamente lleno. Tendremos tambi?n una exhibici?n de arte y una discusi?n en mesa redond,a y una tarde libre para visitar las Casas de Jengibre recientemente redecoradas, patrocinadas por FOKAL, uno de nuestros socios principales en la conferencia. Nuestra Noche Culural patrocinada por FOKAL ser? en el Hotel Karibe en Petionville, y contar? con la presencia de la Compa??a de Danza Jean Rene Delsion, algo de m?sica Rara y una excelente experiencia cultural garantizada. Este es un evento organizado en conjunto con ACURIL, que celebrar? su conferencia al mismo tiempo que nosotros. Estamos trabajando para tener artesan?as en el Marriott todos los d?as, y nuestra exposici?n de Moda y Dise?o Haitianos est? siendo preparada. CSA (AEC)-Hait? 2016 est? casi lista para ponerse en marcha. ? Carole Boyce Davies Presidenta de la CSA (AEC) 2015-2016 Fran?ais OUVRONS TOUTES LES PORTES! Il y a un chant vaudou qui a voyag? avec la diaspora africaine vers la Cara?be et qui est devenu un trope familier dans le travail de nombreux po?tes, artistes, romanciers, essayistes.? C?est la version de Paul Marshall utilis?e aussi bien pour th?matiser Praisesong for the Widow (1983): Papa Legba, ouvri barri?re pou? mw? ? Vodun Introit, Haiti (p. 148). En effet, nous sommes? dans la phase de mise en ?uvre du lancement de la conf?rence de 2016 de l?Association d?Etudes Carib?ennes? qui se tiendra ? Ha?ti, nous rendons hommage et demandons une travers?e en douceur de la part des dieux. Lors d?une r?cente visite pr?paratoire ? la conf?rence ? Ha?ti, la semaine derni?re, je suis arriv?e le Jeudi-Saint, et Port-au-Prince grouillait d?activit?s. Je suis arriv?e en m?me temps que l??quipe de football de Panama qui devait affronter l??quipe? d?Ha?ti? quelques jours plus tard. Le lendemain, depuis ma fen?tre de l?H?tel Marriott, j?ai vu des milliers de personnes participer ? une procession religieuse ? l?occasion du Vendredi Saint. Mais, ce soir-l?, Rara, le carnaval, dont la pr?sence et l?histoire portent la R?sistance, ?tait partout. Samedi, une belle excursion au d?part de Port au Prince ? travers la belle campagne ha?tienne, bord?e de montagne, en direction de Jacmel, m?a permis de rencontrer au moins 4 groupes Rara, qui allaient un peu partout.? On m?a dit qu?ils allaient de village en village toute la nuit, se reposaient pendant la journ?e et que certains ne rentraient chez eux qu?? la fin de la saison. Cependant, les machinations politiques restaient en arri?re-plan, alors que la nomination d?un nouveau premier ministre ?tait confirm?e et un nouveau gouvernement mis en place. Des traces d?affiches d?une grande campagne nous rappellent qu?il s?agit d?un gouvernement provisoire et que d?autres ?lections seront bient?t organis?es. Le nouveau gouvernement devrait ?tre mis en place d?ici ? notre conf?rence, mais pour l?instant, nous avons pu facilement rencontrer les nouveaux ministres et leurs assistants ? l?H?tel Marriott. Lorsque nous les avons rencontr?s au sujet de la conf?rence de l?Association de Etudes Carib?ennes ? Ha?ti 2016, tous nous ont offert leur plus grand soutien et ont montr? leur enthousiasme ? l?id?e de nous voir amener 800 personnes (nombre d?inscriptions) ? Ha?ti. Alors que le premier ministre, le tr?s respect? Fritz Jean, n??tait pas encore nomm? - certains disaient que c??tait d? ? son appartenance? au m?me parti que le pr?sident - nous attendons avec impatience sa pr?sentation ? l?une de nos s?ances pl?ni?res lors de la conf?rence. Il a confirm? sa pr?sence et cela s?annonce comme un ?v?nement tr?s attendu puisque sa th?orie du d?veloppement ?conomique d?Ha?ti est tr?s respect?e et sera la base de sa publication ? venir. Nos responsables de programme travaillent activement pour pr?parer et mettre en ligne un programme pr?liminaire dans les prochains jours. Cette ann?e, nous avons con?u un nouveau format avec chaque jour des ??Sessions d?ouverture ? th?me?? pr?sent?es par d??minents universitaires, et non pas des jeunes dipl?m?s qui feraient des pr?sentations devant des salles vides t?t le matin. Nous voulons utiliser l?espace efficacement. Les sessions d?ouverture seront donc suivies chaque jour par des comit?s, des salons litt?raires, des films et les prestations seront enregistr?es.? Samedi, nous aurons, pour la premi?re fois, une journ?e de conf?rence suppl?mentaire d?di?e ? l??ducation et ? laquelle plus de 200 professeurs ha?tiens seront convi?s. Ayant ?puis? toutes les salles du Marriott, nous recherchons de nouveaux locaux pour accueillir les pr?sentations de la conf?rence dans les communaut?s environnante et avons trouv? quelques possibilit?s. Simultan?ment, notre comit?, pr?sid? par Mme Pierre-Louis et ses deux co-pr?sidents, Philippe Dodard (logistique), et Jhon Byron Picard (coordination acad?mique) est dynamique et a lanc? la mise en ?uvre. (voir photo, ci-dessous). Ils pr?voient avec les divers minist?res concern?s un accueil chaleureux ? Ha?ti pour tous les conf?renciers et leurs invit?s. Souvenez-vous que les h?tels nous feront b?n?ficier d?un ??tarif conf?rence? pour les week-ends pr?c?dant et suivant l??v?nement. Si vous n??tes jamais all? ? Ha?ti, nous aurons ? notre disposition quelques soci?t?s locales de tourisme qui nous permettront de r?server des excursions ? Jacmel, ou m?me des voyages plus longs jusqu?au Cap Ha?tien et La Citadelle. En fait, notre conf?rence fait plus de bruit, ou du moins tout autant, que CARIFESTA qui s?est tenu ? Ha?ti en Juin dernier et en effet, nous avons plus de participants de l??tranger puisque notre communaut? est totalement internationale. Le public local montre ?galement beaucoup d?int?r?t. Nous avons eu la confirmation de Dany Laferri?re, ?crivain ha?tien, et d?sormais membre de l?Acad?mie Fran?aise pour la journ?e d?ouverture. Gloria Rolando, de Cuba assistera ? la conf?rence. Son dernier film ??Reembarque?? sera projet?. Nous avons ?galement confirm? la pr?sence du c?l?bre groupe racine Boukman Esperyans pour le repas et la soir?e de cl?ture. Si vous n?avez pas encore r?serv? de chambre, vous avez le choix entre deux h?tels. Chacun est desservi par une navette depuis l?a?roport. Le Royal Oasis et le Best Western sont tous les deux ? Petionville. Vous pouvez r?server la navette en m?me temps que vous r?servez votre chambre. Nous mettrons en place des navettes depuis le Royal Oasis et le Marriott matins et soirs. Ils nous ont fait de bons ??tarifs conf?rence??. Le Royal Oasis a de nombreuses chambres doubles disponibles ? partager. Pour plus de d?tails, voir notre site web, sous l?onglet ??conf?rence??, la partie ??h?tels??. Et s?il vous pla?t, faites vos r?servations rapidement puisque ces chambres seront tr?s vite prises, tout comme le Marriott sera rapidement complet. Il y aura ?galement une exposition d?arts, une table ronde et une soir?e pour visiter les maisons de style Gingerbread r?cemment r?nov?es, sponsoris?e par FOKAL, un des principaux partenaires de la conf?rence. Notre nuit culturelle sponsoris?e par FOKAL se d?roulera dans le Karibe Hotel ? Petionville avec la compagnie de danse Jean Rene Delsion Dance Company et nous promet une belle exp?rience culturelle. Cet ?v?nement sera organis? conjointement avec ACURIL qui donne sa conf?rence en m?me temps que la n?tre. Nous travaillons sur l?id?e de villages d?arts et artisanat au Marriott tous les jours. Notre exposition de mode et design ha?tiens mettant en vedette les textiles et accents ha?tiens se pr?pare. Le CSA-Haiti 2016 se met en route ! ? Carole Boyce Davies Pr?sidente de l?Association des Etudes Carib?ennes (CSA) 2015-2016 ? MESSAGE FROM THE PROGRAM CHAIRS Marie-Jose Nzengou-Tayo and?Angelique V. Nixon ? Report from CSA 2016 Program Co-Chairs We are pleased to report that the Conference Program is online and ready for review. This is a draft schedule and therefore subject to change in the coming weeks as we finalize the program for the print version. Announcements will be posted when any significant changes are made. But it is your responsibility to check for final times/dates and room assignments. Be reminded the conference starts early on Monday 6th June and ends on Saturday 11th June 2016. We have done our best to accommodate all of your schedule requests. As we make adjustments and changes to the program, we ask for your patience. If there are any errors with your submission title, description, name, or affiliation, you will have an opportunity to make those edits in the system. Please be sure to check emails from the Program Chairs in the coming weeks for these updates. Navigation TIPS for the Online Schedule: There is no search option for names/panels. But it is very easy to scroll through either by list view or calendar view to find your panel/presentation. If you are part of a fully constituted panel, only the chair/submitter is listed under the panel title ? to see all the speakers on your panel, click on second linked title directly above the chair/submitter's name. We suggest you start with the list view and then move to calendar view to get a sense of the entire week -- the full 6 days of CSA 2016! If there are any issues with your schedule or you don?t see your presentation listed, please email us as soon as possible at: program.chair@caribbeanstudiesassociation.org. Hotel and Travel Updates and Conference Highlights: As you may know, the main conference site hotel is fully booked. Please check the CSA website for additions to our Hotel Listings. We have two beautiful new hotels added to our secondary and recommended hotels. Be sure to review the offerings and amenities from Best Western and Oasis. These may be more comfortable and affordable in the end than Le Plaza. Also, please note that we are no longer recommending The Prince Hotel as that hotel is in great need of some renovations. If you have made a reservation there, we strongly recommend that you move to the Best Western or Oasis. See the website under ?Conference Updates? and ?Hotel Information? for more details. Also, make note of the recommendations for Airport Transport on the website. It is extremely important to schedule airport transport ahead of time ? especially for those traveling to Haiti for the first time. The Port-au-Prince airport can be difficult to navigate and so you are strongly advised to follow the recommendations. As you make your travel plans, remember that the conference starts promptly at 8:30am on Monday 6th June. Therefore, we strongly encourage you to travel to Haiti on the 5th of June so we can all start the conference together. Be reminded that each day we have an opening session at 8:30am that will ground the conference and focus on specific themes. These are highlighted in the online program as ?opening themed sessions? or ?conference plenary.? Remember that the conference will be a full six days this year, thus the final day of the conference is Saturday 11th June. This final day is a new addition, an extra day, designed to focus on Education and Policy. This is?an initiative of our CSA President that will feature a morning plenary session by experts on educational policy and a day of workshops designed for Haitian teachers and university students enrolled in teacher education programs and conferees interested in education in Haiti.?We will also have some related?concurrent panel sessions throughout the day. We are thrilled to be featuring an exciting line up of special evening events, all through the vision of CSA President Carole Boyce Davies. These exciting events and speakers include: Dany Laferriere and performances by Gina Athena Ulysse and Michelle Grant-Murray for the Opening Ceremonies; A Conversation with Angela Davis on Thursday night followed by Haitian Textiles, Fashion, Wearable Art Expo hosted by Michel Chataigne; and for the CSA Night Awards and Banquet on Friday, we are thrilled to have Edwidge Danticat as our speaker. Finally on Saturday, we will have a special roundtable on ?Art, Culture, Community and Economic Transcendence? featuring community workers and artists, including Eintou Pearl Springer and Phillippe Dodard, among others. We ask that you continue checking the Conference Program Online as we finalize speakers, panels, special events, sessions, and room arrangements. Remember that information about the conference hotel, travel arrangements, and other updates are on the CSA website. As always, for all program-related inquiries, please contact us directly at: program.chair@caribbeanstudiesassociation.org. We are looking forward to see you in Haiti for CSA 2016! Marie-Jos? Nzengou-Tayo Angelique V. Nixon Program Chairs, CSA 2015-2016 BOUKMAN EKSPERYANS FOR POST-BANQUET FETE We are pleased to announce that we have contracted the Haitian ?rasin? ?group Boukman Eksperyans to play for our post banquet closing conference fete at the Marriott, Port-au-Prince on Friday June 10, 2016.?According to their promotional material, the group is named after the famous Boukman Dutty who, in 1791, ?at a ceremony in ?Bwa kayiman? united the rebel groups to launch the first great insurrection of the Haitian revolution which ended slavery and created the? nation of Haiti, the first black independent nation in the western hemisphere. The group was founded by Theodore ?Lolo? Beaubrun, Jr. and his wife Mimerose ?Manze? Beaubrun in 1978.?? With politically engaged lyrics, Boukman Eksperyans presents musically a ?palette of rhythms and incorporates different musical traditions of the Haitian peasantry? -- rara, peasant songs, songs of voudou rituals ? but also rock, reggae, soukouss, funk, R&B and more recently Hip Hop.?? We are fortunate to have Boukman in Haiti for our conference for which they have postponed a concert in Liverpool,? England,? in order to welcome you to their home country. CSA ELDERS I would like to bring forward to the Executive Council for their consideration a new category of membership ? CSA Elders. A category of this nature was suggested to me by retired CSA member Monica Gordon and was an issue raised recently by Lynette Lashley. Such a category of honor will provide a culturally-relevant context for continued participation for many of our retirees so that we do not lose their expertise, knowledge and numbers even as we advance new generation of scholars.? I propose that CSA Elders will receive: A reduced membership and conference registration rate Encouraged opportunities to organize roundtables/panels of their choice Recognition at CSA Conference events Partnering in the mentoring of younger scholars An assigned number of travel grants Please send me your comments so that I can have additional ideas from membership before it is discussed at the next CSA Executive Council Meeting. Carole Boyce Davies president@caribbeanstudiesassociation.org? MESSAGE FROM THE VICE PRESIDENT Keithley Woolward Gordon K. and Sybil Lewis Book Prize 2016 Long List The Caribbean Studies Association (CSA) is pleased to announce the 2016 Gordon K. and Sybil Lewis Book Award 2016 Long List. The GKSL Book Prize carries with it a monetary prize of $1000, thanks to the generous Lewis Family donation and its continuing support of the CSA. Nominated manuscripts, in Spanish, English, French, or Dutch, comment on, critically engage and/or are products of the Caribbean region and its diaspora published over the previous year period (2015). The nominated book(s) should approach the chosen subject or aspect of Caribbean life, conditions and situations from an interdisciplinary perspective, and should clearly be shown to have regional impact. This year we have received thirty six nominated manuscripts representing the rich disciplinarity and cultural diversity of the region[1]: ?Published in 2015 Giselle Liza Anatol, The Things that Fly in the Night: Female Vampires in Literature of the Circum-Caribbean and African Diaspora, Rutgers University Press, 2015. Yarimar Bonilla, Non-Sovereign Futures: French Caribbean Politics in the Wake of Disenchantment, University of Chicago Press, 2015. Jan Brokken, The Music of the Netherland Antilles: Why Eleven Antilleans Knelt before Chopin?s Heart (translated by Scott Rollins), University Press of Mississippi, 2015. Tammy L. Brown, City of Islands: Caribbean Intellectuals in New York, University Press of Mississippi, 2015. Rebecca M. Bodenheimer, Geographies of Cubanidad: Place, Race, and Musical Performance in Contemporary Cuba, University Press of Mississippi, 2015. Guilia Bonacci (translated by Antoinette Alou), Exodus: Heirs and Pioneers, Rastafari Return to Ethiopia, University of West Indies Press, 2015. Vibert C. Cambridge, Musical Life in Guyana: History and Politics of Controlling Creativity, University Press of Mississippi, 2015. Marlene L. Daut, Tropics of Haiti: Race and Literary History of the Haitian Revolution in the Atlantic World 1789-1865, Liverpool University Press, 2015. Aisha Beliso De Jesus, Electric Santer?a: Racial and Sexual Assemblages of Transnational Religion, Columbia University Press, 2015. Nadia Ellis, Territories of the Soul: Queered Belonging in the Black Diaspora, Duke University Press, 2015. Celine Flory, De l'esclavage ? la libert? forc?e. Histoire des travailleurs africains engag?s dans la Cara?be fran?aise au XIX?me si?cle, Karthala, 2015. Armando Garc?a de la Torre, Jos? Mart? and the Global Origins of Cuban Independence, University of West Indies Press, 2015. Guadalupe Garcia, Beyond the Walled City: Colonial Exclusion in Havana, University of California Press, 2015. Isar P. Godreau, Scripts of Blackness: Race, Cultural Nationalism and U.S. Colonialism in Puerto Rico, University of Illinois Press, 2015. Jenny M. Jemmot, Ties That Bind: The Black Family in Post-Slavery Jamaica (1834-1882), University of West Indies Press, 2015. Aisha Khan (editor), Islam and The Americas, University Press of Florida, 2015. John M. Kirk, Healthcare without Borders: Understanding Cuban Medical Internationalism, University Press of Florida, 2015. Sarah Juliet Lauro, The Transatlantic Zombie: Slavery Rebellion and Living Death, Rutgers University Press, 2015. Christopher Lee, Frantz Fanon: Toward A Revolutionary Humanism, Ohio University Press, 2015. Natasha Lightfoot, Troubling Freedom: Antigua & the Aftermath of British Emancipation, Duke University Press, 2015. Iraida H. L?pez, Impossible Returns: Narratives of the Cuban Diaspora, University Press of Florida, 2015. Anthony P. Maingot, Race, Ideology and the Decline of Caribbean Marxism, University Press of Florida, 2015. Peter Manuel, Tales, Tunes and Tassa Drums: Retention and Invention in Indo-Caribbean Music, University of Illinois Press, 2015. Martin Munro, Tropical Apocalypse: Haiti and the Caribbean End Times, University of Virginia Press, 2015. Angelique V. Nixon, Resisting Paradise: Tourism, Diaspora and Sexuality in Caribbean Culture, University Press of Mississippi, 2015. Leon D. Pamphile, Contrary Destinies: A Century of America?s Occupation, Deoccupation and Reoccupation of Haiti, University Press of Florida, 2015. Marc D. Perry, Negro Soy Yo: Hip Hop and Raced Citizenship in Neoliberal Cuba, Duke University Press, 2015. Ala? Reyes-Santos, Our Caribbean Kin: Race and Nation in the Neoliberal Antilles, Rutgers University Press, 2015. Petra R. Rivera-Rideau, Remixing Reggaet?n: The Cultural Politics of Race in Puerto Rico, Duke University Press, 2015. Neil Roberts, Freedom As Marronage, University of Chicago Press, 2015. Elena Machado S?ez, Market Aesthetics: The Purchase of the Past in Caribbean Diasporic Fiction, University of Virginia Press, 2015. Jalane D. Schmidt, Cachita?s Streets: The Virgin of Charity, Race and The Revolution in Cuba, Duke University Press, 2015. Maurice St Pierre, Eric Williams & The Anticolonial Tradition: Making of a Diasporan Intellectual, University of Virginia Press, 2015. Krista A. Thompson, Shine: The Visual Economy of Light in African Diaspora Aesthetic Practice, Duke University Press, 2015. Colleen A. Vasconcellos, Slavery, Childhood and Abolition in Jamaica (1788-1838), University of Georgia Press, 2015. Gary Wilder, Freedom Time: Negritude, Decolonization, and the Future of the World, Duke University Press, 2015. Lewis R Gordon, What Fanon Said: A Philosophical to His Life and Thought, Fordham University Press, 2015. The GSKL Book Prize Committee will publish the list of twelve finalists on May 13th, 2016. The winner will be announced at the annual Caribbean Studies Association Conference in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, June 5-11th 2016. ------------------------------- [1] The nominated manuscripts are listed alphabetically by author last name. ------------------------------- Keithley Woolward Vice-President Caribbean Studies Association (2015 ? 2016) MESSAGE FROM THE EDITOR Meagan Sylvester Just two months away! ?and the countdown has begun to CSA 2016 in Port-au-Prince, Haiti! Haitian music, art and culture As part of the introduction to things Haitian we invite you to look forward to participating in art exhibits, fashion shows and a cultural night featuring a local dance troupe. In this issue we tickle your senses with news about confirmations of participation from cultural scholars and creatives from Haiti and Cuba. Musically, we have secured entertainment from the popular Haitian group Boukman Esperyans who received a grammy nomination for their debut album Vodou Adjae. Check out the link below to sample a taste of what they have to offer! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQvlMYABZRY Accommodation Given the overwhelming response to our call for papers, this conference promises to be well attended, so much so that we have had to add two new hotels to the accommodation options. Additionally, for your travel pleasure and comfort, we have made plans to ensure that there are airport shuttles to and from hotels. Reminder: keep abreast of conference updates on our website http://www.caribbeanstudiesassociation.org New Feature ? We are proposing a new feature in which we hope to focus attention on those who have built CSA over the years. The CSA Elders initiative hopes to provide a series of special facilities for our older CSA members. Honour for their contribution in shaping Caribbean Studies as a discipline and homage for their years of providing yeoman service to younger academics are amongst the contributions to be highlighted in our new monthly segment. Language articles As usual, our language articles bring to the fore issues affecting the Caribbean region of the Dutch, Spanish and French Caribbean and ensure that the indigenous languages of Martinican Creole and Papiamentu are given prominence for narrative expression as well as the mother tongues. Of particular note in this month?s Newsletter, ?is the Spanish language article entitled ?Miradas a las Relaciones Internacionales en el Caribe, a prop?sito de la visita de Barack Obama a Cuba? which treats with the immensely popular and poignant topic of US-Cuba relations following the recent trip by The President of The United States to Cuba. Consider the perspective from a native of Cuba!? The French article places focus on the ?La Culture De La Banane Martiniquaise? in the French West Indian island and provides insights on this Caribbean agricultural debate from a native Martinican. Graduate Student Corner Our graduate student corner places focus on yet another graduate student testimonial of the graduate student experience, self care awareness tips and the critical import of academic mentors and life coaches along the road to success. At the Caribbean Studies Association we believe that communication is key! As such, we enjoy hearing from, so keep your feedback constant. Please feel free to email the Newsletter Editor directly at newseditor@caribbeanstudiesassociation.org to share your views, comments and the good news of your academic success with us. Meagan Sylvester Newsletter Editor Caribbean Studies Association MESSAGE FROM THE LANGUAGE SUB-EDITORS H?l?ne Zamor Nouv?l (Martinican French Creole) KILTI BANNAN MATINIK Selon Pascal Marguerite[1], la banane viendrait de la Malaisie. Ce fruit savoureux appartient ? la famille des musac?es.? Marguerite pr?cise qu?elle a ?t? d?abord introduite dans l??le de Saint-Domingue vers 1516.? Par contre, elle a fait son apparition en Martinique en 1635. Au milieu du XVII?me si?cle, le P?re du Tertre, un agriculteur et missionnaire fran?ais diff?renciait entre les bananes figues et les bananiers. ?Comme son compatriote, le P?re Labat ?tait agriculteur et missionnaire.? Il a s?journ? en Martinique pendant ?plusieurs ann?es. Dans ses ?crits, il a soulign? la pr?sence de deux vari?t?s de bananes et une vari?t? de figues. Cependant, le P?re du Tertre a fait une description de la ??banane corne?? et la ??banane cr?ole??. Aujourd?hui, on recense trois vari?t?s botaniques ? la Martinique.? Il s?agit alors de la Musa paradisiaca, M. Sapentium et M.Chinensis.? Cette classification a toutefois ?t? critiqu?e par Monsieur Cheeseman[2].? ?M?me s?il existe que ces trois vari?t?s botaniques dans l??le, on peut signaler la pr?sence de d?autres vari?t?s comme les figues dites ?figues dessert?? ou ??Makandia??.?Les Martiniquais les appr?cient pour leur saveur.? Les ??Ti-nains?? se mangent avec? de la morue ?marin?e?? ou pr?par?e en court-bouillon. ?Parfois, on les consomme avec du poisson. Leur nom d?origine cr?ole d?rive du Fran?ais ?les petites naines?? car elles sont petites en taille mais riches en potassium.? Les oiseaux s?en r?galent bien.? La ??banane jaune?? ou???plantain?? se consomme en cuite ? l?eau, frite ou en gratin.? Les mamans martiniquaises n?h?sitent pas ? donner r?guli?rement de la banane jaune ? leur b?b?. En plus de ses usages multiples sur le plan culinaire, la banane pr?sente des vertus m?dicinales exceptionnelles. Elle est riche en magn?sium et en potassium.? Les Martiniquais ont recours ? ce fruit pour traiter les troubles digestifs.? Avec les feuilles de la ?banane puce??, ils pr?parent un th? pour soigner les crises de foie. Ce fruit riche en vitamine B et B6 semble pr?venir l?hypertension art?rielle. A partir des ann?es 50, l?industrie banani?re s?est progressivement d?velopp?e au moment o? l?industrie sucri?re commen?ait ? vaciller. On affirme que ?La culture de la banane couvre 8.300 hectares et qu?elle repr?sente 70 % des exportations de la Martinique??[3]. Les exportations se dirigent vers la France et l?Europe. Depuis son entr?e dans la communaut? europ?enne, la Martinique b?n?ficie de subventions malgr? certaines difficult?s. ?Les exploitants agricoles ont fait face aux r?formes de 2003 et aux d?g?ts caus?s par l?ouragan Dean en 2007. Cela n?emp?che pas aux d?fenseurs du patrimoine martiniquais de mettre en place le mus?e de la Banane qui se situe dans la commune de Sainte-Marie.? Les touristes et les autochtones ont la possibilit? de conna?tre les diff?rentes vari?t?s de bananes et d?guster divers produits faits de bananes. ------------------------------- [1] ?Traces d?une histoire de la banane?. www.peda.ac-martinique.fr/histgeo/banane.shtml [2] Professeur d?agriculture de Trinidad.? ?Introduction ? l??tude des vari?t?s de bananiers ? fruits comestibles de la Martinique [3] ?Bananeraie?. www.antilles-martinique.com/bananeraie.html -------------------------------? Helene Zamor French & Martinican Creole Language Sub-editor CSA Newsletter Vilma Diaz Espa?ol Miradas a las Relaciones Internacionales en el Caribe, a prop?sito de la visita de Barack Obama a Cuba. Por: Vilma D?az Cabrera Nos encontramos nuevamente ante un cap?tulo ?sobresaliente- de interconexi?n multidimensional en el Caribe. La distancia temporal y el papel que jugar?n diferentes actores a lo largo del proceso, permitir?n que historiadores, soci?logos, polit?logos, etc. nos brinden profundos an?lisis sobre el impacto de la visita de Barack Obama a Cuba. Sin embargo, resulta imprescindible socializar ?los primeros apuntes para enfocar una posible coyuntura hist?rica que marca, sin dudas, un cambio en las Relaciones Internacionales. Los pueblos, actores sociales y organizaciones de diversos tipos del Gran Caribe tenemos un significativo reto, no debemos ser simples espectadores de este proceso, debemos ser parte protag?nica de este nuevo juego de domin? en el Caribe. En este sentido, nuestro inter?s es dirigir la mirada al impacto de las nuevas din?micas de relaci?n Estados Unidos-Caribe, Estados Unidos-Am?rica Latina, Am?rica Latina-Caribe y el papel de Cuba en este proceso. Cabe destacar que de los 53 pa?ses que hasta el momento ha visitado Barack Obama en sus dos mandatos, once son de la regi?n: el 20,7% de sus viajes han sido a pa?ses latinoamericanos, centroamericanos y caribe?os[1]. La naci?n m?s visitada es M?xico (cinco veces) y con el cual tiene la agenda bilateral m?s densa, variada y compleja del continente. Ha ido a tres pa?ses de Centroam?rica (Costa Rica, El Salvador, Panam?), a tres del Caribe (Cuba, Jamaica y Trinidad y Tobago) y a cuatro de Sudam?rica (Argentina, Brasil, Colombia y Chile). El redespliegue de Estados Unidos en el ?rea es calculado y balanceado: no se trata solo de reafirmar su influencia en su caracter?stico mare nostrum, la amplia Cuenca del Caribe, que constituye, a su vez, su principal per?metro de defensa. Sin duda hay motivos geopol?ticos que explican el renovado inter?s en el ?rea. Existen razones de orden dom?stico, como las urgencias para asegurar y/o recuperar mercados para las exportaciones estadounidenses, as? como el peso demogr?fico y electoral interno de los latinoamericanos. Existen tambi?n razones de orden internacional como la creciente gravitaci?n de diverso tipo y prop?sito de actores extra-regionales como China, Rusia, India e Ir?n en el continente latinoamericano. Por tanto, invita a la reflexi?n la impronta de las visitas de Barack Obama a Trinidad y Tobago (2009) y Jamaica (2015) bajo los primeros ministros de Patrick Manning y Portia Simpson Miller, respectivamente. A prop?sito, esta ?ltima durante la conferencia de prensa ofrecida en Jamaica en el marco de la visita de B. Obama, enfatiz? que, dentro de la agenda, se incluy? como tema las relaciones internacionales entre Cuba y el resto de las islas del Mar Caribe, sobre lo cual manifest?: ?Me alegra decirle, se?or presidente, que est? usted en el lado acertado de la historia?[2]. Para Jamaica, la visita de Barack Obama signific? un cambio. Luego del establecimiento de relaciones exteriores en 1962, los v?nculos hab?an estado signados por la visita de Ronald Reagan en la d?cada de los 80 y los diferentes tratados econ?micos de las d?cadas m?s recientes. Cumbre CARICOM-Estados Unidos de Am?rica, Kingston, Jamaica, abril de 2015. Fuente: www.islandvibesradio.com Por su parte, ya el gobierno de Trinidad y Tobago hab?a jugado un papel fundamental signado por una pol?tica de reencuentro no s?lo en la Cumbre de las Am?ricas (2009), donde qued? demostrado la posici?n general de Am?rica Latina y el Caribe de apoyo a la reinserci?n de Cuba en el esquema general de relaciones hemisf?ricas, sino por propiciar en uni?n con los gobiernos de Costa Rica y M?xico, la visita del Presidente de la Rep?blica Popular China, Xi Jinping a la regi?n en el 2013, que concluy? con un encuentro entre este ?ltimo y Barack Obama en California. Aspecto que fundamenta la importancia de actores extra-regionales en el desarrollo de las econom?as caribe?as. En este contexto se produce la visita de Barack Obama a Cuba, proceso complejo que debe abordarse en el extenso ?mbito de las Ciencias Sociales, las Humanidades y las Letras en general. Ninguna de ellas dejar? a un lado este hecho hist?rico y estamos seguros que cada disciplina se apropiar? y, a la vez, quedar? signada por este acontecimiento. Al menos para la Historia, en los pr?ximos cursos, conferencias, talleres o producci?n literaria este hecho aparecer? como un momento de inflexi?n, entendido como el proceso en que cambia el sentido y/o cause de la Historia contempor?nea y donde la naturaleza de los propios actores del proceso no se puede obviar. Jorge ?Aldo el Apache Raine? Rodr?guez Diez (R10). Tomado de Obama entre personalidades cubanas. http://oncubamagazine.com/oncuba-media/obama-entre-personalidades-cubanas/ ?Como sabemos, la visita de B. Obama a Cuba es parte del proceso de restablecimiento de relaciones diplom?ticas entre Estados Unidos y Cuba, sin embargo, por s? sola, estamos seguros que fundamenta un antes y un despu?s dentro de la actual coyuntura. En ello, quedan pendientes un sin n?mero de aspectos que, por su complejidad solo mencionaremos a continuaci?n: la existencia del bloqueo/embargo de Estados Unidos hacia Cuba la presencia de la Base Naval de Guant?namo el tratamiento a los derechos humanos en ambos pa?ses el comercio y las reclamaciones sobre las propiedades entre ambas naciones la necesaria reconciliaci?n entre la sociedad cubana que vive en Cuba y en los Estados Unidos el impacto en la mentalidad de ambos pueblos que deben recomponer sus patrones culturales sin perder cada uno sus fundamentos patrios el enfoque identitario nacional y/o cultural, que implica aprender a convivir en la diferencia la mirada desde la literatura y las artes pl?sticas, que siempre enaltecen un momento o un contexto determinado la m?sica, el cine y la comunicaci?n como esa manera de hacer filosof?a de vida desde m?ltiples perspectivas En definitiva, desaf?os y oportunidades en un nuevo contexto de las relaciones internacionales en el Caribe. Exhortamos a la comunidad intelectual interesada en estos aspectos a dedicar un ac?pite a este tema desde sus diferentes disciplinas. En otras palabras, las buenas relaciones en el ?mbito hemisf?rico deber?n construirse sobre la base de gestos e iniciativas concretas que demuestren la seriedad de las intenciones de Estados Unidos, la capacidad real para producir pol?ticas innovadoras por parte de los gobiernos y organismos regionales y multilaterales, en definitiva respetar el compromiso de un orden hemisf?rico basado en el di?logo y el respeto mutuo. ------------------------------- [1] Juan Gabriel Tokatlian. La doctrina de Troilo. En: http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elpais/1-295598-2016-03-28.html [2]?http://www.elnuevoherald.com/noticias/mundo/article17975201.html#storylink=cpy ------------------------------- Vilma Diaz Spanish Language Sub-editor CSA Newsletter Dutch Guido M. Rojer, Jr. Eiland mentaliteit Vaak worden mensen vanuit de Antillen beticht van eiland mentaliteit. Mensen met eiland mentaliteit denken eerder in barrieres dan in mogelijkheden. Het is eerder nee in plaats van misschien. Dit geluid komt vaak vanuit voormaliga kolonisatoren, die zich vaak weer op eilanden terug vinden voor ontwikkelingsamenwerking. Mij ervaring is eigenlijk omgekeerd, dat concluderen mijn collega?s ook. Eiland mentaliteit heeft te maken met de gedachte dat een eiland, wat ook vaak een kleine samenleving heeft, anders denkt dan mensen in een land. Dit is eerder verbonden met het feit dat het om kleine samenleving gaat, dan met het feit dat het een eiland is. Eilanden zijn juist omgekeerd, en staan juist open voor verandering, juist omdat ze eilanden zijn. Neem het Caribisch Gebied als voorbeeld. De eilanden aldaar moeten zich allemaal als volwaardige landen bewijzen op een international veld, net zo goed als elk ander land. Dat betekent dat een eiland ook over alle velden moet beschikken om te kunnen blijven ontstaan. Vaak is het moeilijk om alles te kunnen dekken, maar dit betekent heus niet dat het onmogelijk is. In het Engels noemt men dit: Specialis Generalist. Een heleboel inwoners hebben vaak dubbele, soms driedubbele, bevoegdheden en houden de tent draaiende. Dat eilanden vaak klein zijn betekent ook dat een verandering best snel door een groot deel van het gemeenschap meegenomen kan worden. Neem Cura?ao als voorbeeld. Juist omdat het een klein eiland is moet men zich in verschillende vreemde talen kunnen uitdrukken om handel in eigen land te kunnen drijven. Bewoners van het eiland spreken met z?n allen, ongeacht van sociaal-economisch achtergrond, vier talen, waaronder twee wereld talen. Dat krijg je niet zo vaak in een buurt in het midden van Engeland, Rusland of Brazilie. Daar kom nog bij dat er grote groepen uit het buitenland zich op het eiland hebben gevestigd, met het gevolg dat er nog meer talen gesproken kunnen worden. Als we het over eiland mentaliteit willen hebben moeten we eerst alles in balans brengen om iets met zekerheid aan te kunnen wijzen. Grotere landen zijn vaak ouder en zijn door de jaren heen ook volwassen geworden. Vergelijkingen kunnen dus helaas niet 1 op 1 worden gedaan. Guido M. Rojer, Jr. Dutch and Papiamentu Language Sub-editor CSA Newsletter H?l?ne Zamor Fran?ais LA CULTURE DE LA BANANE MARTINIQUAISE Selon Pascal Marguerite[1], la banane viendrait de la Malaisie. Ce fruit savoureux appartient ? la famille des musac?es.? Marguerite pr?cise qu?elle a ?t? d?abord introduite dans l??le de Saint-Domingue vers 1516.? Par contre, elle a fait son apparition en Martinique en 1635. Au milieu du XVII?me si?cle, le P?re du Tertre, un agriculteur et missionnaire fran?ais diff?renciait entre les bananes figues et les bananiers. ?Comme son compatriote, le P?re Labat ?tait agriculteur et missionnaire.? Il a s?journ? en Martinique pendant ?plusieurs ann?es. Dans ses ?crits, il a soulign? la pr?sence de deux vari?t?s de bananes et une vari?t? de figues. Cependant, le P?re du Tertre a fait une description de la ??banane corne?? et la ??banane cr?ole??. Aujourd?hui, on recense trois vari?t?s botaniques ? la Martinique.? Il s?agit alors de la Musa paradisiaca, M. Sapentium et M.Chinensis.? Cette classification a toutefois ?t? critiqu?e par Monsieur Cheeseman[2].? ?M?me s?il existe que ces trois vari?t?s botaniques dans l??le, on peut signaler la pr?sence de d?autres vari?t?s comme les figues dites ?figues dessert?? ou ??Makandia??.?Les Martiniquais les appr?cient pour leur saveur.? Les ??Ti-nains?? se mangent avec? de la morue ?marin?e?? ou pr?par?e en court-bouillon. ?Parfois, on les consomme avec du poisson. Leur nom d?origine cr?ole d?rive du Fran?ais ?les petites naines?? car elles sont petites en taille mais riches en potassium.? Les oiseaux s?en r?galent bien.? La ??banane jaune?? ou???plantain?? se consomme en cuite ? l?eau, frite ou en gratin.? Les mamans martiniquaises n?h?sitent pas ? donner r?guli?rement de la banane jaune ? leur b?b?. En plus de ses usages multiples sur le plan culinaire, la banane pr?sente des vertus m?dicinales exceptionnelles. Elle est riche en magn?sium et en potassium.? Les Martiniquais ont recours ? ce fruit pour traiter les troubles digestifs.? Avec les feuilles de la ?banane puce??, ils pr?parent un th? pour soigner les crises de foie. Ce fruit riche en vitamine B et B6 semble pr?venir l?hypertension art?rielle. A partir des ann?es 50, l?industrie banani?re s?est progressivement d?velopp?e au moment o? l?industrie sucri?re commen?ait ? vaciller. On affirme que ?La culture de la banane couvre 8.300 hectares et qu?elle repr?sente 70 % des exportations de la Martinique??[3]. Les exportations se dirigent vers la France et l?Europe. Depuis son entr?e dans la communaut? europ?enne, la Martinique b?n?ficie de subventions malgr? certaines difficult?s. ?Les exploitants agricoles ont fait face aux r?formes de 2003 et aux d?g?ts caus?s par l?ouragan Dean en 2007. Cela n?emp?che pas aux d?fenseurs du patrimoine martiniquais de mettre en place le mus?e de la Banane qui se situe dans la commune de Sainte-Marie.? Les touristes et les autochtones ont la possibilit? de conna?tre les diff?rentes vari?t?s de bananes et d?guster divers produits faits de bananes. ------------------------------- [1] ?Traces d?une histoire de la banane?. www.peda.ac-martinique.fr/histgeo/banane.shtml [2] Professeur d?agriculture de Trinidad.? ?Introduction ? l??tude des vari?t?s de bananiers ? fruits comestibles de la Martinique [3] ?Bananeraie?. www.antilles-martinique.com/bananeraie.html ------------------------------------ Helene Zamor French & Martinican Creole Language Sub-editor CSA Newsletter Guido M. Rojer, Jr. Papiamentu Estudionan di Karibe No ta poko biaha nos ta hasi nos mes e pregunta: Kiko ta Karibe? Den mi karera akad?miko mi a para ketu na e pregunta aki varios biaha, i semper a keda ku dos kontesta: esun fiho i esun ku ta varia. Hendenan di Karibe Huland?s ta eksperensha ?Karibe? komo un konsepto liber ku tin diferente forma, i ta depende di ken bo ta papia ku?ne. Ta masha komun pa refer? na islanan Ingl?s komo Karibe, ya ku esei ta e idea romantis? di solo, santu I laman ku Estado Unidense ta kai riba dje. E influensha aki a bini primordialmente di nos lasonan ku e islanan aki den e tempunan di migrashon pa trabou pero tambe pa e imagennan ku nos ta ekspon? na dje. Karibe ta un konsepto mas grandi ku solamente isla. E ta un komportashon, e ta un manera di pensa, e ta varia den kultura, i mas importante e no ta algu fiho. Nos tin un opseshon ku defin? kosnan den detaye, temer paso nos kier logra splika konseptonan kla i rasp?. Ta duelmi pa hopi di bisa ku lamentablemente esaki no ta posibel. Den varios kaso e diskushon mas importante no ta e resultado, ni su rais, sino definishon di e rais. Den e kaso aki definishon di ?Karibe? ta unu ku ta gosa di un diskushon enorme. Pa por diskuti sanamente riba e t?piko aki nos mester halsa nos nivel di pensa for di uso di definishon, pa uso di konsepto. Lag?ami duna algun idea di kiko Karibe lo por ta. Tur ora ku nos diskuti tokante Karibe mes ora un hende mester pone komo regla ku tin 4 Karibe, Ingles, Franses, Spa?o i Hulandes. Asinaki ta krea un divishon ku ta stroba e analise di e konsepto Karibe. Idioma ta un vehikulo pa komunikashon, bo por huza diferente palabra i konsepto pa e mesun mensahe. Kulturalmente nos ta mira ku ta e mesun tipo di mensahe ta pasa den e komunidatnan di Karibe, irespektivo di kua idioma ta huza. Esaki ta algu ku mi ta ha?a ku akad?mikonan mester tene hopi na bista ora ta hasi an?lise pas? e ta pone ku nos ta krea modelonan den nos kabes sin tin mester. Esaki ta supray? algu mas importante: e barera di idioma ta stroba nos mira nos similaridat. Mi ta kere pa esnan di Karibe Hulandes e ta un tiki mas fasil pa mira ya ku mayoria di nos, miho bis? nos tur, por komunika den e 4 idiomanan di Karibe. Ta na nos komo sient?fiko pa por trese esaki dilanti konstantemente pa por yega na analis? Karibe komo unu. E kolumna aki no ta permit? espasio pa papia riba tur e aspektonan pa defin? Karibe, pero nos lo tuma e lunanan ku ta bini aki pa splika esaki ya nos por tin un diskushon frukt?fero aya na Port au Prince den y?ni. Guido M. Rojer, Jr. Dutch and Papiamentu Language Sub-editor CSA Newsletter GRADUATE STUDENT CORNER Lauren Pragg This month we have the 7th contribution in our inspiring feature series on graduate students and their work. If you?re a grad student who?d like to contribute please reach me at lrpragg@yorku.ca. Who are you? My name is Lauren Pragg and I?m currently a PhD Candidate in the Social and Political Thought department at York University (Toronto). I also work with Shameless Magazine as the Columns Editor, Online Community Curator, and Youth Advisory Board co-facilitator. What are you working on? Right now I?m working on my dissertation which is interested in the lives of queer Trinidadian women. I?m in the process of transcribing almost 30 interviews, and writing my paper for CSA on Nicki Minaj. In addition to that I?m just about to wrap up a position at Planned Parenthood Toronto where I?ve been coordinating a research project on young queer women?s sexual health need and digital technology. Where are you from/based/going? I was born and raised in Scarborough, Ontario to two Trinidadian parents - one from Freeport, and one from San Fernando. What's your self-care routine/tips? In order to take care of myself I make sure my academic work in balanced with community organizing and involvement. I also spend as much time as I can with my 8 month old niece, and my recently adopted rescue dog. Who's your inspiration? my ancestors my niece my communities my mentors Why CSA? The CSA was my first exposure to academic culture and community. I stumbled upon it as an undergrad and have always looked to the annual meetings as a place of grounding for my work. The CSA has given me a consistent opportunity for learning, accountability and growth. What are you excited about? I?m hoping to explore other forms of media, such as podcasts and digital video. I think they both offer the potential of accessible archives to those communities who are usually left out or erased from institutional forms of record keeping. Lauren Pragg Graduate Student Representative CSA 2015- 2017 FEATURED CSA MEMBER ?Dr. Lynette M. Lashley DR. LYNETTE M. LASHLEY Dr. Lynette Margaret Lashley, was born and raised in Trinidad and Tobago.? She graduated from Bishop Anstey High School, Port of Spain, Trinidad, obtained her B.A. in English, from Georgetown University, Washington, D.C., M.A. in Journalism with a concentration in International Mass Communication, from University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin, and? Ph.D. in Mass Communication, Television Studies, from Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois. She is now a retired Full Professor with over 40 years combined experience in the practice, teaching, and scholarship in Mass Communication, Communication, and Journalism, predominantly related to Trinidad and Tobago, and the Caribbean. Before academia, Dr. Lashley held positions in Trinidad and Tobago, as the Supervisor of Public Relations at the Water and Sewerage Authority, Research Officer in the Public Relations Department of the Prime Minister?s Office, and was the first Public Relations Officer appointed by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago.? While still at the Central Bank, Dr. Lashley was invited to take up a full-time position with the UWI, St. Augustine, Trinidad, to teach? Agricultural Communication in the Department of Agricultural Extension, which she accepted.? This appointment was her entry to a career in academia, which would span over a period of more than 30 years. As is requisite for academe, Dr. Lashley left the University of the West Indies, and went on to Northwestern University to pursue her doctorate in Mass Communication, concentrating on Television Studies.? Her dissertation was: ??Disseminating Agricultural Information to Farmers in Trinidad and Tobago through Television?. Combining her practitioner?s and academic skills, Dr. Lashley was able to teach and design courses for research in various aspects of mass communication/communication studies including International Mass Communication, Cultural Communication, and Political Communication, at universities, internationally. ?In the USA, she taught at Eastern Illinois, Creighton, Florida Memorial, Indiana University-South Bend, and Claflin universities.? Occasionally, she worked with The Foundation for Democracy in Africa program, training media practitioners from English-speaking countries in Africa. ?In the United Arab Emirates, she taught at the American University of Sharjah. ? Besides teaching, Dr. Lashley was Director of the Communications program at Florida Memorial University, Coordinator of the Communications ?program at the American University of Sharjah, and Coordinator/Chair of the Communication Arts Program at Indiana University-South Bend.? Dr. Lashley has presented several research articles at various academic forums internationally, and has published scholarly research mainly based on Trinidad and Tobago, in the areas of electronic media programming, the calypso as mass communication, and political commentary in calypso. She has been a lifetime member of CSA, for over 26 years, and has presented sixteen papers on the aforementioned topics.? She has also organized three panels - Mass Media and Caribbean Society, 15th Annual Caribbean Studies Association Conference, Port of Spain, Trinidad, May, 1990, Issues in the Media of the Caribbean , 34th Annual Caribbean Studies Association Conference, Kingston, Jamaica, June 2009, and Hegemony and Dominant Ideology: Racial and Ethnic Representations in the Media of two Commonwealth Caribbean countries,? 37th Annual Caribbean Studies Association Conference, Gosier, Guadeloupe, May 2012.? Included in Dr. Lashley?s major publications on the aforementioned topics, are:? Effects of American Popular Music on the Youth of Trinidad and Tobago: A Study in Cultural Imperialism. In B. J. Anderson Caribbean Society and Popular Music. McGraw-Hill Custom College Series, New York, 1996; ?Television and the Americanization of the Trinbagonian Youth: A Study of Six Secondary Schools. In H. S. Dunn Globalization, Communications, and Cultural Identity. Ian Randle Publishers, Kingston, Jamaica, 1996;? Television and the Cultural Environment in Trinidad and Tobago: A Need for Policy. Bulletin of Eastern Caribbean Affairs. Vol. 20, No. 4, Dec. 1995, ?Intimidation of? Calypsonians by the UNC Government of Trinidad and Tobago. Proud Flesh: New Afrikan Journal of Culture, Politics & Consciousness, Issue 3, 2004. http:www.proudfleshjournal.com. While at Creighton University, Dr. Lashley received a Faculty Research Grant in 1995, which enabled her to be part of a delegation of U.S. academics and media practitioners on a study mission to China, organized by the U.S. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication (AEJMC).? The delegation called on universities in Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou, to investigate journalism/mass communication curricula, visited Xinhua, the national news agency, and media houses in the three cities.? She did a research presentation, "Developmental Journalism Alive? - A Content Analysis of the China Daily." 18th National Third World Studies Conference, University of Nebraska, Omaha, Nebraska, October, 1995,?? two lectures, "Women and Contemporary China." Guest Speaker, League of Women Voters, International Relations Meeting, Omaha, Nebraska, December, 1994, and "A Look at China in 1994." Guest Speaker, Women's Network, Creighton University, Omaha, Nebraska, November, 1994. Dr. Lashley received a Faculty Research Grant from Indiana University, South Bend, and was a delegate on a similar AEJMC study mission to South Africa in 2004.? The delegation visited and examined the journalism/mass communication curricula at universities in Johannesburg, and Cape Town, and media houses in those cities.? She was tasked with examining the status of black practitioners in South Africa, ten years after the fall of apartheid.? This resulted in the publication, ?The Role of an NGO in the Training of Media Practitioners in Post-Apartheid South Africa.? African Growth and Opportunity Act Civil Society Network Newsletter. Vol. 1, Issue 5, June 2004,?? two lectures, ?The Status of Black Practitioners in the Media of Post-Apartheid South Africa,? sponsored by the Media? Association of Trinidad and Tobago,? Port of Spain, Trinidad, August, 2004, and ?Impressions of the Media of? Post-Apartheid South Africa.?? Pan African Students? Union Forum, Indiana University South Bend, Indiana, April 2004. In 2010, Dr. Lashley retired from academia, after the Trinidad and Tobago Government under Prime Minister Patrick Manning, solicited and hired her as Special Technical Adviser to the Minister of Information.? During her tenure there, she produced the ?Guide to Strategic Communication?, a manual which is used for communication purposes by all ?Communications personnel of the various Ministries of the government.?? Dr. Lashley?s work continues to be cited in many academic, and non-academic publications and lecture presentations.?? On January 12, 2014, in an address at Queens Hall, Port of Spain, on the occasion of the National Action Cultural Committee?s 26th Annual Top 20 Stars of Gold and Calypso of the Year Ceremony, the Honourable the Chief Justice of the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago, Justice Ivor Archie, quoted several excerpts from her work on the calypso and political commentary. Since her retirement, Dr. Lashley has been doing periodical assignments with the Broward County Public Schools, Florida.? She also serves as External Examiner/Reader for theses and dissertations in Mass Communication/Communication at various universities, and writes cultural communication-related articles for Trinidad and Tobago newspapers. [ CLICK HERE to view Academic Resume ] SCHOOL SUPPLIES FOR HAITIAN CHILDREN PROJECT ? Update and Reminder Students of Cornell University and Ohio University are partnering to create a project that accompanies the Caribbean Studies Association conference in Haiti by putting together school supplies that will go to the children of Deleard. The purpose of the Black Student Cultural Programming Board (BSCPB) at Ohio University is to provide social, cultural, educational, and recreational programs for African American and other multicultural students. BSCPB seeks to expose others to the culture, thoughts, and perspectives of African American and multicultural students. Our mission runs throughout Ohio University, as well as throughout Athens, Ohio. The goal is to serve as a resource for the empowerment of the cultural programming at Ohio University. The Board is housed with the diversity department at Ohio University. The diversity found at the school provides opportunities for youth to develop into future leaders of a diverse world. We believe that embracing diversity promotes creativity and innovation. We understand that developing countries face high unemployment, heavy debt burdens, and trade constraints, all of which hinder sustained growth and social well?being. Our goals are empowerment, growth, and social well?being. Education is the most important tool to achieve these goals. Additionally, children who complete primary education are more likely to end the cycle of poverty in their generation. Education increases confidence, enabling students to become self?sufficient, and fully contributing members of their communities. So when the Caribbean Studies Association presented the opportunity for the Board to partner with a school for the children of Deleard, BSCPB seized it. Ujamaa is the Black Cultural Residential hub at Cornell University. We believe that it is essential that Ujamaa and its community members play a vital role in providing assistance to people of Afrikan descent no matter where we are located. Ujamaa Residential College will serve as the central collecting location for the gathering of supplies for Haiti?s elementary students. Once students have completed the gathering of supplies, the supplies will accompany us on our journey to Haiti for the 41st Caribbean Studies Association Conference, which will include delivering the supplies to the De'leard School. We are working with the Haitian Students Association at Cornell in this project and they are actively developing projects to collect school supplies. We invite you to contribute by also bringing supplies for elementary school children that will go in the cinch packs provided by Ohio University. We are planning to produce 150 bags. Winsome Chunnu Brayda, Ohio University Marcus Scales, Cornell University Copyright ? 2015 Caribbean Studies Association. All rights reserved. Contact email: secretariat@caribbeanstudiesassociation.org ? From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Apr 16 14:14:44 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 07:14:44 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Downtown of Language Message-ID: Robert Brandom, who seems so very close to the "lingualist" interpretation of Vygotsky in so many ways, argues that "language does have a downtown". I take it that what he means is that, contrary to what Wittgenstein and others have argued, it is not a "motley" but a city: it has outskirts where language and non-language are clearly interspersed (the "activity" reading of Vygotsky might be considered a "suburban" version), but it is essentially defined by its urban centre: making assertive claims that "things are thus and so" and then backing them up, in the face of "why" questions with reasons. It's a good guess for his purposes: he wants to solve the "LED" questions: how does language LEVERAGE all of the behaviors of which humans are capable and non-humans are not, how does this apparently human-specific ability EMERGE, and what DEMARCATES linguistic from non-linguistic abilities. If the downtown of language really is experiential ideation, that is, making claims about the ways of the world and answering the whys that inevitably follow, then language leverages behaviour in much the same was as a socially shared extrasensory perception would, it emerges in the way any cultural representation/transformation of nature would, and it is demarcated from the surrounding nature rather as an architecture is rather than as a framed picture is. But it's very intellectualistic. This year I am taking a course in the history of linguistics that begins essentially with Plato and Aristotle walking out of the Academy of Athens in Rafael's painting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_School_of_Athens Plato points upwards towards the eternal abstract rational, but Aristotle waves his hand, palm outstretched in many directions, towards the fleeting future concrete, the downtowns of language. Last year at this time I was TEACHING a course in the history of TESOL--the branch of linguistics that is concerned with getting people from one downtown of language to another. I was trying to argue that actually most people in the history of TESOL were just like you and me: they were busy staying alive in the bitter sea. I started with this painting, by Francois Dubois, of the Saint Bartholomew's Day Massacre (there is some argument about whether he painted this from memory or not; my feeling is that it is just too accurate to be based on hearsay): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_Dubois#/media/File:Francois_Dubois_001.jpg Within a few years of this massacre, every tenth Englishman was a Frenchman--and having literally nothing else to sell, the business of language teaching was founded by Huguenot refugees living in Britain. The survivors of the massacre disguised themselves as Catholics, set up Jansenist monasteries, and started producing the first rationalist-naturalist grammars of English (as opposed to the empiricist-humanist ones favoured by mainstream Catholics, with their emphasis on merciless repression tempered by human forgiveness). But perhaps even this is not the right starting place. Perhaps the real core of the rationalist naturalist approach, the idea that every utterance and even every word is made of interchangeable parts, like a Model T Ford (or a terracotta soldier), started with Gutenberg. The one thing we probably can say is that the downtown of language is not to be found near its origins, and if Brandom is right about the downtown of language with respect to demarcation-leverage (I find it hard to demarcate these two questions as he does) then we need to look askance with respect to emergence. David Kellogg Macquarie University. teaching English I was , and the you Last year I taught a course in the history of TESOL which took as its point of departure the idea that city does from a countryside, and it is demarcated from that countryside int eh same way. n answer to all three claims that is both naturalist and emerge, it helps him give what he calls a "rationalist response to the demarcation" From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 17 08:54:18 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 08:54:18 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Brandom Extended Message-ID: <5713b1b3.9b59620a.be41b.ffffaad5@mx.google.com> David, Your metaphor of downtown city and architecture not being picture frames I found intriguing but I will require more con/text to follow in more than an impressionistic way. I happen to be reading an article by Robert Pippin that is exploring similar themes. Pippin says that he is making a case for a Hegelian shareable *I-We* relation extending beyond Bransom?s *I-Thou* relation of idiodects. Is this the contrast between dwelling within architectural places rather than within picture frames? Now for the con/text in which this claim is embedded is this quote: ? Arguments for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often make the mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense or modes of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way *as if* something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous can *break* through it. As it has been put in many contemporary contexts, one source of the confusion is the temptation to think in terms of conceptual schemes and a separable, otherwise neutral, non-conceptual content that is conceptualized by such a scheme. The temptation is to think of an in principal neutral or indeterminate content or world in itself the accessibility of which is a matter of applying a scheme to such a content and so ending up with something *less* than the world in itself, but rather the world only as so finitely appropriated. Hegel is among the parties denying such a scheme-content distinction, although he is certainly not denying that there can be different, sometimes quite different, aspectual takes on the world. The point of this self-negating language is to distinguish this possible partiality of a *shape of spirit* from the idea of some putatively radical, alternative conceptual scheme, and this view about the *inherently* possible self-negating aspect of such a *shape* is meant to stress what Gadamer calls the *openness* of linguistic horizons to each other.? Pippin at this point adds a footnote # 7 ?Besides being right (in my view anyway) about the set of Friedman, Gadamer, and Davidson issues, McDowell also broaches the question of what we need to say is *shareable* by a linguistic community in order for this mutual intelligibility and integration to succeed and suggests the beginning of what I would regard as a Hegelian case for the indispensability of an *I-We* relation beyond the *I-Thou* priority argued for by Bransom and, in effect, by Davidson on the priority of idiolects.? If asked I can send the article. Larry Sent from my Windows 10 phone From glassman.13@osu.edu Sun Apr 17 13:38:10 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2016 20:38:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Collaboration Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hello all, I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some research around language (being able to create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for collaboration kind of dangerous. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf Michael From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 17 14:44:23 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:44:23 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Brandom Extended In-Reply-To: <5713b1b3.9b59620a.be41b.ffffaad5@mx.google.com> References: <5713b1b3.9b59620a.be41b.ffffaad5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Larry: It wasn't my metaphor, actually: it was Brandom's. Here's the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJXibuBSotc Brandom (not to be confused with Richard Bransom!) is pretty dense for me; I found it easier to print out Brandom's speech and read it: http://lms.ff.uhk.cz/pool/download_14.pdf? But that misses out on the Q & A which would also be worth reading. My complaint is that it's all a little bloodless: it doesn't give me the sense that cities are full of struggle, and that even the disagreements we have about what things are thus and so and why, the things which Brandom claims are "downtown", are often, when we look more closely, about how things WILL be or SHOULD be rather than how they actually are, and involve conflicts of material interests. It seems to me that if you want to get from the suburbs to downtown, that is the way to go. Brandom's "downtown" is really an ivory tower; a material walled city. Mine is more like the "downtown" of that moped song: She has her arms around your waist With a balance that could keep us safe Downtown, downtown It's all about getting from the suburbs (that is, the areas where language and non-language exists side by side, as in everyday conversation) into the downtown of language (where one is confronted by pure text, as in the case of this 'discussion' list) and back to the burbs, safely, and with the least possible expenditure of intellectual resources on the means of transportation so that you can expend at least some of that energy on your companions. And that brings me to your quote. As you can see, I'm really a painter and not an intellectual at all: I find it very hard to think in abstractions, and I can't even figure out the grammar of the first sentence: "Arguments for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often make the mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense or modes of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way *as if* something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous can *break* through it." This is the kind of thing that slows me down, Larry; when philosophers talk about language they really make no more sense than when linguists talk about philosophy. What does it mean to think of modes of sense making '"as if" (it is?) something one can get trapped inside of'? Isn't making sense precisely NOT being trapped inside of the mode of sense making? How can you make sense WITHOUT breaking through to something or somebody "exogenous" (presumably this means exogenous to language, although it's pretty hard to tell)! Ruqaiya Hasan argues a lot for an "internal" view of language, where meaning is essentially within language itself and not a relation with material reality, including sapient minds and sentient meat. This internalist view too is a walled city to me; I can see no gate to its downtown that isn't triply portcullised. It is like saying that the meaning of a painting is in the paint (Jackson Pollack might have thought that was true, but he is dead and his paintings are now selling for millions of dollars to people who appear to completely disagree). I think I prefer to think of language as a moped, a means of communication that you can pedal (as when we use language in an ancillary way, to access goods and services which are not irreducibly language) or which pedals itself (as when we use language to exchange 'information' in the form of more language). Sure, most of us will use the motor most of the time; that's what modernity means these days, and besides that's the only way to access MY downtown, which is not how things are but rather how they would be and how they could be and how they should be. But it would nevertheless be a mistake to assume that the motor is all there is, because then there's no way to start the damn thing up. David Kellogg Macquarie University On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > David, > Your metaphor of downtown city and architecture not being picture frames I > found intriguing but I will require more con/text to follow in more than > an impressionistic way. > > I happen to be reading an article by Robert Pippin that is exploring > similar themes. Pippin says that he is making a case for a Hegelian > shareable *I-We* relation extending beyond Bransom?s *I-Thou* relation of > idiodects. Is this the contrast between dwelling within architectural > places rather than within picture frames? > > Now for the con/text in which this claim is embedded is this quote: > ? Arguments for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often > make the mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense > or modes of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way *as > if* something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous can > *break* through it. As it has been put in many contemporary contexts, one > source of the confusion is the temptation to think in terms of conceptual > schemes and a separable, otherwise neutral, non-conceptual content that is > conceptualized by such a scheme. The temptation is to think of an in > principal neutral or indeterminate content or world in itself the > accessibility of which is a matter of applying a scheme to such a content > and so ending up with something *less* than the world in itself, but rather > the world only as so finitely appropriated. Hegel is among the parties > denying such a scheme-content distinction, although he is certainly not > denying that there can be different, sometimes quite different, aspectual > takes on the world. The point of this self-negating language is to > distinguish this possible partiality of a *shape of spirit* from the idea > of some putatively radical, alternative conceptual scheme, and this view > about the *inherently* possible self-negating aspect of such a *shape* is > meant to stress what Gadamer calls the *openness* of linguistic horizons to > each other.? > > Pippin at this point adds a footnote # 7 > ?Besides being right (in my view anyway) about the set of Friedman, > Gadamer, and Davidson issues, McDowell also broaches the question of what > we need to say is *shareable* by a linguistic community in order for this > mutual intelligibility and integration to succeed and suggests the > beginning of what I would regard as a Hegelian case for the > indispensability of an *I-We* relation beyond the *I-Thou* priority argued > for by Bransom and, in effect, by Davidson on the priority of idiolects.? > > If asked I can send the article. > Larry > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 17 18:09:58 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 11:09:58 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer some observations. Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the possibility of difference. Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to Collaboration. Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the object changes. Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) students work independently because they are physically or organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer collaboration. And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one another. And the same goes for students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. Does that help, Michael? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hello all, > > I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some research around language (being able to > create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for collaboration kind of dangerous. > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > Michael > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Apr 18 05:33:01 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 12:33:01 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Andy, Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking about the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence or Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has been a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration at a number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be looking to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work against a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. But what do we mean by conflict. Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another loaded phrase). We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is one thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So can ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being adversarial with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet still work together to accomplish important things, or is this cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or perhaps I am not grasping? The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? Thoughts running around my head. MIchael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer some observations. Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the possibility of difference. Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to Collaboration. Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the object changes. Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) students work independently because they are physically or organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer collaboration. And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one another. And the same goes for students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. Does that help, Michael? Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hello all, > > I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some research around language (being able to > create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for collaboration kind of dangerous. > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabora > tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > Michael > > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Apr 18 05:57:24 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:57:24 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do anything about that! But the issue of *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in which conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly not worthy of the name. That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a collaboration, and at the same time can be moderated so successfully that it is positively enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is marriage, so we all know what this is about. Managing conflict is the most essential element of collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking about the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence or Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). > > But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has been a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration at a number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > > I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be looking to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work against a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. > > So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. But what do we mean by conflict. > > Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another loaded phrase). > > We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is one thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So can ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being adversarial with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet still work together to accomplish important things, or is this cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or perhaps I am not grasping? > > The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? > > Thoughts running around my head. > > MIchael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer some observations. > > Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the possibility of difference. > > Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). > > Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to Collaboration. > > Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the object changes. > Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. > > In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) students work independently because they are physically or organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer collaboration. > > And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. > Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one another. And the same goes for > students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. > > Does that help, Michael? > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some research around language (being able to >> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for collaboration kind of dangerous. >> >> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabora >> tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >> >> Michael >> >> From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Apr 18 07:25:07 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 07:25:07 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> Message-ID: <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> Andy, This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to multiple aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field of shared (and conflictual) meanings. Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then travels to distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is moving towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* that remain always *open to change* but within a continuing commitment/collaboration. Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Andy Blunden Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do anything about that! But the issue of *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in which conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly not worthy of the name. That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a collaboration, and at the same time can be moderated so successfully that it is positively enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is marriage, so we all know what this is about. Managing conflict is the most essential element of collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking about the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence or Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). > > But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has been a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration at a number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > > I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be looking to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work against a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. > > So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. But what do we mean by conflict. > > Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another loaded phrase). > > We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is one thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So can ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being adversarial with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet still work together to accomplish important things, or is this cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or perhaps I am not grasping? > > The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? > > Thoughts running around my head. > > MIchael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer some observations. > > Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the possibility of difference. > > Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). > > Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to Collaboration. > > Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the object changes. > Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. > > In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) students work independently because they are physically or organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer collaboration. > > And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. > Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one another. And the same goes for > students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. > > Does that help, Michael? > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some research around language (being able to >> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for collaboration kind of dangerous. >> >> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabora >> tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >> >> Michael >> >> From glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Apr 18 08:01:19 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:01:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Larry and Andy, This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I might bring in a little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, marriage is a strong tie relationships. Individuals make a commitment to it, as Larry says, so that the relationship is sustainable through even adversarial conflict, or does not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But most collaborations, especially those that lead to problem solving, are based in weak tie networks. Do we want to say that weak ties networks can only lead to cooperation. Isn't there something to collaboration that allows individuals without a prior or even sustainable relationship to come together to create change through evolutionary disagreement that does not engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it something else. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Andy, This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to multiple aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field of shared (and conflictual) meanings. Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then travels to distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is moving towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* that remain always *open to change* but within a continuing commitment/collaboration. Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Andy Blunden Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do anything about that! But the issue of *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in which conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly not worthy of the name. That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a collaboration, and at the same time can be moderated so successfully that it is positively enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is marriage, so we all know what this is about. Managing conflict is the most essential element of collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking about the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence or Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). > > But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has been a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration at a number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > > I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be looking to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work against a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. > > So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. But what do we mean by conflict. > > Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another loaded phrase). > > We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is one thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So can ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being adversarial with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet still work together to accomplish important things, or is this cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or perhaps I am not grasping? > > The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? > > Thoughts running around my head. > > MIchael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer some observations. > > Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the possibility of difference. > > Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). > > Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to Collaboration. > > Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the object changes. > Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. > > In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) students work independently because they are physically or organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer collaboration. > > And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. > Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students > to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one > another. And the same goes for > students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. > > Does that help, Michael? > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Hello all, >> >> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some research around language (being able to >> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for collaboration kind of dangerous. >> >> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor >> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >> >> Michael >> >> From ablunden@mira.net Mon Apr 18 08:32:28 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 01:32:28 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different directions. But I think the conflict is an essential part of collaboration. Collaboration is unity and difference. Both are required or there is no collaboration. The "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of collaboration is trivial as well. And the learning is trivial. I take collaboration as essentially between distinct, i,e, mutually independent subjects. If two people who are clones of each other work together on the same task, since their every thought is identical there is no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, carrying out orders from the same boss, work together, I don't see this as collaboration. But these are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have differences relevant to the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine division of labour (which I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or suppressed, there has to be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Larry and Andy, > > This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I might bring in a little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, marriage is a strong tie relationships. Individuals make a commitment to it, as Larry says, so that the relationship is sustainable through even adversarial conflict, or does not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But most collaborations, especially those that lead to problem solving, are based in weak tie networks. Do we want to say that weak ties networks can only lead to cooperation. Isn't there something to collaboration that allows individuals without a prior or even sustainable relationship to come together to create change through evolutionary disagreement that does not engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it something else. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > Andy, > This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to multiple aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. > To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field of shared (and conflictual) meanings. > Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then travels to distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is moving towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* that remain always *open to change* but within a continuing commitment/collaboration. > > Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Andy Blunden > Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do anything about that! But the issue of > *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in which conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly not worthy of the name. > > That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a collaboration, and at the same time can be moderated so successfully that it is positively enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is marriage, so we all know what this is about. Managing conflict is the most essential element of collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. > > This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> Hi Andy, >> >> Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking about the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence or Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). >> >> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has been a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration at a number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. >> >> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be looking to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work against a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. >> >> So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. But what do we mean by conflict. >> >> Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another loaded phrase). >> >> We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is one thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So can ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being adversarial with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet still work together to accomplish important things, or is this cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or perhaps I am not grasping? >> >> The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? >> >> Thoughts running around my head. >> >> MIchael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM >> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >> >> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer some observations. >> >> Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). >> >> There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the possibility of difference. >> >> Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). >> >> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to Collaboration. >> >> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the object changes. >> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. >> >> In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) students work independently because they are physically or organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer collaboration. >> >> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. >> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students >> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one >> another. And the same goes for >> students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. >> >> Does that help, Michael? >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> Hello all, >>> >>> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some research around language (being able > to >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for collaboration kind of dangerous. >>> >>> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor >>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> > > > From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Apr 18 15:28:04 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 15:28:04 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Message-ID: Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this discussion. I attach one article. Interesting title, too. mike On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different directions. But I > think the conflict is an essential part of collaboration. Collaboration is > unity and difference. Both are required or there is no collaboration. The > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of collaboration is trivial > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > I take collaboration as essentially between distinct, i,e, mutually > independent subjects. If two people who are clones of each other work > together on the same task, since their every thought is identical there is > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, carrying out orders from > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as collaboration. But these > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have differences relevant to > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine division of labour (which > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or suppressed, there has to > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> Hi Larry and Andy, >> >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I might bring in a >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, marriage is a strong tie >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to it, as Larry says, so that >> the relationship is sustainable through even adversarial conflict, or does >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But most collaborations, >> especially those that lead to problem solving, are based in weak tie >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties networks can only lead to >> cooperation. Isn't there something to collaboration that allows >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable relationship to come >> together to create change through evolutionary disagreement that does not >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it something else. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM >> To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity < >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >> >> Andy, >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to multiple >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field of >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. >> Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then travels to >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. >> >> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is moving >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* that remain >> always *open to change* but within a continuing commitment/collaboration. >> >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: Andy Blunden >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >> >> The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do >> anything about that! But the issue of >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in which >> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly not worthy of >> the name. >> >> That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a collaboration, >> and at the same time can be moderated so successfully that it is positively >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is marriage, so we all know what >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most essential element of >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. >> >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >>> Hi Andy, >>> >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking about >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence or >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). >>> >>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has been >>> a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration at a >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction >>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while >>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see >>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. >>> >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be looking >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work against >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does Alfie >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. >>> >>> So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. >>> But what do we mean by conflict. >>> >>> Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their >>> solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another >>> loaded phrase). >>> >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is one >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So can >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being adversarial >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet >>> still work together to accomplish important things, or is this >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or >>> perhaps I am not grasping? >>> >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for >>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? >>> >>> Thoughts running around my head. >>> >>> MIchael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer >>> some observations. >>> >>> Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). >>> >>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration >>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of >>> collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery >>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the >>> possibility of difference. >>> >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the >>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service >>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). >>> >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship >>> usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other >>> hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to >>> Collaboration. >>> >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the >>> object changes. >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. >>> >>> In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) >>> students work independently because they are physically or organisationally >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer >>> collaboration. >>> >>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate >>> students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one >>> another. And the same goes for >>> students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. >>> >>> Does that help, Michael? >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is >>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework >>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some >>>> research around language (being able >>>> >>> to >> >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the >>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. >>>> >>>> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Tom.cooperation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 146153 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160418/d1fe22fe/attachment.pdf From helen.harper@bigpond.com Mon Apr 18 16:19:07 2016 From: helen.harper@bigpond.com (Helen Harper) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 08:49:07 +0930 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Message-ID: I?m not sure where the notion of distributed cognition fits in here. Is it relevant? Has anyone done any work linking collaboration, distributed cognition and educational practice? Helen > On 19 Apr 2016, at 7:58 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this discussion. I attach > one article. Interesting title, too. > mike > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different directions. But I >> think the conflict is an essential part of collaboration. Collaboration is >> unity and difference. Both are required or there is no collaboration. The >> "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of collaboration is trivial >> as well. And the learning is trivial. >> >> I take collaboration as essentially between distinct, i,e, mutually >> independent subjects. If two people who are clones of each other work >> together on the same task, since their every thought is identical there is >> no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, carrying out orders from >> the same boss, work together, I don't see this as collaboration. But these >> are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have differences relevant to >> the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine division of labour (which >> I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or suppressed, there has to >> be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >>> Hi Larry and Andy, >>> >>> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I might bring in a >>> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, marriage is a strong tie >>> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to it, as Larry says, so that >>> the relationship is sustainable through even adversarial conflict, or does >>> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But most collaborations, >>> especially those that lead to problem solving, are based in weak tie >>> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties networks can only lead to >>> cooperation. Isn't there something to collaboration that allows >>> individuals without a prior or even sustainable relationship to come >>> together to create change through evolutionary disagreement that does not >>> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it something else. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry >>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM >>> To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity < >>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> Andy, >>> This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of >>> collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to multiple >>> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. >>> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field of >>> shared (and conflictual) meanings. >>> Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then travels to >>> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. >>> >>> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is moving >>> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* that remain >>> always *open to change* but within a continuing commitment/collaboration. >>> >>> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of >>> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>> >>> From: Andy Blunden >>> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of >>> definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do >>> anything about that! But the issue of >>> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in which >>> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly not worthy of >>> the name. >>> >>> That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a collaboration, >>> and at the same time can be moderated so successfully that it is positively >>> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is marriage, so we all know what >>> this is about. Managing conflict is the most essential element of >>> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. >>> >>> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Andy, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of >>>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking about >>>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence or >>>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). >>>> >>>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has been >>>> a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration at a >>>> number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction >>>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so >>>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while >>>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see >>>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is >>>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I >>>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. >>>> >>>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be >>>> antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be looking >>>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work against >>>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does Alfie >>>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. >>>> >>>> So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of >>>> collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as >>>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. >>>> But what do we mean by conflict. >>>> >>>> Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the >>>> abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their >>>> solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another >>>> loaded phrase). >>>> >>>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is one >>>> thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So can >>>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being adversarial >>>> with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet >>>> still work together to accomplish important things, or is this >>>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or >>>> perhaps I am not grasping? >>>> >>>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for >>>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? >>>> >>>> Thoughts running around my head. >>>> >>>> MIchael >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM >>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>>> >>>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer >>>> some observations. >>>> >>>> Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together >>>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change >>>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). >>>> >>>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration >>>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the >>>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both >>>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of >>>> collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite >>>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery >>>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or >>>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the >>>> possibility of difference. >>>> >>>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct >>>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the >>>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting >>>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of >>>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service >>>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) >>>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). >>>> >>>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship >>>> usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other >>>> hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the >>>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to >>>> Collaboration. >>>> >>>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue >>>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means >>>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the >>>> object changes. >>>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of >>>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. >>>> >>>> In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) >>>> students work independently because they are physically or organisationally >>>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the >>>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already >>>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their >>>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the >>>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a >>>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of >>>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer >>>> collaboration. >>>> >>>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about >>>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration >>>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate >>>> students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. >>>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students >>>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one >>>> another. And the same goes for >>>> students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. >>>> >>>> Does that help, Michael? >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do >>>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is >>>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first >>>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework >>>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and >>>>> more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but >>>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue >>>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning >>>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. >>>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey >>>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway >>>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I >>>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some >>>>> research around language (being able >>>>> >>>> to >>> >>>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the >>>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could >>>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for >>>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor >>>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Mon Apr 18 16:32:27 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:32:27 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Message-ID: I can find few to no instances where work and activity are not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. It seems much of this discussion centers around work we choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do this work while playing well with others. So if conflict is central to collaboration it would therefore have to be central to work. Centering success and change as the result of conflict has never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant discourse or view on the world. Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those be the poles of collaboration? I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even though my first real publication was on the development of these instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the recent assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so called 21st century skills are better measured and developed in the spaces of learning rather than the learner. And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of collaboration. Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational communities who harness a collective knowledge base that was never before possible due to limits of time and distance...including this listserv. So collaboration... I like that, but testing collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole wrote: > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this discussion. I attach > one article. Interesting title, too. > mike > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different directions. But I > > think the conflict is an essential part of collaboration. Collaboration > is > > unity and difference. Both are required or there is no collaboration. The > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of collaboration is > trivial > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between distinct, i,e, mutually > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones of each other work > > together on the same task, since their every thought is identical there > is > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, carrying out orders from > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as collaboration. But > these > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have differences relevant > to > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine division of labour > (which > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or suppressed, there has to > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > >> > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I might bring in a > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, marriage is a strong > tie > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to it, as Larry says, so > that > >> the relationship is sustainable through even adversarial conflict, or > does > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But most collaborations, > >> especially those that lead to problem solving, are based in weak tie > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties networks can only lead to > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to collaboration that allows > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable relationship to come > >> together to create change through evolutionary disagreement that does > not > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it something else. > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > >> To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > < > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > >> > >> Andy, > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to multiple > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field of > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then travels > to > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > >> > >> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is moving > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* that remain > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > commitment/collaboration. > >> > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Andy Blunden > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > >> > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do > >> anything about that! But the issue of > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in which > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly not worthy > of > >> the name. > >> > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a collaboration, > >> and at the same time can be moderated so successfully that it is > positively > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is marriage, so we all know > what > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most essential element of > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating > it. > >> > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. > >> > >> Andy > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Andy, > >>> > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking > about > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence > or > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are > critical). > >>> > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has > been > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration > at a > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs > - so > >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think > see > >>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > >>> > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be > looking > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work > against > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does > Alfie > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. > >>> > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > >>> > >>> Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another > >>> loaded phrase). > >>> > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is > one > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So > can > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being > adversarial > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet > >>> still work together to accomplish important things, or is this > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > >>> > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for > >>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or > innovation? > >>> > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > >>> > >>> MIchael > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > >>> > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer > >>> some observations. > >>> > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to > change > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > >>> > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration > >>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves > both > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery > >>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, > or > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the > >>> possibility of difference. > >>> > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are > "limiting > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as > customer-service > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence > throughout) > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). > >>> > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the > other > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient > to > >>> Collaboration. > >>> > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration > means > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of > the > >>> object changes. > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. > >>> > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) > >>> students work independently because they are physically or > organisationally > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by > the > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are > already > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that > their > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer > >>> collaboration. > >>> > >>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that > Collaboration > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate > >>> students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one > >>> another. And the same goes for > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. > >>> > >>> Does that help, Michael? > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> *Andy Blunden* > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hello all, > >>>> > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is > >>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At > first > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the > framework > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more > and > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based > research, but > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into > vogue > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore > meaning > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky > (e.g. > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure > Dewey > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). > Anyway > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some > >>>> research around language (being able > >>>> > >>> to > >> > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you > could > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > >>>> > >>>> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > >>>> > >>>> Michael > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Apr 18 16:55:11 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 09:55:11 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Message-ID: <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted in a male dominant discourse or view on the world" something like "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is destructive of collaboration. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > I can find few to no instances where work and activity are > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do this > work while playing well with others. > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > therefore have to be central to work. > > Centering success and change as the result of conflict has > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > discourse or view on the world. > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those be the > poles of collaboration? > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even though my > first real publication was on the development of these > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the recent > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > called 21st century skills are better measured and > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the learner. > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > collaboration. > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > was never before possible due to limits of time and > distance...including this listserv. > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > wrote: > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this > discussion. I attach > one article. Interesting title, too. > mike > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different > directions. But I > > think the conflict is an essential part of > collaboration. Collaboration is > > unity and difference. Both are required or there is > no collaboration. The > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > collaboration is trivial > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > distinct, i,e, mutually > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > of each other work > > together on the same task, since their every thought > is identical there is > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > carrying out orders from > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > collaboration. But these > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > differences relevant to > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > division of labour (which > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > suppressed, there has to > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > >> > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I > might bring in a > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, > marriage is a strong tie > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > it, as Larry says, so that > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > adversarial conflict, or does > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > most collaborations, > >> especially those that lead to problem solving, are > based in weak tie > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > networks can only lead to > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > collaboration that allows > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > relationship to come > >> together to create change through evolutionary > disagreement that does not > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it > something else. > >> > >> Michael > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > [mailto: > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On Behalf Of > Lplarry > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > >> To: Andy Blunden >; eXtended Mind, Culture, > Activity < > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > >> > >> Andy, > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > archetype of > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > collaboration to multiple > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us > into a vast field of > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > imaginal and then travels to > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > >> > >> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as > marriage) is moving > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > relations* that remain > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > commitment/collaboration. > >> > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging > the concept of > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > meaningful. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > >> > >> From: Andy Blunden > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > >> > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > choose the set of > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > developing. Can't do > >> anything about that! But the issue of > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > collaboration in which > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is > certainly not worthy of > >> the name. > >> > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > destroy a collaboration, > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > successfully that it is positively > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > marriage, so we all know what > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > essential element of > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as > well as moderating it. > >> > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > question. > >> > >> Andy > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> *Andy Blunden* > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> > >>> Hi Andy, > >>> > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > aside the issue of > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex > (are we talking about > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > Artificial Intelligence or > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > distinctions are critical). > >>> > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling > with. There has been > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > cooperation and collaboration at a > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > Stephen Downes' distinction > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work > for your own needs - so > >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning > community, while > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > community. Others I think see > >>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning > while cooperation is > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > action towards a goal. I > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > >>> > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > think would be > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > collaboration, they seem to be looking > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > also seems to work against > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of > education. Does Alfie > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say > about conflict. > >>> > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working together > visions of > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > conflict, as > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > collaboration might make sense. > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > >>> > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > collaborative group or is it the > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > conflict between their > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > them (I know, another > >>> loaded phrase). > >>> > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > adversarial. If there is one > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > non-adversarial in nature. So can > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > those being adversarial > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > to each other and yet > >>> still work together to accomplish important > things, or is this > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > hasn't been defined, or > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > >>> > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > really no mechanism for > >>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for > change or innovation? > >>> > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > >>> > >>> MIchael > >>> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On Behalf Of > Andy Blunden > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > >>> > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > Michael, so I'll offer > >>> some observations. > >>> > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > specifically working together > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > working together to change > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > >>> > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference > between Collaboration > >>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much > of this is in the > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > essentially involves both > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > form or aspect of > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > towards two opposite > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > therefore has a slippery > >>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > object worked upon, or > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > incorporate the > >>> possibility of difference. > >>> > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > together of distinct > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves > a merging of the > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, > but there are "limiting > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > include an exchange of > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > (such as customer-service > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual > independence throughout) > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > subordinated to another). > >>> > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > working relationship > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > Collaboration on the other > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > attitude towards the > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an > essential ingredient to > >>> Collaboration. > >>> > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent > that one could argue > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > process. So Collaboration means > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > because the /concept /of the > >>> object changes. > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) > in the process of > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. > >>> > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > development in which (1) > >>> students work independently because they are > physically or organisationally > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is > then facilitated by the > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > Students who are already > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > between them so that their > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > mediated only by the > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > Collaboration mediated by a > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > mean the undermining of > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to > avoid closer > >>> collaboration. > >>> > >>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy > has heard a bit about > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > process, and that Collaboration > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they > have to separate > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > they can collaborate. > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > equipment to allow students > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > separated from one > >>> another. And the same goes for > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > management+workers, etc. > >>> > >>> Does that help, Michael? > >>> Andy > >>> > >>> > ------------------------------------------------------------ > >>> *Andy Blunden* > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hello all, > >>>> > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > willing to respond. How do > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > question is that PISA is > >>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration > internationally. At first > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is > happening, the framework > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration > is being used more and > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > computer/web based research, but > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > word only came into vogue > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > together and labore meaning > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although > I am kind of sure Dewey > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > I might be wrong). Anyway > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a > very simplistic way I > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I > know there was some > >>>> research around language (being able > >>>> > >>> to > >> > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it > seems to miss the > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it > with. I guess you could > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > creating a test for > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > >>>> > >>>> > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > >>>> > >>>> Michael > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Apr 18 17:23:33 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 00:23:33 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73345@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Helen, To my reading modern distributed cognition, or at least distributed networks are central to interest in collaboration. This is because in a distributed network there is no central storehouse of knowledge/expertise. Each of the nodes in the network are equal and links are horizontal and bidirectional. This leads to possibilities for individuals working together rather than working with each other. If you go back to the original network designs by Paul Baran that started all this (and I know this is not a new idea in human thought - I think Mike and Yrjo's article outlines how this is tied to a long line of thought in a really interesting way) the centralized networks are dependent on a major hub so there is no need to work together. The decentralized networks have a number of sub-hubs which allow for groups to work together but under the aegis of the local expert - perhaps cooperation? The distributed network is set up so each node has links to three or four other nodes that they work with on an equal basis, creating possibilities for collaboration - but is it actually something different. Michale -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helen Harper Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 7:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I?m not sure where the notion of distributed cognition fits in here. Is it relevant? Has anyone done any work linking collaboration, distributed cognition and educational practice? Helen > On 19 Apr 2016, at 7:58 AM, mike cole wrote: > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this discussion. I > attach one article. Interesting title, too. > mike > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different directions. But >> I think the conflict is an essential part of collaboration. >> Collaboration is unity and difference. Both are required or there is >> no collaboration. The "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment >> of collaboration is trivial as well. And the learning is trivial. >> >> I take collaboration as essentially between distinct, i,e, mutually >> independent subjects. If two people who are clones of each other work >> together on the same task, since their every thought is identical >> there is no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, carrying >> out orders from the same boss, work together, I don't see this as >> collaboration. But these are trivial limiting cases. All >> collaborators have differences relevant to the task at hand, and >> unless it is just a routine division of labour (which I call >> cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or suppressed, there has to be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >>> Hi Larry and Andy, >>> >>> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I might bring in a >>> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, marriage is a >>> strong tie relationships. Individuals make a commitment to it, as >>> Larry says, so that the relationship is sustainable through even >>> adversarial conflict, or does not collapse at the first sign of >>> conflict. But most collaborations, especially those that lead to >>> problem solving, are based in weak tie networks. Do we want to say >>> that weak ties networks can only lead to cooperation. Isn't there >>> something to collaboration that allows individuals without a prior >>> or even sustainable relationship to come together to create change >>> through evolutionary disagreement that does not engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it something else. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry >>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM >>> To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, >>> Activity < xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> Andy, >>> This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of >>> collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to >>> multiple aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. >>> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field >>> of shared (and conflictual) meanings. >>> Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then >>> travels to distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. >>> >>> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is >>> moving towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* >>> that remain always *open to change* but within a continuing commitment/collaboration. >>> >>> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of >>> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>> >>> From: Andy Blunden >>> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of >>> definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do >>> anything about that! But the issue of >>> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in >>> which conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly >>> not worthy of the name. >>> >>> That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a >>> collaboration, and at the same time can be moderated so successfully >>> that it is positively enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is >>> marriage, so we all know what this is about. Managing conflict is >>> the most essential element of collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. >>> >>> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. >>> >>> Andy >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Andy, >>>> >>>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of >>>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking >>>> about the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial >>>> Intelligence or Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). >>>> >>>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has >>>> been a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and >>>> collaboration at a number of levels. Right now I think I like >>>> Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in >>>> community work for your own needs - so you never really give >>>> yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves >>>> actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as >>>> the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply >>>> (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. >>>> >>>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be >>>> antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be >>>> looking to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems >>>> to work against a number of uses of collaboration in the field of >>>> education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. >>>> >>>> So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of >>>> collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as >>>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. >>>> But what do we mean by conflict. >>>> >>>> Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it >>>> the abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between >>>> their solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, >>>> another loaded phrase). >>>> >>>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there >>>> is one thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in >>>> nature. So can ideas be in conflict without individuals raising >>>> those being adversarial with each other. What if people are >>>> adversarial to each other and yet still work together to accomplish >>>> important things, or is this cooperation? Or is these another >>>> concept that hasn't been defined, or perhaps I am not grasping? >>>> >>>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism >>>> for change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? >>>> >>>> Thoughts running around my head. >>>> >>>> MIchael >>>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM >>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>>> >>>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll >>>> offer some observations. >>>> >>>> Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working >>>> together to a common object (aim). That generally entails working >>>> together to change an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). >>>> >>>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference between >>>> Collaboration and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of >>>> this is in the "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration >>>> essentially involves both cooperation and conflict. Conflict is >>>> also one form or aspect of collaboration, because the parties are >>>> working towards two opposite concepts of the same object. "Object" >>>> here therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean the >>>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or the Gegenstand, the >>>> object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the possibility of difference. >>>> >>>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct >>>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the >>>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are >>>> "limiting cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include >>>> an exchange of labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such >>>> as customer-service provider in which the subjects retain their >>>> mutual independence throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). >>>> >>>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship >>>> usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the >>>> other hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards >>>> the contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential >>>> ingredient to Collaboration. >>>> >>>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could >>>> argue that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So >>>> Collaboration means that the object (aim) of the labour changes, >>>> because the /concept /of the object changes. >>>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process >>>> of working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. >>>> >>>> In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) >>>> students work independently because they are physically or >>>> organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is >>>> then facilitated by the use of computer and communication >>>> equipment, (3) Students who are already face-to-face are obliged to >>>> introduce a computer between them so that their collaboration, >>>> instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the >>>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by >>>> a computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the >>>> undermining of Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer collaboration. >>>> >>>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit >>>> about the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that >>>> Collaboration requires equipment. So they get the idea that they >>>> have to separate students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. >>>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow >>>> students to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated >>>> from one another. And the same goes for >>>> students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. >>>> >>>> Does that help, Michael? >>>> Andy >>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How >>>>> do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that >>>>> PISA is developing a framework for testing collaboration >>>>> internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework >>>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and >>>>> more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based >>>>> research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word >>>>> only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col >>>>> meaning together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. >>>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure >>>>> Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be >>>>> wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a >>>>> very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not >>>>> helpful. I know there was some research around language (being >>>>> able >>>>> >>>> to >>> >>>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the >>>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess >>>>> you could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating >>>>> a test for collaboration kind of dangerous. >>>>> >>>>> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Colla >>>>> bor a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>> >> > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From schuckthemonkey@gmail.com Mon Apr 18 17:34:04 2016 From: schuckthemonkey@gmail.com (Christopher Schuck) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 20:34:04 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Message-ID: Hi, I'm brand new to this listserve and not necessarily well versed in the fields of education or communication, so I apologize if any of this post is redundant or irrelevant. I had a question about collaboration vs. communication and this essential core feature of difference or potential conflict. Would it be at all accurate to say that collaboration is also bounded in some sense by the parameters of a specific project or goal, that it adds an explicitly temporal dimension (e.g., does not continue indefinitely), whereas cooperation refers purely to the process of working "together" without speaking to the broader context of what this work represents or where it is going? It seems that one implication of what Andy is saying is that cooperation is less "ambitious" than collaboration, that it is more restricted or limited in some way. But must this be based on there being no meaningful differences between the cooperators, or might it lie in the degree of formality and structure characterizing the work being done and level of commitment required? Or, in the way any significant differences are regarded and incorporated? I find it interesting that in its ordinary use, "cooperation" (at least, to me) seems to connotes more of an initial tension between the parties involved or some idea of compromise (those who might otherwise be in conflict or disagreement "put aside their differences" for a larger goal, e.g. parties to the UN cooperate with a treaty), whereas collaboration retains and even cultivates those differences, even as those different actors continue to work together for a larger goal that unites them. With respect to the earlier discussion of marriage as a collaboration, I cannot help but think of the Clintons as the paradigmatic "collaborative couple" - yet, this does not at all strike me as a collaboration in the sense being discussed here. Chris S. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different directions. But I > think the conflict is an essential part of collaboration. Collaboration is > unity and difference. Both are required or there is no collaboration. The > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of collaboration is trivial > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > I take collaboration as essentially between distinct, i,e, mutually > independent subjects. If two people who are clones of each other work > together on the same task, since their every thought is identical there is > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, carrying out orders from > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as collaboration. But these > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have differences relevant to > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine division of labour (which > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or suppressed, there has to > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> Hi Larry and Andy, >> >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I might bring in a >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, marriage is a strong tie >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to it, as Larry says, so that >> the relationship is sustainable through even adversarial conflict, or does >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But most collaborations, >> especially those that lead to problem solving, are based in weak tie >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties networks can only lead to >> cooperation. Isn't there something to collaboration that allows >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable relationship to come >> together to create change through evolutionary disagreement that does not >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it something else. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM >> To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity < >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >> >> Andy, >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to multiple >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field of >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. >> Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then travels to >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. >> >> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is moving >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* that remain >> always *open to change* but within a continuing commitment/collaboration. >> >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: Andy Blunden >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >> >> The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do >> anything about that! But the issue of >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in which >> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly not worthy of >> the name. >> >> That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a collaboration, >> and at the same time can be moderated so successfully that it is positively >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is marriage, so we all know what >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most essential element of >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. >> >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >>> Hi Andy, >>> >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking about >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial Intelligence or >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). >>> >>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has been >>> a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and collaboration at a >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction >>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while >>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see >>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. >>> >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be looking >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems to work against >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of education. Does Alfie >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. >>> >>> So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. >>> But what do we mean by conflict. >>> >>> Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it the >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between their >>> solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, another >>> loaded phrase). >>> >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is one >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. So can >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being adversarial >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial to each other and yet >>> still work together to accomplish important things, or is this >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been defined, or >>> perhaps I am not grasping? >>> >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism for >>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? >>> >>> Thoughts running around my head. >>> >>> MIchael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer >>> some observations. >>> >>> Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working together >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails working together to change >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). >>> >>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference between Collaboration >>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of this is in the >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration essentially involves both >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one form or aspect of >>> collaboration, because the parties are working towards two opposite >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here therefore has a slippery >>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the >>> possibility of difference. >>> >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the >>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are "limiting >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include an exchange of >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such as customer-service >>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual independence throughout) >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). >>> >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship >>> usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the other >>> hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards the >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential ingredient to >>> Collaboration. >>> >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could argue >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So Collaboration means >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, because the /concept /of the >>> object changes. >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. >>> >>> In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) >>> students work independently because they are physically or organisationally >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is then facilitated by the >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) Students who are already >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer between them so that their >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, mediated only by the >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their Collaboration mediated by a >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer >>> collaboration. >>> >>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit about >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that Collaboration >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they have to separate >>> students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow students >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated from one >>> another. And the same goes for >>> students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. >>> >>> Does that help, Michael? >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How do >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA is >>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration internationally. At first >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework >>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based research, but >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word only came into vogue >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning together and labore meaning >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure Dewey >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be wrong). Anyway >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a very simplistic way I >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I know there was some >>>> research around language (being able >>>> >>> to >> >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the >>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you could >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a test for >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. >>>> >>>> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > From ablunden@mira.net Mon Apr 18 18:34:30 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 11:34:30 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Message-ID: <57158B26.2000603@mira.net> Chris, in my view the object of collaboration is an important element in structuring collaboration and understanding it, and you are right, also, in my view, that collaboration has an important dimension of time involved. In both connections it is important how the object changes. And I don't think there is any "downtown" when it comes to the meanings, connotations and differences between cooperation and collaboration. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 19/04/2016 10:34 AM, Christopher Schuck wrote: > Hi, I'm brand new to this listserve and not necessarily > well versed in the fields of education or communication, > so I apologize if any of this post is redundant or > irrelevant. I had a question about collaboration vs. > communication and this essential core feature of > difference or potential conflict. Would it be at all > accurate to say that collaboration is also bounded in some > sense by the parameters of a specific project or goal, > that it adds an explicitly temporal dimension (e.g., does > not continue indefinitely), whereas cooperation refers > purely to the process of working "together" without > speaking to the broader context of what this work > represents or where it is going? It seems that one > implication of what Andy is saying is that cooperation is > less "ambitious" than collaboration, that it is more > restricted or limited in some way. But must this be based > on there being no meaningful differences between the > cooperators, or might it lie in the degree of formality > and structure characterizing the work being done and level > of commitment required? Or, in the way any significant > differences are regarded and incorporated? > > I find it interesting that in its ordinary use, > "cooperation" (at least, to me) seems to connotes more of > an initial tension between the parties involved or some > idea of compromise (those who might otherwise be in > conflict or disagreement "put aside their differences" for > a larger goal, e.g. parties to the UN cooperate with a > treaty), whereas collaboration retains and even cultivates > those differences, even as those different actors continue > to work together for a larger goal that unites them. With > respect to the earlier discussion of marriage as a > collaboration, I cannot help but think of the Clintons as > the paradigmatic "collaborative couple" - yet, this does > not at all strike me as a collaboration in the sense being > discussed here. > > Chris S. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 11:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different > directions. But I think the conflict is an essential > part of collaboration. Collaboration is unity and > difference. Both are required or there is no > collaboration. The "conflict" may be trivial, but then > the moment of collaboration is trivial as well. And > the learning is trivial. > > I take collaboration as essentially between distinct, > i,e, mutually independent subjects. If two people who > are clones of each other work together on the same > task, since their every thought is identical there is > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > carrying out orders from the same boss, work together, > I don't see this as collaboration. But these are > trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > differences relevant to the task at hand, and unless > it is just a routine division of labour (which I call > cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or suppressed, > there has to be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > Hi Larry and Andy, > > This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I > might bring in a little bit of Mark Granovetter > and Everett Rogers, marriage is a strong tie > relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > it, as Larry says, so that the relationship is > sustainable through even adversarial conflict, or > does not collapse at the first sign of conflict. > But most collaborations, especially those that > lead to problem solving, are based in weak tie > networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > networks can only lead to cooperation. Isn't > there something to collaboration that allows > individuals without a prior or even sustainable > relationship to come together to create change > through evolutionary disagreement that does not > engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it > something else. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On > Behalf Of Lplarry > Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > To: Andy Blunden >; eXtended Mind, > Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > Andy, > This introduction of the image of marriage as the > archetype of collaboration certainly opens the > concept of collaboration to multiple aspects of > *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. > To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us > into a vast field of shared (and conflictual) > meanings. > Interesting how this image opens towards the > imaginal and then travels to distinguishing ZPD > from scaffolding. > > To move from co-operation towards collaboration > (as marriage) is moving towards notions of > *commitment* and *determinate relations* that > remain always *open to change* but within a > continuing commitment/collaboration. > > Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > engaging the concept of collaboration. Marriage as > socio-historically meaningful. > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Andy Blunden > Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > The field is rife with different definitions; I > choose the set of definitions which suit the > overall concept I am developing. Can't do anything > about that! But the issue of > *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > collaboration in which conflict is either > suppressed or organised away is certainly not > worthy of the name. > > That said, conflict has the potential always to > destroy a collaboration, and at the same time can > be moderated so successfully that it is positively > enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > marriage, so we all know what this is about. > Managing conflict is the most essential element of > collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as > well as moderating it. > > This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > question. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > Thanks for your response. I would like to put > aside the issue of computers which I think is > extraordinarily complex (are we talking about > the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > Artificial Intelligence or Augmentation? More > and more I am feeling these distinctions are > critical). > > But your post does refer to issues I am > struggling with. There has been a lot of talk > of the difference between cooperation and > collaboration at a number of levels. Right > now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction > which is cooperation is engaging in community > work for your own needs - so you never really > give yourself up to the learning community, > while collaboration involves actually creating > a community. Others I think see collaboration > as the development of shared meaning while > cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right > word, right?) action towards a goal. I think > both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > > I am interested in the idea of conflict, which > I think would be antithetical to PISA's > conception of collaboration, they seem to be > looking to cut down on conflict as much as > possible. It also seems to work against a > number of uses of collaboration in the field > of education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about > collaboration - what would he say about conflict. > > So I'm thinking though these just working > together visions of collaboration are missing > that "something" and conflict, as > counter-intuitive as it is to models of > collaboration might make sense. But what do > we mean by conflict. > > Is it conflict between members of the > collaborative group or is it the abilities of > the collaborative group to see conflict > between their solutions and the realities of > the world around them (I know, another loaded > phrase). > > We also have a tendency to see conflict of > adversarial. If there is one thing I think > collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in > nature. So can ideas be in conflict without > individuals raising those being adversarial > with each other. What if people are > adversarial to each other and yet still work > together to accomplish important things, or is > this cooperation? Or is these another concept > that hasn't been defined, or perhaps I am not > grasping? > > The danger with PISA's definition is there is > really no mechanism for change. Should > collaboration have a mechanism for change or > innovation? > > Thoughts running around my head. > > MIchael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > ] On > Behalf Of Andy Blunden > Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > Michael, so I'll offer some observations. > > Collaboration as "together working" means > specifically working together to a common > object (aim). That generally entails working > together to change an object-of-labour > (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > There is a lot of discussion about the > difference between Collaboration and the > etymologically identical Cooperation, much of > this is in the "educational debate." As I see > it, Collaboration essentially involves both > cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > form or aspect of collaboration, because the > parties are working towards two opposite > concepts of the same object. "Object" here > therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean > the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked > upon, or the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. > Both ideas incorporate the possibility of > difference. > > Collaboration essentially involves the coming > together of distinct parties (or subjects). > True Collaboration involves a merging of the > subjectivities for the course of a single > project, but there are "limiting cases" of > non-collaborative collaboration. These include > an exchange of labour governed by a > negotiation of a contract (such as > customer-service provider in which the > subjects retain their mutual independence > throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one > subject is subordinated to another). > > Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > working relationship usually because there is > a division of labour; Collaboration on the > other hand involves each party taking a > critical attitude towards the contribution of > the other party. o conflict is an essential > ingredient to Collaboration. > > Collaboration is a learning process, to the > extent that one could argue that learning can > *only* be a Collaborative process. So > Collaboration means that the object (aim) of > the labour changes, because the /concept /of > the object changes. > Collaborators learn about the object (worked > upon) in the process of working on it, and the > object (aim) by realising it. > > In education there has been an unfortunate > development in which (1) students work > independently because they are physically or > organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration > between the students is then facilitated by > the use of computer and communication > equipment, (3) Students who are already > face-to-face are obliged to introduce a > computer between them so that their > collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they > now find their Collaboration mediated by a > computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > mean the undermining of Collaboration by the > use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer > collaboration. > > And this is the danger. The education > bureaucracy has heard a bit about the benefits > of Collaboration as a learning process, and > that Collaboration requires equipment. So they > get the idea that they have to separate > students or researchers from one another so > that they can collaborate. > Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > equipment to allow students > to Collaborate notwithstanding their having > been separated from one > another. And the same goes for > students+teachers, research+industry, > management+workers, etc. > > Does that help, Michael? > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > Hello all, > > I have a question for anybody who might be > willing to respond. How do you define > collaboration? What spurs this question > is that PISA is developing a framework for > testing collaboration internationally. At > first I thought I was getting punked, but > it really is happening, the framework is > at the link below. The idea of > collaboration is being used more and more > - especially in contexts that involve > computer/web based research, but it often > times seems to be a placeholder. The word > only came into vogue late nineteenth > century I think - col meaning together > and labore meaning to labor. A lot of > people who discuss collaboration invoke > Vygotsky (e.g. the PISA framework) or > sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of > sure Dewey never actually used the word > collaboration, but I might be wrong). > Anyway the PISA document defines > collaboration but in a very simplistic way > I think so that it is not wrong but not > helpful. I know there was some research > around language (being able > > to > > create shared meanings). But so far > to me it seems to miss the point, but I > can't think what I would replace it with. > I guess you could call this a request for > comments. I find PISA creating a test for > collaboration kind of dangerous. > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > Michael > > > > > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Apr 18 21:19:39 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 22:19:39 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Brandom Extended In-Reply-To: References: <5713b1b3.9b59620a.be41b.ffffaad5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: David, Can your "mopeds" replace "zopeds"? Larry, I'd love to get a copy of the Pippin paper you mentioned. -greg On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Larry: > > It wasn't my metaphor, actually: it was Brandom's. Here's the context: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJXibuBSotc > > Brandom (not to be confused with Richard Bransom!) is pretty dense for me; > I found it easier to print out Brandom's speech and read it: > > http://lms.ff.uhk.cz/pool/download_14.pdf? > > But that misses out on the Q & A which would also be worth reading. My > complaint is that it's all a little bloodless: it doesn't give me the sense > that cities are full of struggle, and that even the disagreements we have > about what things are thus and so and why, the things which Brandom claims > are "downtown", are often, when we look more closely, about how things WILL > be or SHOULD be rather than how they actually are, and involve conflicts of > material interests. It seems to me that if you want to get from the suburbs > to downtown, that is the way to go. Brandom's "downtown" is really an ivory > tower; a material walled city. Mine is more like the "downtown" of that > moped song: > > She has her arms around your waist > With a balance that could keep us safe > Downtown, downtown > > It's all about getting from the suburbs (that is, the areas where language > and non-language exists side by side, as in everyday conversation) into the > downtown of language (where one is confronted by pure text, as in the case > of this 'discussion' list) and back to the burbs, safely, and with the > least possible expenditure of intellectual resources on the means of > transportation so that you can expend at least some of that energy on your > companions. > > And that brings me to your quote. As you can see, I'm really a painter and > not an intellectual at all: I find it very hard to think in abstractions, > and I can't even figure out the grammar of the first sentence: "Arguments > for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often make the > mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense or modes > of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way *as if* > something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous can > *break* through it." > > This is the kind of thing that slows me down, Larry; when philosophers talk > about language they really make no more sense than when linguists talk > about philosophy. What does it mean to think of modes of sense making '"as > if" (it is?) something one can get trapped inside of'? Isn't making sense > precisely NOT being trapped inside of the mode of sense making? How can you > make sense WITHOUT breaking through to something or somebody "exogenous" > (presumably this means exogenous to language, although it's pretty hard to > tell)! > > Ruqaiya Hasan argues a lot for an "internal" view of language, where > meaning is essentially within language itself and not a relation with > material reality, including sapient minds and sentient meat. This > internalist view too is a walled city to me; I can see no gate to its > downtown that isn't triply portcullised. It is like saying that the meaning > of a painting is in the paint (Jackson Pollack might have thought that was > true, but he is dead and his paintings are now selling for millions of > dollars to people who appear to completely disagree). > > I think I prefer to think of language as a moped, a means of communication > that you can pedal (as when we use language in an ancillary way, to access > goods and services which are not irreducibly language) or which pedals > itself (as when we use language to exchange 'information' in the form of > more language). Sure, most of us will use the motor most of the time; > that's what modernity means these days, and besides that's the only way to > access MY downtown, which is not how things are but rather how they would > be and how they could be and how they should be. But it would > nevertheless be a mistake to assume that the motor is all there is, because > then there's no way to start the damn thing up. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > David, > > Your metaphor of downtown city and architecture not being picture frames > I > > found intriguing but I will require more con/text to follow in more than > > an impressionistic way. > > > > I happen to be reading an article by Robert Pippin that is exploring > > similar themes. Pippin says that he is making a case for a Hegelian > > shareable *I-We* relation extending beyond Bransom?s *I-Thou* relation of > > idiodects. Is this the contrast between dwelling within architectural > > places rather than within picture frames? > > > > Now for the con/text in which this claim is embedded is this quote: > > ? Arguments for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often > > make the mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense > > or modes of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way > *as > > if* something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous > can > > *break* through it. As it has been put in many contemporary contexts, > one > > source of the confusion is the temptation to think in terms of conceptual > > schemes and a separable, otherwise neutral, non-conceptual content that > is > > conceptualized by such a scheme. The temptation is to think of an in > > principal neutral or indeterminate content or world in itself the > > accessibility of which is a matter of applying a scheme to such a content > > and so ending up with something *less* than the world in itself, but > rather > > the world only as so finitely appropriated. Hegel is among the parties > > denying such a scheme-content distinction, although he is certainly not > > denying that there can be different, sometimes quite different, aspectual > > takes on the world. The point of this self-negating language is to > > distinguish this possible partiality of a *shape of spirit* from the idea > > of some putatively radical, alternative conceptual scheme, and this view > > about the *inherently* possible self-negating aspect of such a *shape* is > > meant to stress what Gadamer calls the *openness* of linguistic horizons > to > > each other.? > > > > Pippin at this point adds a footnote # 7 > > ?Besides being right (in my view anyway) about the set of Friedman, > > Gadamer, and Davidson issues, McDowell also broaches the question of what > > we need to say is *shareable* by a linguistic community in order for this > > mutual intelligibility and integration to succeed and suggests the > > beginning of what I would regard as a Hegelian case for the > > indispensability of an *I-We* relation beyond the *I-Thou* priority > argued > > for by Bransom and, in effect, by Davidson on the priority of idiolects.? > > > > If asked I can send the article. > > Larry > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > -- 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 From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Apr 18 23:32:13 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Larry Purss) Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2016 23:32:13 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Brandom Extended In-Reply-To: References: <5713b1b3.9b59620a.be41b.ffffaad5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5715d0df.4444620a.3cd31.ffffe502@mx.google.com> Greg, Here is a copy of Pippin?s article which is chapter 7 in an edited book. The chapter is titled ?Finite and Absolute Idealism? The book {The Transcendental Turn} is edited by Sebastian Gardner and Matthew Grist. I went to Pippin?s academic home page where he has a list of publications. Pippin also has a paper titled ?On Hegel?s Relation to Literature? which illuminates the sense of *I-We* in the phenomenology of spirit. Hegel wrote, ?Lacking strength, Beauty hates the Understanding for asking her what it [Understanding] cannot do? Pippin?s paper elaborates on this theme. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Greg Thompson Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Brandom Extended David, Can your "mopeds" replace "zopeds"? Larry, I'd love to get a copy of the Pippin paper you mentioned. -greg On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Larry: > > It wasn't my metaphor, actually: it was Brandom's. Here's the context: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJXibuBSotc > > Brandom (not to be confused with Richard Bransom!) is pretty dense for me; > I found it easier to print out Brandom's speech and read it: > > http://lms.ff.uhk.cz/pool/download_14.pdf? > > But that misses out on the Q & A which would also be worth reading. My > complaint is that it's all a little bloodless: it doesn't give me the sense > that cities are full of struggle, and that even the disagreements we have > about what things are thus and so and why, the things which Brandom claims > are "downtown", are often, when we look more closely, about how things WILL > be or SHOULD be rather than how they actually are, and involve conflicts of > material interests. It seems to me that if you want to get from the suburbs > to downtown, that is the way to go. Brandom's "downtown" is really an ivory > tower; a material walled city. Mine is more like the "downtown" of that > moped song: > > She has her arms around your waist > With a balance that could keep us safe > Downtown, downtown > > It's all about getting from the suburbs (that is, the areas where language > and non-language exists side by side, as in everyday conversation) into the > downtown of language (where one is confronted by pure text, as in the case > of this 'discussion' list) and back to the burbs, safely, and with the > least possible expenditure of intellectual resources on the means of > transportation so that you can expend at least some of that energy on your > companions. > > And that brings me to your quote. As you can see, I'm really a painter and > not an intellectual at all: I find it very hard to think in abstractions, > and I can't even figure out the grammar of the first sentence: "Arguments > for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often make the > mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense or modes > of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way *as if* > something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous can > *break* through it." > > This is the kind of thing that slows me down, Larry; when philosophers talk > about language they really make no more sense than when linguists talk > about philosophy. What does it mean to think of modes of sense making '"as > if" (it is?) something one can get trapped inside of'? Isn't making sense > precisely NOT being trapped inside of the mode of sense making? How can you > make sense WITHOUT breaking through to something or somebody "exogenous" > (presumably this means exogenous to language, although it's pretty hard to > tell)! > > Ruqaiya Hasan argues a lot for an "internal" view of language, where > meaning is essentially within language itself and not a relation with > material reality, including sapient minds and sentient meat. This > internalist view too is a walled city to me; I can see no gate to its > downtown that isn't triply portcullised. It is like saying that the meaning > of a painting is in the paint (Jackson Pollack might have thought that was > true, but he is dead and his paintings are now selling for millions of > dollars to people who appear to completely disagree). > > I think I prefer to think of language as a moped, a means of communication > that you can pedal (as when we use language in an ancillary way, to access > goods and services which are not irreducibly language) or which pedals > itself (as when we use language to exchange 'information' in the form of > more language). Sure, most of us will use the motor most of the time; > that's what modernity means these days, and besides that's the only way to > access MY downtown, which is not how things are but rather how they would > be and how they could be and how they should be. But it would > nevertheless be a mistake to assume that the motor is all there is, because > then there's no way to start the damn thing up. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > David, > > Your metaphor of downtown city and architecture not being picture frames > I > > found intriguing but I will require more con/text to follow in more than > > an impressionistic way. > > > > I happen to be reading an article by Robert Pippin that is exploring > > similar themes. Pippin says that he is making a case for a Hegelian > > shareable *I-We* relation extending beyond Bransom?s *I-Thou* relation of > > idiodects. Is this the contrast between dwelling within architectural > > places rather than within picture frames? > > > > Now for the con/text in which this claim is embedded is this quote: > > ? Arguments for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often > > make the mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense > > or modes of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way > *as > > if* something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous > can > > *break* through it. As it has been put in many contemporary contexts, > one > > source of the confusion is the temptation to think in terms of conceptual > > schemes and a separable, otherwise neutral, non-conceptual content that > is > > conceptualized by such a scheme. The temptation is to think of an in > > principal neutral or indeterminate content or world in itself the > > accessibility of which is a matter of applying a scheme to such a content > > and so ending up with something *less* than the world in itself, but > rather > > the world only as so finitely appropriated. Hegel is among the parties > > denying such a scheme-content distinction, although he is certainly not > > denying that there can be different, sometimes quite different, aspectual > > takes on the world. The point of this self-negating language is to > > distinguish this possible partiality of a *shape of spirit* from the idea > > of some putatively radical, alternative conceptual scheme, and this view > > about the *inherently* possible self-negating aspect of such a *shape* is > > meant to stress what Gadamer calls the *openness* of linguistic horizons > to > > each other.? > > > > Pippin at this point adds a footnote # 7 > > ?Besides being right (in my view anyway) about the set of Friedman, > > Gadamer, and Davidson issues, McDowell also broaches the question of what > > we need to say is *shareable* by a linguistic community in order for this > > mutual intelligibility and integration to succeed and suggests the > > beginning of what I would regard as a Hegelian case for the > > indispensability of an *I-We* relation beyond the *I-Thou* priority > argued > > for by Bransom and, in effect, by Davidson on the priority of idiolects.? > > > > If asked I can send the article. > > Larry > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > -- 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 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APRIL 17 2016 PIPPIN ROBERT The Transcendental Turn Finite and Absolute Idealism.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 626775 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160418/60a853db/attachment-0001.pdf From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 07:35:02 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:35:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> Message-ID: I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf multiple perspectives. Overall this has been a wonderful thread. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted in a > male dominant discourse or view on the world" something like > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > destructive of collaboration. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and activity are > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do this > > work while playing well with others. > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > Centering success and change as the result of conflict has > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those be the > > poles of collaboration? > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even though my > > first real publication was on the development of these > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the recent > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the learner. > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > collaboration. > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > wrote: > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this > > discussion. I attach > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different > > directions. But I > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > unity and difference. Both are required or there is > > no collaboration. The > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > collaboration is trivial > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > of each other work > > > together on the same task, since their every thought > > is identical there is > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > carrying out orders from > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > collaboration. But these > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > differences relevant to > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > division of labour (which > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > suppressed, there has to > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > >> > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I > > might bring in a > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, > > marriage is a strong tie > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > it, as Larry says, so that > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > adversarial conflict, or does > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > most collaborations, > > >> especially those that lead to problem solving, are > > based in weak tie > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > networks can only lead to > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > collaboration that allows > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > relationship to come > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > disagreement that does not > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it > > something else. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > ] On Behalf Of > > Lplarry > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > >> To: Andy Blunden > >; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> Andy, > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > archetype of > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > collaboration to multiple > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us > > into a vast field of > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > imaginal and then travels to > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > >> > > >> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as > > marriage) is moving > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > relations* that remain > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > commitment/collaboration. > > >> > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging > > the concept of > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > meaningful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > choose the set of > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > developing. Can't do > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > collaboration in which > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is > > certainly not worthy of > > >> the name. > > >> > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > destroy a collaboration, > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > successfully that it is positively > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > marriage, so we all know what > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > essential element of > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as > > well as moderating it. > > >> > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > question. > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Andy, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > aside the issue of > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex > > (are we talking about > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > Artificial Intelligence or > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > distinctions are critical). > > >>> > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling > > with. There has been > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work > > for your own needs - so > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning > > community, while > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > community. Others I think see > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning > > while cooperation is > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > action towards a goal. I > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > > >>> > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > think would be > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > also seems to work against > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of > > education. Does Alfie > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say > > about conflict. > > >>> > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working together > > visions of > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > conflict, as > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > collaboration might make sense. > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > >>> > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > collaborative group or is it the > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > conflict between their > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > them (I know, another > > >>> loaded phrase). > > >>> > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > adversarial. If there is one > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > those being adversarial > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > to each other and yet > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > things, or is this > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > hasn't been defined, or > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > >>> > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > really no mechanism for > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for > > change or innovation? > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > >>> > > >>> MIchael > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > ] On Behalf Of > > Andy Blunden > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >>> > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > Michael, so I'll offer > > >>> some observations. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > specifically working together > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > working together to change > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > >>> > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference > > between Collaboration > > >>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much > > of this is in the > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > essentially involves both > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > form or aspect of > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > towards two opposite > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > therefore has a slippery > > >>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > object worked upon, or > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > incorporate the > > >>> possibility of difference. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > together of distinct > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves > > a merging of the > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, > > but there are "limiting > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > include an exchange of > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > (such as customer-service > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual > > independence throughout) > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > subordinated to another). > > >>> > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > working relationship > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > Collaboration on the other > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > attitude towards the > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an > > essential ingredient to > > >>> Collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent > > that one could argue > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > process. So Collaboration means > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > because the /concept /of the > > >>> object changes. > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) > > in the process of > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. > > >>> > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > development in which (1) > > >>> students work independently because they are > > physically or organisationally > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is > > then facilitated by the > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > Students who are already > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > between them so that their > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > mediated only by the > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > Collaboration mediated by a > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > mean the undermining of > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to > > avoid closer > > >>> collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy > > has heard a bit about > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > process, and that Collaboration > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they > > have to separate > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > they can collaborate. > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > equipment to allow students > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > separated from one > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > management+workers, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > >>> Andy > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hello all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > willing to respond. How do > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > question is that PISA is > > >>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration > > internationally. At first > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is > > happening, the framework > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration > > is being used more and > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > computer/web based research, but > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > word only came into vogue > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > together and labore meaning > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a > > very simplistic way I > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I > > know there was some > > >>>> research around language (being able > > >>>> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it > > seems to miss the > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it > > with. I guess you could > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > creating a test for > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > >>>> > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 07:47:02 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 07:47:02 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Brandom Extended In-Reply-To: <5715d0df.4444620a.3cd31.ffffe502@mx.google.com> References: <5713b1b3.9b59620a.be41b.ffffaad5@mx.google.com> <5715d0df.4444620a.3cd31.ffffe502@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <571644f0.69a4420a.55bd6.ffff9071@mx.google.com> A further comment that may link up with the Tomosella article on the species specific character of cooperation and joint attention gesturing toward *third* aspects that generate (meaning). This generating meanings that take different perspectives or accounts into awareness and reflection. My comment turns to how this character of joint attention affirmed within cooperation that generates multiple perspectives (which are meanings) can also generate *conflict* by turning to Hegel (as) literature. Hegel explores the perceived *opposition* between beauty (schonheit) and the understanding (verstand). This perceived contrast (conflict?) is *portrayed* (as if) this were a psychological drama. Hegel presents this portrayal as a poetic image of Beauty *hating* the Understanding for expecting of Beauty what Understanding (itself) cannot do. But what is it precisely that Beauty cannot *do*?. If we listen carefully to the language of the image (language of the imaginal) in this personified metaphorical *claim* then what Beauty cannot *do* is *tarry* (verweilen) ? with the negative. In other words Beauty cannot endure the *self-dissolving character* of the human experience. Beauty cannot *tarry* within dis/integration and *death* as the proper function of Beauty is *resistance to* dis/integration and the creation of harmony and unity. As Pippin points out this portrayal also implies and imposes limits on the part of the faculty of analytic understanding (dis/integration and death). It is this notion of *tarrying* and how Geist *finds itself* within what Geist has also *torn apart* which is the focus of Hegel?s point of view (perspective). This brings us back to joint attention as a species specific characteristic. My fascination is in this theme of *tarrying* occurring within a notion of *systematic* understanding which occurs within an architecture (portrayal) of *literature*. This tarrying of the understanding which has a *limit* and Geist transcends this limit. Larry Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Larry Purss Sent: April 18, 2016 11:32 PM To: Greg Thompson; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Brandom Extended Greg, Here is a copy of Pippin?s article which is chapter 7 in an edited book. The chapter is titled ?Finite and Absolute Idealism? The book {The Transcendental Turn} is edited by Sebastian Gardner and Matthew Grist. I went to Pippin?s ?academic home page where he has a list of publications. Pippin also has a paper titled ?On Hegel?s Relation to Literature? which illuminates the sense of *I-We* in the phenomenology of spirit. Hegel wrote, ?Lacking strength, Beauty hates the Understanding for asking her what it [Understanding] cannot do? Pippin?s paper elaborates on this theme. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: Greg Thompson Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 9:20 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Brandom Extended David, Can your "mopeds" replace "zopeds"? Larry, I'd love to get a copy of the Pippin paper you mentioned. -greg On Sun, Apr 17, 2016 at 3:44 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Larry: > > It wasn't my metaphor, actually: it was Brandom's. Here's the context: > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJXibuBSotc > > Brandom (not to be confused with Richard Bransom!) is pretty dense for me; > I found it easier to print out Brandom's speech and read it: > >? http://lms.ff.uhk.cz/pool/download_14.pdf? > > But that misses out on the Q & A which would also be worth reading. My > complaint is that it's all a little bloodless: it doesn't give me the sense > that cities are full of struggle, and that even the disagreements we have > about what things are thus and so and why, the things which Brandom claims > are "downtown", are often, when we look more closely, about how things WILL > be or SHOULD be rather than how they actually are, and involve conflicts of > material interests. It seems to me that if you want to get from the suburbs > to downtown, that is the way to go. Brandom's "downtown" is really an ivory > tower; a material walled city. Mine is more like the "downtown" of that > moped song: > > She has her arms around your waist > With a balance that could keep us safe > Downtown, downtown > > It's all about getting from the suburbs (that is, the areas where language > and non-language exists side by side, as in everyday conversation) into the > downtown of language (where one is confronted by pure text, as in the case > of this 'discussion' list) and back to the burbs, safely, and with the > least possible expenditure of intellectual resources on the means of > transportation so that you can expend at least some of that energy on your > companions. > > And that brings me to your quote. As you can see, I'm really a painter and > not an intellectual at all: I find it very hard to think in abstractions, > and I can't even figure out the grammar of the first sentence: "Arguments > for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often make the > mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense or modes > of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way *as if* > something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous can > *break* through it." > > This is the kind of thing that slows me down, Larry; when philosophers talk > about language they really make no more sense than when linguists talk > about philosophy. What does it mean to think of modes of sense making '"as > if" (it is?) something one can get trapped inside of'? Isn't making sense > precisely NOT being trapped inside of the mode of sense making? How can you > make sense WITHOUT breaking? through to something or somebody "exogenous" > (presumably this means exogenous to language, although it's pretty hard to > tell)! > > Ruqaiya Hasan argues a lot for an "internal" view of language, where > meaning is essentially within language itself and not a relation with > material reality, including sapient minds and sentient meat. This > internalist view too is a walled city to me; I can see no gate to its > downtown that isn't triply portcullised. It is like saying that the meaning > of a painting is in the paint (Jackson Pollack might have thought that was > true, but he is dead and his paintings are now selling for millions of > dollars to people who appear to completely disagree). > > I think I prefer to think of language as a moped, a means of communication > that you can pedal (as when we use language in an ancillary way, to access > goods and services which are not irreducibly language) or which pedals > itself (as when we use language to exchange 'information' in the form of > more language). Sure, most of us will use the motor most of the time; > that's what modernity means these days, and besides that's the only way to > access MY downtown, which is not how things are but rather how they would > be and how they could be and how they should be. But it would > nevertheless be a mistake to assume that the motor is all there is, because > then there's no way to start the damn thing up. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > David, > > Your metaphor of downtown city and architecture not being picture frames > I > > found intriguing but I will require more con/text to follow in more than > > an impressionistic way. > > > > I happen to be reading an article by Robert Pippin that is exploring > > similar themes. Pippin says that he is making a case for a Hegelian > > shareable *I-We* relation extending beyond Bransom?s *I-Thou* relation of > > idiodects. Is this the contrast between dwelling within architectural > > places rather than within picture frames? > > > > Now for the con/text in which this claim is embedded is this quote: > > ? Arguments for relativism and sometimes transcendental idealism often > > make the mistake, the mistake of thinking of thought or horizons of sense > > or modes of sense-making or conceptual schemes in this third person way > *as > > if* something one can get trapped inside of unless something exogenous > can > > *break* through it.? As it has been put in many contemporary contexts, > one > > source of the confusion is the temptation to think in terms of conceptual > > schemes and a separable, otherwise neutral, non-conceptual content that > is > > conceptualized by such a scheme. The temptation is to think of an in > > principal neutral or indeterminate content or world in itself the > > accessibility of which is a matter of applying a scheme to such a content > > and so ending up with something *less* than the world in itself, but > rather > > the world only as so finitely appropriated.? Hegel is among the parties > > denying such a scheme-content distinction, although he is certainly not > > denying that there can be different, sometimes quite different, aspectual > > takes on the world. The point of this self-negating language is to > > distinguish this possible partiality of a *shape of spirit* from the idea > > of some putatively radical, alternative conceptual scheme, and this view > > about the *inherently* possible self-negating aspect of such a *shape* is > > meant to stress what Gadamer calls the *openness* of linguistic horizons > to > > each other.? > > > > Pippin at this point adds a footnote # 7 > > ?Besides being right (in my view anyway) about the set of Friedman, > > Gadamer, and Davidson issues, McDowell also broaches the question of what > > we need to say is *shareable* by a linguistic community in order for this > > mutual intelligibility and integration to succeed and suggests the > > beginning of what I would regard as a Hegelian case for the > > indispensability of an *I-We* relation beyond the *I-Thou* priority > argued > > for by Bransom and, in effect, by Davidson on the priority of idiolects.? > > > > If asked I can send the article. > > Larry > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > -- 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 From ablunden@mira.net Tue Apr 19 07:46:48 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 00:46:48 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> Message-ID: <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?) ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more > inclusive mf multiple perspectives. > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > in a > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > something like > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > destructive of collaboration. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > activity are > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > this > > work while playing well with others. > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > conflict has > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > be the > > poles of collaboration? > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > though my > > first real publication was on the development of these > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > recent > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > learner. > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > collaboration. > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > >> wrote: > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > to this > > discussion. I attach > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > different > > directions. But I > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > there is > > no collaboration. The > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > collaboration is trivial > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > of each other work > > > together on the same task, since their every > thought > > is identical there is > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > carrying out orders from > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > collaboration. But these > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > differences relevant to > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > division of labour (which > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > suppressed, there has to > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > >> > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > If I > > might bring in a > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > Rogers, > > marriage is a strong tie > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > it, as Larry says, so that > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > adversarial conflict, or does > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > most collaborations, > > >> especially those that lead to problem > solving, are > > based in weak tie > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > networks can only lead to > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > collaboration that allows > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > relationship to come > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > disagreement that does not > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > is it > > something else. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Lplarry > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> Andy, > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > archetype of > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > collaboration to multiple > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > conflict*. > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > carries us > > into a vast field of > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > imaginal and then travels to > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > >> > > >> To move from co-operation towards > collaboration (as > > marriage) is moving > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > relations* that remain > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > commitment/collaboration. > > >> > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > engaging > > the concept of > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > meaningful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > choose the set of > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > developing. Can't do > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > collaboration in which > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > away is > > certainly not worthy of > > >> the name. > > >> > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > destroy a collaboration, > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > successfully that it is positively > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > marriage, so we all know what > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > essential element of > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > it as > > well as moderating it. > > >> > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > question. > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Andy, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > aside the issue of > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > complex > > (are we talking about > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > Artificial Intelligence or > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > distinctions are critical). > > >>> > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > struggling > > with. There has been > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > community work > > for your own needs - so > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > learning > > community, while > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > community. Others I think see > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > meaning > > while cooperation is > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > action towards a goal. I > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > thinking. > > >>> > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > think would be > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > also seems to work against > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > field of > > education. Does Alfie > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > he say > > about conflict. > > >>> > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > together > > visions of > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > conflict, as > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > collaboration might make sense. > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > >>> > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > collaborative group or is it the > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > conflict between their > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > them (I know, another > > >>> loaded phrase). > > >>> > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > adversarial. If there is one > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > those being adversarial > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > to each other and yet > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > things, or is this > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > hasn't been defined, or > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > >>> > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > really no mechanism for > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > mechanism for > > change or innovation? > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > >>> > > >>> MIchael > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Andy Blunden > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >>> > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > Michael, so I'll offer > > >>> some observations. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > specifically working together > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > working together to change > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > >>> > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > difference > > between Collaboration > > >>> and the etymologically identical > Cooperation, much > > of this is in the > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > essentially involves both > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > form or aspect of > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > towards two opposite > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > therefore has a slippery > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > object worked upon, or > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > incorporate the > > >>> possibility of difference. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > together of distinct > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > involves > > a merging of the > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > project, > > but there are "limiting > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > include an exchange of > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > (such as customer-service > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > mutual > > independence throughout) > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > subordinated to another). > > >>> > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > working relationship > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > Collaboration on the other > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > attitude towards the > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > is an > > essential ingredient to > > >>> Collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > extent > > that one could argue > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > process. So Collaboration means > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > because the /concept /of the > > >>> object changes. > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > upon) > > in the process of > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > realising it. > > >>> > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > development in which (1) > > >>> students work independently because they are > > physically or organisationally > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > students is > > then facilitated by the > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > Students who are already > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > between them so that their > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > mediated only by the > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > Collaboration mediated by a > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > mean the undermining of > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > tools to > > avoid closer > > >>> collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > bureaucracy > > has heard a bit about > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > process, and that Collaboration > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > that they > > have to separate > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > they can collaborate. > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > equipment to allow students > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > separated from one > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > management+workers, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > >>> Andy > > >>> > > >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hello all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > willing to respond. How do > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > question is that PISA is > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > collaboration > > internationally. At first > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > really is > > happening, the framework > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > collaboration > > is being used more and > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > computer/web based research, but > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > word only came into vogue > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > together and labore meaning > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > (Although > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > in a > > very simplistic way I > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > helpful. I > > know there was some > > >>>> research around language (being able > > >>>> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > me it > > seems to miss the > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > replace it > > with. I guess you could > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > creating a test for > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > >>>> > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From vygotsky@unm.edu Tue Apr 19 11:15:13 2016 From: vygotsky@unm.edu (Vera John-Steiner) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:15:13 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> Message-ID: <008001d19a67$6d626910$48273b30$@edu> In our work on collaboration we found different patterns ranging from distributive to integrative. In all four modes we identified complementary skills, training, and approaches to tasks but which varied in intensity. In the closest of collaborations shared values and commitments emerged. While in our view cooperation was most frequently task specific, often a result of assignments from above, collaboration leads to some unexpected discoveries. Conflict can be present, but is effectively negotiated because of the practice of dignified interdependence. Vera -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Mcverry Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 8:35 AM To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf multiple perspectives. Overall this has been a wonderful thread. On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted in a male > dominant discourse or view on the world" something like "the male > dominant discourse or view on conflict" is destructive of > collaboration. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and activity are not done > > collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we choose to > > do, work we have to do, and choosing to do this work while playing > > well with others. > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would therefore have > > to be central to work. > > > > Centering success and change as the result of conflict has never sat > > well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant discourse or view on > > the world. > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those be the poles of > > collaboration? > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even though my first real > > publication was on the development of these instruments). Especially > > as Lemke et al shared the recent assessment piece. Collaboration and > > the rest of the so called 21st century skills are better measured > > and developed in the spaces of learning rather than the learner. > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that there are > > resources wasted on edtech under the banner of collaboration. > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational communities > > who harness a collective knowledge base that was never before > > possible due to limits of time and distance...including this > > listserv. > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing collaboration. No, > > that sounds stupid. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > wrote: > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this > > discussion. I attach > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different > > directions. But I > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > unity and difference. Both are required or there is > > no collaboration. The > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > collaboration is trivial > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > of each other work > > > together on the same task, since their every thought > > is identical there is > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > carrying out orders from > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > collaboration. But these > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > differences relevant to > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > division of labour (which > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > suppressed, there has to > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > >> > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I > > might bring in a > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, > > marriage is a strong tie > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > it, as Larry says, so that > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > adversarial conflict, or does > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > most collaborations, > > >> especially those that lead to problem solving, are > > based in weak tie > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > networks can only lead to > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > collaboration that allows > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > relationship to come > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > disagreement that does not > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it > > something else. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > ] On Behalf Of > > Lplarry > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > >> To: Andy Blunden > >; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> Andy, > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > archetype of > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > collaboration to multiple > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us > > into a vast field of > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > imaginal and then travels to > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > >> > > >> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as > > marriage) is moving > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > relations* that remain > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > commitment/collaboration. > > >> > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging > > the concept of > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > meaningful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > choose the set of > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > developing. Can't do > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > collaboration in which > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is > > certainly not worthy of > > >> the name. > > >> > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > destroy a collaboration, > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > successfully that it is positively > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > marriage, so we all know what > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > essential element of > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as > > well as moderating it. > > >> > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > question. > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Andy, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > aside the issue of > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex > > (are we talking about > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > Artificial Intelligence or > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > distinctions are critical). > > >>> > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling > > with. There has been > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work > > for your own needs - so > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning > > community, while > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > community. Others I think see > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning > > while cooperation is > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > action towards a goal. I > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > > >>> > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > think would be > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > also seems to work against > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of > > education. Does Alfie > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say > > about conflict. > > >>> > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working together > > visions of > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > conflict, as > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > collaboration might make sense. > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > >>> > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > collaborative group or is it the > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > conflict between their > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > them (I know, another > > >>> loaded phrase). > > >>> > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > adversarial. If there is one > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > those being adversarial > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > to each other and yet > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > things, or is this > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > hasn't been defined, or > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > >>> > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > really no mechanism for > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for > > change or innovation? > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > >>> > > >>> MIchael > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > ] On Behalf Of > > Andy Blunden > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >>> > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > Michael, so I'll offer > > >>> some observations. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > specifically working together > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > working together to change > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > >>> > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference > > between Collaboration > > >>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much > > of this is in the > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > essentially involves both > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > form or aspect of > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > towards two opposite > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > therefore has a slippery > > >>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > object worked upon, or > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > incorporate the > > >>> possibility of difference. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > together of distinct > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves > > a merging of the > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, > > but there are "limiting > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > include an exchange of > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > (such as customer-service > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual > > independence throughout) > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > subordinated to another). > > >>> > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > working relationship > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > Collaboration on the other > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > attitude towards the > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an > > essential ingredient to > > >>> Collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent > > that one could argue > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > process. So Collaboration means > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > because the /concept /of the > > >>> object changes. > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) > > in the process of > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. > > >>> > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > development in which (1) > > >>> students work independently because they are > > physically or organisationally > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is > > then facilitated by the > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > Students who are already > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > between them so that their > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > mediated only by the > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > Collaboration mediated by a > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > mean the undermining of > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to > > avoid closer > > >>> collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy > > has heard a bit about > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > process, and that Collaboration > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they > > have to separate > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > they can collaborate. > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > equipment to allow students > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > separated from one > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > management+workers, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > >>> Andy > > >>> > > >>> > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hello all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > willing to respond. How do > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > question is that PISA is > > >>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration > > internationally. At first > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is > > happening, the framework > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration > > is being used more and > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > computer/web based research, but > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > word only came into vogue > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > together and labore meaning > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a > > very simplistic way I > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I > > know there was some > > >>>> research around language (being able > > >>>> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it > > seems to miss the > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it > > with. I guess you could > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > creating a test for > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > >>>> > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Tue Apr 19 11:10:11 2016 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 14:10:11 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <008001d19a67$6d626910$48273b30$@edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <008001d19a67$6d626910$48273b30$@edu> Message-ID: I was hoping you would chime in on this Vera. Thank-you! Robert L. On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:15 PM, Vera John-Steiner wrote: > In our work on collaboration we found different patterns ranging from > distributive to integrative. In all four modes we identified complementary > skills, training, and approaches to tasks but which varied in intensity. > In the closest of collaborations shared values and commitments emerged. > While in our view cooperation was most frequently task specific, often a > result of assignments from above, collaboration leads to some unexpected > discoveries. > Conflict can be present, but is effectively negotiated because of the > practice of dignified interdependence. > Vera > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Mcverry > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 8:35 AM > To: ablunden@mira.net; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > multiple perspectives. > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted in a male > > dominant discourse or view on the world" something like "the male > > dominant discourse or view on conflict" is destructive of > > collaboration. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and activity are not done > > > collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we choose to > > > do, work we have to do, and choosing to do this work while playing > > > well with others. > > > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would therefore have > > > to be central to work. > > > > > > Centering success and change as the result of conflict has never sat > > > well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant discourse or view on > > > the world. > > > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those be the poles of > > > collaboration? > > > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even though my first real > > > publication was on the development of these instruments). Especially > > > as Lemke et al shared the recent assessment piece. Collaboration and > > > the rest of the so called 21st century skills are better measured > > > and developed in the spaces of learning rather than the learner. > > > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that there are > > > resources wasted on edtech under the banner of collaboration. > > > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational communities > > > who harness a collective knowledge base that was never before > > > possible due to limits of time and distance...including this > > > listserv. > > > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing collaboration. No, > > > that sounds stupid. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this > > > discussion. I attach > > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > > mike > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different > > > directions. But I > > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > > unity and difference. Both are required or there is > > > no collaboration. The > > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > > collaboration is trivial > > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > > of each other work > > > > together on the same task, since their every thought > > > is identical there is > > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > > carrying out orders from > > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > > collaboration. But these > > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > > differences relevant to > > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > > division of labour (which > > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > > suppressed, there has to > > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > > >> > > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I > > > might bring in a > > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, > > > marriage is a strong tie > > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > > it, as Larry says, so that > > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > > adversarial conflict, or does > > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > > most collaborations, > > > >> especially those that lead to problem solving, are > > > based in weak tie > > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > > networks can only lead to > > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > > collaboration that allows > > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > > relationship to come > > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > > disagreement that does not > > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it > > > something else. > > > >> > > > >> Michael > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > ] On Behalf Of > > > Lplarry > > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > >; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > > Activity < > > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >> > > > >> Andy, > > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > > archetype of > > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > > collaboration to multiple > > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. > > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us > > > into a vast field of > > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > > imaginal and then travels to > > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > > >> > > > >> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as > > > marriage) is moving > > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > > relations* that remain > > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > > commitment/collaboration. > > > >> > > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging > > > the concept of > > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > > meaningful. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >> > > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >> > > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > > choose the set of > > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > > developing. Can't do > > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > > collaboration in which > > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is > > > certainly not worthy of > > > >> the name. > > > >> > > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > > destroy a collaboration, > > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > > successfully that it is positively > > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > > marriage, so we all know what > > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > > essential element of > > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as > > > well as moderating it. > > > >> > > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > > question. > > > >> > > > >> Andy > > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Andy, > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > > aside the issue of > > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex > > > (are we talking about > > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > > Artificial Intelligence or > > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > > distinctions are critical). > > > >>> > > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling > > > with. There has been > > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work > > > for your own needs - so > > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning > > > community, while > > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > > community. Others I think see > > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning > > > while cooperation is > > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > > action towards a goal. I > > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. > > > >>> > > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > > think would be > > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > > also seems to work against > > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of > > > education. Does Alfie > > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say > > > about conflict. > > > >>> > > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working together > > > visions of > > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > > conflict, as > > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > > collaboration might make sense. > > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > > >>> > > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > > collaborative group or is it the > > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > > conflict between their > > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > > them (I know, another > > > >>> loaded phrase). > > > >>> > > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > > adversarial. If there is one > > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > > those being adversarial > > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > > to each other and yet > > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > > things, or is this > > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > > hasn't been defined, or > > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > > >>> > > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > > really no mechanism for > > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for > > > change or innovation? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > > >>> > > > >>> MIchael > > > >>> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > ] On Behalf Of > > > Andy Blunden > > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >>> > > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > > Michael, so I'll offer > > > >>> some observations. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > > specifically working together > > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > > working together to change > > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > > >>> > > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference > > > between Collaboration > > > >>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much > > > of this is in the > > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > > essentially involves both > > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > > form or aspect of > > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > > towards two opposite > > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > > therefore has a slippery > > > >>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > > object worked upon, or > > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > > incorporate the > > > >>> possibility of difference. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > > together of distinct > > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves > > > a merging of the > > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, > > > but there are "limiting > > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > > include an exchange of > > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > > (such as customer-service > > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual > > > independence throughout) > > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > > subordinated to another). > > > >>> > > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > > working relationship > > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > > Collaboration on the other > > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > > attitude towards the > > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an > > > essential ingredient to > > > >>> Collaboration. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent > > > that one could argue > > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > > process. So Collaboration means > > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > > because the /concept /of the > > > >>> object changes. > > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) > > > in the process of > > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. > > > >>> > > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > > development in which (1) > > > >>> students work independently because they are > > > physically or organisationally > > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is > > > then facilitated by the > > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > > Students who are already > > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > > between them so that their > > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > > mediated only by the > > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > > Collaboration mediated by a > > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > > mean the undermining of > > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to > > > avoid closer > > > >>> collaboration. > > > >>> > > > >>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy > > > has heard a bit about > > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > > process, and that Collaboration > > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they > > > have to separate > > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > > they can collaborate. > > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > > equipment to allow students > > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > > separated from one > > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > > management+workers, etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > > >>> Andy > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > > > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hello all, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > > willing to respond. How do > > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > > question is that PISA is > > > >>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration > > > internationally. At first > > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is > > > happening, the framework > > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration > > > is being used more and > > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > > computer/web based research, but > > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > > word only came into vogue > > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > > together and labore meaning > > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although > > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a > > > very simplistic way I > > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I > > > know there was some > > > >>>> research around language (being able > > > >>>> > > > >>> to > > > >> > > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it > > > seems to miss the > > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it > > > with. I guess you could > > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > > creating a test for > > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Michael > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > > science with an object > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Apr 19 11:16:40 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:16:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> , <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> Message-ID: <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on collaboration ( here ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, that collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, it seems that each individual comes into group tasks with her own subjectivity, and then, in and through the fact of working together with others towards a shared goal, there emerges something intersubjective and which leads to learning. Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to measure individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is established as the set of variables that they call "Collaboration Skills". These, I assume, are thought just as we tend to think of subjectivity: something we carry along and which we can put to play when we do things with others so that something different and bigger emerges from which we all will learn. This is a view that takes the individual as the primary phenomenon, and collaboration as a something that results from the putting of individuals to work together. But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I believe an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then intersubjectivity (and not subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not stem from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, any single subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that intersubjective phenomenon that we call collaboration. If collaboration skills exist only (emerge and are put to work only) in collaboration, are they features of the individual that can be measured? Or are not they features of the collaborative settings? Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in the first place, but for there to be the two individuals, mother/father and baby there needs to be something larger that is parenting, and which indeed allows (and accounts) for the very existence of parents and children in the first place. Obviously too, for there to be a possibility for the collaborative achievement of {carrying | being carried} the baby and the mum need to have certain biological features and predispositions, such as priming towards grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of joint work by the two and so there is a change that is not biological only but also and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all biological premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said anything about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different practices of carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring collaborative skills as indexes for successful collaboration in education. First, if we agree that collaboration itself is a practice, and as such, may take many different forms and lead to very different characters/personalities, then for us to be able to agree on a set of collaborative skills we need to have first settled upon a given type of collaboration. Yet, in the literature this tends to be seen against the other measuring outcome: "learning outcomes"; in the document I've been looking at this was "collaborative problem solving". A discussion on WHAT kind of society (which is the same as to ask what kind of collaborations) we want to make possible through education, seems to be quite absent. The second and related problem concerns whether it makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by means of individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative settings themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back is that each individual performs adequately. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?) ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more > inclusive mf multiple perspectives. > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > in a > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > something like > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > destructive of collaboration. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > activity are > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > this > > work while playing well with others. > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > conflict has > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > be the > > poles of collaboration? > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > though my > > first real publication was on the development of these > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > recent > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > learner. > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > collaboration. > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > >> wrote: > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > to this > > discussion. I attach > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > different > > directions. But I > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > there is > > no collaboration. The > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > collaboration is trivial > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > of each other work > > > together on the same task, since their every > thought > > is identical there is > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > carrying out orders from > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > collaboration. But these > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > differences relevant to > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > division of labour (which > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > suppressed, there has to > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > >> > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > If I > > might bring in a > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > Rogers, > > marriage is a strong tie > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > it, as Larry says, so that > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > adversarial conflict, or does > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > most collaborations, > > >> especially those that lead to problem > solving, are > > based in weak tie > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > networks can only lead to > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > collaboration that allows > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > relationship to come > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > disagreement that does not > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > is it > > something else. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Lplarry > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> Andy, > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > archetype of > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > collaboration to multiple > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > conflict*. > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > carries us > > into a vast field of > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > imaginal and then travels to > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > >> > > >> To move from co-operation towards > collaboration (as > > marriage) is moving > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > relations* that remain > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > commitment/collaboration. > > >> > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > engaging > > the concept of > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > meaningful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > choose the set of > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > developing. Can't do > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > collaboration in which > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > away is > > certainly not worthy of > > >> the name. > > >> > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > destroy a collaboration, > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > successfully that it is positively > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > marriage, so we all know what > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > essential element of > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > it as > > well as moderating it. > > >> > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > question. > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Andy, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > aside the issue of > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > complex > > (are we talking about > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > Artificial Intelligence or > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > distinctions are critical). > > >>> > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > struggling > > with. There has been > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > community work > > for your own needs - so > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > learning > > community, while > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > community. Others I think see > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > meaning > > while cooperation is > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > action towards a goal. I > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > thinking. > > >>> > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > think would be > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > also seems to work against > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > field of > > education. Does Alfie > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > he say > > about conflict. > > >>> > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > together > > visions of > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > conflict, as > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > collaboration might make sense. > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > >>> > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > collaborative group or is it the > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > conflict between their > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > them (I know, another > > >>> loaded phrase). > > >>> > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > adversarial. If there is one > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > those being adversarial > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > to each other and yet > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > things, or is this > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > hasn't been defined, or > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > >>> > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > really no mechanism for > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > mechanism for > > change or innovation? > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > >>> > > >>> MIchael > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Andy Blunden > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >>> > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > Michael, so I'll offer > > >>> some observations. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > specifically working together > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > working together to change > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > >>> > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > difference > > between Collaboration > > >>> and the etymologically identical > Cooperation, much > > of this is in the > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > essentially involves both > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > form or aspect of > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > towards two opposite > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > therefore has a slippery > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > object worked upon, or > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > incorporate the > > >>> possibility of difference. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > together of distinct > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > involves > > a merging of the > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > project, > > but there are "limiting > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > include an exchange of > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > (such as customer-service > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > mutual > > independence throughout) > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > subordinated to another). > > >>> > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > working relationship > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > Collaboration on the other > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > attitude towards the > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > is an > > essential ingredient to > > >>> Collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > extent > > that one could argue > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > process. So Collaboration means > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > because the /concept /of the > > >>> object changes. > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > upon) > > in the process of > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > realising it. > > >>> > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > development in which (1) > > >>> students work independently because they are > > physically or organisationally > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > students is > > then facilitated by the > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > Students who are already > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > between them so that their > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > mediated only by the > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > Collaboration mediated by a > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > mean the undermining of > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > tools to > > avoid closer > > >>> collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > bureaucracy > > has heard a bit about > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > process, and that Collaboration > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > that they > > have to separate > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > they can collaborate. > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > equipment to allow students > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > separated from one > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > management+workers, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > >>> Andy > > >>> > > >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hello all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > willing to respond. How do > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > question is that PISA is > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > collaboration > > internationally. At first > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > really is > > happening, the framework > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > collaboration > > is being used more and > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > computer/web based research, but > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > word only came into vogue > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > together and labore meaning > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > (Although > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > in a > > very simplistic way I > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > helpful. I > > know there was some > > >>>> research around language (being able > > >>>> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > me it > > seems to miss the > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > replace it > > with. I guess you could > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > creating a test for > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > >>>> > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Apr 19 11:18:51 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:18:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C735BD@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> I really liked this article. The three things I took from it is that activity is reciprocal. In the Pisa framework you have to have at least two individuals, but this makes me think it leaves out the most important part, which is that the individuals are focused on their outcome so much that they become reciprocal. This leads to a second take away, which is that this mutual cooperation, or collaboration is Pragmatic, it emerges out of the activity itself. What leads me to think this way is Tomosello's descriptions of 24 month olds. The relates back to the idea that collaboration is not a trait but a process. And third, and I think this is important, it is dependent on attentional frames. It's not so much we develop shared meanings, but when we are trying to achieve the goal we have the same attentional frame, we are thinking along the same lines. This is much more proactive and forward looking than shared meanings. I like the idea that perspective plays a role in attentional frames but I am still processing this. But doesn't this sort of conflict with the idea of conflict? Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of mike cole Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 6:28 PM To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this discussion. I attach one article. Interesting title, too. mike On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different directions. But I > think the conflict is an essential part of collaboration. > Collaboration is unity and difference. Both are required or there is > no collaboration. The "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment > of collaboration is trivial as well. And the learning is trivial. > > I take collaboration as essentially between distinct, i,e, mutually > independent subjects. If two people who are clones of each other work > together on the same task, since their every thought is identical > there is no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, carrying out > orders from the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > collaboration. But these are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators > have differences relevant to the task at hand, and unless it is just a > routine division of labour (which I call cooperation), or conflict is > forbidden or suppressed, there has to be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > >> Hi Larry and Andy, >> >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I might bring in a >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, marriage is a >> strong tie relationships. Individuals make a commitment to it, as >> Larry says, so that the relationship is sustainable through even >> adversarial conflict, or does not collapse at the first sign of >> conflict. But most collaborations, especially those that lead to >> problem solving, are based in weak tie networks. Do we want to say >> that weak ties networks can only lead to cooperation. Isn't there >> something to collaboration that allows individuals without a prior or >> even sustainable relationship to come together to create change >> through evolutionary disagreement that does not engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it something else. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM >> To: Andy Blunden ; eXtended Mind, Culture, >> Activity < xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >> >> Andy, >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the archetype of >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of collaboration to >> multiple aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us into a vast field >> of shared (and conflictual) meanings. >> Interesting how this image opens towards the imaginal and then >> travels to distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. >> >> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as marriage) is >> moving towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate relations* >> that remain always *open to change* but within a continuing commitment/collaboration. >> >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging the concept of >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically meaningful. >> >> >> >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> From: Andy Blunden >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >> >> The field is rife with different definitions; I choose the set of >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am developing. Can't do >> anything about that! But the issue of >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called collaboration in >> which conflict is either suppressed or organised away is certainly >> not worthy of the name. >> >> That said, conflict has the potential always to destroy a >> collaboration, and at the same time can be moderated so successfully >> that it is positively enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is >> marriage, so we all know what this is about. Managing conflict is the >> most essential element of collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as well as moderating it. >> >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" question. >> >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >> >>> Hi Andy, >>> >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put aside the issue of >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex (are we talking >>> about the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or Artificial >>> Intelligence or Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these distinctions are critical). >>> >>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling with. There has >>> been a lot of talk of the difference between cooperation and >>> collaboration at a number of levels. Right now I think I like >>> Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in >>> community work for your own needs - so you never really give >>> yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves >>> actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as >>> the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply >>> (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. >>> >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I think would be >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of collaboration, they seem to be >>> looking to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It also seems >>> to work against a number of uses of collaboration in the field of >>> education. Does Alfie Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say about conflict. >>> >>> So I'm thinking though these just working together visions of >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and conflict, as >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of collaboration might make sense. >>> But what do we mean by conflict. >>> >>> Is it conflict between members of the collaborative group or is it >>> the abilities of the collaborative group to see conflict between >>> their solutions and the realities of the world around them (I know, >>> another loaded phrase). >>> >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of adversarial. If there is >>> one thing I think collaboration is, it is non-adversarial in nature. >>> So can ideas be in conflict without individuals raising those being >>> adversarial with each other. What if people are adversarial to each >>> other and yet still work together to accomplish important things, or >>> is this cooperation? Or is these another concept that hasn't been >>> defined, or perhaps I am not grasping? >>> >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is really no mechanism >>> for change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for change or innovation? >>> >>> Thoughts running around my head. >>> >>> MIchael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, Michael, so I'll offer >>> some observations. >>> >>> Collaboration as "together working" means specifically working >>> together to a common object (aim). That generally entails working >>> together to change an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). >>> >>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference between >>> Collaboration and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much of >>> this is in the "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration >>> essentially involves both cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also >>> one form or aspect of collaboration, because the parties are working >>> towards two opposite concepts of the same object. "Object" here >>> therefore has a slippery meaning. It can mean the >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the object worked upon, or the Gegenstand, the >>> object aimed for. Both ideas incorporate the possibility of difference. >>> >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming together of distinct >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves a merging of the >>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, but there are >>> "limiting cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These include >>> an exchange of labour governed by a negotiation of a contract (such >>> as customer-service provider in which the subjects retain their >>> mutual independence throughout) and command-and-obey (in which one subject is subordinated to another). >>> >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the working relationship >>> usually because there is a division of labour; Collaboration on the >>> other hand involves each party taking a critical attitude towards >>> the contribution of the other party. o conflict is an essential >>> ingredient to Collaboration. >>> >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent that one could >>> argue that learning can *only* be a Collaborative process. So >>> Collaboration means that the object (aim) of the labour changes, >>> because the /concept /of the object changes. >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) in the process of >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. >>> >>> In education there has been an unfortunate development in which (1) >>> students work independently because they are physically or >>> organisationally distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is >>> then facilitated by the use of computer and communication equipment, >>> (3) Students who are already face-to-face are obliged to introduce a >>> computer between them so that their collaboration, instead of being >>> face-to-face, mediated only by the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now >>> find their Collaboration mediated by a computer. That is, >>> "Collaboration" has come to mean the undermining of Collaboration by >>> the use of Collaborative tools to avoid closer collaboration. >>> >>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy has heard a bit >>> about the benefits of Collaboration as a learning process, and that >>> Collaboration requires equipment. So they get the idea that they >>> have to separate students or researchers from one another so that they can collaborate. >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide equipment to allow >>> students to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been separated >>> from one another. And the same goes for >>> students+teachers, research+industry, management+workers, etc. >>> >>> Does that help, Michael? >>> Andy >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>> >>>> Hello all, >>>> >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be willing to respond. How >>>> do you define collaboration? What spurs this question is that PISA >>>> is developing a framework for testing collaboration >>>> internationally. At first I thought I was getting punked, but it really is happening, the framework >>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration is being used more and >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve computer/web based >>>> research, but it often times seems to be a placeholder. The word >>>> only came into vogue late nineteenth century I think - col meaning >>>> together and labore meaning to labor. A lot of people who discuss collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although I am kind of sure >>>> Dewey never actually used the word collaboration, but I might be >>>> wrong). Anyway the PISA document defines collaboration but in a >>>> very simplistic way I think so that it is not wrong but not >>>> helpful. I know there was some research around language (being >>>> able >>>> >>> to >> >>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it seems to miss the >>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it with. I guess you >>>> could call this a request for comments. I find PISA creating a >>>> test for collaboration kind of dangerous. >>>> >>>> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collab >>>> or a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >>>> >>>> Michael >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Apr 19 11:33:06 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:33:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> , <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Alfredo, At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin to co-evolution. That we develop artifacts that lead us toward cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts are a product of collaboration. The artifacts push us forward to collaboration. The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts. Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence. The role of education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or "boot-strapping." Should we even be concerned with individual characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what makes us human. This is what worries me about the PISA framework. Is it actually antithetical to a more collaborative society. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on collaboration ( here ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, that collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, it seems that each individual comes into group tasks with her own subjectivity, and then, in and through the fact of working together with others towards a shared goal, there emerges something intersubjective and which leads to learning. Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to measure individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is established as the set of variables that they call "Collaboration Skills". These, I assume, are thought just as we tend to think of subjectivity: something we carry along and which we can put to play when we do things with others so that something different and bigger emerges from which we all will learn. This is a view that takes the individual as the primary phenomenon, and collaboration as a something that results from the putting of individuals to work together. But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I believe an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then intersubjectivity (and not subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not stem from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, any single subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that intersubjective phenomenon that we call collaboration. If collaboration skills exist only (emerge and are put to work only) in collaboration, are they features of the individual that can be measured? Or are not they features of the collaborative settings? Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in the first place, but for there to be the two individuals, mother/father and baby there needs to be something larger that is parenting, and which indeed allows (and accounts) for the very existence of parents and children in the first place. Obviously too, for there to be a possibility for the collaborative achievement of {carrying | being carried} the baby and the mum need to have certain biological features and predispositions, such as priming towards grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of joint work by the two and so there is a change that is not biological only but also and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all biological premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said anything about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different practices of carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring collaborative skills as indexes for successful collaboration in education. First, if we agree that collaboration itself is a practice, and as such, may take many different forms and lead to very different characters/personalities, then for us to be able to agree on a set of collaborative skills we need to have first settled upon a given type of collaboration. Yet, in the literature this tends to be seen against the other measuring outcome: "learning outcomes"; in the document I've been looking at this was "collaborative problem solving". A discussion on WHAT kind of society (which is the same as to ask what kind of collaborations) we want to make possible through education, seems to be quite absent. The second and related problem concerns whether it makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by means of individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative settings themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back is that each individual performs adequately. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?) ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > multiple perspectives. > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > in a > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > something like > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > destructive of collaboration. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > activity are > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > this > > work while playing well with others. > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > conflict has > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > be the > > poles of collaboration? > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > though my > > first real publication was on the development of these > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > recent > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > learner. > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > collaboration. > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > >> wrote: > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > to this > > discussion. I attach > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > different > > directions. But I > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > there is > > no collaboration. The > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > collaboration is trivial > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > of each other work > > > together on the same task, since their every > thought > > is identical there is > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > carrying out orders from > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > collaboration. But these > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > differences relevant to > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > division of labour (which > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > suppressed, there has to > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > >> > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > If I > > might bring in a > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > Rogers, > > marriage is a strong tie > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > it, as Larry says, so that > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > adversarial conflict, or does > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > most collaborations, > > >> especially those that lead to problem > solving, are > > based in weak tie > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > networks can only lead to > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > collaboration that allows > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > relationship to come > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > disagreement that does not > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > is it > > something else. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Lplarry > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> Andy, > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > archetype of > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > collaboration to multiple > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > conflict*. > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > carries us > > into a vast field of > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > imaginal and then travels to > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > >> > > >> To move from co-operation towards > collaboration (as > > marriage) is moving > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > relations* that remain > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > commitment/collaboration. > > >> > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > engaging > > the concept of > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > meaningful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > choose the set of > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > developing. Can't do > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > collaboration in which > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > away is > > certainly not worthy of > > >> the name. > > >> > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > destroy a collaboration, > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > successfully that it is positively > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > marriage, so we all know what > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > essential element of > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > it as > > well as moderating it. > > >> > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > question. > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Andy, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > aside the issue of > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > complex > > (are we talking about > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > Artificial Intelligence or > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > distinctions are critical). > > >>> > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > struggling > > with. There has been > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > community work > > for your own needs - so > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > learning > > community, while > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > community. Others I think see > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > meaning > > while cooperation is > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > action towards a goal. I > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > thinking. > > >>> > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > think would be > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > also seems to work against > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > field of > > education. Does Alfie > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > he say > > about conflict. > > >>> > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > together > > visions of > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > conflict, as > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > collaboration might make sense. > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > >>> > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > collaborative group or is it the > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > conflict between their > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > them (I know, another > > >>> loaded phrase). > > >>> > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > adversarial. If there is one > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > those being adversarial > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > to each other and yet > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > things, or is this > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > hasn't been defined, or > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > >>> > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > really no mechanism for > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > mechanism for > > change or innovation? > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > >>> > > >>> MIchael > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Andy Blunden > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >>> > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > Michael, so I'll offer > > >>> some observations. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > specifically working together > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > working together to change > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > >>> > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > difference > > between Collaboration > > >>> and the etymologically identical > Cooperation, much > > of this is in the > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > essentially involves both > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > form or aspect of > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > towards two opposite > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > therefore has a slippery > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > object worked upon, or > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > incorporate the > > >>> possibility of difference. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > together of distinct > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > involves > > a merging of the > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > project, > > but there are "limiting > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > include an exchange of > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > (such as customer-service > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > mutual > > independence throughout) > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > subordinated to another). > > >>> > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > working relationship > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > Collaboration on the other > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > attitude towards the > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > is an > > essential ingredient to > > >>> Collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > extent > > that one could argue > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > process. So Collaboration means > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > because the /concept /of the > > >>> object changes. > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > upon) > > in the process of > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > realising it. > > >>> > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > development in which (1) > > >>> students work independently because they are > > physically or organisationally > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > students is > > then facilitated by the > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > Students who are already > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > between them so that their > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > mediated only by the > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > Collaboration mediated by a > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > mean the undermining of > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > tools to > > avoid closer > > >>> collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > bureaucracy > > has heard a bit about > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > process, and that Collaboration > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > that they > > have to separate > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > they can collaborate. > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > equipment to allow students > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > separated from one > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > management+workers, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > >>> Andy > > >>> > > >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hello all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > willing to respond. How do > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > question is that PISA is > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > collaboration > > internationally. At first > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > really is > > happening, the framework > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > collaboration > > is being used more and > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > computer/web based research, but > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > word only came into vogue > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > together and labore meaning > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > (Although > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > in a > > very simplistic way I > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > helpful. I > > know there was some > > >>>> research around language (being able > > >>>> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > me it > > seems to miss the > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > replace it > > with. I guess you could > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > creating a test for > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > >>>> > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Tue Apr 19 11:49:56 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:49:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> , <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: I think it is an unfortunate historical quirk of language use that we have all but lost the potential for using 'collusion' (playing together) alongside collaboration and cooperation. If it weren't for the powerfully negative associations of collusion (those in power have reason to be concerned about the threat posed by opportunities for people to play together with ideas) this would be a valuable term for the kinds of unstructured interaction (like freewheeling social conversation or children's play) which help groups to knit themselves together without need for a predetermined 'point' or goal. Collaboration has itself been through shifts of meaning (the 'collabos' of occupied France, for example) so perhaps collusion might one day be restored to a more positive meaning. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Glassman, Michael Sent: 19 April 2016 19:33 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Hi Alfredo, At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin to co-evolution. That we develop artifacts that lead us toward cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts are a product of collaboration. The artifacts push us forward to collaboration. The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts. Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence. The role of education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or "boot-strapping." Should we even be concerned with individual characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what makes us human. This is what worries me about the PISA framework. Is it actually antithetical to a more collaborative society. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on collaboration ( here ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, that collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, it seems that each individual comes into group tasks with her own subjectivity, and then, in and through the fact of working together with others towards a shared goal, there emerges something intersubjective and which leads to learning. Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to measure individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is established as the set of variables that they call "Collaboration Skills". These, I assume, are thought just as we tend to think of subjectivity: something we carry along and which we can put to play when we do things with others so that something different and bigger emerges from which we all will learn. This is a view that takes the individual as the primary phenomenon, and collaboration as a something that results from the putting of individuals to work together. But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I believe an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then intersubjectivity (and not subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not stem from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, any single subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that intersubjective phenomenon that we call collaboration. If collaboration skills exist only (emerge and are put to work only) in collaboration, are they features of the individual that can be measured? Or are not they features of the collaborative settings? Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in the first place, but for there to be the two individuals, mother/father and baby there needs to be something larger that is parenting, and which indeed allows (and accounts) for the very existence of parents and children in the first place. Obviously too, for there to be a possibility for the collaborative achievement of {carrying | being carried} the baby and the mum need to have certain biological features and predispositions, such as priming towards grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of joint work by the two and so there is a change that is not biological only but also and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all biological premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said anything about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different practices of carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring collaborative skills as indexes for successful collaboration in education. First, if we agree that collaboration itself is a practice, and as such, may take many different forms and lead to very different characters/personalities, then for us to be able to agree on a set of collaborative skills we need to have first settled upon a given type of collaboration. Yet, in the literature this tends to be seen against the other measuring outcome: "learning outcomes"; in the document I've been looking at this was "collaborative problem solving". A discussion on WHAT kind of society (which is the same as to ask what kind of collaborations) we want to make possible through education, seems to be quite absent. The second and related problem concerns whether it makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by means of individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative settings themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back is that each individual performs adequately. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?) ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > multiple perspectives. > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > in a > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > something like > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > destructive of collaboration. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > activity are > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > this > > work while playing well with others. > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > conflict has > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > be the > > poles of collaboration? > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > though my > > first real publication was on the development of these > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > recent > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > learner. > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > collaboration. > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > >> wrote: > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > to this > > discussion. I attach > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > different > > directions. But I > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > there is > > no collaboration. The > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > collaboration is trivial > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > of each other work > > > together on the same task, since their every > thought > > is identical there is > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > carrying out orders from > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > collaboration. But these > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > differences relevant to > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > division of labour (which > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > suppressed, there has to > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > >> > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > If I > > might bring in a > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > Rogers, > > marriage is a strong tie > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > it, as Larry says, so that > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > adversarial conflict, or does > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > most collaborations, > > >> especially those that lead to problem > solving, are > > based in weak tie > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > networks can only lead to > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > collaboration that allows > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > relationship to come > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > disagreement that does not > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > is it > > something else. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Lplarry > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> Andy, > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > archetype of > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > collaboration to multiple > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > conflict*. > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > carries us > > into a vast field of > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > imaginal and then travels to > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > >> > > >> To move from co-operation towards > collaboration (as > > marriage) is moving > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > relations* that remain > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > commitment/collaboration. > > >> > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > engaging > > the concept of > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > meaningful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > choose the set of > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > developing. Can't do > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > collaboration in which > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > away is > > certainly not worthy of > > >> the name. > > >> > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > destroy a collaboration, > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > successfully that it is positively > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > marriage, so we all know what > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > essential element of > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > it as > > well as moderating it. > > >> > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > question. > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Andy, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > aside the issue of > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > complex > > (are we talking about > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > Artificial Intelligence or > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > distinctions are critical). > > >>> > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > struggling > > with. There has been > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > community work > > for your own needs - so > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > learning > > community, while > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > community. Others I think see > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > meaning > > while cooperation is > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > action towards a goal. I > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > thinking. > > >>> > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > think would be > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > also seems to work against > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > field of > > education. Does Alfie > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > he say > > about conflict. > > >>> > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > together > > visions of > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > conflict, as > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > collaboration might make sense. > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > >>> > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > collaborative group or is it the > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > conflict between their > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > them (I know, another > > >>> loaded phrase). > > >>> > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > adversarial. If there is one > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > those being adversarial > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > to each other and yet > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > things, or is this > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > hasn't been defined, or > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > >>> > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > really no mechanism for > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > mechanism for > > change or innovation? > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > >>> > > >>> MIchael > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Andy Blunden > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >>> > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > Michael, so I'll offer > > >>> some observations. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > specifically working together > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > working together to change > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > >>> > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > difference > > between Collaboration > > >>> and the etymologically identical > Cooperation, much > > of this is in the > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > essentially involves both > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > form or aspect of > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > towards two opposite > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > therefore has a slippery > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > object worked upon, or > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > incorporate the > > >>> possibility of difference. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > together of distinct > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > involves > > a merging of the > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > project, > > but there are "limiting > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > include an exchange of > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > (such as customer-service > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > mutual > > independence throughout) > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > subordinated to another). > > >>> > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > working relationship > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > Collaboration on the other > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > attitude towards the > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > is an > > essential ingredient to > > >>> Collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > extent > > that one could argue > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > process. So Collaboration means > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > because the /concept /of the > > >>> object changes. > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > upon) > > in the process of > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > realising it. > > >>> > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > development in which (1) > > >>> students work independently because they are > > physically or organisationally > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > students is > > then facilitated by the > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > Students who are already > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > between them so that their > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > mediated only by the > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > Collaboration mediated by a > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > mean the undermining of > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > tools to > > avoid closer > > >>> collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > bureaucracy > > has heard a bit about > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > process, and that Collaboration > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > that they > > have to separate > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > they can collaborate. > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > equipment to allow students > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > separated from one > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > management+workers, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > >>> Andy > > >>> > > >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hello all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > willing to respond. How do > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > question is that PISA is > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > collaboration > > internationally. At first > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > really is > > happening, the framework > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > collaboration > > is being used more and > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > computer/web based research, but > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > word only came into vogue > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > together and labore meaning > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > (Although > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > in a > > very simplistic way I > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > helpful. I > > know there was some > > >>>> research around language (being able > > >>>> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > me it > > seems to miss the > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > replace it > > with. I guess you could > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > creating a test for > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > >>>> > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 12:05:40 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 12:05:40 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> , <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <5716818e.d508620a.cc96c.6ee8@mx.google.com> Alfredo, Your exploration of what the meaning of *intersubjective means* is going to the heart of the matter. In one meaning our subjectivity is primordial and each of us brings our subjectivity into a shared place of mutuality and in this process an inter/subjective reality or realization or manifestation *arises* and is given *form* (meaning). I will call this meaning of intersubjectivity *individual* intersubjectivity. However, as you articulate there is another possible meaning of *intersubjectivity* that focuses originally on the *place* or *space* or *site* in which persons inter/act and it is the quality or characteristic of this place that generates *meaning* including the meaning of subjectivity *arising* within this particular situation. This second meaning of intersubjectivity I will call *place intersubjectivity* to indicate that subjectivity is a *manifestation* of intersubjectivity. In other words the 2nd person mutual joint attention within places is primordial. These two differing notions of what *intersubjectivity is* enact differing notions of what we mean by dwelling in the world. I read joint attention as exploring these contrasting notions of the relation of subjectivity and intersubjevtivity. Larry Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: April 19, 2016 11:18 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on collaboration ( here ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, that collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, it seems that each individual comes into group tasks with her own subjectivity, and then, in and through the fact of working together with others towards a shared goal, there emerges something intersubjective and which leads to learning. Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to measure individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is established as the set of variables that they call "Collaboration Skills". These, I assume, are thought just as we tend to think of subjectivity: something we carry along and which we can put to play when we do things with others so that something different and bigger emerges from which we all will learn. This is a view that takes the individual as the primary phenomenon, and collaboration as a something that results from the putting of individuals to work together. But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I believe an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then intersubjectivity (and not subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not stem from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, any single subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that intersubjective phenomenon that we call collaboration. If collaboration skills exist only (emerge and are put to work only) in collaboration, are they features of the individual that can be measured? Or are not they features of the collaborative settings? Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in the first place, but for there to be the two individuals, mother/father and baby there needs to be something larger that is parenting, and which indeed allows (and accounts) for the very existence of parents and children in the first place. Obviously too, for there to be a possibility for the collaborative achievement of {carrying | being carried} the baby and the mum need to have certain biological features and predispositions, such as priming towards grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of joint work by the two and so there is a change that is not biological only but also and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all biological premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said anything about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different practices of carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring collaborative skills as indexes for successful collaboration in education. First, if we agree that collaboration itself is a practice, and as such, may take many different forms and lead to very different characters/personalities, then for us to be able to agree on a set of collaborative skills we need to have first settled upon a given type of collaboration. Yet, in the literature this tends to be seen against the other measuring outcome: "learning outcomes"; in the document I've been looking at this was "collaborative problem solving". A discussion on WHAT kind of society (which is the same as to ask what kind of collaborations) we want to make possible through education, seems to be quite absent. The second and related problem concerns whether it makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by means of individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative settings themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back is that each individual performs adequately. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?) ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more > inclusive mf multiple perspectives. > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > in a > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > something like > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > destructive of collaboration. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > activity are > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > this > > work while playing well with others. > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > conflict has > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > be the > > poles of collaboration? > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > though my > > first real publication was on the development of these > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > recent > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > learner. > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > collaboration. > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > >> wrote: > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > to this > > discussion. I attach > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > different > > directions. But I > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > there is > > no collaboration. The > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > collaboration is trivial > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > of each other work > > > together on the same task, since their every > thought > > is identical there is > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > carrying out orders from > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > collaboration. But these > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > differences relevant to > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > division of labour (which > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > suppressed, there has to > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > >> > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > If I > > might bring in a > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > Rogers, > > marriage is a strong tie > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > it, as Larry says, so that > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > adversarial conflict, or does > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > most collaborations, > > >> especially those that lead to problem > solving, are > > based in weak tie > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > networks can only lead to > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > collaboration that allows > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > relationship to come > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > disagreement that does not > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > is it > > something else. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Lplarry > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> Andy, > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > archetype of > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > collaboration to multiple > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > conflict*. > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > carries us > > into a vast field of > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > imaginal and then travels to > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > >> > > >> To move from co-operation towards > collaboration (as > > marriage) is moving > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > relations* that remain > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > commitment/collaboration. > > >> > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > engaging > > the concept of > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > meaningful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > choose the set of > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > developing. Can't do > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > collaboration in which > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > away is > > certainly not worthy of > > >> the name. > > >> > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > destroy a collaboration, > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > successfully that it is positively > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > marriage, so we all know what > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > essential element of > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > it as > > well as moderating it. > > >> > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > question. > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Andy, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > aside the issue of > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > complex > > (are we talking about > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > Artificial Intelligence or > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > distinctions are critical). > > >>> > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > struggling > > with. There has been > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > community work > > for your own needs - so > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > learning > > community, while > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > community. Others I think see > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > meaning > > while cooperation is > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > action towards a goal. I > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > thinking. > > >>> > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > think would be > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > also seems to work against > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > field of > > education. Does Alfie > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > he say > > about conflict. > > >>> > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > together > > visions of > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > conflict, as > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > collaboration might make sense. > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > >>> > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > collaborative group or is it the > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > conflict between their > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > them (I know, another > > >>> loaded phrase). > > >>> > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > adversarial. If there is one > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > those being adversarial > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > to each other and yet > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > things, or is this > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > hasn't been defined, or > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > >>> > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > really no mechanism for > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > mechanism for > > change or innovation? > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > >>> > > >>> MIchael > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Andy Blunden > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >>> > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > Michael, so I'll offer > > >>> some observations. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > specifically working together > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > working together to change > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > >>> > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > difference > > between Collaboration > > >>> and the etymologically identical > Cooperation, much > > of this is in the > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > essentially involves both > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > form or aspect of > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > towards two opposite > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > therefore has a slippery > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > object worked upon, or > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > incorporate the > > >>> possibility of difference. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > together of distinct > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > involves > > a merging of the > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > project, > > but there are "limiting > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > include an exchange of > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > (such as customer-service > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > mutual > > independence throughout) > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > subordinated to another). > > >>> > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > working relationship > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > Collaboration on the other > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > attitude towards the > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > is an > > essential ingredient to > > >>> Collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > extent > > that one could argue > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > process. So Collaboration means > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > because the /concept /of the > > >>> object changes. > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > upon) > > in the process of > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > realising it. > > >>> > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > development in which (1) > > >>> students work independently because they are > > physically or organisationally > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > students is > > then facilitated by the > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > Students who are already > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > between them so that their > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > mediated only by the > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > Collaboration mediated by a > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > mean the undermining of > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > tools to > > avoid closer > > >>> collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > bureaucracy > > has heard a bit about > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > process, and that Collaboration > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > that they > > have to separate > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > they can collaborate. > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > equipment to allow students > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > separated from one > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > management+workers, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > >>> Andy > > >>> > > >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hello all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > willing to respond. How do > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > question is that PISA is > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > collaboration > > internationally. At first > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > really is > > happening, the framework > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > collaboration > > is being used more and > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > computer/web based research, but > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > word only came into vogue > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > together and labore meaning > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > (Although > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > in a > > very simplistic way I > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > helpful. I > > know there was some > > >>>> research around language (being able > > >>>> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > me it > > seems to miss the > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > replace it > > with. I guess you could > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > creating a test for > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > >>>> > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Apr 19 12:20:54 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:20:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> , <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no>, <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Hi Michael, I share your concern. And I am sure many in this list too, and many researchers in traditions associated to xmca seem to agree too... There must then be some mechanism that, despite this considerably widespread awareness of the problem and the need to change, it is still possible for educational policy and implementation to continue without there being much substantial discussion about the kind of society/personalities schooling assumes and generates, of there not being many such discussions in our academic presentations, publications, parent-teacher meetings... Rod's comment on collusion and its historical (non-)use may be part of the explanation, the type of discourses there being at work. Perhaps change is slower than we wish it to be (though certainly things are different now that when I went to school in Spain in the 80's, and that's not a lot of time), or we should not wait too long for evolution to continue and try to make more of a revolution... You mention artifacts in your note, and I know you specify them as part of a larger system of co-evolution. It seems to be the case, however, that the very focus on artifacts to the detriment of the operations may be at the heart of the problem. Andy was already pointing to the fact that the current state of affairs consists in first conceiving students as separated individuals, and then creating (from the outside) artifacts for supporting them in collaborating, as if those artifacts were to do the trick of putting them back together... Some may then say that artifacts then "mediate" between the different students so that something intersubjective emerges... But if what allows people to stick together is not the artifacts themselves, but what Larry calls shared attention (taking "attention" here to be something of psychological import, not just a "lower function" or component of the person but as a dispositional character that involves a multi-functional organization, and something that always includes some materials from the environment), then it is the process of using tools, the subjective-generating processes, what are of interest. Anyway, this is just to add more words to what you were already saying. But if the shift in (educational, assessment) practice has to do with a shift in the discourse, then I think finding ways of talking about collaboration where the primacy of the joint attention within places (to use Larry's formulation) is made patent and not confused may be part of the (revolutionary) solution. This is a very fascinating topic! Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Glassman, Michael Sent: 19 April 2016 20:33 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Hi Alfredo, At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin to co-evolution. That we develop artifacts that lead us toward cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts are a product of collaboration. The artifacts push us forward to collaboration. The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts. Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence. The role of education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or "boot-strapping." Should we even be concerned with individual characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what makes us human. This is what worries me about the PISA framework. Is it actually antithetical to a more collaborative society. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on collaboration ( here ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, that collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, it seems that each individual comes into group tasks with her own subjectivity, and then, in and through the fact of working together with others towards a shared goal, there emerges something intersubjective and which leads to learning. Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to measure individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is established as the set of variables that they call "Collaboration Skills". These, I assume, are thought just as we tend to think of subjectivity: something we carry along and which we can put to play when we do things with others so that something different and bigger emerges from which we all will learn. This is a view that takes the individual as the primary phenomenon, and collaboration as a something that results from the putting of individuals to work together. But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I believe an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then intersubjectivity (and not subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not stem from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, any single subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that intersubjective phenomenon that we call collaboration. If collaboration skills exist only (emerge and are put to work only) in collaboration, are they features of the individual that can be measured? Or are not they features of the collaborative settings? Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in the first place, but for there to be the two individuals, mother/father and baby there needs to be something larger that is parenting, and which indeed allows (and accounts) for the very existence of parents and children in the first place. Obviously too, for there to be a possibility for the collaborative achievement of {carrying | being carried} the baby and the mum need to have certain biological features and predispositions, such as priming towards grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of joint work by the two and so there is a change that is not biological only but also and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all biological premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said anything about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different practices of carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring collaborative skills as indexes for successful collaboration in education. First, if we agree that collaboration itself is a practice, and as such, may take many different forms and lead to very different characters/personalities, then for us to be able to agree on a set of collaborative skills we need to have first settled upon a given type of collaboration. Yet, in the literature this tends to be seen against the other measuring outcome: "learning outcomes"; in the document I've been looking at this was "collaborative problem solving". A discussion on WHAT kind of society (which is the same as to ask what kind of collaborations) we want to make possible through education, seems to be quite absent. The second and related problem concerns whether it makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by means of individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative settings themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back is that each individual performs adequately. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Andy Blunden Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?) ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > multiple perspectives. > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > wrote: > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > in a > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > something like > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > destructive of collaboration. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > activity are > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > this > > work while playing well with others. > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > conflict has > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > be the > > poles of collaboration? > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > though my > > first real publication was on the development of these > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > recent > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > learner. > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > collaboration. > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > >> wrote: > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > to this > > discussion. I attach > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > mike > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > >> > wrote: > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > different > > directions. But I > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > there is > > no collaboration. The > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > collaboration is trivial > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > of each other work > > > together on the same task, since their every > thought > > is identical there is > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > carrying out orders from > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > collaboration. But these > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > differences relevant to > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > division of labour (which > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > suppressed, there has to > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > >> > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > If I > > might bring in a > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > Rogers, > > marriage is a strong tie > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > it, as Larry says, so that > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > adversarial conflict, or does > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > most collaborations, > > >> especially those that lead to problem > solving, are > > based in weak tie > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > networks can only lead to > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > collaboration that allows > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > relationship to come > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > disagreement that does not > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > is it > > something else. > > >> > > >> Michael > > >> > > >> -----Original Message----- > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > [mailto: > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Lplarry > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > Activity < > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >> > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> Andy, > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > archetype of > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > collaboration to multiple > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > conflict*. > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > carries us > > into a vast field of > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > imaginal and then travels to > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > >> > > >> To move from co-operation towards > collaboration (as > > marriage) is moving > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > relations* that remain > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > commitment/collaboration. > > >> > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > engaging > > the concept of > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > meaningful. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > >> > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >> > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > choose the set of > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > developing. Can't do > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > collaboration in which > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > away is > > certainly not worthy of > > >> the name. > > >> > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > destroy a collaboration, > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > successfully that it is positively > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > marriage, so we all know what > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > essential element of > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > it as > > well as moderating it. > > >> > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > question. > > >> > > >> Andy > > >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >> > > >>> Hi Andy, > > >>> > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > aside the issue of > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > complex > > (are we talking about > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > Artificial Intelligence or > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > distinctions are critical). > > >>> > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > struggling > > with. There has been > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > community work > > for your own needs - so > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > learning > > community, while > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > community. Others I think see > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > meaning > > while cooperation is > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > action towards a goal. I > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > thinking. > > >>> > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > think would be > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > also seems to work against > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > field of > > education. Does Alfie > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > he say > > about conflict. > > >>> > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > together > > visions of > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > conflict, as > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > collaboration might make sense. > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > >>> > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > collaborative group or is it the > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > conflict between their > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > them (I know, another > > >>> loaded phrase). > > >>> > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > adversarial. If there is one > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > those being adversarial > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > to each other and yet > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > things, or is this > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > hasn't been defined, or > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > >>> > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > really no mechanism for > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > mechanism for > > change or innovation? > > >>> > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > >>> > > >>> MIchael > > >>> > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > >] On Behalf Of > > Andy Blunden > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > >>> > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > Michael, so I'll offer > > >>> some observations. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > specifically working together > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > working together to change > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > >>> > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > difference > > between Collaboration > > >>> and the etymologically identical > Cooperation, much > > of this is in the > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > essentially involves both > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > form or aspect of > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > towards two opposite > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > therefore has a slippery > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > object worked upon, or > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > incorporate the > > >>> possibility of difference. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > together of distinct > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > involves > > a merging of the > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > project, > > but there are "limiting > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > include an exchange of > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > (such as customer-service > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > mutual > > independence throughout) > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > subordinated to another). > > >>> > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > working relationship > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > Collaboration on the other > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > attitude towards the > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > is an > > essential ingredient to > > >>> Collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > extent > > that one could argue > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > process. So Collaboration means > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > because the /concept /of the > > >>> object changes. > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > upon) > > in the process of > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > realising it. > > >>> > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > development in which (1) > > >>> students work independently because they are > > physically or organisationally > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > students is > > then facilitated by the > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > Students who are already > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > between them so that their > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > mediated only by the > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > Collaboration mediated by a > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > mean the undermining of > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > tools to > > avoid closer > > >>> collaboration. > > >>> > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > bureaucracy > > has heard a bit about > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > process, and that Collaboration > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > that they > > have to separate > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > they can collaborate. > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > equipment to allow students > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > separated from one > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > management+workers, etc. > > >>> > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > >>> Andy > > >>> > > >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > ; > > ; > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Hello all, > > >>>> > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > willing to respond. How do > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > question is that PISA is > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > collaboration > > internationally. At first > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > really is > > happening, the framework > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > collaboration > > is being used more and > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > computer/web based research, but > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > word only came into vogue > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > together and labore meaning > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > (Although > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > in a > > very simplistic way I > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > helpful. I > > know there was some > > >>>> research around language (being able > > >>>> > > >>> to > > >> > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > me it > > seems to miss the > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > replace it > > with. I guess you could > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > creating a test for > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > >>>> > > >>>> Michael > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > science with an object > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Apr 19 13:33:21 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:33:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> , <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no>, <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu>, <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Hello esteemed XMCArs! This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so far up to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be further collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating question. :) Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. It isn't distressing, nor need it be a surrendering of identity, even in a more hierarchical social structure. Also, cooperation can be very ambitious, so I seem to have a 180 definition to Andy's distinctions between the two words. In collaboration, there is a community effort to complete something and it is more democratic in nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to summarize, I don't believe that for either cooperation or collaboration that conflict is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can exist without conflict. That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he speaks of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking." I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to any collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as Micheal points out. But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when considering marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must be present in a marriage something called love and care, which is joyful sharing. I imagine also, in the creation of a family there is an ideal objective to a create a sense of continuity and community of care for all members, and that is an ongoing collaboration. I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration around conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't think marriage is something that is usually considered in reference to conflict, though for many who are divorced or who fear repeating a bad marriage, they seem to orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in conflict. :/ Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, because successful collaboration requires members who have complimentary ways of thinking about or skill for doing things. Sometimes having too many people who have expertise or skill in identical domains creates competition, and competition not only creates conflict, but also has the potential become violent. I say that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that there are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in groups made up solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all female, or mixed, or even LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still being understood by all of us. There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with class or race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, signifiers, histories, and so on. Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and little-c collaboration? How does creativity relate? I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs for collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied internal work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify until they were able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They found that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each member to speak, in other words no individual or individuals dominated leaving others silent, those groups possessed the most productivity, and also each member felt good about being in that group. When they looked more closely to get to the bottom of all that, it ended up that the only feature that really counted was whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each member. I have one word for this: Duh. A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head when it comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid collaboration without any psychological safety? Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is there humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is improvisation regarded as a site for discovery and imagination? Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being distributed doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a highly hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study of cultural practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval ship is still distributed despite these organizational features. Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it note and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in solitude, from the time I search my fridge to learn what I've run out of, in order to make my list, and how I bring the list with me to the store as I search the aisles and then remember that I'd forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, because I keep that in the pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. It's all distributed cognition. Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's previous posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see cooperation as more about accommodation, rather than being conflict free. That's what I meant by sacrifice to a cause, which could be conflict aversion. I agree with Andy that suppressing conflict is not good, but neither is being conflict averse, which feels to me to be more "internal" than "external." Your mileage may vary. I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. I wonder if professional diplomats use any words for what we are conceptually circumnavigating? How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which possesses a non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies search, comparison, identification of differences and similarities, these words provide opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or testing, then negotiation and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences between shaken and stirred? :) I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. Thanks for that one, Vera. In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something inherently done without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or more-experienced peer, but it does appear to be inherently necessary for all of us to be successfully human. Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of dividual makes the case that some cultures have members who see themselves closely tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," if I might exercise Vera's nice coupling of words. So perhaps we might not be too hasty about normalizing individualism as we experience it, and pose it as a universal human trait. It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human phenomenon, since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks Mike), he is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a group can't be too obvious that they are working together because they must wait for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new turn in the flow of events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work off to the side to experiment and solidify an idea before presenting it to the group. That seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly influenced by the environment is also worth further discussion too, as I don't believe that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a non-environment or even a non-culture. There has to be a there there. So the reference of "dwelling in the world" is also very delightful. Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. There are a lot of "C" words: ---------------- -care -collaboration -collusion -commitment -community -competition -conflict -continuity -cooperation -creativity but also some non-C words: ---------------- -accommodation -ambitious -artifacts -attention -democratic -dignified interdependence -distributed cogniton -distributive -environment -integrative -love -marriage -meaning -negotiation -play -safety -sharing Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon the concept of collaboration. I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) thread and tapestry! Kind regards, Annalisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 13:38:18 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 06:38:18 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: I think it's both true and untrue to say that PISA measures the "cooperation" of individuals. Something we are all missing here, in our general (and, for my part anyway, very much shared) distaste for large scale and cross cultural tests, is that the PISA tests are administered to individuals, but they are not designed to "measure" individual performances at all. They are not high stakes tests, and there are actually no consequences whatsoever for the individuals who take them. Instead, they are something quite rare (and in my view precious) in the psychometric world: a test of syllabus designers, teacher training institutions, and ultimately education budgets. I think you can certainly blame the logic here. At bottom, it is the same logic that says that when a child is failing, you punish the teachers. But in this case that logic is actually applied to persons with real power over educational inputs, and there are no untoward consequences towards innocent learners or even teachers. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. PISA, for all its undoubted shortcomings--shortcomings that it shares with any and all forms of "cross-cultural" psychological testing, shortcomings which Vygotsky criticized in HDHMF and which Luria inadvertently exposed in his Uzbekistan work, shortcomings which were deliberately and explicitly analysed in the earlier work of people like Sylvia Scribner, Joseph Glick and Mike Cole--PISA has played a very progressive role in places like Catalonia, where it has provided clear evidence in support of Catalan immersion and bilingual education. I think it's no accident that PISA scores are very often cited by critics of US education. Perhaps the best way to put it is to say that the "unit of analysis" in PISA is the individual, but the phenomenon to be explained is national educational policy. That is both its weakness (because the individual is actually an element and not a unit here) and its strength (because unlike almost all other forms of testing there are no individual consequences). David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Michael, I share your concern. And I am sure many in this list too, and > many researchers in traditions associated to xmca seem to agree too... > There must then be some mechanism that, despite this considerably > widespread awareness of the problem and the need to change, it is still > possible for educational policy and implementation to continue without > there being much substantial discussion about the kind of > society/personalities schooling assumes and generates, of there not being > many such discussions in our academic presentations, publications, > parent-teacher meetings... Rod's comment on collusion and its historical > (non-)use may be part of the explanation, the type of discourses there > being at work. Perhaps change is slower than we wish it to be (though > certainly things are different now that when I went to school in Spain in > the 80's, and that's not a lot of time), or we should not wait too long for > evolution to continue and try to make more of a revolution... > > You mention artifacts in your note, and I know you specify them as part of > a larger system of co-evolution. It seems to be the case, however, that the > very focus on artifacts to the detriment of the operations may be at the > heart of the problem. Andy was already pointing to the fact that the > current state of affairs consists in first conceiving students as separated > individuals, and then creating (from the outside) artifacts for supporting > them in collaborating, as if those artifacts were to do the trick of > putting them back together... Some may then say that artifacts then > "mediate" between the different students so that something intersubjective > emerges... But if what allows people to stick together is not the artifacts > themselves, but what Larry calls shared attention (taking "attention" here > to be something of psychological import, not just a "lower function" or > component of the person but as a dispositional character that involves a > multi-functional organization, and something that always includes some > materials from the environment), then it is the process of using tools, the > subjective-generating processes, what are of interest. Anyway, this is just > to add more words to what you were already saying. But if the shift in > (educational, assessment) practice has to do with a shift in the discourse, > then I think finding ways of talking about collaboration where the primacy > of the joint attention within places (to use Larry's formulation) is made > patent and not confused may be part of the (revolutionary) solution. This > is a very fascinating topic! > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Glassman, Michael > Sent: 19 April 2016 20:33 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > Hi Alfredo, > > At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin to > co-evolution. That we develop artifacts that lead us toward > cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts are > a product of collaboration. The artifacts push us forward to > collaboration. The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts. > Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence. The role of > education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or > "boot-strapping." Should we even be concerned with individual > characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what makes > us human. This is what worries me about the PISA framework. Is it > actually antithetical to a more collaborative society. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > ablunden@mira.net > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on collaboration > ( here< > http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf> > ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that > ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, that > collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, it seems > that each individual comes into group tasks with her own subjectivity, and > then, in and through the fact of working together with others towards a > shared goal, there emerges something intersubjective and which leads to > learning. > > > Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to measure > individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is established as the > set of variables that they call "Collaboration Skills". These, I assume, > are thought just as we tend to think of subjectivity: something we carry > along and which we can put to play when we do things with others so that > something different and bigger emerges from which we all will learn. This > is a view that takes the individual as the primary phenomenon, and > collaboration as a something that results from the putting of individuals > to work together. > > > But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I believe > an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then intersubjectivity (and not > subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not stem > from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, any single > subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that intersubjective > phenomenon that we call collaboration. If collaboration skills exist only > (emerge and are put to work only) in collaboration, are they features of > the individual that can be measured? Or are not they features of the > collaborative settings? > > > Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative > achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in the > first place, but for there to be the two individuals, mother/father and > baby there needs to be something larger that is parenting, and which indeed > allows (and accounts) for the very existence of parents and children in the > first place. Obviously too, for there to be a possibility for the > collaborative achievement of {carrying | being carried} the baby and the > mum need to have certain biological features and predispositions, such as > priming towards grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of > joint work by the two and so there is a change that is not biological only > but also and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all > biological premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said > anything about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby > relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different practices of > carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as > those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. > > > So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring collaborative > skills as indexes for successful collaboration in education. First, if we > agree that collaboration itself is a practice, and as such, may take many > different forms and lead to very different characters/personalities, then > for us to be able to agree on a set of collaborative skills we need to have > first settled upon a given type of collaboration. Yet, in the literature > this tends to be seen against the other measuring outcome: "learning > outcomes"; in the document I've been looking at this was "collaborative > problem solving". A discussion on WHAT kind of society (which is the same > as to ask what kind of collaborations) we want to make possible through > education, seems to be quite absent. The second and related problem > concerns whether it makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by > means of individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative > settings themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the > motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back > is that each individual performs adequately. > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with > a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that > was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. > on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society > that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is > sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > > multiple perspectives. > > > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > > in a > > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > > something like > > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > > destructive of collaboration. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > > activity are > > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > > this > > > work while playing well with others. > > > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > > conflict has > > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > > be the > > > poles of collaboration? > > > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > > though my > > > first real publication was on the development of these > > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > > recent > > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > > learner. > > > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > > collaboration. > > > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > > to this > > > discussion. I attach > > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > > mike > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > > different > > > directions. But I > > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > > there is > > > no collaboration. The > > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > > collaboration is trivial > > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > > of each other work > > > > together on the same task, since their every > > thought > > > is identical there is > > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > > carrying out orders from > > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > > collaboration. But these > > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > > differences relevant to > > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > > division of labour (which > > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > > suppressed, there has to > > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > > >> > > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > > If I > > > might bring in a > > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > > Rogers, > > > marriage is a strong tie > > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > > it, as Larry says, so that > > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > > adversarial conflict, or does > > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > > most collaborations, > > > >> especially those that lead to problem > > solving, are > > > based in weak tie > > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > > networks can only lead to > > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > > collaboration that allows > > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > > relationship to come > > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > > disagreement that does not > > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > > is it > > > something else. > > > >> > > > >> Michael > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >] On Behalf Of > > > Lplarry > > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > > > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > > Activity < > > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >> > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >> > > > >> Andy, > > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > > archetype of > > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > > collaboration to multiple > > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > > conflict*. > > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > > carries us > > > into a vast field of > > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > > imaginal and then travels to > > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > > >> > > > >> To move from co-operation towards > > collaboration (as > > > marriage) is moving > > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > > relations* that remain > > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > > commitment/collaboration. > > > >> > > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > > engaging > > > the concept of > > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > > meaningful. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >> > > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >> > > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > > choose the set of > > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > > developing. Can't do > > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > > collaboration in which > > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > > away is > > > certainly not worthy of > > > >> the name. > > > >> > > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > > destroy a collaboration, > > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > > successfully that it is positively > > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > > marriage, so we all know what > > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > > essential element of > > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > > it as > > > well as moderating it. > > > >> > > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > > question. > > > >> > > > >> Andy > > > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Andy, > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > > aside the issue of > > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > > complex > > > (are we talking about > > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > > Artificial Intelligence or > > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > > distinctions are critical). > > > >>> > > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > > struggling > > > with. There has been > > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > > community work > > > for your own needs - so > > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > > learning > > > community, while > > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > > community. Others I think see > > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > > meaning > > > while cooperation is > > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > > action towards a goal. I > > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > > thinking. > > > >>> > > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > > think would be > > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > > also seems to work against > > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > > field of > > > education. Does Alfie > > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > > he say > > > about conflict. > > > >>> > > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > > together > > > visions of > > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > > conflict, as > > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > > collaboration might make sense. > > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > > >>> > > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > > collaborative group or is it the > > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > > conflict between their > > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > > them (I know, another > > > >>> loaded phrase). > > > >>> > > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > > adversarial. If there is one > > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > > those being adversarial > > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > > to each other and yet > > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > > things, or is this > > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > > hasn't been defined, or > > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > > >>> > > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > > really no mechanism for > > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > > mechanism for > > > change or innovation? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > > >>> > > > >>> MIchael > > > >>> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >] On Behalf Of > > > Andy Blunden > > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >>> > > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > > Michael, so I'll offer > > > >>> some observations. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > > specifically working together > > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > > working together to change > > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > > >>> > > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > > difference > > > between Collaboration > > > >>> and the etymologically identical > > Cooperation, much > > > of this is in the > > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > > essentially involves both > > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > > form or aspect of > > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > > towards two opposite > > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > > therefore has a slippery > > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > > object worked upon, or > > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > > incorporate the > > > >>> possibility of difference. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > > together of distinct > > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > > involves > > > a merging of the > > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > > project, > > > but there are "limiting > > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > > include an exchange of > > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > > (such as customer-service > > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > > mutual > > > independence throughout) > > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > > subordinated to another). > > > >>> > > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > > working relationship > > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > > Collaboration on the other > > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > > attitude towards the > > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > > is an > > > essential ingredient to > > > >>> Collaboration. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > > extent > > > that one could argue > > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > > process. So Collaboration means > > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > > because the /concept /of the > > > >>> object changes. > > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > > upon) > > > in the process of > > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > > realising it. > > > >>> > > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > > development in which (1) > > > >>> students work independently because they are > > > physically or organisationally > > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > > students is > > > then facilitated by the > > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > > Students who are already > > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > > between them so that their > > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > > mediated only by the > > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > > Collaboration mediated by a > > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > > mean the undermining of > > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > > tools to > > > avoid closer > > > >>> collaboration. > > > >>> > > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > > bureaucracy > > > has heard a bit about > > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > > process, and that Collaboration > > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > > that they > > > have to separate > > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > > they can collaborate. > > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > > equipment to allow students > > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > > separated from one > > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > > management+workers, etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > > >>> Andy > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hello all, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > > willing to respond. How do > > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > > question is that PISA is > > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > > collaboration > > > internationally. At first > > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > > really is > > > happening, the framework > > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > > collaboration > > > is being used more and > > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > > computer/web based research, but > > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > > word only came into vogue > > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > > together and labore meaning > > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > > (Although > > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > > in a > > > very simplistic way I > > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > > helpful. I > > > know there was some > > > >>>> research around language (being able > > > >>>> > > > >>> to > > > >> > > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > > me it > > > seems to miss the > > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > > replace it > > > with. I guess you could > > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > > creating a test for > > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Michael > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > > science with an object > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Apr 19 13:45:11 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:45:11 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> , <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no>, <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu>, <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736C5@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Wow, this is really great Annalisa. Is it possible we are moving towards collaboration? Thanks for this, Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:33 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Hello esteemed XMCArs! This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so far up to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be further collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating question. :) Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. It isn't distressing, nor need it be a surrendering of identity, even in a more hierarchical social structure. Also, cooperation can be very ambitious, so I seem to have a 180 definition to Andy's distinctions between the two words. In collaboration, there is a community effort to complete something and it is more democratic in nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to summarize, I don't believe that for either cooperation or collaboration that conflict is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can exist without conflict. That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he speaks of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking." I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to any collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as Micheal points out. But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when considering marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must be present in a marriage something called love and care, which is joyful sharing. I imagine also, in the creation of a family there is an ideal objective to a create a sense of continuity and community of care for all members, and that is an ongoing collaboration. I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration around conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't think marriage is something that is usually considered in reference to conflict, though for many who are divorced or who fear repeating a bad marriage, they seem to orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in conflict. :/ Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, because successful collaboration requires members who have complimentary ways of thinking about or skill for doing things. Sometimes having too many people who have expertise or skill in identical domains creates competition, and competition not only creates conflict, but also has the potential become violent. I say that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that there are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in groups made up solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all female, or mixed, or even LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still being understood by all of us. There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with class or race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, signifiers, histories, and so on. Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and little-c collaboration? How does creativity relate? I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs for collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied internal work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify until they were able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They found that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each member to speak, in other words no individual or individuals dominated leaving others silent, those groups possessed the most productivity, and also each member felt good about being in that group. When they looked more closely to get to the bottom of all that, it ended up that the only feature that really counted was whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each member. I have one word for this: Duh. A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head when it comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid collaboration without any psychological safety? Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is there humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is improvisation regarded as a site for discovery and imagination? Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being distributed doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a highly hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study of cultural practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval ship is still distributed despite these organizational features. Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it note and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in solitude, from the time I search my fridge to learn what I've run out of, in order to make my list, and how I bring the list with me to the store as I search the aisles and then remember that I'd forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, because I keep that in the pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. It's all distributed cognition. Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's previous posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see cooperation as more about accommodation, rather than being conflict free. That's what I meant by sacrifice to a cause, which could be conflict aversion. I agree with Andy that suppressing conflict is not good, but neither is being conflict averse, which feels to me to be more "internal" than "external." Your mileage may vary. I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. I wonder if professional diplomats use any words for what we are conceptually circumnavigating? How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which possesses a non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies search, comparison, identification of differences and similarities, these words provide opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or testing, then negotiation and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences between shaken and stirred? :) I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. Thanks for that one, Vera. In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something inherently done without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or more-experienced peer, but it does appear to be inherently necessary for all of us to be successfully human. Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of dividual makes the case that some cultures have members who see themselves closely tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," if I might exercise Vera's nice coupling of words. So perhaps we might not be too hasty about normalizing individualism as we experience it, and pose it as a universal human trait. It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human phenomenon, since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks Mike), he is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a group can't be too obvious that they are working together because they must wait for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new turn in the flow of events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work off to the side to experiment and solidify an idea before presenting it to the group. That seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly influenced by the environment is also worth further discussion too, as I don't believe that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a non-environment or even a non-culture. There has to be a there there. So the reference of "dwelling in the world" is also very delightful. Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. There are a lot of "C" words: ---------------- -care -collaboration -collusion -commitment -community -competition -conflict -continuity -cooperation -creativity but also some non-C words: ---------------- -accommodation -ambitious -artifacts -attention -democratic -dignified interdependence -distributed cogniton -distributive -environment -integrative -love -marriage -meaning -negotiation -play -safety -sharing Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon the concept of collaboration. I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) thread and tapestry! Kind regards, Annalisa From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Apr 19 13:49:20 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 20:49:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736C5@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> , <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no>, <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu>, <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> , <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736C5@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Hi Micheal, Perhaps we have arrived to the destination? Or at least one upon our meandering itinerary? Kind regards, Annalisa From a.j.gil@iped.uio.no Tue Apr 19 14:04:46 2016 From: a.j.gil@iped.uio.no (Alfredo Jornet Gil) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:04:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no>, Message-ID: <1461099886161.12128@iped.uio.no> Thanks Annalisa for taking the care (CARE, which in fact you mention as crucial in/for collaboration, an observation I applaud and believe to be true) of summarizing. David, what an insightful reflection on the two sides of PISA-like testing! You mention the case of Catalonia with respect to bilingual education, which is, in my view, a laudable one. But I don to agree that PISA has no consequences to the individuals it uses as indexes of the collective practices it targets: changes in those practices will immediately affect the individuals implicated, as students, or as parents of future students, or as customers of corporations driven by former school students. PISA measures subject domains that are existing divisions in school curricula. It is not care, or compassion, or ecological awareness what it measures, but it measures language, math, science, etc. Now, I am very interested in your point that PISA is directed towards educational policy, not towards individuals. My question then is: Is PISA a potential actor in a revolutionary transformation of education, or will it always remain just a tool for quantitative change: more of this, less of that? Given that what PISA measures is a reflection of already-existing curricular divisions, how does/may PISA participate in the transformation of those divisions? I guess the answer is complex, and may involve considering PISA to be (today inescapable) part of a much larger landscape. Alfredo ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of David Kellogg Sent: 19 April 2016 22:38 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I think it's both true and untrue to say that PISA measures the "cooperation" of individuals. Something we are all missing here, in our general (and, for my part anyway, very much shared) distaste for large scale and cross cultural tests, is that the PISA tests are administered to individuals, but they are not designed to "measure" individual performances at all. They are not high stakes tests, and there are actually no consequences whatsoever for the individuals who take them. Instead, they are something quite rare (and in my view precious) in the psychometric world: a test of syllabus designers, teacher training institutions, and ultimately education budgets. I think you can certainly blame the logic here. At bottom, it is the same logic that says that when a child is failing, you punish the teachers. But in this case that logic is actually applied to persons with real power over educational inputs, and there are no untoward consequences towards innocent learners or even teachers. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. PISA, for all its undoubted shortcomings--shortcomings that it shares with any and all forms of "cross-cultural" psychological testing, shortcomings which Vygotsky criticized in HDHMF and which Luria inadvertently exposed in his Uzbekistan work, shortcomings which were deliberately and explicitly analysed in the earlier work of people like Sylvia Scribner, Joseph Glick and Mike Cole--PISA has played a very progressive role in places like Catalonia, where it has provided clear evidence in support of Catalan immersion and bilingual education. I think it's no accident that PISA scores are very often cited by critics of US education. Perhaps the best way to put it is to say that the "unit of analysis" in PISA is the individual, but the phenomenon to be explained is national educational policy. That is both its weakness (because the individual is actually an element and not a unit here) and its strength (because unlike almost all other forms of testing there are no individual consequences). David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Michael, I share your concern. And I am sure many in this list too, and > many researchers in traditions associated to xmca seem to agree too... > There must then be some mechanism that, despite this considerably > widespread awareness of the problem and the need to change, it is still > possible for educational policy and implementation to continue without > there being much substantial discussion about the kind of > society/personalities schooling assumes and generates, of there not being > many such discussions in our academic presentations, publications, > parent-teacher meetings... Rod's comment on collusion and its historical > (non-)use may be part of the explanation, the type of discourses there > being at work. Perhaps change is slower than we wish it to be (though > certainly things are different now that when I went to school in Spain in > the 80's, and that's not a lot of time), or we should not wait too long for > evolution to continue and try to make more of a revolution... > > You mention artifacts in your note, and I know you specify them as part of > a larger system of co-evolution. It seems to be the case, however, that the > very focus on artifacts to the detriment of the operations may be at the > heart of the problem. Andy was already pointing to the fact that the > current state of affairs consists in first conceiving students as separated > individuals, and then creating (from the outside) artifacts for supporting > them in collaborating, as if those artifacts were to do the trick of > putting them back together... Some may then say that artifacts then > "mediate" between the different students so that something intersubjective > emerges... But if what allows people to stick together is not the artifacts > themselves, but what Larry calls shared attention (taking "attention" here > to be something of psychological import, not just a "lower function" or > component of the person but as a dispositional character that involves a > multi-functional organization, and something that always includes some > materials from the environment), then it is the process of using tools, the > subjective-generating processes, what are of interest. Anyway, this is just > to add more words to what you were already saying. But if the shift in > (educational, assessment) practice has to do with a shift in the discourse, > then I think finding ways of talking about collaboration where the primacy > of the joint attention within places (to use Larry's formulation) is made > patent and not confused may be part of the (revolutionary) solution. This > is a very fascinating topic! > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Glassman, Michael > Sent: 19 April 2016 20:33 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > Hi Alfredo, > > At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin to > co-evolution. That we develop artifacts that lead us toward > cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts are > a product of collaboration. The artifacts push us forward to > collaboration. The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts. > Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence. The role of > education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or > "boot-strapping." Should we even be concerned with individual > characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what makes > us human. This is what worries me about the PISA framework. Is it > actually antithetical to a more collaborative society. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > ablunden@mira.net > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on collaboration > ( here< > http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborative%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf> > ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that > ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, that > collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, it seems > that each individual comes into group tasks with her own subjectivity, and > then, in and through the fact of working together with others towards a > shared goal, there emerges something intersubjective and which leads to > learning. > > > Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to measure > individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is established as the > set of variables that they call "Collaboration Skills". These, I assume, > are thought just as we tend to think of subjectivity: something we carry > along and which we can put to play when we do things with others so that > something different and bigger emerges from which we all will learn. This > is a view that takes the individual as the primary phenomenon, and > collaboration as a something that results from the putting of individuals > to work together. > > > But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I believe > an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then intersubjectivity (and not > subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not stem > from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, any single > subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that intersubjective > phenomenon that we call collaboration. If collaboration skills exist only > (emerge and are put to work only) in collaboration, are they features of > the individual that can be measured? Or are not they features of the > collaborative settings? > > > Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative > achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in the > first place, but for there to be the two individuals, mother/father and > baby there needs to be something larger that is parenting, and which indeed > allows (and accounts) for the very existence of parents and children in the > first place. Obviously too, for there to be a possibility for the > collaborative achievement of {carrying | being carried} the baby and the > mum need to have certain biological features and predispositions, such as > priming towards grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of > joint work by the two and so there is a change that is not biological only > but also and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all > biological premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said > anything about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby > relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different practices of > carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as > those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. > > > So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring collaborative > skills as indexes for successful collaboration in education. First, if we > agree that collaboration itself is a practice, and as such, may take many > different forms and lead to very different characters/personalities, then > for us to be able to agree on a set of collaborative skills we need to have > first settled upon a given type of collaboration. Yet, in the literature > this tends to be seen against the other measuring outcome: "learning > outcomes"; in the document I've been looking at this was "collaborative > problem solving". A discussion on WHAT kind of society (which is the same > as to ask what kind of collaborations) we want to make possible through > education, seems to be quite absent. The second and related problem > concerns whether it makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by > means of individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative > settings themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the > motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back > is that each individual performs adequately. > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, with > a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember one that > was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. > on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist society > that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical conflict, that is > sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy that bit of conflict?) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > > multiple perspectives. > > > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > > in a > > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > > something like > > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > > destructive of collaboration. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > > activity are > > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > > this > > > work while playing well with others. > > > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > > conflict has > > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > > be the > > > poles of collaboration? > > > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > > though my > > > first real publication was on the development of these > > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > > recent > > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > > learner. > > > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > > collaboration. > > > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > > to this > > > discussion. I attach > > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > > mike > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > > different > > > directions. But I > > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > > there is > > > no collaboration. The > > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > > collaboration is trivial > > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > > of each other work > > > > together on the same task, since their every > > thought > > > is identical there is > > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > > carrying out orders from > > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > > collaboration. But these > > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > > differences relevant to > > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > > division of labour (which > > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > > suppressed, there has to > > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > > >> > > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > > If I > > > might bring in a > > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > > Rogers, > > > marriage is a strong tie > > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > > it, as Larry says, so that > > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > > adversarial conflict, or does > > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > > most collaborations, > > > >> especially those that lead to problem > > solving, are > > > based in weak tie > > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > > networks can only lead to > > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > > collaboration that allows > > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > > relationship to come > > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > > disagreement that does not > > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > > is it > > > something else. > > > >> > > > >> Michael > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >] On Behalf Of > > > Lplarry > > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > > > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > > Activity < > > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >> > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >> > > > >> Andy, > > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > > archetype of > > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > > collaboration to multiple > > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > > conflict*. > > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > > carries us > > > into a vast field of > > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > > imaginal and then travels to > > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > > >> > > > >> To move from co-operation towards > > collaboration (as > > > marriage) is moving > > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > > relations* that remain > > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > > commitment/collaboration. > > > >> > > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > > engaging > > > the concept of > > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > > meaningful. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >> > > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >> > > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > > choose the set of > > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > > developing. Can't do > > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > > collaboration in which > > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > > away is > > > certainly not worthy of > > > >> the name. > > > >> > > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > > destroy a collaboration, > > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > > successfully that it is positively > > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > > marriage, so we all know what > > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > > essential element of > > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > > it as > > > well as moderating it. > > > >> > > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > > question. > > > >> > > > >> Andy > > > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Andy, > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > > aside the issue of > > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > > complex > > > (are we talking about > > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > > Artificial Intelligence or > > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > > distinctions are critical). > > > >>> > > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > > struggling > > > with. There has been > > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > > community work > > > for your own needs - so > > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > > learning > > > community, while > > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > > community. Others I think see > > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > > meaning > > > while cooperation is > > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > > action towards a goal. I > > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > > thinking. > > > >>> > > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > > think would be > > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > > also seems to work against > > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > > field of > > > education. Does Alfie > > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > > he say > > > about conflict. > > > >>> > > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > > together > > > visions of > > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > > conflict, as > > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > > collaboration might make sense. > > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > > >>> > > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > > collaborative group or is it the > > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > > conflict between their > > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > > them (I know, another > > > >>> loaded phrase). > > > >>> > > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > > adversarial. If there is one > > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > > those being adversarial > > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > > to each other and yet > > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > > things, or is this > > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > > hasn't been defined, or > > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > > >>> > > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > > really no mechanism for > > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > > mechanism for > > > change or innovation? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > > >>> > > > >>> MIchael > > > >>> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >] On Behalf Of > > > Andy Blunden > > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >>> > > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > > Michael, so I'll offer > > > >>> some observations. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > > specifically working together > > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > > working together to change > > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > > >>> > > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > > difference > > > between Collaboration > > > >>> and the etymologically identical > > Cooperation, much > > > of this is in the > > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > > essentially involves both > > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > > form or aspect of > > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > > towards two opposite > > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > > therefore has a slippery > > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > > object worked upon, or > > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > > incorporate the > > > >>> possibility of difference. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > > together of distinct > > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > > involves > > > a merging of the > > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > > project, > > > but there are "limiting > > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > > include an exchange of > > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > > (such as customer-service > > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > > mutual > > > independence throughout) > > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > > subordinated to another). > > > >>> > > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > > working relationship > > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > > Collaboration on the other > > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > > attitude towards the > > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > > is an > > > essential ingredient to > > > >>> Collaboration. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > > extent > > > that one could argue > > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > > process. So Collaboration means > > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > > because the /concept /of the > > > >>> object changes. > > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > > upon) > > > in the process of > > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > > realising it. > > > >>> > > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > > development in which (1) > > > >>> students work independently because they are > > > physically or organisationally > > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > > students is > > > then facilitated by the > > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > > Students who are already > > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > > between them so that their > > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > > mediated only by the > > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > > Collaboration mediated by a > > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > > mean the undermining of > > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > > tools to > > > avoid closer > > > >>> collaboration. > > > >>> > > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > > bureaucracy > > > has heard a bit about > > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > > process, and that Collaboration > > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > > that they > > > have to separate > > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > > they can collaborate. > > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > > equipment to allow students > > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > > separated from one > > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > > management+workers, etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > > >>> Andy > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hello all, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > > willing to respond. How do > > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > > question is that PISA is > > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > > collaboration > > > internationally. At first > > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > > really is > > > happening, the framework > > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > > collaboration > > > is being used more and > > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > > computer/web based research, but > > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > > word only came into vogue > > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > > together and labore meaning > > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > > (Although > > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > > in a > > > very simplistic way I > > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > > helpful. I > > > know there was some > > > >>>> research around language (being able > > > >>>> > > > >>> to > > > >> > > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > > me it > > > seems to miss the > > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > > replace it > > > with. I guess you could > > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > > creating a test for > > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Michael > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > > science with an object > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Apr 19 14:05:42 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:05:42 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi David, I think I might disagree with you here. I don't see PISA as benign. I cannot speak to Catalonia but in two cultures where I have some knowledge of its impact I think it functions very much as a high stakes test. While it is true it impacts the society at large rather than the individual, most high stakes test have more impact on institutions than individuals. Schools are often not concerned with individual students in high stakes testing here in the United States but with their own reputations. That is how they are presented and I think very often that is how they are taken. When students do poorly on them it is determined the school is falling behind, the school must make changes. The people at Pearson make the same argument that they are really testing the syllabi and curriculum. This argument is often used by charter schools. It has also shown up in tying teachers' pay to testing. PISA it seems to me does this writ large. They measure students in different cultures to a single scale, and by doing this and publishing comparisons get educational institutions to adopt their definitions of knowledge and what it means to be knowledgeable. At least here in the United States there is a very strong trickle-down effect from PISA and educators all the way down are under pressure to do better on their tests. This is what worries me about their view of collaborative problem solving. Not only are they going to wind up defining collaboration (and believe it or not they already are. I actually found this out of a communication on collaboration where the respondent said "you know PISA developed a framework on collaboration" as if this was going to end the discussion and where should all move forward from there) but they are going to directly impact the way education, and collaborative learning, is done in formal educational settings. Leading to the "Why don't American kids collaborate better than Singapore kids" irony where we become competitive about our international standing in collaboration. To me this is a very dangerous turn, attempting to drag in a more Pragmatic/democratic ideal into a neoliberal, competitive framework. Sort of in response to Alfredo I see web tools as new artifacts that have the possibility of engaging new types of human processes, perhaps collaborative processes, that can lead to new collaborative tools (For instance during Fukushima individuals were able to use web tools to create a space where they shared and organized information about radiation levels at different distances from he reactor. I wonder if we are at the beginning of this, but fear what it means by ideas such as collaborative learning being captured by organizations such as PISA, who are very clear that collaboration is all about getting those good jobs in the 21st century. The bosses want you to work well together. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:38 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I think it's both true and untrue to say that PISA measures the "cooperation" of individuals. Something we are all missing here, in our general (and, for my part anyway, very much shared) distaste for large scale and cross cultural tests, is that the PISA tests are administered to individuals, but they are not designed to "measure" individual performances at all. They are not high stakes tests, and there are actually no consequences whatsoever for the individuals who take them. Instead, they are something quite rare (and in my view precious) in the psychometric world: a test of syllabus designers, teacher training institutions, and ultimately education budgets. I think you can certainly blame the logic here. At bottom, it is the same logic that says that when a child is failing, you punish the teachers. But in this case that logic is actually applied to persons with real power over educational inputs, and there are no untoward consequences towards innocent learners or even teachers. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. PISA, for all its undoubted shortcomings--shortcomings that it shares with any and all forms of "cross-cultural" psychological testing, shortcomings which Vygotsky criticized in HDHMF and which Luria inadvertently exposed in his Uzbekistan work, shortcomings which were deliberately and explicitly analysed in the earlier work of people like Sylvia Scribner, Joseph Glick and Mike Cole--PISA has played a very progressive role in places like Catalonia, where it has provided clear evidence in support of Catalan immersion and bilingual education. I think it's no accident that PISA scores are very often cited by critics of US education. Perhaps the best way to put it is to say that the "unit of analysis" in PISA is the individual, but the phenomenon to be explained is national educational policy. That is both its weakness (because the individual is actually an element and not a unit here) and its strength (because unlike almost all other forms of testing there are no individual consequences). David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil wrote: > Hi Michael, I share your concern. And I am sure many in this list too, > and many researchers in traditions associated to xmca seem to agree too... > There must then be some mechanism that, despite this considerably > widespread awareness of the problem and the need to change, it is > still possible for educational policy and implementation to continue > without there being much substantial discussion about the kind of > society/personalities schooling assumes and generates, of there not > being many such discussions in our academic presentations, > publications, parent-teacher meetings... Rod's comment on collusion > and its historical (non-)use may be part of the explanation, the type > of discourses there being at work. Perhaps change is slower than we > wish it to be (though certainly things are different now that when I > went to school in Spain in the 80's, and that's not a lot of time), or > we should not wait too long for evolution to continue and try to make more of a revolution... > > You mention artifacts in your note, and I know you specify them as > part of a larger system of co-evolution. It seems to be the case, > however, that the very focus on artifacts to the detriment of the > operations may be at the heart of the problem. Andy was already > pointing to the fact that the current state of affairs consists in > first conceiving students as separated individuals, and then creating > (from the outside) artifacts for supporting them in collaborating, as > if those artifacts were to do the trick of putting them back > together... Some may then say that artifacts then "mediate" between > the different students so that something intersubjective emerges... > But if what allows people to stick together is not the artifacts > themselves, but what Larry calls shared attention (taking "attention" > here to be something of psychological import, not just a "lower > function" or component of the person but as a dispositional character > that involves a multi-functional organization, and something that > always includes some materials from the environment), then it is the > process of using tools, the subjective-generating processes, what are > of interest. Anyway, this is just to add more words to what you were > already saying. But if the shift in (educational, assessment) practice > has to do with a shift in the discourse, then I think finding ways of > talking about collaboration where the primacy of the joint attention > within places (to use Larry's formulation) is made patent and not confused may be part of the (revolutionary) solution. This is a very fascinating topic! > > Alfredo > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Glassman, Michael > > Sent: 19 April 2016 20:33 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > Hi Alfredo, > > At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin > to co-evolution. That we develop artifacts that lead us toward > cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts > are a product of collaboration. The artifacts push us forward to > collaboration. The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts. > Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence. The role of > education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or > "boot-strapping." Should we even be concerned with individual > characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what > makes us human. This is what worries me about the PISA framework. Is > it actually antithetical to a more collaborative society. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > ablunden@mira.net > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on > collaboration ( here< > http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborat > ive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf> > ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that > ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, > that collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, > it seems that each individual comes into group tasks with her own > subjectivity, and then, in and through the fact of working together > with others towards a shared goal, there emerges something > intersubjective and which leads to learning. > > > Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to > measure individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is > established as the set of variables that they call "Collaboration > Skills". These, I assume, are thought just as we tend to think of > subjectivity: something we carry along and which we can put to play > when we do things with others so that something different and bigger > emerges from which we all will learn. This is a view that takes the > individual as the primary phenomenon, and collaboration as a something > that results from the putting of individuals to work together. > > > But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I > believe an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then > intersubjectivity (and not > subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not > stem from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, > any single subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that > intersubjective phenomenon that we call collaboration. If > collaboration skills exist only (emerge and are put to work only) in > collaboration, are they features of the individual that can be > measured? Or are not they features of the collaborative settings? > > > Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative > achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in > the first place, but for there to be the two individuals, > mother/father and baby there needs to be something larger that is > parenting, and which indeed allows (and accounts) for the very > existence of parents and children in the first place. Obviously too, > for there to be a possibility for the collaborative achievement of > {carrying | being carried} the baby and the mum need to have certain > biological features and predispositions, such as priming towards > grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of joint work by > the two and so there is a change that is not biological only but also > and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all biological > premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said anything > about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby > relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different > practices of carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as works such as those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. > > > So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring > collaborative skills as indexes for successful collaboration in > education. First, if we agree that collaboration itself is a practice, > and as such, may take many different forms and lead to very different > characters/personalities, then for us to be able to agree on a set of > collaborative skills we need to have first settled upon a given type > of collaboration. Yet, in the literature this tends to be seen against > the other measuring outcome: "learning outcomes"; in the document I've > been looking at this was "collaborative problem solving". A discussion > on WHAT kind of society (which is the same as to ask what kind of > collaborations) we want to make possible through education, seems to > be quite absent. The second and related problem concerns whether it > makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by means of > individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative settings > themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the > motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported back is that each individual performs adequately. > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, > with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember > one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch any sit. com. > on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist > society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical > conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy > that bit of conflict?) > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > > multiple perspectives. > > > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > > wrote: > > > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > > in a > > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > > something like > > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > > destructive of collaboration. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > > activity are > > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > > this > > > work while playing well with others. > > > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > > conflict has > > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > > be the > > > poles of collaboration? > > > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > > though my > > > first real publication was on the development of these > > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > > recent > > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > > learner. > > > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > > collaboration. > > > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > > to this > > > discussion. I attach > > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > > mike > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > >> > > wrote: > > > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > > different > > > directions. But I > > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > > there is > > > no collaboration. The > > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > > collaboration is trivial > > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > > of each other work > > > > together on the same task, since their every > > thought > > > is identical there is > > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > > carrying out orders from > > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > > collaboration. But these > > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > > differences relevant to > > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > > division of labour (which > > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > > suppressed, there has to > > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > > >> > > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > > If I > > > might bring in a > > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > > Rogers, > > > marriage is a strong tie > > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > > it, as Larry says, so that > > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > > adversarial conflict, or does > > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > > most collaborations, > > > >> especially those that lead to problem > > solving, are > > > based in weak tie > > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > > networks can only lead to > > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > > collaboration that allows > > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > > relationship to come > > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > > disagreement that does not > > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > > is it > > > something else. > > > >> > > > >> Michael > > > >> > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > [mailto: > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >] On Behalf Of > > > Lplarry > > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > > > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > > Activity < > > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >> > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >> > > > >> Andy, > > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > > archetype of > > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > > collaboration to multiple > > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > > conflict*. > > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > > carries us > > > into a vast field of > > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > > imaginal and then travels to > > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > > >> > > > >> To move from co-operation towards > > collaboration (as > > > marriage) is moving > > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > > relations* that remain > > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > > commitment/collaboration. > > > >> > > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > > engaging > > > the concept of > > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > > meaningful. > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > >> > > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >> > > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > > choose the set of > > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > > developing. Can't do > > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > > collaboration in which > > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > > away is > > > certainly not worthy of > > > >> the name. > > > >> > > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > > destroy a collaboration, > > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > > successfully that it is positively > > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > > marriage, so we all know what > > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > > essential element of > > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > > it as > > > well as moderating it. > > > >> > > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > > question. > > > >> > > > >> Andy > > > >> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >> > > > >>> Hi Andy, > > > >>> > > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > > aside the issue of > > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > > complex > > > (are we talking about > > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > > Artificial Intelligence or > > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > > distinctions are critical). > > > >>> > > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > > struggling > > > with. There has been > > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > > community work > > > for your own needs - so > > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > > learning > > > community, while > > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > > community. Others I think see > > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > > meaning > > > while cooperation is > > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > > action towards a goal. I > > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > > thinking. > > > >>> > > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > > think would be > > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > > also seems to work against > > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > > field of > > > education. Does Alfie > > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > > he say > > > about conflict. > > > >>> > > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > > together > > > visions of > > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > > conflict, as > > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > > collaboration might make sense. > > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > > >>> > > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > > collaborative group or is it the > > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > > conflict between their > > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > > them (I know, another > > > >>> loaded phrase). > > > >>> > > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > > adversarial. If there is one > > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > > those being adversarial > > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > > to each other and yet > > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > > things, or is this > > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > > hasn't been defined, or > > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > > >>> > > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > > really no mechanism for > > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > > mechanism for > > > change or innovation? > > > >>> > > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > > >>> > > > >>> MIchael > > > >>> > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > >] On Behalf Of > > > Andy Blunden > > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > >>> > > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > > Michael, so I'll offer > > > >>> some observations. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > > specifically working together > > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > > working together to change > > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > > >>> > > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > > difference > > > between Collaboration > > > >>> and the etymologically identical > > Cooperation, much > > > of this is in the > > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > > essentially involves both > > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > > form or aspect of > > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > > towards two opposite > > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > > therefore has a slippery > > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > > object worked upon, or > > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > > incorporate the > > > >>> possibility of difference. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > > together of distinct > > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > > involves > > > a merging of the > > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > > project, > > > but there are "limiting > > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > > include an exchange of > > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > > (such as customer-service > > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > > mutual > > > independence throughout) > > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > > subordinated to another). > > > >>> > > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > > working relationship > > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > > Collaboration on the other > > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > > attitude towards the > > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > > is an > > > essential ingredient to > > > >>> Collaboration. > > > >>> > > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > > extent > > > that one could argue > > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > > process. So Collaboration means > > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > > because the /concept /of the > > > >>> object changes. > > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > > upon) > > > in the process of > > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > > realising it. > > > >>> > > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > > development in which (1) > > > >>> students work independently because they are > > > physically or organisationally > > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > > students is > > > then facilitated by the > > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > > Students who are already > > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > > between them so that their > > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > > mediated only by the > > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > > Collaboration mediated by a > > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > > mean the undermining of > > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > > tools to > > > avoid closer > > > >>> collaboration. > > > >>> > > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > > bureaucracy > > > has heard a bit about > > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > > process, and that Collaboration > > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > > that they > > > have to separate > > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > > they can collaborate. > > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > > equipment to allow students > > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > > separated from one > > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > > management+workers, etc. > > > >>> > > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > > >>> Andy > > > >>> > > > >>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > ; > > > ; > > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> Hello all, > > > >>>> > > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > > willing to respond. How do > > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > > question is that PISA is > > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > > collaboration > > > internationally. At first > > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > > really is > > > happening, the framework > > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > > collaboration > > > is being used more and > > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > > computer/web based research, but > > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > > word only came into vogue > > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > > together and labore meaning > > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > > (Although > > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > > in a > > > very simplistic way I > > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > > helpful. I > > > know there was some > > > >>>> research around language (being able > > > >>>> > > > >>> to > > > >> > > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > > me it > > > seems to miss the > > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > > replace it > > > with. I guess you could > > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > > creating a test for > > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Michael > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > > science with an object > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > From schuckthemonkey@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 15:24:52 2016 From: schuckthemonkey@gmail.com (Christopher Schuck) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 18:24:52 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning minimal differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for this extremely helpful synposis, Annalisa! "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation....How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration." Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation that emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, specifically discursive/conversational process often required. So it's a great example for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe it's narrower? That is, negotiation is focused on the terms and conditions (also points of similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer together, whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of working together and need not include dialogue. This brings up another tricky concept that I didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be obvious to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, nor does competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" could be an example of the latter). Chris On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello esteemed XMCArs! > > This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so far up > to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' > posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be further > collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating question. :) > > Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about > notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I consider > cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, > specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. It isn't distressing, > nor need it be a surrendering of identity, even in a more hierarchical > social structure. Also, cooperation can be very ambitious, so I seem to > have a 180 definition to Andy's distinctions between the two words. In > collaboration, there is a community effort to complete something and it is > more democratic in nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to > summarize, I don't believe that for either cooperation or collaboration > that conflict is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can > exist without conflict. > > That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he speaks > of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : > > "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation > is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give > yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves > actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the > development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the > right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain > degree reflect your thinking." > > I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my > conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. > > It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not > everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday > concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! > :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to any > collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as Micheal > points out. > > But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when considering > marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must be present in a > marriage something called love and care, which is joyful sharing. I imagine > also, in the creation of a family there is an ideal objective to a create a > sense of continuity and community of care for all members, and that is an > ongoing collaboration. > > I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration around > conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't think marriage is > something that is usually considered in reference to conflict, though for > many who are divorced or who fear repeating a bad marriage, they seem to > orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in conflict. :/ > > Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, because > successful collaboration requires members who have complimentary ways of > thinking about or skill for doing things. Sometimes having too many people > who have expertise or skill in identical domains creates competition, and > competition not only creates conflict, but also has the potential become > violent. I say that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity > rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. > > I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of > collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that there > are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in groups made up > solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all female, or mixed, or even > LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse > manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still being > understood by all of us. > > There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with class or > race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, signifiers, > histories, and so on. > > Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and little-c > collaboration? How does creativity relate? > > I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs for > collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied internal > work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify until they were > able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. > (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They found > that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each member to speak, > in other words no individual or individuals dominated leaving others > silent, those groups possessed the most productivity, and also each member > felt good about being in that group. When they looked more closely to get > to the bottom of all that, it ended up that the only feature that really > counted was whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each > member. > > I have one word for this: Duh. > > A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head when it > comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid collaboration > without any psychological safety? > > Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is there > humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is improvisation regarded > as a site for discovery and imagination? > > Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being distributed > doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. > For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a highly > hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study of cultural > practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval ship is still > distributed despite these organizational features. > > Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it note > and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in solitude, from the > time I search my fridge to learn what I've run out of, in order to make my > list, and how I bring the list with me to the store as I search the aisles > and then remember that I'd forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, > because I keep that in the pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it > on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. > It's all distributed cognition. > > Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's previous > posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see cooperation as more about > accommodation, rather than being conflict free. That's what I meant by > sacrifice to a cause, which could be conflict aversion. I agree with Andy > that suppressing conflict is not good, but neither is being conflict > averse, which feels to me to be more "internal" than "external." Your > mileage may vary. > > I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than > "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. I wonder if > professional diplomats use any words for what we are conceptually > circumnavigating? > > How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? > Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. > > I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about > distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which possesses a > non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies search, comparison, > identification of differences and similarities, these words provide > opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or testing, then negotiation > and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. > > So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences between > shaken and stirred? :) > > I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. Thanks > for that one, Vera. > > In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to > cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something inherently done > without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or more-experienced peer, but it > does appear to be inherently necessary for all of us to be successfully > human. > > Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and > collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of > individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of dividual > makes the case that some cultures have members who see themselves closely > tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," if I might exercise Vera's > nice coupling of words. So perhaps we might not be too hasty about > normalizing individualism as we experience it, and pose it as a universal > human trait. > > It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human phenomenon, > since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). > I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) > > I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks Mike), he > is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," > when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a group > can't be too obvious that they are working together because they must wait > for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new turn in the flow of > events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work off to the side to > experiment and solidify an idea before presenting it to the group. That > seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." > > Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly influenced by > the environment is also worth further discussion too, as I don't believe > that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a non-environment or even a > non-culture. There has to be a there there. So the reference of "dwelling > in the world" is also very delightful. > > Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. > There are a lot of "C" words: > ---------------- > -care > -collaboration > -collusion > -commitment > -community > -competition > -conflict > -continuity > -cooperation > -creativity > > but also some non-C words: > ---------------- > -accommodation > -ambitious > -artifacts > -attention > -democratic > -dignified interdependence > -distributed cogniton > -distributive > -environment > -integrative > -love > -marriage > -meaning > -negotiation > -play > -safety > -sharing > > Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We > appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon the concept of > collaboration. > > I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) thread and > tapestry! > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 16:46:56 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:46:56 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: Chris, ?Negotiation? appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. Henry > On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote: > > "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if > conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." > > That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning minimal > differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for this extremely > helpful synposis, Annalisa! > > "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than > "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation....How about > "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? Negotiation > coincides with cooperation and collaboration." > > Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation that > emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, specifically > discursive/conversational process often required. So it's a great example > for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe it's narrower? That is, > negotiation is focused on the terms and conditions (also points of > similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. > through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the > discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer together, > whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of working together and > need not include dialogue. This brings up another tricky concept that I > didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." > > I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be obvious > to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, nor does > competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" could be an > example of the latter). > > Chris > > On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > >> Hello esteemed XMCArs! >> >> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so far up >> to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' >> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be further >> collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating question. :) >> >> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about >> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I consider >> cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, >> specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. It isn't distressing, >> nor need it be a surrendering of identity, even in a more hierarchical >> social structure. Also, cooperation can be very ambitious, so I seem to >> have a 180 definition to Andy's distinctions between the two words. In >> collaboration, there is a community effort to complete something and it is >> more democratic in nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to >> summarize, I don't believe that for either cooperation or collaboration >> that conflict is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can >> exist without conflict. >> >> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he speaks >> of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : >> >> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation >> is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give >> yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves >> actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the >> development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the >> right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain >> degree reflect your thinking." >> >> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my >> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. >> >> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not >> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday >> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! >> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to any >> collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as Micheal >> points out. >> >> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when considering >> marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must be present in a >> marriage something called love and care, which is joyful sharing. I imagine >> also, in the creation of a family there is an ideal objective to a create a >> sense of continuity and community of care for all members, and that is an >> ongoing collaboration. >> >> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration around >> conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't think marriage is >> something that is usually considered in reference to conflict, though for >> many who are divorced or who fear repeating a bad marriage, they seem to >> orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in conflict. :/ >> >> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, because >> successful collaboration requires members who have complimentary ways of >> thinking about or skill for doing things. Sometimes having too many people >> who have expertise or skill in identical domains creates competition, and >> competition not only creates conflict, but also has the potential become >> violent. I say that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity >> rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. >> >> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of >> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that there >> are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in groups made up >> solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all female, or mixed, or even >> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse >> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still being >> understood by all of us. >> >> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with class or >> race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, signifiers, >> histories, and so on. >> >> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and little-c >> collaboration? How does creativity relate? >> >> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs for >> collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied internal >> work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify until they were >> able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. >> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They found >> that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each member to speak, >> in other words no individual or individuals dominated leaving others >> silent, those groups possessed the most productivity, and also each member >> felt good about being in that group. When they looked more closely to get >> to the bottom of all that, it ended up that the only feature that really >> counted was whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each >> member. >> >> I have one word for this: Duh. >> >> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head when it >> comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid collaboration >> without any psychological safety? >> >> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is there >> humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is improvisation regarded >> as a site for discovery and imagination? >> >> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being distributed >> doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. >> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a highly >> hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study of cultural >> practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval ship is still >> distributed despite these organizational features. >> >> Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it note >> and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in solitude, from the >> time I search my fridge to learn what I've run out of, in order to make my >> list, and how I bring the list with me to the store as I search the aisles >> and then remember that I'd forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, >> because I keep that in the pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it >> on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. >> It's all distributed cognition. >> >> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's previous >> posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see cooperation as more about >> accommodation, rather than being conflict free. That's what I meant by >> sacrifice to a cause, which could be conflict aversion. I agree with Andy >> that suppressing conflict is not good, but neither is being conflict >> averse, which feels to me to be more "internal" than "external." Your >> mileage may vary. >> >> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than >> "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. I wonder if >> professional diplomats use any words for what we are conceptually >> circumnavigating? >> >> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? >> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. >> >> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about >> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which possesses a >> non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies search, comparison, >> identification of differences and similarities, these words provide >> opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or testing, then negotiation >> and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. >> >> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences between >> shaken and stirred? :) >> >> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. Thanks >> for that one, Vera. >> >> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to >> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something inherently done >> without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or more-experienced peer, but it >> does appear to be inherently necessary for all of us to be successfully >> human. >> >> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and >> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of >> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of dividual >> makes the case that some cultures have members who see themselves closely >> tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," if I might exercise Vera's >> nice coupling of words. So perhaps we might not be too hasty about >> normalizing individualism as we experience it, and pose it as a universal >> human trait. >> >> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human phenomenon, >> since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). >> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) >> >> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks Mike), he >> is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," >> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a group >> can't be too obvious that they are working together because they must wait >> for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new turn in the flow of >> events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work off to the side to >> experiment and solidify an idea before presenting it to the group. That >> seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." >> >> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly influenced by >> the environment is also worth further discussion too, as I don't believe >> that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a non-environment or even a >> non-culture. There has to be a there there. So the reference of "dwelling >> in the world" is also very delightful. >> >> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. >> There are a lot of "C" words: >> ---------------- >> -care >> -collaboration >> -collusion >> -commitment >> -community >> -competition >> -conflict >> -continuity >> -cooperation >> -creativity >> >> but also some non-C words: >> ---------------- >> -accommodation >> -ambitious >> -artifacts >> -attention >> -democratic >> -dignified interdependence >> -distributed cogniton >> -distributive >> -environment >> -integrative >> -love >> -marriage >> -meaning >> -negotiation >> -play >> -safety >> -sharing >> >> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We >> appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon the concept of >> collaboration. >> >> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) thread and >> tapestry! >> >> Kind regards, >> >> Annalisa >> From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 17:08:20 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 17:08:20 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <5716c87e.9b59620a.be41b.14b7@mx.google.com> To add Gadamer?s perspective to this topic, he points out that when a person is participating in a *game* the person gives oneself *over* to the game as a *place* of collaboration and cooperation. Another way of developing this notion of *place* is that one *takes up* and is *carried within* the game. This place refers to the *subject matter* that matters and therefore carries us within it?s formation. In this *perspective* the subject matter occurs not as a result of psychological individual intent (purpose) and then we get together with others and then we *develop* the subject matter. The subject matter in fact generates (inter/subjectively) the conditions that create *modes* of personal inter/action. This includes the subject matter that carries us by positing a *version* of psychological subjectivity as the *foundational* way of articulating our human nature. This is only one perspective of our human nature. Also to the archetype of *marriage*. The question that can be posed is what is the intent or purpose of marriage. If a person answers, (romantically) so that two psychological individuals can cooperate and collaborate together and offer each other happiness this is only one perspective on marriage. One could imagine marriage as a place where growth and development occur (which includes conflict as an aspect of growth and development). Therefore, at times one?s individual desires are thwarted, generating conflict but also new perspectives. If marriage is imaged as a *chalice* for example where impurities are distilled then one has a different relation to *marriage* and the *meaning* of conflict generated within that instituted way of being carried. I would suggest that the *meaning* of marriage is what is being *worked out* or developed intersubjectively within the institution of marriage as marriage institutes various kinds or types of subjectivity and intersubjectivity. Marriage as the *subject* that matters becomes the subject matter being acknowledged and this includes conflict and negation. Marriage imaged as a place of growth and development generates not only *positive* processes, but also negative processes of growth and development. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Christopher Schuck Sent: April 19, 2016 3:28 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning minimal differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for this extremely helpful synposis, Annalisa! "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation....How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration." Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation that emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, specifically discursive/conversational process often required. So it's a great example for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe it's narrower? That is, negotiation is focused on the terms and conditions (also points of similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer together, whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of working together and need not include dialogue. This brings up another tricky concept that I didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be obvious to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, nor does competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" could be an example of the latter). Chris On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hello esteemed XMCArs! > > This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so far up > to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' > posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be further > collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating question. :) > > Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about > notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I consider > cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, > specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. It isn't distressing, > nor need it be a surrendering of identity, even in a more hierarchical > social structure. Also, cooperation can be very ambitious, so I seem to > have a 180 definition to Andy's distinctions between the two words. In > collaboration, there is a community effort to complete something and it is > more democratic in nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to > summarize, I don't believe that for either cooperation or collaboration > that conflict is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can > exist without conflict. > > That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he speaks > of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : > > "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation > is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give > yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves > actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the > development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the > right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain > degree reflect your thinking." > > I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my > conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. > > It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not > everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday > concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! > :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to any > collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as Micheal > points out. > > But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when considering > marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must be present in a > marriage something called love and care, which is joyful sharing. I imagine > also, in the creation of a family there is an ideal objective to a create a > sense of continuity and community of care for all members, and that is an > ongoing collaboration. > > I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration around > conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't think marriage is > something that is usually considered in reference to conflict, though for > many who are divorced or who fear repeating a bad marriage, they seem to > orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in conflict. :/ > > Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, because > successful collaboration requires members who have complimentary ways of > thinking about or skill for doing things. Sometimes having too many people > who have expertise or skill in identical domains creates competition, and > competition not only creates conflict, but also has the potential become > violent. I say that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity > rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. > > I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of > collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that there > are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in groups made up > solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all female, or mixed, or even > LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse > manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still being > understood by all of us. > > There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with class or > race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, signifiers, > histories, and so on. > > Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and little-c > collaboration? How does creativity relate? > > I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs for > collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied internal > work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify until they were > able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. > (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They found > that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each member to speak, > in other words no individual or individuals dominated leaving others > silent, those groups possessed the most productivity, and also each member > felt good about being in that group. When they looked more closely to get > to the bottom of all that, it ended up that the only feature that really > counted was whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each > member. > > I have one word for this: Duh. > > A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head when it > comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid collaboration > without any psychological safety? > > Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is there > humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is improvisation regarded > as a site for discovery and imagination? > > Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being distributed > doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. > For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a highly > hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study of cultural > practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval ship is still > distributed despite these organizational features. > > Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it note > and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in solitude, from the > time I search my fridge to learn what I've run out of, in order to make my > list, and how I bring the list with me to the store as I search the aisles > and then remember that I'd forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, > because I keep that in the pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it > on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. > It's all distributed cognition. > > Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's previous > posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see cooperation as more about > accommodation, rather than being conflict free. That's what I meant by > sacrifice to a cause, which could be conflict aversion. I agree with Andy > that suppressing conflict is not good, but neither is being conflict > averse, which feels to me to be more "internal" than "external." Your > mileage may vary. > > I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than > "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. I wonder if > professional diplomats use any words for what we are conceptually > circumnavigating? > > How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? > Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. > > I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about > distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which possesses a > non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies search, comparison, > identification of differences and similarities, these words provide > opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or testing, then negotiation > and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. > > So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences between > shaken and stirred? :) > > I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. Thanks > for that one, Vera. > > In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to > cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something inherently done > without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or more-experienced peer, but it > does appear to be inherently necessary for all of us to be successfully > human. > > Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and > collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of > individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of dividual > makes the case that some cultures have members who see themselves closely > tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," if I might exercise Vera's > nice coupling of words. So perhaps we might not be too hasty about > normalizing individualism as we experience it, and pose it as a universal > human trait. > > It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human phenomenon, > since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). > I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) > > I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks Mike), he > is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," > when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a group > can't be too obvious that they are working together because they must wait > for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new turn in the flow of > events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work off to the side to > experiment and solidify an idea before presenting it to the group. That > seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." > > Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly influenced by > the environment is also worth further discussion too, as I don't believe > that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a non-environment or even a > non-culture. There has to be a there there. So the reference of "dwelling > in the world" is also very delightful. > > Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. > There are a lot of "C" words: > ---------------- > -care > -collaboration > -collusion > -commitment > -community > -competition > -conflict > -continuity > -cooperation > -creativity > > but also some non-C words: > ---------------- > -accommodation > -ambitious > -artifacts > -attention > -democratic > -dignified interdependence > -distributed cogniton > -distributive > -environment > -integrative > -love > -marriage > -meaning > -negotiation > -play > -safety > -sharing > > Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We > appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon the concept of > collaboration. > > I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) thread and > tapestry! > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > From hshonerd@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 18:52:08 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 19:52:08 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> Message-ID: <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> I want to add that I can hear Vera talking of negotiation in her teaching, mentoring and writing, then I thought to look in the index of her Creative Collaboration. There it was on page 242 under Negotiation: ?by children, of conflict, of differences, intimate partners and?? > On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:46 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > Chris, > ?Negotiation? appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. > Henry > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote: >> >> "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." >> >> That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning minimal >> differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for this extremely >> helpful synposis, Annalisa! >> >> "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than >> "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation....How about >> "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? Negotiation >> coincides with cooperation and collaboration." >> >> Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation that >> emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, specifically >> discursive/conversational process often required. So it's a great example >> for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe it's narrower? That is, >> negotiation is focused on the terms and conditions (also points of >> similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. >> through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the >> discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer together, >> whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of working together and >> need not include dialogue. This brings up another tricky concept that I >> didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." >> >> I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be obvious >> to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, nor does >> competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" could be an >> example of the latter). >> >> Chris >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >> >>> Hello esteemed XMCArs! >>> >>> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so far up >>> to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' >>> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be further >>> collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating question. :) >>> >>> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about >>> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I consider >>> cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, >>> specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. It isn't distressing, >>> nor need it be a surrendering of identity, even in a more hierarchical >>> social structure. Also, cooperation can be very ambitious, so I seem to >>> have a 180 definition to Andy's distinctions between the two words. In >>> collaboration, there is a community effort to complete something and it is >>> more democratic in nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to >>> summarize, I don't believe that for either cooperation or collaboration >>> that conflict is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can >>> exist without conflict. >>> >>> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he speaks >>> of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : >>> >>> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation >>> is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give >>> yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves >>> actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the >>> development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the >>> right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain >>> degree reflect your thinking." >>> >>> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my >>> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. >>> >>> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not >>> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday >>> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! >>> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to any >>> collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as Micheal >>> points out. >>> >>> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when considering >>> marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must be present in a >>> marriage something called love and care, which is joyful sharing. I imagine >>> also, in the creation of a family there is an ideal objective to a create a >>> sense of continuity and community of care for all members, and that is an >>> ongoing collaboration. >>> >>> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration around >>> conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't think marriage is >>> something that is usually considered in reference to conflict, though for >>> many who are divorced or who fear repeating a bad marriage, they seem to >>> orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in conflict. :/ >>> >>> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, because >>> successful collaboration requires members who have complimentary ways of >>> thinking about or skill for doing things. Sometimes having too many people >>> who have expertise or skill in identical domains creates competition, and >>> competition not only creates conflict, but also has the potential become >>> violent. I say that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity >>> rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. >>> >>> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of >>> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that there >>> are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in groups made up >>> solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all female, or mixed, or even >>> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse >>> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still being >>> understood by all of us. >>> >>> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with class or >>> race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, signifiers, >>> histories, and so on. >>> >>> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and little-c >>> collaboration? How does creativity relate? >>> >>> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs for >>> collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied internal >>> work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify until they were >>> able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. >>> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They found >>> that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each member to speak, >>> in other words no individual or individuals dominated leaving others >>> silent, those groups possessed the most productivity, and also each member >>> felt good about being in that group. When they looked more closely to get >>> to the bottom of all that, it ended up that the only feature that really >>> counted was whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each >>> member. >>> >>> I have one word for this: Duh. >>> >>> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head when it >>> comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid collaboration >>> without any psychological safety? >>> >>> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is there >>> humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is improvisation regarded >>> as a site for discovery and imagination? >>> >>> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being distributed >>> doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. >>> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a highly >>> hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study of cultural >>> practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval ship is still >>> distributed despite these organizational features. >>> >>> Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it note >>> and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in solitude, from the >>> time I search my fridge to learn what I've run out of, in order to make my >>> list, and how I bring the list with me to the store as I search the aisles >>> and then remember that I'd forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, >>> because I keep that in the pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it >>> on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. >>> It's all distributed cognition. >>> >>> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's previous >>> posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see cooperation as more about >>> accommodation, rather than being conflict free. That's what I meant by >>> sacrifice to a cause, which could be conflict aversion. I agree with Andy >>> that suppressing conflict is not good, but neither is being conflict >>> averse, which feels to me to be more "internal" than "external." Your >>> mileage may vary. >>> >>> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than >>> "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. I wonder if >>> professional diplomats use any words for what we are conceptually >>> circumnavigating? >>> >>> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? >>> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. >>> >>> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about >>> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which possesses a >>> non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies search, comparison, >>> identification of differences and similarities, these words provide >>> opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or testing, then negotiation >>> and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. >>> >>> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences between >>> shaken and stirred? :) >>> >>> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. Thanks >>> for that one, Vera. >>> >>> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to >>> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something inherently done >>> without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or more-experienced peer, but it >>> does appear to be inherently necessary for all of us to be successfully >>> human. >>> >>> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and >>> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of >>> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of dividual >>> makes the case that some cultures have members who see themselves closely >>> tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," if I might exercise Vera's >>> nice coupling of words. So perhaps we might not be too hasty about >>> normalizing individualism as we experience it, and pose it as a universal >>> human trait. >>> >>> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human phenomenon, >>> since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). >>> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) >>> >>> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks Mike), he >>> is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," >>> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a group >>> can't be too obvious that they are working together because they must wait >>> for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new turn in the flow of >>> events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work off to the side to >>> experiment and solidify an idea before presenting it to the group. That >>> seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." >>> >>> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly influenced by >>> the environment is also worth further discussion too, as I don't believe >>> that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a non-environment or even a >>> non-culture. There has to be a there there. So the reference of "dwelling >>> in the world" is also very delightful. >>> >>> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. >>> There are a lot of "C" words: >>> ---------------- >>> -care >>> -collaboration >>> -collusion >>> -commitment >>> -community >>> -competition >>> -conflict >>> -continuity >>> -cooperation >>> -creativity >>> >>> but also some non-C words: >>> ---------------- >>> -accommodation >>> -ambitious >>> -artifacts >>> -attention >>> -democratic >>> -dignified interdependence >>> -distributed cogniton >>> -distributive >>> -environment >>> -integrative >>> -love >>> -marriage >>> -meaning >>> -negotiation >>> -play >>> -safety >>> -sharing >>> >>> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We >>> appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon the concept of >>> collaboration. >>> >>> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) thread and >>> tapestry! >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Annalisa >>> > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Tue Apr 19 22:53:58 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 22:53:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> Message-ID: <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> I am returning to Tomasello and section 5 on (joint attention and perspective) on page 7 of the article Mike sent. Tomasello found infants in their second year of life were more motivated than great apes to participate in (both) *collaborative* problem solving (and) *cooperative* communication. Therefore both collaborative and cooperation are adverbial notions. The reason for this difference is that human infants are biologically (adapted for) social inter/actions involving shared intentionality. At age 2 human infants already have special *skills* for creating with *other persons* joint goals, joint intentions, and joint attention AND also *special motivations* for helping and sharing with others. The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis goes further to say: ?participation in inter/actions involving shared intentionality trans/forms human cognition in fundamental ways (modes). First and most *fundamentally* this kind of participation creates the notion of perspectives (points of view). I sense this repetition of these key points may focus our shared attention. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: HENRY SHONERD Sent: April 19, 2016 6:54 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I want to add that I can hear Vera talking of negotiation in her teaching, mentoring and writing, then I thought to look in the index of her Creative Collaboration. There it was on page 242 under Negotiation: ?by children, of conflict, of differences, intimate partners and?? > On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:46 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > Chris, > ?Negotiation? appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. > Henry > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote: >> >> "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." >> >> That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning minimal >> differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for this extremely >> helpful synposis, Annalisa! >> >> "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than >> "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation....How about >> "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? Negotiation >> coincides with cooperation and collaboration." >> >> Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation that >> emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, specifically >> discursive/conversational process often required. So it's a great example >> for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe it's narrower? That is, >> negotiation is focused on the terms and conditions (also points of >> similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. >> through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the >> discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer together, >> whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of working together and >> need not include dialogue. This brings up another tricky concept that I >> didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." >> >> I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be obvious >> to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, nor does >> competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" could be an >> example of the latter). >> >> Chris >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >> >>> Hello esteemed XMCArs! >>> >>> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so far up >>> to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' >>> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be further >>> collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating question. :) >>> >>> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about >>> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I consider >>> cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if conflict arises, >>> specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. It isn't distressing, >>> nor need it be a surrendering of identity, even in a more hierarchical >>> social structure. Also, cooperation can be very ambitious, so I seem to >>> have a 180 definition to Andy's distinctions between the two words. In >>> collaboration, there is a community effort to complete something and it is >>> more democratic in nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to >>> summarize, I don't believe that for either cooperation or collaboration >>> that conflict is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can >>> exist without conflict. >>> >>> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he speaks >>> of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : >>> >>> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is cooperation >>> is engaging in community work for your own needs - so you never really give >>> yourself up to the learning community, while collaboration involves >>> actually creating a community. Others I think see collaboration as the >>> development of shared meaning while cooperation is simply (shared isn't the >>> right word, right?) action towards a goal. I think both to a certain >>> degree reflect your thinking." >>> >>> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my >>> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. >>> >>> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not >>> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday >>> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! >>> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to any >>> collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as Micheal >>> points out. >>> >>> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when considering >>> marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must be present in a >>> marriage something called love and care, which is joyful sharing. I imagine >>> also, in the creation of a family there is an ideal objective to a create a >>> sense of continuity and community of care for all members, and that is an >>> ongoing collaboration. >>> >>> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration around >>> conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't think marriage is >>> something that is usually considered in reference to conflict, though for >>> many who are divorced or who fear repeating a bad marriage, they seem to >>> orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in conflict. :/ >>> >>> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, because >>> successful collaboration requires members who have complimentary ways of >>> thinking about or skill for doing things. Sometimes having too many people >>> who have expertise or skill in identical domains creates competition, and >>> competition not only creates conflict, but also has the potential become >>> violent. I say that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity >>> rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. >>> >>> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of >>> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that there >>> are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in groups made up >>> solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all female, or mixed, or even >>> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse >>> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still being >>> understood by all of us. >>> >>> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with class or >>> race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, signifiers, >>> histories, and so on. >>> >>> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and little-c >>> collaboration? How does creativity relate? >>> >>> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs for >>> collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied internal >>> work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify until they were >>> able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. >>> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They found >>> that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each member to speak, >>> in other words no individual or individuals dominated leaving others >>> silent, those groups possessed the most productivity, and also each member >>> felt good about being in that group. When they looked more closely to get >>> to the bottom of all that, it ended up that the only feature that really >>> counted was whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each >>> member. >>> >>> I have one word for this: Duh. >>> >>> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head when it >>> comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid collaboration >>> without any psychological safety? >>> >>> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is there >>> humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is improvisation regarded >>> as a site for discovery and imagination? >>> >>> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being distributed >>> doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. >>> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a highly >>> hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study of cultural >>> practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval ship is still >>> distributed despite these organizational features. >>> >>> Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it note >>> and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in solitude, from the >>> time I search my fridge to learn what I've run out of, in order to make my >>> list, and how I bring the list with me to the store as I search the aisles >>> and then remember that I'd forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, >>> because I keep that in the pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it >>> on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. >>> It's all distributed cognition. >>> >>> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's previous >>> posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see cooperation as more about >>> accommodation, rather than being conflict free. That's what I meant by >>> sacrifice to a cause, which could be conflict aversion. I agree with Andy >>> that suppressing conflict is not good, but neither is being conflict >>> averse, which feels to me to be more "internal" than "external." Your >>> mileage may vary. >>> >>> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word than >>> "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. I wonder if >>> professional diplomats use any words for what we are conceptually >>> circumnavigating? >>> >>> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? >>> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. >>> >>> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about >>> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which possesses a >>> non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies search, comparison, >>> identification of differences and similarities, these words provide >>> opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or testing, then negotiation >>> and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. >>> >>> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences between >>> shaken and stirred? :) >>> >>> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. Thanks >>> for that one, Vera. >>> >>> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to >>> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something inherently done >>> without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or more-experienced peer, but it >>> does appear to be inherently necessary for all of us to be successfully >>> human. >>> >>> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and >>> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of >>> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of dividual >>> makes the case that some cultures have members who see themselves closely >>> tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," if I might exercise Vera's >>> nice coupling of words. So perhaps we might not be too hasty about >>> normalizing individualism as we experience it, and pose it as a universal >>> human trait. >>> >>> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human phenomenon, >>> since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). >>> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) >>> >>> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks Mike), he >>> is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," >>> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a group >>> can't be too obvious that they are working together because they must wait >>> for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new turn in the flow of >>> events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work off to the side to >>> experiment and solidify an idea before presenting it to the group. That >>> seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." >>> >>> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly influenced by >>> the environment is also worth further discussion too, as I don't believe >>> that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a non-environment or even a >>> non-culture. There has to be a there there. So the reference of "dwelling >>> in the world" is also very delightful. >>> >>> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. >>> There are a lot of "C" words: >>> ---------------- >>> -care >>> -collaboration >>> -collusion >>> -commitment >>> -community >>> -competition >>> -conflict >>> -continuity >>> -cooperation >>> -creativity >>> >>> but also some non-C words: >>> ---------------- >>> -accommodation >>> -ambitious >>> -artifacts >>> -attention >>> -democratic >>> -dignified interdependence >>> -distributed cogniton >>> -distributive >>> -environment >>> -integrative >>> -love >>> -marriage >>> -meaning >>> -negotiation >>> -play >>> -safety >>> -sharing >>> >>> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We >>> appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon the concept of >>> collaboration. >>> >>> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) thread and >>> tapestry! >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Annalisa >>> > From glassman.13@osu.edu Wed Apr 20 05:39:12 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 12:39:12 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Larry, The picture that stays in my mind is the one of 24 month olds not only supporting and pushing each other but even grabbing adults to bring them along in their shared attentional perspective/motivation. It made me think the most exciting collaborative moments for me is when I feel like the students are grabbing on to me and pulling me along. Does this need to be part of our concept of collaboration. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:54 AM To: HENRY SHONERD ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I am returning to Tomasello and section 5 on (joint attention and perspective) on page 7 of the article Mike sent. Tomasello found infants in their second year of life were more motivated than great apes to participate in (both) *collaborative* problem solving (and) *cooperative* communication. Therefore both collaborative and cooperation are adverbial notions. The reason for this difference is that human infants are biologically (adapted for) social inter/actions involving shared intentionality. At age 2 human infants already have special *skills* for creating with *other persons* joint goals, joint intentions, and joint attention AND also *special motivations* for helping and sharing with others. The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis goes further to say: ?participation in inter/actions involving shared intentionality trans/forms human cognition in fundamental ways (modes). First and most *fundamentally* this kind of participation creates the notion of perspectives (points of view). I sense this repetition of these key points may focus our shared attention. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: HENRY SHONERD Sent: April 19, 2016 6:54 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I want to add that I can hear Vera talking of negotiation in her teaching, mentoring and writing, then I thought to look in the index of her Creative Collaboration. There it was on page 242 under Negotiation: ?by children, of conflict, of differences, intimate partners and?? > On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:46 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > Chris, > ?Negotiation? appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. > Henry > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote: >> >> "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." >> >> That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning >> minimal differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for >> this extremely helpful synposis, Annalisa! >> >> "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word >> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial >> connotation....How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word >> than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration." >> >> Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation >> that emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, >> specifically discursive/conversational process often required. So >> it's a great example for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe >> it's narrower? That is, negotiation is focused on the terms and >> conditions (also points of similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. >> through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the >> discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer >> together, whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of >> working together and need not include dialogue. This brings up >> another tricky concept that I didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." >> >> I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be >> obvious to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, >> nor does competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" >> could be an example of the latter). >> >> Chris >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >> >>> Hello esteemed XMCArs! >>> >>> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so >>> far up to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' >>> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be >>> further collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating >>> question. :) >>> >>> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about >>> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I >>> consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. >>> It isn't distressing, nor need it be a surrendering of identity, >>> even in a more hierarchical social structure. Also, cooperation can >>> be very ambitious, so I seem to have a 180 definition to Andy's >>> distinctions between the two words. In collaboration, there is a >>> community effort to complete something and it is more democratic in >>> nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to summarize, I don't >>> believe that for either cooperation or collaboration that conflict >>> is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can exist without conflict. >>> >>> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he >>> speaks of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : >>> >>> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is >>> cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while >>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I >>> think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while >>> cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action >>> towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking." >>> >>> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my >>> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. >>> >>> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not >>> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday >>> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! >>> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to >>> any collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as >>> Micheal points out. >>> >>> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when >>> considering marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must >>> be present in a marriage something called love and care, which is >>> joyful sharing. I imagine also, in the creation of a family there is >>> an ideal objective to a create a sense of continuity and community >>> of care for all members, and that is an ongoing collaboration. >>> >>> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration >>> around conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't >>> think marriage is something that is usually considered in reference >>> to conflict, though for many who are divorced or who fear repeating >>> a bad marriage, they seem to orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in >>> conflict. :/ >>> >>> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, >>> because successful collaboration requires members who have >>> complimentary ways of thinking about or skill for doing things. >>> Sometimes having too many people who have expertise or skill in >>> identical domains creates competition, and competition not only >>> creates conflict, but also has the potential become violent. I say >>> that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. >>> >>> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of >>> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that >>> there are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in >>> groups made up solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all >>> female, or mixed, or even >>> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse >>> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still >>> being understood by all of us. >>> >>> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with >>> class or race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, >>> signifiers, histories, and so on. >>> >>> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and >>> little-c collaboration? How does creativity relate? >>> >>> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs >>> for collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied >>> internal work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify >>> until they were able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. >>> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They >>> found that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each >>> member to speak, in other words no individual or individuals >>> dominated leaving others silent, those groups possessed the most >>> productivity, and also each member felt good about being in that >>> group. When they looked more closely to get to the bottom of all >>> that, it ended up that the only feature that really counted was >>> whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each member. >>> >>> I have one word for this: Duh. >>> >>> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head >>> when it comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid >>> collaboration without any psychological safety? >>> >>> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is >>> there humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is >>> improvisation regarded as a site for discovery and imagination? >>> >>> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being >>> distributed doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. >>> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a >>> highly hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study >>> of cultural practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval >>> ship is still distributed despite these organizational features. >>> >>> Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it >>> note and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in >>> solitude, from the time I search my fridge to learn what I've run >>> out of, in order to make my list, and how I bring the list with me >>> to the store as I search the aisles and then remember that I'd >>> forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, because I keep that in the >>> pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. >>> It's all distributed cognition. >>> >>> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's >>> previous posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see >>> cooperation as more about accommodation, rather than being conflict >>> free. That's what I meant by sacrifice to a cause, which could be >>> conflict aversion. I agree with Andy that suppressing conflict is >>> not good, but neither is being conflict averse, which feels to me to >>> be more "internal" than "external." Your mileage may vary. >>> >>> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word >>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. >>> I wonder if professional diplomats use any words for what we are >>> conceptually circumnavigating? >>> >>> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? >>> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. >>> >>> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about >>> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which >>> possesses a non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies >>> search, comparison, identification of differences and similarities, >>> these words provide opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or >>> testing, then negotiation and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. >>> >>> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences >>> between shaken and stirred? :) >>> >>> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. >>> Thanks for that one, Vera. >>> >>> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to >>> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something >>> inherently done without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or >>> more-experienced peer, but it does appear to be inherently necessary >>> for all of us to be successfully human. >>> >>> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and >>> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of >>> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of >>> dividual makes the case that some cultures have members who see >>> themselves closely tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," >>> if I might exercise Vera's nice coupling of words. So perhaps we >>> might not be too hasty about normalizing individualism as we >>> experience it, and pose it as a universal human trait. >>> >>> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human >>> phenomenon, since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). >>> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) >>> >>> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks >>> Mike), he is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," >>> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a >>> group can't be too obvious that they are working together because >>> they must wait for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new >>> turn in the flow of events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work >>> off to the side to experiment and solidify an idea before presenting >>> it to the group. That seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." >>> >>> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly >>> influenced by the environment is also worth further discussion too, >>> as I don't believe that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a >>> non-environment or even a non-culture. There has to be a there >>> there. So the reference of "dwelling in the world" is also very delightful. >>> >>> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. >>> There are a lot of "C" words: >>> ---------------- >>> -care >>> -collaboration >>> -collusion >>> -commitment >>> -community >>> -competition >>> -conflict >>> -continuity >>> -cooperation >>> -creativity >>> >>> but also some non-C words: >>> ---------------- >>> -accommodation >>> -ambitious >>> -artifacts >>> -attention >>> -democratic >>> -dignified interdependence >>> -distributed cogniton >>> -distributive >>> -environment >>> -integrative >>> -love >>> -marriage >>> -meaning >>> -negotiation >>> -play >>> -safety >>> -sharing >>> >>> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": >>> C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon >>> the concept of collaboration. >>> >>> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) >>> thread and tapestry! >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Annalisa >>> > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 07:02:17 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 07:02:17 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <57178bf3.d80b620a.4dd27.3e7e@mx.google.com> This shift of focus towards (grasping) phenomena but from within this shared (mutual) place in which the grasping movements HAVE *meaning*. To highlight that Tomasello is using the term (collaboration) in relation to (problem solving) while using the term (cooperation) for the relation with (communication). Is this (mode) of perspective-taking that seems to be species specific originally always focusing first on the *same* (single) phenomena prior to becoming *differentiated* as aspects (of) this *prior* focusing on the *same* mutually shareable (and grasped) events. I will add the centrality of Fonagy?s notion that this grasping encounter must be marked (modulated) through our shifting responses within this mutually shared *place* of engagement. Michael, this is leading to a way to possibly transcend the assumed opposition of (subject) and (object) towards a different way of portraying inter/subjectivity. For example, the need for aesthetic modes of *unity* or *harmony* prior to the differentiating marking modulation of analytic differences. The need for *normativity* prior to *freedom*. The birds need for wind *resistance* in order for a bird?s *flying*. I see similar ways of travelling in these examples all as exemplars of a deep movement that some call *spirit*. In other words, as Hegel points out ?Beauty hates the Understanding as Beauty orients towards *unity* and *harmony* while the Understanding dissects and kills phenomena. Seems to be a *thread* or *rope* hear if we listen to this imaginal image of living *spirit* as intertwining relations each in the other. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Glassman, Michael Sent: April 20, 2016 5:41 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Hi Larry, The picture that stays in my mind is the one of 24 month olds not only supporting and pushing each other but even grabbing adults to bring them along in their shared attentional perspective/motivation. It made me think the most exciting collaborative moments for me is when I feel like the students are grabbing on to me and pulling me along. Does this need to be part of our concept of collaboration. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:54 AM To: HENRY SHONERD ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I am returning to Tomasello and section 5 on (joint attention and perspective) on page 7 of the article Mike sent. Tomasello found infants in their second year of life were more motivated than great apes to participate in (both) *collaborative* problem solving (and) *cooperative* communication. Therefore both collaborative and cooperation are adverbial notions. The reason for this difference is that human infants are biologically (adapted for) social inter/actions involving shared intentionality. At age 2 human infants already have special *skills* for creating with *other persons* joint goals, joint intentions, and joint attention AND also *special motivations* for helping and sharing with others. The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis goes further to say: ?participation in inter/actions involving shared intentionality trans/forms human cognition in fundamental ways (modes). First and most *fundamentally* this kind of participation creates the notion of perspectives (points of view). I sense this repetition of these key points may focus our shared attention. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: HENRY SHONERD Sent: April 19, 2016 6:54 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration I want to add that I can hear Vera talking of negotiation in her teaching, mentoring and writing, then I thought to look in the index of her Creative Collaboration. There it was on page 242 under Negotiation: ?by children, of conflict, of differences, intimate partners and?? > On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:46 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > > Chris, > ?Negotiation? appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. > Henry > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote: >> >> "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." >> >> That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning >> minimal differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for >> this extremely helpful synposis, Annalisa! >> >> "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word >> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial >> connotation....How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word >> than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration." >> >> Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation >> that emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, >> specifically discursive/conversational process often required. So >> it's a great example for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe >> it's narrower? That is, negotiation is focused on the terms and >> conditions (also points of similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. >> through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the >> discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer >> together, whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of >> working together and need not include dialogue. This brings up >> another tricky concept that I didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." >> >> I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be >> obvious to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, >> nor does competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" >> could be an example of the latter). >> >> Chris >> >> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >> >>> Hello esteemed XMCArs! >>> >>> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so >>> far up to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' >>> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be >>> further collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating >>> question. :) >>> >>> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about >>> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I >>> consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. >>> It isn't distressing, nor need it be a surrendering of identity, >>> even in a more hierarchical social structure. Also, cooperation can >>> be very ambitious, so I seem to have a 180 definition to Andy's >>> distinctions between the two words. In collaboration, there is a >>> community effort to complete something and it is more democratic in >>> nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to summarize, I don't >>> believe that for either cooperation or collaboration that conflict >>> is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can exist without conflict. >>> >>> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he >>> speaks of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : >>> >>> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is >>> cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so >>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while >>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I >>> think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while >>> cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action >>> towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking." >>> >>> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my >>> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. >>> >>> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not >>> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday >>> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! >>> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to >>> any collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as >>> Micheal points out. >>> >>> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when >>> considering marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must >>> be present in a marriage something called love and care, which is >>> joyful sharing. I imagine also, in the creation of a family there is >>> an ideal objective to a create a sense of continuity and community >>> of care for all members, and that is an ongoing collaboration. >>> >>> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration >>> around conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't >>> think marriage is something that is usually considered in reference >>> to conflict, though for many who are divorced or who fear repeating >>> a bad marriage, they seem to orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in >>> conflict. :/ >>> >>> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, >>> because successful collaboration requires members who have >>> complimentary ways of thinking about or skill for doing things. >>> Sometimes having too many people who have expertise or skill in >>> identical domains creates competition, and competition not only >>> creates conflict, but also has the potential become violent. I say >>> that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. >>> >>> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of >>> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that >>> there are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in >>> groups made up solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all >>> female, or mixed, or even >>> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse >>> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still >>> being understood by all of us. >>> >>> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with >>> class or race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, >>> signifiers, histories, and so on. >>> >>> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and >>> little-c collaboration? How does creativity relate? >>> >>> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs >>> for collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied >>> internal work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify >>> until they were able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. >>> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They >>> found that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each >>> member to speak, in other words no individual or individuals >>> dominated leaving others silent, those groups possessed the most >>> productivity, and also each member felt good about being in that >>> group. When they looked more closely to get to the bottom of all >>> that, it ended up that the only feature that really counted was >>> whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each member. >>> >>> I have one word for this: Duh. >>> >>> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head >>> when it comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid >>> collaboration without any psychological safety? >>> >>> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is >>> there humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is >>> improvisation regarded as a site for discovery and imagination? >>> >>> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being >>> distributed doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. >>> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a >>> highly hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study >>> of cultural practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval >>> ship is still distributed despite these organizational features. >>> >>> Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it >>> note and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in >>> solitude, from the time I search my fridge to learn what I've run >>> out of, in order to make my list, and how I bring the list with me >>> to the store as I search the aisles and then remember that I'd >>> forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, because I keep that in the >>> pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. >>> It's all distributed cognition. >>> >>> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's >>> previous posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see >>> cooperation as more about accommodation, rather than being conflict >>> free. That's what I meant by sacrifice to a cause, which could be >>> conflict aversion. I agree with Andy that suppressing conflict is >>> not good, but neither is being conflict averse, which feels to me to >>> be more "internal" than "external." Your mileage may vary. >>> >>> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word >>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. >>> I wonder if professional diplomats use any words for what we are >>> conceptually circumnavigating? >>> >>> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? >>> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. >>> >>> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about >>> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which >>> possesses a non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies >>> search, comparison, identification of differences and similarities, >>> these words provide opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or >>> testing, then negotiation and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. >>> >>> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences >>> between shaken and stirred? :) >>> >>> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. >>> Thanks for that one, Vera. >>> >>> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to >>> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something >>> inherently done without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or >>> more-experienced peer, but it does appear to be inherently necessary >>> for all of us to be successfully human. >>> >>> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and >>> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of >>> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of >>> dividual makes the case that some cultures have members who see >>> themselves closely tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," >>> if I might exercise Vera's nice coupling of words. So perhaps we >>> might not be too hasty about normalizing individualism as we >>> experience it, and pose it as a universal human trait. >>> >>> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human >>> phenomenon, since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). >>> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) >>> >>> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks >>> Mike), he is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," >>> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a >>> group can't be too obvious that they are working together because >>> they must wait for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new >>> turn in the flow of events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work >>> off to the side to experiment and solidify an idea before presenting >>> it to the group. That seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." >>> >>> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly >>> influenced by the environment is also worth further discussion too, >>> as I don't believe that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a >>> non-environment or even a non-culture. There has to be a there >>> there. So the reference of "dwelling in the world" is also very delightful. >>> >>> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. >>> There are a lot of "C" words: >>> ---------------- >>> -care >>> -collaboration >>> -collusion >>> -commitment >>> -community >>> -competition >>> -conflict >>> -continuity >>> -cooperation >>> -creativity >>> >>> but also some non-C words: >>> ---------------- >>> -accommodation >>> -ambitious >>> -artifacts >>> -attention >>> -democratic >>> -dignified interdependence >>> -distributed cogniton >>> -distributive >>> -environment >>> -integrative >>> -love >>> -marriage >>> -meaning >>> -negotiation >>> -play >>> -safety >>> -sharing >>> >>> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": >>> C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon >>> the concept of collaboration. >>> >>> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) >>> thread and tapestry! >>> >>> Kind regards, >>> >>> Annalisa >>> > From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 08:41:32 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 09:41:32 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <57178bf3.d80b620a.4dd27.3e7e@mx.google.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <57178bf3.d80b620a.4dd27.3e7e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <7E94FDBA-D578-4E2D-AF4A-99DCA90E495E@gmail.com> An interesting aspect of the negotiation of meaning between children is the research that shows that at a very early age children?s speech demonstrates their ability to modulate according to the age of the children they are communicating with. (I am pretty sure about this, though it has been a long time since I read about it.) Adults, of course, modulate their speech for children, but children of, say, six talk differently to children younger than themselves from when they talk to older children. This shows early on a very sophisticated ability to judge perspective taking in conversation vis-a-vis perceived levels of development. Henry > On Apr 20, 2016, at 8:02 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > This shift of focus towards (grasping) phenomena but from within this shared (mutual) place in which the grasping movements HAVE *meaning*. > To highlight that Tomasello is using the term (collaboration) in relation to (problem solving) while using the term (cooperation) for the relation with (communication). > Is this (mode) of perspective-taking that seems to be species specific originally always focusing first on the *same* (single) phenomena prior to becoming *differentiated* as aspects (of) this *prior* focusing on the *same* mutually shareable (and grasped) events. > > I will add the centrality of Fonagy?s notion that this grasping encounter must be marked (modulated) through our shifting responses within this mutually shared *place* of engagement. > > Michael, this is leading to a way to possibly transcend the assumed opposition of (subject) and (object) towards a different way of portraying inter/subjectivity. > For example, the need for aesthetic modes of *unity* or *harmony* prior to the differentiating marking modulation of analytic differences. > The need for *normativity* prior to *freedom*. > The birds need for wind *resistance* in order for a bird?s *flying*. > I see similar ways of travelling in these examples all as exemplars of a deep movement that some call *spirit*. > > In other words, as Hegel points out > ?Beauty hates the Understanding as Beauty orients towards *unity* and *harmony* while the Understanding dissects and kills phenomena. > > Seems to be a *thread* or *rope* hear if we listen to this imaginal image of living *spirit* as intertwining relations each in the other. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Glassman, Michael > Sent: April 20, 2016 5:41 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > Hi Larry, > > The picture that stays in my mind is the one of 24 month olds not only supporting and pushing each other but even grabbing adults to bring them along in their shared attentional perspective/motivation. It made me think the most exciting collaborative moments for me is when I feel like the students are grabbing on to me and pulling me along. > > Does this need to be part of our concept of collaboration. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:54 AM > To: HENRY SHONERD ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I am returning to Tomasello and section 5 on (joint attention and perspective) on page 7 of the article Mike sent. > > Tomasello found infants in their second year of life were more motivated than great apes to participate in (both) *collaborative* problem solving (and) *cooperative* communication. > > Therefore both collaborative and cooperation are adverbial notions. > The reason for this difference is that human infants are biologically (adapted for) social inter/actions involving shared intentionality. At age 2 human infants already have special *skills* for creating with *other persons* joint goals, joint intentions, and joint attention AND also *special motivations* for helping and sharing with others. > The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis goes further to say: > ?participation in inter/actions involving shared intentionality trans/forms human cognition in fundamental ways (modes). > First and most *fundamentally* this kind of participation creates the notion of perspectives (points of view). > > I sense this repetition of these key points may focus our shared attention. > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: HENRY SHONERD > Sent: April 19, 2016 6:54 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I want to add that I can hear Vera talking of negotiation in her teaching, mentoring and writing, then I thought to look in the index of her Creative Collaboration. There it was on page 242 under Negotiation: ?by children, of conflict, of differences, intimate partners and?? > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:46 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >> Chris, >> ?Negotiation? appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. >> Henry >> >>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote: >>> >>> "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." >>> >>> That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning >>> minimal differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for >>> this extremely helpful synposis, Annalisa! >>> >>> "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word >>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial >>> connotation....How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word >>> than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration." >>> >>> Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation >>> that emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, >>> specifically discursive/conversational process often required. So >>> it's a great example for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe >>> it's narrower? That is, negotiation is focused on the terms and >>> conditions (also points of similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. >>> through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the >>> discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer >>> together, whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of >>> working together and need not include dialogue. This brings up >>> another tricky concept that I didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." >>> >>> I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be >>> obvious to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, >>> nor does competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" >>> could be an example of the latter). >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >>> >>>> Hello esteemed XMCArs! >>>> >>>> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so >>>> far up to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' >>>> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be >>>> further collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating >>>> question. :) >>>> >>>> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about >>>> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I >>>> consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >>>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. >>>> It isn't distressing, nor need it be a surrendering of identity, >>>> even in a more hierarchical social structure. Also, cooperation can >>>> be very ambitious, so I seem to have a 180 definition to Andy's >>>> distinctions between the two words. In collaboration, there is a >>>> community effort to complete something and it is more democratic in >>>> nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to summarize, I don't >>>> believe that for either cooperation or collaboration that conflict >>>> is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can exist without conflict. >>>> >>>> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he >>>> speaks of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : >>>> >>>> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is >>>> cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so >>>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while >>>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I >>>> think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while >>>> cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action >>>> towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking." >>>> >>>> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my >>>> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. >>>> >>>> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not >>>> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday >>>> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! >>>> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to >>>> any collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as >>>> Micheal points out. >>>> >>>> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when >>>> considering marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must >>>> be present in a marriage something called love and care, which is >>>> joyful sharing. I imagine also, in the creation of a family there is >>>> an ideal objective to a create a sense of continuity and community >>>> of care for all members, and that is an ongoing collaboration. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration >>>> around conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't >>>> think marriage is something that is usually considered in reference >>>> to conflict, though for many who are divorced or who fear repeating >>>> a bad marriage, they seem to orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in >>>> conflict. :/ >>>> >>>> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, >>>> because successful collaboration requires members who have >>>> complimentary ways of thinking about or skill for doing things. >>>> Sometimes having too many people who have expertise or skill in >>>> identical domains creates competition, and competition not only >>>> creates conflict, but also has the potential become violent. I say >>>> that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. >>>> >>>> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of >>>> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that >>>> there are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in >>>> groups made up solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all >>>> female, or mixed, or even >>>> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse >>>> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still >>>> being understood by all of us. >>>> >>>> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with >>>> class or race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, >>>> signifiers, histories, and so on. >>>> >>>> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and >>>> little-c collaboration? How does creativity relate? >>>> >>>> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs >>>> for collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied >>>> internal work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify >>>> until they were able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. >>>> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They >>>> found that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each >>>> member to speak, in other words no individual or individuals >>>> dominated leaving others silent, those groups possessed the most >>>> productivity, and also each member felt good about being in that >>>> group. When they looked more closely to get to the bottom of all >>>> that, it ended up that the only feature that really counted was >>>> whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each member. >>>> >>>> I have one word for this: Duh. >>>> >>>> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head >>>> when it comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid >>>> collaboration without any psychological safety? >>>> >>>> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is >>>> there humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is >>>> improvisation regarded as a site for discovery and imagination? >>>> >>>> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being >>>> distributed doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. >>>> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a >>>> highly hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study >>>> of cultural practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval >>>> ship is still distributed despite these organizational features. >>>> >>>> Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it >>>> note and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in >>>> solitude, from the time I search my fridge to learn what I've run >>>> out of, in order to make my list, and how I bring the list with me >>>> to the store as I search the aisles and then remember that I'd >>>> forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, because I keep that in the >>>> pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. >>>> It's all distributed cognition. >>>> >>>> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's >>>> previous posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see >>>> cooperation as more about accommodation, rather than being conflict >>>> free. That's what I meant by sacrifice to a cause, which could be >>>> conflict aversion. I agree with Andy that suppressing conflict is >>>> not good, but neither is being conflict averse, which feels to me to >>>> be more "internal" than "external." Your mileage may vary. >>>> >>>> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word >>>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. >>>> I wonder if professional diplomats use any words for what we are >>>> conceptually circumnavigating? >>>> >>>> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? >>>> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. >>>> >>>> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about >>>> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which >>>> possesses a non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies >>>> search, comparison, identification of differences and similarities, >>>> these words provide opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or >>>> testing, then negotiation and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. >>>> >>>> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences >>>> between shaken and stirred? :) >>>> >>>> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. >>>> Thanks for that one, Vera. >>>> >>>> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to >>>> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something >>>> inherently done without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or >>>> more-experienced peer, but it does appear to be inherently necessary >>>> for all of us to be successfully human. >>>> >>>> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and >>>> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of >>>> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of >>>> dividual makes the case that some cultures have members who see >>>> themselves closely tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," >>>> if I might exercise Vera's nice coupling of words. So perhaps we >>>> might not be too hasty about normalizing individualism as we >>>> experience it, and pose it as a universal human trait. >>>> >>>> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human >>>> phenomenon, since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). >>>> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) >>>> >>>> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks >>>> Mike), he is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," >>>> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a >>>> group can't be too obvious that they are working together because >>>> they must wait for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new >>>> turn in the flow of events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work >>>> off to the side to experiment and solidify an idea before presenting >>>> it to the group. That seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." >>>> >>>> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly >>>> influenced by the environment is also worth further discussion too, >>>> as I don't believe that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a >>>> non-environment or even a non-culture. There has to be a there >>>> there. So the reference of "dwelling in the world" is also very delightful. >>>> >>>> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. >>>> There are a lot of "C" words: >>>> ---------------- >>>> -care >>>> -collaboration >>>> -collusion >>>> -commitment >>>> -community >>>> -competition >>>> -conflict >>>> -continuity >>>> -cooperation >>>> -creativity >>>> >>>> but also some non-C words: >>>> ---------------- >>>> -accommodation >>>> -ambitious >>>> -artifacts >>>> -attention >>>> -democratic >>>> -dignified interdependence >>>> -distributed cogniton >>>> -distributive >>>> -environment >>>> -integrative >>>> -love >>>> -marriage >>>> -meaning >>>> -negotiation >>>> -play >>>> -safety >>>> -sharing >>>> >>>> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": >>>> C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon >>>> the concept of collaboration. >>>> >>>> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) >>>> thread and tapestry! >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Annalisa >>>> >> > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 10:07:01 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 10:07:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <7E94FDBA-D578-4E2D-AF4A-99DCA90E495E@gmail.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <57178bf3.d80b620a.4dd27.3e7e@mx.google.com> <7E94FDBA-D578-4E2D-AF4A-99DCA90E495E@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5717b73f.21dd420a.a4a04.ffffd314@mx.google.com> Henry, The sense of (negotiate) I experience as having a different felt sense from the sense *arising* within (modulation). Both imply intentionality but with differing degrees of instrumental intent. Tomasello points to primates ability to use another conspecific as a social implement/instrument but this is not the primordial *joint* (mutual) reciprocity which implies human motivation towards *care and concern* for the other and the desire to help the other (grasp) their *intent*. Tomasello points to reciprocal 1st and 3rd aspects of developing perspective taking depending upon first acquiring a sense of sharing the *same* phenomena. This 1st and 3rd perspectives are occurring *simultaneously. To be able to negotiate seems to imply negotiating *differences* which may be derivative from the prior developing joint (mutual) sense of experiencing the (same) phenomena prior to developing the capacity for negotiating differences. How cognitive is joint mutual attention orienting to the *same* phenomena in contrast to the cognitive being more limited to possibly being derivative as this developing process of differentiating (perspective taking) from within a primordial *place* of mutually joint shared attention.?? This also brings in the question of reciprocal *recognition* implying a symmetrical relation in contrast to *recognition* as being more asymmetrical. The general question of convergence within divergence (or) divergence within convergence. Tomasello seems to indicate that joint mutual attention is primordial and differences emerge within this prior matrix or mileau. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: HENRY SHONERD Sent: April 20, 2016 8:44 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration An interesting aspect of the negotiation of meaning between children is the research that shows that at a very early age children?s speech demonstrates their ability to modulate according to the age of the children they are communicating with. (I am pretty sure about this, though it has been a long time since I read about it.) Adults, of course, modulate their speech for children, but children of, say, six talk differently to children younger than themselves from when they talk to older children. This shows early on a very sophisticated ability to judge perspective taking in conversation vis-a-vis perceived levels of development. Henry > On Apr 20, 2016, at 8:02 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > This shift of focus towards (grasping) phenomena but from within this shared (mutual) place in which the grasping movements HAVE *meaning*. > To highlight that Tomasello is using the term (collaboration) in relation to (problem solving) while using the term (cooperation) for the relation with (communication). > Is this (mode) of perspective-taking that seems to be species specific originally always focusing first on the *same* (single) phenomena prior to becoming *differentiated* as aspects (of) this *prior* focusing on the *same* mutually shareable (and grasped) events. > > I will add the centrality of Fonagy?s notion that this grasping encounter must be marked (modulated) through our shifting responses within this mutually shared *place* of engagement. > > Michael, this is leading to a way to possibly transcend the assumed opposition of (subject) and (object) towards a different way of portraying inter/subjectivity. > For example, the need for aesthetic modes of *unity* or *harmony* prior to the differentiating marking modulation of analytic differences. > The need for *normativity* prior to *freedom*. > The birds need for wind *resistance* in order for a bird?s *flying*. > I see similar ways of travelling in these examples all as exemplars of a deep movement that some call *spirit*. > > In other words, as Hegel points out > ?Beauty hates the Understanding as Beauty orients towards *unity* and *harmony* while the Understanding dissects and kills phenomena. > > Seems to be a *thread* or *rope* hear if we listen to this imaginal image of living *spirit* as intertwining relations each in the other. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Glassman, Michael > Sent: April 20, 2016 5:41 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > Hi Larry, > > The picture that stays in my mind is the one of 24 month olds not only supporting and pushing each other but even grabbing adults to bring them along in their shared attentional perspective/motivation. It made me think the most exciting collaborative moments for me is when I feel like the students are grabbing on to me and pulling me along. > > Does this need to be part of our concept of collaboration. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Lplarry > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:54 AM > To: HENRY SHONERD ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I am returning to Tomasello and section 5 on (joint attention and perspective) on page 7 of the article Mike sent. > > Tomasello found infants in their second year of life were more motivated than great apes to participate in (both) *collaborative* problem solving (and) *cooperative* communication. > > Therefore both collaborative and cooperation are adverbial notions. > The reason for this difference is that human infants are biologically (adapted for) social inter/actions involving shared intentionality. At age 2 human infants already have special *skills* for creating with *other persons* joint goals, joint intentions, and joint attention AND also *special motivations* for helping and sharing with others. > The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis goes further to say: > ?participation in inter/actions involving shared intentionality trans/forms human cognition in fundamental ways (modes). > First and most *fundamentally* this kind of participation creates the notion of perspectives (points of view). > > I sense this repetition of these key points may focus our shared attention. > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: HENRY SHONERD > Sent: April 19, 2016 6:54 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I want to add that I can hear Vera talking of negotiation in her teaching, mentoring and writing, then I thought to look in the index of her Creative Collaboration. There it was on page 242 under Negotiation: ?by children, of conflict, of differences, intimate partners and?? > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:46 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: >> >> Chris, >> ?Negotiation? appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. >> Henry >> >>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck wrote: >>> >>> "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." >>> >>> That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning >>> minimal differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for >>> this extremely helpful synposis, Annalisa! >>> >>> "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word >>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial >>> connotation....How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word >>> than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration." >>> >>> Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation >>> that emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, >>> specifically discursive/conversational process often required. So >>> it's a great example for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe >>> it's narrower? That is, negotiation is focused on the terms and >>> conditions (also points of similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. >>> through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the >>> discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer >>> together, whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of >>> working together and need not include dialogue. This brings up >>> another tricky concept that I didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." >>> >>> I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be >>> obvious to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, >>> nor does competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" >>> could be an example of the latter). >>> >>> Chris >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: >>> >>>> Hello esteemed XMCArs! >>>> >>>> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so >>>> far up to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' >>>> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be >>>> further collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating >>>> question. :) >>>> >>>> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about >>>> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I >>>> consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if >>>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. >>>> It isn't distressing, nor need it be a surrendering of identity, >>>> even in a more hierarchical social structure. Also, cooperation can >>>> be very ambitious, so I seem to have a 180 definition to Andy's >>>> distinctions between the two words. In collaboration, there is a >>>> community effort to complete something and it is more democratic in >>>> nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to summarize, I don't >>>> believe that for either cooperation or collaboration that conflict >>>> is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can exist without conflict. >>>> >>>> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he >>>> speaks of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : >>>> >>>> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is >>>> cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so >>>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while >>>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I >>>> think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while >>>> cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action >>>> towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking." >>>> >>>> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my >>>> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. >>>> >>>> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not >>>> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday >>>> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! >>>> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to >>>> any collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as >>>> Micheal points out. >>>> >>>> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when >>>> considering marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must >>>> be present in a marriage something called love and care, which is >>>> joyful sharing. I imagine also, in the creation of a family there is >>>> an ideal objective to a create a sense of continuity and community >>>> of care for all members, and that is an ongoing collaboration. >>>> >>>> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration >>>> around conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't >>>> think marriage is something that is usually considered in reference >>>> to conflict, though for many who are divorced or who fear repeating >>>> a bad marriage, they seem to orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in >>>> conflict. :/ >>>> >>>> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, >>>> because successful collaboration requires members who have >>>> complimentary ways of thinking about or skill for doing things. >>>> Sometimes having too many people who have expertise or skill in >>>> identical domains creates competition, and competition not only >>>> creates conflict, but also has the potential become violent. I say >>>> that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. >>>> >>>> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of >>>> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that >>>> there are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in >>>> groups made up solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all >>>> female, or mixed, or even >>>> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse >>>> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still >>>> being understood by all of us. >>>> >>>> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with >>>> class or race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, >>>> signifiers, histories, and so on. >>>> >>>> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and >>>> little-c collaboration? How does creativity relate? >>>> >>>> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs >>>> for collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied >>>> internal work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify >>>> until they were able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. >>>> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They >>>> found that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each >>>> member to speak, in other words no individual or individuals >>>> dominated leaving others silent, those groups possessed the most >>>> productivity, and also each member felt good about being in that >>>> group. When they looked more closely to get to the bottom of all >>>> that, it ended up that the only feature that really counted was >>>> whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each member. >>>> >>>> I have one word for this: Duh. >>>> >>>> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head >>>> when it comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid >>>> collaboration without any psychological safety? >>>> >>>> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is >>>> there humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is >>>> improvisation regarded as a site for discovery and imagination? >>>> >>>> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being >>>> distributed doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. >>>> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a >>>> highly hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study >>>> of cultural practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval >>>> ship is still distributed despite these organizational features. >>>> >>>> Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it >>>> note and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in >>>> solitude, from the time I search my fridge to learn what I've run >>>> out of, in order to make my list, and how I bring the list with me >>>> to the store as I search the aisles and then remember that I'd >>>> forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, because I keep that in the >>>> pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. >>>> It's all distributed cognition. >>>> >>>> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's >>>> previous posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see >>>> cooperation as more about accommodation, rather than being conflict >>>> free. That's what I meant by sacrifice to a cause, which could be >>>> conflict aversion. I agree with Andy that suppressing conflict is >>>> not good, but neither is being conflict averse, which feels to me to >>>> be more "internal" than "external." Your mileage may vary. >>>> >>>> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word >>>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. >>>> I wonder if professional diplomats use any words for what we are >>>> conceptually circumnavigating? >>>> >>>> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? >>>> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. >>>> >>>> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about >>>> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which >>>> possesses a non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies >>>> search, comparison, identification of differences and similarities, >>>> these words provide opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or >>>> testing, then negotiation and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. >>>> >>>> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences >>>> between shaken and stirred? :) >>>> >>>> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. >>>> Thanks for that one, Vera. >>>> >>>> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to >>>> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something >>>> inherently done without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or >>>> more-experienced peer, but it does appear to be inherently necessary >>>> for all of us to be successfully human. >>>> >>>> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and >>>> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of >>>> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of >>>> dividual makes the case that some cultures have members who see >>>> themselves closely tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," >>>> if I might exercise Vera's nice coupling of words. So perhaps we >>>> might not be too hasty about normalizing individualism as we >>>> experience it, and pose it as a universal human trait. >>>> >>>> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human >>>> phenomenon, since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). >>>> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) >>>> >>>> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks >>>> Mike), he is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," >>>> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a >>>> group can't be too obvious that they are working together because >>>> they must wait for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new >>>> turn in the flow of events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work >>>> off to the side to experiment and solidify an idea before presenting >>>> it to the group. That seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." >>>> >>>> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly >>>> influenced by the environment is also worth further discussion too, >>>> as I don't believe that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a >>>> non-environment or even a non-culture. There has to be a there >>>> there. So the reference of "dwelling in the world" is also very delightful. >>>> >>>> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. >>>> There are a lot of "C" words: >>>> ---------------- >>>> -care >>>> -collaboration >>>> -collusion >>>> -commitment >>>> -community >>>> -competition >>>> -conflict >>>> -continuity >>>> -cooperation >>>> -creativity >>>> >>>> but also some non-C words: >>>> ---------------- >>>> -accommodation >>>> -ambitious >>>> -artifacts >>>> -attention >>>> -democratic >>>> -dignified interdependence >>>> -distributed cogniton >>>> -distributive >>>> -environment >>>> -integrative >>>> -love >>>> -marriage >>>> -meaning >>>> -negotiation >>>> -play >>>> -safety >>>> -sharing >>>> >>>> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": >>>> C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon >>>> the concept of collaboration. >>>> >>>> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) >>>> thread and tapestry! >>>> >>>> Kind regards, >>>> >>>> Annalisa >>>> >> > > > > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 13:03:58 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 14:03:58 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <5717b73f.21dd420a.a4a04.ffffd314@mx.google.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <57178bf3.d80b620a.4dd27.3e7e@mx.google.com> <7E94FDBA-D578-4E2D-AF4A-99DCA90E495E@gmail.com> <5717b73f.21dd420a.a4a04.ffffd314@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <9D1E66AB-9324-477E-9F67-7B9D54D825B4@gmail.com> Larry, I confess that your post is somewhat opaque to me. However, I want to take a turn ASAP right away and because I doubt I could do justice to your analysis without a taking more time reading your post or writing by or about Tomasello. . However, I sense that your very analysis describes your efforts and mine to negotiate our ?differences?, differences, as I say having to do with my background knowledge falling short, and not that our perspectives are in conflict. In any case, I would like to add to my take on negotiation and collaboration how and they are associated for me with diplomacy, especially between nation states. On a smaller scale, I am reminded of the ways in which conversational styles are gendered. Deborah Tannen has written several popular books on discourse, one of which (Gender and Discourse, 1994) finds that men and women tend to approach conversation in very different ways. An outstanding example of such differences is that men and women tend to interpret ?interruptions? in conversation differently. Men tend to interpret them as power plays, women as expressions of solidarity. In effect, men tend to interpret someone talking ?over? their turn as true interruptions, women as moving the conversation forward. Henry > On Apr 20, 2016, at 11:07 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > Henry, > The sense of (negotiate) I experience as having a different felt sense from the sense *arising* within (modulation). > Both imply intentionality but with differing degrees of instrumental intent. > > Tomasello points to primates ability to use another conspecific as a social implement/instrument but this is not the primordial *joint* (mutual) reciprocity which implies human motivation towards *care and concern* for the other and the desire to help the other (grasp) their *intent*. > > Tomasello points to reciprocal 1st and 3rd aspects of developing perspective taking depending upon first acquiring a sense of sharing the *same* phenomena. This 1st and 3rd perspectives are occurring *simultaneously. > To be able to negotiate seems to imply negotiating *differences* which may be derivative from the prior developing joint (mutual) sense of experiencing the (same) phenomena prior to developing the capacity for negotiating differences. > > How cognitive is joint mutual attention orienting to the *same* phenomena in contrast to the cognitive being more limited to possibly being derivative as this developing process of differentiating (perspective taking) from within a primordial *place* of mutually joint shared attention.?? > > This also brings in the question of reciprocal *recognition* implying a symmetrical relation in contrast to *recognition* as being more asymmetrical. > The general question of convergence within divergence (or) divergence within convergence. > Tomasello seems to indicate that joint mutual attention is primordial and differences emerge within this prior matrix or mileau. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: HENRY SHONERD > Sent: April 20, 2016 8:44 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > An interesting aspect of the negotiation of meaning between children is the research that shows that at a very early age children?s speech demonstrates their ability to modulate according to the age of the children they are communicating with. (I am pretty sure about this, though it has been a long time since I read about it.) Adults, of course, modulate their speech for children, but children of, say, six talk differently to children younger than themselves from when they talk to older children. This shows early on a very sophisticated ability to judge perspective taking in conversation vis-a-vis perceived levels of development. > Henry > > > On Apr 20, 2016, at 8:02 AM, Lplarry > wrote: > > > > This shift of focus towards (grasping) phenomena but from within this shared (mutual) place in which the grasping movements HAVE *meaning*. > > To highlight that Tomasello is using the term (collaboration) in relation to (problem solving) while using the term (cooperation) for the relation with (communication). > > Is this (mode) of perspective-taking that seems to be species specific originally always focusing first on the *same* (single) phenomena prior to becoming *differentiated* as aspects (of) this *prior* focusing on the *same* mutually shareable (and grasped) events. > > > > I will add the centrality of Fonagy?s notion that this grasping encounter must be marked (modulated) through our shifting responses within this mutually shared *place* of engagement. > > > > Michael, this is leading to a way to possibly transcend the assumed opposition of (subject) and (object) towards a different way of portraying inter/subjectivity. > > For example, the need for aesthetic modes of *unity* or *harmony* prior to the differentiating marking modulation of analytic differences. > > The need for *normativity* prior to *freedom*. > > The birds need for wind *resistance* in order for a bird?s *flying*. > > I see similar ways of travelling in these examples all as exemplars of a deep movement that some call *spirit*. > > > > In other words, as Hegel points out > > ?Beauty hates the Understanding as Beauty orients towards *unity* and *harmony* while the Understanding dissects and kills phenomena. > > > > Seems to be a *thread* or *rope* hear if we listen to this imaginal image of living *spirit* as intertwining relations each in the other. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Glassman, Michael > > Sent: April 20, 2016 5:41 AM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > Hi Larry, > > > > The picture that stays in my mind is the one of 24 month olds not only supporting and pushing each other but even grabbing adults to bring them along in their shared attentional perspective/motivation. It made me think the most exciting collaborative moments for me is when I feel like the students are grabbing on to me and pulling me along. > > > > Does this need to be part of our concept of collaboration. > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu ] On Behalf Of Lplarry > > Sent: Wednesday, April 20, 2016 1:54 AM > > To: HENRY SHONERD >; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > I am returning to Tomasello and section 5 on (joint attention and perspective) on page 7 of the article Mike sent. > > > > Tomasello found infants in their second year of life were more motivated than great apes to participate in (both) *collaborative* problem solving (and) *cooperative* communication. > > > > Therefore both collaborative and cooperation are adverbial notions. > > The reason for this difference is that human infants are biologically (adapted for) social inter/actions involving shared intentionality. At age 2 human infants already have special *skills* for creating with *other persons* joint goals, joint intentions, and joint attention AND also *special motivations* for helping and sharing with others. > > The Vygotskian intelligence hypothesis goes further to say: > > ?participation in inter/actions involving shared intentionality trans/forms human cognition in fundamental ways (modes). > > First and most *fundamentally* this kind of participation creates the notion of perspectives (points of view). > > > > I sense this repetition of these key points may focus our shared attention. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: HENRY SHONERD > > Sent: April 19, 2016 6:54 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > I want to add that I can hear Vera talking of negotiation in her teaching, mentoring and writing, then I thought to look in the index of her Creative Collaboration. There it was on page 242 under Negotiation: ?by children, of conflict, of differences, intimate partners and?? > > > >> On Apr 19, 2016, at 5:46 PM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > >> > >> Chris, > >> ?Negotiation? appeals to me as well. I associate it with the negotiation of meaning between people, as well as the negotiation of the of the environment in reaching an objective. Intersubjectivity and interobjectivity. > >> Henry > >> > >>> On Apr 19, 2016, at 4:24 PM, Christopher Schuck > wrote: > >>> > >>> "I consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if > >>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation." > >>> > >>> That's exactly what I was trying to get at earlier, in questioning > >>> minimal differences as a defining feature of cooperation. Thanks for > >>> this extremely helpful synposis, Annalisa! > >>> > >>> "I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word > >>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial > >>> connotation....How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word > >>> than "conflict"? Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration." > >>> > >>> Negotiation strikes me as one particular expression of cooperation > >>> that emphasizes the transactional (dialectical?) back-and-forth, > >>> specifically discursive/conversational process often required. So > >>> it's a great example for clarifying what cooperation is, but maybe > >>> it's narrower? That is, negotiation is focused on the terms and > >>> conditions (also points of similarity and difference) around which people are coming closer together. > >>> through dialogue. Or to put it another way: negotiation speaks to the > >>> discovery process involved in *finding a way* to come closer > >>> together, whereas cooperation refers more broadly to the goal of > >>> working together and need not include dialogue. This brings up > >>> another tricky concept that I didn't notice Annalisa mentioning: "agreement." > >>> > >>> I also wanted to just quickly point out, though this may already be > >>> obvious to everyone, that conflict hardly always implies competition, > >>> nor does competition necessarily imply conflict ("good sportsmanship" > >>> could be an example of the latter). > >>> > >>> Chris > >>> > >>> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 4:33 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hello esteemed XMCArs! > >>>> > >>>> This is something of a summary of what I have read in the thread so > >>>> far up to the time of my post anyway. So it's long and addresses several members' > >>>> posts. I hope it's not to laborious to read, and there might be > >>>> further collaboration in parsing the answer to Michael's originating > >>>> question. :) > >>>> > >>>> Initially, as I followed the course of this thread, my thought about > >>>> notions of collaboration and its differences from cooperation, I > >>>> consider cooperation to mean that there is sacrifice involved if > >>>> conflict arises, specifically I mean in the sense of accommodation. > >>>> It isn't distressing, nor need it be a surrendering of identity, > >>>> even in a more hierarchical social structure. Also, cooperation can > >>>> be very ambitious, so I seem to have a 180 definition to Andy's > >>>> distinctions between the two words. In collaboration, there is a > >>>> community effort to complete something and it is more democratic in > >>>> nature, in the sense of oughts, not is's. So to summarize, I don't > >>>> believe that for either cooperation or collaboration that conflict > >>>> is an essential ingredient, for the reason that they can exist without conflict. > >>>> > >>>> That's why I'm in more agreement with Michael's definitions when he > >>>> speaks of Downes' distinctions in reference to community : > >>>> > >>>> "Right now I think I like Stephen Downes' distinction which is > >>>> cooperation is engaging in community work for your own needs - so > >>>> you never really give yourself up to the learning community, while > >>>> collaboration involves actually creating a community. Others I > >>>> think see collaboration as the development of shared meaning while > >>>> cooperation is simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) action > >>>> towards a goal. I think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking." > >>>> > >>>> I also support Micheal to pose the question, "what do we mean my > >>>> conflict?" As I indicated already, collaboration can be non-adversarial. > >>>> > >>>> It is interesting that Andy brought up marriage. Unfortunately not > >>>> everyone on this list might know what marriage means in the everyday > >>>> concept of the word, but might understand marriage as a scientific concept! > >>>> :) Still, it does seem germane that commitment is a requirement to > >>>> any collaboration, perhaps because of the potential for conflict, as > >>>> Micheal points out. > >>>> > >>>> But I'd also like to state something that we are missing when > >>>> considering marriage as an example of collaboration: there also must > >>>> be present in a marriage something called love and care, which is > >>>> joyful sharing. I imagine also, in the creation of a family there is > >>>> an ideal objective to a create a sense of continuity and community > >>>> of care for all members, and that is an ongoing collaboration. > >>>> > >>>> I'm not sure it makes sense to focus a notion of collaboration > >>>> around conflict. But I understand why conflict comes up. I don't > >>>> think marriage is something that is usually considered in reference > >>>> to conflict, though for many who are divorced or who fear repeating > >>>> a bad marriage, they seem to orient to marriage as a daily ordeal in > >>>> conflict. :/ > >>>> > >>>> Helen's comment about distributed cognition I find also relevant, > >>>> because successful collaboration requires members who have > >>>> complimentary ways of thinking about or skill for doing things. > >>>> Sometimes having too many people who have expertise or skill in > >>>> identical domains creates competition, and competition not only > >>>> creates conflict, but also has the potential become violent. I say > >>>> that because competition creates an illusion of scarcity rather than abundance, sharing, or beneficial opportunity. > >>>> > >>>> I also like Greg's comment that hints at a nice definition of > >>>> collaboration as "playing well with others." Also his mention that > >>>> there are gendered tendencies about what collaboration means in > >>>> groups made up solely of one gender or mixed; all male, or all > >>>> female, or mixed, or even > >>>> LBGT- to offer recognition of those identities, as more diffuse > >>>> manifestations of gendered expression, which of course are still > >>>> being understood by all of us. > >>>> > >>>> There's also the cultural implications, whether having to do with > >>>> class or race, the preferred language of discourse, vocabularies, > >>>> signifiers, histories, and so on. > >>>> > >>>> Can there be differences between capital-C Collaboration and > >>>> little-c collaboration? How does creativity relate? > >>>> > >>>> I don't think it makes sense to create an equivalent to Myers-Briggs > >>>> for collaboration, but there was that study in Google that studied > >>>> internal work groups and they couldn't find anything to identify > >>>> until they were able to measure the amount of time that a team member was allowed to talk. > >>>> (search "Google" and "groups" the NYT and you should find it). They > >>>> found that in groups where there was equal-billed time for each > >>>> member to speak, in other words no individual or individuals > >>>> dominated leaving others silent, those groups possessed the most > >>>> productivity, and also each member felt good about being in that > >>>> group. When they looked more closely to get to the bottom of all > >>>> that, it ended up that the only feature that really counted was > >>>> whether or not the group offered psychological safety for each member. > >>>> > >>>> I have one word for this: Duh. > >>>> > >>>> A modicum of psychological safety really hits the nail on the head > >>>> when it comes to what collaboration requires. Can there be valid > >>>> collaboration without any psychological safety? > >>>> > >>>> Can members experiment? Can they fail safely without ridicule? Is > >>>> there humor in the group? Forgiveness for mistakes? How is > >>>> improvisation regarded as a site for discovery and imagination? > >>>> > >>>> Following our thread, distributed cognition just by being > >>>> distributed doesn't mean that it is decentralized, something that Michael mentioned. > >>>> For example, Hutchins study on navigation took place in the Navy, a > >>>> highly hierarchical organization and highly centralized. The study > >>>> of cultural practice of navigation (plotting the fix), on the naval > >>>> ship is still distributed despite these organizational features. > >>>> > >>>> Another example: when I make a grocery shopping list with a post-it > >>>> note and pen, that is also distributed cognition exercised in > >>>> solitude, from the time I search my fridge to learn what I've run > >>>> out of, in order to make my list, and how I bring the list with me > >>>> to the store as I search the aisles and then remember that I'd > >>>> forgotten to add tomato sauce to my list, because I keep that in the > >>>> pantry not the fridge, and so forgot to put it on my post-it note, which is sticking to the handle of my grocery cart. > >>>> It's all distributed cognition. > >>>> > >>>> Bouncing off of Christopher's post, who is bouncing off Andy's > >>>> previous posts on cooperation, as I said initially, I see > >>>> cooperation as more about accommodation, rather than being conflict > >>>> free. That's what I meant by sacrifice to a cause, which could be > >>>> conflict aversion. I agree with Andy that suppressing conflict is > >>>> not good, but neither is being conflict averse, which feels to me to > >>>> be more "internal" than "external." Your mileage may vary. > >>>> > >>>> I do think we've identified a possible need for a different word > >>>> than "conflict" though, for its negative or adversarial connotation. > >>>> I wonder if professional diplomats use any words for what we are > >>>> conceptually circumnavigating? > >>>> > >>>> How about "negotiation"? would that be a better word than "conflict"? > >>>> Negotiation coincides with cooperation and collaboration. > >>>> > >>>> I was super happy to hear from Vera! I like what she says about > >>>> distributive and integrative aspects in collaboration, which > >>>> possesses a non-adversarial rendering of collaboration. It implies > >>>> search, comparison, identification of differences and similarities, > >>>> these words provide opportunity for simulation, as in rehearsal or > >>>> testing, then negotiation and finally integration. And the cycle can start once again, as needed. > >>>> > >>>> So maybe we are considering martini preferences around differences > >>>> between shaken and stirred? :) > >>>> > >>>> I also like the phrase "dignified interdependence" very very much. > >>>> Thanks for that one, Vera. > >>>> > >>>> In reference to Alfredo's post, that collaboration is a skill to > >>>> cultivate. That seems right. Such a skill is not something > >>>> inherently done without guidance from a more-knowledgeable or > >>>> more-experienced peer, but it does appear to be inherently necessary > >>>> for all of us to be successfully human. > >>>> > >>>> Also, can we freely make the assumptions we do about individuals and > >>>> collaboration? I say this because we have these "western" notions of > >>>> individuality that we take for granted. For example, the notion of > >>>> dividual makes the case that some cultures have members who see > >>>> themselves closely tied to others in a "dignified interdependence," > >>>> if I might exercise Vera's nice coupling of words. So perhaps we > >>>> might not be too hasty about normalizing individualism as we > >>>> experience it, and pose it as a universal human trait. > >>>> > >>>> It is interesting to consider collaboration as a primary human > >>>> phenomenon, since that is inclusive of the individual and the dividual (as a spectrum). > >>>> I suppose that is the burgeoning anthropologist in me! :) > >>>> > >>>> I still must read the Tomasello article Mike offered up (thanks > >>>> Mike), he is a favorite of mine. But Rod also brings up a very nice word "collusion," > >>>> when taken in a constructive fashion. Sometimes two parties in a > >>>> group can't be too obvious that they are working together because > >>>> they must wait for others to catch up or warm up to an idea or new > >>>> turn in the flow of events. Or, if a subgroup needs to quietly work > >>>> off to the side to experiment and solidify an idea before presenting > >>>> it to the group. That seems to be a valid use of the word "collusion." > >>>> > >>>> Of course, Larry's observations that collaboration is highly > >>>> influenced by the environment is also worth further discussion too, > >>>> as I don't believe that collaboration can happen in a non-space or a > >>>> non-environment or even a non-culture. There has to be a there > >>>> there. So the reference of "dwelling in the world" is also very delightful. > >>>> > >>>> Here's a list I made of words that jumped out to me, going down my post. > >>>> There are a lot of "C" words: > >>>> ---------------- > >>>> -care > >>>> -collaboration > >>>> -collusion > >>>> -commitment > >>>> -community > >>>> -competition > >>>> -conflict > >>>> -continuity > >>>> -cooperation > >>>> -creativity > >>>> > >>>> but also some non-C words: > >>>> ---------------- > >>>> -accommodation > >>>> -ambitious > >>>> -artifacts > >>>> -attention > >>>> -democratic > >>>> -dignified interdependence > >>>> -distributed cogniton > >>>> -distributive > >>>> -environment > >>>> -integrative > >>>> -love > >>>> -marriage > >>>> -meaning > >>>> -negotiation > >>>> -play > >>>> -safety > >>>> -sharing > >>>> > >>>> Of course this is all about that "great C in the sky": > >>>> C-O-N-C-E-P-T! We appear to be collaborating quite earnestly upon > >>>> the concept of collaboration. > >>>> > >>>> I'd like to thank everyone for such a nice (and quite cordial) > >>>> thread and tapestry! > >>>> > >>>> Kind regards, > >>>> > >>>> Annalisa > >>>> > >> > > > > > > > > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Apr 20 15:02:36 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 22:02:36 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <9D1E66AB-9324-477E-9F67-7B9D54D825B4@gmail.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <57178bf3.d80b620a.4dd27.3e7e@mx.google.com> <7E94FDBA-D578-4E2D-AF4A-99DCA90E495E@gmail.com> <5717b73f.21dd420a.a4a04.ffffd314@mx.google.com>, <9D1E66AB-9324-477E-9F67-7B9D54D825B4@gmail.com> Message-ID: Hi Henry, Hate to ruin things for you, but I must not fit in the general gendered paradigm of interruptions. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly? Being a woman who is frequently not allowed to speak to the end of my sentences, which causes a situation where I must repeat myself ?which subsequently makes me appear as long-winded compared to if I'd just been able to finish my sentence in the first place? I feel interruptions are most always about power dynamics, as I almost always feel unheard when my speech is interrupted. It is the exception that I feel interruptions make me feel I am heard by my interlocutor(s), where as you say the conversation is being moved along. There is also the pattern where people might allow me to speak to the end of my sentence and then continue one as if I had said nothing, in that case it is the shape of an interruption whereby I am made out to be the unwelcome interrupter, and thus ignored. In both cases these are two sorts of speech censorship, which does not contribute to a sense of psychological safety. I was listening to NPR yesterday and learned that in Iran there is an expansion of the secret police monitoring whether or not women are wearing their public hijab properly, and (bless them) Iranian women are coming forward on Twitter having that network moment of not taking it anymore. One woman who is a parliamentary journalist, was not allowed to ask her questions because of criticisms of her hijab presentation. So here is a case of interruption based upon appearance, rather than allowing her speech to be spontaneously given and received. I remember thinking after I heard the news story, that women seem to frequently have to resort to a "forced" flexibility, a sort of temporal bricolage, to make their thoughts known, knowing there is constantly the threat of interruption hanging like hijab around their heads. If this is the reason women are (considered) multi-taskers so be it, but I don't think it's chromosomal, just a by-product of survival through an imposed steeplechase of (his)tory. Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, says what it does because Woolf claims a woman needs to find her true voice in a safe space in her control, a place she where she can be left alone, to speak without the drone of other people's voices being overlaid and imposed upon her. If such a social dynamic is something that a man also experiences (and so I believe the dynamic need not be isolated to women only), then I would say he would have an equal requirement to a safe space to connect to his own inner speech. I'm sure though, this would occur differently, since the social pressures are likely not the same, though there would be family resemblances, as I imagine that censorship of speech has deep psychological consequences for human beings in general. One point Woolf makes in AROOO, is that when a woman speaks from this injury she is not considered legitimate, and this means she is not free to the spontaneous thought required to be imaginative or innovative, because her speech is in reference to constrained reaction rather than unfettered creation. I would love to hear what women on this list think about that? To add or augment? (Though men are welcome to say what they like also, of course... without interruption). Kind regards, Annalisa From lpscholar2@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 15:56:19 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:56:19 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <57178bf3.d80b620a.4dd27.3e7e@mx.google.com> <7E94FDBA-D578-4E2D-AF4A-99DCA90E495E@gmail.com> <5717b73f.21dd420a.a4a04.ffffd314@mx.google.com>, <9D1E66AB-9324-477E-9F67-7B9D54D825B4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <5718091e.c326620a.ff136.ffffe475@mx.google.com> Henry and Annalisa, This explorations of differing possible *meanings* of interruptions is an interesting turn in the conversation. Generally are interruptions (closing off) or (opening up) the dialogue. This seems to be an example of *modulating* (or marking) the sense of *voice*. If our relation to unfolding voice is a key aspect of cooperative communication (Tomasella?s perspective on developing meaning within conspecific human joint attention) then our ways of relating to voice is critical. This could include needing a room of ones own as a *private* place to develop voice. It could include the need to *claim* or *grasp* one?s *own* turn in the conversation which is the notion of mutual *recognition* overcoming the master/slave dynamic. A notion of symmetrical voice recognition among *equals* It could also include a relation where the listener *hears the other into voice*. This is an understanding of an asymmetrical relation to voice Levinas is an exemplar of this approach. The question *who* is responsible for *voice* entering the world? Is it predominantly a *self* discovery or is it predominantly dependent on mutual *recognition of symmetrical equals giving *voice* and claiming *voice*. Then there is the way of understanding voice where the listener *hears the other into voice* and this is not dependent on mutual symmetrical recognition among *equals* but focuses more on the motivation of *care and concern*. I hear differing (modes) of modulating or marking *voice*. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Annalisa Aguilar Sent: April 20, 2016 3:10 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Hi Henry, Hate to ruin things for you, but I must not fit in the general gendered paradigm of interruptions. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly? Being a woman who is frequently not allowed to speak to the end of my sentences, which causes a situation where I must repeat myself ?which subsequently makes me appear as long-winded compared to if I'd just been able to finish my sentence in the first place? I feel interruptions are most always about power dynamics, as I almost always feel unheard when my speech is interrupted. It is the exception that I feel interruptions make me feel I am heard by my interlocutor(s), where as you say the conversation is being moved along. There is also the pattern where people might allow me to speak to the end of my sentence and then continue one as if I had said nothing, in that case it is the shape of an interruption whereby I am made out to be the unwelcome interrupter, and thus ignored. In both cases these are two sorts of speech censorship, which does not contribute to a sense of psychological safety. I was listening to NPR yesterday and learned that in Iran there is an expansion of the secret police monitoring whether or not women are wearing their public hijab properly, and (bless them) Iranian women are coming forward on Twitter having that network moment of not taking it anymore. One woman who is a parliamentary journalist, was not allowed to ask her questions because of criticisms of her hijab presentation. So here is a case of interruption based upon appearance, rather than allowing her speech to be spontaneously given and received. I remember thinking after I heard the news story, that women seem to frequently have to resort to a "forced" flexibility, a sort of temporal bricolage, to make their thoughts known, knowing there is constantly the threat of interruption hanging like hijab around their heads. If this is the reason women are (considered) multi-taskers so be it, but I don't think it's chromosomal, just a by-product of survival through an imposed steeplechase of (his)tory. Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, says what it does because Woolf claims a woman needs to find her true voice in a safe space in her control, a place she where she can be left alone, to speak without the drone of other people's voices being overlaid and imposed upon her. If such a social dynamic is something that a man also experiences (and so I believe the dynamic need not be isolated to women only), then I would say he would have an equal requirement to a safe space to connect to his own inner speech. I'm sure though, this would occur differently, since the social pressures are likely not the same, though there would be family resemblances, as I imagine that censorship of speech has deep psychological consequences for human beings in general. One point Woolf makes in AROOO, is that when a woman speaks from this injury she is not considered legitimate, and this means she is not free to the spontaneous thought required to be imaginative or innovative, because her speech is in reference to constrained reaction rather than unfettered creation. I would love to hear what women on this list think about that? To add or augment? (Though men are welcome to say what they like also, of course... without interruption). Kind regards, Annalisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 16:10:28 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:10:28 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: I think that if you read what I wrote, Michael, you will see that it does not say that PISA in particular or mass testing in general is benign. On the contrary, I think a lot of the points that you make are actually made before you, in my posting, when I said that the logic of PISA was the logic of No Child Left Behind. But let's be precise. The woman who is sharing this office is currently designing "time of response" tests for volunteer simultaneous interpreters that are pretty similar to "Titchener's Piano", the key-pressing tests that Vygotsky used in HDHMF. These tests will decide whether or not she gets a Ph.D. and enjoys a life of cultivated leisure in the busy economy of China, and in that sense they are certainly high stakes. But she is having trouble recruiting experimental subjects because the cash incentive that she is offering the subjects is far less than what a professional simultaneous interpreter makes on the job and the result of the test, while important for her, is of no consequence whatsoever to the experimental subjects. When we say a "high stakes test" we mean something that is high stakes for the testee, not something that is high stakes for the interpreter or the test designer. Similarly, a college entrance exam is high stakes for a high school leaver, but not for the professor who is writing the questions, and a job interview is high stakes for the interviewee but not for the interviewer surfing the internet on his cell phone. PISA is not a high stakes test for the people who take it: in the normal as well as the technical sense of the word, it is not a high stakes test. It often happens that attempts at replacing an evolved solution with a designed one has unintended consequences. The negative side of that we know: the failure of socialism in the USSR which has given a new lease on life to a particularly decrepit and bestial form of capitalism. (I am always amused to hear it called "neoliberal", because of course it is...and it should remind us of the true, nineteenth century meaning of the term liberal and hesitate to use "liberal" to designate human progress.) The positive side, I think, is a little less well known, but when you think about it you see that many great and even not so great strides forward in human progress--women's suffrage, compulsory education, Obamacare--have been unintended consequences (the idea that women would help outvote blacks, the idea that education would replace less efficient child labor with that of their parents, and the attempt to prop up employer provided health care plans which were in turn a response to the wage freeze imposed after the second world war to prevent the rise of the unions). PISA data was important in making the case for Catalan independence--both directly and indirectly. Directly, Catalan independence parties used Catalan immersion's strong PISA scores to show that a Catalan speaking country would be fully able to operate without Castilian, as a full member of the European Union. This direct argument was, I think, quite false: it ignored the fact that Catalonia has far more technically advanced industry than other parts of Spain. Indirectly, the neo-Franquist government fought back by the usual trick of forcing Catalonia to provide full education in Castilian to every student who wanted it, trying to force Catalan immersion school districts into bankruptcy; this petty obstructionism soon brought even the non-Catalan speakers into the independence movement. Of course, that wasn't enough: when it was clear that Catalonia would vote overwhelmingly for independence, the court simply declared the vote unconstitutional. The Basque region, which has a similar immersion programme, was immediately cowed into submission, which probably means more years of fruitless terrorism, something that the Castilian-dominant bourgeoisie can certainly live with. In the end, it is a matter of the relationship of forces, but that doesn't mean that empirical data is completely irrelevant--it is one more weapon, and if you leave it lying around, the other side will pick it up and hit you with it Closer to home, take marriage equality. Of course, like Catalan independence, it is ultimately a question of the relationship of force--it was really, in the long run, brought about by generations of brave lesbians and gay men who fought cops and gay-bashing terrorists, courageously "came out" to their colleagues and their families, and for one long dark decade died like flies while the Reagan regime literally gloated. But can we explain the short term--how to explain its rapid progress through courts which have been carefully stacked by cultural conservatives over the same period? One legally unanswerable argument is simply that people are "born that way", and therefore cannot be lawfully deprived of rights that are accorded American citizens who are born with so-called "normal" sexual proclivities. The evidence is that this argument, although legally impeccable, happens to be empirically wrong. Interestingly, the usual tests for researching this are the same that Vygotsky uses in his lecture on heredity, when he compares monozygotic twins and heterozygotic twins on measures of musical ability and language ability. Vygotsky concludes, from the fact that there is a large difference between twin types in musical ability and a small one in language ability, that music is more susceptible to hereditary influence than speech. These (low-stakes) tests show that sexual preferences are actually somewhere between music and speech. So the Lesbian Avengers were empirically right to coin the slogan "We recruit!"; gay people--just like heterosexuals--are not necessarily "born that way". (You know what they say about men with small fingers? Yeah...they make lousy cellists--they should probably study the violin instead.) David Kellogg Macquarie University On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi David, > > I think I might disagree with you here. I don't see PISA as benign. I > cannot speak to Catalonia but in two cultures where I have some knowledge > of its impact I think it functions very much as a high stakes test. While > it is true it impacts the society at large rather than the individual, most > high stakes test have more impact on institutions than individuals. > Schools are often not concerned with individual students in high stakes > testing here in the United States but with their own reputations. That is > how they are presented and I think very often that is how they are taken. > When students do poorly on them it is determined the school is falling > behind, the school must make changes. The people at Pearson make the same > argument that they are really testing the syllabi and curriculum. This > argument is often used by charter schools. It has also shown up in tying > teachers' pay to testing. PISA it seems to me does this writ large. They > measure students in different cultures to a single scale, and by doing this > and publishing comparisons get educational institutions to adopt their > definitions of knowledge and what it means to be knowledgeable. At least > here in the United States there is a very strong trickle-down effect from > PISA and educators all the way down are under pressure to do better on > their tests. > > This is what worries me about their view of collaborative problem > solving. Not only are they going to wind up defining collaboration (and > believe it or not they already are. I actually found this out of a > communication on collaboration where the respondent said "you know PISA > developed a framework on collaboration" as if this was going to end the > discussion and where should all move forward from there) but they are going > to directly impact the way education, and collaborative learning, is done > in formal educational settings. Leading to the "Why don't American kids > collaborate better than Singapore kids" irony where we become competitive > about our international standing in collaboration. To me this is a very > dangerous turn, attempting to drag in a more Pragmatic/democratic ideal > into a neoliberal, competitive framework. > > Sort of in response to Alfredo I see web tools as new artifacts that have > the possibility of engaging new types of human processes, perhaps > collaborative processes, that can lead to new collaborative tools (For > instance during Fukushima individuals were able to use web tools to create > a space where they shared and organized information about radiation levels > at different distances from he reactor. I wonder if we are at the > beginning of this, but fear what it means by ideas such as collaborative > learning being captured by organizations such as PISA, who are very clear > that collaboration is all about getting those good jobs in the 21st > century. The bosses want you to work well together. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:38 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > I think it's both true and untrue to say that PISA measures the > "cooperation" of individuals. Something we are all missing here, in our > general (and, for my part anyway, very much shared) distaste for large > scale and cross cultural tests, is that the PISA tests are administered to > individuals, but they are not designed to "measure" individual performances > at all. They are not high stakes tests, and there are actually no > consequences whatsoever for the individuals who take them. Instead, they > are something quite rare (and in my view precious) in the psychometric > world: a test of syllabus designers, teacher training institutions, and > ultimately education budgets. > > I think you can certainly blame the logic here. At bottom, it is the same > logic that says that when a child is failing, you punish the teachers. But > in this case that logic is actually applied to persons with real power over > educational inputs, and there are no untoward consequences towards innocent > learners or even teachers. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. PISA, for > all its undoubted shortcomings--shortcomings that it shares with any and > all forms of "cross-cultural" psychological testing, shortcomings which > Vygotsky criticized in HDHMF and which Luria inadvertently exposed in his > Uzbekistan work, shortcomings which were deliberately and explicitly > analysed in the earlier work of people like Sylvia Scribner, Joseph Glick > and Mike Cole--PISA has played a very progressive role in places like > Catalonia, where it has provided clear evidence in support of Catalan > immersion and bilingual education. I think it's no accident that PISA > scores are very often cited by critics of US education. > > Perhaps the best way to put it is to say that the "unit of analysis" in > PISA is the individual, but the phenomenon to be explained is national > educational policy. That is both its weakness (because the individual is > actually an element and not a unit here) and its strength (because unlike > almost all other forms of testing there are no individual consequences). > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil > wrote: > > > Hi Michael, I share your concern. And I am sure many in this list too, > > and many researchers in traditions associated to xmca seem to agree > too... > > There must then be some mechanism that, despite this considerably > > widespread awareness of the problem and the need to change, it is > > still possible for educational policy and implementation to continue > > without there being much substantial discussion about the kind of > > society/personalities schooling assumes and generates, of there not > > being many such discussions in our academic presentations, > > publications, parent-teacher meetings... Rod's comment on collusion > > and its historical (non-)use may be part of the explanation, the type > > of discourses there being at work. Perhaps change is slower than we > > wish it to be (though certainly things are different now that when I > > went to school in Spain in the 80's, and that's not a lot of time), or > > we should not wait too long for evolution to continue and try to make > more of a revolution... > > > > You mention artifacts in your note, and I know you specify them as > > part of a larger system of co-evolution. It seems to be the case, > > however, that the very focus on artifacts to the detriment of the > > operations may be at the heart of the problem. Andy was already > > pointing to the fact that the current state of affairs consists in > > first conceiving students as separated individuals, and then creating > > (from the outside) artifacts for supporting them in collaborating, as > > if those artifacts were to do the trick of putting them back > > together... Some may then say that artifacts then "mediate" between > > the different students so that something intersubjective emerges... > > But if what allows people to stick together is not the artifacts > > themselves, but what Larry calls shared attention (taking "attention" > > here to be something of psychological import, not just a "lower > > function" or component of the person but as a dispositional character > > that involves a multi-functional organization, and something that > > always includes some materials from the environment), then it is the > > process of using tools, the subjective-generating processes, what are > > of interest. Anyway, this is just to add more words to what you were > > already saying. But if the shift in (educational, assessment) practice > > has to do with a shift in the discourse, then I think finding ways of > > talking about collaboration where the primacy of the joint attention > > within places (to use Larry's formulation) is made patent and not > confused may be part of the (revolutionary) solution. This is a very > fascinating topic! > > > > Alfredo > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Glassman, Michael > > > > Sent: 19 April 2016 20:33 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > Hi Alfredo, > > > > At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin > > to co-evolution. That we develop artifacts that lead us toward > > cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts > > are a product of collaboration. The artifacts push us forward to > > collaboration. The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts. > > Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence. The role of > > education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or > > "boot-strapping." Should we even be concerned with individual > > characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what > > makes us human. This is what worries me about the PISA framework. Is > > it actually antithetical to a more collaborative society. > > > > Michael > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil > > Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; > > ablunden@mira.net > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on > > collaboration ( here< > > http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborat > > ive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf> > > ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that > > ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, > > that collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, > > it seems that each individual comes into group tasks with her own > > subjectivity, and then, in and through the fact of working together > > with others towards a shared goal, there emerges something > > intersubjective and which leads to learning. > > > > > > Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to > > measure individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is > > established as the set of variables that they call "Collaboration > > Skills". These, I assume, are thought just as we tend to think of > > subjectivity: something we carry along and which we can put to play > > when we do things with others so that something different and bigger > > emerges from which we all will learn. This is a view that takes the > > individual as the primary phenomenon, and collaboration as a something > > that results from the putting of individuals to work together. > > > > > > But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I > > believe an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then > > intersubjectivity (and not > > subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not > > stem from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, > > any single subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that > > intersubjective phenomenon that we call collaboration. If > > collaboration skills exist only (emerge and are put to work only) in > > collaboration, are they features of the individual that can be > > measured? Or are not they features of the collaborative settings? > > > > > > Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative > > achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in > > the first place, but for there to be the two individuals, > > mother/father and baby there needs to be something larger that is > > parenting, and which indeed allows (and accounts) for the very > > existence of parents and children in the first place. Obviously too, > > for there to be a possibility for the collaborative achievement of > > {carrying | being carried} the baby and the mum need to have certain > > biological features and predispositions, such as priming towards > > grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of joint work by > > the two and so there is a change that is not biological only but also > > and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all biological > > premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said anything > > about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby > > relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different > > practices of carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as > works such as those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. > > > > > > So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring > > collaborative skills as indexes for successful collaboration in > > education. First, if we agree that collaboration itself is a practice, > > and as such, may take many different forms and lead to very different > > characters/personalities, then for us to be able to agree on a set of > > collaborative skills we need to have first settled upon a given type > > of collaboration. Yet, in the literature this tends to be seen against > > the other measuring outcome: "learning outcomes"; in the document I've > > been looking at this was "collaborative problem solving". A discussion > > on WHAT kind of society (which is the same as to ask what kind of > > collaborations) we want to make possible through education, seems to > > be quite absent. The second and related problem concerns whether it > > makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by means of > > individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative settings > > themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the > > motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported > back is that each individual performs adequately. > > > > > > Alfredo > > > > ________________________________________ > > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > on behalf of Andy Blunden > > > > Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, > > with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember > > one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch > any sit. com. > > on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist > > society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical > > conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy > > that bit of conflict?) > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > *Andy Blunden* > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > > > multiple perspectives. > > > > > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden > > > wrote: > > > > > > Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted > > > in a > > > male dominant discourse or view on the world" > > > something like > > > "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is > > > destructive of collaboration. > > > Andy > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > ; > > > On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > > > > > > > I can find few to no instances where work and > > > activity are > > > > not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. > > > > > > > > It seems much of this discussion centers around work we > > > > choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do > > > this > > > > work while playing well with others. > > > > > > > > So if conflict is central to collaboration it would > > > > therefore have to be central to work. > > > > > > > > Centering success and change as the result of > > > conflict has > > > > never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant > > > > discourse or view on the world. > > > > > > > > Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those > > > be the > > > > poles of collaboration? > > > > > > > > I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even > > > though my > > > > first real publication was on the development of these > > > > instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the > > > recent > > > > assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so > > > > called 21st century skills are better measured and > > > > developed in the spaces of learning rather than the > > > learner. > > > > > > > > And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that > > > > there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of > > > > collaboration. > > > > > > > > Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational > > > > communities who harness a collective knowledge base that > > > > was never before possible due to limits of time and > > > > distance...including this listserv. > > > > > > > > So collaboration... I like that, but testing > > > > collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. > > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole > > > > > > > >> wrote: > > > > > > > > Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant > > > to this > > > > discussion. I attach > > > > one article. Interesting title, too. > > > > mike > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden > > > > > > > >> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many > > > different > > > > directions. But I > > > > > think the conflict is an essential part of > > > > collaboration. Collaboration is > > > > > unity and difference. Both are required or > > > there is > > > > no collaboration. The > > > > > "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of > > > > collaboration is trivial > > > > > as well. And the learning is trivial. > > > > > > > > > > I take collaboration as essentially between > > > > distinct, i,e, mutually > > > > > independent subjects. If two people who are clones > > > > of each other work > > > > > together on the same task, since their every > > > thought > > > > is identical there is > > > > > no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, > > > > carrying out orders from > > > > > the same boss, work together, I don't see this as > > > > collaboration. But these > > > > > are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have > > > > differences relevant to > > > > > the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine > > > > division of labour (which > > > > > I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or > > > > suppressed, there has to > > > > > be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. > > > > > > > > > > Andy > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > *Andy Blunden* > > > > > http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > > On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> Hi Larry and Andy, > > > > >> > > > > >> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. > > > If I > > > > might bring in a > > > > >> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett > > > Rogers, > > > > marriage is a strong tie > > > > >> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to > > > > it, as Larry says, so that > > > > >> the relationship is sustainable through even > > > > adversarial conflict, or does > > > > >> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But > > > > most collaborations, > > > > >> especially those that lead to problem > > > solving, are > > > > based in weak tie > > > > >> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties > > > > networks can only lead to > > > > >> cooperation. Isn't there something to > > > > collaboration that allows > > > > >> individuals without a prior or even sustainable > > > > relationship to come > > > > >> together to create change through evolutionary > > > > disagreement that does not > > > > >> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or > > > is it > > > > something else. > > > > >> > > > > >> Michael > > > > >> > > > > >> -----Original Message----- > > > > >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > [mailto: > > > > >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > >] On Behalf Of > > > > Lplarry > > > > >> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM > > > > >> To: Andy Blunden > > > > > > > > >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, > > > > Activity < > > > > >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > >> > > > > >> Andy, > > > > >> This introduction of the image of marriage as the > > > > archetype of > > > > >> collaboration certainly opens the concept of > > > > collaboration to multiple > > > > >> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing > > > conflict*. > > > > >> To say collaboration is (like) marriage > > > carries us > > > > into a vast field of > > > > >> shared (and conflictual) meanings. > > > > >> Interesting how this image opens towards the > > > > imaginal and then travels to > > > > >> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. > > > > >> > > > > >> To move from co-operation towards > > > collaboration (as > > > > marriage) is moving > > > > >> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate > > > > relations* that remain > > > > >> always *open to change* but within a continuing > > > > commitment/collaboration. > > > > >> > > > > >> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for > > > engaging > > > > the concept of > > > > >> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically > > > > meaningful. > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > >> > > > > >> From: Andy Blunden > > > > >> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM > > > > >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > >> > > > > >> The field is rife with different definitions; I > > > > choose the set of > > > > >> definitions which suit the overall concept I am > > > > developing. Can't do > > > > >> anything about that! But the issue of > > > > >> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called > > > > collaboration in which > > > > >> conflict is either suppressed or organised > > > away is > > > > certainly not worthy of > > > > >> the name. > > > > >> > > > > >> That said, conflict has the potential always to > > > > destroy a collaboration, > > > > >> and at the same time can be moderated so > > > > successfully that it is positively > > > > >> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is > > > > marriage, so we all know what > > > > >> this is about. Managing conflict is the most > > > > essential element of > > > > >> collaboration, but that includes encouraging > > > it as > > > > well as moderating it. > > > > >> > > > > >> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" > > > > question. > > > > >> > > > > >> Andy > > > > >> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >> *Andy Blunden* > > > > >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > >> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> Hi Andy, > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put > > > > aside the issue of > > > > >>> computers which I think is extraordinarily > > > complex > > > > (are we talking about > > > > >>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or > > > > Artificial Intelligence or > > > > >>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these > > > > distinctions are critical). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> But your post does refer to issues I am > > > struggling > > > > with. There has been > > > > >>> a lot of talk of the difference between > > > > cooperation and collaboration at a > > > > >>> number of levels. Right now I think I like > > > > Stephen Downes' distinction > > > > >>> which is cooperation is engaging in > > > community work > > > > for your own needs - so > > > > >>> you never really give yourself up to the > > > learning > > > > community, while > > > > >>> collaboration involves actually creating a > > > > community. Others I think see > > > > >>> collaboration as the development of shared > > > meaning > > > > while cooperation is > > > > >>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) > > > > action towards a goal. I > > > > >>> think both to a certain degree reflect your > > > thinking. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I > > > > think would be > > > > >>> antithetical to PISA's conception of > > > > collaboration, they seem to be looking > > > > >>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It > > > > also seems to work against > > > > >>> a number of uses of collaboration in the > > > field of > > > > education. Does Alfie > > > > >>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would > > > he say > > > > about conflict. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> So I'm thinking though these just working > > > together > > > > visions of > > > > >>> collaboration are missing that "something" and > > > > conflict, as > > > > >>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of > > > > collaboration might make sense. > > > > >>> But what do we mean by conflict. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Is it conflict between members of the > > > > collaborative group or is it the > > > > >>> abilities of the collaborative group to see > > > > conflict between their > > > > >>> solutions and the realities of the world around > > > > them (I know, another > > > > >>> loaded phrase). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of > > > > adversarial. If there is one > > > > >>> thing I think collaboration is, it is > > > > non-adversarial in nature. So can > > > > >>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising > > > > those being adversarial > > > > >>> with each other. What if people are adversarial > > > > to each other and yet > > > > >>> still work together to accomplish important > > > > things, or is this > > > > >>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that > > > > hasn't been defined, or > > > > >>> perhaps I am not grasping? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is > > > > really no mechanism for > > > > >>> change. Should collaboration have a > > > mechanism for > > > > change or innovation? > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Thoughts running around my head. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> MIchael > > > > >>> > > > > >>> -----Original Message----- > > > > >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > >] On Behalf Of > > > > Andy Blunden > > > > >>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM > > > > >>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > >>> > > > > >>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, > > > > Michael, so I'll offer > > > > >>> some observations. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Collaboration as "together working" means > > > > specifically working together > > > > >>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails > > > > working together to change > > > > >>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> There is a lot of discussion about the > > > difference > > > > between Collaboration > > > > >>> and the etymologically identical > > > Cooperation, much > > > > of this is in the > > > > >>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration > > > > essentially involves both > > > > >>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one > > > > form or aspect of > > > > >>> collaboration, because the parties are working > > > > towards two opposite > > > > >>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here > > > > therefore has a slippery > > > > >>> meaning. It can mean the > > > /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the > > > > object worked upon, or > > > > >>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas > > > > incorporate the > > > > >>> possibility of difference. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming > > > > together of distinct > > > > >>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration > > > involves > > > > a merging of the > > > > >>> subjectivities for the course of a single > > > project, > > > > but there are "limiting > > > > >>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These > > > > include an exchange of > > > > >>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract > > > > (such as customer-service > > > > >>> provider in which the subjects retain their > > > mutual > > > > independence throughout) > > > > >>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is > > > > subordinated to another). > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the > > > > working relationship > > > > >>> usually because there is a division of labour; > > > > Collaboration on the other > > > > >>> hand involves each party taking a critical > > > > attitude towards the > > > > >>> contribution of the other party. o conflict > > > is an > > > > essential ingredient to > > > > >>> Collaboration. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the > > > extent > > > > that one could argue > > > > >>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative > > > > process. So Collaboration means > > > > >>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, > > > > because the /concept /of the > > > > >>> object changes. > > > > >>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked > > > upon) > > > > in the process of > > > > >>> working on it, and the object (aim) by > > > realising it. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> In education there has been an unfortunate > > > > development in which (1) > > > > >>> students work independently because they are > > > > physically or organisationally > > > > >>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the > > > students is > > > > then facilitated by the > > > > >>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) > > > > Students who are already > > > > >>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer > > > > between them so that their > > > > >>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, > > > > mediated only by the > > > > >>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their > > > > Collaboration mediated by a > > > > >>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to > > > > mean the undermining of > > > > >>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative > > > tools to > > > > avoid closer > > > > >>> collaboration. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> And this is the danger. The education > > > bureaucracy > > > > has heard a bit about > > > > >>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning > > > > process, and that Collaboration > > > > >>> requires equipment. So they get the idea > > > that they > > > > have to separate > > > > >>> students or researchers from one another so that > > > > they can collaborate. > > > > >>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide > > > > equipment to allow students > > > > >>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been > > > > separated from one > > > > >>> another. And the same goes for > > > > >>> students+teachers, research+industry, > > > > management+workers, etc. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> Does that help, Michael? > > > > >>> Andy > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > >>> *Andy Blunden* > > > > >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ > > > ; > > > > ; > > > > >>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Hello all, > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> I have a question for anybody who might be > > > > willing to respond. How do > > > > >>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this > > > > question is that PISA is > > > > >>>> developing a framework for testing > > > collaboration > > > > internationally. At first > > > > >>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it > > > really is > > > > happening, the framework > > > > >>>> is at the link below. The idea of > > > collaboration > > > > is being used more and > > > > >>>> more - especially in contexts that involve > > > > computer/web based research, but > > > > >>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The > > > > word only came into vogue > > > > >>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning > > > > together and labore meaning > > > > >>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss > > > > collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. > > > > >>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey > > > (Although > > > > I am kind of sure Dewey > > > > >>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but > > > > I might be wrong). Anyway > > > > >>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but > > > in a > > > > very simplistic way I > > > > >>>> think so that it is not wrong but not > > > helpful. I > > > > know there was some > > > > >>>> research around language (being able > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> to > > > > >> > > > > >>> create shared meanings). But so far to > > > me it > > > > seems to miss the > > > > >>>> point, but I can't think what I would > > > replace it > > > > with. I guess you could > > > > >>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA > > > > creating a test for > > > > >>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > > > > > > https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor > > > > >>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> Michael > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural > > > > science with an object > > > > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > > > > > > > > > > > From rbeach@umn.edu Wed Apr 20 16:38:06 2016 From: rbeach@umn.edu (Richard Beach) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 16:38:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> Message-ID: <1320B379-E1A8-4CF2-AC50-025A9B870B3D@umn.edu> Since collaborative writing is relatively common in certain disciplines, the challenge writers typically face involves some determination for how contributors each pull their own weight as ?collaborators.? Lunsford and Ede?s (2011), Writing Together: Collaboration in Theory and Practice research over several decades on collaborative writing found that successful collaborative writing occurs when contributors have a clear, shared, transparent plan of who?s responsible for completing certain tasks in the collaboration. However, the paradox arises regarding how contributors collaboratively formulate and mutually agree on a plan when it may be the case the certain members are more likely to determine or even dictate that plan. For example, a lead author may divvy up tasks for the other co-authors, creating a hierarchy that may then no longer be considered as a collaborative writing experience. Is then such a hierarchical power arrangement still a collaboration? Richard Beach, Professor Emeritus of English Education, University of Minnesota rbeach@umn.edu Websites: Digital writing , Media?literacy , Teaching literature , Identity-focused ELA Teaching , Common Core?State Standards , Apps for literacy?learning , Teaching about climate change > On Apr 19, 2016, at 7:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf > multiple perspectives. > > Overall this has been a wonderful thread. > > On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden wrote: > >> Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted in a >> male dominant discourse or view on the world" something like >> "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is >> destructive of collaboration. >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> *Andy Blunden* >> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >> On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: >>> >>> I can find few to no instances where work and activity are >>> not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. >>> >>> It seems much of this discussion centers around work we >>> choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do this >>> work while playing well with others. >>> >>> So if conflict is central to collaboration it would >>> therefore have to be central to work. >>> >>> Centering success and change as the result of conflict has >>> never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant >>> discourse or view on the world. >>> >>> Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those be the >>> poles of collaboration? >>> >>> I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even though my >>> first real publication was on the development of these >>> instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the recent >>> assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so >>> called 21st century skills are better measured and >>> developed in the spaces of learning rather than the learner. >>> >>> And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that >>> there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of >>> collaboration. >>> >>> Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational >>> communities who harness a collective knowledge base that >>> was never before possible due to limits of time and >>> distance...including this listserv. >>> >>> So collaboration... I like that, but testing >>> collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole >> > wrote: >>> >>> Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant to this >>> discussion. I attach >>> one article. Interesting title, too. >>> mike >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden >>> > wrote: >>> >>>> Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many different >>> directions. But I >>>> think the conflict is an essential part of >>> collaboration. Collaboration is >>>> unity and difference. Both are required or there is >>> no collaboration. The >>>> "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of >>> collaboration is trivial >>>> as well. And the learning is trivial. >>>> >>>> I take collaboration as essentially between >>> distinct, i,e, mutually >>>> independent subjects. If two people who are clones >>> of each other work >>>> together on the same task, since their every thought >>> is identical there is >>>> no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, >>> carrying out orders from >>>> the same boss, work together, I don't see this as >>> collaboration. But these >>>> are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have >>> differences relevant to >>>> the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine >>> division of labour (which >>>> I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or >>> suppressed, there has to >>>> be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. >>>> >>>> Andy >>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>>> On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Larry and Andy, >>>>> >>>>> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. If I >>> might bring in a >>>>> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett Rogers, >>> marriage is a strong tie >>>>> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to >>> it, as Larry says, so that >>>>> the relationship is sustainable through even >>> adversarial conflict, or does >>>>> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But >>> most collaborations, >>>>> especially those that lead to problem solving, are >>> based in weak tie >>>>> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties >>> networks can only lead to >>>>> cooperation. Isn't there something to >>> collaboration that allows >>>>> individuals without a prior or even sustainable >>> relationship to come >>>>> together to create change through evolutionary >>> disagreement that does not >>>>> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or is it >>> something else. >>>>> >>>>> Michael >>>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> [mailto: >>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> ] On Behalf Of >>> Lplarry >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM >>>>> To: Andy Blunden >> >; eXtended Mind, Culture, >>> Activity < >>>>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> > >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>>>> >>>>> Andy, >>>>> This introduction of the image of marriage as the >>> archetype of >>>>> collaboration certainly opens the concept of >>> collaboration to multiple >>>>> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing conflict*. >>>>> To say collaboration is (like) marriage carries us >>> into a vast field of >>>>> shared (and conflictual) meanings. >>>>> Interesting how this image opens towards the >>> imaginal and then travels to >>>>> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. >>>>> >>>>> To move from co-operation towards collaboration (as >>> marriage) is moving >>>>> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate >>> relations* that remain >>>>> always *open to change* but within a continuing >>> commitment/collaboration. >>>>> >>>>> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for engaging >>> the concept of >>>>> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically >>> meaningful. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>> >>>>> From: Andy Blunden >>>>> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM >>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>>>> >>>>> The field is rife with different definitions; I >>> choose the set of >>>>> definitions which suit the overall concept I am >>> developing. Can't do >>>>> anything about that! But the issue of >>>>> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called >>> collaboration in which >>>>> conflict is either suppressed or organised away is >>> certainly not worthy of >>>>> the name. >>>>> >>>>> That said, conflict has the potential always to >>> destroy a collaboration, >>>>> and at the same time can be moderated so >>> successfully that it is positively >>>>> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is >>> marriage, so we all know what >>>>> this is about. Managing conflict is the most >>> essential element of >>>>> collaboration, but that includes encouraging it as >>> well as moderating it. >>>>> >>>>> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" >>> question. >>>>> >>>>> Andy >>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>>>> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Andy, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put >>> aside the issue of >>>>>> computers which I think is extraordinarily complex >>> (are we talking about >>>>>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or >>> Artificial Intelligence or >>>>>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these >>> distinctions are critical). >>>>>> >>>>>> But your post does refer to issues I am struggling >>> with. There has been >>>>>> a lot of talk of the difference between >>> cooperation and collaboration at a >>>>>> number of levels. Right now I think I like >>> Stephen Downes' distinction >>>>>> which is cooperation is engaging in community work >>> for your own needs - so >>>>>> you never really give yourself up to the learning >>> community, while >>>>>> collaboration involves actually creating a >>> community. Others I think see >>>>>> collaboration as the development of shared meaning >>> while cooperation is >>>>>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) >>> action towards a goal. I >>>>>> think both to a certain degree reflect your thinking. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I >>> think would be >>>>>> antithetical to PISA's conception of >>> collaboration, they seem to be looking >>>>>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It >>> also seems to work against >>>>>> a number of uses of collaboration in the field of >>> education. Does Alfie >>>>>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would he say >>> about conflict. >>>>>> >>>>>> So I'm thinking though these just working together >>> visions of >>>>>> collaboration are missing that "something" and >>> conflict, as >>>>>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of >>> collaboration might make sense. >>>>>> But what do we mean by conflict. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is it conflict between members of the >>> collaborative group or is it the >>>>>> abilities of the collaborative group to see >>> conflict between their >>>>>> solutions and the realities of the world around >>> them (I know, another >>>>>> loaded phrase). >>>>>> >>>>>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of >>> adversarial. If there is one >>>>>> thing I think collaboration is, it is >>> non-adversarial in nature. So can >>>>>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising >>> those being adversarial >>>>>> with each other. What if people are adversarial >>> to each other and yet >>>>>> still work together to accomplish important >>> things, or is this >>>>>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that >>> hasn't been defined, or >>>>>> perhaps I am not grasping? >>>>>> >>>>>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is >>> really no mechanism for >>>>>> change. Should collaboration have a mechanism for >>> change or innovation? >>>>>> >>>>>> Thoughts running around my head. >>>>>> >>>>>> MIchael >>>>>> >>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> ] On Behalf Of >>> Andy Blunden >>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM >>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> >>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>>>>> >>>>>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, >>> Michael, so I'll offer >>>>>> some observations. >>>>>> >>>>>> Collaboration as "together working" means >>> specifically working together >>>>>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails >>> working together to change >>>>>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). >>>>>> >>>>>> There is a lot of discussion about the difference >>> between Collaboration >>>>>> and the etymologically identical Cooperation, much >>> of this is in the >>>>>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration >>> essentially involves both >>>>>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one >>> form or aspect of >>>>>> collaboration, because the parties are working >>> towards two opposite >>>>>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here >>> therefore has a slippery >>>>>> meaning. It can mean the /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the >>> object worked upon, or >>>>>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas >>> incorporate the >>>>>> possibility of difference. >>>>>> >>>>>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming >>> together of distinct >>>>>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration involves >>> a merging of the >>>>>> subjectivities for the course of a single project, >>> but there are "limiting >>>>>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These >>> include an exchange of >>>>>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract >>> (such as customer-service >>>>>> provider in which the subjects retain their mutual >>> independence throughout) >>>>>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is >>> subordinated to another). >>>>>> >>>>>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the >>> working relationship >>>>>> usually because there is a division of labour; >>> Collaboration on the other >>>>>> hand involves each party taking a critical >>> attitude towards the >>>>>> contribution of the other party. o conflict is an >>> essential ingredient to >>>>>> Collaboration. >>>>>> >>>>>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the extent >>> that one could argue >>>>>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative >>> process. So Collaboration means >>>>>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, >>> because the /concept /of the >>>>>> object changes. >>>>>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked upon) >>> in the process of >>>>>> working on it, and the object (aim) by realising it. >>>>>> >>>>>> In education there has been an unfortunate >>> development in which (1) >>>>>> students work independently because they are >>> physically or organisationally >>>>>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the students is >>> then facilitated by the >>>>>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) >>> Students who are already >>>>>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer >>> between them so that their >>>>>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, >>> mediated only by the >>>>>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their >>> Collaboration mediated by a >>>>>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to >>> mean the undermining of >>>>>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative tools to >>> avoid closer >>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>> >>>>>> And this is the danger. The education bureaucracy >>> has heard a bit about >>>>>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning >>> process, and that Collaboration >>>>>> requires equipment. So they get the idea that they >>> have to separate >>>>>> students or researchers from one another so that >>> they can collaborate. >>>>>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide >>> equipment to allow students >>>>>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been >>> separated from one >>>>>> another. And the same goes for >>>>>> students+teachers, research+industry, >>> management+workers, etc. >>>>>> >>>>>> Does that help, Michael? >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> >>>>>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have a question for anybody who might be >>> willing to respond. How do >>>>>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this >>> question is that PISA is >>>>>>> developing a framework for testing collaboration >>> internationally. At first >>>>>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it really is >>> happening, the framework >>>>>>> is at the link below. The idea of collaboration >>> is being used more and >>>>>>> more - especially in contexts that involve >>> computer/web based research, but >>>>>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The >>> word only came into vogue >>>>>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning >>> together and labore meaning >>>>>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss >>> collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. >>>>>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey (Although >>> I am kind of sure Dewey >>>>>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but >>> I might be wrong). Anyway >>>>>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but in a >>> very simplistic way I >>>>>>> think so that it is not wrong but not helpful. I >>> know there was some >>>>>>> research around language (being able >>>>>>> >>>>>> to >>>>> >>>>>> create shared meanings). But so far to me it >>> seems to miss the >>>>>>> point, but I can't think what I would replace it >>> with. I guess you could >>>>>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA >>> creating a test for >>>>>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor >>>>>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural >>> science with an object >>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>> >> >> From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 16:40:28 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 17:40:28 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <8D91B0FB-6447-4F60-8422-B19172C0A67C@gmail.com> <57171980.8431620a.58900.0e40@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73887@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <57178bf3.d80b620a.4dd27.3e7e@mx.google.com> <7E94FDBA-D578-4E2D-AF4A-99DCA90E495E@gmail.com> <5717b73f.21dd420a.a4a04.ffffd314@mx.google.com> <9D1E66AB-9324-477E-9F67-7B9D54D825B4@gmail.com> Message-ID: <51942E90-CD90-45EE-AB54-0DCBAC3D61F2@gmail.com> Hi Annalisa, I would also love to hear from the women. And you don?t ruin things for me at all. I am frankly very appreciative you would respond to my post and with such good data, if you will. My little summary of Tannen didn?t do justice to the diversity and complexity of the many kinds of discourse. The book I cited is focused on gender and a certain kind of discourse: conversation. Two other popular books of hers focus on gender: You Just Don?t Understand Me: Men and Women in Conversation (1990) and Talking From 9 to 5: How Women?s and Men?s Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit and What Gets Done at Work (1994). An even earlier book, That?s Not What I Meant: How Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others (1986), gets into more broadly ?cultural? differences in styles of engaging in dialog. But even if Tannen sticks to day-to-day conversation among middle America, I think your own experiences and the narratives of women in public discourse that you cite are evidence that her analysis of conversational style in this country informs us about political, academic and legal discourse around the world. An irony from Tannen?s work is that men complain that women interrupt more often, but the reality is to the contrary: Men interrupt women much more often. Tannen found that women in talking with one another tend not to interpret simultaneous talk as interruptions, but as agreement, solidarity, she calls it. Men tend to interpret simultaneous talk as an affront. One can talk here about multi-tasking: Maybe men are just not as good as women at talking and listening at the same time and that hurts their pride. Chromosomal? I doubt it, but I am still constantly chagrined by my wife?s ability to talk and listen at the same time. Hell, I would settle for just being a better listener! That?s not easy for me!! On this chat some of it is simple ignorance on my part about what is being talked about, academic preparation if you will. But I am pretty sure some of it has to do with a tin ear and a less-than-open heart. Still, got to work with what I?ve got. With respect, Henry > On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Hi Henry, > > Hate to ruin things for you, but I must not fit in the general gendered paradigm of interruptions. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly? > > Being a woman who is frequently not allowed to speak to the end of my sentences, which causes a situation where I must repeat myself ?which subsequently makes me appear as long-winded compared to if I'd just been able to finish my sentence in the first place? I feel interruptions are most always about power dynamics, as I almost always feel unheard when my speech is interrupted. It is the exception that I feel interruptions make me feel I am heard by my interlocutor(s), where as you say the conversation is being moved along. > > There is also the pattern where people might allow me to speak to the end of my sentence and then continue one as if I had said nothing, in that case it is the shape of an interruption whereby I am made out to be the unwelcome interrupter, and thus ignored. > > In both cases these are two sorts of speech censorship, which does not contribute to a sense of psychological safety. > > I was listening to NPR yesterday and learned that in Iran there is an expansion of the secret police monitoring whether or not women are wearing their public hijab properly, and (bless them) Iranian women are coming forward on Twitter having that network moment of not taking it anymore. One woman who is a parliamentary journalist, was not allowed to ask her questions because of criticisms of her hijab presentation. So here is a case of interruption based upon appearance, rather than allowing her speech to be spontaneously given and received. > > I remember thinking after I heard the news story, that women seem to frequently have to resort to a "forced" flexibility, a sort of temporal bricolage, to make their thoughts known, knowing there is constantly the threat of interruption hanging like hijab around their heads. > > If this is the reason women are (considered) multi-taskers so be it, but I don't think it's chromosomal, just a by-product of survival through an imposed steeplechase of (his)tory. > > Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, says what it does because Woolf claims a woman needs to find her true voice in a safe space in her control, a place she where she can be left alone, to speak without the drone of other people's voices being overlaid and imposed upon her. > > If such a social dynamic is something that a man also experiences (and so I believe the dynamic need not be isolated to women only), then I would say he would have an equal requirement to a safe space to connect to his own inner speech. I'm sure though, this would occur differently, since the social pressures are likely not the same, though there would be family resemblances, as I imagine that censorship of speech has deep psychological consequences for human beings in general. > > One point Woolf makes in AROOO, is that when a woman speaks from this injury she is not considered legitimate, and this means she is not free to the spontaneous thought required to be imaginative or innovative, because her speech is in reference to constrained reaction rather than unfettered creation. > > I would love to hear what women on this list think about that? To add or augment? (Though men are welcome to say what they like also, of course... without interruption). > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 17:16:22 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2016 18:16:22 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Sorry if this has been discussed and I just missed it but David?s post made me wonder: Unintended consequences are likely even with cooperation, where the object of the project is determined ahead of time. With collaboration the object is not fully elaborated, so the outcome is not unintended; it isn?t even known ahead of time. I assume that a curriculum must be specific enough to get ?buy in? from people with money and power. Doesn?t that mean that schooling will necessarily be cooperative, rather than collaborative and that collaboration will have to be sought outside of school? Is Mike?s work with out-of-school programs in The Fifth Dimension relevant? Henry > On Apr 20, 2016, at 5:10 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > I think that if you read what I wrote, Michael, you will see that it does > not say that PISA in particular or mass testing in general is benign. On > the contrary, I think a lot of the points that you make are actually made > before you, in my posting, when I said that the logic of PISA was the logic > of No Child Left Behind. > > But let's be precise. The woman who is sharing this office is currently > designing "time of response" tests for volunteer simultaneous interpreters > that are pretty similar to "Titchener's Piano", the key-pressing tests that > Vygotsky used in HDHMF. These tests will decide whether or not she gets a > Ph.D. and enjoys a life of cultivated leisure in the busy economy of China, > and in that sense they are certainly high stakes. But she is having trouble > recruiting experimental subjects because the cash incentive that she is > offering the subjects is far less than what a professional simultaneous > interpreter makes on the job and the result of the test, while important > for her, is of no consequence whatsoever to the experimental subjects. When > we say a "high stakes test" we mean something that is high stakes for the > testee, not something that is high stakes for the interpreter or the test > designer. Similarly, a college entrance exam is high stakes for a high > school leaver, but not for the professor who is writing the questions, and > a job interview is high stakes for the interviewee but not for the > interviewer surfing the internet on his cell phone. PISA is not a high > stakes test for the people who take it: in the normal as well as the > technical sense of the word, it is not a high stakes test. > > It often happens that attempts at replacing an evolved solution with a > designed one has unintended consequences. The negative side of that we > know: the failure of socialism in the USSR which has given a new lease on > life to a particularly decrepit and bestial form of capitalism. (I am > always amused to hear it called "neoliberal", because of course it is...and > it should remind us of the true, nineteenth century meaning of the term > liberal and hesitate to use "liberal" to designate human progress.) The > positive side, I think, is a little less well known, but when you think > about it you see that many great and even not so great strides forward in > human progress--women's suffrage, compulsory education, Obamacare--have > been unintended consequences (the idea that women would help outvote > blacks, the idea that education would replace less efficient child labor > with that of their parents, and the attempt to prop up employer provided > health care plans which were in turn a response to the wage freeze imposed > after the second world war to prevent the rise of the unions). > > PISA data was important in making the case for Catalan independence--both > directly and indirectly. Directly, Catalan independence parties used > Catalan immersion's strong PISA scores to show that a Catalan speaking > country would be fully able to operate without Castilian, as a full member > of the European Union. This direct argument was, I think, quite false: it > ignored the fact that Catalonia has far more technically advanced industry > than other parts of Spain. Indirectly, the neo-Franquist government fought > back by the usual trick of forcing Catalonia to provide full education in > Castilian to every student who wanted it, trying to force Catalan immersion > school districts into bankruptcy; this petty obstructionism soon brought > even the non-Catalan speakers into the independence movement. Of course, > that wasn't enough: when it was clear that Catalonia would vote > overwhelmingly for independence, the court simply declared the vote > unconstitutional. The Basque region, which has a similar immersion > programme, was immediately cowed into submission, which probably means more > years of fruitless terrorism, something that the Castilian-dominant > bourgeoisie can certainly live with. In the end, it is a matter of the > relationship of forces, but that doesn't mean that empirical data is > completely irrelevant--it is one more weapon, and if you leave it lying > around, the other side will pick it up and hit you with it > > Closer to home, take marriage equality. Of course, like Catalan > independence, it is ultimately a question of the relationship of force--it > was really, in the long run, brought about by generations of brave lesbians > and gay men who fought cops and gay-bashing terrorists, courageously "came > out" to their colleagues and their families, and for one long dark decade > died like flies while the Reagan regime literally gloated. But can we > explain the short term--how to explain its rapid progress through courts > which have been carefully stacked by cultural conservatives over the same > period? > > One legally unanswerable argument is simply that people are "born that > way", and therefore cannot be lawfully deprived of rights that are accorded > American citizens who are born with so-called "normal" sexual proclivities. > The evidence is that this argument, although legally impeccable, happens to > be empirically wrong. Interestingly, the usual tests for researching this > are the same that Vygotsky uses in his lecture on heredity, when he > compares monozygotic twins and heterozygotic twins on measures of musical > ability and language ability. Vygotsky concludes, from the fact that there > is a large difference between twin types in musical ability and a small one > in language ability, that music is more susceptible to hereditary influence > than speech. These (low-stakes) tests show that sexual preferences are > actually somewhere between music and speech. So the Lesbian Avengers > were empirically right to coin the slogan "We recruit!"; gay people--just > like heterosexuals--are not necessarily "born that way". > > (You know what they say about men with small fingers? Yeah...they make > lousy cellists--they should probably study the violin instead.) > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:05 AM, Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> Hi David, >> >> I think I might disagree with you here. I don't see PISA as benign. I >> cannot speak to Catalonia but in two cultures where I have some knowledge >> of its impact I think it functions very much as a high stakes test. While >> it is true it impacts the society at large rather than the individual, most >> high stakes test have more impact on institutions than individuals. >> Schools are often not concerned with individual students in high stakes >> testing here in the United States but with their own reputations. That is >> how they are presented and I think very often that is how they are taken. >> When students do poorly on them it is determined the school is falling >> behind, the school must make changes. The people at Pearson make the same >> argument that they are really testing the syllabi and curriculum. This >> argument is often used by charter schools. It has also shown up in tying >> teachers' pay to testing. PISA it seems to me does this writ large. They >> measure students in different cultures to a single scale, and by doing this >> and publishing comparisons get educational institutions to adopt their >> definitions of knowledge and what it means to be knowledgeable. At least >> here in the United States there is a very strong trickle-down effect from >> PISA and educators all the way down are under pressure to do better on >> their tests. >> >> This is what worries me about their view of collaborative problem >> solving. Not only are they going to wind up defining collaboration (and >> believe it or not they already are. I actually found this out of a >> communication on collaboration where the respondent said "you know PISA >> developed a framework on collaboration" as if this was going to end the >> discussion and where should all move forward from there) but they are going >> to directly impact the way education, and collaborative learning, is done >> in formal educational settings. Leading to the "Why don't American kids >> collaborate better than Singapore kids" irony where we become competitive >> about our international standing in collaboration. To me this is a very >> dangerous turn, attempting to drag in a more Pragmatic/democratic ideal >> into a neoliberal, competitive framework. >> >> Sort of in response to Alfredo I see web tools as new artifacts that have >> the possibility of engaging new types of human processes, perhaps >> collaborative processes, that can lead to new collaborative tools (For >> instance during Fukushima individuals were able to use web tools to create >> a space where they shared and organized information about radiation levels >> at different distances from he reactor. I wonder if we are at the >> beginning of this, but fear what it means by ideas such as collaborative >> learning being captured by organizations such as PISA, who are very clear >> that collaboration is all about getting those good jobs in the 21st >> century. The bosses want you to work well together. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of David Kellogg >> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 4:38 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >> >> I think it's both true and untrue to say that PISA measures the >> "cooperation" of individuals. Something we are all missing here, in our >> general (and, for my part anyway, very much shared) distaste for large >> scale and cross cultural tests, is that the PISA tests are administered to >> individuals, but they are not designed to "measure" individual performances >> at all. They are not high stakes tests, and there are actually no >> consequences whatsoever for the individuals who take them. Instead, they >> are something quite rare (and in my view precious) in the psychometric >> world: a test of syllabus designers, teacher training institutions, and >> ultimately education budgets. >> >> I think you can certainly blame the logic here. At bottom, it is the same >> logic that says that when a child is failing, you punish the teachers. But >> in this case that logic is actually applied to persons with real power over >> educational inputs, and there are no untoward consequences towards innocent >> learners or even teachers. I'm not so sure that's a bad thing. PISA, for >> all its undoubted shortcomings--shortcomings that it shares with any and >> all forms of "cross-cultural" psychological testing, shortcomings which >> Vygotsky criticized in HDHMF and which Luria inadvertently exposed in his >> Uzbekistan work, shortcomings which were deliberately and explicitly >> analysed in the earlier work of people like Sylvia Scribner, Joseph Glick >> and Mike Cole--PISA has played a very progressive role in places like >> Catalonia, where it has provided clear evidence in support of Catalan >> immersion and bilingual education. I think it's no accident that PISA >> scores are very often cited by critics of US education. >> >> Perhaps the best way to put it is to say that the "unit of analysis" in >> PISA is the individual, but the phenomenon to be explained is national >> educational policy. That is both its weakness (because the individual is >> actually an element and not a unit here) and its strength (because unlike >> almost all other forms of testing there are no individual consequences). >> >> David Kellogg >> Macquarie University >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:20 AM, Alfredo Jornet Gil >> wrote: >> >>> Hi Michael, I share your concern. And I am sure many in this list too, >>> and many researchers in traditions associated to xmca seem to agree >> too... >>> There must then be some mechanism that, despite this considerably >>> widespread awareness of the problem and the need to change, it is >>> still possible for educational policy and implementation to continue >>> without there being much substantial discussion about the kind of >>> society/personalities schooling assumes and generates, of there not >>> being many such discussions in our academic presentations, >>> publications, parent-teacher meetings... Rod's comment on collusion >>> and its historical (non-)use may be part of the explanation, the type >>> of discourses there being at work. Perhaps change is slower than we >>> wish it to be (though certainly things are different now that when I >>> went to school in Spain in the 80's, and that's not a lot of time), or >>> we should not wait too long for evolution to continue and try to make >> more of a revolution... >>> >>> You mention artifacts in your note, and I know you specify them as >>> part of a larger system of co-evolution. It seems to be the case, >>> however, that the very focus on artifacts to the detriment of the >>> operations may be at the heart of the problem. Andy was already >>> pointing to the fact that the current state of affairs consists in >>> first conceiving students as separated individuals, and then creating >>> (from the outside) artifacts for supporting them in collaborating, as >>> if those artifacts were to do the trick of putting them back >>> together... Some may then say that artifacts then "mediate" between >>> the different students so that something intersubjective emerges... >>> But if what allows people to stick together is not the artifacts >>> themselves, but what Larry calls shared attention (taking "attention" >>> here to be something of psychological import, not just a "lower >>> function" or component of the person but as a dispositional character >>> that involves a multi-functional organization, and something that >>> always includes some materials from the environment), then it is the >>> process of using tools, the subjective-generating processes, what are >>> of interest. Anyway, this is just to add more words to what you were >>> already saying. But if the shift in (educational, assessment) practice >>> has to do with a shift in the discourse, then I think finding ways of >>> talking about collaboration where the primacy of the joint attention >>> within places (to use Larry's formulation) is made patent and not >> confused may be part of the (revolutionary) solution. This is a very >> fascinating topic! >>> >>> Alfredo >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of Glassman, Michael >>> >>> Sent: 19 April 2016 20:33 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> Hi Alfredo, >>> >>> At the end of Tomasello's article he seems to be arguing for some akin >>> to co-evolution. That we develop artifacts that lead us toward >>> cooperation/collaboration, but that the development of these artifacts >>> are a product of collaboration. The artifacts push us forward to >>> collaboration. The collaboration pushes us forward to create artifacts. >>> Part I think of what he calls Vygotskian intelligence. The role of >>> education then is to lead us into scenarios of this co-evolution, or >>> "boot-strapping." Should we even be concerned with individual >>> characteristics then, outside of the fact that they are part of what >>> makes us human. This is what worries me about the PISA framework. Is >>> it actually antithetical to a more collaborative society. >>> >>> Michael >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Alfredo Jornet Gil >>> Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2016 2:17 PM >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; >>> ablunden@mira.net >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> ??I just read a PISA related document that I found online on >>> collaboration ( here< >>> http://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collaborat >>> ive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf> >>> ), and it seems to me that PISA's starting point is the idea that >>> ?collaboration is the result of putting (adding) individuals, that is, >>> that collaboration works by the principle of addition. From this view, >>> it seems that each individual comes into group tasks with her own >>> subjectivity, and then, in and through the fact of working together >>> with others towards a shared goal, there emerges something >>> intersubjective and which leads to learning. >>> >>> >>> Because PISA's motive is to *measure*, and most specifically to >>> measure individuals, the index for measuring collaboration is >>> established as the set of variables that they call "Collaboration >>> Skills". These, I assume, are thought just as we tend to think of >>> subjectivity: something we carry along and which we can put to play >>> when we do things with others so that something different and bigger >>> emerges from which we all will learn. This is a view that takes the >>> individual as the primary phenomenon, and collaboration as a something >>> that results from the putting of individuals to work together. >>> >>> >>> But if we think of collaboration as the PRIMARY phenomenon, as I >>> believe an approach a l? Vygotsky would have it, then >>> intersubjectivity (and not >>> subjectivity) is primary. The generativeness of collaboration does not >>> stem from an additive principle, but has a dynamic of its own. Here, >>> any single subjectivity is a manifestation or refraction of that >>> intersubjective phenomenon that we call collaboration. If >>> collaboration skills exist only (emerge and are put to work only) in >>> collaboration, are they features of the individual that can be >>> measured? Or are not they features of the collaborative settings? >>> >>> >>> Is not ?a parent's carrying of a baby in her arms a collaborative >>> achievement? Obviously, there need to be two different individuals in >>> the first place, but for there to be the two individuals, >>> mother/father and baby there needs to be something larger that is >>> parenting, and which indeed allows (and accounts) for the very >>> existence of parents and children in the first place. Obviously too, >>> for there to be a possibility for the collaborative achievement of >>> {carrying | being carried} the baby and the mum need to have certain >>> biological features and predispositions, such as priming towards >>> grabbing and holding. But the coordination requires of joint work by >>> the two and so there is a change that is not biological only but also >>> and at the same time cultural. And so, assuming that all biological >>> premises are on place, could we have anticipated or said anything >>> about their collaborative achievement, of the type of mum-baby >>> relation that was going to emerge? We know there are different >>> practices of carrying babies that lead to different personalities, as >> works such as those by Mead and Bateson in the Balinese suggest. >>> >>> >>> So, there are a number of problems in the idea of measuring >>> collaborative skills as indexes for successful collaboration in >>> education. First, if we agree that collaboration itself is a practice, >>> and as such, may take many different forms and lead to very different >>> characters/personalities, then for us to be able to agree on a set of >>> collaborative skills we need to have first settled upon a given type >>> of collaboration. Yet, in the literature this tends to be seen against >>> the other measuring outcome: "learning outcomes"; in the document I've >>> been looking at this was "collaborative problem solving". A discussion >>> on WHAT kind of society (which is the same as to ask what kind of >>> collaborations) we want to make possible through education, seems to >>> be quite absent. The second and related problem concerns whether it >>> makes sense at all to try to measure collaboration by means of >>> individual outcomes, rather than in terms of collaborative settings >>> themselves. But this is of course a requirement and result of the >>> motive of measurement itself, specially when what needs to be reported >> back is that each individual performs adequately. >>> >>> >>> Alfredo >>> >>> ________________________________________ >>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>> on behalf of Andy Blunden >>> >>> Sent: 19 April 2016 16:46 >>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>> >>> I probably count as a "difficult person", Greg, but through my life, >>> with a number of de facto relationships with women, I can't remember >>> one that was disinclined to engage in conflict. One only has to watch >> any sit. com. >>> on TV to see that it is an established fact of modern capitalist >>> society that men cannot handle verbal conflict. As to physical >>> conflict, that is sadly an altogether other matter. :) Andy (Enjoy >>> that bit of conflict?) >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> *Andy Blunden* >>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>> On 20/04/2016 12:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: >>>> I like the connotative switch. Your version is way more inclusive mf >>>> multiple perspectives. >>>> >>>> Overall this has been a wonderful thread. >>>> >>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 7:57 PM Andy Blunden >>> > wrote: >>>> >>>> Greg, what about instead of "conflict ... Seems rooted >>>> in a >>>> male dominant discourse or view on the world" >>>> something like >>>> "the male dominant discourse or view on conflict" is >>>> destructive of collaboration. >>>> Andy >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> ; >>>> On 19/04/2016 9:32 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: >>>>> >>>>> I can find few to no instances where work and >>>> activity are >>>>> not done collaboratively, in terms of work with others. >>>>> >>>>> It seems much of this discussion centers around work we >>>>> choose to do, work we have to do, and choosing to do >>>> this >>>>> work while playing well with others. >>>>> >>>>> So if conflict is central to collaboration it would >>>>> therefore have to be central to work. >>>>> >>>>> Centering success and change as the result of >>>> conflict has >>>>> never sat well with me. Seems rooted in a male dominant >>>>> discourse or view on the world. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe its cooperation before conflict. Could those >>>> be the >>>>> poles of collaboration? >>>>> >>>>> I am not a fan of measuring collaboration (even >>>> though my >>>>> first real publication was on the development of these >>>>> instruments). Especially as Lemke et al shared the >>>> recent >>>>> assessment piece. Collaboration and the rest of the so >>>>> called 21st century skills are better measured and >>>>> developed in the spaces of learning rather than the >>>> learner. >>>>> >>>>> And these spaces must include the digital. I agree that >>>>> there are resources wasted on edtech under the banner of >>>>> collaboration. >>>>> >>>>> Yet I have seen and am a member of many open educational >>>>> communities who harness a collective knowledge base that >>>>> was never before possible due to limits of time and >>>>> distance...including this listserv. >>>>> >>>>> So collaboration... I like that, but testing >>>>> collaboration. No, that sounds stupid. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016, 6:31 PM mike cole >>>> >>>>> >> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Perhaps the work of mike tomasello is relevant >>>> to this >>>>> discussion. I attach >>>>> one article. Interesting title, too. >>>>> mike >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Apr 18, 2016 at 8:32 AM, Andy Blunden >>>>> >>>> >> >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Collaboration has a whole spectrum in many >>>> different >>>>> directions. But I >>>>>> think the conflict is an essential part of >>>>> collaboration. Collaboration is >>>>>> unity and difference. Both are required or >>>> there is >>>>> no collaboration. The >>>>>> "conflict" may be trivial, but then the moment of >>>>> collaboration is trivial >>>>>> as well. And the learning is trivial. >>>>>> >>>>>> I take collaboration as essentially between >>>>> distinct, i,e, mutually >>>>>> independent subjects. If two people who are clones >>>>> of each other work >>>>>> together on the same task, since their every >>>> thought >>>>> is identical there is >>>>>> no conflict. Equally two employees, for example, >>>>> carrying out orders from >>>>>> the same boss, work together, I don't see this as >>>>> collaboration. But these >>>>>> are trivial limiting cases. All collaborators have >>>>> differences relevant to >>>>>> the task at hand, and unless it is just a routine >>>>> division of labour (which >>>>>> I call cooperation), or conflict is forbidden or >>>>> suppressed, there has to >>>>>> be some conflict, some ripple on the waters. >>>>>> >>>>>> Andy >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> ; >>>>> ; >>>>>> On 19/04/2016 1:01 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi Larry and Andy, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This issue of commitment is a difficult one. >>>> If I >>>>> might bring in a >>>>>>> little bit of Mark Granovetter and Everett >>>> Rogers, >>>>> marriage is a strong tie >>>>>>> relationships. Individuals make a commitment to >>>>> it, as Larry says, so that >>>>>>> the relationship is sustainable through even >>>>> adversarial conflict, or does >>>>>>> not collapse at the first sign of conflict. But >>>>> most collaborations, >>>>>>> especially those that lead to problem >>>> solving, are >>>>> based in weak tie >>>>>>> networks. Do we want to say that weak ties >>>>> networks can only lead to >>>>>>> cooperation. Isn't there something to >>>>> collaboration that allows >>>>>>> individuals without a prior or even sustainable >>>>> relationship to come >>>>>>> together to create change through evolutionary >>>>> disagreement that does not >>>>>>> engender conflict? Is that collaboration or >>>> is it >>>>> something else. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>> >>> > [mailto: >>>>>>> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>> >>> >] On Behalf Of >>>>> Lplarry >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 18, 2016 10:25 AM >>>>>>> To: Andy Blunden >>> >>>>> >>> >>; eXtended Mind, Culture, >>>>> Activity < >>>>>>> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>> >>> >> >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy, >>>>>>> This introduction of the image of marriage as the >>>>> archetype of >>>>>>> collaboration certainly opens the concept of >>>>> collaboration to multiple >>>>>>> aspects of *engaging conflict* or *managing >>>> conflict*. >>>>>>> To say collaboration is (like) marriage >>>> carries us >>>>> into a vast field of >>>>>>> shared (and conflictual) meanings. >>>>>>> Interesting how this image opens towards the >>>>> imaginal and then travels to >>>>>>> distinguishing ZPD from scaffolding. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> To move from co-operation towards >>>> collaboration (as >>>>> marriage) is moving >>>>>>> towards notions of *commitment* and *determinate >>>>> relations* that remain >>>>>>> always *open to change* but within a continuing >>>>> commitment/collaboration. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Marriage is a pregnant gestating image for >>>> engaging >>>>> the concept of >>>>>>> collaboration. Marriage as socio-historically >>>>> meaningful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>>>>> >>>>>>> From: Andy Blunden >>>>>>> Sent: April 18, 2016 5:58 AM >>>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The field is rife with different definitions; I >>>>> choose the set of >>>>>>> definitions which suit the overall concept I am >>>>> developing. Can't do >>>>>>> anything about that! But the issue of >>>>>>> *conflict* is absolutely essential. Any co-called >>>>> collaboration in which >>>>>>> conflict is either suppressed or organised >>>> away is >>>>> certainly not worthy of >>>>>>> the name. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> That said, conflict has the potential always to >>>>> destroy a collaboration, >>>>>>> and at the same time can be moderated so >>>>> successfully that it is positively >>>>>>> enjoyable. The archetype of collaboration is >>>>> marriage, so we all know what >>>>>>> this is about. Managing conflict is the most >>>>> essential element of >>>>>>> collaboration, but that includes encouraging >>>> it as >>>>> well as moderating it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This issue has echoes of the ZPD vs "scaffolding" >>>>> question. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> ; >>>>> ; >>>>>>> On 18/04/2016 10:33 PM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Hi Andy, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks for your response. I would like to put >>>>> aside the issue of >>>>>>>> computers which I think is extraordinarily >>>> complex >>>>> (are we talking about >>>>>>>> the Internet, or the Ethernet, or the Web, or >>>>> Artificial Intelligence or >>>>>>>> Augmentation? More and more I am feeling these >>>>> distinctions are critical). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> But your post does refer to issues I am >>>> struggling >>>>> with. There has been >>>>>>>> a lot of talk of the difference between >>>>> cooperation and collaboration at a >>>>>>>> number of levels. Right now I think I like >>>>> Stephen Downes' distinction >>>>>>>> which is cooperation is engaging in >>>> community work >>>>> for your own needs - so >>>>>>>> you never really give yourself up to the >>>> learning >>>>> community, while >>>>>>>> collaboration involves actually creating a >>>>> community. Others I think see >>>>>>>> collaboration as the development of shared >>>> meaning >>>>> while cooperation is >>>>>>>> simply (shared isn't the right word, right?) >>>>> action towards a goal. I >>>>>>>> think both to a certain degree reflect your >>>> thinking. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am interested in the idea of conflict, which I >>>>> think would be >>>>>>>> antithetical to PISA's conception of >>>>> collaboration, they seem to be looking >>>>>>>> to cut down on conflict as much as possible. It >>>>> also seems to work against >>>>>>>> a number of uses of collaboration in the >>>> field of >>>>> education. Does Alfie >>>>>>>> Kohn talk about collaboration - what would >>>> he say >>>>> about conflict. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> So I'm thinking though these just working >>>> together >>>>> visions of >>>>>>>> collaboration are missing that "something" and >>>>> conflict, as >>>>>>>> counter-intuitive as it is to models of >>>>> collaboration might make sense. >>>>>>>> But what do we mean by conflict. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Is it conflict between members of the >>>>> collaborative group or is it the >>>>>>>> abilities of the collaborative group to see >>>>> conflict between their >>>>>>>> solutions and the realities of the world around >>>>> them (I know, another >>>>>>>> loaded phrase). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> We also have a tendency to see conflict of >>>>> adversarial. If there is one >>>>>>>> thing I think collaboration is, it is >>>>> non-adversarial in nature. So can >>>>>>>> ideas be in conflict without individuals raising >>>>> those being adversarial >>>>>>>> with each other. What if people are adversarial >>>>> to each other and yet >>>>>>>> still work together to accomplish important >>>>> things, or is this >>>>>>>> cooperation? Or is these another concept that >>>>> hasn't been defined, or >>>>>>>> perhaps I am not grasping? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The danger with PISA's definition is there is >>>>> really no mechanism for >>>>>>>> change. Should collaboration have a >>>> mechanism for >>>>> change or innovation? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thoughts running around my head. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> MIchael >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>>> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>> >>> >] On Behalf Of >>>>> Andy Blunden >>>>>>>> Sent: Sunday, April 17, 2016 9:10 PM >>>>>>>> To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >>>> >>>>> >>> > >>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> "Collaboration" is a big word in my universe, >>>>> Michael, so I'll offer >>>>>>>> some observations. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Collaboration as "together working" means >>>>> specifically working together >>>>>>>> to a common object (aim). That generally entails >>>>> working together to change >>>>>>>> an object-of-labour (/Arbeitsgegenstand/). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> There is a lot of discussion about the >>>> difference >>>>> between Collaboration >>>>>>>> and the etymologically identical >>>> Cooperation, much >>>>> of this is in the >>>>>>>> "educational debate." As I see it, Collaboration >>>>> essentially involves both >>>>>>>> cooperation and conflict. Conflict is also one >>>>> form or aspect of >>>>>>>> collaboration, because the parties are working >>>>> towards two opposite >>>>>>>> concepts of the same object. "Object" here >>>>> therefore has a slippery >>>>>>>> meaning. It can mean the >>>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, the >>>>> object worked upon, or >>>>>>>> the Gegenstand, the object aimed for. Both ideas >>>>> incorporate the >>>>>>>> possibility of difference. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Collaboration essentially involves the coming >>>>> together of distinct >>>>>>>> parties (or subjects). True Collaboration >>>> involves >>>>> a merging of the >>>>>>>> subjectivities for the course of a single >>>> project, >>>>> but there are "limiting >>>>>>>> cases" of non-collaborative collaboration. These >>>>> include an exchange of >>>>>>>> labour governed by a negotiation of a contract >>>>> (such as customer-service >>>>>>>> provider in which the subjects retain their >>>> mutual >>>>> independence throughout) >>>>>>>> and command-and-obey (in which one subject is >>>>> subordinated to another). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Cooperation does not imply conflict within the >>>>> working relationship >>>>>>>> usually because there is a division of labour; >>>>> Collaboration on the other >>>>>>>> hand involves each party taking a critical >>>>> attitude towards the >>>>>>>> contribution of the other party. o conflict >>>> is an >>>>> essential ingredient to >>>>>>>> Collaboration. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Collaboration is a learning process, to the >>>> extent >>>>> that one could argue >>>>>>>> that learning can *only* be a Collaborative >>>>> process. So Collaboration means >>>>>>>> that the object (aim) of the labour changes, >>>>> because the /concept /of the >>>>>>>> object changes. >>>>>>>> Collaborators learn about the object (worked >>>> upon) >>>>> in the process of >>>>>>>> working on it, and the object (aim) by >>>> realising it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In education there has been an unfortunate >>>>> development in which (1) >>>>>>>> students work independently because they are >>>>> physically or organisationally >>>>>>>> distant, (2) Collaboration between the >>>> students is >>>>> then facilitated by the >>>>>>>> use of computer and communication equipment, (3) >>>>> Students who are already >>>>>>>> face-to-face are obliged to introduce a computer >>>>> between them so that their >>>>>>>> collaboration, instead of being face-to-face, >>>>> mediated only by the >>>>>>>> /Arbeitsgegenstand/, they now find their >>>>> Collaboration mediated by a >>>>>>>> computer. That is, "Collaboration" has come to >>>>> mean the undermining of >>>>>>>> Collaboration by the use of Collaborative >>>> tools to >>>>> avoid closer >>>>>>>> collaboration. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And this is the danger. The education >>>> bureaucracy >>>>> has heard a bit about >>>>>>>> the benefits of Collaboration as a learning >>>>> process, and that Collaboration >>>>>>>> requires equipment. So they get the idea >>>> that they >>>>> have to separate >>>>>>>> students or researchers from one another so that >>>>> they can collaborate. >>>>>>>> Once separated the bureaucacy can provide >>>>> equipment to allow students >>>>>>>> to Collaborate notwithstanding their having been >>>>> separated from one >>>>>>>> another. And the same goes for >>>>>>>> students+teachers, research+industry, >>>>> management+workers, etc. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Does that help, Michael? >>>>>>>> Andy >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>>>>>>> *Andy Blunden* >>>>>>>> http://home.pacific.net.au/~andy/ >>>> ; >>>>> ; >>>>>>>> On 18/04/2016 6:38 AM, Glassman, Michael wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hello all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I have a question for anybody who might be >>>>> willing to respond. How do >>>>>>>>> you define collaboration? What spurs this >>>>> question is that PISA is >>>>>>>>> developing a framework for testing >>>> collaboration >>>>> internationally. At first >>>>>>>>> I thought I was getting punked, but it >>>> really is >>>>> happening, the framework >>>>>>>>> is at the link below. The idea of >>>> collaboration >>>>> is being used more and >>>>>>>>> more - especially in contexts that involve >>>>> computer/web based research, but >>>>>>>>> it often times seems to be a placeholder. The >>>>> word only came into vogue >>>>>>>>> late nineteenth century I think - col meaning >>>>> together and labore meaning >>>>>>>>> to labor. A lot of people who discuss >>>>> collaboration invoke Vygotsky (e.g. >>>>>>>>> the PISA framework) or sometimes Dewey >>>> (Although >>>>> I am kind of sure Dewey >>>>>>>>> never actually used the word collaboration, but >>>>> I might be wrong). Anyway >>>>>>>>> the PISA document defines collaboration but >>>> in a >>>>> very simplistic way I >>>>>>>>> think so that it is not wrong but not >>>> helpful. I >>>>> know there was some >>>>>>>>> research around language (being able >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> to >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> create shared meanings). But so far to >>>> me it >>>>> seems to miss the >>>>>>>>> point, but I can't think what I would >>>> replace it >>>>> with. I guess you could >>>>>>>>> call this a request for comments. I find PISA >>>>> creating a test for >>>>>>>>> collaboration kind of dangerous. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/Draft%20PISA%202015%20Collabor >>>>>>>>> a tive%20Problem%20Solving%20Framework%20.pdf >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Michael >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> >>>>> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural >>>>> science with an object >>>>> that creates history. Ernst Boesch >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> >> >> From annalisa@unm.edu Wed Apr 20 20:38:20 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 03:38:20 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] The manologue Message-ID: Hi, Interesting synchronicity here. Just spied this article at the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/opinion/how-to-explain-mansplaining.html This seems to correspond to a recent turn (spin off) of the collaboration thread on the list pertaining to gendered patterns of speech. It doesn't seem authentic to call these particular unbalanced patterns of speech "collaboration", and that's why I'd say that democracy and psychological safety is required in collaborative circles, or... perhaps it is better to say that circles can be considered collaborative if these elements are presiding. I offer that. Henry, you wanted some scientific data? Well... sometimes (just sometimes) you don't get what you want, but you get what you need? [?] Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: OutlookEmoji-?.png Type: image/png Size: 488 bytes Desc: =?utf-8?B?T3V0bG9va0Vtb2ppLfCfmIoucG5n?= Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160421/d8a83610/attachment.png From schuckthemonkey@gmail.com Wed Apr 20 21:19:02 2016 From: schuckthemonkey@gmail.com (Christopher Schuck) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 00:19:02 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: I'll try to be brief :). One of the nice things about replying to a listserve is that we don't have to worry about interrupting each other's sentences - even if I might still worry about horning in on someone else's conversation prematurely, or going on too long! Written communication is often criticized for its limitations and face-to-face communication favorably regarded as more organic, but as this last thread illustrates the latter can be uniquely sensitive to certain kinds of oppressive cultural norms. There is maybe a certain "psychological safety" in the written word even though it might detract from collaboration in other ways. I wonder to what degree these gender dynamics remain the same in written exchanges and to what degree they are modified, either for worse or better... On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:40 PM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > Hi Annalisa, > I would also love to hear from the women. > > And you don?t ruin things for me at all. I am frankly very appreciative > you would respond to my post and with such good data, if you will. My > little summary of Tannen didn?t do justice to the diversity and complexity > of the many kinds of discourse. The book I cited is focused on gender and a > certain kind of discourse: conversation. Two other popular books of hers > focus on gender: You Just Don?t Understand Me: Men and Women in > Conversation (1990) and Talking From 9 to 5: How Women?s and Men?s > Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit and What Gets > Done at Work (1994). An even earlier book, That?s Not What I Meant: How > Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others (1986), > gets into more broadly ?cultural? differences in styles of engaging in > dialog. > > But even if Tannen sticks to day-to-day conversation among middle America, > I think your own experiences and the narratives of women in public > discourse that you cite are evidence that her analysis of conversational > style in this country informs us about political, academic and legal > discourse around the world. An irony from Tannen?s work is that men > complain that women interrupt more often, but the reality is to the > contrary: Men interrupt women much more often. Tannen found that women in > talking with one another tend not to interpret simultaneous talk as > interruptions, but as agreement, solidarity, she calls it. Men tend to > interpret simultaneous talk as an affront. One can talk here about > multi-tasking: Maybe men are just not as good as women at talking and > listening at the same time and that hurts their pride. Chromosomal? I doubt > it, but I am still constantly chagrined by my wife?s ability to talk and > listen at the same time. Hell, I would settle for just being a better > listener! That?s not easy for me!! On this chat some of it is simple > ignorance on my part about what is being talked about, academic preparation > if you will. But I am pretty sure some of it has to do with a tin ear and a > less-than-open heart. Still, got to work with what I?ve got. > > With respect, > Henry > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > wrote: > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > Hate to ruin things for you, but I must not fit in the general gendered > paradigm of interruptions. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly? > > > > Being a woman who is frequently not allowed to speak to the end of my > sentences, which causes a situation where I must repeat myself ?which > subsequently makes me appear as long-winded compared to if I'd just been > able to finish my sentence in the first place? I feel interruptions are > most always about power dynamics, as I almost always feel unheard when my > speech is interrupted. It is the exception that I feel interruptions make > me feel I am heard by my interlocutor(s), where as you say the conversation > is being moved along. > > > > There is also the pattern where people might allow me to speak to the > end of my sentence and then continue one as if I had said nothing, in that > case it is the shape of an interruption whereby I am made out to be the > unwelcome interrupter, and thus ignored. > > > > In both cases these are two sorts of speech censorship, which does not > contribute to a sense of psychological safety. > > > > I was listening to NPR yesterday and learned that in Iran there is an > expansion of the secret police monitoring whether or not women are wearing > their public hijab properly, and (bless them) Iranian women are coming > forward on Twitter having that network moment of not taking it anymore. One > woman who is a parliamentary journalist, was not allowed to ask her > questions because of criticisms of her hijab presentation. So here is a > case of interruption based upon appearance, rather than allowing her speech > to be spontaneously given and received. > > > > I remember thinking after I heard the news story, that women seem to > frequently have to resort to a "forced" flexibility, a sort of temporal > bricolage, to make their thoughts known, knowing there is constantly the > threat of interruption hanging like hijab around their heads. > > > > If this is the reason women are (considered) multi-taskers so be it, but > I don't think it's chromosomal, just a by-product of survival through an > imposed steeplechase of (his)tory. > > > > Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, says what it does because Woolf > claims a woman needs to find her true voice in a safe space in her control, > a place she where she can be left alone, to speak without the drone of > other people's voices being overlaid and imposed upon her. > > > > If such a social dynamic is something that a man also experiences (and > so I believe the dynamic need not be isolated to women only), then I would > say he would have an equal requirement to a safe space to connect to his > own inner speech. I'm sure though, this would occur differently, since the > social pressures are likely not the same, though there would be family > resemblances, as I imagine that censorship of speech has deep psychological > consequences for human beings in general. > > > > One point Woolf makes in AROOO, is that when a woman speaks from this > injury she is not considered legitimate, and this means she is not free to > the spontaneous thought required to be imaginative or innovative, because > her speech is in reference to constrained reaction rather than unfettered > creation. > > > > I would love to hear what women on this list think about that? To add or > augment? (Though men are welcome to say what they like also, of course... > without interruption). > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Annalisa > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Apr 21 07:29:30 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 07:29:30 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Exploring this notion of *thirds* Message-ID: <5718e3d5.022a620a.ec025.2be8@mx.google.com> I wanted to explore a question posed by Merleau-Ponty that focuses on Gestalt Psychology as M-P appropriated this German psychology. Collaboration and cooperation and motivation (to care and show concern) are involved but the focus of attention shifts towards a *third* dimension beyond subject and object ways of knowing. M-P when exploring gestalts used the terms *form* and *structure* as synonyms and these terms are pointing towards this *same* third dimension. Gestalt has been discussed as central also to Vygotsky so there is overlap. M-P?s focus of attention indicates that everything depends on whether and how it is possible to think a whole that resists analysis. Form is not reducible (abstracting) to it?s parts, but neither is form anything *other* than it?s parts. How then are we to understand this relation of the totality to it?s parts? What status must we give totality? This question, M-P says, ? is at the center of this course on the idea of Nature *and maybe the whole of philosophy*? Merleau-Ponty was exploring this third dimension which was leading towards notions of a *mileau* (place) which is common to both ? philosophy and the positive sciences -. This place as a third dimension *opens up* (this side of subjectivity and objectivity) (this side of our autonomy and dependence) a place wherein these phenomena no longer contradict one another. Not sure if others find this theme of a third dimension (which can be perceived as mileau) which emerges from M-P?s appropriation of gestalt psychology as a door which opens into a *new* dimension is relevant. This mileau that is resistant to analysis into abstracted reductions but also is no thing that transcends these parts. Merleau Ponty finds ? intelligibility? in this ?nascent? mileau within which collaboration and cooperation and motivation for care all occur. This third dimension. I realize this is a contra/verse/ able question but is one perspective on this theme. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Thu Apr 21 07:51:50 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 14:51:50 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Christopher, The gendered practice of interruption is wide spread on the web. In colloquial language the practice is referred to as "mansplaining." Go to medium.com and search for "mansplaining" for an overview. If anything the written and more so the networked nature of written language has made it far worse. I worry when we try to look for different discourse patterns among something as socially constructed as gender. I would assume that the discourses between any two cis-males would be just as different if we were comparing them to cis-females as well. On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:20 AM Christopher Schuck wrote: > I'll try to be brief :). One of the nice things about replying to a > listserve is that we don't have to worry about interrupting each other's > sentences - even if I might still worry about horning in on someone else's > conversation prematurely, or going on too long! > > Written communication is often criticized for its limitations and > face-to-face communication favorably regarded as more organic, but as this > last thread illustrates the latter can be uniquely sensitive to certain > kinds of oppressive cultural norms. There is maybe a certain > "psychological safety" in the written word even though it might detract > from collaboration in other ways. I wonder to what degree these gender > dynamics remain the same in written exchanges and to what degree they are > modified, either for worse or better... > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:40 PM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > > Hi Annalisa, > > I would also love to hear from the women. > > > > And you don?t ruin things for me at all. I am frankly very appreciative > > you would respond to my post and with such good data, if you will. My > > little summary of Tannen didn?t do justice to the diversity and > complexity > > of the many kinds of discourse. The book I cited is focused on gender > and a > > certain kind of discourse: conversation. Two other popular books of hers > > focus on gender: You Just Don?t Understand Me: Men and Women in > > Conversation (1990) and Talking From 9 to 5: How Women?s and Men?s > > Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit and What > Gets > > Done at Work (1994). An even earlier book, That?s Not What I Meant: How > > Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others (1986), > > gets into more broadly ?cultural? differences in styles of engaging in > > dialog. > > > > But even if Tannen sticks to day-to-day conversation among middle > America, > > I think your own experiences and the narratives of women in public > > discourse that you cite are evidence that her analysis of conversational > > style in this country informs us about political, academic and legal > > discourse around the world. An irony from Tannen?s work is that men > > complain that women interrupt more often, but the reality is to the > > contrary: Men interrupt women much more often. Tannen found that women in > > talking with one another tend not to interpret simultaneous talk as > > interruptions, but as agreement, solidarity, she calls it. Men tend to > > interpret simultaneous talk as an affront. One can talk here about > > multi-tasking: Maybe men are just not as good as women at talking and > > listening at the same time and that hurts their pride. Chromosomal? I > doubt > > it, but I am still constantly chagrined by my wife?s ability to talk and > > listen at the same time. Hell, I would settle for just being a better > > listener! That?s not easy for me!! On this chat some of it is simple > > ignorance on my part about what is being talked about, academic > preparation > > if you will. But I am pretty sure some of it has to do with a tin ear > and a > > less-than-open heart. Still, got to work with what I?ve got. > > > > With respect, > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > Hate to ruin things for you, but I must not fit in the general gendered > > paradigm of interruptions. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly? > > > > > > Being a woman who is frequently not allowed to speak to the end of my > > sentences, which causes a situation where I must repeat myself ?which > > subsequently makes me appear as long-winded compared to if I'd just been > > able to finish my sentence in the first place? I feel interruptions are > > most always about power dynamics, as I almost always feel unheard when my > > speech is interrupted. It is the exception that I feel interruptions make > > me feel I am heard by my interlocutor(s), where as you say the > conversation > > is being moved along. > > > > > > There is also the pattern where people might allow me to speak to the > > end of my sentence and then continue one as if I had said nothing, in > that > > case it is the shape of an interruption whereby I am made out to be the > > unwelcome interrupter, and thus ignored. > > > > > > In both cases these are two sorts of speech censorship, which does not > > contribute to a sense of psychological safety. > > > > > > I was listening to NPR yesterday and learned that in Iran there is an > > expansion of the secret police monitoring whether or not women are > wearing > > their public hijab properly, and (bless them) Iranian women are coming > > forward on Twitter having that network moment of not taking it anymore. > One > > woman who is a parliamentary journalist, was not allowed to ask her > > questions because of criticisms of her hijab presentation. So here is a > > case of interruption based upon appearance, rather than allowing her > speech > > to be spontaneously given and received. > > > > > > I remember thinking after I heard the news story, that women seem to > > frequently have to resort to a "forced" flexibility, a sort of temporal > > bricolage, to make their thoughts known, knowing there is constantly the > > threat of interruption hanging like hijab around their heads. > > > > > > If this is the reason women are (considered) multi-taskers so be it, > but > > I don't think it's chromosomal, just a by-product of survival through an > > imposed steeplechase of (his)tory. > > > > > > Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, says what it does because Woolf > > claims a woman needs to find her true voice in a safe space in her > control, > > a place she where she can be left alone, to speak without the drone of > > other people's voices being overlaid and imposed upon her. > > > > > > If such a social dynamic is something that a man also experiences (and > > so I believe the dynamic need not be isolated to women only), then I > would > > say he would have an equal requirement to a safe space to connect to his > > own inner speech. I'm sure though, this would occur differently, since > the > > social pressures are likely not the same, though there would be family > > resemblances, as I imagine that censorship of speech has deep > psychological > > consequences for human beings in general. > > > > > > One point Woolf makes in AROOO, is that when a woman speaks from this > > injury she is not considered legitimate, and this means she is not free > to > > the spontaneous thought required to be imaginative or innovative, because > > her speech is in reference to constrained reaction rather than unfettered > > creation. > > > > > > I would love to hear what women on this list think about that? To add > or > > augment? (Though men are welcome to say what they like also, of course... > > without interruption). > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Apr 21 08:11:22 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:11:22 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <5718eda5.1b10620a.c71f0.38f4@mx.google.com> Greg, Is it reasonable to say that there are differing discourse patterns that are modulating what we are calling *interruptions*? The next step of identifying these (actual?) patterns (ways of interrupting) as gendered may be going a step too far. To back up, do modulating patterns (ways of interrupting) become *actualized* which we can explore as being *motivated? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Greg Mcverry Sent: April 21, 2016 7:54 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Christopher, The gendered practice of interruption is wide spread on the web. In colloquial language the practice is referred to as "mansplaining." Go to medium.com and search for "mansplaining" for an overview. If anything the written and more so the networked nature of written language has made it far worse. I worry when we try to look for different discourse patterns among something as socially constructed as gender. I would assume that the discourses between any two cis-males would be just as different if we were comparing them to cis-females as well. On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:20 AM Christopher Schuck wrote: > I'll try to be brief :). One of the nice things about replying to a > listserve is that we don't have to worry about interrupting each other's > sentences - even if I might still worry about horning in on someone else's > conversation prematurely, or going on too long! > > Written communication is often criticized for its limitations and > face-to-face communication favorably regarded as more organic, but as this > last thread illustrates the latter can be uniquely sensitive to certain > kinds of oppressive cultural norms. There is maybe a certain > "psychological safety" in the written word even though it might detract > from collaboration in other ways. I wonder to what degree these gender > dynamics remain the same in written exchanges and to what degree they are > modified, either for worse or better... > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:40 PM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > > Hi Annalisa, > > I would also love to hear from the women. > > > > And you don?t ruin things for me at all. I am frankly very appreciative > > you would respond to my post and with such good data, if you will. My > > little summary of Tannen didn?t do justice to the diversity and > complexity > > of the many kinds of discourse. The book I cited is focused on gender > and a > > certain kind of discourse: conversation. Two other popular books of hers > > focus on gender: You Just Don?t Understand Me: Men and Women in > > Conversation (1990) and Talking From 9 to 5: How Women?s and Men?s > > Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit and What > Gets > > Done at Work (1994). An even earlier book, That?s Not What I Meant: How > > Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others (1986), > > gets into more broadly ?cultural? differences in styles of engaging in > > dialog. > > > > But even if Tannen sticks to day-to-day conversation among middle > America, > > I think your own experiences and the narratives of women in public > > discourse that you cite are evidence that her analysis of conversational > > style in this country informs us about political, academic and legal > > discourse around the world. An irony from Tannen?s work is that men > > complain that women interrupt more often, but the reality is to the > > contrary: Men interrupt women much more often. Tannen found that women in > > talking with one another tend not to interpret simultaneous talk as > > interruptions, but as agreement, solidarity, she calls it. Men tend to > > interpret simultaneous talk as an affront. One can talk here about > > multi-tasking: Maybe men are just not as good as women at talking and > > listening at the same time and that hurts their pride. Chromosomal? I > doubt > > it, but I am still constantly chagrined by my wife?s ability to talk and > > listen at the same time. Hell, I would settle for just being a better > > listener! That?s not easy for me!! On this chat some of it is simple > > ignorance on my part about what is being talked about, academic > preparation > > if you will. But I am pretty sure some of it has to do with a tin ear > and a > > less-than-open heart. Still, got to work with what I?ve got. > > > > With respect, > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > Hate to ruin things for you, but I must not fit in the general gendered > > paradigm of interruptions. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly? > > > > > > Being a woman who is frequently not allowed to speak to the end of my > > sentences, which causes a situation where I must repeat myself ?which > > subsequently makes me appear as long-winded compared to if I'd just been > > able to finish my sentence in the first place? I feel interruptions are > > most always about power dynamics, as I almost always feel unheard when my > > speech is interrupted. It is the exception that I feel interruptions make > > me feel I am heard by my interlocutor(s), where as you say the > conversation > > is being moved along. > > > > > > There is also the pattern where people might allow me to speak to the > > end of my sentence and then continue one as if I had said nothing, in > that > > case it is the shape of an interruption whereby I am made out to be the > > unwelcome interrupter, and thus ignored. > > > > > > In both cases these are two sorts of speech censorship, which does not > > contribute to a sense of psychological safety. > > > > > > I was listening to NPR yesterday and learned that in Iran there is an > > expansion of the secret police monitoring whether or not women are > wearing > > their public hijab properly, and (bless them) Iranian women are coming > > forward on Twitter having that network moment of not taking it anymore. > One > > woman who is a parliamentary journalist, was not allowed to ask her > > questions because of criticisms of her hijab presentation. So here is a > > case of interruption based upon appearance, rather than allowing her > speech > > to be spontaneously given and received. > > > > > > I remember thinking after I heard the news story, that women seem to > > frequently have to resort to a "forced" flexibility, a sort of temporal > > bricolage, to make their thoughts known, knowing there is constantly the > > threat of interruption hanging like hijab around their heads. > > > > > > If this is the reason women are (considered) multi-taskers so be it, > but > > I don't think it's chromosomal, just a by-product of survival through an > > imposed steeplechase of (his)tory. > > > > > > Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, says what it does because Woolf > > claims a woman needs to find her true voice in a safe space in her > control, > > a place she where she can be left alone, to speak without the drone of > > other people's voices being overlaid and imposed upon her. > > > > > > If such a social dynamic is something that a man also experiences (and > > so I believe the dynamic need not be isolated to women only), then I > would > > say he would have an equal requirement to a safe space to connect to his > > own inner speech. I'm sure though, this would occur differently, since > the > > social pressures are likely not the same, though there would be family > > resemblances, as I imagine that censorship of speech has deep > psychological > > consequences for human beings in general. > > > > > > One point Woolf makes in AROOO, is that when a woman speaks from this > > injury she is not considered legitimate, and this means she is not free > to > > the spontaneous thought required to be imaginative or innovative, because > > her speech is in reference to constrained reaction rather than unfettered > > creation. > > > > > > I would love to hear what women on this list think about that? To add > or > > augment? (Though men are welcome to say what they like also, of course... > > without interruption). > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Thu Apr 21 08:15:47 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 08:15:47 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <5718eda5.1b10620a.c71f0.38f4@mx.google.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5718eda5.1b10620a.c71f0.38f4@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <5718eeae.450a620a.4d856.3aec@mx.google.com> A play on interruption as inter/ruption. Can this *ruption* be an inter/revelation if motivated within Tomasello?s (care and concern) *for* the mutually shared (subject matter)? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Lplarry Sent: April 21, 2016 8:11 AM To: Greg Mcverry; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Greg, Is it reasonable to say that there are differing discourse patterns that are modulating what we are calling *interruptions*? The next step of identifying these (actual?) patterns (ways of interrupting) as gendered may be going a step too far. To back up, do modulating patterns (ways of interrupting) become *actualized* which we can explore as being *motivated? Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Greg Mcverry Sent: April 21, 2016 7:54 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration Christopher, The gendered practice of interruption is wide spread on the web. In colloquial language the practice is referred to as "mansplaining." Go to medium.com and search for "mansplaining" for an overview. If anything the written and more so the networked nature of written language has made it far worse. I worry when we try to look for different discourse patterns among something as socially constructed as gender. I would assume that the discourses between any two cis-males would be just as different if we were comparing them to cis-females as well. On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:20 AM Christopher Schuck wrote: > I'll try to be brief :). One of the nice things about replying to a > listserve is that we don't have to worry about interrupting each other's > sentences - even if I might still worry about horning in on someone else's > conversation prematurely, or going on too long! > > Written communication is often criticized for its limitations and > face-to-face communication favorably regarded as more organic, but as this > last thread illustrates the latter can be uniquely sensitive to certain > kinds of oppressive cultural norms. There is maybe? a certain > "psychological safety" in the written word even though it might detract > from collaboration in other ways. I wonder to what degree these gender > dynamics remain the same in written exchanges and to what degree they are > modified, either for worse or better... > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:40 PM, HENRY SHONERD > wrote: > > > Hi Annalisa, > > I would also love to hear from the women. > > > > And you don?t ruin things for me at all. I am frankly very appreciative > > you would respond to my post and with such good data, if you will. My > > little summary of Tannen didn?t do justice to the diversity and > complexity > > of the many kinds of discourse. The book I cited is focused on gender > and a > > certain kind of discourse: conversation. Two other popular books of hers > > focus on gender: You Just Don?t Understand Me: Men and Women in > > Conversation (1990) and Talking From 9 to 5: How Women?s and Men?s > > Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit and What > Gets > > Done at Work (1994). An even earlier book, That?s Not What I Meant: How > > Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others (1986), > > gets into more broadly ?cultural? differences in styles of engaging in > > dialog. > > > > But even if Tannen sticks to day-to-day conversation among middle > America, > > I think your own experiences and the narratives of women in public > > discourse that you cite are evidence that her analysis of conversational > > style in this country informs us about political, academic and legal > > discourse around the world. An irony from Tannen?s work is that men > > complain that women interrupt more often, but the reality is to the > > contrary: Men interrupt women much more often. Tannen found that women in > > talking with one another tend not to interpret simultaneous talk as > > interruptions, but as agreement, solidarity, she calls it. Men tend to > > interpret simultaneous talk as an affront. One can talk here about > > multi-tasking: Maybe men are just not as good as women at talking and > > listening at the same time and that hurts their pride. Chromosomal? I > doubt > > it, but I am still constantly chagrined by my wife?s ability to talk and > > listen at the same time. Hell, I would settle for just being a better > > listener! That?s not easy for me!! On this chat some of it is simple > > ignorance on my part about what is being talked about, academic > preparation > > if you will. But I am pretty sure some of it has to do with a tin ear > and a > > less-than-open heart. Still, got to work with what I?ve got. > > > > With respect, > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > > wrote: > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > Hate to ruin things for you, but I must not fit in the general gendered > > paradigm of interruptions. Or maybe I am not understanding you correctly? > > > > > > Being a woman who is frequently not allowed to speak to the end of my > > sentences, which causes a situation where I must repeat myself ?which > > subsequently makes me appear as long-winded compared to if I'd just been > > able to finish my sentence in the first place? I feel interruptions are > > most always about power dynamics, as I almost always feel unheard when my > > speech is interrupted. It is the exception that I feel interruptions make > > me feel I am heard by my interlocutor(s), where as you say the > conversation > > is being moved along. > > > > > > There is also the pattern where people might allow me to speak to the > > end of my sentence and then continue one as if I had said nothing, in > that > > case it is the shape of an interruption whereby I am made out to be the > > unwelcome interrupter, and thus ignored. > > > > > > In both cases these are two sorts of speech censorship, which does not > > contribute to a sense of psychological safety. > > > > > > I was listening to NPR yesterday and learned that in Iran there is an > > expansion of the secret police monitoring whether or not women are > wearing > > their public hijab properly, and (bless them) Iranian women are coming > > forward on Twitter having that network moment of not taking it anymore. > One > > woman who is a parliamentary journalist, was not allowed to ask her > > questions because of criticisms of her hijab presentation. So here is a > > case of interruption based upon appearance, rather than allowing her > speech > > to be spontaneously given and received. > > > > > > I remember thinking after I heard the news story, that women seem to > > frequently have to resort to a "forced" flexibility, a sort of temporal > > bricolage, to make their thoughts known, knowing there is constantly the > > threat of interruption hanging like hijab around their heads. > > > > > > If this is the reason women are (considered) multi-taskers so be it, > but > > I don't think it's chromosomal, just a by-product of survival through an > > imposed steeplechase of (his)tory. > > > > > > Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, says what it does because Woolf > > claims a woman needs to find her true voice in a safe space in her > control, > > a place she where she can be left alone, to speak without the drone of > > other people's voices being overlaid and imposed upon her. > > > > > > If such a social dynamic is something that a man also experiences (and > > so I believe the dynamic need not be isolated to women only), then I > would > > say he would have an equal requirement to a safe space to connect to his > > own inner speech. I'm sure though, this would occur differently, since > the > > social pressures are likely not the same, though there would be family > > resemblances, as I imagine that censorship of speech has deep > psychological > > consequences for human beings in general. > > > > > > One point Woolf makes in AROOO, is that when a woman speaks from this > > injury she is not considered legitimate, and this means she is not free > to > > the spontaneous thought required to be imaginative or innovative, because > > her speech is in reference to constrained reaction rather than unfettered > > creation. > > > > > > I would love to hear what women on this list think about that? To add > or > > augment? (Though men are welcome to say what they like also, of course... > > without interruption). > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > > > > > From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Thu Apr 21 08:17:56 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 15:17:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: <5718eda5.1b10620a.c71f0.38f4@mx.google.com> References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5718eda5.1b10620a.c71f0.38f4@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Yes I would have to agree. Though the motivations then can serve the interrupter, the shared goal, or both. And on another note if XMCA ever needed to raise funds to cover server costs we should package up threads like this and sell em for 0.99 ebooks. On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 11:11 AM Lplarry wrote: > Greg, > > Is it reasonable to say that there are differing discourse patterns that > are modulating what we are calling **interruptions**? > > > > The next step of identifying these (actual?) patterns (ways of > interrupting) as gendered may be going a step too far. > > To back up, do modulating patterns (ways of interrupting) become * > *actualized** which we can explore as being *motivated? > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > *From: *Greg Mcverry > *Sent: *April 21, 2016 7:54 AM > > > *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration > > > > Christopher, > > > > The gendered practice of interruption is wide spread on the web. In > > colloquial language the practice is referred to as "mansplaining." > > > > Go to medium.com and search for "mansplaining" for an overview. > > > > If anything the written and more so the networked nature of written > > language has made it far worse. > > > > I worry when we try to look for different discourse patterns among > > something as socially constructed as gender. I would assume that the > > discourses between any two cis-males would be just as different if we were > > comparing them to cis-females as well. > > > > On Thu, Apr 21, 2016, 12:20 AM Christopher Schuck < > schuckthemonkey@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > I'll try to be brief :). One of the nice things about replying to a > > > listserve is that we don't have to worry about interrupting each other's > > > sentences - even if I might still worry about horning in on someone > else's > > > conversation prematurely, or going on too long! > > > > > > Written communication is often criticized for its limitations and > > > face-to-face communication favorably regarded as more organic, but as > this > > > last thread illustrates the latter can be uniquely sensitive to certain > > > kinds of oppressive cultural norms. There is maybe a certain > > > "psychological safety" in the written word even though it might detract > > > from collaboration in other ways. I wonder to what degree these gender > > > dynamics remain the same in written exchanges and to what degree they are > > > modified, either for worse or better... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 7:40 PM, HENRY SHONERD > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Annalisa, > > > > I would also love to hear from the women. > > > > > > > > And you don?t ruin things for me at all. I am frankly very appreciative > > > > you would respond to my post and with such good data, if you will. My > > > > little summary of Tannen didn?t do justice to the diversity and > > > complexity > > > > of the many kinds of discourse. The book I cited is focused on gender > > > and a > > > > certain kind of discourse: conversation. Two other popular books of > hers > > > > focus on gender: You Just Don?t Understand Me: Men and Women in > > > > Conversation (1990) and Talking From 9 to 5: How Women?s and Men?s > > > > Conversational Styles Affect Who Gets Heard, Who Gets Credit and What > > > Gets > > > > Done at Work (1994). An even earlier book, That?s Not What I Meant: How > > > > Conversational Style Makes or Breaks Your Relations with Others (1986), > > > > gets into more broadly ?cultural? differences in styles of engaging in > > > > dialog. > > > > > > > > But even if Tannen sticks to day-to-day conversation among middle > > > America, > > > > I think your own experiences and the narratives of women in public > > > > discourse that you cite are evidence that her analysis of > conversational > > > > style in this country informs us about political, academic and legal > > > > discourse around the world. An irony from Tannen?s work is that men > > > > complain that women interrupt more often, but the reality is to the > > > > contrary: Men interrupt women much more often. Tannen found that women > in > > > > talking with one another tend not to interpret simultaneous talk as > > > > interruptions, but as agreement, solidarity, she calls it. Men tend to > > > > interpret simultaneous talk as an affront. One can talk here about > > > > multi-tasking: Maybe men are just not as good as women at talking and > > > > listening at the same time and that hurts their pride. Chromosomal? I > > > doubt > > > > it, but I am still constantly chagrined by my wife?s ability to talk > and > > > > listen at the same time. Hell, I would settle for just being a better > > > > listener! That?s not easy for me!! On this chat some of it is simple > > > > ignorance on my part about what is being talked about, academic > > > preparation > > > > if you will. But I am pretty sure some of it has to do with a tin ear > > > and a > > > > less-than-open heart. Still, got to work with what I?ve got. > > > > > > > > With respect, > > > > Henry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Apr 20, 2016, at 4:02 PM, Annalisa Aguilar > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Hi Henry, > > > > > > > > > > Hate to ruin things for you, but I must not fit in the general > gendered > > > > paradigm of interruptions. Or maybe I am not understanding you > correctly? > > > > > > > > > > Being a woman who is frequently not allowed to speak to the end of my > > > > sentences, which causes a situation where I must repeat myself ?which > > > > subsequently makes me appear as long-winded compared to if I'd just > been > > > > able to finish my sentence in the first place? I feel interruptions are > > > > most always about power dynamics, as I almost always feel unheard when > my > > > > speech is interrupted. It is the exception that I feel interruptions > make > > > > me feel I am heard by my interlocutor(s), where as you say the > > > conversation > > > > is being moved along. > > > > > > > > > > There is also the pattern where people might allow me to speak to the > > > > end of my sentence and then continue one as if I had said nothing, in > > > that > > > > case it is the shape of an interruption whereby I am made out to be the > > > > unwelcome interrupter, and thus ignored. > > > > > > > > > > In both cases these are two sorts of speech censorship, which does > not > > > > contribute to a sense of psychological safety. > > > > > > > > > > I was listening to NPR yesterday and learned that in Iran there is an > > > > expansion of the secret police monitoring whether or not women are > > > wearing > > > > their public hijab properly, and (bless them) Iranian women are coming > > > > forward on Twitter having that network moment of not taking it anymore. > > > One > > > > woman who is a parliamentary journalist, was not allowed to ask her > > > > questions because of criticisms of her hijab presentation. So here is a > > > > case of interruption based upon appearance, rather than allowing her > > > speech > > > > to be spontaneously given and received. > > > > > > > > > > I remember thinking after I heard the news story, that women seem to > > > > frequently have to resort to a "forced" flexibility, a sort of temporal > > > > bricolage, to make their thoughts known, knowing there is constantly > the > > > > threat of interruption hanging like hijab around their heads. > > > > > > > > > > If this is the reason women are (considered) multi-taskers so be it, > > > but > > > > I don't think it's chromosomal, just a by-product of survival through > an > > > > imposed steeplechase of (his)tory. > > > > > > > > > > Virginia Woolf's A Room of One's Own, says what it does because Woolf > > > > claims a woman needs to find her true voice in a safe space in her > > > control, > > > > a place she where she can be left alone, to speak without the drone of > > > > other people's voices being overlaid and imposed upon her. > > > > > > > > > > If such a social dynamic is something that a man also experiences > (and > > > > so I believe the dynamic need not be isolated to women only), then I > > > would > > > > say he would have an equal requirement to a safe space to connect to > his > > > > own inner speech. I'm sure though, this would occur differently, since > > > the > > > > social pressures are likely not the same, though there would be family > > > > resemblances, as I imagine that censorship of speech has deep > > > psychological > > > > consequences for human beings in general. > > > > > > > > > > One point Woolf makes in AROOO, is that when a woman speaks from this > > > > injury she is not considered legitimate, and this means she is not free > > > to > > > > the spontaneous thought required to be imaginative or innovative, > because > > > > her speech is in reference to constrained reaction rather than > unfettered > > > > creation. > > > > > > > > > > I would love to hear what women on this list think about that? To add > > > or > > > > augment? (Though men are welcome to say what they like also, of > course... > > > > without interruption). > > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > > > > > Annalisa > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Apr 21 09:11:51 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:11:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> , Message-ID: Hi Christopher, Greg, Larry, and esteemed others, I did post a new thread called "The manologue," which links to the NYT article on "mansplaining," with the idea of taking the topic to a new thread. In the article there are several links to studies on what I think could be safely called gendered speech patterns. Like from Harvard http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/do-women-talk-more-than-men/ and Yale: http://asq.sagepub.com/content/56/4/622.short There are other studies in the article. I would like to offer that as I think about it, mansplaining is not just interrupting. It's domination through speech, it's also a kind of intellectual censorship, if we accept the relationship between thought and speech. The word "mansplaining" seems to have been coined by Rebecca Solnit, who wrote a book about it, though I'm not sure if she came up with the word or it just erupted into feminist consciousness when her book "Men explain things to me" came out. She was motivated to write the book out of an experience she had while in conversation with a woman friend at a party with a fellow there. Somehow, as conversations go, a topic from one of her books came up (River of Shadows ?which is a great book about partnership of technology and venture capital, the railroads, and California culture). Anyway, this fellow told her that this book just came out about that topic, called River of Shadows. And he catapulted into a manologue about the book, not letting her get a word in to say that she was the author of the book. I think at some point she finally got to say, "Yes, I know, I wrote that book." But he didn't hear her. And continued explaining her book to her. It was her friend who had to interrupt her and say to him somewhat forcefully that Rebecca wrote the book. It might be interesting to learn if any women on this list have ever had such experiences, but then who would want to admit it on a listserv? It makes one seem like a cry baby to say "I'm frequently being interrupted and it drives me crazy." Which implies, "Well, maybe you don't have anything important to say and it has nothing to do with your gender?" It's a can of worms, but like all problems they must be named before they can be solved. Certainly, it is likely that there will be discomfort for anyone of privilege who gets to have their say without interruption while examining this topic. But it remains necessary to pass through the discomfort if we are going to become aware of the problems together and to be able to discuss them freely. In addition, if we really believe in social justice and what it means in an everyday experience, then it means listening to those individuals who feel impinged upon. Also, in your everyday experience, maybe if you notice such patterns, you can advocate for those who aren't being given the attention to be heard. That is, if it is a topic that you come to care about. Really it's about creating psychological safety to be able to discuss it. I hope that the list here is one of those places, but who knows? Unfortunately one of the strange outcomes in the public discourse of mansplaining is that some men start to explain what it is, rather than try to understand what it is and what women are saying about it, how it makes them feel. If you look at the comments section in the NYT article you'll see what I mean. I'm not so sure that men can explain what it is like for women, just like whites cannot explain to African Americans what black experience is; it would be a little bit rude, just a little. So I think rather than try to explain what mansplaining is (as if it were an intellectual exercise), it might be more worthwhile to speak about the experience from the first person rather than the second or third. Does that help? In other words, rather than feel the heat of the spotlight of the Laurence Olivier character in Marathon Man upon you, while he twists a dental tool in his hand, repeating, "Is it SAFE?" Why not reflect on what you yourself notice and how it makes you feel? I'd say it's perfectly safe to admit that it makes you feel uncomfortable to think you might be participating, if that's the case, for example. I think it's more productive than saying gendered patterns are going a step too far, since clearly there is something going on. At least enough for people to be studying it and come up with findings. But do we have to even have a study to legitimize this? Did we need to do a study to learn that African Americans are not treated equally in this country? Not that I am suggesting to anyone how to act or feel about this topic. Having the courage to speak in the first person is a great first step, even if it is saying, "Gee I never thought about this before. I'm going to notice if I participate in this pattern, or how I feel when I witness the interruption patterns that prevail when women try to speak." And yes, I don't believe that speech domination has to be limited to gender. Kids who grow up to be seen not heard would be an expression of this same dynamic. I also don't think there is a chromosomal explanation why men behave this way, which is why I think something can be done about it. Kind regards on a Thursday, Annalisa From schuckthemonkey@gmail.com Thu Apr 21 13:03:29 2016 From: schuckthemonkey@gmail.com (Christopher Schuck) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 16:03:29 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collaboration In-Reply-To: References: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7303D@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <571433E6.8060100@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73133@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714D9B4.4030109@mira.net> <5714ee4c.c91b620a.2820b.3030@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C731A4@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <5714FE0C.6050902@mira.net> <571573DF.2040208@mira.net> <571644D8.5060705@mira.net> <1461089799678.17396@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C73606@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> <1461093654763.72475@iped.uio.no> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C736EA@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: That's really helpful Annalisa, thank you. I totally agree that first-person (possibly emotionally risky) accounts are necessary if we are to truly deal with the problematic aspects of mansplaining or any other apparent pattern of discourse that functions to oppress or dominate. I want to clarify for everyone, very quickly, that my suggesting that written conversation can be more psychologically safe in certain ways was intended more as an initial lead-in for extending the earlier conversation to include issues surrounding written discourse, not any kind of overall opinion about whether it is "better" in this regard. When I question "the degree to which these [problematic, whether gendered or not] dynamics remain the same...for worse or better," I am saying that I'm honestly *not sure* what is gained and lost for any particular individual, what ends up being more and less restrictive. I was partly thinking of the Virginia Woolf example and how writing can sometimes provide a "room of one's own" where speaking is suppressed, but that perhaps this comes with a certain price as well. I was also thinking of my own experience, how writing has felt both more psychologically safe (because I can micromanage my side of the conversation and don't need to worry about the mechanics of timing and voice clarity, which has been a big barrier for me in groups), and less safe (because once you've written something, it's out there in stone to be picked apart). With respect to gendered discourse in different venues, I was actually writing the last post with a personal example in mind, which ironically I had opted not to include because I was afraid of going on too long. Maybe I'll throw it in now. I have been struck by how, if I am conversing online with someone I know is female, her written speech *looks *more female: the colors associated with various words might have more "girl" colors, the shape of the words feels different somehow. At the same time, any female voice following along in my head is more of an underlying echo/double exposure lacking the physical presence of someone speaking with me face-to-face, and it's easier to focus on the content of written words and abstract away from gender. But it's also easier to abstract whatever "femaleness" I do still perceive in a way that further distorts and stereotypes it, since I don't have the reality of the actual person standing before me to help ground the interaction. And then there's my own voice talking back, which makes me feel "male" in a different kind of way writing than when I'm speaking and listening to my own voice. So there's all sorts of stuff going on in written conversation with males and females, impacting me and leading me to impact others in ways that are very different from how this plays out in spoken conversation. Am I embarrassed to admit I sometimes see girl colors? A little. Is gender the only way to frame what I'm experiencing? Of course not. But it's not irrelevant either. As for how these associations affect the way I actually treat others in conversation - I'll need to think more about that (or have someone else tell me!). I guess I wanted to introduce the speaking vs. writing issue because we are, after all, talking about all of this online. Best, Chris On Thu, Apr 21, 2016 at 12:11 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Hi Christopher, Greg, Larry, and esteemed others, > > I did post a new thread called "The manologue," which links to the NYT > article on "mansplaining," with the idea of taking the topic to a new > thread. > > In the article there are several links to studies on what I think could be > safely called gendered speech patterns. > > Like from Harvard > http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/do-women-talk-more-than-men/ > > and Yale: > http://asq.sagepub.com/content/56/4/622.short > > There are other studies in the article. > > I would like to offer that as I think about it, mansplaining is not just > interrupting. It's domination through speech, it's also a kind of > intellectual censorship, if we accept the relationship between thought and > speech. > > The word "mansplaining" seems to have been coined by Rebecca Solnit, who > wrote a book about it, though I'm not sure if she came up with the word or > it just erupted into feminist consciousness when her book "Men explain > things to me" came out. > > She was motivated to write the book out of an experience she had while in > conversation with a woman friend at a party with a fellow there. Somehow, > as conversations go, a topic from one of her books came up (River of > Shadows ?which is a great book about partnership of technology and venture > capital, the railroads, and California culture). Anyway, this fellow told > her that this book just came out about that topic, called River of Shadows. > And he catapulted into a manologue about the book, not letting her get a > word in to say that she was the author of the book. I think at some point > she finally got to say, "Yes, I know, I wrote that book." But he didn't > hear her. And continued explaining her book to her. It was her friend who > had to interrupt her and say to him somewhat forcefully that Rebecca wrote > the book. > > It might be interesting to learn if any women on this list have ever had > such experiences, but then who would want to admit it on a listserv? It > makes one seem like a cry baby to say "I'm frequently being interrupted and > it drives me crazy." Which implies, "Well, maybe you don't have anything > important to say and it has nothing to do with your gender?" > > It's a can of worms, but like all problems they must be named before they > can be solved. > > Certainly, it is likely that there will be discomfort for anyone of > privilege who gets to have their say without interruption while examining > this topic. But it remains necessary to pass through the discomfort if we > are going to become aware of the problems together and to be able to > discuss them freely. In addition, if we really believe in social justice > and what it means in an everyday experience, then it means listening to > those individuals who feel impinged upon. > > Also, in your everyday experience, maybe if you notice such patterns, you > can advocate for those who aren't being given the attention to be heard. > That is, if it is a topic that you come to care about. > > Really it's about creating psychological safety to be able to discuss it. > I hope that the list here is one of those places, but who knows? > > Unfortunately one of the strange outcomes in the public discourse of > mansplaining is that some men start to explain what it is, rather than try > to understand what it is and what women are saying about it, how it makes > them feel. If you look at the comments section in the NYT article you'll > see what I mean. I'm not so sure that men can explain what it is like for > women, just like whites cannot explain to African Americans what black > experience is; it would be a little bit rude, just a little. So I think > rather than try to explain what mansplaining is (as if it were an > intellectual exercise), it might be more worthwhile to speak about the > experience from the first person rather than the second or third. Does that > help? > > In other words, rather than feel the heat of the spotlight of the Laurence > Olivier character in Marathon Man upon you, while he twists a dental tool > in his hand, repeating, "Is it SAFE?" Why not reflect on what you yourself > notice and how it makes you feel? I'd say it's perfectly safe to admit that > it makes you feel uncomfortable to think you might be participating, if > that's the case, for example. I think it's more productive than saying > gendered patterns are going a step too far, since clearly there is > something going on. At least enough for people to be studying it and come > up with findings. But do we have to even have a study to legitimize this? > Did we need to do a study to learn that African Americans are not treated > equally in this country? > > Not that I am suggesting to anyone how to act or feel about this topic. > Having the courage to speak in the first person is a great first step, even > if it is saying, "Gee I never thought about this before. I'm going to > notice if I participate in this pattern, or how I feel when I witness the > interruption patterns that prevail when women try to speak." > > And yes, I don't believe that speech domination has to be limited to > gender. Kids who grow up to be seen not heard would be an expression of > this same dynamic. I also don't think there is a chromosomal explanation > why men behave this way, which is why I think something can be done about > it. > > Kind regards on a Thursday, > > Annalisa > > > > > > > From Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu Thu Apr 21 15:18:59 2016 From: Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu (White, Phillip) Date: Thu, 21 Apr 2016 22:18:59 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Annalisa, this is a topic that has circled around several times here on xmca - and i'm pleased to see it appear again. i've been a member of xmca for perhaps just over twenty years - and the first time that i remember the topic appeared was when a woman participant on the list described the men's activity of participation as, if i remember correctly, bull elephants mounting each other. that provoked a huge uproar, close to flaming one another. and Eva Ekeblad who lives in Sweden(i may have misspelled her last name) and a fellow from Boston did an analysis of female and male participation on xmca, and, again, if i remember correctly, pointed out that men wrote by far the most postings, as well as the longest and most immediate responses. so that men dominated the list-serve with the swiftest, longest postings, along with the greatest number. and it seemed to that the men who wrote the most postings also wrote more to each other, ignoring the more peripheral participants. i have my own ideas regarding why a few men regularly dominate xmca through multiple, long postings. i don't know if the list serve is up to analyzing our own behaviour. or even if the topic is actually worth analysing. phillip From dkellogg60@gmail.com Thu Apr 21 16:20:07 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:20:07 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Exploring this notion of *thirds* In-Reply-To: <5718e3d5.022a620a.ec025.2be8@mx.google.com> References: <5718e3d5.022a620a.ec025.2be8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Larry: I just finished reading all of the Sorbonne Lectures, in which Merleau-Ponty tries hard to synthesize Freud and De Beauvoir, Lacan and Margaret Mead. M-P has a big problem, and it's certainly part of the "man"-ologue thread (and so is this very posting, being in itself a brazenly unself-conscious example of a man-to-man-o-log!). On the one hand, M-P very much agrees with De Beauvoir's criticisms of Freud--and on the other he thinks that Freud is the key to the synthesis of Marxism and psychoanalysis that he wants to teach his students. On the one hand, he very much agrees with Margaret Mead's (and Malinowski's) critique of the gender-centric and ethnocentric notion of a universal Oedipus Complex, and on the other hand he DOES think that Oedipus is universal and that women, in particular, have it bad. With some help from Politzer, he rephrases the complex as "ambivalence" but it's obviously ambivalence about being penisless and about wanting your father's baby and all that other prurient nonsense. (His treatment of Du Bois and Kardiner is similar--he ignores Du Bois, fawns on Kardiner, and completely ignores the latter's insufferable racist arrogance!) Of course, there's a ready answer to all this ambivalence right at hand, and you would think he would be very open to it. M-P might not have had much access to Vygotsky (according to Meccaci, Piaget ensured that Vygotsky's major works were not published in French until well after his death, and one of the exciting things about the work of the French Vygotskyans is that they are quite NEW). But M-P did have access to Wallon, and of course he read the Gestalists and he cites Goldstein, Koffka, Kohler and Wertheimer all the time. Mostly critically though. It is partly HIS ambivalence--he simply cannot let go of his father figure Freud and embrace the "figure-ground" of Gestalt. On the one hand, he complains that Gestalt treats the "totality" as a "thing" and not a "consciousness" (p. 330). This was Husserl's criticism of Gestalt too. On the other hand, he admits that "Gestalt theory is a psychology where everything has a sense." Can we have sense without sensibility, without consciousness? David Kellogg Macquarie University , (but he DOES think that women have it bad) On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Lplarry wrote: > I wanted to explore a question posed by Merleau-Ponty that focuses on > Gestalt Psychology as M-P appropriated this German psychology. > Collaboration and cooperation and motivation (to care and show concern) are > involved but the focus of attention shifts towards a *third* dimension > beyond subject and object ways of knowing. > > M-P when exploring gestalts used the terms *form* and *structure* as > synonyms and these terms are pointing towards this *same* third dimension. > > Gestalt has been discussed as central also to Vygotsky so there is overlap. > > M-P?s focus of attention indicates that everything depends on whether and > how it is possible to think a whole that resists analysis. Form is not > reducible (abstracting) to it?s parts, but neither is form anything *other* > than it?s parts. > > How then are we to understand this relation of the totality to it?s parts? > What status must we give totality? > > This question, M-P says, > ? is at the center of this course on the idea of Nature *and maybe the > whole of philosophy*? > > Merleau-Ponty was exploring this third dimension which was leading towards > notions of a *mileau* (place) which is common to both ? philosophy and the > positive sciences -. > This place as a third dimension *opens up* (this side of subjectivity and > objectivity) (this side of our autonomy and dependence) a place wherein > these phenomena no longer contradict one another. > > Not sure if others find this theme of a third dimension (which can be > perceived as mileau) which emerges from M-P?s appropriation of gestalt > psychology as a door which opens into a *new* dimension is relevant. > > This mileau that is resistant to analysis into abstracted reductions but > also is no thing that transcends these parts. > Merleau Ponty finds ? intelligibility? in this ?nascent? mileau within > which collaboration and cooperation and motivation for care all occur. > This third dimension. > I realize this is a contra/verse/ able question but is one perspective on > this theme. > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From annalisa@unm.edu Thu Apr 21 21:59:03 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 04:59:03 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Philip, Thanks for your reply! I have heard about the particular (and historical) gendered patterns on XMCA. Even experienced some myself! :) By the way, I learned yesterday in my Greek class that "Phillip" means "lover of horses." From "phil-" meaning "love," and "ippo" meaning "horse," and also that it was an aristocratic name, since only aristocrats would have horses, certainly elegant animals in their own right. I'd never known that. But to the topic at hand: It would be marvelous to have more women post on the list, not only to this thread, but in general. (OK marvelous ladies, where are you?) But perhaps it's just not worth it for them to do so because of past personal experiences, I don't know. I can't speak for all women on the list, obviously, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were connections to be made between patterns of written posts and their asynchronous appearance on the listserv and patterns of verbal speech, and how they make women feel included or excluded. I can say I have felt hazed and ridiculed at certain points in my time here; maybe another person wouldn't have bothered to return. But there are, for the most part, really great experienced thinkers here. The thread on Collaboration started by Michael last week is an example of the best we have to offer. Real gems in that tapestry. Phillip, do you require a formal invitation to share your ideas about why men regularly dominate xmca through multiple long postings? If you do decide to share, I hope that there are enough grownups in the vicinity that will allow for mature and caring exchange on this topic? And if there is no pleasantness to be had, might there be just the right number of grownups in the vicinity that will send the unpleasant ones to their rooms without any supper? Can we send in the tickling clowns as a last resort? Maybe squirt guns? Might we collaborate upon a discussion of gendered speech patterns on this list or in general, you know, and "play well with others?" Can we allow our interlocutors to make mistakes? Can we maintain our humor? Can we offer care and community to try to crack this very hard nut and actually transform this here apparatus? Can we improvise and create meaning not "to-get-her" but TOGETHER? I feel confident that if we refrain from posting asphixiating generalizations or gobsmacking stereotypes, we'll make our getaway clean! If we try by way of experiment to post in the first person rather than in the second and third, so as to share feelings about it, I believe there will be a lot of beneficial discovery ahead. Let it be so! Perhaps our collaboration and cooperation will start a meaningful shift in our activity triangle of written speech patterns on xmca? Who knows? I mean, aren't men curious about how women feel and think about xmca topics? Just to have a different viewpoint? To learn something new? Don't we want to learn how some, if not many, men feel who may miss not hearing from the other side of our population? As another side of discourse? And won't we all benefit from this equality in speech? Thanks for your courage Phillip! (plus all the other brave ones, past present & future: you know who you are) Kind regards, Annalisa From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Fri Apr 22 01:09:07 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:09:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi Annalisa, I think this is a rich vein to mine but clearly a difficult and potentially treacherous topic for online discussion precisely because here online all we have are words. I have spent my whole working life in very 'female' environments - as a nursery teacher (the only male teacher in a nursery and infants school and then the only male teacher in a primary school - where dealings with parents were almost exclusively with mothers) and then in a university school of education where nearly all students and most staff are female. I am pleased to say that the Early Childhood Studies team which I lead (yes, a team mainly of women, led by a man but I have tried to pass on the baton!) includes, unusually, 4 men as well as 15 women. There are some odd inversions of gender issues in the field of Early Childhood Studies but these operate, of course, within the wider culture where people are gendered in particular ways. The reason I am responding is because I see connections between my own interest in very early, pre-verbal, forms of communication and some of the issues around 'mansplaining'. This leads me to wonder whether part of the problem may be associated with a shift of focus from the social, relational function of talk to a focus on 'free-floating' ideas. I think written communication tends to cut off the 'suprasegmental' information carried in voices as well as more widespread information from bodies, which makes face to face interaction a very different KIND of thing. I feel the eggshells under my feet cracking as I write this but I suspect that there may be a spectrum of preferred forms of communication which corresponds rather closely (in some cultures) with the spectrum of gender. Some people are more comfortable in face to face kinds of interaction and would choose these in preference to 'cooler' forms, while other people are uncomfortable in fact to face interaction and prefer more detached, more abstract forms. Of course for most people 'it depends' and life is better when there are opportunities to engage in a mixed diet of different kinds of interaction. I can feel myself sliding towards explanation here so I had better stop - but I just wanted to also throw in an observation about the popularity of text-messaging among teenagers when this first emerged. Sometimes it is easier if you don't have to deal with the complexity of information that sloshes around in face to face interaction. In online forums I think it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that there are flesh and blood people behind all the keyboards and screens, so exploring ideas can come to feel like a detached, unpersoned activity. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 22 April 2016 05:59 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue Hi Philip, Thanks for your reply! I have heard about the particular (and historical) gendered patterns on XMCA. Even experienced some myself! :) By the way, I learned yesterday in my Greek class that "Phillip" means "lover of horses." From "phil-" meaning "love," and "ippo" meaning "horse," and also that it was an aristocratic name, since only aristocrats would have horses, certainly elegant animals in their own right. I'd never known that. But to the topic at hand: It would be marvelous to have more women post on the list, not only to this thread, but in general. (OK marvelous ladies, where are you?) But perhaps it's just not worth it for them to do so because of past personal experiences, I don't know. I can't speak for all women on the list, obviously, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were connections to be made between patterns of written posts and their asynchronous appearance on the listserv and patterns of verbal speech, and how they make women feel included or excluded. I can say I have felt hazed and ridiculed at certain points in my time here; maybe another person wouldn't have bothered to return. But there are, for the most part, really great experienced thinkers here. The thread on Collaboration started by Michael last week is an example of the best we have to offer. Real gems in that tapestry. Phillip, do you require a formal invitation to share your ideas about why men regularly dominate xmca through multiple long postings? If you do decide to share, I hope that there are enough grownups in the vicinity that will allow for mature and caring exchange on this topic? And if there is no pleasantness to be had, might there be just the right number of grownups in the vicinity that will send the unpleasant ones to their rooms without any supper? Can we send in the tickling clowns as a last resort? Maybe squirt guns? Might we collaborate upon a discussion of gendered speech patterns on this list or in general, you know, and "play well with others?" Can we allow our interlocutors to make mistakes? Can we maintain our humor? Can we offer care and community to try to crack this very hard nut and actually transform this here apparatus? Can we improvise and create meaning not "to-get-her" but TOGETHER? I feel confident that if we refrain from posting asphixiating generalizations or gobsmacking stereotypes, we'll make our getaway clean! If we try by way of experiment to post in the first person rather than in the second and third, so as to share feelings about it, I believe there will be a lot of beneficial discovery ahead. Let it be so! Perhaps our collaboration and cooperation will start a meaningful shift in our activity triangle of written speech patterns on xmca? Who knows? I mean, aren't men curious about how women feel and think about xmca topics? Just to have a different viewpoint? To learn something new? Don't we want to learn how some, if not many, men feel who may miss not hearing from the other side of our population? As another side of discourse? And won't we all benefit from this equality in speech? Thanks for your courage Phillip! (plus all the other brave ones, past present & future: you know who you are) Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Apr 22 02:47:07 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 02:47:07 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: <5719f326.074b620a.faf6.02d1@mx.google.com> Philip, Annalisa, Rod, So this turn in the conversation certainly is a rich vein. This focus of joint attention which opened upon an image of collaboration, which Andy says is best understood by imaging the archetype of *marriage* Now marriage (itself) can be appropriated within 1st, 2nd, and 3rd voice. I will just add that I can relate to *marriage* as an external phenomena and as Rod says *explain* this archetypal relation as an institutional gestalt. But as Rod highlights there is some quality, some *sense* that is missing within this approach. I can also reflect self-consciously upon how I personally experience my *self* orienting within a *marriage*. My way of walking that sometimes feels as if I am walking on eggshells. However, there is also a third way of expressing the archetype of marriage which is marriage as a dialogue. Rod, your personal story of the particular work settings as collaborative places adds a depth to understanding your way of approaching this rich vein. Also interesting that you feel the eggshells cracking under your feet as you give voice to a male perspective on this topic as you *lived through* ways of collaboration unfolding within con/texts pre/dominantly feminine in make up. Now my question is do you feel eggshells cracking when this topic emerges within your work settings or are the eggshells cracking more specific to this forum? My turn is up. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Rod Parker-Rees Sent: April 22, 2016 1:10 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue Hi Annalisa, I think this is a rich vein to mine but clearly a difficult and potentially treacherous topic for online discussion precisely because here online all we have are words. I have spent my whole working life in very 'female' environments - as a nursery teacher (the only male teacher in a nursery and infants school and then the only male teacher in a primary school - where dealings with parents were almost exclusively with mothers) and then in a university school of education where nearly all students and most staff are female. I am pleased to say that the Early Childhood Studies team which I lead (yes, a team mainly of women, led by a man but I have tried to pass on the baton!) includes, unusually, 4 men as well as 15 women. There are some odd inversions of gender issues in the field of Early Childhood Studies but these operate, of course, within the wider culture where people are gendered in particular ways. The reason I am responding is because I see connections between my own interest in very early, pre-verbal, forms of communication and some of the issues around 'mansplaining'. This leads me to wonder whether part of the problem may be associated with a shift of focus from the social, relational function of talk to a focus on 'free-floating' ideas. I think written communication tends to cut off the 'suprasegmental' information carried in voices as well as more widespread information from bodies, which makes face to face interaction a very different KIND of thing. I feel the eggshells under my feet cracking as I write this but I suspect that there may be a spectrum of preferred forms of communication which corresponds rather closely (in some cultures) with the spectrum of gender. Some people are more comfortable in face to face kinds of interaction and would choose these in preference to 'cooler' forms, while other people are uncomfortable in fact to face interaction and prefer more detached, more abstract forms. Of course for most people 'it depends' and life is better when there are opportunities to engage in a mixed diet of different kinds of interaction. I can feel myself sliding towards explanation here so I had better stop - but I just wanted to also throw in an observation about the popularity of text-messaging among teenagers when this first emerged. Sometimes it is easier if you don't have to deal with the complexity of information that sloshes around in face to face interaction. In online forums I think it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that there are flesh and blood people behind all the keyboards and screens, so exploring ideas can come to feel like a detached, unpersoned activity. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 22 April 2016 05:59 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue Hi Philip, Thanks for your reply! I have heard about the particular (and historical) gendered patterns on XMCA. Even experienced some myself! :) By the way, I learned yesterday in my Greek class that "Phillip" means "lover of horses." From "phil-" meaning "love," and "ippo" meaning "horse," and also that it was an aristocratic name, since only aristocrats would have horses, certainly elegant animals in their own right. I'd never known that. But to the topic at hand: It would be marvelous to have more women post on the list, not only to this thread, but in general. (OK marvelous ladies, where are you?) But perhaps it's just not worth it for them to do so because of past personal experiences, I don't know. I can't speak for all women on the list, obviously, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were connections to be made between patterns of written posts and their asynchronous appearance on the listserv and patterns of verbal speech, and how they make women feel included or excluded. I can say I have felt hazed and ridiculed at certain points in my time here; maybe another person wouldn't have bothered to return. But there are, for the most part, really great experienced thinkers here. The thread on Collaboration started by Michael last week is an example of the best we have to offer. Real gems in that tapestry. Phillip, do you require a formal invitation to share your ideas about why men regularly dominate xmca through multiple long postings? If you do decide to share, I hope that there are enough grownups in the vicinity that will allow for mature and caring exchange on this topic? And if there is no pleasantness to be had, might there be just the right number of grownups in the vicinity that will send the unpleasant ones to their rooms without any supper? Can we send in the tickling clowns as a last resort? Maybe squirt guns? Might we collaborate upon a discussion of gendered speech patterns on this list or in general, you know, and "play well with others?" Can we allow our interlocutors to make mistakes? Can we maintain our humor? Can we offer care and community to try to crack this very hard nut and actually transform this here apparatus? Can we improvise and create meaning not "to-get-her" but TOGETHER? I feel confident that if we refrain from posting asphixiating generalizations or gobsmacking stereotypes, we'll make our getaway clean! If we try by way of experiment to post in the first person rather than in the second and third, so as to share feelings about it, I believe there will be a lot of beneficial discovery ahead. Let it be so! Perhaps our collaboration and cooperation will start a meaningful shift in our activity triangle of written speech patterns on xmca? Who knows? I mean, aren't men curious about how women feel and think about xmca topics? Just to have a different viewpoint? To learn something new? Don't we want to learn how some, if not many, men feel who may miss not hearing from the other side of our population? As another side of discourse? And won't we all benefit from this equality in speech? Thanks for your courage Phillip! (plus all the other brave ones, past present & future: you know who you are) Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk Fri Apr 22 03:41:56 2016 From: R.Parker-Rees@plymouth.ac.uk (Rod Parker-Rees) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:41:56 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: <5719f326.074b620a.faf6.02d1@mx.google.com> References: , <5719f326.074b620a.faf6.02d1@mx.google.com> Message-ID: The eggshells are toughened by shared experience ? there are things I know I can say to people who know me but which I would not risk saying to people who don?t. XMCA is a strange space ? I feel I have a bit of a sense of where some contributors are coming from but I am also aware that there is a whole host of people who don?t know me and who can?t be expected to know where I am coming from. Rod From: Lplarry [mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com] Sent: 22 April 2016 10:47 To: Rod Parker-Rees; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue Philip, Annalisa, Rod, So this turn in the conversation certainly is a rich vein. This focus of joint attention which opened upon an image of collaboration, which Andy says is best understood by imaging the archetype of *marriage* Now marriage (itself) can be appropriated within 1st, 2nd, and 3rd voice. I will just add that I can relate to *marriage* as an external phenomena and as Rod says *explain* this archetypal relation as an institutional gestalt. But as Rod highlights there is some quality, some *sense* that is missing within this approach. I can also reflect self-consciously upon how I personally experience my *self* orienting within a *marriage*. My way of walking that sometimes feels as if I am walking on eggshells. However, there is also a third way of expressing the archetype of marriage which is marriage as a dialogue. Rod, your personal story of the particular work settings as collaborative places adds a depth to understanding your way of approaching this rich vein. Also interesting that you feel the eggshells cracking under your feet as you give voice to a male perspective on this topic as you *lived through* ways of collaboration unfolding within con/texts pre/dominantly feminine in make up. Now my question is do you feel eggshells cracking when this topic emerges within your work settings or are the eggshells cracking more specific to this forum? My turn is up. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Rod Parker-Rees Sent: April 22, 2016 1:10 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue Hi Annalisa, I think this is a rich vein to mine but clearly a difficult and potentially treacherous topic for online discussion precisely because here online all we have are words. I have spent my whole working life in very 'female' environments - as a nursery teacher (the only male teacher in a nursery and infants school and then the only male teacher in a primary school - where dealings with parents were almost exclusively with mothers) and then in a university school of education where nearly all students and most staff are female. I am pleased to say that the Early Childhood Studies team which I lead (yes, a team mainly of women, led by a man but I have tried to pass on the baton!) includes, unusually, 4 men as well as 15 women. There are some odd inversions of gender issues in the field of Early Childhood Studies but these operate, of course, within the wider culture where people are gendered in particular ways. The reason I am responding is because I see connections between my own interest in very early, pre-verbal, forms of communication and some of the issues around 'mansplaining'. This leads me to wonder whether part of the problem may be associated with a shift of focus from the social, relational function of talk to a focus on 'free-floating' ideas. I think written communication tends to cut off the 'suprasegmental' information carried in voices as well as more widespread information from bodies, which makes face to face interaction a very different KIND of thing. I feel the eggshells under my feet cracking as I write this but I suspect that there may be a spectrum of preferred forms of communication which corresponds rather closely (in some cultures) with the spectrum of gender. Some people are more comfortable in face to face kinds of interaction and would choose these in preference to 'cooler' forms, while other people are uncomfortable in fact to face interaction and prefer more detached, more abstract forms. Of course for most people 'it depends' and life is better when there are opportunities to engage in a mixed diet of different kinds of interaction. I can feel myself sliding towards explanation here so I had better stop - but I just wanted to also throw in an observation about the popularity of text-messaging among teenagers when this first emerged. Sometimes it is easier if you don't have to deal with the complexity of information that sloshes around in face to face interaction. In online forums I think it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that there are flesh and blood people behind all the keyboards and screens, so exploring ideas can come to feel like a detached, unpersoned activity. All the best, Rod -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: 22 April 2016 05:59 To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue Hi Philip, Thanks for your reply! I have heard about the particular (and historical) gendered patterns on XMCA. Even experienced some myself! :) By the way, I learned yesterday in my Greek class that "Phillip" means "lover of horses." From "phil-" meaning "love," and "ippo" meaning "horse," and also that it was an aristocratic name, since only aristocrats would have horses, certainly elegant animals in their own right. I'd never known that. But to the topic at hand: It would be marvelous to have more women post on the list, not only to this thread, but in general. (OK marvelous ladies, where are you?) But perhaps it's just not worth it for them to do so because of past personal experiences, I don't know. I can't speak for all women on the list, obviously, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were connections to be made between patterns of written posts and their asynchronous appearance on the listserv and patterns of verbal speech, and how they make women feel included or excluded. I can say I have felt hazed and ridiculed at certain points in my time here; maybe another person wouldn't have bothered to return. But there are, for the most part, really great experienced thinkers here. The thread on Collaboration started by Michael last week is an example of the best we have to offer. Real gems in that tapestry. Phillip, do you require a formal invitation to share your ideas about why men regularly dominate xmca through multiple long postings? If you do decide to share, I hope that there are enough grownups in the vicinity that will allow for mature and caring exchange on this topic? And if there is no pleasantness to be had, might there be just the right number of grownups in the vicinity that will send the unpleasant ones to their rooms without any supper? Can we send in the tickling clowns as a last resort? Maybe squirt guns? Might we collaborate upon a discussion of gendered speech patterns on this list or in general, you know, and "play well with others?" Can we allow our interlocutors to make mistakes? Can we maintain our humor? Can we offer care and community to try to crack this very hard nut and actually transform this here apparatus? Can we improvise and create meaning not "to-get-her" but TOGETHER? I feel confident that if we refrain from posting asphixiating generalizations or gobsmacking stereotypes, we'll make our getaway clean! If we try by way of experiment to post in the first person rather than in the second and third, so as to share feelings about it, I believe there will be a lot of beneficial discovery ahead. Let it be so! Perhaps our collaboration and cooperation will start a meaningful shift in our activity triangle of written speech patterns on xmca? Who knows? I mean, aren't men curious about how women feel and think about xmca topics? Just to have a different viewpoint? To learn something new? Don't we want to learn how some, if not many, men feel who may miss not hearing from the other side of our population? As another side of discourse? And won't we all benefit from this equality in speech? Thanks for your courage Phillip! (plus all the other brave ones, past present & future: you know who you are) Kind regards, Annalisa ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. ________________________________ [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Apr 22 08:54:08 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 08:54:08 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Exploring this notion of *thirds* In-Reply-To: References: <5718e3d5.022a620a.ec025.2be8@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <571a492b.0a50420a.ffd64.69fa@mx.google.com> David, So these images of father that do not open to the *figure-ground* (of gestalt, of form, of structure). This figure-groundwhich you sense as symbolically *feminine* This thread then inter/weaves with the other thread on gendered *voice*. I will add a concrete example. There are two distinct images of the need to turn to planetary joint attention. The image (of) eco-system (science as ground)AND the image of caring for mother-earth. (aboriginal folk image) Notice the contrast in what comes to be *pre* dominant. Science dominates what is considered merely *folk* wisdom. Seems we need a turn to the depth of wisdom of *mother earth* as figure that grounds. This links to the other thread on gender (I prefer the image of feminine) as archetypal. Howev Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: David Kellogg Sent: April 21, 2016 4:22 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Exploring this notion of *thirds* Larry: I just finished reading all of the Sorbonne Lectures, in which Merleau-Ponty tries hard to synthesize Freud and De Beauvoir, Lacan and Margaret Mead. M-P has a big problem, and it's certainly part of the "man"-ologue thread (and so is this very posting, being in itself a brazenly unself-conscious example of a man-to-man-o-log!). On the one hand, M-P very much agrees with De Beauvoir's criticisms of Freud--and on the other he thinks that Freud is the key to the synthesis of Marxism and psychoanalysis that he wants to teach his students. On the one hand, he very much agrees with Margaret Mead's (and Malinowski's) critique of the gender-centric and ethnocentric notion of a universal Oedipus Complex, and on the other hand he DOES think that Oedipus is universal and that women, in particular, have it bad. With some help from Politzer, he rephrases the complex as "ambivalence" but it's obviously ambivalence about being penisless and about wanting your father's baby and all that other prurient nonsense. (His treatment of Du Bois and Kardiner is similar--he ignores Du Bois, fawns on Kardiner, and completely ignores the latter's insufferable racist arrogance!) Of course, there's a ready answer to all this ambivalence right at hand, and you would think he would be very open to it. M-P might not have had much access to Vygotsky (according to Meccaci, Piaget ensured that Vygotsky's major works were not published in French until well after his death, and one of the exciting things about the work of the French Vygotskyans is that they are quite NEW). But M-P did have access to Wallon, and of course he read the Gestalists and he cites Goldstein, Koffka, Kohler and Wertheimer all the time. Mostly critically though. It is partly HIS ambivalence--he simply cannot let go of his father figure Freud and embrace the "figure-ground" of Gestalt. On the one hand, he complains that Gestalt treats the "totality" as a "thing" and not a "consciousness" (p. 330). This was Husserl's criticism of Gestalt too. On the other hand, he admits that "Gestalt theory is a psychology where everything has a sense." Can we have sense without sensibility, without consciousness? David Kellogg Macquarie University , (but he DOES think that women have it bad) On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 12:29 AM, Lplarry wrote: > I wanted to explore a question posed by Merleau-Ponty that focuses on > Gestalt Psychology as M-P appropriated this German psychology. > Collaboration and cooperation and motivation (to care and show concern) are > involved but the focus of attention shifts towards a *third* dimension > beyond subject and object ways of knowing. > > M-P when exploring gestalts used the terms *form* and *structure* as > synonyms and these terms are pointing towards this *same* third dimension. > > Gestalt has been discussed as central also to Vygotsky so there is overlap. > > M-P?s focus of attention indicates that everything depends on whether and > how it is possible to think a whole that resists analysis. Form is not > reducible (abstracting) to it?s parts, but neither is form anything *other* > than it?s parts. > > How then are we to understand this relation of the totality to it?s parts? > What status must we give totality? > > This question, M-P says, > ? is at the center of this course on the idea of Nature *and maybe the > whole of philosophy*? > > Merleau-Ponty was exploring this third dimension which was leading towards > notions of a *mileau* (place) which is common to both ? philosophy and the > positive sciences -. > This place as a third dimension *opens up* (this side of subjectivity and > objectivity) (this side of our autonomy and dependence) a place wherein > these phenomena no longer contradict one another. > > Not sure if others find this theme of a third dimension (which can be > perceived as mileau) which emerges from M-P?s appropriation of gestalt > psychology as a door which opens into a *new* dimension is relevant. > > This mileau that is resistant to analysis into abstracted reductions but > also is no thing that transcends these parts. > Merleau Ponty finds ? intelligibility? in this ?nascent? mileau within > which collaboration and cooperation and motivation for care all occur. > This third dimension. > I realize this is a contra/verse/ able question but is one perspective on > this theme. > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Fri Apr 22 09:30:56 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:30:56 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: <5719f326.074b620a.faf6.02d1@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Gente, Three things occur to me here, and really have been in the back of my mind all along: 1) The listserv is a VERY long list, hundreds. How do you get personal with so many? 2) From a white-guy perspective, gender and race are equally littered with eggshells. Is this an especially American white-guy problem or does it hover over white guys from other parts of the world? 3) Like it or not, this chat has a huge range of expertise in philosophy and psychology. I often feel dumb, in over my head. What motivates the chatters to engage in dialog if not greater expertise? Is there something deeper than expertise driving the dialog? I sort of think I know the answers to these questions, but not really. I do like the first person perspective here and sense it will help me address these questions in ways I haven?t been able to before. Henry > On Apr 22, 2016, at 4:41 AM, Rod Parker-Rees wrote: > > The eggshells are toughened by shared experience ? there are things I know I can say to people who know me but which I would not risk saying to people who don?t. > > XMCA is a strange space ? I feel I have a bit of a sense of where some contributors are coming from but I am also aware that there is a whole host of people who don?t know me and who can?t be expected to know where I am coming from. > > Rod > > > From: Lplarry [mailto:lpscholar2@gmail.com] > Sent: 22 April 2016 10:47 > To: Rod Parker-Rees; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue > > Philip, Annalisa, Rod, > > So this turn in the conversation certainly is a rich vein. This focus of joint attention which opened upon an image of collaboration, which Andy says is best understood by imaging the archetype of *marriage* > Now marriage (itself) can be appropriated within 1st, 2nd, and 3rd voice. > I will just add that I can relate to *marriage* as an external phenomena and as Rod says *explain* this archetypal relation as an institutional gestalt. But as Rod highlights there is some quality, some *sense* that is missing within this approach. > I can also reflect self-consciously upon how I personally experience my *self* orienting within a *marriage*. My way of walking that sometimes feels as if I am walking on eggshells. > > However, there is also a third way of expressing the archetype of marriage which is marriage as a dialogue. > > Rod, your personal story of the particular work settings as collaborative places adds a depth to understanding your way of approaching this rich vein. > Also interesting that you feel the eggshells cracking under your feet as you give voice to a male perspective on this topic as you *lived through* ways of collaboration unfolding within con/texts pre/dominantly feminine in make up. > Now my question is do you feel eggshells cracking when this topic emerges within your work settings or are the eggshells cracking more specific to this forum? > > My turn is up. > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Rod Parker-Rees > Sent: April 22, 2016 1:10 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue > > Hi Annalisa, > > I think this is a rich vein to mine but clearly a difficult and potentially treacherous topic for online discussion precisely because here online all we have are words. > > I have spent my whole working life in very 'female' environments - as a nursery teacher (the only male teacher in a nursery and infants school and then the only male teacher in a primary school - where dealings with parents were almost exclusively with mothers) and then in a university school of education where nearly all students and most staff are female. I am pleased to say that the Early Childhood Studies team which I lead (yes, a team mainly of women, led by a man but I have tried to pass on the baton!) includes, unusually, 4 men as well as 15 women. There are some odd inversions of gender issues in the field of Early Childhood Studies but these operate, of course, within the wider culture where people are gendered in particular ways. > > The reason I am responding is because I see connections between my own interest in very early, pre-verbal, forms of communication and some of the issues around 'mansplaining'. This leads me to wonder whether part of the problem may be associated with a shift of focus from the social, relational function of talk to a focus on 'free-floating' ideas. I think written communication tends to cut off the 'suprasegmental' information carried in voices as well as more widespread information from bodies, which makes face to face interaction a very different KIND of thing. > > I feel the eggshells under my feet cracking as I write this but I suspect that there may be a spectrum of preferred forms of communication which corresponds rather closely (in some cultures) with the spectrum of gender. Some people are more comfortable in face to face kinds of interaction and would choose these in preference to 'cooler' forms, while other people are uncomfortable in fact to face interaction and prefer more detached, more abstract forms. Of course for most people 'it depends' and life is better when there are opportunities to engage in a mixed diet of different kinds of interaction. > > I can feel myself sliding towards explanation here so I had better stop - but I just wanted to also throw in an observation about the popularity of text-messaging among teenagers when this first emerged. Sometimes it is easier if you don't have to deal with the complexity of information that sloshes around in face to face interaction. In online forums I think it can be easy to lose sight of the fact that there are flesh and blood people behind all the keyboards and screens, so exploring ideas can come to feel like a detached, unpersoned activity. > > All the best, > > Rod > > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar > Sent: 22 April 2016 05:59 > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue > > > Hi Philip, > > Thanks for your reply! I have heard about the particular (and historical) gendered patterns on XMCA. Even experienced some myself! :) > > By the way, I learned yesterday in my Greek class that "Phillip" means "lover of horses." From "phil-" meaning "love," and "ippo" meaning "horse," and also that it was an aristocratic name, since only aristocrats would have horses, certainly elegant animals in their own right. I'd never known that. > > But to the topic at hand: It would be marvelous to have more women post on the list, not only to this thread, but in general. (OK marvelous ladies, where are you?) But perhaps it's just not worth it for them to do so because of past personal experiences, I don't know. I can't speak for all women on the list, obviously, but it wouldn't surprise me if there were connections to be made between patterns of written posts and their asynchronous appearance on the listserv and patterns of verbal speech, and how they make women feel included or excluded. > > I can say I have felt hazed and ridiculed at certain points in my time here; maybe another person wouldn't have bothered to return. But there are, for the most part, really great experienced thinkers here. The thread on Collaboration started by Michael last week is an example of the best we have to offer. Real gems in that tapestry. > > Phillip, do you require a formal invitation to share your ideas about why men regularly dominate xmca through multiple long postings? If you do decide to share, I hope that there are enough grownups in the vicinity that will allow for mature and caring exchange on this topic? And if there is no pleasantness to be had, might there be just the right number of grownups in the vicinity that will send the unpleasant ones to their rooms without any supper? Can we send in the tickling clowns as a last resort? Maybe squirt guns? > > Might we collaborate upon a discussion of gendered speech patterns on this list or in general, you know, and "play well with others?" Can we allow our interlocutors to make mistakes? Can we maintain our humor? Can we offer care and community to try to crack this very hard nut and actually transform this here apparatus? Can we improvise and create meaning not "to-get-her" but TOGETHER? > > I feel confident that if we refrain from posting asphixiating generalizations or gobsmacking stereotypes, we'll make our getaway clean! > > If we try by way of experiment to post in the first person rather than in the second and third, so as to share feelings about it, I believe there will be a lot of beneficial discovery ahead. > > Let it be so! > > Perhaps our collaboration and cooperation will start a meaningful shift in our activity triangle of written speech patterns on xmca? Who knows? > > I mean, aren't men curious about how women feel and think about xmca topics? Just to have a different viewpoint? To learn something new? Don't we want to learn how some, if not many, men feel who may miss not hearing from the other side of our population? As another side of discourse? And won't we all benefit from this equality in speech? > > Thanks for your courage Phillip! (plus all the other brave ones, past present & future: you know who you are) > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. > > > ________________________________ > [http://www.plymouth.ac.uk/images/email_footer.gif] > > This email and any files with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the recipient to whom it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient then copying, distribution or other use of the information contained is strictly prohibited and you should not rely on it. If you have received this email in error please let the sender know immediately and delete it from your system(s). Internet emails are not necessarily secure. While we take every care, Plymouth University accepts no responsibility for viruses and it is your responsibility to scan emails and their attachments. Plymouth University does not accept responsibility for any changes made after it was sent. Nothing in this email or its attachments constitutes an order for goods or services unless accompanied by an official order form. From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Apr 22 09:31:34 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:31:34 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Annalisa for bringing back ?I? he issue of XMCA as manilogue. It brought back memory of Eva Ekblad, who gave up on academia and was a weaver last I heard, and news of Phillip's memory of humping elephants. It is all in the archives. 30 years of tangled threads of discourse, data for the picking. ?Those interested in Eva's discussion, and other views of MCA at different times in its history, can find the relevant material at ? http://lchc.ucsd.edu/archives I am not so sure discussing the communicative behaviors of fellow members is a hot idea given the ways such discussions tend to reduce to identifiable individuals whose behavior is subjected to moral evaluation. ?In any event at the sole continuously active participant except for Bruce Jones (is that true?) male, white, and elderly I am disabled in such a discussion. No efforts of mine have been sufficient in this regard. As a first responder, I take comfort in the fact that the worst Phillip can remember is an "almost flaming" event. I hope we can keep it that way. If people can figure out to make this discussion more inclusive, there is no "one" stopping you. It would certainly be a welcome outcome. I note in closing how many women have joined any of this discussion.? ?mike? On Thursday, April 21, 2016, White, Phillip wrote: > Annalisa, this is a topic that has circled around several times here on > xmca - and i'm pleased to see it appear again. > > i've been a member of xmca for perhaps just over twenty years - and the > first time that i remember the topic appeared was when a woman participant > on the list described the men's activity of participation as, if i remember > correctly, bull elephants mounting each other. > > that provoked a huge uproar, close to flaming one another. > > and Eva Ekeblad who lives in Sweden(i may have misspelled her last name) > and a fellow from Boston did an analysis of female and male participation > on xmca, and, again, if i remember correctly, pointed out that men wrote by > far the most postings, as well as the longest and most immediate > responses. so that men dominated the list-serve with the swiftest, longest > postings, along with the greatest number. and it seemed to that the men > who wrote the most postings also wrote more to each other, ignoring the > more peripheral participants. > > i have my own ideas regarding why a few men regularly dominate xmca > through multiple, long postings. > > i don't know if the list serve is up to analyzing our own behaviour. or > even if the topic is actually worth analysing. > > phillip > From Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu Fri Apr 22 09:36:16 2016 From: Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu (White, Phillip) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:36:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: , , Message-ID: Everyone: crunching eggs, nice image Rod, here are my thoughts on how male dominance plays out on xmca. this is rushed an inchoate, i'm really just now focused on making gefilte fish for this evening's seder. So, to ground my perceptions, I would start out with Jean Lave?s and Etienne Wenger?s 1991 ?Situated learning: Legitimate peripheral participation?. Akin to Foucault, they very briefly trace how learning is embedded in the doing of activities through several social activities: and how newbies become part of the group working with the old timers. This includes the old timers monitoring and disciplining the newbies so that their participation is deemed ?legitimate?. I think about who the ?old timers? are in xmca, and based on my observations monitoring and disciplining of newbies is achieved through the texts that they reference. This is not unlike the way texts are references in a mosque that Lave references in an article that she had published in an xmca journal. Most commonly texts held as anchor texts are Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Herder and Vygotsky. Texts by critical theorists, feminists, queer theorists, critical race theorists are rarely if ever mentioned. I grabbed six texts that are important to me so see how the topics of gender and sexuality were dealt with. These texts are: ?Vygotsky?s Education Theory in Cultural Context? edited by Kozulin, Gindis, Ageyev & Miller, 2003. ?Understand practice: Perspectives on activity and context? edited by Chaiklin and Lave, 1993/96. ?The Guided mind: A sociogenetic approach to personality? Valsiner, 1998. ?Identity and agency in cultural worlds? Holland, Lachicotte Jr., Skinner & Cain. 1998. ?Learning identity: The joint emergence of social identification and academic learning? Wortham. 2006. ?Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline? Cole. 1996. In ?Cultural Psychology? and ?Understanding Practice?, there is no mention of gender or sexuality. In ?Vygotsky?s Educational Theory in Cultural Context?, ?gender? is in the phrase ?race, class, gender and their cultural and ethnic affiliations?. Valsiner, Holland etc., and Wortham all discuss gender and sexuality. Their reference points regarding gender and sexuality are theorist pretty much from the last twenty-five years of the 20th century. It seems to me that for a Vygotskian based CHAT theorist to explore the topics of gender and sexuality, particularly the activities and performances within these arenas of human behavior, then those theorists need to be immersed in, again, texts by critical theorists, feminists, queer theorists, critical race theorists. At present I don?t think that that is the case, based on the dominate mode of discourse within xmca. To paraphrase Eugene Matusov, these my initial half-baked ideas. phillip From smago@uga.edu Fri Apr 22 09:54:16 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:54:16 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: VISTA position announcement with CLS In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: From: Service Learning Discussions [mailto:SERVICE-LEARN@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU] On Behalf Of Paul H. Matthews Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 12:12 PM To: SERVICE-LEARN@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU Subject: VISTA position announcement with CLS Hi all, The Office of Service-Learning partners with several other organizations with our network of AmeriCorps VISTAs, who provide a year of service to help build capacity, strengthen programs, and fight poverty. Please see below for the position announcement for a VISTA role with UGA's Center for Leadership & Service: The Center for Leadership and Service at the University of Georgia is seeking a full-year AmeriCorps VISTA member to help advance a partnership with a local mentoring program in Athens, GA that relies heavily on undergraduate volunteers. Our VISTA will also help build capacity for community engagement programs at UGA, including a leadership development program, a new summer internship program focused on fighting summer learning loss, and our annual non-profit volunteer fair. The start date is July 22 and the position description is located on the AmeriCorps website. For more information, please contact: Kyle Anderson Senior Coordinator for Campus and Community Outreach Center for Leadership and Service University of Georgia 201 Tate Student Center Athens, GA 30602 Phone: (706) 542-6265 Email: andkyle@uga.edu From lpscholar2@gmail.com Fri Apr 22 09:57:24 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 09:57:24 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571a57ff.9a48620a.1a648.5cd5@mx.google.com> Mike, I will offer a brief personal sense of experiencing ambivalence as I sense my way within the etiquette of xmca. I wonder about the *place* of personal dis/closure (1st person) as a way of proceeding. I sense being pulled (grasped) to turn towards legitimizing the systemic approach ( eco-systemic) and away from the symbolic (mother earth) feminine figure (as) ground. The archetype of *anima* is a different figuring gestalt from the archetype of *animus*. The anima as *folk lore* while the eco-systemic (dynamic systems) approach is preferred. Relegating the truth og mother-earth symbols to feminine folk wisdom moved to the margins (of) literature. How we collaborate and communicate as symbolic *marriage* inclusive of differing (forms) gestalts of figuring phenomena. The insight that the personal is political. But also re-cognizing eggshells underfoot. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: mike cole Sent: April 22, 2016 9:33 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue Thanks Annalisa for bringing back ?I? he issue of XMCA as manilogue. It brought back memory of Eva Ekblad, who gave up on academia and was a weaver last I heard, and news of Phillip's memory of humping elephants. It is all in the archives. 30 years of tangled threads of discourse, data for the picking. ?Those interested in Eva's discussion, and other views of MCA at different times in its history, can find the relevant material at ? http://lchc.ucsd.edu/archives I am not so sure discussing the communicative behaviors of fellow members is a hot idea given the ways such discussions tend to reduce to identifiable individuals whose behavior is subjected to moral evaluation. ?In any event at the sole continuously active participant except for Bruce Jones (is that true?) male, white, and elderly I am disabled in such a discussion. No efforts of mine have been sufficient in this regard. As a first responder, I take comfort in the fact that the worst Phillip can remember is an "almost flaming" event. I hope we can keep it that way. If people can figure out to make this discussion more inclusive, there is no "one" stopping you. It would certainly be a welcome outcome. I note in closing how many women have joined any of this discussion.? ?mike? On Thursday, April 21, 2016, White, Phillip wrote: > Annalisa, this is a topic that has circled around several times here on > xmca - and i'm pleased to see it appear again. > > i've been a member of xmca for perhaps just over twenty years - and the > first time that i remember the topic appeared was when a woman participant > on the list described the men's activity of participation as, if i remember > correctly, bull elephants mounting each other. > > that provoked a huge uproar, close to flaming one another. > > and Eva Ekeblad who lives in Sweden(i may have misspelled her last name) > and a fellow from Boston did an analysis of female and male participation > on xmca, and, again, if i remember correctly, pointed out that men wrote by > far the most postings, as well as the longest and most immediate > responses. so that men dominated the list-serve with the swiftest, longest > postings, along with the greatest number. and it seemed to that the men > who wrote the most postings also wrote more to each other, ignoring the > more peripheral participants. > > i have my own ideas regarding why a few men regularly dominate xmca > through multiple, long postings. > > i don't know if the list serve is up to analyzing our own behaviour. or > even if the topic is actually worth analysing. > > phillip > From mcole@ucsd.edu Fri Apr 22 11:11:58 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 11:11:58 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: <571a57ff.9a48620a.1a648.5cd5@mx.google.com> References: <571a57ff.9a48620a.1a648.5cd5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: I wonder what others think, Larry? mike On Fri, Apr 22, 2016 at 9:57 AM, Lplarry wrote: > Mike, > > I will offer a brief personal sense of experiencing ambivalence as I sense > my way within the etiquette of xmca. > > I wonder about the **place** of personal dis/closure (1st person) as a > way of proceeding. > > I sense being pulled (grasped) to turn towards legitimizing the systemic > approach ( eco-systemic) and away from the symbolic (mother earth) feminine > figure (as) ground. The archetype of **anima** is a different figuring > gestalt from the archetype of **animus**. The anima as **folk lore** > while the eco-systemic (dynamic systems) approach is preferred. Relegating > the truth og mother-earth symbols to feminine folk wisdom moved to the > margins (of) literature. > > How we collaborate and communicate as symbolic **marriage** inclusive of > differing (forms) gestalts of figuring phenomena. > > The insight that the personal is political. > > But also re-cognizing eggshells underfoot. > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > *From: *mike cole > *Sent: *April 22, 2016 9:33 AM > *To: *eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: The manologue > > > > Thanks Annalisa for bringing back > > ?I? > > he issue of XMCA as manilogue. > > It brought back memory of Eva Ekblad, who gave up on academia and was a > > weaver last I heard, and news of Phillip's memory of humping elephants. It > > is all in the archives. 30 years of tangled threads of discourse, data for > > the picking. > > > > ?Those interested in Eva's discussion, and other views of MCA at different > > times in its history, can find the relevant material at ? > > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/archives > > > > I am not so sure discussing the communicative behaviors of fellow members > > is a hot idea given the ways such discussions tend to reduce to > > identifiable individuals whose behavior is subjected to moral evaluation. > > ?In any event at the sole continuously active participant except for Bruce > > Jones (is that true?) > > male, white, and elderly I am disabled in such a discussion. No efforts of > > mine have been sufficient in this regard. As a first responder, I take > > comfort in the fact that the worst Phillip can remember is an "almost > > flaming" event. I hope we can keep it that way. If people can figure out to > > make this discussion more inclusive, there is no "one" stopping you. It > > would certainly be a welcome outcome. > > > > I note in closing how many women have joined any of this discussion.? > > > > ?mike? > > > > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016, White, Phillip > > wrote: > > > > > Annalisa, this is a topic that has circled around several times here on > > > xmca - and i'm pleased to see it appear again. > > > > > > i've been a member of xmca for perhaps just over twenty years - and the > > > first time that i remember the topic appeared was when a woman > participant > > > on the list described the men's activity of participation as, if i > remember > > > correctly, bull elephants mounting each other. > > > > > > that provoked a huge uproar, close to flaming one another. > > > > > > and Eva Ekeblad who lives in Sweden(i may have misspelled her last name) > > > and a fellow from Boston did an analysis of female and male participation > > > on xmca, and, again, if i remember correctly, pointed out that men wrote > by > > > far the most postings, as well as the longest and most immediate > > > responses. so that men dominated the list-serve with the swiftest, > longest > > > postings, along with the greatest number. and it seemed to that the men > > > who wrote the most postings also wrote more to each other, ignoring the > > > more peripheral participants. > > > > > > i have my own ideas regarding why a few men regularly dominate xmca > > > through multiple, long postings. > > > > > > i don't know if the list serve is up to analyzing our own behaviour. or > > > even if the topic is actually worth analysing. > > > > > > phillip > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From annalisa@unm.edu Fri Apr 22 12:57:46 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 19:57:46 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: , , , Message-ID: Hi Phillip and others, So I feel you are indicating that there is something about the society here that doesn't value texts by critical theorists, feminists, queer theorists, critical race theorists as perhaps they could. Can we say this is true? What saddens me is that if that is true these "other" theorists will dismiss what you have called "anchor" texts by Hegel, Marx, Lenin, Herder and Vygotsky as being texts that have nothing to say to them, because of the society that is upholding them as the canon of this society. They will not trust them to have value because of the comportment of those who swear by their importance. Now, certainly we could argue whether those are actually the anchor texts or not, (I'll say "canon" for short) but that isn't really what I feel is as important. What seems important is that there is (an appearance of) no safe space for discovery to realize whether or not these different kinds of thinkers can discern that there is actually something or anything we all have in common, a way to speak to one another in a space of dignified interdependency, and that the theories can speak to each other, even if they don't use the same words, or have the same cadence. Like the way academics from different countries at conferences must use whatever is at hand to speak to one another, even if it is stilted or difficult to comprehend. There is a commitment to understand, even despite apparent disagreement. In Advaita Vedanta there is a system described about how knowledge takes place in the student. It is a triumvirate of sravanam (hearing), mananam (doubt), and nididhyasana (meditation/integration). I offer this as a way to think about gendered speech patterns as we are discussing them right now, from a little different view point, not that it is intended to be an authority worldview that I mean to impose on anyone. In the most optimum situations, all we need is hearing, and then knowledge takes place. But not all people are properly prepared to gain knowledge solely from hearing. (In the context of this list, I suppose that would be reading, but when we read a post aren't we hearing our interlocutor's voices, just in our heads?) That is why we also require mananam and nididhyasanam; doubt and integration respectively. For those cases where hearing is not enough. I probably would have to define doubt and integration more than I have thus far to clear any doubts you may have now that I have introduced this system to you, and of course that is welcome if that desire is there. Really what impresses me is that I do see some rhyming with Vygotskian theories. "Outside first then inside." To continue for now, both doubt and integration depend upon hearing, because if you didn't hear it, you could not have doubts, and likewise we couldn't integrate what we know unless it was in our minds to integrate, which is also dependent upon hearing. Hearing, doubt, and integration can happen in an instant, or they can be drawn out over time chronologically, first we hear, then we doubt, mull it over, and integrate and automate what we learned. But everything depends upon hearing it first. Interestingly, for sravanam to take place, there must also be shraddha present.So sravanam depends upon shraddha. Shraddha is "faith pending verification." It is not religious, nor is it "blind faith" but a simple trust that the speaker (in this case a teacher) has something of value to say, and that the speaker will in fact say something valuable that is of benefit to me as the listener. In the context of this thread, I'd say there is a frequent display of a lack of shraddha, which does not allow sravanam to happen. So there can never the opportunity to explore doubts and certainly never time to integrate what was heard. No one wants to speak where there is no shraddha, and that likely explains silence between these two groups. It has already been decided nothing is of value. Like all values, nothing is of value unless it is valuable to me. But let's say that there is trust and there is true listening to what is said. The nexts steps are where the fun begins. Doubts should be welcome and cherished, because it is in dialogue that discovery takes place and doubts are cleared. Doubts need not be hostile, but with shraddha also present, dialogues that arise from doubt can be quite liberating. But only it if the inquiry is allowed to take its natural and spontaneous turns. If there are interruptions, then not only are doubts not cleared, but integration can't happen. Unwelcome drama is usually a means (conscious or unconscious) of prohibiting hearing, doubt, integration, because in drama there is emotional upset. The mind has to feel safe to learn, something I think we see very much the case with children when they learn. Though I'm fairly certain adults too have emotions, desire safety, want to be heard, want to listen, so we can learn. This can't occur with an upset mind, which feels threatened. I hope that all this isn't a strong-arm explanation, but rather a tableau of considered possibility to reflect upon as a path forward to discuss these hard topics. I believe we can do it. Kind regards, Annalisa From helenaworthen@gmail.com Fri Apr 22 13:19:25 2016 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 16:19:25 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <52EE21B1-DC90-4491-91A2-C86FD531942A@gmail.com> Hello, dear people - As someone who joined XMCA at least 20 years ago ? it was assigned to a class at UC Berkeley, taught by Glynda Hull, who was way ahead of most of us in understanding how important electronic (digital, we call it now) communication was going to be - I may be able to add something about how things are different or changed. Eva Ekblad was a wonderful, active participant on XMCA, also intentionally and publicly feminist. At one point she and many of the other women broke off and had our own discussion list. It broke down in 1998 or 99, under the weight of a debate about what Marx said or didn?t say. There?s lots to say about her but I wouldn?t want to say it without getting in touch with her. Here?s what I see as having changed the most on XMCA: the politics is gone. We used to get bulletins from the field from people in our world-wide community. Often, it was people outside the US looking at the US; sometimes it was people talking - often cautiously ? about their own worlds. This was very important to me. It still is. I have benefited and am deeply grateful to people from all over the world for not only their contributions to the steady surface discussion but for their private answers to my questions or comments on something I?ve said. I have had the good fortune to meet some of these people, too, and hope to meet more. I really want to go to Iran and meet Haydi, for example! But it amazes me that right now, in the middle of this crucial election, the only shout-out I?ve heard was from Andy Blunden. Nobody else is paying attention? When we were in Viet Nam, everyone we talked with was asking, ?Where did this guy Trump come from? What is wrong with America?? and when we said we were supporting Bernie, they would clap. Did you notice what the percentages were for the overseas primary vote? It was something like 70-30 for Bernie. People looking at America, and remembering what we?ve done in the last 20 years, get that something important is happening now. But no one?s speaking up on the xmca list. What?s the problem? thanks to Annalisa for bringing up the one-sided gendered character of XMCA these days. I suggest that the loss of grounding our worldwide community in the political realities of the worlds we live and work in is one of the things that you lose when the conversation narrows. How come there was no discussion, for example, of Yrjo?s petition against the slicing away of lecturers at the U of Helsinki? Here?s Finland, with the best educational system in the world, and they?re cutting 900 lecturers? Why no reaction to that? I?m sure that people teaching at other universities have something to say about this. What?s the background? What are people doing? What does Yrjo say about it? How about the other people from his Institute ? what do they have to say? Any thoughts? Salutations and abrazos all around ? Helena Worthen Vietnam blog at helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 22, 2016, at 12:31 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Thanks Annalisa for bringing back > ?I? > he issue of XMCA as manilogue. > It brought back memory of Eva Ekblad, who gave up on academia and was a > weaver last I heard, and news of Phillip's memory of humping elephants. It > is all in the archives. 30 years of tangled threads of discourse, data for > the picking. > > ?Those interested in Eva's discussion, and other views of MCA at different > times in its history, can find the relevant material at ? > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/archives > > I am not so sure discussing the communicative behaviors of fellow members > is a hot idea given the ways such discussions tend to reduce to > identifiable individuals whose behavior is subjected to moral evaluation. > ?In any event at the sole continuously active participant except for Bruce > Jones (is that true?) > male, white, and elderly I am disabled in such a discussion. No efforts of > mine have been sufficient in this regard. As a first responder, I take > comfort in the fact that the worst Phillip can remember is an "almost > flaming" event. I hope we can keep it that way. If people can figure out to > make this discussion more inclusive, there is no "one" stopping you. It > would certainly be a welcome outcome. > > I note in closing how many women have joined any of this discussion.? > > ?mike? > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016, White, Phillip > wrote: > >> Annalisa, this is a topic that has circled around several times here on >> xmca - and i'm pleased to see it appear again. >> >> i've been a member of xmca for perhaps just over twenty years - and the >> first time that i remember the topic appeared was when a woman participant >> on the list described the men's activity of participation as, if i remember >> correctly, bull elephants mounting each other. >> >> that provoked a huge uproar, close to flaming one another. >> >> and Eva Ekeblad who lives in Sweden(i may have misspelled her last name) >> and a fellow from Boston did an analysis of female and male participation >> on xmca, and, again, if i remember correctly, pointed out that men wrote by >> far the most postings, as well as the longest and most immediate >> responses. so that men dominated the list-serve with the swiftest, longest >> postings, along with the greatest number. and it seemed to that the men >> who wrote the most postings also wrote more to each other, ignoring the >> more peripheral participants. >> >> i have my own ideas regarding why a few men regularly dominate xmca >> through multiple, long postings. >> >> i don't know if the list serve is up to analyzing our own behaviour. or >> even if the topic is actually worth analysing. >> >> phillip >> From ulvi.icil@gmail.com Fri Apr 22 14:08:04 2016 From: ulvi.icil@gmail.com (=?UTF-8?B?VWx2aSDEsMOnaWw=?=) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 00:08:04 +0300 Subject: [Xmca-l] Child abuse Message-ID: http://www.themedialine.org/news/government-linked-foundation-caught-up-in-turkish-child-sex-scandal/ https://globalvoices.org/2016/04/19/child-abuse-in-turkey-a-serious-reality-silenced-by-stigma/ From dkellogg60@gmail.com Fri Apr 22 15:38:53 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 08:38:53 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Why I Won't Vote for Sanders Message-ID: Although I haven't lived in the USA since 1980, I am still an American citizen; every year I file my income taxes, and every four years I dutifully vote in presidential elections. This is because I think of elections as civil war carried on by other means: it's what happens to politics in non-revolutionary periods, and I want to be a part of it, just as I would like to a part of politics during revolutionary developments. Like many people on this list, I am a socialist, and I don't want to see socialism disappear as a remote but real choice in political life. So I usually vote for some extreme left wing party like the Socialist Workers Party. There are many things I dislike about the SWP, but I like the fact that they actually run candidates who are not US born, and who would be constitutionally disqualified from becoming president; they are actually running not just against the other parties but against the US Constitution. I also like the fact that they ran a black man against Obama; they correctly understood that Obama was a conservative politician, that conservative hatred of Obama was therefore racial and not political they saw that this was a clear way of trying to introduce politics into the discussion again. But why not vote for Bernie, as Andy would if he were an American? Well, for one thing, I don't agree with his policies. For example, I am not in favour of "breaking up the banks": I am in favour of nationalizing them under workers control, and that's something very different--"breaking up the banks" is actually a step in the opposite direction. I certainly do not agree that the USA should be at war with "ISIS", in alliance with Israel, or in support of South Korea, all of which Bernie believes. But precisely because elections are really civil wars carried on by other means, I don't think disagreeing with a candidate's politics is enough to disqualify voting for them. After all, I don't agree with the SWP's policies of "tax the rich" for the same reason I don't agree with Bernie's policies on banking and I still, reluctantly, vote for them. If I woke up in a one party state (say, North Korea, or Texas), I would have to say that on most social issues (health care, tax breaks, social security) and even foreign policy issues (Iraq, Libya, Syria) I am a lot closer to Donald Trump than to Ted Cruz, but I would still refuse to get out of bed and vote for him. And that's the real reason I won't vote for Sanders. He's a Democrat. I know, he says he's "independent", and a "socialist"...and similarly, Donald Trump says that being a lubricious lump of demagogic white lard is all just an act, and he intends to behave like starched shirt in a stuffed suit just as soon as he gets elected, I am confident that President Sanders means to do exactly the same. But Sanders is running on a ticket, and that ticket is the party of the Confederacy, of Jim Crow, of the Treaty of Versailles, of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of Vietnam and above all of the indiscriminate slaughter that was the obliteration from the air of every standing building in Korea and all of the people in it. Until there is a real reckoning for every single one of those atrocities, I will never ever vote for a Democrat of any stripe. To do so is to give up our only real chance for change--a working party for working people. So I will vote for some far left candidate in November, and I will continue to do so until they actually win, i.e. forever. What was it Eugene V. Debs said? Better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want and get it. David Kellogg Macquarie University PS: On the "other" question: that is, the question of manologues; I note three curious and I think very closely related facts: a) Bernie is running against a woman--but this is correctly seen as irrelevant. I think we can thank Republicans like Condi Rice, Herman Cain, Ben Carson for the death of all sorts of silly tokenisms. The Republicans always knew that skin was just skin deep. b) Prince just died. He is the SECOND dead person this year (after David Bowie) to build a tremendously successful career by "bisexually" flirting with gay and straight audiences and then politically betraying gay people in their struggle. When people do this in racial or gender politics, it is rightly condemned; somehow it's considered brilliantly shape-shifting and gender-fluid and cool to do it with sexuality and in pop music. c) There ARE real discussions of politics AND ideas about mind, culture and human activity going on right here on the list right now. I think that carefully purging our psychology of the sexist notions of Freud and the racist ideas of Kardiner, no matter how they are disguised in the work of Merleau-Ponty, is a more real, if somewhat nerdier and hence less cool, way to pursue these discussions than simply purging our ranks of white male voices. We need to get beneath the skin of these questions and even beneath the shifting alliances and policies and look at their ideological essences. By doing that, we will find the issues that Annalisa is raising, but we will find them as real issues of mind, culture, and activity and not as mere styles and stances. dk From ablunden@mira.net Fri Apr 22 19:49:19 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 12:49:19 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Collective decisions Message-ID: <571AE2AF.3010701@mira.net> Not unrelated to the theme of collaboration, I would like to share the news of the publication of my book, "The Origins of Collective Decision Making," which takes an historical perspective on the topic, stretching back more than 1,000 years. I have attached a synopsis for your interest. Andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Home Page Origins of Collective Decision Making -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Synopsis.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 109515 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160423/47250b3e/attachment.pdf From vygotsky@unm.edu Fri Apr 22 21:06:32 2016 From: vygotsky@unm.edu (Vera John-Steiner) Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2016 22:06:32 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: <52EE21B1-DC90-4491-91A2-C86FD531942A@gmail.com> References: <52EE21B1-DC90-4491-91A2-C86FD531942A@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00f501d19d15$87cf7850$976e68f0$@edu> Dear friends and colleagues, There comes a time in life when one becomes more of a reader/listener than contributor. I have reached that stage. XMCA is an important part of my life, I look forward to the various threads and discussions. But there is something about the speed of the exchanges that makes me hesitant to contribute. It is also connected to the point that Helena raised. This is such a challenging year politically, so worrisome, that it is hard to focus on topics that ignore this common reality we share. Can we try to understand what is happening with the large following of a bigot like Trump with our CHAT tools? The topic of manologue is of interest to me. In 1999, I published a chapter in a book (edited by S. Chaiklin et al.) devoted to Sociocultural and Feminist Theory, In it I point out some shared assumptions between cultural-historical and feminist positions and the lack of attention paid to the latter in our CHAT writings. This is still the case. In the chapter I also comment on women's accounts of collaboration which are fuller than men's in describing the "complex dynamics of co-construction,competition, intellectual ownership, gender socialization, and joint authorship with daunting honesty." Currently, there are few women writing messages on this list, when they do, like Annalisa and Helena, they do touch on some of these issues. Perhaps if we try to share more about ourselves, as David K. often does, we may get some of the lurking women to participate. Vera -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Helena Worthen Sent: Friday, April 22, 2016 2:19 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue Hello, dear people - As someone who joined XMCA at least 20 years ago ? it was assigned to a class at UC Berkeley, taught by Glynda Hull, who was way ahead of most of us in understanding how important electronic (digital, we call it now) communication was going to be - I may be able to add something about how things are different or changed. Eva Ekblad was a wonderful, active participant on XMCA, also intentionally and publicly feminist. At one point she and many of the other women broke off and had our own discussion list. It broke down in 1998 or 99, under the weight of a debate about what Marx said or didn?t say. There?s lots to say about her but I wouldn?t want to say it without getting in touch with her. Here?s what I see as having changed the most on XMCA: the politics is gone. We used to get bulletins from the field from people in our world-wide community. Often, it was people outside the US looking at the US; sometimes it was people talking - often cautiously ? about their own worlds. This was very important to me. It still is. I have benefited and am deeply grateful to people from all over the world for not only their contributions to the steady surface discussion but for their private answers to my questions or comments on something I?ve said. I have had the good fortune to meet some of these people, too, and hope to meet more. I really want to go to Iran and meet Haydi, for example! But it amazes me that right now, in the middle of this crucial election, the only shout-out I?ve heard was from Andy Blunden. Nobody else is paying attention? When we were in Viet Nam, everyone we talked with was asking, ?Where did this guy Trump come from? What is wrong with America?? and when we said we were supporting Bernie, they would clap. Did you notice what the percentages were for the overseas primary vote? It was something like 70-30 for Bernie. People looking at America, and remembering what we?ve done in the last 20 years, get that something important is happening now. But no one?s speaking up on the xmca list. What?s the problem? thanks to Annalisa for bringing up the one-sided gendered character of XMCA these days. I suggest that the loss of grounding our worldwide community in the political realities of the worlds we live and work in is one of the things that you lose when the conversation narrows. How come there was no discussion, for example, of Yrjo?s petition against the slicing away of lecturers at the U of Helsinki? Here?s Finland, with the best educational system in the world, and they?re cutting 900 lecturers? Why no reaction to that? I?m sure that people teaching at other universities have something to say about this. What?s the background? What are people doing? What does Yrjo say about it? How about the other people from his Institute ? what do they have to say? Any thoughts? Salutations and abrazos all around ? Helena Worthen Vietnam blog at helenaworthen.wordpress.com > On Apr 22, 2016, at 12:31 PM, mike cole wrote: > > Thanks Annalisa for bringing back > ?I? > he issue of XMCA as manilogue. > It brought back memory of Eva Ekblad, who gave up on academia and was a > weaver last I heard, and news of Phillip's memory of humping elephants. It > is all in the archives. 30 years of tangled threads of discourse, data for > the picking. > > ?Those interested in Eva's discussion, and other views of MCA at different > times in its history, can find the relevant material at ? > http://lchc.ucsd.edu/archives > > I am not so sure discussing the communicative behaviors of fellow members > is a hot idea given the ways such discussions tend to reduce to > identifiable individuals whose behavior is subjected to moral evaluation. > ?In any event at the sole continuously active participant except for Bruce > Jones (is that true?) > male, white, and elderly I am disabled in such a discussion. No efforts of > mine have been sufficient in this regard. As a first responder, I take > comfort in the fact that the worst Phillip can remember is an "almost > flaming" event. I hope we can keep it that way. If people can figure out to > make this discussion more inclusive, there is no "one" stopping you. It > would certainly be a welcome outcome. > > I note in closing how many women have joined any of this discussion.? > > ?mike? > > > On Thursday, April 21, 2016, White, Phillip > wrote: > >> Annalisa, this is a topic that has circled around several times here on >> xmca - and i'm pleased to see it appear again. >> >> i've been a member of xmca for perhaps just over twenty years - and the >> first time that i remember the topic appeared was when a woman participant >> on the list described the men's activity of participation as, if i remember >> correctly, bull elephants mounting each other. >> >> that provoked a huge uproar, close to flaming one another. >> >> and Eva Ekeblad who lives in Sweden(i may have misspelled her last name) >> and a fellow from Boston did an analysis of female and male participation >> on xmca, and, again, if i remember correctly, pointed out that men wrote by >> far the most postings, as well as the longest and most immediate >> responses. so that men dominated the list-serve with the swiftest, longest >> postings, along with the greatest number. and it seemed to that the men >> who wrote the most postings also wrote more to each other, ignoring the >> more peripheral participants. >> >> i have my own ideas regarding why a few men regularly dominate xmca >> through multiple, long postings. >> >> i don't know if the list serve is up to analyzing our own behaviour. or >> even if the topic is actually worth analysing. >> >> phillip >> From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Apr 23 11:43:42 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 18:43:42 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: The manologue In-Reply-To: <00f501d19d15$87cf7850$976e68f0$@edu> References: <52EE21B1-DC90-4491-91A2-C86FD531942A@gmail.com>, <00f501d19d15$87cf7850$976e68f0$@edu> Message-ID: Hello, This has been a very great thread with various and meaningful contributions. First, I'd like to say that actually it wasn't me who brought up the gendered speech topic, it was Henry, I just thought to start a new thread "The manologue" so that it did not impinge upon the "collaboration" thread. Henry strikes me as genuinely concerned with the lack of women's voices and I appreciated that he ignited the spark, with his own flint and stone! It feels like there is a nice an comforting campfire crackling now, and I hope the glow is inviting enough to attract more travelers from afar to sit by the fire and talk. Personally, in reference to this thread's topic, my feelings at the moment about the trump phenomenon is sort of a wait and see attitude. I am concerned about it, but I also feel there are people doing their utmost in the Republican party to make it difficult for him to succeed. I think far more than people who are trying to prevent Clinton to succeed, for example. There is also his mistake with securing delegates. Which is what happens when one has a man-handling thug running one's campaign and one chooses not to follow the long establish convention of courting delegates during the primary season. The belief seems to be that all that is necessary to win the nomination was to win the primary popular vote. I don't know if anyone knows this, but trump may loose the nomination for that reason alone. See: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/12/donald-trump-delegates-republican-nomination-us-election-2016 What seems to have been a consequence is emotional blackmail by the trump campaign: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/17/donald-trump-rigged-election-complaints-new-york-primary So oddly, we are going to have to hope that the establishment Republican party sticks to its rules about delegates. The delegates are going to the thing to watch, and it's all too difficult to tell what will happen at this point. See also: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/19/republican-rotten-boroughs-primary-election-delegates I'd heard an interview by that shining neoliberal Larry Summers about a month ago, and even he says that if trump were to get elected, it would be a economic disaster. So I feel those with influence, even if I don't like them, are sitting up and paying attention to the trump phenomenon. For me, the key to preventing trump to invade my consciousness is to work toward inclusiveness. And that means in the everyday experience of our lives. Like here. Tying this back to the manologue, and how to build bridges for collaboration, cooperation, and understanding among people with differences, I feel that we are watching a public version of the powers of dominating speech patterns, one that include interruption, drama, blackmail, dismissiveness, and a simple understanding if not right out denial of the facts. I do not mean to make a ham-fisted comparison of gendered discourse on this list to trump-like dynamics, just that in these worse manifestations it is easier to see what is distressing about unequal and non-inclusive forums of discourse and the anguish that arises from them. There is a spectrum. It means to refrain from even registering upon such a spectrum, active and conscious efforts must be made to be inclusive, it's not something that happens by accident. It's a muscle that requires daily exercise. I am doing a slow read of an article by Marshal Sahlins ("On the Cultural of Material Value and the Cosmography of Riches"), kindly sent to me by Greg Thompson, and in it Sahlins mentions the exchange of a Triobran islander who will give half his yam harvest to his sister's husband only to receive half his wife's brother's yams, there is no significant gain economically, but in their matrilineal society sister's sons succeed their mother's brothers and so the exchange not only honors that convention, but it occurred to me that it gives reasons to talk to one another and make sure everyone is doing OK, like, "Do you have enough food?" I wonder if what we lack on xmca is a similar social convention? What yams might we exchange with each other so to those who haven't felt freely enough to speak we can ask, "Do you have enough food?" I'm not certain that I've quite fleshed out this thought, but I would be happy if anyone else would like to expand or elaborate, if I'm making any sense to you? It's about creating a safety net of connections, maybe... Kind regards, Annalisa From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sat Apr 23 12:18:10 2016 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 12:18:10 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Well?.thanks, David. Is this a partial response to my noting that we seem to stay pretty much away from politics, global and local, on this list, despite the election season here in the US? It was often women?s voices that were calling in, as it were, to paint a picture of what was going on around us. Anyone know what happened to the 900 lecturers in Finland? Helena > On Apr 22, 2016, at 3:38 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > > Although I haven't lived in the USA since 1980, I am still an American > citizen; every year I file my income taxes, and every four years I > dutifully vote in presidential elections. This is because I think of > elections as civil war carried on by other means: it's what happens to > politics in non-revolutionary periods, and I want to be a part of it, just > as I would like to a part of politics during revolutionary developments. > > Like many people on this list, I am a socialist, and I don't want to see > socialism disappear as a remote but real choice in political life. So I > usually vote for some extreme left wing party like the Socialist Workers > Party. There are many things I dislike about the SWP, but I like the fact > that they actually run candidates who are not US born, and who would be > constitutionally disqualified from becoming president; they are actually > running not just against the other parties but against the US Constitution. > I also like the fact that they ran a black man against Obama; they > correctly understood that Obama was a conservative politician, that > conservative hatred of Obama was therefore racial and not political they > saw that this was a clear way of trying to introduce politics into the > discussion again. > > But why not vote for Bernie, as Andy would if he were an American? Well, > for one thing, I don't agree with his policies. For example, I am not in > favour of "breaking up the banks": I am in favour of nationalizing them > under workers control, and that's something very different--"breaking up > the banks" is actually a step in the opposite direction. I certainly do not > agree that the USA should be at war with "ISIS", in alliance with Israel, > or in support of South Korea, all of which Bernie believes. > > But precisely because elections are really civil wars carried on by other > means, I don't think disagreeing with a candidate's politics is enough to > disqualify voting for them. After all, I don't agree with the SWP's > policies of "tax the rich" for the same reason I don't agree with Bernie's > policies on banking and I still, reluctantly, vote for them. If I woke up > in a one party state (say, North Korea, or Texas), I would have to say that > on most social issues (health care, tax breaks, social security) and even > foreign policy issues (Iraq, Libya, Syria) I am a lot closer to Donald > Trump than to Ted Cruz, but I would still refuse to get out of bed and vote > for him. > > And that's the real reason I won't vote for Sanders. He's a Democrat. I > know, he says he's "independent", and a "socialist"...and similarly, Donald > Trump says that being a lubricious lump of demagogic white lard is all just > an act, and he intends to behave like starched shirt in a stuffed suit just > as soon as he gets elected, I am confident that President Sanders means to > do exactly the same. But Sanders is running on a ticket, and that ticket is > the party of the Confederacy, of Jim Crow, of the Treaty of Versailles, of > Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of Vietnam and above all of the indiscriminate > slaughter that was the obliteration from the air of every standing building > in Korea and all of the people in it. Until there is a real reckoning for > every single one of those atrocities, I will never ever vote for a Democrat > of any stripe. To do so is to give up our only real chance for change--a > working party for working people. > > So I will vote for some far left candidate in November, and I will continue > to do so until they actually win, i.e. forever. What was it Eugene V. Debs > said? Better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for > what you don't want and get it. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > PS: On the "other" question: that is, the question of manologues; I note > three curious and I think very closely related facts: > > a) Bernie is running against a woman--but this is correctly seen as > irrelevant. I think we can thank Republicans like Condi Rice, Herman Cain, > Ben Carson for the death of all sorts of silly tokenisms. The Republicans > always knew that skin was just skin deep. > > b) Prince just died. He is the SECOND dead person this year (after David > Bowie) to build a tremendously successful career by "bisexually" flirting > with gay and straight audiences and then politically betraying gay people > in their struggle. When people do this in racial or gender politics, it is > rightly condemned; somehow it's considered brilliantly shape-shifting and > gender-fluid and cool to do it with sexuality and in pop music. > > c) There ARE real discussions of politics AND ideas about mind, culture > and human activity going on right here on the list right now. I think that > carefully purging our psychology of the sexist notions of Freud and the > racist ideas of Kardiner, no matter how they are disguised in the work of > Merleau-Ponty, is a more real, if somewhat nerdier and hence less cool, way > to pursue these discussions than simply purging our ranks of white male > voices. We need to get beneath the skin of these questions and even beneath > the shifting alliances and policies and look at their ideological > essences. By doing that, we will find the issues that Annalisa is raising, > but we will find them as real issues of mind, culture, and activity and not > as mere styles and stances. > > dk From ewall@umich.edu Sat Apr 23 12:54:43 2016 From: ewall@umich.edu (Ed Wall) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 14:54:43 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: David mentions that > So I will vote for some far left candidate in November, and I will continue > to do so until they actually win, i.e. forever. > On Apr 22, 2016, at 5:38 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > There was a discussion on NPR by Vin Weber and Larry Diamond (http://www.mprnews.org/story/2016/03/09/mpr_news_presents) where they argue that the Democratic and Republican parties have more or less banded together to, in fact, insure that any independent presidential candidate (far left or otherwise) ever winning in November is roughly zero. Ed > Although I haven't lived in the USA since 1980, I am still an American > citizen; every year I file my income taxes, and every four years I > dutifully vote in presidential elections. This is because I think of > elections as civil war carried on by other means: it's what happens to > politics in non-revolutionary periods, and I want to be a part of it, just > as I would like to a part of politics during revolutionary developments. > > Like many people on this list, I am a socialist, and I don't want to see > socialism disappear as a remote but real choice in political life. So I > usually vote for some extreme left wing party like the Socialist Workers > Party. There are many things I dislike about the SWP, but I like the fact > that they actually run candidates who are not US born, and who would be > constitutionally disqualified from becoming president; they are actually > running not just against the other parties but against the US Constitution. > I also like the fact that they ran a black man against Obama; they > correctly understood that Obama was a conservative politician, that > conservative hatred of Obama was therefore racial and not political they > saw that this was a clear way of trying to introduce politics into the > discussion again. > > But why not vote for Bernie, as Andy would if he were an American? Well, > for one thing, I don't agree with his policies. For example, I am not in > favour of "breaking up the banks": I am in favour of nationalizing them > under workers control, and that's something very different--"breaking up > the banks" is actually a step in the opposite direction. I certainly do not > agree that the USA should be at war with "ISIS", in alliance with Israel, > or in support of South Korea, all of which Bernie believes. > > But precisely because elections are really civil wars carried on by other > means, I don't think disagreeing with a candidate's politics is enough to > disqualify voting for them. After all, I don't agree with the SWP's > policies of "tax the rich" for the same reason I don't agree with Bernie's > policies on banking and I still, reluctantly, vote for them. If I woke up > in a one party state (say, North Korea, or Texas), I would have to say that > on most social issues (health care, tax breaks, social security) and even > foreign policy issues (Iraq, Libya, Syria) I am a lot closer to Donald > Trump than to Ted Cruz, but I would still refuse to get out of bed and vote > for him. > > And that's the real reason I won't vote for Sanders. He's a Democrat. I > know, he says he's "independent", and a "socialist"...and similarly, Donald > Trump says that being a lubricious lump of demagogic white lard is all just > an act, and he intends to behave like starched shirt in a stuffed suit just > as soon as he gets elected, I am confident that President Sanders means to > do exactly the same. But Sanders is running on a ticket, and that ticket is > the party of the Confederacy, of Jim Crow, of the Treaty of Versailles, of > Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of Vietnam and above all of the indiscriminate > slaughter that was the obliteration from the air of every standing building > in Korea and all of the people in it. Until there is a real reckoning for > every single one of those atrocities, I will never ever vote for a Democrat > of any stripe. To do so is to give up our only real chance for change--a > working party for working people. > > So I will vote for some far left candidate in November, and I will continue > to do so until they actually win, i.e. forever. What was it Eugene V. Debs > said? Better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for > what you don't want and get it. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > PS: On the "other" question: that is, the question of manologues; I note > three curious and I think very closely related facts: > > a) Bernie is running against a woman--but this is correctly seen as > irrelevant. I think we can thank Republicans like Condi Rice, Herman Cain, > Ben Carson for the death of all sorts of silly tokenisms. The Republicans > always knew that skin was just skin deep. > > b) Prince just died. He is the SECOND dead person this year (after David > Bowie) to build a tremendously successful career by "bisexually" flirting > with gay and straight audiences and then politically betraying gay people > in their struggle. When people do this in racial or gender politics, it is > rightly condemned; somehow it's considered brilliantly shape-shifting and > gender-fluid and cool to do it with sexuality and in pop music. > > c) There ARE real discussions of politics AND ideas about mind, culture > and human activity going on right here on the list right now. I think that > carefully purging our psychology of the sexist notions of Freud and the > racist ideas of Kardiner, no matter how they are disguised in the work of > Merleau-Ponty, is a more real, if somewhat nerdier and hence less cool, way > to pursue these discussions than simply purging our ranks of white male > voices. We need to get beneath the skin of these questions and even beneath > the shifting alliances and policies and look at their ideological > essences. By doing that, we will find the issues that Annalisa is raising, > but we will find them as real issues of mind, culture, and activity and not > as mere styles and stances. > > dk From annalisa@unm.edu Sat Apr 23 15:07:32 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 22:07:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Hi, As much as I am for socialist principles, I can't vote for BS because of his position on guns. I also don't like the anti-woman dog whistle rhetoric that he uses, saying that Clinton is not qualified. Furthermore, as problematic as the Clintons are, and they are, I want a woman president, dammit. Sorry if that upsets anyone. I am grateful that Sanders has pulled the platform to the left, and maybe if we continue this way in future elections, we will have a left again in the US. Sander's candidacy has shown the best results of pulling Democrats away from the right, so maybe that's what will work in future election cycles. If left-of-center politicians to start running on the Democratic ticket maybe this will start transforming politics from the inside rather than the outside. I'm not convinced of this strategy, but it seems to have worked (if it isn't just vaporware, of course), and hopefully there can be momentum on this, though I have a jaundiced view of that prospect thanks to the neoliberal octopus that is reaching into all our open windows. But who knows. I like what I heard from Tsakolatos, the current finance minister of Greece when interviewed in the Paul Mason film #ThisIsACoup, where he said that it is wrong to expect individuals in the political class to solve our problems (Of course he was referring to what the Greeks expected of their leadership during the referendum last summer, but it still is applicable universally); We citizens need to have grassroots political activity organizing and pressuring elected officials from the bottom. It's the only way change is going to happen. No more expectations for messianic deliverances, please. I would much rather see a Clinton victory and see what it's like to have a woman president, and a First Gentleman. Given the Lewinsky debacle, I'd think it would be a good test of character, as I figure he's learned a lesson. I also want to know what his cookie recipes will be like. Additionally, I'm happy to give the first woman president push back for not representing woman and children, than try to ask for handouts from a gun-loving socialist or a social-darwinist billionaire or an evangelical Christian. Nothing against socialists, billionaires, or Christians, it's just a preference of mine. Kind regards, Annalisa From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sat Apr 23 16:15:32 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sat, 23 Apr 2016 16:15:32 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collective decisions In-Reply-To: <571AE2AF.3010701@mira.net> References: <571AE2AF.3010701@mira.net> Message-ID: <571c0220.c74e620a.33876.78d5@mx.google.com> Andy, This book that germinated in your observation that differing notions of what is the preferred way of participating in collective mutual collaboration was fragmenting collective forms into factions. This question *why* which led to this book is a profound question. It overlaps significantly with the monologue/ monologue theme. As I read the synopsis your adding *counsel* as a third way was interesting. One impression as I was reading was how significant *intermediate* community (between family and state) was historically to generating all three developmental *forms* of con/sensus. The notion of collaboration which includes: The prefix *con* with *sensus* has a tone which resonates both with this thread and the other thread. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Andy Blunden Sent: April 22, 2016 7:51 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Collective decisions Not unrelated to the theme of collaboration, I would like to share the news of the publication of my book, "The Origins of Collective Decision Making," which takes an historical perspective on the topic, stretching back more than 1,000 years. I have attached a synopsis for your interest. Andy -- ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* Home Page Origins of Collective Decision Making From ablunden@mira.net Sat Apr 23 18:24:49 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:24:49 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571C2061.4040903@mira.net> If I had a vote in the US, I'd vote for Sanders, for his character and his policies. But not "because I agreed with his policies" - Goodness, in the Australian context his policies are right-wing! But in the American context, his campaign has proved to be transformative. Millions of young people are deciding not to follow their old Socialist parents and stand on the side lines waiting for the Messiah to fix American politics before they become engaged. A Sanders Presidency would likely not achieve a single one of his policies (so Bernie tells us) but it would be even more transformative.' Nor would I vote for Sanders because like me he's an old man. Lots of young women in the US are voting for Bernie though, because of his policies. Fortunately this generation seems also to be breaking from their grandparents' idea of voting for someone because of the candidate's personal characteristics. The candidate's honesty and authenticity however seems to count for them. A ray of light! It is a great pity, that the way politics has developed in the US is that you can't advocate for the poor against the rich, without this coming a across as a "dog whistle" against women and "minorities." And you can't advocate against racism, without this being taken as an attack on "white" workers. And that US Blacks on the whole vote en masse for the candidate who is supported by Wall Street. These divisions are sooo deeply engrained. In Australia, I will not be voting for the Socialist Alliance, even though many of them are personal friends, for reasons I feel it would be unseemly to spell out, but for the Greens, who have found a way to "connect" with masses of people in a progressive direction and break the working class from the ALP, I want to be part of that. Voting is a practical action, not filling out a survey. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 23/04/2016 8:38 AM, David Kellogg wrote: > Although I haven't lived in the USA since 1980, I am still an American > citizen; every year I file my income taxes, and every four years I > dutifully vote in presidential elections. This is because I think of > elections as civil war carried on by other means: it's what happens to > politics in non-revolutionary periods, and I want to be a part of it, just > as I would like to a part of politics during revolutionary developments. > > Like many people on this list, I am a socialist, and I don't want to see > socialism disappear as a remote but real choice in political life. So I > usually vote for some extreme left wing party like the Socialist Workers > Party. There are many things I dislike about the SWP, but I like the fact > that they actually run candidates who are not US born, and who would be > constitutionally disqualified from becoming president; they are actually > running not just against the other parties but against the US Constitution. > I also like the fact that they ran a black man against Obama; they > correctly understood that Obama was a conservative politician, that > conservative hatred of Obama was therefore racial and not political they > saw that this was a clear way of trying to introduce politics into the > discussion again. > > But why not vote for Bernie, as Andy would if he were an American? Well, > for one thing, I don't agree with his policies. For example, I am not in > favour of "breaking up the banks": I am in favour of nationalizing them > under workers control, and that's something very different--"breaking up > the banks" is actually a step in the opposite direction. I certainly do not > agree that the USA should be at war with "ISIS", in alliance with Israel, > or in support of South Korea, all of which Bernie believes. > > But precisely because elections are really civil wars carried on by other > means, I don't think disagreeing with a candidate's politics is enough to > disqualify voting for them. After all, I don't agree with the SWP's > policies of "tax the rich" for the same reason I don't agree with Bernie's > policies on banking and I still, reluctantly, vote for them. If I woke up > in a one party state (say, North Korea, or Texas), I would have to say that > on most social issues (health care, tax breaks, social security) and even > foreign policy issues (Iraq, Libya, Syria) I am a lot closer to Donald > Trump than to Ted Cruz, but I would still refuse to get out of bed and vote > for him. > > And that's the real reason I won't vote for Sanders. He's a Democrat. I > know, he says he's "independent", and a "socialist"...and similarly, Donald > Trump says that being a lubricious lump of demagogic white lard is all just > an act, and he intends to behave like starched shirt in a stuffed suit just > as soon as he gets elected, I am confident that President Sanders means to > do exactly the same. But Sanders is running on a ticket, and that ticket is > the party of the Confederacy, of Jim Crow, of the Treaty of Versailles, of > Hiroshima and Nagasaki, of Vietnam and above all of the indiscriminate > slaughter that was the obliteration from the air of every standing building > in Korea and all of the people in it. Until there is a real reckoning for > every single one of those atrocities, I will never ever vote for a Democrat > of any stripe. To do so is to give up our only real chance for change--a > working party for working people. > > So I will vote for some far left candidate in November, and I will continue > to do so until they actually win, i.e. forever. What was it Eugene V. Debs > said? Better to vote for what you want and not get it, than to vote for > what you don't want and get it. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > PS: On the "other" question: that is, the question of manologues; I note > three curious and I think very closely related facts: > > a) Bernie is running against a woman--but this is correctly seen as > irrelevant. I think we can thank Republicans like Condi Rice, Herman Cain, > Ben Carson for the death of all sorts of silly tokenisms. The Republicans > always knew that skin was just skin deep. > > b) Prince just died. He is the SECOND dead person this year (after David > Bowie) to build a tremendously successful career by "bisexually" flirting > with gay and straight audiences and then politically betraying gay people > in their struggle. When people do this in racial or gender politics, it is > rightly condemned; somehow it's considered brilliantly shape-shifting and > gender-fluid and cool to do it with sexuality and in pop music. > > c) There ARE real discussions of politics AND ideas about mind, culture > and human activity going on right here on the list right now. I think that > carefully purging our psychology of the sexist notions of Freud and the > racist ideas of Kardiner, no matter how they are disguised in the work of > Merleau-Ponty, is a more real, if somewhat nerdier and hence less cool, way > to pursue these discussions than simply purging our ranks of white male > voices. We need to get beneath the skin of these questions and even beneath > the shifting alliances and policies and look at their ideological > essences. By doing that, we will find the issues that Annalisa is raising, > but we will find them as real issues of mind, culture, and activity and not > as mere styles and stances. > > dk > From dkirsh@lsu.edu Sat Apr 23 20:55:37 2016 From: dkirsh@lsu.edu (David H Kirshner) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 03:55:37 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Annalisa, Tempting as it is to vote for Clinton because of social issues, that's just yielding to the left-right side show the billionaire class is running to control politics in the U.S. The only reason I can see not to support Sanders is because one believes he doesn't have a chance of creating a movement that can dislodge the oligarchs. Otherwise, we don't have the luxury of hoping for someone better than Sanders to come along at a later time. That's because the billionaire class is not just hyper-greedy, it's self-destructively greedy, based on a metric of self-interest that is entirely relativistic. If their metric of self-interest were measuring absolute wealth, we'd be okay-ish; they'd be trying to grow the pie and take a bigger slice of it. But the game plan being enacted at an ever accelerating rate is destruction of the middle-class so as to create ever increasing wealth disparity--i.e., to increase their relative wealth--despite the fact they also will decrease their absolute wealth--along with that of every other American. Much as I love Hillary, like her husband Bill she doesn't have any way to envision a political process different than the current one. David -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Annalisa Aguilar Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:08 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders Hi, As much as I am for socialist principles, I can't vote for BS because of his position on guns. I also don't like the anti-woman dog whistle rhetoric that he uses, saying that Clinton is not qualified. Furthermore, as problematic as the Clintons are, and they are, I want a woman president, dammit. Sorry if that upsets anyone. I am grateful that Sanders has pulled the platform to the left, and maybe if we continue this way in future elections, we will have a left again in the US. Sander's candidacy has shown the best results of pulling Democrats away from the right, so maybe that's what will work in future election cycles. If left-of-center politicians to start running on the Democratic ticket maybe this will start transforming politics from the inside rather than the outside. I'm not convinced of this strategy, but it seems to have worked (if it isn't just vaporware, of course), and hopefully there can be momentum on this, though I have a jaundiced view of that prospect thanks to the neoliberal octopus that is reaching into all our open windows. But who knows. I like what I heard from Tsakolatos, the current finance minister of Greece when interviewed in the Paul Mason film #ThisIsACoup, where he said that it is wrong to expect individuals in the political class to solve our problems (Of course he was referring to what the Greeks expected of their leadership during the referendum last summer, but it still is applicable universally); We citizens need to have grassroots political activity organizing and pressuring elected officials from the bottom. It's the only way change is going to happen. No more expectations for messianic deliverances, please. I would much rather see a Clinton victory and see what it's like to have a woman president, and a First Gentleman. Given the Lewinsky debacle, I'd think it would be a good test of character, as I figure he's learned a lesson. I also want to know what his cookie recipes will be like. Additionally, I'm happy to give the first woman president push back for not representing woman and children, than try to ask for handouts from a gun-loving socialist or a social-darwinist billionaire or an evangelical Christian. Nothing against socialists, billionaires, or Christians, it's just a preference of mine. Kind regards, Annalisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sat Apr 23 23:47:10 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:47:10 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Help With Russian? Message-ID: Dear Russophones: I've been puzzling all afternoon over this, from Vygotsky's lecture on the Crisis at Three and Seven. Vygotsky has just introduced the importance of having a unit in which the development f the personality can be described and explained, and proposes "lived experience", that is, "perezhvanie". He now wants to define it. ?????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ??????????? ????-??????. ??? ???????????, ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ????-??????, ??? ??? ???? ????????, ??????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ????-??????. ?? ?????? ??????????? ???? ??? ???????????. ? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????????, ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????, ? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????????, ? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ????????. ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ????????, ? ???????? ?????-?? ????????? ????????, ? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????, ?????? ???????? ???????? ??? ???????? ?????????, ? ??? ?????????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????, ?? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ???????? ???????????. So I gather this means: a) "All lived experience is an experience of some thing." (i.e. all perezhivanie is intensional, it is about or of or towards something, it includes the environment) b) "There is no lived experience that is not a lived experience of something, just as there is no act of consciousness which is not an act of cognizing something." (i.e. consciousness is always consciousness of some event, some happening, some entity) c) "But in all lived experience there is the live-experiencing of myself." (But there is also a live-experiencing of the self, as well as a live experiencing of the environment.) d) "In contemporary concrete (?) theory, lived experience is introduced as a unit of consciousness in which all of the basic properties of consciousness are given as such, whereas attention and thinking are not given this link to consciousness." (It appears that by "concrete theory" he means something like "concrete psychology": in this theory, thinking is not a unit of consciousness and neither is attention.) e) "Attention is not a unit of consciousness but is some element of consciousness in which there is no series of other elements, with it the unity of consciousness as such vanishes" (Attention isn't a unit, but only an element, because attention does not contain within itself the set of elements. Is Vygotsky saying that if we take attention as a unit then the unity of consciousness vanishes?) f) "Here the actual dynamic unit of consciousness, from which consciousness is made up, is lived experience." (Lived experience is the real unit of consciousness, from which consciousness is constituted.) I find d) and e) very puzzling. Do I have it right, or am I way off the mark? Help, Russophones! David Kellogg Macquarie University From bruce@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk Sun Apr 24 05:59:56 2016 From: bruce@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk (Bruce Robinson) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:59:56 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: <571C2061.4040903@mira.net> References: <571C2061.4040903@mira.net> Message-ID: <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 24 06:14:31 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 23:14:31 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> References: <571C2061.4040903@mira.net> <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> Message-ID: <571CC6B7.7040106@mira.net> Your message came through blank, Bruce. Try setting the Delivery Format option to "Plain Text Only" ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 24/04/2016 10:59 PM, Bruce Robinson wrote: > From bruce@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk Sun Apr 24 06:32:07 2016 From: bruce@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk (Bruce Robinson) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 14:32:07 +0100 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> References: <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> Message-ID: <571CCAD7.3060001@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> Apologies. Apparently the last version of this came through blank. Like Andy, if I was an American I would vote for Sanders and also be actively involved in his campaign, despite acknowledging the limitations of his policies and him personally. That is not because I'm unsympathetic to David Kelloggs' principles - which I broadly share - but because I think Sanders' campaign, despite its Democratic label, represents the best chance for a very long time of breaking a sizable group of people away from two-party money-dominated politics for something better and more to the left. Who would have thought a year ago that millions of Americans would vote for someone who openly and unapologetically calls himself a socialist? Is it not better to try to talk to them, to convince them that they need to maintain an independent organisation after Sanders' inevitable defeat as their aspirations will never be met through the Democratic Party? Instead David proposes waiting forever for something he doesn't believe will happen - a passive and consumerist approach to a situation that has changed even compared with four years ago. Of course, whether anything better does emerge depends on a lot of factors, not least how Sanders himself reacts. It might be possible to make a cold, cynical assessment and say that the odds are against it. (I have my own reasons to be cynical.In 1996 I attended the founding convention of the Labor Party which ultimately foundered on the unwillingness of some union kleaders to challenge the Democrats electorally.) But unless the ground is tested it's impossible to know and, even if it fails, the far left might still grow and become a more visible force in US politics, certainly something that won't result from the SWP's campaign. Annalisa - some UK feminists welcomed Thatcher's election on the grounds that a woman prime minister was a step forward. I don't need to tell you what happened next. Hillary isn't Thatcher obviously. But there's also the disappointed expectations that surrounded Obama as the first black President. She is the candidate of Goldman Sachs, not of the women's movement. Bruce Robinson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 06:42:39 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 06:42:39 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] The Island Message-ID: <571ccd5b.425e620a.d27f0.29c7@mx.google.com> The Island http://www.island.lk/index.php?page_cat=article-details&page=article-details&code_title=143986 Sent from my Windows 10 phone This just arrived in my mail. A culture perspective covering a vast terrain. From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 06:55:21 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 06:55:21 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Help With Russian? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571cd056.e7fb420a.68464.6d8d@mx.google.com> David, After you get it *right* as Vygotsky perceived *living experience* in *relation to* (attention, thinking, and consciousness) as these other intentional something?s, I hope we can have a conversation on how others perceive the relation of living experience to attention, thinking, and consciousness. This thread may be a *portal* into some vexing questions that continue *showing up* or *appearing on this listserve. Your symbol (concrete?) in particular is worth following. Concrete (as) actualizing? Or bringing into form?. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: David Kellogg Sent: April 23, 2016 11:49 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Help With Russian? Dear Russophones: I've been puzzling all afternoon over this, from Vygotsky's lecture on the Crisis at Three and Seven. Vygotsky has just introduced the importance of having a unit in which the development f the personality can be described and explained, and proposes "lived experience", that is, "perezhvanie". He now wants to define it. ?????? ??????????? ???? ?????? ??????????? ????-??????. ??? ???????????, ??????? ?? ???? ?? ???????????? ????-??????, ??? ??? ???? ????????, ??????? ?? ?? ??? ????? ???????? ????-??????. ?? ?????? ??????????? ???? ??? ???????????. ? ??????????? ?????????? ?????? ??????????? ???????? ??? ??????? ????????, ??? ??? ???????? ???????? ???????? ???? ??? ???????, ? ?? ????? ??? ?? ????????, ? ???????? ?? ???? ????? ????????. ???????? ?? ???????? ???????? ????????, ? ???????? ?????-?? ????????? ????????, ? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ?????????, ?????? ???????? ???????? ??? ???????? ?????????, ? ??? ?????????????? ???????????? ???????? ????????, ?? ??????? ???????????? ????????, ???????? ???????????. So I gather this means: a) "All lived experience is an experience of some thing." (i.e. all perezhivanie is intensional, it is about or of or towards something, it includes the environment) b) "There is no lived experience that is not a lived experience of something, just as there is no act of consciousness which is not an act of cognizing something." (i.e. consciousness is always consciousness of some event, some happening, some entity) c) "But in all lived experience there is the live-experiencing of myself." (But there is also a live-experiencing of the self, as well as a live experiencing of the environment.) d) "In contemporary concrete (?) theory, lived experience is introduced as a unit of consciousness in which all of the basic properties of consciousness are given as such, whereas attention and thinking are not given this link to consciousness." (It appears that by "concrete theory" he means something like "concrete psychology": in this theory, thinking is not a unit of consciousness and neither is attention.) e) "Attention is not a unit of consciousness but is some element of consciousness in which there is no series of other elements, with it the unity of consciousness as such vanishes" (Attention isn't a unit, but only an element, because attention does not contain within itself the set of elements. Is Vygotsky saying that if we take attention as a unit then the unity of consciousness vanishes?) f) "Here the actual dynamic unit of consciousness, from which consciousness is made up, is lived experience." (Lived experience is the real unit of consciousness, from which consciousness is constituted.) I find d) and e) very puzzling. Do I have it right, or am I way off the mark? Help, Russophones! David Kellogg Macquarie University From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 07:02:35 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 07:02:35 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: <571CCAD7.3060001@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> References: <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> <571CCAD7.3060001@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> Message-ID: <571cd207.6e76420a.b61a4.4b1b@mx.google.com> On this topic and linking to notions of collaboration counsel and con/sensus (thanks Andy) I would say the more encompassing the notion of *a movement* the more legitimate this notion *becomes* ( the notion of becoming concrete). Bernie?s focus on *we* are a movement. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Bruce Robinson Sent: April 24, 2016 6:34 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders Apologies. Apparently the last version of this came through blank. Like Andy, if I was an American I would vote for Sanders and also be actively involved in his campaign, despite acknowledging the limitations of his policies and him personally. That is not because I'm unsympathetic to David Kelloggs' principles - which I broadly share - but because I think Sanders' campaign, despite its Democratic label, represents the best chance for a very long time of breaking a sizable group of people away from two-party money-dominated politics for something better and more to the left. Who would have thought a year ago that millions of Americans would vote for someone who openly and unapologetically calls himself a socialist? Is it not better to try to talk to them, to convince them that they need to maintain an independent organisation after Sanders' inevitable defeat as their aspirations will never be met through the Democratic Party? Instead David proposes waiting forever for something he doesn't believe will happen - a passive and consumerist approach to a situation that has changed even compared with four years ago. Of course, whether anything better does emerge depends on a lot of factors, not least how Sanders himself reacts. It might be possible to make a cold, cynical assessment and say that the odds are against it. (I have my own reasons to be cynical.In 1996 I attended the founding convention of the Labor Party which ultimately foundered on the unwillingness of some union kleaders to challenge the Democrats electorally.) But unless the ground is tested it's impossible to know and, even if it fails, the far left might still grow and become a more visible force in US politics, certainly something that won't result from the SWP's campaign. Annalisa - some UK feminists welcomed Thatcher's election on the grounds that a woman prime minister was a step forward. I don't need to tell you what happened next. Hillary isn't Thatcher obviously. But there's also the disappointed expectations that surrounded Obama as the first black President. She is the candidate of Goldman Sachs, not of the women's movement. Bruce Robinson From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 08:06:25 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:06:25 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Question on an abstract notion Message-ID: <571ce0fd.5a50620a.a9291.435b@mx.google.com> Hegel begins with a high abstraction as a thesis statement. Then moves to antithesis, arriving at a more *concrete* synthesis. This as the movement towards form and structure and order. If this is accurate then I want to begin here with a high abstraction. Being is not self-identity but rather self-differentiation. The opposite of being (thesis) is not non-being or negation, but rather the *absence* of negation (uniformity or indifference). I will pause here, at this height of high abstraction as a speculation without grounding. Does this abstraction have any merit? If this notion/speculation as high abstraction does have any potency, this abstraction will need to *travel* towards *concrete* actualization and realization as a movement of *becoming* (movement of synthesis). First my inquiry concerning this high abstracted question exploring the notion of being &*absence* of being (uniformity) as *indifference*. Living experience (as) asymmetrical (not symmetrical uniformity). Therefore the need for *modulation* within living experience. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 24 08:28:39 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 01:28:39 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on an abstract notion In-Reply-To: <571ce0fd.5a50620a.a9291.435b@mx.google.com> References: <571ce0fd.5a50620a.a9291.435b@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <571CE627.5040105@mira.net> That Hegel used "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" is a myth, Larry. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 25/04/2016 1:06 AM, Lplarry wrote: > Hegel begins with a high abstraction as a thesis statement. Then moves to antithesis, arriving at a more *concrete* synthesis. This as the movement towards form and structure and order. > > If this is accurate then I want to begin here with a high abstraction. > > Being is not self-identity but rather self-differentiation. The opposite of being (thesis) is not non-being or negation, but rather the *absence* of negation (uniformity or indifference). > > I will pause here, at this height of high abstraction as a speculation without grounding. Does this abstraction have any merit? > If this notion/speculation as high abstraction does have any potency, this abstraction will need to *travel* towards *concrete* actualization and realization as a movement of *becoming* (movement of synthesis). > > First my inquiry concerning this high abstracted question exploring the notion of being &*absence* of being (uniformity) as *indifference*. > Living experience (as) asymmetrical (not symmetrical uniformity). > Therefore the need for *modulation* within living experience. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From glassman.13@osu.edu Sun Apr 24 08:28:43 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 15:28:43 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: <571CC6B7.7040106@mira.net> References: <571C2061.4040903@mira.net> <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> <571CC6B7.7040106@mira.net> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C74107@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Politics in the United States. I think that economics in the United States is deeply intermingled with issues of racism and misogyny. At the same time there are pockets of progressivism that perhaps you can't find anywhere else. I believe we will not solve our poverty problem, economic inequality until we deal with our demons. Obama has done some good things (health care, gay marriage, haltingly on climate) and some not good things (not prosecuting Wall Street, he has been terrible on education). But perhaps among the most important things he has done is he has forced many to confront that we are a deeply racist society. I am hoping the election of Hillary Clinton can help us face our misogyny (which we have a more difficult time discussing even in those more progressive pockets). It will I think be much more cataclysmic that Obama because it is so much more ingrained in what we do. Hillary Clinton herself has always been excellent on education and children's poverty. And she showed extraordinary grace and persistence while under constant, horrific attacks in the 1990s. Just some thoughts. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Andy Blunden Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:15 AM To: bruce@brucerob.eu; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders Your message came through blank, Bruce. Try setting the Delivery Format option to "Plain Text Only" ------------------------------------------------------------ *Andy Blunden* http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 24/04/2016 10:59 PM, Bruce Robinson wrote: > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 08:54:19 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 08:54:19 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on an abstract notion In-Reply-To: <571CE627.5040105@mira.net> References: <571ce0fd.5a50620a.a9291.435b@mx.google.com> <571CE627.5040105@mira.net> Message-ID: <571cec37.4334620a.96734.407e@mx.google.com> Andy, Is there no merit then in this notion of abstraction as a moment that may potentially become concretely actualized or realized ? Andy is there an article that can unfold how this myth historically developed? My growing edge. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Andy Blunden Sent: April 24, 2016 8:31 AM To: xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on an abstract notion That Hegel used "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" is a myth, Larry. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 25/04/2016 1:06 AM, Lplarry wrote: > Hegel begins with a high abstraction as a thesis statement. Then moves to antithesis, arriving at a more *concrete* synthesis. This as the movement towards form and structure and order. > > If this is accurate then I want to begin here with a high abstraction. > > Being is not self-identity but rather self-differentiation. The opposite of being (thesis) is not non-being or negation, but rather the *absence* of negation (uniformity or indifference). > > I will pause here, at this height of high abstraction as a speculation without grounding. Does this abstraction have any merit? > If this notion/speculation as high abstraction does have any potency, this abstraction will need to *travel* towards *concrete* actualization and realization as a movement of *becoming* (movement of synthesis). > > First my inquiry concerning this high abstracted question exploring the notion of being &*absence* of being (uniformity) as *indifference*. > Living experience (as) asymmetrical (not symmetrical uniformity). > Therefore the need for *modulation* within living experience. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 24 08:58:28 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 01:58:28 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on an abstract notion In-Reply-To: <571cec37.4334620a.96734.407e@mx.google.com> References: <571ce0fd.5a50620a.a9291.435b@mx.google.com> <571CE627.5040105@mira.net> <571cec37.4334620a.96734.407e@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <571CED24.2040204@mira.net> https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/stewart.htm This is the Introduction to "Hegel Myths and Legends." Unfortunately, Stewart propagates a couple of Marx myths and legends in the process of compiling a passably good expose of Hegel myths and legends. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 25/04/2016 1:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > Andy, > > Is there no merit then in this notion of abstraction as a > moment that may potentially become concretely actualized > or realized ? > > Andy is there an article that can unfold how this myth > historically developed? > > My growing edge. > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > *From: *Andy Blunden > *Sent: *April 24, 2016 8:31 AM > *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu > *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Question on an abstract notion > > That Hegel used "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" is a myth, > Larry. > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > > On 25/04/2016 1:06 AM, Lplarry wrote: > > > Hegel begins with a high abstraction as a thesis > statement. Then moves to antithesis, arriving at a more > *concrete* synthesis. This as the movement towards form > and structure and order. > > > > > > If this is accurate then I want to begin here with a > high abstraction. > > > > > > Being is not self-identity but rather > self-differentiation. The opposite of being (thesis) is > not non-being or negation, but rather the *absence* of > negation (uniformity or indifference). > > > > > > I will pause here, at this height of high abstraction as > a speculation without grounding. Does this abstraction > have any merit? > > > If this notion/speculation as high abstraction does have > any potency, this abstraction will need to *travel* > towards *concrete* actualization and realization as a > movement of *becoming* (movement of synthesis). > > > > > > First my inquiry concerning this high abstracted > question exploring the notion of being &*absence* of > being (uniformity) as *indifference*. > > > Living experience (as) asymmetrical (not symmetrical > uniformity). > > > Therefore the need for *modulation* within living > experience. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > From helenaworthen@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 09:26:38 2016 From: helenaworthen@gmail.com (Helena Worthen) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 09:26:38 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: <571CCAD7.3060001@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> References: <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> <571CCAD7.3060001@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> Message-ID: Hello?. There are at least two ways to talk about where one stands when looking at the upcoming US election. There?s the ?Why I will or won?t vote for X? which is a lot like ?Ways in which I disagree or agree with X.? Then there?s the ?Which candidate is more likely to be able to do something needed by my community?? There are quite a few people in the US who are going to be fine no matter who gets elected. There are people whose resources are deep and diverse enough so that even if we get a Trump for president, they will be OK. There are also people ? a lot more of these - who will be fine under Hillary. Not a whole lot will change for them if business as usual proceeds. They?ve got their real estate, their pensions, their investments, their education already. They don?t have much at risk. They don?t want Trump, but they don?t want a lot of changes either. This includes a lot of the African American community, which is not monolithic at all, any more than white voters are all of one mind. There are also a lot of people who are hanging in there from day to day, not really making it, and business as usual is going to be deadly for them. The ?voices from the field? that I?m looking for is not really so much about who you personally agree with or not, but how your community is doing. Remember ?the personal is political?? A feminist axiom. Opening up our monologue here on XMCA to more reports of how our communities are doing, and noting our own places in those communities, would allow us to hash out some issues over time, not waiting until you walk into the voting booth and look for the box of the person who agrees with you. Here in San Francisco the teachers at City College is about to go on strike. For the last 3 years there has been a real battle going on with the regional accreditation commission, which has been trying to shrink the college into a workforce development/transfer operation. Community colleges are about low-cost, open admission public higher education.This is something worth striking over. When Bernie talks about ?free public higher education,? this community knows what he?s talking about. It?s not a utopian dream; it?s the recent past, something I personally remember. What?s going on where you are? Helena From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Apr 24 10:21:07 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:21:07 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C74107@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> References: <571C2061.4040903@mira.net> <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> <571CC6B7.7040106@mira.net>, <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C74107@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Hello, Well! I see we have a lively talk here going on the election, but I thought one of the most frightening aspects to be concerned about was trump. Vera and Helena had asked what can we do about that. We have to look at the fact as Michael has pointed out, that we are a racist and misogynist society. Thinking about this thread, I also believe that we are a slave-oriented society because of the neoliberal forces that have taken over so many aspects of American society. But it's worldwide, it's not just in the US. To address David HK's post, I don't think it is about measure of wealth anymore. For people as wealthy as we see today, the next progression is a desire for power. Think trump. Think Citizens United. This is why having so much concentrated wealth is dangerous to democratic society. It should be illegal to have such enormous wealth. Greed should be against the law in the same way murder is. That would never make it to legislation, though. So I say slave-oriented society, not to be inflammatory on this list, but to say that capitalism produces that kind of social fabric. Marx seems to have believed that the creation of such abysmal conditions would cause a revolution, but it seems that when a frog is inured to boiling in water it doesn't jump out. People who become used to constraints upon freedom get used to that. On the other hand there are other dynamics at play, so I remain hopeful. I don't think history is teleological, but circular, contiguous, and ripple-like. It would be great to see a democratic government that moves away from a two-party system, but I don't think presidential elections is the time to try to make that happen. I think it should happen legislatively, though I'm not sure how. The game is rigged to try to run a parliamentary-like election by voting for little parties. That's how we got W for president and landed in two wars and stoked the fires of fear and terror. What might be more effective is the creation of factions inside the two-system to break the parties up from the inside. However, I'm not a political scientist, in case any one is curious. I agree with Michael that we can't make progress in the US until we face our demons. You can't be for freedom and democracy unless you are for freedom and democracy for everyone. That has been the American problem all along from its inception. As far as Bernie goes, I do think it is a pity that he can't advocate for the poor without making anti-women statements that his opponent is unqualified. Hillary has done a lot for women and children and for a long long time. So that was an absolutely wrong thing to say, especially to women voters, which is 50% of voters? I don't know what on earth Bernie has done to help the poor. Nor do I know what he's done for women. But he sure likes the Pope, who is against reproductive rights and women clergy. Furthermore, I see how black americans are voting with their feet and many of them are not in the Sanders camp. I wonder why that is. They must not feel it with him, and that is his own doing, no one else's. Given that he's for guns, do you think that might be a factor? Hmm... I've yet to hear Bernie to say what he has done (historically, not stump speeches) for the poor or for women or for minorities. I'd really like to know, and I'm surprised that he's been so quiet on these topics. Or maybe I'm just not listening well enough. Still... I'm glad he's campaigning because he has brought a lot of people to the political discussion who haven't felt a part of it. But then trump is bringing in a lot of people too, and those are actually the kind of people I'd rather not be part of the process. Not many people here have sounded out much on trump. I suspect we are completely in shock that this could even be happening. But it is. To Helena's last post, I agree with her that we can't be just talking about voting for candidates, but must consider how our communities are doing and what we are doing to make them more vibrant, verdant, and safe. How to connect and make the personal political for you? No matter who wins, the work still needs to be done from the bottom for those who are most vulnerable. Kind regards, Annalisa From vygotsky@unm.edu Sun Apr 24 10:47:49 2016 From: vygotsky@unm.edu (Vera John-Steiner) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:47:49 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf Message-ID: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> This is the article I mentioned in connection with the manologue discussion. It is a little dated but might be of interest to some of you, Vera -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 195325 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160424/c0cd7371/attachment.pdf From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Sun Apr 24 10:44:48 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:44:48 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders Message-ID: I must be the only one that thinks obama and hillary are white men! ?I stand with Nancy Fraser and see the foolishness behind identity politics. ?It imputes an alternative practical consciousness on so-called identities that is not supported by empirical evidence. ?Frantz Fanon's "black skin white mask" should be a prerequisite for all intro to psychology classes. ? Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/24/2016 1:21 PM (GMT-05:00) To: ablunden@mira.net, "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders Hello, Well! I see we have a lively talk here going on the election, but I thought one of the most frightening aspects to be concerned about was trump. Vera and Helena had asked what can we do about that. We have to look at the fact as Michael has pointed out, that we are a racist and misogynist society. Thinking about this thread, I also believe that we are a slave-oriented society because of the neoliberal forces that have taken over so many aspects of American society. But it's worldwide, it's not just in the US. To address David HK's post, I don't think it is about measure of wealth anymore. For people as wealthy as we see today, the next progression is a desire for power. Think trump. Think Citizens United. This is why having so much concentrated wealth is dangerous to democratic society. It should be illegal to have such enormous wealth. Greed should be against the law in the same way murder is. That would never make it to legislation, though. So I say slave-oriented society, not to be inflammatory on this list, but to say that capitalism produces that kind of social fabric. Marx seems to have believed that the creation of such abysmal conditions would cause a revolution, but it seems that when a frog is inured to boiling in water it doesn't jump out. People who become used to constraints upon freedom get used to that. On the other hand there are other dynamics at play, so I remain hopeful. I don't think history is teleological, but circular, contiguous, and ripple-like. It would be great to see a democratic government that moves away from a two-party system, but I don't think presidential elections is the time to try to make that happen. I think it should happen legislatively, though I'm not sure how. The game is rigged to try to run a parliamentary-like election by voting for little parties. That's how we got W for president and landed in two wars and stoked the fires of fear and terror. What might be more effective is the creation of factions inside the two-system to break the parties up from the inside. However, I'm not a political scientist, in case any one is curious. I agree with Michael that we can't make progress in the US until we face our demons. You can't be for freedom and democracy unless you are for freedom and democracy for everyone. That has been the American problem all along from its inception. As far as Bernie goes, I do think it is a pity that he can't advocate for the poor without making anti-women statements that his opponent is unqualified. Hillary has done a lot for women and children and for a long long time. So that was an absolutely wrong thing to say, especially to women voters, which is 50% of voters? I don't know what on earth Bernie has done to help the poor. Nor do I know what he's done for women. But he sure likes the Pope, who is against reproductive rights and women clergy. Furthermore, I see how black americans are voting with their feet and many of them are not in the Sanders camp. I wonder why that is. They must not feel it with him, and that is his own doing, no one else's. Given that he's for guns, do you think that might be a factor? Hmm... I've yet to hear Bernie to say what he has done (historically, not stump speeches) for the poor or for women or for minorities. I'd really like to know, and I'm surprised that he's been so quiet on these topics. Or maybe I'm just not listening well enough. Still... I'm glad he's campaigning because he has brought a lot of people to the political discussion who haven't felt a part of it. But then trump is bringing in a lot of people too, and those are actually the kind of people I'd rather not be part of the process. Not many people here have sounded out much on trump. I suspect we are completely in shock that this could even be happening. But it is. To Helena's last post, I agree with her that we can't be just talking about voting for candidates, but must consider how our communities are doing and what we are doing to make them more vibrant, verdant, and safe. How to connect and make the personal political for you? No matter who wins, the work still needs to be done from the bottom for those who are most vulnerable. Kind regards, Annalisa From schuckthemonkey@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 10:48:00 2016 From: schuckthemonkey@gmail.com (Christopher Schuck) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:48:00 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: References: <571C2061.4040903@mira.net> <571CC34C.6050802@dolphy.eclipse.co.uk> <571CC6B7.7040106@mira.net> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C74107@CIO-KRC-D1MBX04.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Everyone: my email has been hacked and is possibly circulating a fake Google Link to you all; please do not click on it!! I am terribly sorry....Should have joined this group next week not last week. Chris Schuck On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 1:21 PM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > > Hello, > > Well! I see we have a lively talk here going on the election, but I > thought one of the most frightening aspects to be concerned about was > trump. Vera and Helena had asked what can we do about that. We have to look > at the fact as Michael has pointed out, that we are a racist and misogynist > society. Thinking about this thread, I also believe that we are a > slave-oriented society because of the neoliberal forces that have taken > over so many aspects of American society. But it's worldwide, it's not just > in the US. > > To address David HK's post, I don't think it is about measure of wealth > anymore. For people as wealthy as we see today, the next progression is a > desire for power. Think trump. Think Citizens United. This is why having so > much concentrated wealth is dangerous to democratic society. It should be > illegal to have such enormous wealth. Greed should be against the law in > the same way murder is. That would never make it to legislation, though. > > So I say slave-oriented society, not to be inflammatory on this list, but > to say that capitalism produces that kind of social fabric. Marx seems to > have believed that the creation of such abysmal conditions would cause a > revolution, but it seems that when a frog is inured to boiling in water it > doesn't jump out. People who become used to constraints upon freedom get > used to that. On the other hand there are other dynamics at play, so I > remain hopeful. I don't think history is teleological, but circular, > contiguous, and ripple-like. > > It would be great to see a democratic government that moves away from a > two-party system, but I don't think presidential elections is the time to > try to make that happen. I think it should happen legislatively, though I'm > not sure how. The game is rigged to try to run a parliamentary-like > election by voting for little parties. That's how we got W for president > and landed in two wars and stoked the fires of fear and terror. What might > be more effective is the creation of factions inside the two-system to > break the parties up from the inside. However, I'm not a political > scientist, in case any one is curious. > > I agree with Michael that we can't make progress in the US until we face > our demons. You can't be for freedom and democracy unless you are for > freedom and democracy for everyone. That has been the American problem all > along from its inception. > > As far as Bernie goes, I do think it is a pity that he can't advocate for > the poor without making anti-women statements that his opponent is > unqualified. Hillary has done a lot for women and children and for a long > long time. So that was an absolutely wrong thing to say, especially to > women voters, which is 50% of voters? I don't know what on earth Bernie has > done to help the poor. Nor do I know what he's done for women. But he sure > likes the Pope, who is against reproductive rights and women clergy. > Furthermore, I see how black americans are voting with their feet and many > of them are not in the Sanders camp. I wonder why that is. They must not > feel it with him, and that is his own doing, no one else's. Given that he's > for guns, do you think that might be a factor? Hmm... > > I've yet to hear Bernie to say what he has done (historically, not stump > speeches) for the poor or for women or for minorities. I'd really like to > know, and I'm surprised that he's been so quiet on these topics. Or maybe > I'm just not listening well enough. > > Still... I'm glad he's campaigning because he has brought a lot of people > to the political discussion who haven't felt a part of it. But then trump > is bringing in a lot of people too, and those are actually the kind of > people I'd rather not be part of the process. Not many people here have > sounded out much on trump. I suspect we are completely in shock that this > could even be happening. But it is. > > To Helena's last post, I agree with her that we can't be just talking > about voting for candidates, but must consider how our communities are > doing and what we are doing to make them more vibrant, verdant, and safe. > How to connect and make the personal political for you? No matter who wins, > the work still needs to be done from the bottom for those who are most > vulnerable. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > > > > > From schuckthemonkey@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 10:49:15 2016 From: schuckthemonkey@gmail.com (Christopher Schuck) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:49:15 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Collective decisions In-Reply-To: <571c0220.c74e620a.33876.78d5@mx.google.com> References: <571AE2AF.3010701@mira.net> <571c0220.c74e620a.33876.78d5@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Everyone: my email has been hacked, and may be circulating a fake Google Drive link; please do not click on it!! I'm terribly sorry..... Best, Chris Schuck On Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 7:15 PM, Lplarry wrote: > Andy, > This book that germinated in your observation that differing notions of > what is the preferred way of participating in collective mutual > collaboration was fragmenting collective forms into factions. > This question *why* which led to this book is a profound question. > > It overlaps significantly with the monologue/ monologue theme. > As I read the synopsis your adding *counsel* as a third way was > interesting. > > One impression as I was reading was how significant *intermediate* > community (between family and state) was historically to generating all > three developmental *forms* of con/sensus. > The notion of collaboration which includes: > The prefix *con* with *sensus* has a tone which resonates both with this > thread and the other thread. > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Andy Blunden > Sent: April 22, 2016 7:51 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Collective decisions > > Not unrelated to the theme of collaboration, I would like to > share the news of the publication of my book, "The Origins > of Collective Decision Making," which takes an historical > perspective on the topic, stretching back more than 1,000 years. > I have attached a synopsis for your interest. > Andy > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------ > *Andy Blunden* > Home Page > Origins of Collective Decision Making > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making> > > From schuckthemonkey@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 10:50:37 2016 From: schuckthemonkey@gmail.com (Christopher Schuck) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 13:50:37 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Question on an abstract notion In-Reply-To: <571CED24.2040204@mira.net> References: <571ce0fd.5a50620a.a9291.435b@mx.google.com> <571CE627.5040105@mira.net> <571cec37.4334620a.96734.407e@mx.google.com> <571CED24.2040204@mira.net> Message-ID: Everyone: my email has been hacked and may be circulating a fake Google Drive link; please do not click on it!! So sorry.....sending to all three threads. Chris Schuck On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 11:58 AM, Andy Blunden wrote: > https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/philosophy/works/us/stewart.htm > This is the Introduction to "Hegel Myths and Legends." > Unfortunately, Stewart propagates a couple of Marx myths and legends in > the process of compiling a passably good expose of Hegel myths and legends. > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 25/04/2016 1:54 AM, Lplarry wrote: > >> >> Andy, >> >> Is there no merit then in this notion of abstraction as a moment that may >> potentially become concretely actualized or realized ? >> >> Andy is there an article that can unfold how this myth historically >> developed? >> >> My growing edge. >> >> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> *From: *Andy Blunden >> *Sent: *April 24, 2016 8:31 AM >> *To: *xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu >> *Subject: *[Xmca-l] Re: Question on an abstract notion >> >> That Hegel used "Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis" is a myth, Larry. >> >> Andy >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> Andy Blunden >> >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> >> On 25/04/2016 1:06 AM, Lplarry wrote: >> >> > Hegel begins with a high abstraction as a thesis statement. Then moves >> to antithesis, arriving at a more *concrete* synthesis. This as the >> movement towards form and structure and order. >> >> > >> >> > If this is accurate then I want to begin here with a high abstraction. >> >> > >> >> > Being is not self-identity but rather self-differentiation. The >> opposite of being (thesis) is not non-being or negation, but rather the >> *absence* of negation (uniformity or indifference). >> >> > >> >> > I will pause here, at this height of high abstraction as a speculation >> without grounding. Does this abstraction have any merit? >> >> > If this notion/speculation as high abstraction does have any potency, >> this abstraction will need to *travel* towards *concrete* actualization >> and realization as a movement of *becoming* (movement of synthesis). >> >> > >> >> > First my inquiry concerning this high abstracted question exploring >> the notion of being &*absence* of being (uniformity) as *indifference*. >> >> > Living experience (as) asymmetrical (not symmetrical uniformity). >> >> > Therefore the need for *modulation* within living experience. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Sent from my Windows 10 phone >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 24 11:48:20 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 11:48:20 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> References: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> Message-ID: Thanks Vera. Being a little dated myself, I look forward to reading it. Does anyone have a favorite article on Foucault and Vygotsky that they would recommend? mike On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 10:47 AM, Vera John-Steiner wrote: > This is the article I mentioned in connection with the manologue > discussion. > It is a little dated but might be of interest to some of you, > > > > Vera > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Apr 24 13:23:55 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:23:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu>, Message-ID: Hi, The PDF that Vera posted was a version that wasn't proofed. She asked that I post the correct PDF here. (BTW, there are a few more nice texts of Vera's available at her Academia page here: https://independent.academia.edu/VeraJohnSteiner In case anyone's interested... It's great to take the conversation further on texts that can bridge the gap that Phillip had mentioned a few days ago. Thanks to Mike for asking for more texts. I think this could be a wonderful...need I say it? COLLABORATION! :) Kind regards, Annalisa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: John-Steiner_Sociocultural and Feminist Theory-Mutuality and Relevance_1999-FINAL.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 141095 bytes Desc: John-Steiner_Sociocultural and Feminist Theory-Mutuality and Relevance_1999-FINAL.pdf Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160424/b3068b08/attachment.pdf From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Apr 24 13:46:02 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 20:46:02 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello Paul, I was wondering when you would join the fray. :) I'm not sure what is your definition of "identity politics". Maybe you can enlighten me on that. I'm also not sure what to make of "practical consciousness", as to me a person is either aware or not aware or somewhat aware of something. In other words, to me, consciousness can have no adjective, because all things that have qualities are inside consciousness, not outside of it. Awareness on the other hand, is a human experience that has to do with a quality of mind, how it reflects its context, and certainly people can and do identify themselves based upon those qualities are present (reflecting) in their minds. With that in mind, I'd say identity politics just means standing up for yourself even if you are different from others. Difference of course is an amorphous thing to define, since it's always up for grabs what difference means, but it does seem to depend upon context and who is calling who "different." What is amazing to me is that each human being is a unique individual, genetically, culturally, psychologically, etc. and yet we tend to "identify" with others whom we feel a being-at-home. How that comes to be is also quite unique. As far as the determination that barak and hillary are actually white-men, I can find some agreement with that, but I'd ask why they have to partake in that identity. Likely, because of neoliberal requirements of the gatekeepers in this political milieu we find ourselves. Despite that, I think that most African Americans would rather have barak than mitt, and I think most women would rather have hillary than trump. Examination of critical theorists you mention and how they overlap CHAT is a worthwhile venture, don't you think? Have you got any texts you can recommend by Nancy Fraser and Frantz Fanon that we might read? Might help in creating a moment of understanding? Kind regards, Annalisa From hshonerd@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 14:25:36 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 15:25:36 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> References: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> Message-ID: <45159C80-A9D1-43A9-BD7B-019D70EC9C39@gmail.com> Dear Vera, I am reading the article now, about 2/3 of the way through. I jumped to the bibliography and notice you didn?t include your Creative Collaboration (2000). I want to do a shout out for creativity and art in this dialog. You have spent so much time researching and writing on creative and artistic domains of dignified interdependence. I think these narratives are the most powerful reminders for me of what the chat embodies. Stoked Henry > On Apr 24, 2016, at 11:47 AM, Vera John-Steiner wrote: > > This is the article I mentioned in connection with the manologue discussion. > It is a little dated but might be of interest to some of you, > > > > Vera > > From Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu Sun Apr 24 15:01:51 2016 From: Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu (White, Phillip) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 22:01:51 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> References: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> Message-ID: greetings, everyone. i can only image that the participants of xmca have been waiting with baited breath to hear the results of my gefilte fish for last friday's seder - and i can only repeat, so that you know that i'm not fishing for compliments, that the gentleman in his late seventies who was seated next to me (my son's mother-in-law's cousin's husband) said, "This gefilte fish is better than my Kiev born grandmother, and she was a great cook!" however, to join in the swim or current postings, Vera's conclusion is quite to the point, so that i'm pasting it in here: "In the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that traditional psychological and economic models of human agents as lone, competitive actors are losing influence. Increasingly, interdependence between persons is recognized as central to individual and societal functioning. Both cultural-historical and feminist theorists place the social sources of development, or "self-in-re1ation" as central within their framework. There are shared themes and complementarity, as well as different emphases across these two groups of theorists. Feminists' concerns with developmental and relational dynamics are not explicitly shared by scholars studying mind, culture and activity. However, in looking for areas of mutuality , we broaden our ways of knowing, and, in the process, may construct a new synthesis between thought and motive, and cognition and emotion." i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, culture and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical race theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. phillip From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 24 15:23:50 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 15:23:50 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> Message-ID: Hear hear, Phillip! Who wrote: i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, culture and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical race theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. The editors of MCA, I think it is safe to say, will welcome first class articles that do exactly this. mike On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, White, Phillip wrote: > greetings, everyone. i can only image that the participants of xmca have > been waiting with baited breath to hear the results of my gefilte fish for > last friday's seder - and i can only repeat, so that you know that i'm not > fishing for compliments, that the gentleman in his late seventies who was > seated next to me (my son's mother-in-law's cousin's husband) said, "This > gefilte fish is better than my Kiev born grandmother, and she was a great > cook!" > > however, to join in the swim or current postings, Vera's conclusion is > quite to the point, so that i'm pasting it in here: > > "In the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that traditional > psychological and economic > models of human agents as lone, competitive actors are losing influence. > Increasingly, interdependence between persons is recognized as central to > individual and societal functioning. Both cultural-historical and feminist > theorists place the social sources of development, or "self-in-re1ation" as > central within their framework. There are shared themes and > complementarity, as well as different emphases across these two groups of > theorists. Feminists' concerns with developmental and relational dynamics > are not explicitly shared by scholars studying mind, culture and activity. > However, in looking for areas of mutuality , we broaden our ways of > knowing, and, in the process, may construct a new synthesis between thought > and motive, and cognition and emotion." > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, culture > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical race > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > phillip > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Sun Apr 24 15:25:14 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:25:14 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders Message-ID: Hi annalisa, I use "practical consciousness" as defined within structurationist sociology. ?The ideas of consciousness we recursively organize and reproduce as praxis (habermas, giddens, bourdieu, sahlins). ?For me, building on the work of marcuse via althusser these ideas are a product of reified (via language, the mode of production, and ideological apparatuses) ideologies, which interpellates us as subjects (in the words of althusser, "there is no subject , but by and for their subjection"). ?So consciousness here is not necessarily a reference to self-awareness, which structurationist sociology view as a "present at hand" (heidegger's term) viewpoint, i.e., the viewpoint of science.? Second, I do not subscribe, within my structurationist understanding of consciousness constitution, to the viewpoint that blacks, women, gays, etc. Interpellated and embourgeoised within western society necessarily bring an alternative practical consciousness to any issue. ?They are subjects of the system who recursively reorganize and reproduce it's ideas and ?"rules of conduct which are sanctioned" (giddens's term) for their ontological security amidst structural differentiation. ?So for me obama is a dark skinned white man, and hillary is a white man in drag seeking equality of opportunity, recognition, and distribution for their structurally differentiated "identities." ?They are subjects, or as my sociology professor, the late Stanford lyman referred to as agents of the protestant ethic, of a perverse world-system which threatens all life on earth. Nancy fraser's "justice interruptus" a great analysis of the post-socialist era... Fanon's "black skin white mask" and "the wretched of the earth" are classics. ?I do not subscribe to fanon's psychoanalysis, but his conclusions are still valid. ?There is work currently underway to put together his letters and lectures into a new monograph I believe at Duke university. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/24/2016 4:46 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" , ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Why I Won't Vote for Sanders Hello Paul, I was wondering when you would join the fray. :) I'm not sure what is your definition of "identity politics". Maybe you can enlighten me on that. I'm also not sure what to make of "practical consciousness", as to me a person is either aware or not aware or somewhat aware of something. In other words, to me, consciousness can have no adjective, because all things that have qualities are inside consciousness, not outside of it. Awareness on the other hand, is a human experience that has to do with a quality of mind, how it reflects its context, and certainly people can and do identify themselves based upon those qualities are present (reflecting) in their minds. With that in mind, I'd say identity politics just means standing up for yourself even if you are different from others. Difference of course is an amorphous thing to define, since it's always up for grabs what difference means, but it does seem to depend upon context and who is calling who "different." What is amazing to me is that each human being is a unique individual, genetically, culturally, psychologically, etc. and yet we tend to "identify" with others whom we feel a being-at-home. How that comes to be is also quite unique. As far as the determination that barak and hillary are actually white-men, I can find some agreement with that, but I'd ask why they have to partake in that identity. Likely, because of neoliberal requirements of the gatekeepers in this political milieu we find ourselves. Despite that, I think that most African Americans would rather have barak than mitt, and I think most women would rather have hillary than trump. Examination of critical theorists you mention and how they overlap CHAT is a worthwhile venture, don't you think? Have you got any texts you can recommend by Nancy Fraser and Frantz Fanon that we might read? Might help in creating a moment of understanding? Kind regards, Annalisa From dkellogg60@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 15:29:47 2016 From: dkellogg60@gmail.com (David Kellogg) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:29:47 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Blackface and Gayface Message-ID: Paul: Like you, I have always been puzzled and even a little troubled that we think of Obama as a half-black president rather than a half-white one. As I said, I think he's a conservative politician, well to the right of Eisenhower and pretty much in the mold of the first George Bush; therefore I think that the adamantine loathing of Obama by the "Republicans" is entirely racial. (Let us remember that the Republicans are historically the party of black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction in the USA, and let us, that is, you and me, consider the present day Republicans a complete non sequitur, a zombie usurpation, something like the present ruling party of Haiti.) But for that very reason, it really will not do to consider Obama a white politician: first of all, it confuses conservativism with whiteness, the error of which Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, and Ben Carson on the one hand and Marx, Engels, Lenin on the other have amply demonstrated. Secondly, it doesn't explain the phenomenon that needs to be explained, namely the bilious hatred of the right for a politician who is politically so very much one of their own number. So in what sense is Obama black? I think, actually, he is black in the very best sense: in an entirely voluntary and chosen one. He did not coyly flirt with being black, the way that David Bowie and Prince flirted with being bi for commercial purposes. Bowie then complained that he was a "closet heterosexual" and that he was forced to have sex with gay men just in order to inhabit the persona he had created, and Prince joined the Jehovah's Witnesses and justified the deadly Biblical persecution of gay people as God's revenge on them for "stickin' it here and there and everywhere". If these gentlemen find it difficult to have sex with other gentlemen, there is an extremely simple solution, one that has historically been made compulsory for men who are actually rather than simply sartorially gay. They can have sex with women. No one says that the white extras in D.W. Griffith's films were really trying to stand up for black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction, and no one confuses minstrelsy and blackface with black culture: why, then, do we tolerate "gayface" in people like David Bowie and Prince, people who have no loyalty whatsoever to the gay community beyond the cash nexus? Obama doesn't do blackface. He learned black English (which, remember, was a foreign language to him, growing up in Hawail and Indonesia). He married black, and self-identified as black when it was not at all a commercial or an electoral advantage, quite the contrary. He went to a black church and he didn't leave it even under overwhelming white pressure, but only when it really did offend his heartfelt (conservative) principles. Obama is black in the sense that Helena was talking about, in the sense that he has joined and been accepted by and really belongs to a black community, namely South Chicago. It is true that he has given some Cosby-esque speeches about and even to the black lumpenproletariat. But this too is from his community: in South Shore some of the most bitter opponents of petty crime and gangbangin' and humbuggin' were precisely the black workers at US Steel South Works, General Motors EMD, and Ford: they'd worked bloody hard for that stereo tape deck and those chrome hub caps and if you tried to swipe them it really didn't matter what color you were, they were going to show the world the color of your blood. I also vote in Korean elections, because I too have a community which I voluntarily adopted and which accepted me and where I am a legal permanent resident with electoral rights. In the last Korean election, I voted for the third largest party in parliament, the United Progressive Party. Immediately after the election, the party was legally dissolved, the leaders I had voted for were expelled from parliament, arrested and sentenced to 24 years in prison (later, after the intercession of Pope Francis, reduced to "only" twelve years). All candidates in the US elections have insisted on continuing US support for what is essentially an old fashioned Cold War regime, the "free world" counterpart of the North Korean nepotism-despotism. Even Donald Trump's main complaint is that Korea doesn't pay enough money for the privilege of being occupied by US troops. So from that point of view as well, a vote for Sanders makes no sense. David Kellogg Macquarie University dk From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Sun Apr 24 15:47:25 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 18:47:25 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface Message-ID: Agree with you David on everything you said... my only position is that obama's so-called "black" community is a fictitious structurally differentiated one. ?Just like the petit-bourgeois blacks of haiti think that because they are not light-skinned they are better for haiti even though they seek the same neoliberal projects for the masses on the island as their mulatto counterparts... such absurdity! Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: David Kellogg Date: 4/24/2016 6:29 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Blackface and Gayface Paul: Like you, I have always been puzzled and even a little troubled that we think of Obama as a half-black president rather than a half-white one. As I said, I think he's a conservative politician, well to the right of Eisenhower and pretty much in the mold of the first George Bush; therefore I think that the adamantine loathing of Obama by the "Republicans" is entirely racial. (Let us remember that the Republicans are historically the party of black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction in the USA, and let us, that is, you and me, consider the present day Republicans a complete non sequitur, a zombie usurpation, something like the present ruling party of Haiti.) But for that very reason, it really will not do to consider Obama a white politician: first of all, it confuses conservativism with whiteness, the error of which Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, and Ben Carson on the one hand and Marx, Engels, Lenin on the other have amply demonstrated. Secondly, it doesn't explain the phenomenon that needs to be explained, namely the bilious hatred of the right for a politician who is politically so very much one of their own number. So in what sense is Obama black? I think, actually, he is black in the very best sense: in an entirely voluntary and chosen one. He did not coyly flirt with being black, the way that David Bowie and Prince flirted with being bi for commercial purposes. Bowie then complained that he was a "closet heterosexual" and that he was forced to have sex with gay men just in order to inhabit the persona he had created, and Prince joined the Jehovah's Witnesses and justified the deadly Biblical persecution of gay people as God's revenge on them for "stickin' it here and there and everywhere". If these gentlemen find it difficult to have sex with other gentlemen, there is an extremely simple solution, one that has historically been made compulsory for men who are actually rather than simply sartorially gay. They can have sex with women. No one says that the white extras in D.W. Griffith's films were really trying to stand up for black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction, and no one confuses minstrelsy and blackface with black culture: why, then, do we tolerate "gayface" in people like David Bowie and Prince, people who have no loyalty whatsoever to the gay community beyond the cash nexus? Obama doesn't do blackface. He learned black English (which, remember, was a foreign language to him, growing up in Hawail and Indonesia). He married black, and self-identified as black when it was not at all a commercial or an electoral advantage, quite the contrary. He went to a black church and he didn't leave it even under overwhelming white pressure, but only when it really did offend his heartfelt (conservative) principles. Obama is black in the sense that Helena was talking about, in the sense that he has joined and been accepted by and really belongs to a black community, namely South Chicago. It is true that he has given some Cosby-esque speeches about and even to the black lumpenproletariat. But this too is from his community: in South Shore some of the most bitter opponents of petty crime and gangbangin' and humbuggin' were precisely the black workers at US Steel South Works, General Motors EMD, and Ford: they'd worked bloody hard for that stereo tape deck and those chrome hub caps and if you tried to swipe them it really didn't matter what color you were, they were going to show the world the color of your blood. I also vote in Korean elections, because I too have a community which I voluntarily adopted and which accepted me and where I am a legal permanent resident with electoral rights. In the last Korean election, I voted for the third largest party in parliament, the United Progressive Party. Immediately after the election, the party was legally dissolved, the leaders I had voted for were expelled from parliament, arrested and sentenced to 24 years in prison (later, after the intercession of Pope Francis, reduced to "only" twelve years). All candidates in the US elections have insisted on continuing US support for what is essentially an old fashioned Cold War regime, the "free world" counterpart of the North Korean nepotism-despotism. Even Donald Trump's main complaint is that Korea doesn't pay enough money for the privilege of being occupied by US troops. So from that point of view as well, a vote for Sanders makes no sense. David Kellogg Macquarie University dk From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 24 16:16:29 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 16:16:29 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: NYTimes.com: In an Age of Privilege, Not Everyone Is in the Same Boat In-Reply-To: <571D4D97.00000023@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> References: <571D4D97.00000023@pmta04.ewr1.nytimes.com> Message-ID: I thought that the linked article here, which appeared as THE lead story in the NYTimes today, might be relevant to the ongoing discussion of the American election. Who would you have Americans vote if they faced this reality? The reality is global of course. But is the American election under discussion. mike The Velvet Rope Economy In an Age of Privilege, Not Everyone Is in the Same Boat By NELSON D. SCHWARTZ Companies are becoming adept at identifying wealthy customers and marketing to them, creating a money-based caste system. Or, copy and paste this URL into your browser: http://nyti.ms/1SAJPUM *Not a Subscriber*? To get unlimited access to all New York Times articles, subscribe today. See Options To ensure delivery to your inbox, please add nytdirect@nytimes.com to your address book. Advertisement Copyright 2016 | The New York Times Company | NYTimes.com 620 Eighth Avenue New York, NY 10018 -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From mcole@ucsd.edu Sun Apr 24 17:29:17 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 17:29:17 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a good many Americans. They do not know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence about an unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this dated person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I come from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible sexists) who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution of the US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those years around my birth were all about. The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of the atomic age. The result in this case? Who was it you were asking me to vote for? mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: BernieSanders.com Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM Subject: Verizon's greed To: Michael Cole [image: Bernie Sanders for President] When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then tries to outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the kind of corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's exactly what Verizon is doing right now.* Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to Bernie's to say you support Verizon employees. * Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is below. Thank you for standing in solidarity. ------------------------------ Sisters and Brothers, The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. He leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon wants to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying federal income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and negotiate a fair contract with its employees.* In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation trying to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's employees are fighting back.* Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* difficult decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they made to stand up for justice against corporate greed. *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that you think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to add your name in support of Verizon employees. * *Add Your Name ? * Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: they're standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of Americans who don't have a union. The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, decent benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for saying that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay its fair share in federal income taxes. What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar compensation packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still refusing to give their employees fair contracts. Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all of us standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way you can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon employees who are out on strike.* *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are standing up to the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair pay, and job protections. * Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot have it all. Thanks for helping them know it. In solidarity, Bernie Sanders *Contribute * Paid for by Bernie 2016 [image: (not the billionaires)] PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or change your information or email address, click here to update your info . Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters like you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails . We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to unsubscribe . Stand against the powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress and have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie here . -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From annalisa@unm.edu Sun Apr 24 18:19:19 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 01:19:19 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Paul, So then ideas OF consciousness, as you are using the word, has to do with activity. If I am understanding you correctly, would this correspond with activity theory, if activity is that which develops mind? Interpellates is a new word for me, and seems to be, for althusser, a particular manifestation of activity which develops and specifically reproduces political being, in the sense, I imagine, of carrying an ideology like a virus or meme from individual to individual, group to group. In althusser's sensibility, this is pressed into being by the state upon members of the society, in a totalitarian sense, it seems, which means we can never be free, it seems. Do I have that correctly? If that is correct, then what is althusser's idea OF freedom. Also, althusser had a troubled past with his wife, did he not? so I'm not clear how the personal is political in his case. Or rather the personal connected to the political, maybe is a better way to frame it. Is it possible to post to the list those Fraser and Fanon texts? I no longer have the open access to journal texts I used to have. Also, to those reading my longer posts, I hope they have not been oppressive, or inflammatory, but responsive and inclusive, as that is how I have intended them, even if I've been critical. Sometimes the apparatus of emails and listservs do not translate well, and also the nature of posts on elections can be read so swiftly due to the emotional content they carry, that intended meanings can be easily lost. I feel that it has been overall a positive and honest exchange, though it would be great to have more people participate. I'm grateful to everyone who has spoken up thus far and made their contributions. Kind regards, Annalisa From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 24 18:28:24 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:28:24 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571D72B8.3040006@mira.net> Here's the first chapter of "Justice Interruptus" Annalisa. http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/blackwood/fraser.htm Nancy Fraser is one of my favourite writers too. Althusser is very much *not* one of my favourite writers, but this Althusser Glossary will help you crack his ideas: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/glossary.htm Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 25/04/2016 11:19 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hi Paul, > > So then ideas OF consciousness, as you are using the word, has to do with activity. If I am understanding you correctly, would this correspond with activity theory, if activity is that which develops mind? > > Interpellates is a new word for me, and seems to be, for althusser, a particular manifestation of activity which develops and specifically reproduces political being, in the sense, I imagine, of carrying an ideology like a virus or meme from individual to individual, group to group. In althusser's sensibility, this is pressed into being by the state upon members of the society, in a totalitarian sense, it seems, which means we can never be free, it seems. > > Do I have that correctly? > > If that is correct, then what is althusser's idea OF freedom. Also, althusser had a troubled past with his wife, did he not? so I'm not clear how the personal is political in his case. Or rather the personal connected to the political, maybe is a better way to frame it. > > Is it possible to post to the list those Fraser and Fanon texts? I no longer have the open access to journal texts I used to have. > > Also, to those reading my longer posts, I hope they have not been oppressive, or inflammatory, but responsive and inclusive, as that is how I have intended them, even if I've been critical. Sometimes the apparatus of emails and listservs do not translate well, and also the nature of posts on elections can be read so swiftly due to the emotional content they carry, that intended meanings can be easily lost. > > I feel that it has been overall a positive and honest exchange, though it would be great to have more people participate. I'm grateful to everyone who has spoken up thus far and made their contributions. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > From Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu Sun Apr 24 19:58:13 2016 From: Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu (White, Phillip) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 02:58:13 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Message-ID: <20160425025812.5955728.74776.12544@ucdenver.edu> Thanks for this resource. I needed that small push to read more of Fraser. Phillip Sent from my BlackBerry 10 smartphone. ? Original Message ? From: Andy Blunden Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 7:29 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Reply To: ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Here's the first chapter of "Justice Interruptus" Annalisa. http://www.ethicalpolitics.org/blackwood/fraser.htm Nancy Fraser is one of my favourite writers too. Althusser is very much *not* one of my favourite writers, but this Althusser Glossary will help you crack his ideas: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/althusser/glossary.htm Andy -----------------------------------------------------? From vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp Sun Apr 24 20:13:21 2016 From: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp (Wilkinson) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:13:21 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Life in the present mode of existence, being. Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly the end of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. I live in an educational world where the children have been taught that the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - living systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not vote for Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to make my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a great team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the young ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support of the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me since I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my first English primer. Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and kindly to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" as mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is coherent, articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not going to help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am doing now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with the players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is quite enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me so much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have meetings, plan events. Just have to stay busy ... But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with the present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross Ashby and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to survive, an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the hunger. Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of nations and communities and teams and people and families and the cells in the body maintaining health. It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA continues to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on Ervin Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative ventures in sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of ultra-technology, in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in Japan and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the present does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward better education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned that wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and intrinsic development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so much better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money blah, messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park instead of getting on with my projects for today). Vandy 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a good many > Americans. They do not > know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence about an > unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this dated > person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I come > from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible sexists) > who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution of the > US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those years > around my birth were all about. > > The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of the > atomic age. > > The result in this case? > > Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: BernieSanders.com > Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > Subject: Verizon's greed > To: Michael Cole > > > [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then tries to > outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the kind of > corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's exactly what > Verizon is doing right now.* > > Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a > contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to Bernie's > to say you support Verizon employees. > * > > Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is below. > Thank you for standing in solidarity. > ------------------------------ > > Sisters and Brothers, > > The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. He > leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. > > *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon wants > to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying federal > income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and negotiate a > fair contract with its employees.* > > In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation trying > to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's > employees are fighting back.* > > Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on > strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* difficult > decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they made to > stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that you > think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health > benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to add > your name in support of Verizon employees. > * > > *Add Your Name ? > * > > Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the > streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: they're > standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of Americans who > don't have a union. > > The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, decent > benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > > Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for saying > that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay its > fair share in federal income taxes. > > What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar compensation > packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still refusing > to give their employees fair contracts. > > Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all of us > standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way you > can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon employees who > are out on strike.* > > *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are standing up to > the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair pay, and > job protections. > * > > Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot have it > all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > In solidarity, > > Bernie Sanders > > *Contribute > * > > > > > > > > > Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > [image: (not the billionaires)] > > PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or change > your information or email address, click here to update your info > . > Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters like > you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails > . > We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to unsubscribe > . Stand against the > powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress and > have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie here > > . > > > From vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp Sun Apr 24 21:03:26 2016 From: vwilk@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp (Wilkinson) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:03:26 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Message-ID: <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Note (a continuation): I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of the fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in Medieval Lit, "when Adam dug and Eve spun, who was then a "gentleman"? V On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly the end > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught that > the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - living > systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not vote for > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to make > my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a great > team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the young > ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support of > the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, > peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me since > I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my first > English primer. > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and kindly > to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" as > mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is coherent, > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not going to > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am doing > now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with the > players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is quite > enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me so > much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have meetings, > plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with the > present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross Ashby > and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to survive, > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the hunger. > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of > nations and communities and teams and people and families and the cells > in the body maintaining health. > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA continues > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on Ervin > Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative ventures in > sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of ultra-technology, > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in Japan > and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the present > does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward better > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned that > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and intrinsic > development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so much > better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money blah, > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park instead of > getting on with my projects for today). > Vandy > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a good >> many >> Americans. They do not >> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence about an >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this dated >> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I come >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible >> sexists) >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution of >> the >> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those >> years >> around my birth were all about. >> >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of the >> atomic age. >> >> The result in this case? >> >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? >> >> mike >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: BernieSanders.com >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM >> Subject: Verizon's greed >> To: Michael Cole >> >> >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] >> >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then >> tries to >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the >> kind of >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's exactly >> what >> Verizon is doing right now.* >> >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a >> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to >> Bernie's >> to say you support Verizon employees. >> * >> >> >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is >> below. >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Sisters and Brothers, >> >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. He >> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. >> >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon wants >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying federal >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and >> negotiate a >> fair contract with its employees.* >> >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation trying >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's >> employees are fighting back.* >> >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* difficult >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they >> made to >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. >> >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that you >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to add >> your name in support of Verizon employees. >> * >> >> >> *Add Your Name ? >> * >> >> >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the >> streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: they're >> standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of Americans >> who >> don't have a union. >> >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, decent >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. >> >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for saying >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay its >> fair share in federal income taxes. >> >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar >> compensation >> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still >> refusing >> to give their employees fair contracts. >> >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all of us >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way you >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon employees who >> are out on strike.* >> >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are standing >> up to >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair >> pay, and >> job protections. >> * >> >> >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot have it >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. >> >> In solidarity, >> >> Bernie Sanders >> >> *Contribute >> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 >> >> [image: (not the billionaires)] >> >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE >> >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or >> change >> your information or email address, click here to update your info >> . >> >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters like >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails >> . >> >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to >> unsubscribe >> . Stand against the >> powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress and >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie here >> >> >> . >> >> >> > > > > From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 24 21:09:22 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:09:22 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Message-ID: <571D9872.10608@mira.net> Have you come across the Japanese word "ikigai", Valerie? I believe it translates as "a reason to get up in the morning, a reason to live." I think we all need ikigai, and our world is made up of other people's ikigai (or whatever the plural is). Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 25/04/2016 2:03 PM, Wilkinson wrote: > Note (a continuation): > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the > project as unit of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do > progress! It's not just survival of the fittest, but also > mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in > Medieval Lit, > "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > who was then a "gentleman"? > V > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: >> Life in the present mode of existence, being. >> Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. >> >> I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research >> in General >> Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now >> nearly the end >> of my institutional career. In Japan. A National >> University. >> I live in an educational world where the children have >> been taught that >> the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. >> >> As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, >> community - living >> systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote >> or not vote for >> Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? >> >> 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, >> has been to make >> my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to >> create a great >> team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, >> with the young >> ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the >> full support of >> the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. >> Moreover, >> peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so >> appeared to me since >> I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how >> to read my first >> English primer. >> >> Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded >> lucidly and kindly >> to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's >> "project" as >> mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the >> community is coherent, >> articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread >> recursions of 30s >> horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape >> of Nazism >> appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, >> it's not going to >> help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. >> >> But coming back again and again to the present, the >> projects I am doing >> now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in >> contact with the >> players, get announcements out to the community, well, >> that is quite >> enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and >> don't need me so >> much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, >> have meetings, >> plan events. Just have to stay busy ... >> >> But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and >> moving with the >> present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty >> member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind >> of Ross Ashby >> and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system >> needs to survive, >> an environment which draws out the creative, which >> satisfies the hunger. >> Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the >> interaction of >> nations and communities and teams and people and families >> and the cells >> in the body maintaining health. >> >> It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but >> XMCA continues >> to be the best forum for my serendipities and >> synchronicities and >> reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my >> eye on Ervin >> Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international >> cooperative ventures in >> sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of >> ultra-technology, >> in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, >> environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I >> live in Japan >> and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living >> in the present >> does not mean just today. I see that it means >> progressing toward better >> education, better health, better food supply. I still >> want to pay >> attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people >> have learned that >> wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities >> and intrinsic >> development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are >> altogether so much >> better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial >> complex money blah, >> messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing >> joyful work >> places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a >> park instead of >> getting on with my projects for today). >> Vandy >> >> >> 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: >>> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that >>> appeals to a good >>> many >>> Americans. They do not >>> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as >>> evidence about an >>> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels >>> to this dated >>> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in >>> this country. I come >>> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists >>> (terrible >>> sexists) >>> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the >>> constitution of >>> the >>> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly >>> like what those >>> years >>> around my birth were all about. >>> >>> The result in that case was a massive world war and the >>> beginning of the >>> atomic age. >>> >>> The result in this case? >>> >>> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? >>> >>> mike >>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>> From: BernieSanders.com >>> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM >>> Subject: Verizon's greed >>> To: Michael Cole >>> >>> >>> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] >>> >>> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a >>> year but then >>> tries to >>> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- >>> that's the >>> kind of >>> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And >>> that's exactly >>> what >>> Verizon is doing right now.* >>> >>> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on >>> strike for a >>> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add >>> your name to >>> Bernie's >>> to say you support Verizon employees. >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue >>> about this is >>> below. >>> Thank you for standing in solidarity. >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Sisters and Brothers, >>> >>> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in >>> compensation. He >>> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. >>> >>> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health >>> benefits. Verizon wants >>> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid >>> paying federal >>> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit >>> down and >>> negotiate a >>> fair contract with its employees.* >>> >>> In other words, Verizon is just another major American >>> corporation trying >>> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this >>> time, Verizon's >>> employees are fighting back.* >>> >>> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon >>> Wireless are on >>> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a >>> *very* difficult >>> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a >>> choice they >>> made to >>> stand up for justice against corporate greed. >>> >>> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of >>> Verizon that you >>> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that >>> protects health >>> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. >>> Click here to add >>> your name in support of Verizon employees. >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> *Add Your Name ? >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon >>> workers in the >>> streets. I did so because they're doing something very >>> brave: they're >>> standing up not just for themselves, but for the >>> millions of Americans >>> who >>> don't have a union. >>> >>> The working class of this country deserves to earn >>> decent wages, decent >>> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. >>> >>> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me >>> "contemptible" for saying >>> that his employees need a fair contract, and that >>> Verizon should pay its >>> fair share in federal income taxes. >>> >>> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million >>> dollar >>> compensation >>> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, >>> and still >>> refusing >>> to give their employees fair contracts. >>> >>> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it >>> will take all of us >>> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One >>> significant way you >>> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with >>> Verizon employees who >>> are out on strike.* >>> >>> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who >>> are standing >>> up to >>> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health >>> benefits, fair >>> pay, and >>> job protections. >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that >>> they cannot have it >>> all. Thanks for helping them know it. >>> >>> In solidarity, >>> >>> Bernie Sanders >>> >>> *Contribute >>> * >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Paid for by Bernie 2016 >>> >>> [image: (not the billionaires)] >>> >>> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) >>> 4-BERNIE >>> >>> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need >>> to update or >>> change >>> your information or email address, click here to update >>> your info >>> . >>> >>> >>> Email is one of the most important tools we have to >>> reach supporters like >>> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive >>> fewer emails >>> . >>> >>> >>> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click >>> here to >>> unsubscribe >>> . Stand >>> against the >>> powerful special interests who are systematically buying >>> our Congress and >>> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing >>> to Bernie here >>> >>> >>> >>> . >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> > > > > > From helen.grimmett@monash.edu Sun Apr 24 21:34:31 2016 From: helen.grimmett@monash.edu (Helen Grimmett) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:34:31 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <571D9872.10608@mira.net> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D9872.10608@mira.net> Message-ID: This showed up in my facebook feed not so long ago! [image: Inline images 1] A beautiful Japanese word : Ikigai Ikigai (????, pronounced [iki?ai]) is a Japanese concept meaning "a reason for being". Everyone, according to the Japanese, has an ikigai. Finding it requires a deep and often lengthy search of self. Such a search is regarded as being very important, since it is believed that discovery of one's ikigai brings satisfaction and meaning to life.[1] Finding the purpose of your life. The Japanese call it IKIGAI and this is how you derive it. ? @emmyzen (Emmy van Deurzen) The term ikigai is composed of two Japanese words: iki (???), referring to life, and kai (???), which roughly means "the realisation of what one expects and hopes for". In the culture of Okinawa, ikigai is thought of as "a reason to get up in the morning"; that is, a reason to enjoy life...the word is used to refer to mental and spiritual circumstances under which individuals feel that their lives are valuable. It's not necessarily linked to one's economic status or the present state of society. Even if a person feels that the present is dark, but they have a goal in mind, they may feel ikigai. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai ? with Punnapa Norsaengsri . -- *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education Professional Experience Liaison - Primary *Education* Monash University Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus 100 Clyde Road Berwick VIC 3806 Australia T: +61 3 9904 7171 E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu monash.edu *Recent work:* Helen Grimmett (2016): The Problem of ?Just Tell Us?: Insights from Playing with Poetic Inquiry and Dialogical Self Theory, *Studying Teacher Education*, DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 Helen Grimmett (2014), The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach , Rotterdam: Sense Publishers On 25 April 2016 at 14:09, Andy Blunden wrote: > Have you come across the Japanese word "ikigai", Valerie? I believe it > translates as "a reason to get up in the morning, a reason to live." I > think we all need ikigai, and our world is made up of other people's ikigai > (or whatever the plural is). > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 25/04/2016 2:03 PM, Wilkinson wrote: > >> Note (a continuation): >> I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit of >> analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of the >> fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in >> Medieval Lit, >> "when Adam dug and Eve spun, >> who was then a "gentleman"? >> V >> >> >> On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: >> >>> Life in the present mode of existence, being. >>> Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. >>> >>> I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General >>> Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly the end >>> of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. >>> I live in an educational world where the children have been taught that >>> the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. >>> >>> As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - living >>> systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not vote for >>> Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? >>> >>> 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to make >>> my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a great >>> team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the young >>> ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support of >>> the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, >>> peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me since >>> I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my first >>> English primer. >>> >>> Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and kindly >>> to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" as >>> mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is coherent, >>> articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s >>> horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism >>> appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not going to >>> help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. >>> >>> But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am doing >>> now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with the >>> players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is quite >>> enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me so >>> much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have meetings, >>> plan events. Just have to stay busy ... >>> >>> But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with the >>> present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty >>> member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross Ashby >>> and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to survive, >>> an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the hunger. >>> Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of >>> nations and communities and teams and people and families and the cells >>> in the body maintaining health. >>> >>> It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA continues >>> to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and >>> reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on Ervin >>> Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative ventures in >>> sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of ultra-technology, >>> in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, >>> environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in Japan >>> and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the present >>> does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward better >>> education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay >>> attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned that >>> wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and intrinsic >>> development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so much >>> better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money blah, >>> messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work >>> places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park instead of >>> getting on with my projects for today). >>> Vandy >>> >>> >>> 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: >>> >>>> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a good >>>> many >>>> Americans. They do not >>>> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence about >>>> an >>>> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this dated >>>> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I >>>> come >>>> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible >>>> sexists) >>>> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution of >>>> the >>>> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those >>>> years >>>> around my birth were all about. >>>> >>>> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of the >>>> atomic age. >>>> >>>> The result in this case? >>>> >>>> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? >>>> >>>> mike >>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>> From: BernieSanders.com >>>> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM >>>> Subject: Verizon's greed >>>> To: Michael Cole >>>> >>>> >>>> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] >>>> >>>> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then >>>> tries to >>>> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the >>>> kind of >>>> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's exactly >>>> what >>>> Verizon is doing right now.* >>>> >>>> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a >>>> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to >>>> Bernie's >>>> to say you support Verizon employees. >>>> < >>>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full>* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is >>>> below. >>>> Thank you for standing in solidarity. >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> Sisters and Brothers, >>>> >>>> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. He >>>> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. >>>> >>>> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon >>>> wants >>>> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying federal >>>> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and >>>> negotiate a >>>> fair contract with its employees.* >>>> >>>> In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation >>>> trying >>>> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's >>>> employees are fighting back.* >>>> >>>> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on >>>> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* difficult >>>> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they >>>> made to >>>> stand up for justice against corporate greed. >>>> >>>> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that you >>>> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health >>>> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to add >>>> your name in support of Verizon employees. >>>> < >>>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full>* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Add Your Name ? >>>> < >>>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full>* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the >>>> streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: they're >>>> standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of Americans >>>> who >>>> don't have a union. >>>> >>>> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, decent >>>> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. >>>> >>>> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for saying >>>> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay its >>>> fair share in federal income taxes. >>>> >>>> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar >>>> compensation >>>> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still >>>> refusing >>>> to give their employees fair contracts. >>>> >>>> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all of us >>>> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way you >>>> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon employees >>>> who >>>> are out on strike.* >>>> >>>> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are standing >>>> up to >>>> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair >>>> pay, and >>>> job protections. >>>> < >>>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full>* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot have >>>> it >>>> all. Thanks for helping them know it. >>>> >>>> In solidarity, >>>> >>>> Bernie Sanders >>>> >>>> *Contribute >>>> < >>>> https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em160423-verizon>* >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Paid for by Bernie 2016 >>>> >>>> [image: (not the billionaires)] >>>> >>>> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE >>>> >>>> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or >>>> change >>>> your information or email address, click here to update your info >>>> < >>>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=email_footer>. >>>> >>>> >>>> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters >>>> like >>>> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails >>>> < >>>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&email=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075>. >>>> >>>> >>>> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to >>>> unsubscribe >>>> . Stand against the >>>> powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress >>>> and >>>> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie here >>>> < >>>> https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=email_footer> >>>> >>>> >>>> . >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image.png Type: image/png Size: 136436 bytes Desc: not available Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160425/44bd1058/attachment.png From ablunden@mira.net Sun Apr 24 21:37:57 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 14:37:57 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D9872.10608@mira.net> Message-ID: <571D9F25.9070507@mira.net> Hey! Well done Helen. Another way of explaining it is in the movie "City Slickers" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1uOqRb0HUA Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 25/04/2016 2:34 PM, Helen Grimmett wrote: > This showed up in my facebook feed not so long ago! > > Inline images 1 > A beautiful Japanese word : Ikigai > > Ikigai (????, pronounced [iki?ai]) is a Japanese > concept meaning "a reason for being". Everyone, according > to the Japanese, has an ikigai. Finding it requires a deep > and often lengthy search of self. Such a search is > regarded as being very important, since it is believed > that discovery of one's ikigai brings satisfaction and > meaning to life.[1] > Finding the purpose of your life. > The Japanese call it IKIGAI and this is how you derive it. > ? @emmyzen (Emmy van Deurzen) > The term ikigai is composed of two Japanese words: iki (? > ??), referring to life, and kai (???), which roughly > means "the realisation of what one expects and hopes for". > In the culture of Okinawa, ikigai is thought of as "a > reason to get up in the morning"; that is, a reason to > enjoy life...the word is used to refer to mental and > spiritual circumstances under which individuals feel that > their lives are valuable. It's not necessarily linked to > one's economic status or the present state of society. > Even if a person feels that the present is dark, but they > have a goal in mind, they may feel ikigai. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai > > ? with Punnapa Norsaengsri > . > > -- > > *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * > Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education > Professional Experience Liaison - Primary > > *Education* > Monash University > Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus > 100 Clyde Road > Berwick VIC 3806 > Australia > > T: +61 3 9904 7171 > E:helen.grimmett@monash.edu > monash.edu > > *Recent work:* > Helen Grimmett (2016): The Problem of ?Just Tell Us?: > Insights from Playing with Poetic Inquiry and Dialogical > Self Theory, /Studying Teacher Education/, DOI: > 10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 > http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 > > Helen Grimmett (2014), The Practice of Teachers' > Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach > , > Rotterdam: Sense Publishers > > > > > On 25 April 2016 at 14:09, Andy Blunden > wrote: > > Have you come across the Japanese word "ikigai", > Valerie? I believe it translates as "a reason to get > up in the morning, a reason to live." I think we all > need ikigai, and our world is made up of other > people's ikigai (or whatever the plural is). > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 25/04/2016 2:03 PM, Wilkinson wrote: > > Note (a continuation): > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember > "the project as unit of analysis." (thanks Andy) > We do progress! It's not just survival of the > fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And > like we used to say in Medieval Lit, > "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > who was then a "gentleman"? > V > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing > research in General > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the > beginning and now nearly the end > of my institutional career. In Japan. A > National University. > I live in an educational world where the > children have been taught that > the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, > group, community - living > systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why > would I vote or not vote for > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, > English, has been to make > my living. What I love and want to talk about > is how to create a great > team, produce a film, coordinate a > satisfactory project, with the young > ones who are enacting the managerial roles > having the full support of > the community of adults, both in and out of > the academy. Moreover, > peer-learning, which appears essential, and > has so appeared to me since > I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger > brother how to read my first > English primer. > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have > responded lucidly and kindly > to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel > that Andy's "project" as > mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and > the community is coherent, > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and > dread recursions of 30s > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the > ghastly shape of Nazism > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's > witch-hunts, it's not going to > help much with my projects of today, this > week, etc. > > But coming back again and again to the > present, the projects I am doing > now, this week, this month, working out how to > stay in contact with the > players, get announcements out to the > community, well, that is quite > enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown > up and don't need me so > much, I have to encourage young students to > join clubs, have meetings, > plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > But always coming back to General Systems > Theory, and moving with the > present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > member/participant-observer, I value the > exquisite mind of Ross Ashby > and "requisite variety," which is what a > viable system needs to survive, > an environment which draws out the creative, > which satisfies the hunger. > Permeable membranes and interface is how I > see the interaction of > nations and communities and teams and people > and families and the cells > in the body maintaining health. > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with > a word, but XMCA continues > to be the best forum for my serendipities and > synchronicities and > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person > and keep my eye on Ervin > Laszlow and the Budapest Club for > international cooperative ventures in > sustainable business, a benign transition to > an age of ultra-technology, > in which human communities can create > harmonious dwellings, > environmentally friendly renewable energy and > so on. I live in Japan > and my brother's family members live in > Germany. Living in the present > does not mean just today. I see that it means > progressing toward better > education, better health, better food supply. > I still want to pay > attention to Japan and Germany - and where > ever people have learned that > wholesome, calm work places, educational > opportunities and intrinsic > development, taking it easy and taking it > slow, are altogether so much > better than war, war, bombs, and > military/industrial complex money blah, > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, > killing joyful work > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a > box in a park instead of > getting on with my projects for today). > Vandy > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > > This is how Sanders represents himself in > a way that appeals to a good > many > Americans. They do not > know what to call it and neither does he. > I offer it as evidence about an > unusual phenomenon in American political > life that feels to this dated > person a LOT like what I understand of the > 1930's in this country. I come > from a line of premature anti-fascists and > anti-racists (terrible > sexists) > who were firm believers in the first > ammendment to the constitution of > the > US. What I see in this election is very > disturbingly like what those > years > around my birth were all about. > > The result in that case was a massive > world war and the beginning of the > atomic age. > > The result in this case? > > Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > mike > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: BernieSanders.com > > > Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > Subject: Verizon's greed > To: Michael Cole > > > > [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 > million a year but then > tries to > outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut > health benefits -- that's the > kind of > corporate greed we need to get rid of in > America. *And that's exactly > what > Verizon is doing right now.* > > Verizon's employees are fighting back. > They're out on strike for a > contract. *Stand with them against their > CEO and add your name to > Bernie's > to say you support Verizon employees. > * > > > > Bernie's email to you about this very > important issue about this is > below. > Thank you for standing in solidarity. > ------------------------------ > > Sisters and Brothers, > > The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 > million a year in compensation. He > leads one of the most profitable companies > in the country. > > *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' > health benefits. Verizon wants > to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon > wants to avoid paying federal > income tax. And right now, Verizon is > refusing to sit down and > negotiate a > fair contract with its employees.* > > In other words, Verizon is just another > major American corporation trying > to destroy the lives of working Americans. > *But this time, Verizon's > employees are fighting back.* > > Thousands of very brave employees of > Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on > strike until they can get a fair contract. > They made a *very* difficult > decision that puts their families at risk > -- but it's a choice they > made to > stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell > the CEO of Verizon that you > think Verizon employees deserve a fair > contract that protects health > benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops > outsourcing. Click here to add > your name in support of Verizon employees. > * > > > > *Add Your Name ? > * > > > > Twice last week in New York City I stood > with Verizon workers in the > streets. I did so because they're doing > something very brave: they're > standing up not just for themselves, but > for the millions of Americans > who > don't have a union. > > The working class of this country deserves > to earn decent wages, decent > benefits, and not see their jobs go to > low-wage countries. > > Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He > called me "contemptible" for saying > that his employees need a fair contract, > and that Verizon should pay its > fair share in federal income taxes. > > What I think is contemptible is CEOs with > multi-million dollar > compensation > packages, presiding over extremely > profitable companies, and still > refusing > to give their employees fair contracts. > > Corporate greed is a scourge on this > country, and it will take all of us > standing up for justice in order to rein > it in. *One significant way you > can stand up to corporate greed is by > standing with Verizon employees who > are out on strike.* > > *Add your name and say you support Verizon > employees who are standing > up to > the CEO in order to get a fair contract > with health benefits, fair > pay, and > job protections. > * > > > > Corporate America is slowly beginning to > realize that they cannot have it > all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > In solidarity, > > Bernie Sanders > > *Contribute > * > > > > > > > > > > > Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > [image: (not the billionaires)] > > PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United > States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com > . If you need > to update or > change > your information or email address, click > here to update your info > . > > > Email is one of the most important tools > we have to reach supporters like > you, but you can let us know if you'd like > to receive fewer emails > . > > > We'd hate to see you go, but if you need > to do so, click here to > unsubscribe > . > Stand against the > powerful special interests who are > systematically buying our Congress and > have their sights set on the presidency by > contributing to Bernie here > > > > . > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From hshonerd@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 21:52:45 2016 From: hshonerd@gmail.com (HENRY SHONERD) Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2016 22:52:45 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <571D9F25.9070507@mira.net> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D9872.10608@mira.net> <571D9F25.9070507@mira.net> Message-ID: Sweet! > On Apr 24, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > Hey! Well done Helen. > Another way of explaining it is in the movie "City Slickers" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1uOqRb0HUA > Andy > ------------------------------------------------------------ > Andy Blunden > http://home.mira.net/~andy > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > On 25/04/2016 2:34 PM, Helen Grimmett wrote: >> This showed up in my facebook feed not so long ago! >> >> Inline images 1 >> A beautiful Japanese word : Ikigai >> >> Ikigai (????, pronounced [iki?ai]) is a Japanese concept meaning "a reason for being". Everyone, according to the Japanese, has an ikigai. Finding it requires a deep and often lengthy search of self. Such a search is regarded as being very important, since it is believed that discovery of one's ikigai brings satisfaction and meaning to life.[1] >> Finding the purpose of your life. >> The Japanese call it IKIGAI and this is how you derive it. >> ? @emmyzen (Emmy van Deurzen) >> The term ikigai is composed of two Japanese words: iki (? ??), referring to life, and kai (???), which roughly means "the realisation of what one expects and hopes for". >> In the culture of Okinawa, ikigai is thought of as "a reason to get up in the morning"; that is, a reason to enjoy life...the word is used to refer to mental and spiritual circumstances under which individuals feel that their lives are valuable. It's not necessarily linked to one's economic status or the present state of society. Even if a person feels that the present is dark, but they have a goal in mind, they may feel ikigai. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai >> ? with Punnapa Norsaengsri . >> >> -- >> >> *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * >> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education >> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary >> >> *Education* >> Monash University >> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus >> 100 Clyde Road >> Berwick VIC 3806 >> Australia >> >> T: +61 3 9904 7171 >> E:helen.grimmett@monash.edu >> monash.edu >> >> *Recent work:* >> Helen Grimmett (2016): The Problem of ?Just Tell Us?: Insights from Playing with Poetic Inquiry and Dialogical Self Theory, /Studying Teacher Education/, DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 >> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 >> >> Helen Grimmett (2014), The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach , >> Rotterdam: Sense Publishers >> >> >> >> >> On 25 April 2016 at 14:09, Andy Blunden > wrote: >> >> Have you come across the Japanese word "ikigai", >> Valerie? I believe it translates as "a reason to get >> up in the morning, a reason to live." I think we all >> need ikigai, and our world is made up of other >> people's ikigai (or whatever the plural is). >> Andy >> ------------------------------------------------------------ >> Andy Blunden >> http://home.mira.net/~andy >> http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making >> >> On 25/04/2016 2:03 PM, Wilkinson wrote: >> >> Note (a continuation): >> I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember >> "the project as unit of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of the >> fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And >> like we used to say in Medieval Lit, >> "when Adam dug and Eve spun, >> who was then a "gentleman"? >> V >> >> >> On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: >> >> Life in the present mode of existence, being. >> Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. >> >> I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing >> research in General >> Systems Theory. Once I was just at the >> beginning and now nearly the end >> of my institutional career. In Japan. A >> National University. >> I live in an educational world where the >> children have been taught that >> the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. >> >> As a systems theorist, at the level of self, >> group, community - living >> systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why >> would I vote or not vote for >> Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? >> >> 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, >> English, has been to make >> my living. What I love and want to talk about >> is how to create a great >> team, produce a film, coordinate a >> satisfactory project, with the young >> ones who are enacting the managerial roles >> having the full support of >> the community of adults, both in and out of >> the academy. Moreover, >> peer-learning, which appears essential, and >> has so appeared to me since >> I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger >> brother how to read my first >> English primer. >> >> Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have >> responded lucidly and kindly >> to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel >> that Andy's "project" as >> mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and >> the community is coherent, >> articulate, manageable. So if I fear and >> dread recursions of 30s >> horrors, world depression, anti-union, the >> ghastly shape of Nazism >> appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's >> witch-hunts, it's not going to >> help much with my projects of today, this >> week, etc. >> >> But coming back again and again to the >> present, the projects I am doing >> now, this week, this month, working out how to >> stay in contact with the >> players, get announcements out to the >> community, well, that is quite >> enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown >> up and don't need me so >> much, I have to encourage young students to >> join clubs, have meetings, >> plan events. Just have to stay busy ... >> >> But always coming back to General Systems >> Theory, and moving with the >> present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty >> member/participant-observer, I value the >> exquisite mind of Ross Ashby >> and "requisite variety," which is what a >> viable system needs to survive, >> an environment which draws out the creative, >> which satisfies the hunger. >> Permeable membranes and interface is how I >> see the interaction of >> nations and communities and teams and people >> and families and the cells >> in the body maintaining health. >> >> It is hard for me to check in or dive in with >> a word, but XMCA continues >> to be the best forum for my serendipities and >> synchronicities and >> reading of the news. I'm still a GST person >> and keep my eye on Ervin >> Laszlow and the Budapest Club for >> international cooperative ventures in >> sustainable business, a benign transition to >> an age of ultra-technology, >> in which human communities can create >> harmonious dwellings, >> environmentally friendly renewable energy and >> so on. I live in Japan >> and my brother's family members live in >> Germany. Living in the present >> does not mean just today. I see that it means >> progressing toward better >> education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay >> attention to Japan and Germany - and where >> ever people have learned that >> wholesome, calm work places, educational >> opportunities and intrinsic >> development, taking it easy and taking it >> slow, are altogether so much >> better than war, war, bombs, and >> military/industrial complex money blah, >> messing up the academy, truncating creativity, >> killing joyful work >> places. (But now I see that I am standing on a >> box in a park instead of >> getting on with my projects for today). >> Vandy >> >> >> 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: >> >> This is how Sanders represents himself in >> a way that appeals to a good >> many >> Americans. They do not >> know what to call it and neither does he. >> I offer it as evidence about an >> unusual phenomenon in American political >> life that feels to this dated >> person a LOT like what I understand of the >> 1930's in this country. I come >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and >> anti-racists (terrible >> sexists) >> who were firm believers in the first >> ammendment to the constitution of >> the >> US. What I see in this election is very >> disturbingly like what those >> years >> around my birth were all about. >> >> The result in that case was a massive >> world war and the beginning of the >> atomic age. >> >> The result in this case? >> >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? >> >> mike >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: BernieSanders.com >> > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM >> Subject: Verizon's greed >> To: Michael Cole > > >> >> >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] >> >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 >> million a year but then >> tries to >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut >> health benefits -- that's the >> kind of >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in >> America. *And that's exactly >> what >> Verizon is doing right now.* >> >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. >> They're out on strike for a >> contract. *Stand with them against their >> CEO and add your name to >> Bernie's >> to say you support Verizon employees. >> * >> >> >> >> Bernie's email to you about this very >> important issue about this is >> below. >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Sisters and Brothers, >> >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 >> million a year in compensation. He >> leads one of the most profitable companies >> in the country. >> >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' >> health benefits. Verizon wants >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon >> wants to avoid paying federal >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is >> refusing to sit down and >> negotiate a >> fair contract with its employees.* >> >> In other words, Verizon is just another >> major American corporation trying >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. >> *But this time, Verizon's >> employees are fighting back.* >> >> Thousands of very brave employees of >> Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on >> strike until they can get a fair contract. >> They made a *very* difficult >> decision that puts their families at risk >> -- but it's a choice they >> made to >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. >> >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell >> the CEO of Verizon that you >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair >> contract that protects health >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops >> outsourcing. Click here to add >> your name in support of Verizon employees. >> * >> >> >> >> *Add Your Name ? >> * >> >> >> >> Twice last week in New York City I stood >> with Verizon workers in the >> streets. I did so because they're doing >> something very brave: they're >> standing up not just for themselves, but >> for the millions of Americans >> who >> don't have a union. >> >> The working class of this country deserves >> to earn decent wages, decent >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to >> low-wage countries. >> >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He >> called me "contemptible" for saying >> that his employees need a fair contract, >> and that Verizon should pay its >> fair share in federal income taxes. >> >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with >> multi-million dollar >> compensation >> packages, presiding over extremely >> profitable companies, and still >> refusing >> to give their employees fair contracts. >> >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this >> country, and it will take all of us >> standing up for justice in order to rein >> it in. *One significant way you >> can stand up to corporate greed is by >> standing with Verizon employees who >> are out on strike.* >> >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon >> employees who are standing >> up to >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract >> with health benefits, fair >> pay, and >> job protections. >> * >> >> >> >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to >> realize that they cannot have it >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. >> >> In solidarity, >> >> Bernie Sanders >> >> *Contribute >> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 >> >> [image: (not the billionaires)] >> >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United >> States - (855) 4-BERNIE >> >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com >> . If you need >> to update or >> change >> your information or email address, click >> here to update your info >> . >> >> >> Email is one of the most important tools >> we have to reach supporters like >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like >> to receive fewer emails >> . >> >> >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need >> to do so, click here to >> unsubscribe >> . >> Stand against the >> powerful special interests who are >> systematically buying our Congress and >> have their sights set on the presidency by >> contributing to Bernie here >> >> >> >> . >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > From wagner.schmit@gmail.com Sun Apr 24 23:13:40 2016 From: wagner.schmit@gmail.com (Wagner Luiz Schmit) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:13:40 +0900 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D9872.10608@mira.net> <571D9F25.9070507@mira.net> Message-ID: Just my two cents: The Okinawan culture and the Japanese Culture are not the same, despite the large efforts of the Japanese Government to make Okinawa "Japanese" by banning its rituals and language for decades, and the USA presence imposing its law and culture on the vast and many military bases in the island did not help this either. Japanese government done the same with the Ainu in the north. As for Ikigai, it is ironic that from this same Japan most Japanese say that their life and or their job is meaningless, where even kids commit suicide because of pressure to be in accord to society standards, where you must null yourself for the company, for society and for the family. Study hard to get into the middle school, study hard to get into high school, study hard to go to college, enjoy life for 4 years, enter a company and do a meaningless work where the only way to progress in career is through time, and only if you are a married male, if you are female finish college, marry and have children. Work from 10 to 16 hours a day with a mandatory go to the bar with the boss. Rince and repeat until death. To be in those crowded trains full of middle aged man in suits smelling cigarettes and alcohol returning home with a dead expression is heartbreaking and depressing. I never heard "ikigai" here, but I hear often "shoganai" (there is nothing we can do) for work and life, mendoukusai (annoying and troublesome) for relationships and bureaucracy, and more and more karoshi - death by overwork. Wagner On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 1:52 PM, HENRY SHONERD wrote: > Sweet! > > > On Apr 24, 2016, at 10:37 PM, Andy Blunden wrote: > > > > Hey! Well done Helen. > > Another way of explaining it is in the movie "City Slickers" > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k1uOqRb0HUA > > Andy > > ------------------------------------------------------------ > > Andy Blunden > > http://home.mira.net/~andy > > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > > On 25/04/2016 2:34 PM, Helen Grimmett wrote: > >> This showed up in my facebook feed not so long ago! > >> > >> Inline images 1 > >> A beautiful Japanese word : Ikigai > >> > >> Ikigai (????, pronounced [iki?ai]) is a Japanese concept meaning "a > reason for being". Everyone, according to the Japanese, has an ikigai. > Finding it requires a deep and often lengthy search of self. Such a search > is regarded as being very important, since it is believed that discovery of > one's ikigai brings satisfaction and meaning to life.[1] > >> Finding the purpose of your life. > >> The Japanese call it IKIGAI and this is how you derive it. > >> ? @emmyzen (Emmy van Deurzen) > >> The term ikigai is composed of two Japanese words: iki (? ??), > referring to life, and kai (???), which roughly means "the realisation of > what one expects and hopes for". > >> In the culture of Okinawa, ikigai is thought of as "a reason to get up > in the morning"; that is, a reason to enjoy life...the word is used to > refer to mental and spiritual circumstances under which individuals feel > that their lives are valuable. It's not necessarily linked to one's > economic status or the present state of society. Even if a person feels > that the present is dark, but they have a goal in mind, they may feel > ikigai. > >> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai < > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ikigai> > >> ? with Punnapa Norsaengsri < > https://www.facebook.com/punnapa.norsaengsri>. > >> > >> -- > >> > >> *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT * > >> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education > >> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary > >> > >> *Education* > >> Monash University > >> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus > >> 100 Clyde Road > >> Berwick VIC 3806 > >> Australia > >> > >> T: +61 3 9904 7171 > >> E:helen.grimmett@monash.edu > >> monash.edu > >> > >> *Recent work:* > >> Helen Grimmett (2016): The Problem of ?Just Tell Us?: Insights from > Playing with Poetic Inquiry and Dialogical Self Theory, /Studying Teacher > Education/, DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 > >> http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810 > >> > >> Helen Grimmett (2014), The Practice of Teachers' Professional > Development: A Cultural-Historical Approach < > https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learning-1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/ > >, > >> Rotterdam: Sense Publishers > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On 25 April 2016 at 14:09, Andy Blunden ablunden@mira.net>> wrote: > >> > >> Have you come across the Japanese word "ikigai", > >> Valerie? I believe it translates as "a reason to get > >> up in the morning, a reason to live." I think we all > >> need ikigai, and our world is made up of other > >> people's ikigai (or whatever the plural is). > >> Andy > >> ------------------------------------------------------------ > >> Andy Blunden > >> http://home.mira.net/~andy > >> > http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making > >> > >> On 25/04/2016 2:03 PM, Wilkinson wrote: > >> > >> Note (a continuation): > >> I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember > >> "the project as unit of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do > progress! It's not just survival of the > >> fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And > >> like we used to say in Medieval Lit, > >> "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > >> who was then a "gentleman"? > >> V > >> > >> > >> On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > >> > >> Life in the present mode of existence, being. > >> Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > >> > >> I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing > >> research in General > >> Systems Theory. Once I was just at the > >> beginning and now nearly the end > >> of my institutional career. In Japan. A > >> National University. > >> I live in an educational world where the > >> children have been taught that > >> the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > >> > >> As a systems theorist, at the level of self, > >> group, community - living > >> systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why > >> would I vote or not vote for > >> Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > >> > >> 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, > >> English, has been to make > >> my living. What I love and want to talk about > >> is how to create a great > >> team, produce a film, coordinate a > >> satisfactory project, with the young > >> ones who are enacting the managerial roles > >> having the full support of > >> the community of adults, both in and out of > >> the academy. Moreover, > >> peer-learning, which appears essential, and > >> has so appeared to me since > >> I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger > >> brother how to read my first > >> English primer. > >> > >> Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have > >> responded lucidly and kindly > >> to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel > >> that Andy's "project" as > >> mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and > >> the community is coherent, > >> articulate, manageable. So if I fear and > >> dread recursions of 30s > >> horrors, world depression, anti-union, the > >> ghastly shape of Nazism > >> appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's > >> witch-hunts, it's not going to > >> help much with my projects of today, this > >> week, etc. > >> > >> But coming back again and again to the > >> present, the projects I am doing > >> now, this week, this month, working out how to > >> stay in contact with the > >> players, get announcements out to the > >> community, well, that is quite > >> enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown > >> up and don't need me so > >> much, I have to encourage young students to > >> join clubs, have meetings, > >> plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > >> > >> But always coming back to General Systems > >> Theory, and moving with the > >> present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > >> member/participant-observer, I value the > >> exquisite mind of Ross Ashby > >> and "requisite variety," which is what a > >> viable system needs to survive, > >> an environment which draws out the creative, > >> which satisfies the hunger. > >> Permeable membranes and interface is how I > >> see the interaction of > >> nations and communities and teams and people > >> and families and the cells > >> in the body maintaining health. > >> > >> It is hard for me to check in or dive in with > >> a word, but XMCA continues > >> to be the best forum for my serendipities and > >> synchronicities and > >> reading of the news. I'm still a GST person > >> and keep my eye on Ervin > >> Laszlow and the Budapest Club for > >> international cooperative ventures in > >> sustainable business, a benign transition to > >> an age of ultra-technology, > >> in which human communities can create > >> harmonious dwellings, > >> environmentally friendly renewable energy and > >> so on. I live in Japan > >> and my brother's family members live in > >> Germany. Living in the present > >> does not mean just today. I see that it means > >> progressing toward better > >> education, better health, better food supply. I > still want to pay > >> attention to Japan and Germany - and where > >> ever people have learned that > >> wholesome, calm work places, educational > >> opportunities and intrinsic > >> development, taking it easy and taking it > >> slow, are altogether so much > >> better than war, war, bombs, and > >> military/industrial complex money blah, > >> messing up the academy, truncating creativity, > >> killing joyful work > >> places. (But now I see that I am standing on a > >> box in a park instead of > >> getting on with my projects for today). > >> Vandy > >> > >> > >> 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > >> > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in > >> a way that appeals to a good > >> many > >> Americans. They do not > >> know what to call it and neither does he. > >> I offer it as evidence about an > >> unusual phenomenon in American political > >> life that feels to this dated > >> person a LOT like what I understand of the > >> 1930's in this country. I come > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and > >> anti-racists (terrible > >> sexists) > >> who were firm believers in the first > >> ammendment to the constitution of > >> the > >> US. What I see in this election is very > >> disturbingly like what those > >> years > >> around my birth were all about. > >> > >> The result in that case was a massive > >> world war and the beginning of the > >> atomic age. > >> > >> The result in this case? > >> > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > >> > >> mike > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: BernieSanders.com > >> >> > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > >> To: Michael Cole >> > > >> > >> > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > >> > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 > >> million a year but then > >> tries to > >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut > >> health benefits -- that's the > >> kind of > >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in > >> America. *And that's exactly > >> what > >> Verizon is doing right now.* > >> > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. > >> They're out on strike for a > >> contract. *Stand with them against their > >> CEO and add your name to > >> Bernie's > >> to say you support Verizon employees. > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > >* > >> > >> > >> > >> Bernie's email to you about this very > >> important issue about this is > >> below. > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Sisters and Brothers, > >> > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 > >> million a year in compensation. He > >> leads one of the most profitable companies > >> in the country. > >> > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' > >> health benefits. Verizon wants > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon > >> wants to avoid paying federal > >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is > >> refusing to sit down and > >> negotiate a > >> fair contract with its employees.* > >> > >> In other words, Verizon is just another > >> major American corporation trying > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. > >> *But this time, Verizon's > >> employees are fighting back.* > >> > >> Thousands of very brave employees of > >> Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. > >> They made a *very* difficult > >> decision that puts their families at risk > >> -- but it's a choice they > >> made to > >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. > >> > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell > >> the CEO of Verizon that you > >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair > >> contract that protects health > >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops > >> outsourcing. Click here to add > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > >* > >> > >> > >> > >> *Add Your Name ? > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > >* > >> > >> > >> > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood > >> with Verizon workers in the > >> streets. I did so because they're doing > >> something very brave: they're > >> standing up not just for themselves, but > >> for the millions of Americans > >> who > >> don't have a union. > >> > >> The working class of this country deserves > >> to earn decent wages, decent > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to > >> low-wage countries. > >> > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He > >> called me "contemptible" for saying > >> that his employees need a fair contract, > >> and that Verizon should pay its > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > >> > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with > >> multi-million dollar > >> compensation > >> packages, presiding over extremely > >> profitable companies, and still > >> refusing > >> to give their employees fair contracts. > >> > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this > >> country, and it will take all of us > >> standing up for justice in order to rein > >> it in. *One significant way you > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by > >> standing with Verizon employees who > >> are out on strike.* > >> > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon > >> employees who are standing > >> up to > >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract > >> with health benefits, fair > >> pay, and > >> job protections. > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > >* > >> > >> > >> > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to > >> realize that they cannot have it > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > >> > >> In solidarity, > >> > >> Bernie Sanders > >> > >> *Contribute > >> < > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em160423-verizon > >* > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > >> > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > >> > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United > >> States - (855) 4-BERNIE > >> > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com > >> . If you need > >> to update or > >> change > >> your information or email address, click > >> here to update your info > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=email_footer > >. > >> > >> > >> Email is one of the most important tools > >> we have to reach supporters like > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like > >> to receive fewer emails > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&email=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > >. > >> > >> > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need > >> to do so, click here to > >> unsubscribe > >> . > >> Stand against the > >> powerful special interests who are > >> systematically buying our Congress and > >> have their sights set on the presidency by > >> contributing to Bernie here > >> < > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=email_footer > > > >> > >> > >> . > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 04:30:37 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 04:30:37 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> Message-ID: <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion for requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and interface as necessary for general systems theory unfolding as human projects. This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, communities, nations). Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards equilibrium having *requisite variety* This post lead to Andy exploring the notion of having a *reason* for getting up in the morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on this quality of life. Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how he saw the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the ideal of not being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more like a *linear* dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. This type of system which displays qualities which *express* what seems to have the quality of mechanical systems having the opposite system characteristic of cells which have *organic permeable boundaries* . My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary (living experience as if organically permeable) following the theory of general biological systems theory) and also be perceived as a dead and lifeless place which images a general mechanical systems theory with external moving *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of lifeless *repetition*. It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in both organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the same time participating in mechanical general systems (closed impermeable dead membranes) Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of culture but it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical and organic metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries closed *walls* (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of systems? My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a concept and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar concept. These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do have a diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Wilkinson Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed Note (a continuation): I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of the fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in Medieval Lit, "when Adam dug and Eve spun, who was then a "gentleman"? V On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly the end > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught that > the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - living > systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not vote for > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to make > my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a great > team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the young > ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support of > the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, > peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me since > I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my first > English primer. > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and kindly > to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" as > mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is coherent, > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not going to > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am doing > now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with the > players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is quite > enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me so > much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have meetings, > plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with the > present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross Ashby > and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to survive, > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the hunger. > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of > nations and communities and teams and people and families and the cells > in the body maintaining health. > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA continues > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on Ervin > Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative ventures in > sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of ultra-technology, > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in Japan > and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the present > does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward better > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned that > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and intrinsic > development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so much > better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money blah, > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park instead of > getting on with my projects for today). > Vandy > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a good >> many >> Americans. They do not >> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence about an >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this dated >> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I come >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible >> sexists) >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution of >> the >> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those >> years >> around my birth were all about. >> >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of the >> atomic age. >> >> The result in this case? >> >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? >> >> mike >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: BernieSanders.com >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM >> Subject: Verizon's greed >> To: Michael Cole >> >> >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] >> >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then >> tries to >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the >> kind of >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's exactly >> what >> Verizon is doing right now.* >> >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a >> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to >> Bernie's >> to say you support Verizon employees. >> * >> >> >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is >> below. >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. >> ------------------------------ >> >> Sisters and Brothers, >> >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. He >> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. >> >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon wants >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying federal >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and >> negotiate a >> fair contract with its employees.* >> >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation trying >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's >> employees are fighting back.* >> >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* difficult >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they >> made to >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. >> >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that you >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to add >> your name in support of Verizon employees. >> * >> >> >> *Add Your Name ? >> * >> >> >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the >> streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: they're >> standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of Americans >> who >> don't have a union. >> >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, decent >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. >> >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for saying >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay its >> fair share in federal income taxes. >> >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar >> compensation >> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still >> refusing >> to give their employees fair contracts. >> >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all of us >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way you >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon employees who >> are out on strike.* >> >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are standing >> up to >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair >> pay, and >> job protections. >> * >> >> >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot have it >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. >> >> In solidarity, >> >> Bernie Sanders >> >> *Contribute >> * >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 >> >> [image: (not the billionaires)] >> >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE >> >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or >> change >> your information or email address, click here to update your info >> . >> >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters like >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails >> . >> >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to >> unsubscribe >> . Stand against the >> powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress and >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie here >> >> >> . >> >> >> > > > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 04:39:01 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:39:01 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Message-ID: Annalisa, Yes, on the parallel between activity theory and structurationism. ?Yes althusser's structural marxism has been attacked on the issue of agency. ?I think unfairly, however. ?It's the same issues raised against Immanuel wallersteins's world-system model. As for his personal relationship with his wife and suicide, I really do not care about those things. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/24/2016 9:19 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" , ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Hi Paul, So then ideas OF consciousness, as you are using the word, has to do with activity. If I am understanding you correctly, would this correspond with activity theory, if activity is that which develops mind? Interpellates is a new word for me, and seems to be, for althusser, a particular manifestation of activity which develops and specifically reproduces political being, in the sense, I imagine, of carrying an ideology like a virus or meme from individual to individual, group to group. In althusser's sensibility, this is pressed into being by the state upon members of the society, in a totalitarian sense, it seems, which means we can never be free, it seems. Do I have that correctly? If that is correct, then what is althusser's idea OF freedom. Also, althusser had a troubled past with his wife, did he not? so I'm not clear how the personal is political in his case. Or rather the personal connected to the political, maybe is a better way to frame it. Is it possible to post to the list those Fraser and Fanon texts? I no longer have the open access to journal texts I used to have. Also, to those reading my longer posts, I hope they have not been oppressive, or inflammatory, but responsive and inclusive, as that is how I have intended them, even if I've been critical. Sometimes the apparatus of emails and listservs do not translate well, and also the nature of posts on elections can be read so swiftly due to the emotional content they carry, that intended meanings can be easily lost. I feel that it has been overall a positive and honest exchange, though it would be great to have more people participate. I'm grateful to everyone who has spoken up thus far and made their contributions. Kind regards, Annalisa From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 06:46:40 2016 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 07:46:40 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By the terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. -- Jacob McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:29 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Paul: > > Like you, I have always been puzzled and even a little troubled that we > think of Obama as a half-black president rather than a half-white one. As I > said, I think he's a conservative politician, well to the right of > Eisenhower and pretty much in the mold of the first George Bush; therefore > I think that the adamantine loathing of Obama by the "Republicans" is > entirely racial. (Let us remember that the Republicans are historically the > party of black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction in the USA, and > let us, that is, you and me, consider the present day Republicans a > complete non sequitur, a zombie usurpation, something like the present > ruling party of Haiti.) But for that very reason, it really will not do to > consider Obama a white politician: first of all, it confuses conservativism > with whiteness, the error of which Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes, Herman > Cain, and Ben Carson on the one hand and Marx, Engels, Lenin on the other > have amply demonstrated. Secondly, it doesn't explain the phenomenon that > needs to be explained, namely the bilious hatred of the right for a > politician who is politically so very much one of their own number. > > So in what sense is Obama black? I think, actually, he is black in the very > best sense: in an entirely voluntary and chosen one. He did not coyly flirt > with being black, the way that David Bowie and Prince flirted with being bi > for commercial purposes. Bowie then complained that he was a "closet > heterosexual" and that he was forced to have sex with gay men just in order > to inhabit the persona he had created, and Prince joined the Jehovah's > Witnesses and justified the deadly Biblical persecution of gay people as > God's revenge on them for "stickin' it here and there and everywhere". If > these gentlemen find it difficult to have sex with other gentlemen, there > is an extremely simple solution, one that has historically been made > compulsory for men who are actually rather than simply sartorially gay. > They can have sex with women. No one says that the white extras in D.W. > Griffith's films were really trying to stand up for black liberation and > revolutionary reconstruction, and no one confuses minstrelsy and blackface > with black culture: why, then, do we tolerate "gayface" in people like > David Bowie and Prince, people who have no loyalty whatsoever to the gay > community beyond the cash nexus? > > Obama doesn't do blackface. He learned black English (which, remember, was > a foreign language to him, growing up in Hawail and Indonesia). He married > black, and self-identified as black when it was not at all a commercial or > an electoral advantage, quite the contrary. He went to a black church and > he didn't leave it even under overwhelming white pressure, but only when it > really did offend his heartfelt (conservative) principles. Obama is black > in the sense that Helena was talking about, in the sense that he has joined > and been accepted by and really belongs to a black community, namely South > Chicago. It is true that he has given some Cosby-esque speeches about and > even to the black lumpenproletariat. But this too is from his community: in > South Shore some of the most bitter opponents of petty crime and > gangbangin' and humbuggin' were precisely the black workers at US Steel > South Works, General Motors EMD, and Ford: they'd worked bloody hard for > that stereo tape deck and those chrome hub caps and if you tried to swipe > them it really didn't matter what color you were, they were going to show > the world the color of your blood. > > I also vote in Korean elections, because I too have a community which I > voluntarily adopted and which accepted me and where I am a legal permanent > resident with electoral rights. In the last Korean election, I voted for > the third largest party in parliament, the United Progressive Party. > Immediately after the election, the party was legally dissolved, the > leaders I had voted for were expelled from parliament, arrested and > sentenced to 24 years in prison (later, after the intercession of Pope > Francis, reduced to "only" twelve years). All candidates in the US > elections have insisted on continuing US support for what is essentially an > old fashioned Cold War regime, the "free world" counterpart of the North > Korean nepotism-despotism. Even Donald Trump's main complaint is that Korea > doesn't pay enough money for the privilege of being occupied by US troops. > So from that point of view as well, a vote for Sanders makes no sense. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > dk > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 07:37:28 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 10:37:28 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface Message-ID: Jacob Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? ?I am native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents practiced vodou and raised me to think as an african. ?My world was constituted via the universe and vodou. ?I simply do not believe in defining myself by my skin-color. ?By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a result of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black community what should I do: Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou religion as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the white man's faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and cheeseSpeak AAEVwear skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black bourgeoisie? I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do not let my sons do the black church thing. ?My wife attends her protestant church every sunday. ?But my sons are not allowed to attend; ?No AAEV in the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods...? Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Jacob McWilliams Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By the terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. -- Jacob McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:29 PM, David Kellogg wrote: > Paul: > > Like you, I have always been puzzled and even a little troubled that we > think of Obama as a half-black president rather than a half-white one. As I > said, I think he's a conservative politician, well to the right of > Eisenhower and pretty much in the mold of the first George Bush; therefore > I think that the adamantine loathing of Obama by the "Republicans" is > entirely racial. (Let us remember that the Republicans are historically the > party of black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction in the USA, and > let us, that is, you and me, consider the present day Republicans a > complete non sequitur, a zombie usurpation, something like the present > ruling party of Haiti.) But for that very reason, it really will not do to > consider Obama a white politician: first of all, it confuses conservativism > with whiteness, the error of which Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes, Herman > Cain, and Ben Carson on the one hand and Marx, Engels, Lenin on the other > have amply demonstrated. Secondly, it doesn't explain the phenomenon that > needs to be explained, namely the bilious hatred of the right for a > politician who is politically so very much one of their own number. > > So in what sense is Obama black? I think, actually, he is black in the very > best sense: in an entirely voluntary and chosen one. He did not coyly flirt > with being black, the way that David Bowie and Prince flirted with being bi > for commercial purposes. Bowie then complained that he was a "closet > heterosexual" and that he was forced to have sex with gay men just in order > to inhabit the persona he had created, and Prince joined the Jehovah's > Witnesses and justified the deadly Biblical persecution of gay people as > God's revenge on them for "stickin' it here and there and everywhere". If > these gentlemen find it difficult to have sex with other gentlemen, there > is an extremely simple solution, one that has historically been made > compulsory for men who are actually rather than simply sartorially gay. > They can have sex with women. No one says that the white extras in D.W. > Griffith's films were really trying to stand up for black liberation and > revolutionary reconstruction, and no one confuses minstrelsy and blackface > with black culture: why, then, do we tolerate "gayface" in people like > David Bowie and Prince, people who have no loyalty whatsoever to the gay > community beyond the cash nexus? > > Obama doesn't do blackface. He learned black English (which, remember, was > a foreign language to him, growing up in Hawail and Indonesia). He married > black, and self-identified as black when it was not at all a commercial or > an electoral advantage, quite the contrary. He went to a black church and > he didn't leave it even under overwhelming white pressure, but only when it > really did offend his heartfelt (conservative) principles. Obama is black > in the sense that Helena was talking about, in the sense that he has joined > and been accepted by and really belongs to a black community, namely South > Chicago. It is true that he has given some Cosby-esque speeches about and > even to the black lumpenproletariat. But this too is from his community: in > South Shore some of the most bitter opponents of petty crime and > gangbangin' and humbuggin' were precisely the black workers at US Steel > South Works, General Motors EMD, and Ford: they'd worked bloody hard for > that stereo tape deck and those chrome hub caps and if you tried to swipe > them it really didn't matter what color you were, they were going to show > the world the color of your blood. > > I also vote in Korean elections, because I too have a community which I > voluntarily adopted and which accepted me and where I am a legal permanent > resident with electoral rights. In the last Korean election, I voted for > the third largest party in parliament, the United Progressive Party. > Immediately after the election, the party was legally dissolved, the > leaders I had voted for were expelled from parliament, arrested and > sentenced to 24 years in prison (later, after the intercession of Pope > Francis, reduced to "only" twelve years). All candidates in the US > elections have insisted on continuing US support for what is essentially an > old fashioned Cold War regime, the "free world" counterpart of the North > Korean nepotism-despotism. Even Donald Trump's main complaint is that Korea > doesn't pay enough money for the privilege of being occupied by US troops. > So from that point of view as well, a vote for Sanders makes no sense. > > David Kellogg > Macquarie University > > dk > From r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk Mon Apr 25 08:11:32 2016 From: r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk (R.J.S.Parsons) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:11:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571E33B2.3080309@open.ac.uk> It is wonderful what you learn on xmca. I had never heard of collard greens before. A quick visit to Wikipedia has enlightened me: things I eat most days. But the category has no meaning in my life, or in that of any other UK resident I am aware of. We eat some, we don't eat others. Can someone enlighten me as to how and in what way collard greens has become a marker of identity in the USA? Rob On 25/04/2016 15:37, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: > > Jacob > Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents practiced vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted via the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by my skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a result of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black community what should I do: > Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou religion as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the white man's faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and cheeseSpeak AAEVwear skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb > OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black bourgeoisie? > I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her protestant church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jacob McWilliams > Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > > I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's > black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and > usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who > argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By the > terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is > blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock > people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, > hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. > > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 08:03:12 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:03:12 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Blackface/gayface Message-ID: I was in south Africa recently and while there, many people were derisively referring to this brother (mmusi maimane) as the south African Barack obama: Watch "Mmusi Maimane: 'Fighting a system, not a race' - Talk to Al Jazeera" on YouTube https://youtu.be/wW5WAloRnMQ It appeared to me, and I am speculating here, that arguments around racial identity in south Africa seems to parallel the pathological-pathogenic and adaptive-vitality debates of the 1970s and 80s of america. ?Maimane is not so-called black because he is western educated, and adopt the mannerisms of whites like Barack I was told. ?Hence there is a juxtaposition taking place between blacks who are western educated and those who grow up as part of the black underclass in south africa.... is this how south Africa is defining black identity? Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 08:31:43 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:31:43 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface Message-ID: Rob, Interesting question, and I want to share an experience I had while a visiting professor at the historically black college, bethune cookman university. The university has an annual multicultural program where they have the students bring in food representing the diversity (jamaican, haitian, etc.) of so-called black foods of the student body. ?The native african american student body came to me protesting bcuz the white professor who organized the event ASSUMED they were bringing chicken, macaroni and cheese, collard greens, and bake beans. ?So she had the program printed based on the previous years programs. ?So I asked them what foods were they preparing for the event? ?They told me, chicken, macaroni and cheese, collard greens, and baked beans. ?So I asked them, if I had made that assumption, which I did and do, about black american cultural foods would they be upset with me? ?They all replied resoundingly, no, because I am black. ?They had a problem because of the fact the white professor made that assumption about black american food...? Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "R.J.S.Parsons" Date: 4/25/2016 11:11 AM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface It is wonderful what you learn on xmca. I had never heard of collard greens before. A quick visit to Wikipedia has enlightened me: things I eat most days. But the category has no meaning in my life, or in that of any other UK resident I am aware of. We eat some, we don't eat others. Can someone enlighten me as to how and in what way collard greens has become a marker of identity in the USA? Rob On 25/04/2016 15:37, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: >????? > Jacob > Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity?? I am native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents practiced vodou and raised me to think as an african.? My world was constituted via the universe and vodou.? I simply do not believe in defining myself by my skin-color.? By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a result of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black community what should I do: > Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou religion as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the white man's faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and cheeseSpeak AAEVwear skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb > OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black bourgeoisie? > I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do not let my sons do the black church thing.? My wife attends her protestant church every sunday.? But my sons are not allowed to attend;? No AAEV in the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jacob McWilliams > Date: 4/25/2016? 9:46 AM? (GMT-05:00) > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > > I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's > black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and > usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who > argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By the > terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is > blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock > people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, > hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. > > > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 08:34:06 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (Lplarry) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 08:34:06 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571e38fb.d322620a.a0544.3c03@mx.google.com> Paul, Your pointing out that you do not care about an authors marriage details or suicide opens a further question. Does the relation between an author?s ideas and the author?s personal relationships have relevance for holding up the authors point of view as exemplary? Ghandi is an example. Saving India but a very asymmetrical marriage Heidegger is another example and his not focusing on the process of *mitsein* (being with). Gadamer answering this lack. Andy pointing out collaboration being understood as archetype of marriage. Now marriage has many differing images and itself has no con/sensus. However, it is a personal relation. An open question. The phrase ?the personal is political?. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Dr. Paul C. Mocombe Sent: April 25, 2016 4:42 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Annalisa, Yes, on the parallel between activity theory and structurationism. ?Yes althusser's structural marxism has been attacked on the issue of agency. ?I think unfairly, however. ?It's the same issues raised against Immanuel wallersteins's world-system model. As for his personal relationship with his wife and suicide, I really do not care about those things. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/24/2016 9:19 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" , ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Hi Paul, So then ideas OF consciousness, as you are using the word, has to do with activity. If I am understanding you correctly, would this correspond with activity theory, if activity is that which develops mind? Interpellates is a new word for me, and seems to be, for althusser, a particular manifestation of activity which develops and specifically reproduces political being, in the sense, I imagine, of carrying an ideology like a virus or meme from individual to individual, group to group. In althusser's sensibility, this is pressed into being by the state upon members of the society, in a totalitarian sense, it seems, which means we can never be free, it seems. Do I have that correctly? If that is correct, then what is althusser's idea OF freedom. Also, althusser had a troubled past with his wife, did he not? so I'm not clear how the personal is political in his case. Or rather the personal connected to the political, maybe is a better way to frame it. Is it possible to post to the list those Fraser and Fanon texts? I no longer have the open access to journal texts I used to have. Also, to those reading my longer posts, I hope they have not been oppressive, or inflammatory, but responsive and inclusive, as that is how I have intended them, even if I've been critical. Sometimes the apparatus of emails and listservs do not translate well, and also the nature of posts on elections can be read so swiftly due to the emotional content they carry, that intended meanings can be easily lost. I feel that it has been overall a positive and honest exchange, though it would be great to have more people participate. I'm grateful to everyone who has spoken up thus far and made their contributions. Kind regards, Annalisa From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 08:35:55 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 15:35:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: <571E33B2.3080309@open.ac.uk> References: <571E33B2.3080309@open.ac.uk> Message-ID: Rob, Collard Greens were first introduced in the US by African Slaves. It is a regional dish (though not appealing to Vegans) served in both Southern cuisine and Soul Food. Collard Greens though have taken on a strong metaphorical role in southern Black identity. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM R.J.S.Parsons wrote: > It is wonderful what you learn on xmca. I had never heard of collard > greens before. A quick visit to Wikipedia has enlightened me: things I > eat most days. But the category has no meaning in my life, or in that of > any other UK resident I am aware of. We eat some, we don't eat others. > > Can someone enlighten me as to how and in what way collard greens has > become a marker of identity in the USA? > > Rob > > On 25/04/2016 15:37, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: > > > > Jacob > > Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am > native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents practiced > vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted via > the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by my > skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the > earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a result > of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that > experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black > community what should I do: > > Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou > religion as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the > white man's faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and cheeseSpeak > AAEVwear skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb > > OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black > bourgeoisie? > > I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do > not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her protestant > church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in > the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... > > > > > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Jacob McWilliams > > Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > > > > I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's > > black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and > > usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who > > argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By > the > > terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is > > blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock > > people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, > > hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. > > > > > > > > From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 08:40:06 2016 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:40:06 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Your depiction of "the black community in America" presents a monolithic picture that I think isn't fair or true to the intricacies of racial/ethnic identity, community, and community affiliation that many on this listserv have investigated at length, on this listserv and in their own scholarship. Sure, the notion of "black identity" is constructed--as constructed, although to very different effect, as "white identity" is. And yet it's dangerous to be Black in America, regardless of whether a person "buys" the notion of black identity. A person who is perceived by others as Black might not identify as such, but that doesn't enable them to avoid the very real physical and systemic dangers that Black people face. None of the people responsible for the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Freddie Gray and Tamir Rice and Sandra Bland cared whether they identified as Black, nor whether they were affiliated with a Black church or listened to rap music. My research focuses on queer and transgender issues in education, and when I describe gender as a social construct I commonly also include this quote from Julia Serano: "Instead of trying to fictionalize gender, let?s talk about the moments in life when gender feels all too real. Because gender doesn?t feel like drag when you?re a young trans child begging your parents not to cut your hair or not to force you to wear that dress. And gender doesn?t feel like a performance when, for the first time in your life, you feel safe and empowered enough to express yourself in ways that resonate with you, rather than remaining closeted for the benefit of others. And gender doesn?t feel like a construct when you finally find that special person whose body, personality, identity, and energy feels like a perfect fit with yours. Let?s stop trying to deconstruct gender into nonexistence, and instead start celebrating it as inexplicable, varied, profound, and intricate. So don?t you dare dismiss my gender as construct, drag, or performance. My gender is a work of non-fiction." -- Jacob McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > > > Jacob > Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am > native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents practiced > vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted via > the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by my > skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the > earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a result > of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that > experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black > community what should I do: > Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou religion > as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the white man's > faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and cheeseSpeak AAEVwear > skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb > OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black > bourgeoisie? > I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do > not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her protestant > church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in > the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jacob McWilliams > Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > > I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's > black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and > usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who > argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By the > terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is > blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock > people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, > hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. > > > > -- > > > Jacob McWilliams > Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program > University of Colorado Boulder > j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu > http://www.jennamcwilliams.com > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Paul: > > > > Like you, I have always been puzzled and even a little troubled that we > > think of Obama as a half-black president rather than a half-white one. > As I > > said, I think he's a conservative politician, well to the right of > > Eisenhower and pretty much in the mold of the first George Bush; > therefore > > I think that the adamantine loathing of Obama by the "Republicans" is > > entirely racial. (Let us remember that the Republicans are historically > the > > party of black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction in the USA, > and > > let us, that is, you and me, consider the present day Republicans a > > complete non sequitur, a zombie usurpation, something like the present > > ruling party of Haiti.) But for that very reason, it really will not do > to > > consider Obama a white politician: first of all, it confuses > conservativism > > with whiteness, the error of which Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes, Herman > > Cain, and Ben Carson on the one hand and Marx, Engels, Lenin on the other > > have amply demonstrated. Secondly, it doesn't explain the phenomenon that > > needs to be explained, namely the bilious hatred of the right for a > > politician who is politically so very much one of their own number. > > > > So in what sense is Obama black? I think, actually, he is black in the > very > > best sense: in an entirely voluntary and chosen one. He did not coyly > flirt > > with being black, the way that David Bowie and Prince flirted with being > bi > > for commercial purposes. Bowie then complained that he was a "closet > > heterosexual" and that he was forced to have sex with gay men just in > order > > to inhabit the persona he had created, and Prince joined the Jehovah's > > Witnesses and justified the deadly Biblical persecution of gay people as > > God's revenge on them for "stickin' it here and there and everywhere". If > > these gentlemen find it difficult to have sex with other gentlemen, there > > is an extremely simple solution, one that has historically been made > > compulsory for men who are actually rather than simply sartorially gay. > > They can have sex with women. No one says that the white extras in D.W. > > Griffith's films were really trying to stand up for black liberation and > > revolutionary reconstruction, and no one confuses minstrelsy and > blackface > > with black culture: why, then, do we tolerate "gayface" in people like > > David Bowie and Prince, people who have no loyalty whatsoever to the gay > > community beyond the cash nexus? > > > > Obama doesn't do blackface. He learned black English (which, remember, > was > > a foreign language to him, growing up in Hawail and Indonesia). He > married > > black, and self-identified as black when it was not at all a commercial > or > > an electoral advantage, quite the contrary. He went to a black church and > > he didn't leave it even under overwhelming white pressure, but only when > it > > really did offend his heartfelt (conservative) principles. Obama is black > > in the sense that Helena was talking about, in the sense that he has > joined > > and been accepted by and really belongs to a black community, namely > South > > Chicago. It is true that he has given some Cosby-esque speeches about and > > even to the black lumpenproletariat. But this too is from his community: > in > > South Shore some of the most bitter opponents of petty crime and > > gangbangin' and humbuggin' were precisely the black workers at US Steel > > South Works, General Motors EMD, and Ford: they'd worked bloody hard for > > that stereo tape deck and those chrome hub caps and if you tried to swipe > > them it really didn't matter what color you were, they were going to show > > the world the color of your blood. > > > > I also vote in Korean elections, because I too have a community which I > > voluntarily adopted and which accepted me and where I am a legal > permanent > > resident with electoral rights. In the last Korean election, I voted for > > the third largest party in parliament, the United Progressive Party. > > Immediately after the election, the party was legally dissolved, the > > leaders I had voted for were expelled from parliament, arrested and > > sentenced to 24 years in prison (later, after the intercession of Pope > > Francis, reduced to "only" twelve years). All candidates in the US > > elections have insisted on continuing US support for what is essentially > an > > old fashioned Cold War regime, the "free world" counterpart of the North > > Korean nepotism-despotism. Even Donald Trump's main complaint is that > Korea > > doesn't pay enough money for the privilege of being occupied by US > troops. > > So from that point of view as well, a vote for Sanders makes no sense. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > dk > > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 09:27:54 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:27:54 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: <571e38fb.d322620a.a0544.3c03@mx.google.com> References: <571e38fb.d322620a.a0544.3c03@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <7E71C49FC1AA4DAB996E869C76964CDF@DrPaulCMocombe> For me no relationship. The so-called founding fathers of the USA were slave-holding war criminals, yet I find merit in some of their ideas. Dr. Paul C. Mocombe President The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc. www.mocombeian.com www.readingroomcurriculum.com www.paulcmocombe.info From: Lplarry Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 11:34 AM To: Dr. Paul C. Mocombe ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity ; ablunden@mira.net Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Paul, Your pointing out that you do not care about an authors marriage details or suicide opens a further question. Does the relation between an author?s ideas and the author?s personal relationships have relevance for holding up the authors point of view as exemplary? Ghandi is an example. Saving India but a very asymmetrical marriage Heidegger is another example and his not focusing on the process of *mitsein* (being with). Gadamer answering this lack. Andy pointing out collaboration being understood as archetype of marriage. Now marriage has many differing images and itself has no con/sensus. However, it is a personal relation. An open question. The phrase ?the personal is political?. Sent from my Windows 10 phone From: Dr. Paul C. Mocombe Sent: April 25, 2016 4:42 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity; ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Annalisa, Yes, on the parallel between activity theory and structurationism. Yes althusser's structural marxism has been attacked on the issue of agency. I think unfairly, however. It's the same issues raised against Immanuel wallersteins's world-system model. As for his personal relationship with his wife and suicide, I really do not care about those things. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/24/2016 9:19 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" , ablunden@mira.net Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Hi Paul, So then ideas OF consciousness, as you are using the word, has to do with activity. If I am understanding you correctly, would this correspond with activity theory, if activity is that which develops mind? Interpellates is a new word for me, and seems to be, for althusser, a particular manifestation of activity which develops and specifically reproduces political being, in the sense, I imagine, of carrying an ideology like a virus or meme from individual to individual, group to group. In althusser's sensibility, this is pressed into being by the state upon members of the society, in a totalitarian sense, it seems, which means we can never be free, it seems. Do I have that correctly? If that is correct, then what is althusser's idea OF freedom. Also, althusser had a troubled past with his wife, did he not? so I'm not clear how the personal is political in his case. Or rather the personal connected to the political, maybe is a better way to frame it. Is it possible to post to the list those Fraser and Fanon texts? I no longer have the open access to journal texts I used to have. Also, to those reading my longer posts, I hope they have not been oppressive, or inflammatory, but responsive and inclusive, as that is how I have intended them, even if I've been critical. Sometimes the apparatus of emails and listservs do not translate well, and also the nature of posts on elections can be read so swiftly due to the emotional content they carry, that intended meanings can be easily lost. I feel that it has been overall a positive and honest exchange, though it would be great to have more people participate. I'm grateful to everyone who has spoken up thus far and made their contributions. Kind regards, Annalisa From boblake@georgiasouthern.edu Mon Apr 25 09:29:12 2016 From: boblake@georgiasouthern.edu (Robert Lake) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:29:12 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: <571E33B2.3080309@open.ac.uk> Message-ID: Greg, You are stereotyping vegans. Some do love collards :-). On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:35 AM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > Rob, > > Collard Greens were first introduced in the US by African Slaves. It is a > regional dish (though not appealing to Vegans) served in both Southern > cuisine and Soul Food. > > Collard Greens though have taken on a strong metaphorical role in southern > Black identity. > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM R.J.S.Parsons > wrote: > > > It is wonderful what you learn on xmca. I had never heard of collard > > greens before. A quick visit to Wikipedia has enlightened me: things I > > eat most days. But the category has no meaning in my life, or in that of > > any other UK resident I am aware of. We eat some, we don't eat others. > > > > Can someone enlighten me as to how and in what way collard greens has > > become a marker of identity in the USA? > > > > Rob > > > > On 25/04/2016 15:37, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: > > > > > > Jacob > > > Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am > > native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents > practiced > > vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted via > > the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by my > > skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the > > earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a > result > > of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that > > experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black > > community what should I do: > > > Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou > > religion as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the > > white man's faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and > cheeseSpeak > > AAEVwear skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb > > > OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black > > bourgeoisie? > > > I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do > > not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her > protestant > > church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in > > the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > > From: Jacob McWilliams > > > Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) > > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > > > > > > I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's > > > black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, > and > > > usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who > > > argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By > > the > > > terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is > > > blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to > shock > > > people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, > > > hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- Robert Lake Ed.D. Associate Professor Social Foundations of Education Dept. of Curriculum, Foundations, and Reading Georgia Southern University P. O. Box 8144, Statesboro, GA 30460 Secretary/Treasurer-AERA- Paulo Freire Special Interest Group Webpage: https://georgiasouthern.academia.edu/RobertLake*Democracy must be born anew in every generation, and education is its midwife.* John Dewey-*Democracy and Education*,1916, p. 139 From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Apr 25 09:34:01 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 09:34:01 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Fwd: Transgender Conference to Include Professional Track for Educators, Medical and Mental Health Fields In-Reply-To: <6d7f101b04cb43639ae51a5d25c5063f@targetcue.com> References: <6d7f101b04cb43639ae51a5d25c5063f@targetcue.com> Message-ID: Seemed pertinent mike ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Cathy Renna Date: Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:20 AM Subject: Transgender Conference to Include Professional Track for Educators,Medical and Mental Health Fields FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Cathy Renna, cathy@targetcue.com, 917-757-6123 15th Annual ?Gender Odyssey? Conference To Be Held August 4-7, 2016 in Seattle, Washington Multiple Programs for Professional, Families and Transgender Communities Keynote speakers Geena Rocero and Maddie Deutsch Seattle, WA?April 22, 2016??As visibility for transgender issues and communities reaches a historic high mark, over 1000 participants will gather in Seattle, WA for the annual Gender Odyssey Conference. This year marks the 15th year for the gathering. Gender Odyssey?s primary objective is to offer tools to navigate obstacles and provide pathways to individual and community empowerment, with conference tracks for professionals, families and trans people of all ages. ?We are looking forward to gathering at an extraordinary time of visibility and challenge for transgender communities, their families and allies,? said Aidan Key, Gender Odyssey?s founder. ?The first Gender Odyssey conference was held in Seattle during the spring of 2001, and with support of dedicated volunteers and participants, has evolved into an event beyond our greatest expectations,? continued Key. ?At a time when we see increasing visibility for transgender people that is coupled with a troubling increase in strategic attacks on the LGBT community scapegoating trans people, the safe space and resources this conference offers are more important than ever,? said Key. Gender Odyssey will again offer scores of workshops, films, receptions, performances and the opportunity to network, learn and create community. The stand-alone conference for families with gender diverse and transgender children, ?Gender Odyssey Family,? will again be a cornerstone of the weekend. With three days of workshops, a day camp for kids and complete teen program, this annual family conference is one of few places in where children, teens, with their families can get the information and support they need to live happy, healthy and fulfilled lives. In addition, Gender Odyssey?s recently expanded conference for professionals and students, ?GO Professional,? will include sessions covering best practices for therapists, current medical protocols, legal considerations, and a full programming track for educators including model school policies for gender variant students. This year?s keynote speakers will be Geena Rocero and Dr. Madeline Deutsch. *Rocero* is a Filipina model and founder of Gender Proud, an advocacy and aid organization that stands up for the right of transgender people worldwide to ?self-identify with the fewest possible barriers.? Rocero came out as transgender while giving a TED talk , which has since received 2.8 million views. In 2015, Rocero became the executive producer of *Beautiful As I Want To Be*, a digital series for Logo focused on transgender youth and recently received a GLAAD Media Award for the program. *Deutsch**,* an MD, MPH, is an assistant clinical professor in the Department of Family & Community Medicine at UCSF. She is the Director of Clinical Services at the UCSF Center of Excellence for Transgender Health, with her clinic based at UCSF Women?s Health Primary Care, in partnership with the National Center of Excellence in Women?s Health. Dr. Deutsch has been involved in a number of research and capacity building projects focused on transgender health. For more information about these respective programs, go to: Families & Children - http://www.genderodysseyfamily.org/ Professionals - http://www.genderdiversity.org/gopro/ Community - http://www.genderodyssey.org/ Scholarships available for those with financial need. -30- If you would rather not receive future communications from Cathy Renna, let us know by clicking here. Cathy Renna, 17 Bull Run, East Hampton, NY 11937 United States -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 09:44:10 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 12:44:10 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Jacob, I hear what you are saying. What about the so-called black police officers that participated in the cover-up of many of these deaths? This work of non-fiction for black folks seem to be the product of two social class language games of black America, the black bourgeoisie and black underclass who want to speak for all black people. In Haiti Obama is a white man because we do not define ourselves in relationship to skin-color but vis-?-vis a worldview/ethos. Just the same, the vodou community in Haiti has been discriminated against for years by the churches of the West because of our acceptance of transgender, homosexuals, etc. In Vodou metaphysics human beings are reincarnated sixteen times, 8 times as a female and 8 times as male. Homosexuality, transgender, etc. is either the product of residual psychic memories or the embodiment of a particular lwa (spirit), Erzulie Freda. Hence the killing or discrimination of homosexuals, queers, etc. was not allowed until the Protestants emerged as a force on the island. I say all of that to say, I am in agreement with you that the definition of black folks by blacks in the West, especially English-speaking world, is not accepted universally. Dr. Paul C. Mocombe President The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc. www.mocombeian.com www.readingroomcurriculum.com www.paulcmocombe.info -----Original Message----- From: Jacob McWilliams Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 11:40 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface Your depiction of "the black community in America" presents a monolithic picture that I think isn't fair or true to the intricacies of racial/ethnic identity, community, and community affiliation that many on this listserv have investigated at length, on this listserv and in their own scholarship. Sure, the notion of "black identity" is constructed--as constructed, although to very different effect, as "white identity" is. And yet it's dangerous to be Black in America, regardless of whether a person "buys" the notion of black identity. A person who is perceived by others as Black might not identify as such, but that doesn't enable them to avoid the very real physical and systemic dangers that Black people face. None of the people responsible for the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and Freddie Gray and Tamir Rice and Sandra Bland cared whether they identified as Black, nor whether they were affiliated with a Black church or listened to rap music. My research focuses on queer and transgender issues in education, and when I describe gender as a social construct I commonly also include this quote from Julia Serano: "Instead of trying to fictionalize gender, let?s talk about the moments in life when gender feels all too real. Because gender doesn?t feel like drag when you?re a young trans child begging your parents not to cut your hair or not to force you to wear that dress. And gender doesn?t feel like a performance when, for the first time in your life, you feel safe and empowered enough to express yourself in ways that resonate with you, rather than remaining closeted for the benefit of others. And gender doesn?t feel like a construct when you finally find that special person whose body, personality, identity, and energy feels like a perfect fit with yours. Let?s stop trying to deconstruct gender into nonexistence, and instead start celebrating it as inexplicable, varied, profound, and intricate. So don?t you dare dismiss my gender as construct, drag, or performance. My gender is a work of non-fiction." -- Jacob McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > > > Jacob > Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am > native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents > practiced > vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted via > the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by my > skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the > earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a result > of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that > experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black > community what should I do: > Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou religion > as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the white man's > faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and cheeseSpeak AAEVwear > skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb > OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black > bourgeoisie? > I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do > not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her protestant > church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in > the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Jacob McWilliams > Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > > I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's > black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and > usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who > argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By > the > terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is > blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock > people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, > hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. > > > > -- > > > Jacob McWilliams > Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program > University of Colorado Boulder > j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu > http://www.jennamcwilliams.com > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:29 PM, David Kellogg > wrote: > > > Paul: > > > > Like you, I have always been puzzled and even a little troubled that we > > think of Obama as a half-black president rather than a half-white one. > As I > > said, I think he's a conservative politician, well to the right of > > Eisenhower and pretty much in the mold of the first George Bush; > therefore > > I think that the adamantine loathing of Obama by the "Republicans" is > > entirely racial. (Let us remember that the Republicans are historically > the > > party of black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction in the USA, > and > > let us, that is, you and me, consider the present day Republicans a > > complete non sequitur, a zombie usurpation, something like the present > > ruling party of Haiti.) But for that very reason, it really will not do > to > > consider Obama a white politician: first of all, it confuses > conservativism > > with whiteness, the error of which Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes, Herman > > Cain, and Ben Carson on the one hand and Marx, Engels, Lenin on the > > other > > have amply demonstrated. Secondly, it doesn't explain the phenomenon > > that > > needs to be explained, namely the bilious hatred of the right for a > > politician who is politically so very much one of their own number. > > > > So in what sense is Obama black? I think, actually, he is black in the > very > > best sense: in an entirely voluntary and chosen one. He did not coyly > flirt > > with being black, the way that David Bowie and Prince flirted with being > bi > > for commercial purposes. Bowie then complained that he was a "closet > > heterosexual" and that he was forced to have sex with gay men just in > order > > to inhabit the persona he had created, and Prince joined the Jehovah's > > Witnesses and justified the deadly Biblical persecution of gay people as > > God's revenge on them for "stickin' it here and there and everywhere". > > If > > these gentlemen find it difficult to have sex with other gentlemen, > > there > > is an extremely simple solution, one that has historically been made > > compulsory for men who are actually rather than simply sartorially gay. > > They can have sex with women. No one says that the white extras in D.W. > > Griffith's films were really trying to stand up for black liberation and > > revolutionary reconstruction, and no one confuses minstrelsy and > blackface > > with black culture: why, then, do we tolerate "gayface" in people like > > David Bowie and Prince, people who have no loyalty whatsoever to the gay > > community beyond the cash nexus? > > > > Obama doesn't do blackface. He learned black English (which, remember, > was > > a foreign language to him, growing up in Hawail and Indonesia). He > married > > black, and self-identified as black when it was not at all a commercial > or > > an electoral advantage, quite the contrary. He went to a black church > > and > > he didn't leave it even under overwhelming white pressure, but only when > it > > really did offend his heartfelt (conservative) principles. Obama is > > black > > in the sense that Helena was talking about, in the sense that he has > joined > > and been accepted by and really belongs to a black community, namely > South > > Chicago. It is true that he has given some Cosby-esque speeches about > > and > > even to the black lumpenproletariat. But this too is from his community: > in > > South Shore some of the most bitter opponents of petty crime and > > gangbangin' and humbuggin' were precisely the black workers at US Steel > > South Works, General Motors EMD, and Ford: they'd worked bloody hard for > > that stereo tape deck and those chrome hub caps and if you tried to > > swipe > > them it really didn't matter what color you were, they were going to > > show > > the world the color of your blood. > > > > I also vote in Korean elections, because I too have a community which I > > voluntarily adopted and which accepted me and where I am a legal > permanent > > resident with electoral rights. In the last Korean election, I voted for > > the third largest party in parliament, the United Progressive Party. > > Immediately after the election, the party was legally dissolved, the > > leaders I had voted for were expelled from parliament, arrested and > > sentenced to 24 years in prison (later, after the intercession of Pope > > Francis, reduced to "only" twelve years). All candidates in the US > > elections have insisted on continuing US support for what is essentially > an > > old fashioned Cold War regime, the "free world" counterpart of the North > > Korean nepotism-despotism. Even Donald Trump's main complaint is that > Korea > > doesn't pay enough money for the privilege of being occupied by US > troops. > > So from that point of view as well, a vote for Sanders makes no sense. > > > > David Kellogg > > Macquarie University > > > > dk > > > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 10:23:49 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 11:23:49 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface/gayface In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Perhaps relevant? Prudence Carter has done some interesting work on issues of race and education in South Africa. I saw a presentation some time ago in which she was elaborating on the South African use of the term "coconut" to refer to people who were "brown on the outside and white on the inside". Here is a more recent reference: P. L. Carter. 2012. Stubborn Roots: Race, Culture, and Inequality in U.S. and South African Schools. New York: Oxford University Press. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > > > I was in south Africa recently and while there, many people were > derisively referring to this brother (mmusi maimane) as the south African > Barack obama: > Watch "Mmusi Maimane: 'Fighting a system, not a race' - Talk to Al > Jazeera" on YouTube > https://youtu.be/wW5WAloRnMQ > It appeared to me, and I am speculating here, that arguments around racial > identity in south Africa seems to parallel the pathological-pathogenic and > adaptive-vitality debates of the 1970s and 80s of america. Maimane is not > so-called black because he is western educated, and adopt the mannerisms of > whites like Barack I was told. Hence there is a juxtaposition taking place > between blacks who are western educated and those who grow up as part of > the black underclass in south africa.... is this how south Africa is > defining black identity? > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -- 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 From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 10:24:24 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:24:24 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I meant prepared in traditional sense with hamhock or gizzards. Recovering Vegan here myself. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 12:47 PM Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: > Jacob, > > I hear what you are saying. What about the so-called black police officers > that participated in the cover-up of many of these deaths? This work of > non-fiction for black folks seem to be the product of two social class > language games of black America, the black bourgeoisie and black underclass > who want to speak for all black people. In Haiti Obama is a white man > because we do not define ourselves in relationship to skin-color but > vis-?-vis a worldview/ethos. Just the same, the vodou community in Haiti > has been discriminated against for years by the churches of the West > because > of our acceptance of transgender, homosexuals, etc. In Vodou metaphysics > human beings are reincarnated sixteen times, 8 times as a female and 8 > times > as male. Homosexuality, transgender, etc. is either the product of > residual > psychic memories or the embodiment of a particular lwa (spirit), Erzulie > Freda. Hence the killing or discrimination of homosexuals, queers, etc. > was > not allowed until the Protestants emerged as a force on the island. I say > all of that to say, I am in agreement with you that the definition of black > folks by blacks in the West, especially English-speaking world, is not > accepted universally. > > > > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe > President > The Mocombeian Foundation, Inc. > www.mocombeian.com > www.readingroomcurriculum.com > www.paulcmocombe.info > -----Original Message----- > From: Jacob McWilliams > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 11:40 AM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > > Your depiction of "the black community in America" presents a monolithic > picture that I think isn't fair or true to the intricacies of racial/ethnic > identity, community, and community affiliation that many on this listserv > have investigated at length, on this listserv and in their own scholarship. > > Sure, the notion of "black identity" is constructed--as constructed, > although to very different effect, as "white identity" is. And yet it's > dangerous to be Black in America, regardless of whether a person "buys" the > notion of black identity. A person who is perceived by others as Black > might not identify as such, but that doesn't enable them to avoid the very > real physical and systemic dangers that Black people face. None of the > people responsible for the deaths of Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown and > Freddie Gray and Tamir Rice and Sandra Bland cared whether they identified > as Black, nor whether they were affiliated with a Black church or listened > to rap music. > > My research focuses on queer and transgender issues in education, and when > I describe gender as a social construct I commonly also include this quote > from Julia Serano: > > "Instead of trying to fictionalize gender, let?s talk about the moments in > life when gender feels all too real. Because gender doesn?t feel like drag > when you?re a young trans child begging your parents not to cut your hair > or not to force you to wear that dress. And gender doesn?t feel like a > performance when, for the first time in your life, you feel safe and > empowered enough to express yourself in ways that resonate with you, rather > than remaining closeted for the benefit of others. And gender doesn?t feel > like a construct when you finally find that special person whose body, > personality, identity, and energy feels like a perfect fit with yours. > Let?s stop trying to deconstruct gender into nonexistence, and instead > start celebrating it as inexplicable, varied, profound, and intricate. > > So don?t you dare dismiss my gender as construct, drag, or performance. My > gender is a work of non-fiction." > > > > > > -- > > > Jacob McWilliams > Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program > University of Colorado Boulder > j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu > http://www.jennamcwilliams.com > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:37 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < > pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Jacob > > Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am > > native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents > > practiced > > vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted via > > the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by my > > skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the > > earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a > result > > of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that > > experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black > > community what should I do: > > Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou > religion > > as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the white > man's > > faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and cheeseSpeak AAEVwear > > skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb > > OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black > > bourgeoisie? > > I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do > > not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her > protestant > > church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in > > the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... > > > > > > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: Jacob McWilliams > > Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) > > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > > > > I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's > > black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and > > usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who > > argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By > > the > > terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is > > blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock > > people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, > > hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jacob McWilliams > > Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program > > University of Colorado Boulder > > j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu > > http://www.jennamcwilliams.com > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:29 PM, David Kellogg > > wrote: > > > > > Paul: > > > > > > Like you, I have always been puzzled and even a little troubled that we > > > think of Obama as a half-black president rather than a half-white one. > > As I > > > said, I think he's a conservative politician, well to the right of > > > Eisenhower and pretty much in the mold of the first George Bush; > > therefore > > > I think that the adamantine loathing of Obama by the "Republicans" is > > > entirely racial. (Let us remember that the Republicans are historically > > the > > > party of black liberation and revolutionary reconstruction in the USA, > > and > > > let us, that is, you and me, consider the present day Republicans a > > > complete non sequitur, a zombie usurpation, something like the present > > > ruling party of Haiti.) But for that very reason, it really will not do > > to > > > consider Obama a white politician: first of all, it confuses > > conservativism > > > with whiteness, the error of which Condoleeza Rice, Alan Keyes, Herman > > > Cain, and Ben Carson on the one hand and Marx, Engels, Lenin on the > > > other > > > have amply demonstrated. Secondly, it doesn't explain the phenomenon > > > that > > > needs to be explained, namely the bilious hatred of the right for a > > > politician who is politically so very much one of their own number. > > > > > > So in what sense is Obama black? I think, actually, he is black in the > > very > > > best sense: in an entirely voluntary and chosen one. He did not coyly > > flirt > > > with being black, the way that David Bowie and Prince flirted with > being > > bi > > > for commercial purposes. Bowie then complained that he was a "closet > > > heterosexual" and that he was forced to have sex with gay men just in > > order > > > to inhabit the persona he had created, and Prince joined the Jehovah's > > > Witnesses and justified the deadly Biblical persecution of gay people > as > > > God's revenge on them for "stickin' it here and there and everywhere". > > > If > > > these gentlemen find it difficult to have sex with other gentlemen, > > > there > > > is an extremely simple solution, one that has historically been made > > > compulsory for men who are actually rather than simply sartorially gay. > > > They can have sex with women. No one says that the white extras in D.W. > > > Griffith's films were really trying to stand up for black liberation > and > > > revolutionary reconstruction, and no one confuses minstrelsy and > > blackface > > > with black culture: why, then, do we tolerate "gayface" in people like > > > David Bowie and Prince, people who have no loyalty whatsoever to the > gay > > > community beyond the cash nexus? > > > > > > Obama doesn't do blackface. He learned black English (which, remember, > > was > > > a foreign language to him, growing up in Hawail and Indonesia). He > > married > > > black, and self-identified as black when it was not at all a commercial > > or > > > an electoral advantage, quite the contrary. He went to a black church > > > and > > > he didn't leave it even under overwhelming white pressure, but only > when > > it > > > really did offend his heartfelt (conservative) principles. Obama is > > > black > > > in the sense that Helena was talking about, in the sense that he has > > joined > > > and been accepted by and really belongs to a black community, namely > > South > > > Chicago. It is true that he has given some Cosby-esque speeches about > > > and > > > even to the black lumpenproletariat. But this too is from his > community: > > in > > > South Shore some of the most bitter opponents of petty crime and > > > gangbangin' and humbuggin' were precisely the black workers at US Steel > > > South Works, General Motors EMD, and Ford: they'd worked bloody hard > for > > > that stereo tape deck and those chrome hub caps and if you tried to > > > swipe > > > them it really didn't matter what color you were, they were going to > > > show > > > the world the color of your blood. > > > > > > I also vote in Korean elections, because I too have a community which I > > > voluntarily adopted and which accepted me and where I am a legal > > permanent > > > resident with electoral rights. In the last Korean election, I voted > for > > > the third largest party in parliament, the United Progressive Party. > > > Immediately after the election, the party was legally dissolved, the > > > leaders I had voted for were expelled from parliament, arrested and > > > sentenced to 24 years in prison (later, after the intercession of Pope > > > Francis, reduced to "only" twelve years). All candidates in the US > > > elections have insisted on continuing US support for what is > essentially > > an > > > old fashioned Cold War regime, the "free world" counterpart of the > North > > > Korean nepotism-despotism. Even Donald Trump's main complaint is that > > Korea > > > doesn't pay enough money for the privilege of being occupied by US > > troops. > > > So from that point of view as well, a vote for Sanders makes no sense. > > > > > > David Kellogg > > > Macquarie University > > > > > > dk > > > > > > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 10:43:40 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 13:43:40 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface/gayface Message-ID: <18i0kfn65lfybnngdjgxq76g.1461606218038@email.android.com> Yes... I am familiar with her work there. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Greg Thompson Date: 4/25/2016 1:23 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface/gayface Perhaps relevant? Prudence Carter has done some interesting work on issues of race and education in South Africa. I saw a presentation some time ago in which she was elaborating on the South African use of the term "coconut" to refer to people who were "brown on the outside and white on the inside". Here is a more recent reference: P. L. Carter. 2012. Stubborn Roots: Race, Culture, and Inequality in U.S. and South African Schools. New York: Oxford University Press. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe < pmocombe@mocombeian.com> wrote: > > > I was in south Africa recently and while there, many people were > derisively referring to this brother (mmusi maimane) as the south African > Barack obama: > Watch "Mmusi Maimane: 'Fighting a system, not a race' - Talk to Al > Jazeera" on YouTube > https://youtu.be/wW5WAloRnMQ > It appeared to me, and I am speculating here, that arguments around racial > identity in south Africa seems to parallel the pathological-pathogenic and > adaptive-vitality debates of the 1970s and 80s of america.? Maimane is not > so-called black because he is western educated, and adopt the mannerisms of > whites like Barack I was told.? Hence there is a juxtaposition taking place > between blacks who are western educated and those who grow up as part of > the black underclass in south africa.... is this how south Africa is > defining black identity? > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -- 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 From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Apr 25 11:54:31 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:54:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: <571e38fb.d322620a.a0544.3c03@mx.google.com> References: , <571e38fb.d322620a.a0544.3c03@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Paul and Larry, Larry brings up a really good point about the personal life of the thinker and how such a lived experience interacts with the person's philosophical stance. There is an apparent disconnect. It seems to be a pattern that the lives of people with status (academic, artistic, philosophical, political, spiritual) who can lead and innovate large groups of others with their gifts also are "difficult people" to the circle of people with whom they have intimate ties. One comes to realize at some point the necessity of understanding how the personal is intertwined in all of that. For example, people want social justice, but when someone in their personal circle are in need of support or help, they are unavailable to that individual, it's only the grand ideas that count, the abstractions. To my mind, this is how there is a reproduction of injustice, because there is a conditional definition of freedom only for some, not for all. Only the ideas count. For such people there is an apparent contradiction, but maybe it is only apparent. I could welcome to entertain the thought that Steve Jobs was a misunderstood genius, but the evidence of his personal relationships and his willingness to explain away suicides in Chinese factories being low in number doesn't make him a great guy to me. So there is a long shadow on his personage that makes it hard to admire him as the messiah of personal computing that he is not. It seems to warrant examination if one doesn't want to stand one's own theory on the foundations of hypocrisy. Otherwise don't we just reproduce the same power structure, pouring old wine in a new skin? If there is no way to remove the insidiousness of hypocrisy, then how much is allowable? I would welcome a feminist analysis of Gandhi and how his philosophy of satyagraha relates to his personal relationships. It is a problem I have with him, but have yet to look into it. The problem with the personal is that it is hard to learn the facts. But that doesn't make it any less important. It is certainly possible that the thinker is forced to that world stage because of the personal flaw and how it manifests in personal relationships, but that still is taking the time to understand that connection if that is the one to be made. Maybe that's Freudian, but we hear over and over about people chasing purpose and leaving their families in wreckage, or because of coming from families of wreckage people feel compelled to chase purpose. Not that that is the only thing that drives people. For these reasons, I am surprised that you do not care about althusser's apparent contradictions and examining them. Unless you don't care about women in the same way W didn't care about black people during katrina. I'm not accusing you of that, but to say you don't care says something, I'm just trying to understand what you mean. Do you mean to say you don't care that althusser did not care about women, or rather his wife, and you care only about his theory, by implication, if that is a fair interpretation. But then why not care about this apparent contradiction? Or have I wrongly conflated something here? Kind regards, Annalisa From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Apr 25 12:01:32 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:01:32 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I thought I'd pipe up that I like collard greens, kale, swiss chard, mustard greens, dandelion greens, beet greens, and spinach. I hope I didn't leave any greens out. Kind regards, Annalisa From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Apr 25 12:02:53 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:02:53 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: , Message-ID: Oh, arugula is nice too. Annalisa From r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk Mon Apr 25 12:53:06 2016 From: r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk (R.J.S.Parsons) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:53:06 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <571E75B0.1020805@open.ac.uk> I like all those too. I've never had arugula. I have had rocket though :-) Rob On 25/04/2016 20:01, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > I thought I'd pipe up that I like collard greens, kale, swiss chard, mustard greens, dandelion greens, beet greens, and spinach. I hope I didn't leave any greens out. > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa From r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk Mon Apr 25 12:56:18 2016 From: r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk (R.J.S.Parsons) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 19:56:18 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: <571E33B2.3080309@open.ac.uk> Message-ID: <571E7670.5020606@open.ac.uk> Thanks for that. I can see the historical power of the explanation. I am a bit surprised that some of these were not introduced by other people as well - perhaps there is a more complex process by which they come to be associated exclusively with black slave identity. And how did slaves get to itroduce them? They cant have brought them with them all the way form Africa. And they would not be conducting their own commerce. Interesting. Rob On 25/04/2016 16:35, Greg Mcverry wrote: > Rob, > > Collard Greens were first introduced in the US by African Slaves. It is a > regional dish (though not appealing to Vegans) served in both Southern > cuisine and Soul Food. > > Collard Greens though have taken on a strong metaphorical role in southern > Black identity. > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM R.J.S.Parsons > wrote: > >> It is wonderful what you learn on xmca. I had never heard of collard >> greens before. A quick visit to Wikipedia has enlightened me: things I >> eat most days. But the category has no meaning in my life, or in that of >> any other UK resident I am aware of. We eat some, we don't eat others. >> >> Can someone enlighten me as to how and in what way collard greens has >> become a marker of identity in the USA? >> >> Rob >> >> On 25/04/2016 15:37, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: >>> Jacob >>> Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am >> native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents practiced >> vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted via >> the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by my >> skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the >> earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a result >> of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that >> experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black >> community what should I do: >>> Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou >> religion as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the >> white man's faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and cheeseSpeak >> AAEVwear skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb >>> OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black >> bourgeoisie? >>> I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do >> not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her protestant >> church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in >> the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... >>> >>> >>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>> >>> -------- Original message -------- >>> From: Jacob McWilliams >>> Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) >>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface >>> >>> I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's >>> black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, and >>> usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who >>> argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By >> the >>> terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is >>> blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to shock >>> people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, >>> hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. >>> >>> >>> >> From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 13:09:05 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:09:05 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: <571E7670.5020606@open.ac.uk> References: <571E33B2.3080309@open.ac.uk> <571E7670.5020606@open.ac.uk> Message-ID: I am in no way a culinary historian or researcher of Southern Black Culture. >From what I have read the greens were some of the few items slaves and then tenant farmers could grow and keep. The meat bits were usually scrap or innards again being all that was given or afforded. The recipes origins are of West African descent. The spread of collard greens is aligned with ?Soul Food" growth as the African Diaspora moved into cities and out of the South following the Civil War, industrialization, and then civil rights movement. In fact in Beyonce's "Formation" which caused a stir at the Super Bowl for its perceived Black Power message celebrates Southern Black culture with lyrical reference to "hot sauce in the purse." Food, identity, and culture. Always intertwined never monolithic. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 3:58 PM R.J.S.Parsons wrote: > Thanks for that. I can see the historical power of the explanation. I am > a bit surprised that some of these were not introduced by other people > as well - perhaps there is a more complex process by which they come to > be associated exclusively with black slave identity. > > And how did slaves get to itroduce them? They cant have brought them > with them all the way form Africa. And they would not be conducting > their own commerce. Interesting. > > Rob > > On 25/04/2016 16:35, Greg Mcverry wrote: > > Rob, > > > > Collard Greens were first introduced in the US by African Slaves. It is a > > regional dish (though not appealing to Vegans) served in both Southern > > cuisine and Soul Food. > > > > Collard Greens though have taken on a strong metaphorical role in > southern > > Black identity. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM R.J.S.Parsons > > > wrote: > > > >> It is wonderful what you learn on xmca. I had never heard of collard > >> greens before. A quick visit to Wikipedia has enlightened me: things I > >> eat most days. But the category has no meaning in my life, or in that of > >> any other UK resident I am aware of. We eat some, we don't eat others. > >> > >> Can someone enlighten me as to how and in what way collard greens has > >> become a marker of identity in the USA? > >> > >> Rob > >> > >> On 25/04/2016 15:37, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: > >>> Jacob > >>> Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am > >> native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents > practiced > >> vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted > via > >> the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by > my > >> skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the > >> earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a > result > >> of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that > >> experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black > >> community what should I do: > >>> Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou > >> religion as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the > >> white man's faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and > cheeseSpeak > >> AAEVwear skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb > >>> OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black > >> bourgeoisie? > >>> I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do > >> not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her > protestant > >> church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in > >> the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... > >>> > >>> > >>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > >>> > >>> -------- Original message -------- > >>> From: Jacob McWilliams > >>> Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) > >>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > >>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface > >>> > >>> I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's > >>> black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, > and > >>> usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who > >>> argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By > >> the > >>> terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is > >>> blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to > shock > >>> people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, > >>> hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 14:04:16 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:04:16 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Message-ID: Hi annalisa, Yes... I only care about the theory. ?Whether or not he cared for women, for me, is irrelevant. ?Majority of the theories I had to study in grad school were contrived by racist white men. ?That does not mean that the theories themselves have no value. ?Fanon was a so-called black man, but his theories about the culture of the haitian/taino/africans were just as racist as some of his white contemporaries. ?He wrote "black skin, white mask" while married to a white woman. ?Does that mean anything? ?Was the book a reflection of his own double consciousness or contradictions presented as universal truth as it pertains to "the souls of black folk"? ?I do not know, and frankly I do not care. ?What is important for me is the theory. ?Are kafka's stories and understanding of reality a result of his relationship with his father? ?Maybe, but I do not care. ?What I am concerned with is whether or not the stories capture the existential threat (patriarchal) bourgeois society poses to the individual. ?I do not care about the personal, I only care for the abstraction. ?There is a debate in phenomenological philosophy as to whether or not existence is the subjectification of the transcendental ego or the contrary, the objectification of it in a particular dispensation of space-time? ?I fall in the latter camp! Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/25/2016 2:54 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Paul and Larry, Larry brings up a really good point about the personal life of the thinker and how such a lived experience interacts with the person's philosophical stance. There is an apparent disconnect. It seems to be a pattern that the lives of people with status (academic, artistic, philosophical, political, spiritual) who can lead and innovate large groups of others with their gifts also are "difficult people" to the circle of people with whom they have intimate ties. One comes to realize at some point the necessity of understanding how the personal is intertwined in all of that. For example, people want social justice, but when someone in their personal circle are in need of support or help, they are unavailable to that individual, it's only the grand ideas that count, the abstractions. To my mind, this is how there is a reproduction of injustice, because there is a conditional definition of freedom only for some, not for all. Only the ideas count. For such people there is an apparent contradiction, but maybe it is only apparent. I could welcome to entertain the thought that Steve Jobs was a misunderstood genius, but the evidence of his personal relationships and his willingness to explain away suicides in Chinese factories being low in number doesn't make him a great guy to me. So there is a long shadow on his personage that makes it hard to admire him as the messiah of personal computing that he is not. It seems to warrant examination if one doesn't want to stand one's own theory on the foundations of hypocrisy. Otherwise don't we just reproduce the same power structure, pouring old wine in a new skin? If there is no way to remove the insidiousness of hypocrisy, then how much is allowable? I would welcome a feminist analysis of Gandhi and how his philosophy of satyagraha relates to his personal relationships. It is a problem I have with him, but have yet to look into it. The problem with the personal is that it is hard to learn the facts. But that doesn't make it any less important. It is certainly possible that the thinker is forced to that world stage because of the personal flaw and how it manifests in personal relationships, but that still is taking the time to understand that connection if that is the one to be made. Maybe that's Freudian, but we hear over and over about people chasing purpose and leaving their families in wreckage, or because of coming from families of wreckage people feel compelled to chase purpose. Not that that is the only thing that drives people. For these reasons, I am surprised that you do not care about althusser's apparent contradictions and examining them. Unless you don't care about women in the same way W didn't care about black people during katrina. I'm not accusing you of that, but to say you don't care says something, I'm just trying to understand what you mean. Do you mean to say you don't care that althusser did not care about women, or rather his wife, and you care only about his theory, by implication, if that is a fair interpretation. But then why not care about this apparent contradiction? Or have I wrongly conflated something here? Kind regards, Annalisa From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 14:16:32 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:16:32 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Message-ID: I think this is relevant for all of the threads today, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23792-the-masters-house-is-burning-bell-hooks-cornel-west-and-the-tyranny-of-neoliberalism? Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" Date: 4/25/2016 5:04 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness ??? Hi annalisa, Yes... I only care about the theory. ?Whether or not he cared for women, for me, is irrelevant. ?Majority of the theories I had to study in grad school were contrived by racist white men. ?That does not mean that the theories themselves have no value. ?Fanon was a so-called black man, but his theories about the culture of the haitian/taino/africans were just as racist as some of his white contemporaries. ?He wrote "black skin, white mask" while married to a white woman. ?Does that mean anything? ?Was the book a reflection of his own double consciousness or contradictions presented as universal truth as it pertains to "the souls of black folk"? ?I do not know, and frankly I do not care. ?What is important for me is the theory. ?Are kafka's stories and understanding of reality a result of his relationship with his father? ?Maybe, but I do not care. ?What I am concerned with is whether or not the stories capture the existential threat (patriarchal) bourgeois society poses to the individual. ?I do not care about the personal, I only care for the abstraction. ?There is a debate in phenomenological philosophy as to whether or not existence is the subjectification of the transcendental ego or the contrary, the objectification of it in a particular dispensation of space-time? ?I fall in the latter camp! Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/25/2016? 2:54 PM? (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Paul and Larry, Larry brings up a really good point about the personal life of the thinker and how such a lived experience interacts with the person's philosophical stance. There is an apparent disconnect. It seems to be a pattern that the lives of people with status (academic, artistic, philosophical, political, spiritual) who can lead and innovate large groups of others with their gifts also are "difficult people" to the circle of people with whom they have intimate ties. One comes to realize at some point the necessity of understanding how the personal is intertwined in all of that. For example, people want social justice, but when someone in their personal circle are in need of support or help, they are unavailable to that individual, it's only the grand ideas that count, the abstractions. To my mind, this is how there is a reproduction of injustice, because there is a conditional definition of freedom only for some, not for all. Only the ideas count. For such people there is an apparent contradiction, but maybe it is only apparent. I could welcome to entertain the thought that Steve Jobs was a misunderstood genius, but the evidence of his personal relationships and his willingness to explain away suicides in Chinese factories being low in number doesn't make him a great guy to me. So there is a long shadow on his personage that makes it hard to admire him as the messiah of personal computing that he is not. It seems to warrant examination if one doesn't want to stand one's own theory on the foundations of hypocrisy. Otherwise don't we just reproduce the same power structure, pouring old wine in a new skin? If there is no way to remove the insidiousness of hypocrisy, then how much is allowable? I would welcome a feminist analysis of Gandhi and how his philosophy of satyagraha relates to his personal relationships. It is a problem I have with him, but have yet to look into it. The problem with the personal is that it is hard to learn the facts. But that doesn't make it any less important. It is certainly possible that the thinker is forced to that world stage because of the personal flaw and how it manifests in personal relationships, but that still is taking the time to understand that connection if that is the one to be made. Maybe that's Freudian, but we hear over and over about people chasing purpose and leaving their families in wreckage, or because of coming from families of wreckage people feel compelled to chase purpose. Not that that is the only thing that drives people. For these reasons, I am surprised that you do not care about althusser's apparent contradictions and examining them. Unless you don't care about women in the same way W didn't care about black people during katrina. I'm not accusing you of that, but to say you don't care says something, I'm just trying to understand what you mean. Do you mean to say you don't care that althusser did not care about women, or rather his wife, and you care only about his theory, by implication, if that is a fair interpretation. But then why not care about this apparent contradiction? Or have I wrongly conflated something here? Kind regards, Annalisa From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 14:17:37 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:17:37 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface/gayface Message-ID: <61qdueuschecfnqigcfxxgof.1461619057417@email.android.com> So relevant to our discussion, http://www.truth-out.org/opinion/item/23792-the-masters-house-is-burning-bell-hooks-cornel-west-and-the-tyranny-of-neoliberalism? Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: "Dr. Paul C. Mocombe" Date: 4/25/2016 1:43 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: RE: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface/gayface Yes... I am familiar with her work there. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Apr 25 14:57:25 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 21:57:25 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Paul, Yes, OK. I do hear you about ideas, something about a good idea resonates as good, that's what appeals. Just like I might be a terrible guitar player, but make great collard greens, and you like my collard greens but can find me to be a terrible musician. But I'd like to go a little further. What I'm wondering and I'm sticking my neck out here, and I know that, but does it mean that we all carry around a kind of double-consciousness of being while not being, or not being while being? (Take your pick) That we can posses a theory by which we think we can live, but in practice we fail miserably? (Isn't this Cartesian?) Forgive me if I'm misconstruing the definition of Dubois's DC, but does the contradiction of wanting to fight for freedom against an English King and justifying slave ownership (and subjecting women to being a different kind of possession) create the same kind of splits that "looking at one's self through the eyes of others" does? I'm just asking. In other words, is it looking at one's self through the eyes of one's other internal self, that is, the non-integrated self as two (or more) selves. Aren't the consequences identical from being split? And wouldn't freedom, then, be a removal of that split? In both cases? Of having integrity of self? To perceive the world as it is, instead of how I think it is? True self-awareness? Because I'd think that having an unresolved mental split of this kind could not ever be liberating, as I see it. No matter how much pursuing of happiness one gets out of life. One would always remain conflicted with oneself for those inner self-contradictions. If a theory is crafted with split consciousness (not to warp the meaning of double consciousness out of respect to the original meaning), does something of that theory inherit an inherent contradiction? Is it possible to take the cream off the top of the milk bottle without understanding how to feed or nurture the cow? Just thinking out loud. Thanks for listening... Kind regards, Annalisa From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 15:42:46 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:42:46 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Message-ID: <6twjw1jipo7a0d505in416gi.1461624011224@email.android.com> Althusser is immersed in marx's abstraction vis-a-vis the capitalist "structure of the conjuncture" (Marshall sahlins's term), which constitutes his dispensation of spacetime. ?That his lived personal experiences maybe filled with contradictions from the conclusions pertaining to his abstraction of capital is irrelevant to his analysis. ?Our lived-experiences are filled with contradictions, which may or may not have any impact on our theorizing about the nature of reality as such. ?Our lived-experiences and our theorizing about them are different levels of analysis as heidegger points out about husserl's phenomenology. ?The former, heidegger refers to as "ready to hand" and the latter "present-at-hand". ?The latter is the level of analysis husserl is operating at, but that is not the level we experience being-in-the-world. ?We experience being in the world at the ready-to-hand level according to heidegger. Yes my position is a bit Cartesian supplemented with quantum mechanics: our ego is the objectification of recycled subatomic particles already preprogrammed with subjective consciousnesses of other beings of the multiverse. ?Yes I am aware of the hawking paradox as it pertains to black holes (general relativity) and their destruction of information. ?But quantum mechanics contradicts the latter in favor of the indestructiblity of information recycled as subatomic particle energy recycled as the multiverse. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/25/2016 5:57 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Hi Paul, Yes, OK. I do hear you about ideas, something about a good idea resonates as good, that's what appeals. Just like I might be a terrible guitar player, but make great collard greens, and you like my collard greens but can find me to be a terrible musician. But I'd like to go a little further. What I'm wondering and I'm sticking my neck out here, and I know that, but does it mean that we all carry around a kind of double-consciousness of being while not being, or not being while being? (Take your pick) That we can posses a theory by which we think we can live, but in practice we fail miserably? (Isn't this Cartesian?) Forgive me if I'm misconstruing the definition of Dubois's DC, but does the contradiction of wanting to fight for freedom against an English King and justifying slave ownership (and subjecting women to being a different kind of possession) create the same kind of splits that "looking at one's self through the eyes of others" does? I'm just asking. In other words, is it looking at one's self through the eyes of one's other internal self, that is, the non-integrated self as two (or more) selves. Aren't the consequences identical from being split? And wouldn't freedom, then, be a removal of that split? In both cases? Of having integrity of self? To perceive the world as it is, instead of how I think it is? True self-awareness? Because I'd think that having an unresolved mental split of this kind could not ever be liberating, as I see it. No matter how much pursuing of happiness one gets out of life. One would always remain conflicted with oneself for those inner self-contradictions. If a theory is crafted with split consciousness (not to warp the meaning of double consciousness out of respect to the original meaning), does something of that theory inherit an inherent contradiction? Is it possible to take the cream off the top of the milk bottle without understanding how to feed or nurture the cow? Just thinking out loud. Thanks for listening... Kind regards, Annalisa From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 17:03:31 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:03:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> Message-ID: As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it seems to be popping up more and more in my circles. Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read Jenkins, Ito, and boyd's latest book.: http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-culture/ It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the tech scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected learning-- a pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for the newly minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects of our networked society. Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing anyone's motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power of a well balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within creates an inspirational aspiration. One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had the chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would be willing to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much larger level of cultural appropriation. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: > > Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion for > requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and interface as > necessary for general systems theory unfolding as human projects. > This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, communities, > nations). > Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. > Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards > equilibrium having *requisite variety* > This post lead to Andy exploring the notion of having a *reason* for > getting up in the morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on this > quality of life. > > Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how he saw > the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the ideal of not > being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more like a *linear* > dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. > This type of system which displays qualities which *express* what seems > to have the quality of mechanical systems having the opposite system > characteristic of cells which have *organic permeable boundaries* . > > My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary (living > experience as if organically permeable) following the theory of general > biological systems theory) and also be perceived as a dead and lifeless > place which images a general mechanical systems theory with external moving > *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of lifeless > *repetition*. > It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in both > organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the same time > participating in mechanical general systems (closed impermeable dead > membranes) > Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of culture but > it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical and organic > metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries closed *walls* > (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. > Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. > Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of systems? > > My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a concept > and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar concept. > These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do have a > diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > From: Wilkinson > Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > Note (a continuation): > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit of > analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of the > fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in > Medieval Lit, > "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > who was then a "gentleman"? > V > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly the end > > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught that > > the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - living > > systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not vote for > > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to make > > my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a great > > team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the young > > ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support of > > the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, > > peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me since > > I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my first > > English primer. > > > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and kindly > > to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" as > > mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is coherent, > > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not going to > > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am doing > > now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with the > > players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is quite > > enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me so > > much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have meetings, > > plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with the > > present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross Ashby > > and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to survive, > > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the hunger. > > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of > > nations and communities and teams and people and families and the cells > > in the body maintaining health. > > > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA continues > > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on Ervin > > Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative ventures in > > sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of ultra-technology, > > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in Japan > > and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the present > > does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward better > > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned that > > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and intrinsic > > development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so much > > better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money blah, > > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park instead of > > getting on with my projects for today). > > Vandy > > > > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a good > >> many > >> Americans. They do not > >> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence about > an > >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this dated > >> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I > come > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible > >> sexists) > >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution of > >> the > >> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those > >> years > >> around my birth were all about. > >> > >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of the > >> atomic age. > >> > >> The result in this case? > >> > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > >> > >> mike > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > >> From: BernieSanders.com > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > >> To: Michael Cole > >> > >> > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > >> > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then > >> tries to > >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the > >> kind of > >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's exactly > >> what > >> Verizon is doing right now.* > >> > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a > >> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to > >> Bernie's > >> to say you support Verizon employees. > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > >* > >> > >> > >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is > >> below. > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > >> ------------------------------ > >> > >> Sisters and Brothers, > >> > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. He > >> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. > >> > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon > wants > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying federal > >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and > >> negotiate a > >> fair contract with its employees.* > >> > >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation > trying > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's > >> employees are fighting back.* > >> > >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless are on > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* difficult > >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they > >> made to > >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. > >> > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that you > >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health > >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to add > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > >* > >> > >> > >> *Add Your Name ? > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > >* > >> > >> > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the > >> streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: they're > >> standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of Americans > >> who > >> don't have a union. > >> > >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, decent > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > >> > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for saying > >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay its > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > >> > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar > >> compensation > >> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still > >> refusing > >> to give their employees fair contracts. > >> > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all of us > >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way you > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon employees > who > >> are out on strike.* > >> > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are standing > >> up to > >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair > >> pay, and > >> job protections. > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > >* > >> > >> > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot have > it > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > >> > >> In solidarity, > >> > >> Bernie Sanders > >> > >> *Contribute > >> < > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em160423-verizon > >* > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > >> > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > >> > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > >> > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or > >> change > >> your information or email address, click here to update your info > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=email_footer > >. > >> > >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters > like > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails > >> < > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&email=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > >. > >> > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to > >> unsubscribe > >> . Stand against the > >> powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress > and > >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie here > >> < > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=email_footer > > > >> > >> . > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > From r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk Mon Apr 25 17:05:41 2016 From: r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk (R.J.S.Parsons) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:05:41 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface In-Reply-To: References: <571E33B2.3080309@open.ac.uk> <571E7670.5020606@open.ac.uk> Message-ID: <571EB0E3.40208@open.ac.uk> "Food, identity, and culture. Always intertwined never monolithic." Very true. Over here, until curry and lager came along, the traditional English meal was fish and chips and a cup of tea. Tea brought here from India. Chips - which you call fries, only ours are much bigger - brought here from the Americas. The practice of battering and frying fish brought here by Jewish refugees from other parts of Europe. And quintessentially English. Rob On 25/04/2016 21:09, Greg Mcverry wrote: > I am in no way a culinary historian or researcher of Southern Black > Culture. > > >From what I have read the greens were some of the few items slaves and then > tenant farmers could grow and keep. The meat bits were usually scrap or > innards again being all that was given or afforded. > > The recipes origins are of West African descent. > > The spread of collard greens is aligned with ?Soul Food" growth as the > African Diaspora moved into cities and out of the South following the Civil > War, industrialization, and then civil rights movement. > > In fact in Beyonce's "Formation" which caused a stir at the Super Bowl for > its perceived Black Power message celebrates Southern Black culture with > lyrical reference to "hot sauce in the purse." > > Food, identity, and culture. Always intertwined never monolithic. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 3:58 PM R.J.S.Parsons > wrote: > >> Thanks for that. I can see the historical power of the explanation. I am >> a bit surprised that some of these were not introduced by other people >> as well - perhaps there is a more complex process by which they come to >> be associated exclusively with black slave identity. >> >> And how did slaves get to itroduce them? They cant have brought them >> with them all the way form Africa. And they would not be conducting >> their own commerce. Interesting. >> >> Rob >> >> On 25/04/2016 16:35, Greg Mcverry wrote: >>> Rob, >>> >>> Collard Greens were first introduced in the US by African Slaves. It is a >>> regional dish (though not appealing to Vegans) served in both Southern >>> cuisine and Soul Food. >>> >>> Collard Greens though have taken on a strong metaphorical role in >> southern >>> Black identity. >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 11:12 AM R.J.S.Parsons >> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> It is wonderful what you learn on xmca. I had never heard of collard >>>> greens before. A quick visit to Wikipedia has enlightened me: things I >>>> eat most days. But the category has no meaning in my life, or in that of >>>> any other UK resident I am aware of. We eat some, we don't eat others. >>>> >>>> Can someone enlighten me as to how and in what way collard greens has >>>> become a marker of identity in the USA? >>>> >>>> Rob >>>> >>>> On 25/04/2016 15:37, Dr. Paul C. Mocombe wrote: >>>>> Jacob >>>>> Now we have to get into the definition of what is black identity? I am >>>> native haitian who grew up in the provinces where my grandparents >> practiced >>>> vodou and raised me to think as an african. My world was constituted >> via >>>> the universe and vodou. I simply do not believe in defining myself by >> my >>>> skin-color. By white man, yes I do privilege white experiences of the >>>> earth and the ideologies and apparatuses they have constituted as a >> result >>>> of the experience; blackness in the west was defined in relation to that >>>> experience. So in order for me to be black in america and join the black >>>> community what should I do: >>>>> Join a so-called black church (they discriminate against my vodou >>>> religion as in vodou we discriminate against them for they practice the >>>> white man's faith)Eat collard greens, chicken, and macaroni and >> cheeseSpeak >>>> AAEVwear skinny jeansListen to rap music and rb >>>>> OR is Barack Obama a paragon for e. Franklin frazier's the black >>>> bourgeoisie? >>>>> I am haitian and My wife is black american and we have two sons... I do >>>> not let my sons do the black church thing. My wife attends her >> protestant >>>> church every sunday. But my sons are not allowed to attend; No AAEV in >>>> the house; we are vegans so we do not do many of the foods... >>>>> >>>>> Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone >>>>> >>>>> -------- Original message -------- >>>>> From: Jacob McWilliams >>>>> Date: 4/25/2016 9:46 AM (GMT-05:00) >>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Blackface and Gayface >>>>> >>>>> I do not, and never will, agree with the arguments that reject Obama's >>>>> black identity. I find those arguments deeply problematic at minimum, >> and >>>>> usually much worse than problematic. However, I do wish that those who >>>>> argue that Obama is not black would not describe him as a white man. By >>>> the >>>>> terms of this argument, whiteness is no more a "real" category than is >>>>> blackness, and referring to Obama as a "white man," even if done to >> shock >>>>> people, serves to feed into the very real, and not at all fictitious, >>>>> hegemony of whiteness in America and around the world. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >> From mcole@ucsd.edu Mon Apr 25 17:15:53 2016 From: mcole@ucsd.edu (mike cole) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 17:15:53 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> Message-ID: That *is* a neat Venn diagram, Greg. And I just learned of the word today for reasons that grow out of an MCA project involving a hard to define non-English words. The link to Mimi Ito, connected learning zeitgeists, and passionate affinity groups is a welcome addition to my education. mike PS- Neat looking web page too!! On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it seems to > be popping up more and more in my circles. > > Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read Jenkins, > Ito, and boyd's latest book.: > http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-culture/ > > It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. > > The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the tech > scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected learning-- a > pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. > > Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for the newly > minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects of our networked > society. > > Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing anyone's > motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power of a well > balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within creates an > inspirational aspiration. > > One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had the > chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would be willing > to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much larger level of > cultural appropriation. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion for > > requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and interface as > > necessary for general systems theory unfolding as human projects. > > This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, communities, > > nations). > > Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. > > Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards > > equilibrium having *requisite variety* > > This post lead to Andy exploring the notion of having a *reason* for > > getting up in the morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on this > > quality of life. > > > > Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how he saw > > the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the ideal of not > > being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more like a *linear* > > dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. > > This type of system which displays qualities which *express* what seems > > to have the quality of mechanical systems having the opposite system > > characteristic of cells which have *organic permeable boundaries* . > > > > My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary (living > > experience as if organically permeable) following the theory of general > > biological systems theory) and also be perceived as a dead and lifeless > > place which images a general mechanical systems theory with external > moving > > *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of > lifeless > > *repetition*. > > It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in both > > organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the same time > > participating in mechanical general systems (closed impermeable dead > > membranes) > > Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of culture but > > it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical and organic > > metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries closed *walls* > > (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. > > Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. > > Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of > systems? > > > > My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a concept > > and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar concept. > > These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do have a > > diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Wilkinson > > Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > > > Note (a continuation): > > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit of > > analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of the > > fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in > > Medieval Lit, > > "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > > who was then a "gentleman"? > > V > > > > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > > > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > > > > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > > > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly the > end > > > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > > > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught that > > > the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > > > > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - living > > > systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not vote > for > > > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > > > > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to make > > > my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a great > > > team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the young > > > ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support of > > > the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, > > > peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me since > > > I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my > first > > > English primer. > > > > > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and kindly > > > to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" as > > > mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is > coherent, > > > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > > > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > > > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not going > to > > > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > > > > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am doing > > > now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with the > > > players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is quite > > > enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me so > > > much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have meetings, > > > plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > > > > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with the > > > present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > > > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross Ashby > > > and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to > survive, > > > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the > hunger. > > > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of > > > nations and communities and teams and people and families and the cells > > > in the body maintaining health. > > > > > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA > continues > > > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > > > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on Ervin > > > Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative ventures in > > > sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of > ultra-technology, > > > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > > > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in Japan > > > and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the present > > > does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward > better > > > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > > > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned > that > > > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and intrinsic > > > development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so much > > > better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money > blah, > > > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > > > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park instead of > > > getting on with my projects for today). > > > Vandy > > > > > > > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a good > > >> many > > >> Americans. They do not > > >> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence about > > an > > >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this dated > > >> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I > > come > > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible > > >> sexists) > > >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution of > > >> the > > >> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those > > >> years > > >> around my birth were all about. > > >> > > >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of > the > > >> atomic age. > > >> > > >> The result in this case? > > >> > > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > >> > > >> mike > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> From: BernieSanders.com > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > > >> To: Michael Cole > > >> > > >> > > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > >> > > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then > > >> tries to > > >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the > > >> kind of > > >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's exactly > > >> what > > >> Verizon is doing right now.* > > >> > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a > > >> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to > > >> Bernie's > > >> to say you support Verizon employees. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is > > >> below. > > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> > > >> Sisters and Brothers, > > >> > > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. He > > >> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. > > >> > > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon > > wants > > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying federal > > >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and > > >> negotiate a > > >> fair contract with its employees.* > > >> > > >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation > > trying > > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's > > >> employees are fighting back.* > > >> > > >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless are > on > > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* > difficult > > >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they > > >> made to > > >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > >> > > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that you > > >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health > > >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to > add > > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> *Add Your Name ? > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the > > >> streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: they're > > >> standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of Americans > > >> who > > >> don't have a union. > > >> > > >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, > decent > > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > > >> > > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for > saying > > >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay > its > > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > > >> > > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar > > >> compensation > > >> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still > > >> refusing > > >> to give their employees fair contracts. > > >> > > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all of > us > > >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way > you > > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon employees > > who > > >> are out on strike.* > > >> > > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are standing > > >> up to > > >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair > > >> pay, and > > >> job protections. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot have > > it > > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > >> > > >> In solidarity, > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders > > >> > > >> *Contribute > > >> < > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em160423-verizon > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > >> > > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > > >> > > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > >> > > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or > > >> change > > >> your information or email address, click here to update your info > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=email_footer > > >. > > >> > > >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters > > like > > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&email=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > > >. > > >> > > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to > > >> unsubscribe > > >> . Stand against the > > >> powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress > > and > > >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie here > > >> < > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=email_footer > > > > > >> > > >> . > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From ablunden@mira.net Mon Apr 25 17:22:38 2016 From: ablunden@mira.net (Andy Blunden) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 10:22:38 +1000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Annalisa, As I see it, there is not a yes-no choice between a person's life being an expression of their philosophical system or being irrelevant to it. If you are assessing a philosophical system and making a critique of it, then the meaning the philosophical system had for the writer in their time and situation is *one of many* strands of evidence you have about the philosophy and its place in the history of philosophy and its social significance. To a large extent, a philosophical system arises from and is part of a philosophical project extended over decades or centuries and barely touches the lives of those who write it. But it is equally true that all philosophical systems have implications for how people live their lives, so it is untenable to claim that how the author lives is in principle *irrelevant* to an assessment of the philosophy. In the end, a writer's life and a philosophical system are two different things ... but not unrelated. Likewise, identity categories are not either the free choice of an individual OR biologically determined. Nor is a person simply subjected to a socially constructed identity OR gifted one by nature. There is always a complex process producing a complex range of identities from the interplay of an often-dichotomous socially constructed, non-optional, identity resting on nature, the participation of an individual in social movements, and the action of free choice. Andy ------------------------------------------------------------ Andy Blunden http://home.mira.net/~andy http://www.brill.com/products/book/origins-collective-decision-making On 26/04/2016 7:57 AM, Annalisa Aguilar wrote: > Hi Paul, > > Yes, OK. I do hear you about ideas, something about a good idea resonates as good, that's what appeals. Just like I might be a terrible guitar player, but make great collard greens, and you like my collard greens but can find me to be a terrible musician. But I'd like to go a little further. > > What I'm wondering and I'm sticking my neck out here, and I know that, but does it mean that we all carry around a kind of double-consciousness of being while not being, or not being while being? (Take your pick) > > That we can posses a theory by which we think we can live, but in practice we fail miserably? > > (Isn't this Cartesian?) > > Forgive me if I'm misconstruing the definition of Dubois's DC, but does the contradiction of wanting to fight for freedom against an English King and justifying slave ownership (and subjecting women to being a different kind of possession) create the same kind of splits that "looking at one's self through the eyes of others" does? I'm just asking. > > In other words, is it looking at one's self through the eyes of one's other internal self, that is, the non-integrated self as two (or more) selves. Aren't the consequences identical from being split? > > And wouldn't freedom, then, be a removal of that split? In both cases? Of having integrity of self? To perceive the world as it is, instead of how I think it is? True self-awareness? > > Because I'd think that having an unresolved mental split of this kind could not ever be liberating, as I see it. No matter how much pursuing of happiness one gets out of life. One would always remain conflicted with oneself for those inner self-contradictions. > > If a theory is crafted with split consciousness (not to warp the meaning of double consciousness out of respect to the original meaning), does something of that theory inherit an inherent contradiction? > > Is it possible to take the cream off the top of the milk bottle without understanding how to feed or nurture the cow? > > Just thinking out loud. Thanks for listening... > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa > From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 17:36:55 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:36:55 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Mike, To be clear Mimi Ito cited ikigai in her book, I was drawing on her comment that the collective is in constant tensions with the individual is a Western belief. It came up during a collaborative reading of the book on Twitter, Slack, and open annotation tool Hypothes.is Ikigai grew in popularity in the US tech scene after it was mentioned in a "TED" Talk entitled "How to live to be a Hundred" by Dan Buettner. I attach a link to his transcript here: http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100/transcript?language=en#t-614000 . Ikigai is mentioned at the ten minute mark. ohh and thanks for the note about the website. Wordpress and boredom can make anyone look good. Greg On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:18 PM mike cole wrote: > That *is* a neat Venn diagram, Greg. And I just learned of the word today > for reasons that grow out > of an MCA project involving a hard to define non-English words. The link to > Mimi Ito, connected learning zeitgeists, and passionate affinity groups is > a welcome addition to my education. > > mike > > PS- Neat looking web page too!! > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Greg Mcverry > wrote: > > > As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it seems > to > > be popping up more and more in my circles. > > > > Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read Jenkins, > > Ito, and boyd's latest book.: > > > http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-culture/ > > > > It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. > > > > The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the tech > > scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected learning-- a > > pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. > > > > Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for the > newly > > minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects of our networked > > society. > > > > Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing anyone's > > motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power of a well > > balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within creates an > > inspirational aspiration. > > > > One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had the > > chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would be > willing > > to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much larger level of > > cultural appropriation. > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > > Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion for > > > requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and interface > as > > > necessary for general systems theory unfolding as human projects. > > > This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, communities, > > > nations). > > > Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. > > > Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards > > > equilibrium having *requisite variety* > > > This post lead to Andy exploring the notion of having a *reason* for > > > getting up in the morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on > this > > > quality of life. > > > > > > Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how he saw > > > the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the ideal of not > > > being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more like a *linear* > > > dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. > > > This type of system which displays qualities which *express* what > seems > > > to have the quality of mechanical systems having the opposite system > > > characteristic of cells which have *organic permeable boundaries* . > > > > > > My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary > (living > > > experience as if organically permeable) following the theory of general > > > biological systems theory) and also be perceived as a dead and lifeless > > > place which images a general mechanical systems theory with external > > moving > > > *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of > > lifeless > > > *repetition*. > > > It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in both > > > organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the same time > > > participating in mechanical general systems (closed impermeable dead > > > membranes) > > > Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of culture > but > > > it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical and organic > > > metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries closed *walls* > > > (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. > > > Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. > > > Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of > > systems? > > > > > > My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a concept > > > and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar concept. > > > These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do have > a > > > diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Wilkinson > > > Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > > > > > Note (a continuation): > > > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit of > > > analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of > the > > > fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in > > > Medieval Lit, > > > "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > > > who was then a "gentleman"? > > > V > > > > > > > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > > > > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > > > > > > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > > > > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly the > > end > > > > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > > > > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught > that > > > > the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > > > > > > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - > living > > > > systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not vote > > for > > > > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > > > > > > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to > make > > > > my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a > great > > > > team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the > young > > > > ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support of > > > > the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, > > > > peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me > since > > > > I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my > > first > > > > English primer. > > > > > > > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and > kindly > > > > to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" > as > > > > mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is > > coherent, > > > > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > > > > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > > > > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not going > > to > > > > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > > > > > > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am > doing > > > > now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with > the > > > > players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is quite > > > > enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me > so > > > > much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have > meetings, > > > > plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > > > > > > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with the > > > > present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > > > > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross Ashby > > > > and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to > > survive, > > > > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the > > hunger. > > > > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of > > > > nations and communities and teams and people and families and the > cells > > > > in the body maintaining health. > > > > > > > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA > > continues > > > > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > > > > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on Ervin > > > > Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative ventures > in > > > > sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of > > ultra-technology, > > > > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > > > > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in Japan > > > > and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the > present > > > > does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward > > better > > > > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > > > > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned > > that > > > > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and intrinsic > > > > development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so > much > > > > better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money > > blah, > > > > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > > > > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park instead > of > > > > getting on with my projects for today). > > > > Vandy > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > > > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a > good > > > >> many > > > >> Americans. They do not > > > >> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence > about > > > an > > > >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this > dated > > > >> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I > > > come > > > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible > > > >> sexists) > > > >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution > of > > > >> the > > > >> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those > > > >> years > > > >> around my birth were all about. > > > >> > > > >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of > > the > > > >> atomic age. > > > >> > > > >> The result in this case? > > > >> > > > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > >> From: BernieSanders.com > > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > > > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > > > >> To: Michael Cole > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > > >> > > > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then > > > >> tries to > > > >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the > > > >> kind of > > > >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's > exactly > > > >> what > > > >> Verizon is doing right now.* > > > >> > > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a > > > >> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to > > > >> Bernie's > > > >> to say you support Verizon employees. > > > >> < > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is > > > >> below. > > > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > > > >> ------------------------------ > > > >> > > > >> Sisters and Brothers, > > > >> > > > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. > He > > > >> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. > > > >> > > > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon > > > wants > > > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying > federal > > > >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and > > > >> negotiate a > > > >> fair contract with its employees.* > > > >> > > > >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation > > > trying > > > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's > > > >> employees are fighting back.* > > > >> > > > >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless > are > > on > > > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* > > difficult > > > >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they > > > >> made to > > > >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > > >> > > > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that > you > > > >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health > > > >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to > > add > > > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > > > >> < > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> *Add Your Name ? > > > >> < > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the > > > >> streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: > they're > > > >> standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of > Americans > > > >> who > > > >> don't have a union. > > > >> > > > >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, > > decent > > > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > > > >> > > > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for > > saying > > > >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay > > its > > > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > > > >> > > > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar > > > >> compensation > > > >> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still > > > >> refusing > > > >> to give their employees fair contracts. > > > >> > > > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all > of > > us > > > >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way > > you > > > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon > employees > > > who > > > >> are out on strike.* > > > >> > > > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are > standing > > > >> up to > > > >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair > > > >> pay, and > > > >> job protections. > > > >> < > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot > have > > > it > > > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > > >> > > > >> In solidarity, > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders > > > >> > > > >> *Contribute > > > >> < > > > > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em160423-verizon > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > > >> > > > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > > > >> > > > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > > >> > > > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or > > > >> change > > > >> your information or email address, click here to update your info > > > >> < > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=email_footer > > > >. > > > >> > > > >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters > > > like > > > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails > > > >> < > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&email=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > > > >. > > > >> > > > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to > > > >> unsubscribe > > > >> . Stand against the > > > >> powerful special interests who are systematically buying our > Congress > > > and > > > >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie > here > > > >> < > > > > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=email_footer > > > > > > > >> > > > >> . > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object > that creates history. Ernst Boesch > From lpscholar2@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 18:26:57 2016 From: lpscholar2@gmail.com (lpscholar2@gmail.com) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 18:26:57 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <571ec3d9.921b620a.e9b1f.3672@mx.google.com> Greg, Mike, If it is true that the concept Ikagi is currently being culturally appropriated then why now? is one of the *reasons* because of this fundamental question that Mimi Ito asks: Why must developing individuality assume [pre-suppose] the need for opposing the individual to collective cultural forms [configurations]. This is a peculiar Western notion. This question resonates with questions of reason [reflection] as *external* or *internal* as illustrated with these two differing *pro*-positions. [presuppositions] 1) The actual world is *independent* of our descriptions or knowledge of the world, our values, preferences, and emotional responses to the world, and our attempts to understand or explain the world. This is an *external* sense of relation [of self and world]. 2) All knowledge is a set of conventions governed by a central paradigm. Knowledge is derived and *informed* by that paradigm and does not refer to anything other than the paradigm it is *informed* by. This is an internal sense of relation from *within*. I hear Mimi Ito?s sense which she describes as a Japanese cultural sense leaning towards *internal* relations which does not posit the collective as external to the self. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mike cole Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 5:18 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed That *is* a neat Venn diagram, Greg. And I just learned of the word today for reasons that grow out of an MCA project involving a hard to define non-English words. The link to Mimi Ito, connected learning zeitgeists, and passionate affinity groups is a welcome addition to my education. mike PS- Neat looking web page too!! On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it seems to > be popping up more and more in my circles. > > Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read Jenkins, > Ito, and boyd's latest book.: > http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-culture/ > > It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. > > The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the tech > scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected learning-- a > pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. > > Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for the newly > minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects of our networked > society. > > Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing anyone's > motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power of a well > balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within creates an > inspirational aspiration. > > One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had the > chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would be willing > to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much larger level of > cultural appropriation. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion for > > requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and interface as > > necessary for general systems theory unfolding as human projects. > > This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, communities, > > nations). > > Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. > > Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards > > equilibrium having *requisite variety* > > This post lead to Andy exploring the notion of having a *reason* for > > getting up in the morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on this > > quality of life. > > > > Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how he saw > > the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the ideal of not > > being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more like a *linear* > > dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. > > This type of system which displays qualities which *express* what seems > > to have the quality of mechanical systems having the opposite system > > characteristic of cells which have *organic permeable boundaries* . > > > > My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary (living > > experience as if organically permeable) following the theory of general > > biological systems theory) and also be perceived as a dead and lifeless > > place which images a general mechanical systems theory with external > moving > > *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of > lifeless > > *repetition*. > > It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in both > > organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the same time > > participating in mechanical general systems (closed impermeable dead > > membranes) > > Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of culture but > > it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical and organic > > metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries closed *walls* > > (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. > > Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. > > Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of > systems? > > > > My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a concept > > and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar concept. > > These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do have a > > diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Wilkinson > > Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > > > Note (a continuation): > > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit of > > analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of the > > fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in > > Medieval Lit, > > "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > > who was then a "gentleman"? > > V > > > > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > > > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > > > > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > > > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly the > end > > > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > > > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught that > > > the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > > > > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - living > > > systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not vote > for > > > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > > > > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to make > > > my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a great > > > team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the young > > > ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support of > > > the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, > > > peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me since > > > I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my > first > > > English primer. > > > > > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and kindly > > > to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" as > > > mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is > coherent, > > > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > > > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > > > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not going > to > > > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > > > > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am doing > > > now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with the > > > players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is quite > > > enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me so > > > much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have meetings, > > > plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > > > > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with the > > > present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > > > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross Ashby > > > and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to > survive, > > > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the > hunger. > > > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of > > > nations and communities and teams and people and families and the cells > > > in the body maintaining health. > > > > > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA > continues > > > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > > > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on Ervin > > > Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative ventures in > > > sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of > ultra-technology, > > > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > > > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in Japan > > > and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the present > > > does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward > better > > > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > > > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned > that > > > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and intrinsic > > > development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so much > > > better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money > blah, > > > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > > > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park instead of > > > getting on with my projects for today). > > > Vandy > > > > > > > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a good > > >> many > > >> Americans. They do not > > >> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence about > > an > > >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this dated > > >> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this country. I > > come > > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible > > >> sexists) > > >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the constitution of > > >> the > > >> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what those > > >> years > > >> around my birth were all about. > > >> > > >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning of > the > > >> atomic age. > > >> > > >> The result in this case? > > >> > > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > >> > > >> mike > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> From: BernieSanders.com > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > > >> To: Michael Cole > > >> > > >> > > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > >> > > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then > > >> tries to > > >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's the > > >> kind of > > >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's exactly > > >> what > > >> Verizon is doing right now.* > > >> > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a > > >> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to > > >> Bernie's > > >> to say you support Verizon employees. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this is > > >> below. > > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> > > >> Sisters and Brothers, > > >> > > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in compensation. He > > >> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. > > >> > > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. Verizon > > wants > > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying federal > > >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and > > >> negotiate a > > >> fair contract with its employees.* > > >> > > >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation > > trying > > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, Verizon's > > >> employees are fighting back.* > > >> > > >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless are > on > > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* > difficult > > >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice they > > >> made to > > >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > >> > > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that you > > >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects health > > >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here to > add > > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> *Add Your Name ? > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in the > > >> streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: they're > > >> standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of Americans > > >> who > > >> don't have a union. > > >> > > >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, > decent > > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > > >> > > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for > saying > > >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should pay > its > > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > > >> > > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar > > >> compensation > > >> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still > > >> refusing > > >> to give their employees fair contracts. > > >> > > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all of > us > > >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant way > you > > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon employees > > who > > >> are out on strike.* > > >> > > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are standing > > >> up to > > >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair > > >> pay, and > > >> job protections. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot have > > it > > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > >> > > >> In solidarity, > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders > > >> > > >> *Contribute > > >> < > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em160423-verizon > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > >> > > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > > >> > > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > >> > > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update or > > >> change > > >> your information or email address, click here to update your info > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=email_footer > > >. > > >> > > >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach supporters > > like > > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&email=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > > >. > > >> > > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to > > >> unsubscribe > > >> . Stand against the > > >> powerful special interests who are systematically buying our Congress > > and > > >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie here > > >> < > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=email_footer > > > > > >> > > >> . > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From glassman.13@osu.edu Mon Apr 25 19:19:08 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:19:08 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <571ec3d9.921b620a.e9b1f.3672@mx.google.com> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> <571ec3d9.921b620a.e9b1f.3672@mx.google.com> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7786D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Larry, Greg, Mike and others, I don't know the word Ikagai, and I try to be careful with words from other cultures. I'm having enough trouble with the words in my own culture. For instance I recently ran across Jenkins idea of participatory culture through some of the work I have been doing on gaming with a student - but I am at a loss because participatory does so much work for Participatory Action Research. The former talks about active participation as opposed to passive consumerism (am I getting this right Greg) while the latter takes a much more political/economic/cultural perspective of allowing members of a group to participate in the trajectory of their social group as true members. Then there is the other participatory action research and Levy-Bruhl's participation. For me it boggles the mind. How do we keep our ideas straight. As far as I know there is no word in the English language that seems to capture my minimal understanding of Ikagai, but it is important to then assume it is not there. I tend to think that reason for being is not so well captured in English because it is a process, in many ways a search. Reaching back to an older thread maybe re-search is a continuation of our process to understand why we exist (perhaps that sounds a little overblown). I also think it is dangerous to make a distinction between East and West. Well of course there are differences between cultures, but I don't think they break down so easily and they are deeply tie to the particular time and social context. At least in the United States, it is important not to confuse our economic paradigm with our culture (I always fall in to this). It is true that there has been a focus on the individual, opposing her/him to the collective, but there have been times in the United States even that have been the complete opposite. Where there was no light between the individual and the collective. I have recently been doing a lot of reading on the beginnings of the Internet, because sometimes I get obsessed by a topic. I am astounded by the ways in which individual and collective melded together almost seamlessly for a period of years. We don't have to discover networked learning, we have to remember it. I don't know other cultures well enough but I'm not sure this could have happened in many other places. Perhaps they were working from a sense of Ikagai, a reason for being, I don't know. It seems like nobody ever really stopped to think about. Michael -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of lpscholar2@gmail.com Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:27 PM To: mike cole ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed Greg, Mike, If it is true that the concept Ikagi is currently being culturally appropriated then why now? is one of the *reasons* because of this fundamental question that Mimi Ito asks: Why must developing individuality assume [pre-suppose] the need for opposing the individual to collective cultural forms [configurations]. This is a peculiar Western notion. This question resonates with questions of reason [reflection] as *external* or *internal* as illustrated with these two differing *pro*-positions. [presuppositions] 1) The actual world is *independent* of our descriptions or knowledge of the world, our values, preferences, and emotional responses to the world, and our attempts to understand or explain the world. This is an *external* sense of relation [of self and world]. 2) All knowledge is a set of conventions governed by a central paradigm. Knowledge is derived and *informed* by that paradigm and does not refer to anything other than the paradigm it is *informed* by. This is an internal sense of relation from *within*. I hear Mimi Ito?s sense which she describes as a Japanese cultural sense leaning towards *internal* relations which does not posit the collective as external to the self. Sent from Mail for Windows 10 From: mike cole Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 5:18 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed That *is* a neat Venn diagram, Greg. And I just learned of the word today for reasons that grow out of an MCA project involving a hard to define non-English words. The link to Mimi Ito, connected learning zeitgeists, and passionate affinity groups is a welcome addition to my education. mike PS- Neat looking web page too!! On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it > seems to be popping up more and more in my circles. > > Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read > Jenkins, Ito, and boyd's latest book.: > http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-cultu > re/ > > It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. > > The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the > tech scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected learning-- > a pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. > > Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for the > newly minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects of our > networked society. > > Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing > anyone's motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power of > a well balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within creates an > inspirational aspiration. > > One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had > the chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would be > willing to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much > larger level of cultural appropriation. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: > > > > > Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion > > for requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and > > interface as necessary for general systems theory unfolding as human projects. > > This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, communities, > > nations). > > Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. > > Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards > > equilibrium having *requisite variety* This post lead to Andy > > exploring the notion of having a *reason* for getting up in the > > morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on this quality of > > life. > > > > Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how he > > saw the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the ideal > > of not being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more like a > > *linear* dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. > > This type of system which displays qualities which *express* what > > seems to have the quality of mechanical systems having the > > opposite system characteristic of cells which have *organic permeable boundaries* . > > > > My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary > > (living experience as if organically permeable) following the theory > > of general biological systems theory) and also be perceived as a > > dead and lifeless place which images a general mechanical systems > > theory with external > moving > > *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of > lifeless > > *repetition*. > > It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in > > both organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the > > same time participating in mechanical general systems (closed > > impermeable dead > > membranes) > > Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of culture > > but it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical and > > organic metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries closed > > *walls* > > (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. > > Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. > > Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of > systems? > > > > My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a > > concept and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar concept. > > These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do > > have a diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > From: Wilkinson > > Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > > > Note (a continuation): > > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit > > of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival > > of the fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used > > to say in Medieval Lit, "when Adam dug and Eve spun, who was then a > > "gentleman"? > > V > > > > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > > > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > > > > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > > > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly > > > the > end > > > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > > > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught > > > that the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > > > > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - > > > living systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or > > > not vote > for > > > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > > > > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to > > > make my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to > > > create a great team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory > > > project, with the young ones who are enacting the managerial roles > > > having the full support of the community of adults, both in and > > > out of the academy. Moreover, peer-learning, which appears > > > essential, and has so appeared to me since I was seven, "teaching" > > > my one year younger brother how to read my > first > > > English primer. > > > > > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and > > > kindly to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's > > > "project" as mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the > > > community is > coherent, > > > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > > > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > > > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not > > > going > to > > > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > > > > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am > > > doing now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in > > > contact with the players, get announcements out to the community, > > > well, that is quite enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown > > > up and don't need me so much, I have to encourage young students > > > to join clubs, have meetings, plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > > > > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with > > > the present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > > > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross > > > Ashby and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs > > > to > survive, > > > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the > hunger. > > > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction > > > of nations and communities and teams and people and families and > > > the cells in the body maintaining health. > > > > > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA > continues > > > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > > > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on > > > Ervin Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative > > > ventures in sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of > ultra-technology, > > > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > > > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in > > > Japan and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in > > > the present does not mean just today. I see that it means > > > progressing toward > better > > > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > > > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have > > > learned > that > > > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and > > > intrinsic development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are > > > altogether so much better than war, war, bombs, and > > > military/industrial complex money > blah, > > > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > > > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park > > > instead of getting on with my projects for today). > > > Vandy > > > > > > > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a > > >> good many Americans. They do not know what to call it and neither > > >> does he. I offer it as evidence about > > an > > >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this > > >> dated person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this > > >> country. I > > come > > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible > > >> sexists) > > >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the > > >> constitution of the US. What I see in this election is very > > >> disturbingly like what those years around my birth were all > > >> about. > > >> > > >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning > > >> of > the > > >> atomic age. > > >> > > >> The result in this case? > > >> > > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > >> > > >> mike > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> From: BernieSanders.com > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > > >> To: Michael Cole > > >> > > >> > > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > >> > > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but > > >> then tries to outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health > > >> benefits -- that's the kind of corporate greed we need to get rid > > >> of in America. *And that's exactly what Verizon is doing right > > >> now.* > > >> > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for > > >> a contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name > > >> to Bernie's to say you support Verizon employees. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sourc > e=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this > > >> is below. > > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > > >> ------------------------------ > > >> > > >> Sisters and Brothers, > > >> > > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in > > >> compensation. He leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. > > >> > > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. > > >> Verizon > > wants > > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying > > >> federal income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit > > >> down and negotiate a fair contract with its employees.* > > >> > > >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American > > >> corporation > > trying > > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back.* > > >> > > >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless > > >> are > on > > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* > difficult > > >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice > > >> they made to stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > >> > > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon > > >> that you think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that > > >> protects health benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops > > >> outsourcing. Click here to > add > > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sourc > e=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> *Add Your Name ? > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sourc > e=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in > > >> the streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: > > >> they're standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions > > >> of Americans who don't have a union. > > >> > > >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, > decent > > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > > >> > > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for > saying > > >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should > > >> pay > its > > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > > >> > > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar > > >> compensation packages, presiding over extremely profitable > > >> companies, and still refusing to give their employees fair > > >> contracts. > > >> > > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take > > >> all of > us > > >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant > > >> way > you > > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon > > >> employees > > who > > >> are out on strike.* > > >> > > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are > > >> standing up to the CEO in order to get a fair contract with > > >> health benefits, fair pay, and job protections. > > >> < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sourc > e=em160423-full > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot > > >> have > > it > > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > >> > > >> In solidarity, > > >> > > >> Bernie Sanders > > >> > > >> *Contribute > > >> < > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em16 > 0423-verizon > > >* > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > >> > > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > > >> > > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > >> > > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update > > >> or change your information or email address, click here to update > > >> your info < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=ema > il_footer > > >. > > >> > > >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach > > >> supporters > > like > > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer > > >> emails < > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&e > mail=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > > >. > > >> > > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to > > >> unsubscribe . > > >> Stand against the powerful special interests who are > > >> systematically buying our Congress > > and > > >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie > > >> here < > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=emai > l_footer > > > > > >> > > >> . > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an object that creates history. Ernst Boesch From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 19:39:42 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:39:42 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: <005801d19e51$6d5ac5a0$481050e0$@edu> Message-ID: At AERA a few weeks back I saw a panel with Jacob McWilliams on it that was dealing with these very issues that you mention here Mike as you quote and "hear here" Phillip's comments. The talks on the panel that Jacob was on were, as I understand it, chapters of an upcoming book that will be edited by Angela Booker and ???. I fear I've forgotten some of the details but I do remember the panel being one of the best panels I attended at AERA this year. Jacob, or perhaps someone else familiar with the book: could you fill in the details here? Who is the co-editor (or co-editors)? What is the name of the volume? Any other details would be greatly appreciated (anticipated publication date? Perhaps a list of authors if it isn't too premature). Thanks, greg On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:23 PM, mike cole wrote: > Hear hear, Phillip! > > Who wrote: > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, culture > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical race > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > The editors of MCA, I think it is safe to say, will welcome first class > articles that do exactly this. > > mike > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, White, Phillip < > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu> > wrote: > > > greetings, everyone. i can only image that the participants of xmca have > > been waiting with baited breath to hear the results of my gefilte fish > for > > last friday's seder - and i can only repeat, so that you know that i'm > not > > fishing for compliments, that the gentleman in his late seventies who was > > seated next to me (my son's mother-in-law's cousin's husband) said, "This > > gefilte fish is better than my Kiev born grandmother, and she was a great > > cook!" > > > > however, to join in the swim or current postings, Vera's conclusion is > > quite to the point, so that i'm pasting it in here: > > > > "In the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that traditional > > psychological and economic > > models of human agents as lone, competitive actors are losing influence. > > Increasingly, interdependence between persons is recognized as central to > > individual and societal functioning. Both cultural-historical and > feminist > > theorists place the social sources of development, or "self-in-re1ation" > as > > central within their framework. There are shared themes and > > complementarity, as well as different emphases across these two groups of > > theorists. Feminists' concerns with developmental and relational dynamics > > are not explicitly shared by scholars studying mind, culture and > activity. > > However, in looking for areas of mutuality , we broaden our ways of > > knowing, and, in the process, may construct a new synthesis between > thought > > and motive, and cognition and emotion." > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > culture > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical > race > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > > > phillip > > > > > > > -- > > 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 From annalisa@unm.edu Mon Apr 25 19:56:31 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 02:56:31 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: <6twjw1jipo7a0d505in416gi.1461624011224@email.android.com> References: <6twjw1jipo7a0d505in416gi.1461624011224@email.android.com> Message-ID: Paul, You crack me up. You know there's a much better and simpler way of explaining this don't you? Why not give it a try? In Vedic understanding of human experience, the ahankara (the I-notion or I-thought) is not seen as a bad thing, but a necessary (perhaps evolutionary) requirement of human experience. It means I take care of this body as mine. It explains survival tendencies. Ego has a lot of (Freudian) baggage as a word, which is why I don't like to use it. Especially when it comes to discourse claiming the ego must be destroyed or reviled. I believe this creates mental splits that aren't helpful. I suppose in a certain regard, ahankara could culturally extend to others, depending upon one's culture. Consider the dividual. But what if the "substance" if my ahankara and yours are identical? Then it means you are no different than me, despite apparent differences in appearance. We are one. I'm not just talking about stardust. I recognize a correspondence with phenomenological notional experiences of "I", "me" and "mine" and the definition of ahankara. When I use a pen there is a point that I forget the pen is not me, and it as-though becomes me. I think there have been neurological studies about how the brain's sense of the body adopts and extends into the spaces of tool use and automaticity. Consider how the mind "expands" from using a bike, to using a car, to using a semi-truck. Or how we imagine what is east or north, or just around the bend. It's my sense the ahankara functions in the mind in a similar way, however because of neurological wiring I have a more intimate experience of my hand than my pen. There is no need to be rid of it, just like there is no need to try to stop appearance of "mine" in the automaticity of writing with a pen. Or fishing with a flyrod. Or even "Vera is my teacher," or "you are my friend." All of these thoughts offer me a sense of mine-ness, and I would offer promotes care. The preprogramming I have a hard time with, because who programed the program? Perhaps the material is not separate from intelligence itself? That existence/being, knowledge/intelligence and consciousness/reflectivity are one and the same, inseparable? Then it doesn't matter whether the "information" is destroyed or not. No programer necessary. It's all just awareness-light (as-if light, anyway). I'm curious how this would line up with althusser's consciousness and even yours. When you say his dispensation of space-time, I presume you mean then there is an "outside" space-time. Is that what you believe to be a blackhole? But if you are aware of a blackhole then it means it is inside space and time, otherwise you could not know about it. Now concerning that programming, let's say that it does exist, then it means in order for consciousness to perceive itself it must be in harmony with itself to see itself. Otherwise it other-fies itself. It sees itself as not-self, when actually it is. It means it denies its own being. It means that in order to see itself, it must be non-separate from itself. Which means that any theory that theorizes about the reality as such (i.e. consciousness) any mind must also be in harmony in order to reflect itself properly. Which means that it does matter if althusser cared about his wife, as this "not caring" would affect his ideas about consciousness. It means kicking the tires is not enough when buying a used car, you kinda have to look under the hood. All this offered in good cheer, despite the fact I realize that the timespace continuum seems to have blasted out one of my brake lights today. Or did you do that? :) Kind regards, Annalisa From mcole@UCSD.EDU Mon Apr 25 20:03:24 2016 From: mcole@UCSD.EDU (mike cole) Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2016 20:03:24 -0700 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> Message-ID: Thanks for the additional info, Greg. And of course, bless at least a little boredom. mike On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Greg Mcverry wrote: > Mike, > > To be clear Mimi Ito cited ikigai in her book, I was drawing on her comment > that the collective is in constant tensions with the individual is a > Western belief. It came up during a collaborative reading of the book on > Twitter, Slack, and open annotation tool Hypothes.is > > Ikigai grew in popularity in the US tech scene after it was mentioned in a > "TED" Talk entitled "How to live to be a Hundred" by Dan Buettner. I attach > a link to his transcript here: > > http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_buettner_how_to_live_to_be_100/transcript?language=en#t-614000 > . > > Ikigai is mentioned at the ten minute mark. > > ohh and thanks for the note about the website. Wordpress and boredom can > make anyone look good. > > Greg > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:18 PM mike cole wrote: > > > That *is* a neat Venn diagram, Greg. And I just learned of the word today > > for reasons that grow out > > of an MCA project involving a hard to define non-English words. The link > to > > Mimi Ito, connected learning zeitgeists, and passionate affinity groups > is > > a welcome addition to my education. > > > > mike > > > > PS- Neat looking web page too!! > > > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Greg Mcverry > > wrote: > > > > > As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it seems > > to > > > be popping up more and more in my circles. > > > > > > Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read > Jenkins, > > > Ito, and boyd's latest book.: > > > > > > http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-culture/ > > > > > > It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. > > > > > > The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the > tech > > > scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected learning-- a > > > pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. > > > > > > Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for the > > newly > > > minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects of our > networked > > > society. > > > > > > Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing > anyone's > > > motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power of a well > > > balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within creates an > > > inspirational aspiration. > > > > > > One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had > the > > > chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would be > > willing > > > to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much larger level > of > > > cultural appropriation. > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion for > > > > requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and interface > > as > > > > necessary for general systems theory unfolding as human projects. > > > > This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, communities, > > > > nations). > > > > Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. > > > > Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards > > > > equilibrium having *requisite variety* > > > > This post lead to Andy exploring the notion of having a *reason* for > > > > getting up in the morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on > > this > > > > quality of life. > > > > > > > > Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how he > saw > > > > the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the ideal of > not > > > > being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more like a *linear* > > > > dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. > > > > This type of system which displays qualities which *express* what > > seems > > > > to have the quality of mechanical systems having the opposite > system > > > > characteristic of cells which have *organic permeable boundaries* . > > > > > > > > My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary > > (living > > > > experience as if organically permeable) following the theory of > general > > > > biological systems theory) and also be perceived as a dead and > lifeless > > > > place which images a general mechanical systems theory with external > > > moving > > > > *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of > > > lifeless > > > > *repetition*. > > > > It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in both > > > > organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the same > time > > > > participating in mechanical general systems (closed impermeable dead > > > > membranes) > > > > Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of culture > > but > > > > it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical and organic > > > > metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries closed *walls* > > > > (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. > > > > Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. > > > > Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of > > > systems? > > > > > > > > My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a > concept > > > > and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar concept. > > > > These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do > have > > a > > > > diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. > > > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > > > From: Wilkinson > > > > Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM > > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > > > > > > > Note (a continuation): > > > > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit > of > > > > analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival of > > the > > > > fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used to say in > > > > Medieval Lit, > > > > "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > > > > who was then a "gentleman"? > > > > V > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > > > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > > > > > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > > > > > > > > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > > > > > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly > the > > > end > > > > > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > > > > > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught > > that > > > > > the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > > > > > > > > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - > > living > > > > > systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or not > vote > > > for > > > > > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > > > > > > > > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to > > make > > > > > my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to create a > > great > > > > > team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory project, with the > > young > > > > > ones who are enacting the managerial roles having the full support > of > > > > > the community of adults, both in and out of the academy. Moreover, > > > > > peer-learning, which appears essential, and has so appeared to me > > since > > > > > I was seven, "teaching" my one year younger brother how to read my > > > first > > > > > English primer. > > > > > > > > > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and > > kindly > > > > > to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's "project" > > as > > > > > mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the community is > > > coherent, > > > > > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > > > > > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > > > > > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not > going > > > to > > > > > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > > > > > > > > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am > > doing > > > > > now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in contact with > > the > > > > > players, get announcements out to the community, well, that is > quite > > > > > enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown up and don't need me > > so > > > > > much, I have to encourage young students to join clubs, have > > meetings, > > > > > plan events. Just have to stay busy ... > > > > > > > > > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with > the > > > > > present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > > > > > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross > Ashby > > > > > and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs to > > > survive, > > > > > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the > > > hunger. > > > > > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction of > > > > > nations and communities and teams and people and families and the > > cells > > > > > in the body maintaining health. > > > > > > > > > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA > > > continues > > > > > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > > > > > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on > Ervin > > > > > Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative > ventures > > in > > > > > sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of > > > ultra-technology, > > > > > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > > > > > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in > Japan > > > > > and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in the > > present > > > > > does not mean just today. I see that it means progressing toward > > > better > > > > > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > > > > > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have learned > > > that > > > > > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and > intrinsic > > > > > development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are altogether so > > much > > > > > better than war, war, bombs, and military/industrial complex money > > > blah, > > > > > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > > > > > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park > instead > > of > > > > > getting on with my projects for today). > > > > > Vandy > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > > > > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a > > good > > > > >> many > > > > >> Americans. They do not > > > > >> know what to call it and neither does he. I offer it as evidence > > about > > > > an > > > > >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this > > dated > > > > >> person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this > country. I > > > > come > > > > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible > > > > >> sexists) > > > > >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the > constitution > > of > > > > >> the > > > > >> US. What I see in this election is very disturbingly like what > those > > > > >> years > > > > >> around my birth were all about. > > > > >> > > > > >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning > of > > > the > > > > >> atomic age. > > > > >> > > > > >> The result in this case? > > > > >> > > > > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > > > >> > > > > >> mike > > > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > >> From: BernieSanders.com > > > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > > > > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > > > > >> To: Michael Cole > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > > > >> > > > > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but then > > > > >> tries to > > > > >> outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health benefits -- that's > the > > > > >> kind of > > > > >> corporate greed we need to get rid of in America. *And that's > > exactly > > > > >> what > > > > >> Verizon is doing right now.* > > > > >> > > > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for a > > > > >> contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name to > > > > >> Bernie's > > > > >> to say you support Verizon employees. > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > > > >* > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this > is > > > > >> below. > > > > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > > > > >> ------------------------------ > > > > >> > > > > >> Sisters and Brothers, > > > > >> > > > > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in > compensation. > > He > > > > >> leads one of the most profitable companies in the country. > > > > >> > > > > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. > Verizon > > > > wants > > > > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying > > federal > > > > >> income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit down and > > > > >> negotiate a > > > > >> fair contract with its employees.* > > > > >> > > > > >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American corporation > > > > trying > > > > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, > Verizon's > > > > >> employees are fighting back.* > > > > >> > > > > >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless > > are > > > on > > > > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* > > > difficult > > > > >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice > they > > > > >> made to > > > > >> stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > > > >> > > > > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon that > > you > > > > >> think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that protects > health > > > > >> benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops outsourcing. Click here > to > > > add > > > > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > > > >* > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> *Add Your Name ? > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > > > >* > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in > the > > > > >> streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: > > they're > > > > >> standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions of > > Americans > > > > >> who > > > > >> don't have a union. > > > > >> > > > > >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, > > > decent > > > > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > > > > >> > > > > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for > > > saying > > > > >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should > pay > > > its > > > > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > > > > >> > > > > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar > > > > >> compensation > > > > >> packages, presiding over extremely profitable companies, and still > > > > >> refusing > > > > >> to give their employees fair contracts. > > > > >> > > > > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take all > > of > > > us > > > > >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant > way > > > you > > > > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon > > employees > > > > who > > > > >> are out on strike.* > > > > >> > > > > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are > > standing > > > > >> up to > > > > >> the CEO in order to get a fair contract with health benefits, fair > > > > >> pay, and > > > > >> job protections. > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?source=em160423-full > > > > >* > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot > > have > > > > it > > > > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > > > >> > > > > >> In solidarity, > > > > >> > > > > >> Bernie Sanders > > > > >> > > > > >> *Contribute > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em160423-verizon > > > > >* > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > > > >> > > > > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > > > > >> > > > > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > > > >> > > > > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update > or > > > > >> change > > > > >> your information or email address, click here to update your info > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=email_footer > > > > >. > > > > >> > > > > >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach > supporters > > > > like > > > > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer emails > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&email=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > > > > >. > > > > >> > > > > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to > > > > >> unsubscribe > > > > >> . Stand against > the > > > > >> powerful special interests who are systematically buying our > > Congress > > > > and > > > > >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie > > here > > > > >> < > > > > > > > > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=email_footer > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> . > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 From jgregmcverry@gmail.com Mon Apr 25 20:03:54 2016 From: jgregmcverry@gmail.com (Greg Mcverry) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 03:03:54 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7786D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> <571ec3d9.921b620a.e9b1f.3672@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7786D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: Too late to write what deserves a long response to both your posts but if you are getting into the history of the web I highly recommend The History of the Internet podcast. Its very good. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 10:21 PM Glassman, Michael wrote: > Larry, Greg, Mike and others, > > I don't know the word Ikagai, and I try to be careful with words from > other cultures. I'm having enough trouble with the words in my own > culture. For instance I recently ran across Jenkins idea of participatory > culture through some of the work I have been doing on gaming with a student > - but I am at a loss because participatory does so much work for > Participatory Action Research. The former talks about active participation > as opposed to passive consumerism (am I getting this right Greg) while the > latter takes a much more political/economic/cultural perspective of > allowing members of a group to participate in the trajectory of their > social group as true members. Then there is the other participatory action > research and Levy-Bruhl's participation. For me it boggles the mind. How > do we keep our ideas straight. > > As far as I know there is no word in the English language that seems to > capture my minimal understanding of Ikagai, but it is important to then > assume it is not there. I tend to think that reason for being is not so > well captured in English because it is a process, in many ways a search. > Reaching back to an older thread maybe re-search is a continuation of our > process to understand why we exist (perhaps that sounds a little > overblown). I also think it is dangerous to make a distinction between > East and West. Well of course there are differences between cultures, but > I don't think they break down so easily and they are deeply tie to the > particular time and social context. At least in the United States, it is > important not to confuse our economic paradigm with our culture (I always > fall in to this). It is true that there has been a focus on the > individual, opposing her/him to the collective, but there have been times > in the United States even that have been the complete opposite. Where > there was no light between the individual and the collective. I have > recently been doing a lot of reading on the beginnings of the Internet, > because sometimes I get obsessed by a topic. I am astounded by the ways in > which individual and collective melded together almost seamlessly for a > period of years. We don't have to discover networked learning, we have to > remember it. I don't know other cultures well enough but I'm not sure this > could have happened in many other places. Perhaps they were working from a > sense of Ikagai, a reason for being, I don't know. It seems like nobody > ever really stopped to think about. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:27 PM > To: mike cole ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > Greg, Mike, > If it is true that the concept Ikagi is currently being culturally > appropriated then why now? is one of the *reasons* because of this > fundamental question that Mimi Ito asks: > Why must developing individuality assume [pre-suppose] the need for > opposing the individual to collective cultural forms [configurations]. > This is a peculiar Western notion. > > This question resonates with questions of reason [reflection] as > *external* or *internal* as illustrated with these two differing > *pro*-positions. [presuppositions] > 1) The actual world is *independent* of our descriptions or knowledge of > the world, our values, preferences, and emotional responses to the world, > and our attempts to understand or explain the world. This is an *external* > sense of relation [of self and world]. > 2) All knowledge is a set of conventions governed by a central paradigm. > Knowledge is derived and *informed* by that paradigm and does not refer to > anything other than the paradigm it is *informed* by. This is an internal > sense of relation from *within*. > I hear Mimi Ito?s sense which she describes as a Japanese cultural sense > leaning towards *internal* relations which does not posit the collective as > external to the self. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: mike cole > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 5:18 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > That *is* a neat Venn diagram, Greg. And I just learned of the word today > for reasons that grow out of an MCA project involving a hard to define > non-English words. The link to Mimi Ito, connected learning zeitgeists, and > passionate affinity groups is a welcome addition to my education. > > mike > > PS- Neat looking web page too!! > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Greg Mcverry > wrote: > > > As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it > > seems to be popping up more and more in my circles. > > > > Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read > > Jenkins, Ito, and boyd's latest book.: > > http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-cultu > > re/ > > > > It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. > > > > The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the > > tech scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected learning-- > > a pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. > > > > Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for the > > newly minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects of our > > networked society. > > > > Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing > > anyone's motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power of > > a well balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within creates an > > inspirational aspiration. > > > > One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had > > the chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would be > > willing to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much > > larger level of cultural appropriation. > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > > Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion > > > for requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and > > > interface as necessary for general systems theory unfolding as human > projects. > > > This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, communities, > > > nations). > > > Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. > > > Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards > > > equilibrium having *requisite variety* This post lead to Andy > > > exploring the notion of having a *reason* for getting up in the > > > morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on this quality of > > > life. > > > > > > Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how he > > > saw the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the ideal > > > of not being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more like a > > > *linear* dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. > > > This type of system which displays qualities which *express* what > > > seems to have the quality of mechanical systems having the > > > opposite system characteristic of cells which have *organic > permeable boundaries* . > > > > > > My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary > > > (living experience as if organically permeable) following the theory > > > of general biological systems theory) and also be perceived as a > > > dead and lifeless place which images a general mechanical systems > > > theory with external > > moving > > > *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of > > lifeless > > > *repetition*. > > > It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in > > > both organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the > > > same time participating in mechanical general systems (closed > > > impermeable dead > > > membranes) > > > Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of culture > > > but it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical and > > > organic metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries closed > > > *walls* > > > (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. > > > Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. > > > Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of > > systems? > > > > > > My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a > > > concept and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar > concept. > > > These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do > > > have a diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Wilkinson > > > Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > > > > > Note (a continuation): > > > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as unit > > > of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just survival > > > of the fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And like we used > > > to say in Medieval Lit, "when Adam dug and Eve spun, who was then a > > > "gentleman"? > > > V > > > > > > > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > > > > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > > > > > > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in General > > > > Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and now nearly > > > > the > > end > > > > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > > > > I live in an educational world where the children have been taught > > > > that the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > > > > > > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - > > > > living systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote or > > > > not vote > > for > > > > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > > > > > > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been to > > > > make my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to > > > > create a great team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory > > > > project, with the young ones who are enacting the managerial roles > > > > having the full support of the community of adults, both in and > > > > out of the academy. Moreover, peer-learning, which appears > > > > essential, and has so appeared to me since I was seven, "teaching" > > > > my one year younger brother how to read my > > first > > > > English primer. > > > > > > > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and > > > > kindly to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's > > > > "project" as mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the > > > > community is > > coherent, > > > > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of 30s > > > > horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of Nazism > > > > appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, it's not > > > > going > > to > > > > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > > > > > > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I am > > > > doing now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in > > > > contact with the players, get announcements out to the community, > > > > well, that is quite enough for me to do. Since the kids are grown > > > > up and don't need me so much, I have to encourage young students > > > > to join clubs, have meetings, plan events. Just have to stay busy > ... > > > > > > > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving with > > > > the present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > > > > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross > > > > Ashby and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system needs > > > > to > > survive, > > > > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the > > hunger. > > > > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction > > > > of nations and communities and teams and people and families and > > > > the cells in the body maintaining health. > > > > > > > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA > > continues > > > > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities and > > > > reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye on > > > > Ervin Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international cooperative > > > > ventures in sustainable business, a benign transition to an age of > > ultra-technology, > > > > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > > > > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in > > > > Japan and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living in > > > > the present does not mean just today. I see that it means > > > > progressing toward > > better > > > > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to pay > > > > attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have > > > > learned > > that > > > > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and > > > > intrinsic development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are > > > > altogether so much better than war, war, bombs, and > > > > military/industrial complex money > > blah, > > > > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful work > > > > places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a park > > > > instead of getting on with my projects for today). > > > > Vandy > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > > > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to a > > > >> good many Americans. They do not know what to call it and neither > > > >> does he. I offer it as evidence about > > > an > > > >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to this > > > >> dated person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in this > > > >> country. I > > > come > > > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists (terrible > > > >> sexists) > > > >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the > > > >> constitution of the US. What I see in this election is very > > > >> disturbingly like what those years around my birth were all > > > >> about. > > > >> > > > >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the beginning > > > >> of > > the > > > >> atomic age. > > > >> > > > >> The result in this case? > > > >> > > > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > >> From: BernieSanders.com > > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > > > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > > > >> To: Michael Cole > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > > >> > > > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but > > > >> then tries to outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health > > > >> benefits -- that's the kind of corporate greed we need to get rid > > > >> of in America. *And that's exactly what Verizon is doing right > > > >> now.* > > > >> > > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike for > > > >> a contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your name > > > >> to Bernie's to say you support Verizon employees. > > > >> < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sourc > > e=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about this > > > >> is below. > > > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > > > >> ------------------------------ > > > >> > > > >> Sisters and Brothers, > > > >> > > > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in > > > >> compensation. He leads one of the most profitable companies in the > country. > > > >> > > > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. > > > >> Verizon > > > wants > > > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying > > > >> federal income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit > > > >> down and negotiate a fair contract with its employees.* > > > >> > > > >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American > > > >> corporation > > > trying > > > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, > > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back.* > > > >> > > > >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon Wireless > > > >> are > > on > > > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* > > difficult > > > >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice > > > >> they made to stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > > >> > > > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon > > > >> that you think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that > > > >> protects health benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops > > > >> outsourcing. Click here to > > add > > > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > > > >> < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sourc > > e=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> *Add Your Name ? > > > >> < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sourc > > e=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers in > > > >> the streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: > > > >> they're standing up not just for themselves, but for the millions > > > >> of Americans who don't have a union. > > > >> > > > >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent wages, > > decent > > > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > > > >> > > > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" for > > saying > > > >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon should > > > >> pay > > its > > > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > > > >> > > > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar > > > >> compensation packages, presiding over extremely profitable > > > >> companies, and still refusing to give their employees fair > > > >> contracts. > > > >> > > > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take > > > >> all of > > us > > > >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One significant > > > >> way > > you > > > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon > > > >> employees > > > who > > > >> are out on strike.* > > > >> > > > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are > > > >> standing up to the CEO in order to get a fair contract with > > > >> health benefits, fair pay, and job protections. > > > >> < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sourc > > e=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they cannot > > > >> have > > > it > > > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > > >> > > > >> In solidarity, > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders > > > >> > > > >> *Contribute > > > >> < > > > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em16 > > 0423-verizon > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > > >> > > > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > > > >> > > > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > > >> > > > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to update > > > >> or change your information or email address, click here to update > > > >> your info < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=ema > > il_footer > > > >. > > > >> > > > >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach > > > >> supporters > > > like > > > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer > > > >> emails < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer&e > > mail=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > > > >. > > > >> > > > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here to > > > >> unsubscribe . > > > >> Stand against the powerful special interests who are > > > >> systematically buying our Congress > > > and > > > >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to Bernie > > > >> here < > > > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=emai > > l_footer > > > > > > > >> > > > >> . > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Mon Apr 25 21:12:37 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 00:12:37 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Message-ID: <6uvte4rv7sokawce3vaxksic.1461643954048@email.android.com> Essentially working on the mathematics to prove that the ancients were right... I use althusser to parallel general relativity at the aggregated social level. ?Heideggerian phenomenology to capture the psychology of the quantum realm... the key is in the mathematics! Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/25/2016 10:56 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Paul, You crack me up. You know there's a much better and simpler way of explaining this don't you? Why not give it a try? In Vedic understanding of human experience, the ahankara (the I-notion or I-thought) is not seen as a bad thing, but a necessary (perhaps evolutionary) requirement of human experience. It means I take care of this body as mine. It explains survival tendencies. Ego has a lot of (Freudian) baggage as a word, which is why I don't like to use it. Especially when it comes to discourse claiming the ego must be destroyed or reviled. I believe this creates mental splits that aren't helpful. I suppose in a certain regard, ahankara could culturally extend to others, depending upon one's culture. Consider the dividual. But what if the "substance" if my ahankara and yours are identical? Then it means you are no different than me, despite apparent differences in appearance. We are one. I'm not just talking about stardust. I recognize a correspondence with phenomenological notional experiences of "I", "me" and "mine" and the definition of ahankara. When I use a pen there is a point that I forget the pen is not me, and it as-though becomes me. I think there have been neurological studies about how the brain's sense of the body adopts and extends into the spaces of tool use and automaticity. Consider how the mind "expands" from using a bike, to using a car, to using a semi-truck. Or how we imagine what is east or north, or just around the bend. It's my sense the ahankara functions in the mind in a similar way, however because of neurological wiring I have a more intimate experience of my hand than my pen. There is no need to be rid of it, just like there is no need to try to stop appearance of "mine" in the automaticity of writing with a pen. Or fishing with a flyrod. Or even "Vera is my teacher," or "you are my friend." All of these thoughts offer me a sense of mine-ness, and I would offer promotes care. The preprogramming I have a hard time with, because who programed the program? Perhaps the material is not separate from intelligence itself? That existence/being, knowledge/intelligence and consciousness/reflectivity are one and the same, inseparable? Then it doesn't matter whether the "information" is destroyed or not. No programer necessary. It's all just awareness-light (as-if light, anyway). I'm curious how this would line up with althusser's consciousness and even yours. When you say his dispensation of space-time, I presume you mean then there is an "outside" space-time. Is that what you believe to be a blackhole? But if you are aware of a blackhole then it means it is inside space and time, otherwise you could not know about it. Now concerning that programming, let's say that it does exist, then it means in order for consciousness to perceive itself it must be in harmony with itself to see itself. Otherwise it other-fies itself. It sees itself as not-self, when actually it is. It means it denies its own being. It means that in order to see itself, it must be non-separate from itself. Which means that any theory that theorizes about the reality as such (i.e. consciousness) any mind must also be in harmony in order to reflect itself properly. Which means that it does matter if althusser cared about his wife, as this "not caring" would affect his ideas about consciousness. It means kicking the tires is not enough when buying a used car, you kinda have to look under the hood. All this offered in good cheer, despite the fact I realize that the timespace continuum seems to have blasted out one of my brake lights today. Or did you do that? :) Kind regards, Annalisa From glassman.13@osu.edu Tue Apr 26 05:34:48 2016 From: glassman.13@osu.edu (Glassman, Michael) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 12:34:48 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> <571ec3d9.921b620a.e9b1f.3672@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7786D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7996D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Hi Greg, Do you mean Brian McCoullogh's history of the Internet? That's a little Silicon Valleyish for what I'm exploring. I'm looking more at the Menlo Park era. If you have any other resources I would love to have them (I feel like I'm running out of sources). Perhaps we should take it off-list though not to bother anybody. Michael Glassman.13@osu.edu -----Original Message----- From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Mcverry Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 11:04 PM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed Too late to write what deserves a long response to both your posts but if you are getting into the history of the web I highly recommend The History of the Internet podcast. Its very good. On Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 10:21 PM Glassman, Michael wrote: > Larry, Greg, Mike and others, > > I don't know the word Ikagai, and I try to be careful with words from > other cultures. I'm having enough trouble with the words in my own > culture. For instance I recently ran across Jenkins idea of > participatory culture through some of the work I have been doing on > gaming with a student > - but I am at a loss because participatory does so much work for > Participatory Action Research. The former talks about active > participation as opposed to passive consumerism (am I getting this > right Greg) while the latter takes a much more > political/economic/cultural perspective of allowing members of a group > to participate in the trajectory of their social group as true > members. Then there is the other participatory action research and > Levy-Bruhl's participation. For me it boggles the mind. How do we keep our ideas straight. > > As far as I know there is no word in the English language that seems > to capture my minimal understanding of Ikagai, but it is important to > then assume it is not there. I tend to think that reason for being is > not so well captured in English because it is a process, in many ways a search. > Reaching back to an older thread maybe re-search is a continuation of > our process to understand why we exist (perhaps that sounds a little > overblown). I also think it is dangerous to make a distinction > between East and West. Well of course there are differences between > cultures, but I don't think they break down so easily and they are deeply tie to the > particular time and social context. At least in the United States, it is > important not to confuse our economic paradigm with our culture (I > always fall in to this). It is true that there has been a focus on > the individual, opposing her/him to the collective, but there have > been times in the United States even that have been the complete > opposite. Where there was no light between the individual and the > collective. I have recently been doing a lot of reading on the > beginnings of the Internet, because sometimes I get obsessed by a > topic. I am astounded by the ways in which individual and collective > melded together almost seamlessly for a period of years. We don't > have to discover networked learning, we have to remember it. I don't > know other cultures well enough but I'm not sure this could have > happened in many other places. Perhaps they were working from a sense > of Ikagai, a reason for being, I don't know. It seems like nobody ever really stopped to think about. > > Michael > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: > xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of lpscholar2@gmail.com > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:27 PM > To: mike cole ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity < > xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > Greg, Mike, > If it is true that the concept Ikagi is currently being culturally > appropriated then why now? is one of the *reasons* because of this > fundamental question that Mimi Ito asks: > Why must developing individuality assume [pre-suppose] the need for > opposing the individual to collective cultural forms [configurations]. > This is a peculiar Western notion. > > This question resonates with questions of reason [reflection] as > *external* or *internal* as illustrated with these two differing > *pro*-positions. [presuppositions] > 1) The actual world is *independent* of our descriptions or knowledge > of the world, our values, preferences, and emotional responses to the > world, and our attempts to understand or explain the world. This is an > *external* sense of relation [of self and world]. > 2) All knowledge is a set of conventions governed by a central paradigm. > Knowledge is derived and *informed* by that paradigm and does not > refer to anything other than the paradigm it is *informed* by. This is > an internal sense of relation from *within*. > I hear Mimi Ito?s sense which she describes as a Japanese cultural > sense leaning towards *internal* relations which does not posit the > collective as external to the self. > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from Mail for Windows 10 > > From: mike cole > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 5:18 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > That *is* a neat Venn diagram, Greg. And I just learned of the word > today for reasons that grow out of an MCA project involving a hard to > define non-English words. The link to Mimi Ito, connected learning > zeitgeists, and passionate affinity groups is a welcome addition to my education. > > mike > > PS- Neat looking web page too!! > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Greg Mcverry > wrote: > > > As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it > > seems to be popping up more and more in my circles. > > > > Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read > > Jenkins, Ito, and boyd's latest book.: > > http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-cul > > tu > > re/ > > > > It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. > > > > The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the > > tech scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected > > learning-- a pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. > > > > Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for > > the newly minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects > > of our networked society. > > > > Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing > > anyone's motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power > > of a well balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within > > creates an inspirational aspiration. > > > > One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had > > the chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would > > be willing to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much > > larger level of cultural appropriation. > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: > > > > > > > > Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion > > > for requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and > > > interface as necessary for general systems theory unfolding as > > > human > projects. > > > This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, > > > communities, nations). > > > Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. > > > Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards > > > equilibrium having *requisite variety* This post lead to Andy > > > exploring the notion of having a *reason* for getting up in the > > > morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on this quality of > > > life. > > > > > > Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how > > > he saw the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the > > > ideal of not being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more > > > like a > > > *linear* dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. > > > This type of system which displays qualities which *express* > > > what seems to have the quality of mechanical systems having the > > > opposite system characteristic of cells which have *organic > permeable boundaries* . > > > > > > My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary > > > (living experience as if organically permeable) following the > > > theory of general biological systems theory) and also be perceived > > > as a dead and lifeless place which images a general mechanical > > > systems theory with external > > moving > > > *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of > > lifeless > > > *repetition*. > > > It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in > > > both organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the > > > same time participating in mechanical general systems (closed > > > impermeable dead > > > membranes) > > > Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of > > > culture but it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical > > > and organic metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries > > > closed > > > *walls* > > > (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. > > > Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. > > > Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of > > systems? > > > > > > My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a > > > concept and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar > concept. > > > These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do > > > have a diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. > > > > > > Sent from my Windows 10 phone > > > > > > From: Wilkinson > > > Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM > > > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > > > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > > > > > Note (a continuation): > > > I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as > > > unit of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just > > > survival of the fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And > > > like we used to say in Medieval Lit, "when Adam dug and Eve spun, > > > who was then a "gentleman"? > > > V > > > > > > > > > On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: > > > > Life in the present mode of existence, being. > > > > Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. > > > > > > > > I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in > > > > General Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and > > > > now nearly the > > end > > > > of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. > > > > I live in an educational world where the children have been > > > > taught that the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. > > > > > > > > As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - > > > > living systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote > > > > or not vote > > for > > > > Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? > > > > > > > > 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been > > > > to make my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to > > > > create a great team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory > > > > project, with the young ones who are enacting the managerial > > > > roles having the full support of the community of adults, both > > > > in and out of the academy. Moreover, peer-learning, which > > > > appears essential, and has so appeared to me since I was seven, "teaching" > > > > my one year younger brother how to read my > > first > > > > English primer. > > > > > > > > Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and > > > > kindly to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's > > > > "project" as mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the > > > > community is > > coherent, > > > > articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of > > > > 30s horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of > > > > Nazism appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, > > > > it's not going > > to > > > > help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. > > > > > > > > But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I > > > > am doing now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in > > > > contact with the players, get announcements out to the > > > > community, well, that is quite enough for me to do. Since the > > > > kids are grown up and don't need me so much, I have to encourage > > > > young students to join clubs, have meetings, plan events. Just > > > > have to stay busy > ... > > > > > > > > But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving > > > > with the present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty > > > > member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross > > > > Ashby and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system > > > > needs to > > survive, > > > > an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the > > hunger. > > > > Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction > > > > of nations and communities and teams and people and families and > > > > the cells in the body maintaining health. > > > > > > > > It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA > > continues > > > > to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities > > > > and reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye > > > > on Ervin Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international > > > > cooperative ventures in sustainable business, a benign > > > > transition to an age of > > ultra-technology, > > > > in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, > > > > environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in > > > > Japan and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living > > > > in the present does not mean just today. I see that it means > > > > progressing toward > > better > > > > education, better health, better food supply. I still want to > > > > pay attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have > > > > learned > > that > > > > wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and > > > > intrinsic development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are > > > > altogether so much better than war, war, bombs, and > > > > military/industrial complex money > > blah, > > > > messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful > > > > work places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a > > > > park instead of getting on with my projects for today). > > > > Vandy > > > > > > > > > > > > 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: > > > >> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to > > > >> a good many Americans. They do not know what to call it and > > > >> neither does he. I offer it as evidence about > > > an > > > >> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to > > > >> this dated person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in > > > >> this country. I > > > come > > > >> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists > > > >> (terrible > > > >> sexists) > > > >> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the > > > >> constitution of the US. What I see in this election is very > > > >> disturbingly like what those years around my birth were all > > > >> about. > > > >> > > > >> The result in that case was a massive world war and the > > > >> beginning of > > the > > > >> atomic age. > > > >> > > > >> The result in this case? > > > >> > > > >> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? > > > >> > > > >> mike > > > >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > >> From: BernieSanders.com > > > >> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM > > > >> Subject: Verizon's greed > > > >> To: Michael Cole > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] > > > >> > > > >> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but > > > >> then tries to outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health > > > >> benefits -- that's the kind of corporate greed we need to get > > > >> rid of in America. *And that's exactly what Verizon is doing > > > >> right > > > >> now.* > > > >> > > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike > > > >> for a contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your > > > >> name to Bernie's to say you support Verizon employees. > > > >> < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sou > > rc > > e=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about > > > >> this is below. > > > >> Thank you for standing in solidarity. > > > >> ------------------------------ > > > >> > > > >> Sisters and Brothers, > > > >> > > > >> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in > > > >> compensation. He leads one of the most profitable companies in > > > >> the > country. > > > >> > > > >> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. > > > >> Verizon > > > wants > > > >> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying > > > >> federal income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit > > > >> down and negotiate a fair contract with its employees.* > > > >> > > > >> In other words, Verizon is just another major American > > > >> corporation > > > trying > > > >> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, > > > >> Verizon's employees are fighting back.* > > > >> > > > >> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon > > > >> Wireless are > > on > > > >> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* > > difficult > > > >> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice > > > >> they made to stand up for justice against corporate greed. > > > >> > > > >> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon > > > >> that you think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that > > > >> protects health benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops > > > >> outsourcing. Click here to > > add > > > >> your name in support of Verizon employees. > > > >> < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sou > > rc > > e=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> *Add Your Name ? > > > >> < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sou > > rc > > e=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers > > > >> in the streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: > > > >> they're standing up not just for themselves, but for the > > > >> millions of Americans who don't have a union. > > > >> > > > >> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent > > > >> wages, > > decent > > > >> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. > > > >> > > > >> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" > > > >> for > > saying > > > >> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon > > > >> should pay > > its > > > >> fair share in federal income taxes. > > > >> > > > >> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar > > > >> compensation packages, presiding over extremely profitable > > > >> companies, and still refusing to give their employees fair > > > >> contracts. > > > >> > > > >> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take > > > >> all of > > us > > > >> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One > > > >> significant way > > you > > > >> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon > > > >> employees > > > who > > > >> are out on strike.* > > > >> > > > >> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are > > > >> standing up to the CEO in order to get a fair contract with > > > >> health benefits, fair pay, and job protections. > > > >> < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sou > > rc > > e=em160423-full > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they > > > >> cannot have > > > it > > > >> all. Thanks for helping them know it. > > > >> > > > >> In solidarity, > > > >> > > > >> Bernie Sanders > > > >> > > > >> *Contribute > > > >> < > > > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em > > 16 > > 0423-verizon > > > >* > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> Paid for by Bernie 2016 > > > >> > > > >> [image: (not the billionaires)] > > > >> > > > >> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE > > > >> > > > >> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to > > > >> update or change your information or email address, click here > > > >> to update your info < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=e > > ma > > il_footer > > > >. > > > >> > > > >> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach > > > >> supporters > > > like > > > >> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer > > > >> emails < > > > > > https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer > > &e > > mail=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 > > > >. > > > >> > > > >> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here > > > >> to unsubscribe . > > > >> Stand against the powerful special interests who are > > > >> systematically buying our Congress > > > and > > > >> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to > > > >> Bernie here < > > > > > https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=em > > ai > > l_footer > > > > > > > >> > > > >> . > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an > object that creates history. Ernst Boesch > > > From r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk Tue Apr 26 07:21:09 2016 From: r.j.s.parsons@open.ac.uk (R.J.S.Parsons) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 14:21:09 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed In-Reply-To: <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7996D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> References: <571D8B51.8080306@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571D970E.7000603@inf.shizuoka.ac.jp> <571dffe9.0633620a.e17ea.ffffa933@mx.google.com> <571ec3d9.921b620a.e9b1f.3672@mx.google.com> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7786D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> <3B91542B0D4F274D871B38AA48E991F9C7996D@CIO-TNC-D1MBX11.osuad.osu.edu> Message-ID: <571F7963.5070500@open.ac.uk> Before we do take it off list, John Naughton A Brief History Of The Future https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=yvxKcAAACAAJ&redir_esc=y&hl=en I have used this book to teach with. Very good indeed. Rob On 26/04/2016 13:34, Glassman, Michael wrote: > Hi Greg, > > Do you mean Brian McCoullogh's history of the Internet? That's a little Silicon Valleyish for what I'm exploring. I'm looking more at the Menlo Park era. If you have any other resources I would love to have them (I feel like I'm running out of sources). Perhaps we should take it off-list though not to bother anybody. > > Michael > Glassman.13@osu.edu > > -----Original Message----- > From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Greg Mcverry > Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 11:04 PM > To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed > > Too late to write what deserves a long response to both your posts but if you are getting into the history of the web I highly recommend The History of the Internet podcast. Its very good. > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016, 10:21 PM Glassman, Michael > wrote: > >> Larry, Greg, Mike and others, >> >> I don't know the word Ikagai, and I try to be careful with words from >> other cultures. I'm having enough trouble with the words in my own >> culture. For instance I recently ran across Jenkins idea of >> participatory culture through some of the work I have been doing on >> gaming with a student >> - but I am at a loss because participatory does so much work for >> Participatory Action Research. The former talks about active >> participation as opposed to passive consumerism (am I getting this >> right Greg) while the latter takes a much more >> political/economic/cultural perspective of allowing members of a group >> to participate in the trajectory of their social group as true >> members. Then there is the other participatory action research and >> Levy-Bruhl's participation. For me it boggles the mind. How do we keep our ideas straight. >> >> As far as I know there is no word in the English language that seems >> to capture my minimal understanding of Ikagai, but it is important to >> then assume it is not there. I tend to think that reason for being is >> not so well captured in English because it is a process, in many ways a search. >> Reaching back to an older thread maybe re-search is a continuation of >> our process to understand why we exist (perhaps that sounds a little >> overblown). I also think it is dangerous to make a distinction >> between East and West. Well of course there are differences between >> cultures, but I don't think they break down so easily and they are deeply tie to the >> particular time and social context. At least in the United States, it is >> important not to confuse our economic paradigm with our culture (I >> always fall in to this). It is true that there has been a focus on >> the individual, opposing her/him to the collective, but there have >> been times in the United States even that have been the complete >> opposite. Where there was no light between the individual and the >> collective. I have recently been doing a lot of reading on the >> beginnings of the Internet, because sometimes I get obsessed by a >> topic. I am astounded by the ways in which individual and collective >> melded together almost seamlessly for a period of years. We don't >> have to discover networked learning, we have to remember it. I don't >> know other cultures well enough but I'm not sure this could have >> happened in many other places. Perhaps they were working from a sense >> of Ikagai, a reason for being, I don't know. It seems like nobody ever really stopped to think about. >> >> Michael >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu [mailto: >> xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of lpscholar2@gmail.com >> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 9:27 PM >> To: mike cole ; eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity < >> xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu> >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed >> >> Greg, Mike, >> If it is true that the concept Ikagi is currently being culturally >> appropriated then why now? is one of the *reasons* because of this >> fundamental question that Mimi Ito asks: >> Why must developing individuality assume [pre-suppose] the need for >> opposing the individual to collective cultural forms [configurations]. >> This is a peculiar Western notion. >> >> This question resonates with questions of reason [reflection] as >> *external* or *internal* as illustrated with these two differing >> *pro*-positions. [presuppositions] >> 1) The actual world is *independent* of our descriptions or knowledge >> of the world, our values, preferences, and emotional responses to the >> world, and our attempts to understand or explain the world. This is an >> *external* sense of relation [of self and world]. >> 2) All knowledge is a set of conventions governed by a central paradigm. >> Knowledge is derived and *informed* by that paradigm and does not >> refer to anything other than the paradigm it is *informed* by. This is >> an internal sense of relation from *within*. >> I hear Mimi Ito?s sense which she describes as a Japanese cultural >> sense leaning towards *internal* relations which does not posit the >> collective as external to the self. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Sent from Mail for Windows 10 >> >> From: mike cole >> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2016 5:18 PM >> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed >> >> That *is* a neat Venn diagram, Greg. And I just learned of the word >> today for reasons that grow out of an MCA project involving a hard to >> define non-English words. The link to Mimi Ito, connected learning >> zeitgeists, and passionate affinity groups is a welcome addition to my education. >> >> mike >> >> PS- Neat looking web page too!! >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 5:03 PM, Greg Mcverry >> wrote: >> >>> As we were discussing ikagi in this thread it reminded me that it >>> seems to be popping up more and more in my circles. >>> >>> Here was a post I did a few months back after a group of us read >>> Jenkins, Ito, and boyd's latest book.: >>> http://jgregorymcverry.com/in-search-of-ikigai-meaning-making-as-cul >>> tu >>> re/ >>> >>> It has no academic value or insight just a personal reflection. >>> >>> The concept of "ikagi" seems to be gaining cultural relevance in the >>> tech scene or emerging theoretical perspectives "connected >>> learning-- a pragmatic amalgamation of learning theories with deep roots to XMCA. >>> >>> Not sure if the rising popularity of Ikagi is window dressing for >>> the newly minted millionaire's, "millennial attitudes," or effects >>> of our networked society. >>> >>> Given that I hate generational distinctions and avoid guessing >>> anyone's motives I am going witha theory that the semiotic power >>> of a well balanced Venn Diagram and the meaning packed within >>> creates an inspirational aspiration. >>> >>> One that "hipster" crowd has appropriated. In fact if anyone has had >>> the chance to see the American satire show "Silicon Valley" I would >>> be willing to bet on an "Ikagi" joke.....which also speaks to a much >>> larger level of cultural appropriation. >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 7:34 AM Lplarry wrote: >>> >>>> Val opened this line of the intertwining thread with her passion >>>> for requisite variety as the quality of permeable membranes and >>>> interface as necessary for general systems theory unfolding as >>>> human >> projects. >>>> This occurs at all levels (cell, self, families, teams, >>>> communities, nations). >>>> Two nations that Val offers as exemplary are Japan and Germany. >>>> Implicit is the realization that these two nations *tend* towards >>>> equilibrium having *requisite variety* This post lead to Andy >>>> exploring the notion of having a *reason* for getting up in the >>>> morning. Helen then contributed and elaborated on this quality of >>>> life. >>>> >>>> Then Wagner, taking his turn,pointed to a deep contrast with how >>>> he saw the *reality* of Japanese culture and it?s focus on the >>>> ideal of not being a nail that sticks out as *actually* being more >>>> like a >>>> *linear* dynamic system that is generally closed and nonpermeable. >>>> This type of system which displays qualities which *express* >>>> what seems to have the quality of mechanical systems having the >>>> opposite system characteristic of cells which have *organic >> permeable boundaries* . >>>> My question is how Japan can be conceptualized as both exemplary >>>> (living experience as if organically permeable) following the >>>> theory of general biological systems theory) and also be perceived >>>> as a dead and lifeless place which images a general mechanical >>>> systems theory with external >>> moving >>>> *parts* only mechanically related and therefore forming a sense of >>> lifeless >>>> *repetition*. >>>> It seems that within japanese culture we can be participating in >>>> both organic g?n?ral systems (permeable membrane image) and at the >>>> same time participating in mechanical general systems (closed >>>> impermeable dead >>>> membranes) >>>> Both forms of recognition in Nancy Frasers understanding of >>>> culture but it seems to hinge on the difference between mechanical >>>> and organic metaphors of system boundaries. Are system boundaries >>>> closed >>>> *walls* >>>> (Trump) or permeable *membranes*. >>>> Dead/mechanical or living/breathing systems. >>>> Is this the difference between *linear* and *nonlinear* notions of >>> systems? >>>> My turn is to reflect on the relation between *eco* system as a >>>> concept and the aboriginal image of *mother earth* as a similar >> concept. >>>> These symbols both sharing notions of open membranes but they do >>>> have a diiferent feel and sense of being organic life. >>>> >>>> Sent from my Windows 10 phone >>>> >>>> From: Wilkinson >>>> Sent: April 24, 2016 9:04 PM >>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity >>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Fwd: Verizon's greed >>>> >>>> Note (a continuation): >>>> I was in such a hurry that I couldn't remember "the project as >>>> unit of analysis." (thanks Andy) We do progress! It's not just >>>> survival of the fittest, but also mutual aid is a factor. And >>>> like we used to say in Medieval Lit, "when Adam dug and Eve spun, >>>> who was then a "gentleman"? >>>> V >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2016/04/25 12:13, Wilkinson wrote: >>>>> Life in the present mode of existence, being. >>>>> Hello, dear Xmca-er colleagues. >>>>> >>>>> I'm checking in as a woman scholar voice doing research in >>>>> General Systems Theory. Once I was just at the beginning and >>>>> now nearly the >>> end >>>>> of my institutional career. In Japan. A National University. >>>>> I live in an educational world where the children have been >>>>> taught that the nail that sticks out gets beaten down. >>>>> >>>>> As a systems theorist, at the level of self, group, community - >>>>> living systems naturally seek equilibrium. So why would I vote >>>>> or not vote >>> for >>>>> Sanders? Why would I vote or not vote for Hilary? >>>>> >>>>> 40 years of teaching languages, Latin, Greek, English, has been >>>>> to make my living. What I love and want to talk about is how to >>>>> create a great team, produce a film, coordinate a satisfactory >>>>> project, with the young ones who are enacting the managerial >>>>> roles having the full support of the community of adults, both >>>>> in and out of the academy. Moreover, peer-learning, which >>>>> appears essential, and has so appeared to me since I was seven, "teaching" >>>>> my one year younger brother how to read my >>> first >>>>> English primer. >>>>> >>>>> Time and again Andy, Larry, and Mike have responded lucidly and >>>>> kindly to my flashing dives into the stream. I feel that Andy's >>>>> "project" as mode/method/focus for the self, the team, and the >>>>> community is >>> coherent, >>>>> articulate, manageable. So if I fear and dread recursions of >>>>> 30s horrors, world depression, anti-union, the ghastly shape of >>>>> Nazism appearing, the shape of Joseph McCarthy's witch-hunts, >>>>> it's not going >>> to >>>>> help much with my projects of today, this week, etc. >>>>> >>>>> But coming back again and again to the present, the projects I >>>>> am doing now, this week, this month, working out how to stay in >>>>> contact with the players, get announcements out to the >>>>> community, well, that is quite enough for me to do. Since the >>>>> kids are grown up and don't need me so much, I have to encourage >>>>> young students to join clubs, have meetings, plan events. Just >>>>> have to stay busy >> ... >>>>> But always coming back to General Systems Theory, and moving >>>>> with the present, as a woman/mother/lover/teacher/faculty >>>>> member/participant-observer, I value the exquisite mind of Ross >>>>> Ashby and "requisite variety," which is what a viable system >>>>> needs to >>> survive, >>>>> an environment which draws out the creative, which satisfies the >>> hunger. >>>>> Permeable membranes and interface is how I see the interaction >>>>> of nations and communities and teams and people and families and >>>>> the cells in the body maintaining health. >>>>> >>>>> It is hard for me to check in or dive in with a word, but XMCA >>> continues >>>>> to be the best forum for my serendipities and synchronicities >>>>> and reading of the news. I'm still a GST person and keep my eye >>>>> on Ervin Laszlow and the Budapest Club for international >>>>> cooperative ventures in sustainable business, a benign >>>>> transition to an age of >>> ultra-technology, >>>>> in which human communities can create harmonious dwellings, >>>>> environmentally friendly renewable energy and so on. I live in >>>>> Japan and my brother's family members live in Germany. Living >>>>> in the present does not mean just today. I see that it means >>>>> progressing toward >>> better >>>>> education, better health, better food supply. I still want to >>>>> pay attention to Japan and Germany - and where ever people have >>>>> learned >>> that >>>>> wholesome, calm work places, educational opportunities and >>>>> intrinsic development, taking it easy and taking it slow, are >>>>> altogether so much better than war, war, bombs, and >>>>> military/industrial complex money >>> blah, >>>>> messing up the academy, truncating creativity, killing joyful >>>>> work places. (But now I see that I am standing on a box in a >>>>> park instead of getting on with my projects for today). >>>>> Vandy >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> 2016/04/25 9:29, mike cole wrote: >>>>>> This is how Sanders represents himself in a way that appeals to >>>>>> a good many Americans. They do not know what to call it and >>>>>> neither does he. I offer it as evidence about >>>> an >>>>>> unusual phenomenon in American political life that feels to >>>>>> this dated person a LOT like what I understand of the 1930's in >>>>>> this country. I >>>> come >>>>>> from a line of premature anti-fascists and anti-racists >>>>>> (terrible >>>>>> sexists) >>>>>> who were firm believers in the first ammendment to the >>>>>> constitution of the US. What I see in this election is very >>>>>> disturbingly like what those years around my birth were all >>>>>> about. >>>>>> >>>>>> The result in that case was a massive world war and the >>>>>> beginning of >>> the >>>>>> atomic age. >>>>>> >>>>>> The result in this case? >>>>>> >>>>>> Who was it you were asking me to vote for? >>>>>> >>>>>> mike >>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >>>>>> From: BernieSanders.com >>>>>> Date: Sat, Apr 23, 2016 at 4:14 PM >>>>>> Subject: Verizon's greed >>>>>> To: Michael Cole >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> [image: Bernie Sanders for President] >>>>>> >>>>>> When the CEO of a company makes almost $20 million a year but >>>>>> then tries to outsource jobs, reduce wages, and cut health >>>>>> benefits -- that's the kind of corporate greed we need to get >>>>>> rid of in America. *And that's exactly what Verizon is doing >>>>>> right >>>>>> now.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Verizon's employees are fighting back. They're out on strike >>>>>> for a contract. *Stand with them against their CEO and add your >>>>>> name to Bernie's to say you support Verizon employees. >>>>>> < >>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sou >>> rc >>> e=em160423-full >>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> Bernie's email to you about this very important issue about >>>>>> this is below. >>>>>> Thank you for standing in solidarity. >>>>>> ------------------------------ >>>>>> >>>>>> Sisters and Brothers, >>>>>> >>>>>> The CEO of Verizon makes almost $20 million a year in >>>>>> compensation. He leads one of the most profitable companies in >>>>>> the >> country. >>>>>> *Yet Verizon wants to take away employees' health benefits. >>>>>> Verizon >>>> wants >>>>>> to outsource decent-paying jobs. Verizon wants to avoid paying >>>>>> federal income tax. And right now, Verizon is refusing to sit >>>>>> down and negotiate a fair contract with its employees.* >>>>>> >>>>>> In other words, Verizon is just another major American >>>>>> corporation >>>> trying >>>>>> to destroy the lives of working Americans. *But this time, >>>>>> Verizon's employees are fighting back.* >>>>>> >>>>>> Thousands of very brave employees of Verizon and Verizon >>>>>> Wireless are >>> on >>>>>> strike until they can get a fair contract. They made a *very* >>> difficult >>>>>> decision that puts their families at risk -- but it's a choice >>>>>> they made to stand up for justice against corporate greed. >>>>>> >>>>>> *I'm asking you today to stand up and tell the CEO of Verizon >>>>>> that you think Verizon employees deserve a fair contract that >>>>>> protects health benefits, guarantees fair pay, and stops >>>>>> outsourcing. Click here to >>> add >>>>>> your name in support of Verizon employees. >>>>>> < >>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sou >>> rc >>> e=em160423-full >>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> *Add Your Name ? >>>>>> < >>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sou >>> rc >>> e=em160423-full >>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> Twice last week in New York City I stood with Verizon workers >>>>>> in the streets. I did so because they're doing something very brave: >>>>>> they're standing up not just for themselves, but for the >>>>>> millions of Americans who don't have a union. >>>>>> >>>>>> The working class of this country deserves to earn decent >>>>>> wages, >>> decent >>>>>> benefits, and not see their jobs go to low-wage countries. >>>>>> >>>>>> Verizon's CEO doesn't think that. He called me "contemptible" >>>>>> for >>> saying >>>>>> that his employees need a fair contract, and that Verizon >>>>>> should pay >>> its >>>>>> fair share in federal income taxes. >>>>>> >>>>>> What I think is contemptible is CEOs with multi-million dollar >>>>>> compensation packages, presiding over extremely profitable >>>>>> companies, and still refusing to give their employees fair >>>>>> contracts. >>>>>> >>>>>> Corporate greed is a scourge on this country, and it will take >>>>>> all of >>> us >>>>>> standing up for justice in order to rein it in. *One >>>>>> significant way >>> you >>>>>> can stand up to corporate greed is by standing with Verizon >>>>>> employees >>>> who >>>>>> are out on strike.* >>>>>> >>>>>> *Add your name and say you support Verizon employees who are >>>>>> standing up to the CEO in order to get a fair contract with >>>>>> health benefits, fair pay, and job protections. >>>>>> < >>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/stand-with-verizon-employees?sou >>> rc >>> e=em160423-full >>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> Corporate America is slowly beginning to realize that they >>>>>> cannot have >>>> it >>>>>> all. Thanks for helping them know it. >>>>>> >>>>>> In solidarity, >>>>>> >>>>>> Bernie Sanders >>>>>> >>>>>> *Contribute >>>>>> < >>> https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets_go_bernie?refcode=em >>> 16 >>> 0423-verizon >>>>> * >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Paid for by Bernie 2016 >>>>>> >>>>>> [image: (not the billionaires)] >>>>>> >>>>>> PO Box 905 - Burlington VT 05402 United States - (855) 4-BERNIE >>>>>> >>>>>> This email was sent to lchcmike@gmail.com. If you need to >>>>>> update or change your information or email address, click here >>>>>> to update your info < >>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/change-your-information?source=e >>> ma >>> il_footer >>>>> . >>>>>> Email is one of the most important tools we have to reach >>>>>> supporters >>>> like >>>>>> you, but you can let us know if you'd like to receive fewer >>>>>> emails < >>> https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/fewer-emails?source=email_footer >>> &e >>> mail=lchcmike@gmail.com&zip=92075 >>>>> . >>>>>> We'd hate to see you go, but if you need to do so, click here >>>>>> to unsubscribe . >>>>>> Stand against the powerful special interests who are >>>>>> systematically buying our Congress >>>> and >>>>>> have their sights set on the presidency by contributing to >>>>>> Bernie here < >>> https://secure.actblue.com/contribute/page/lets-go-bernie?refcode=em >>> ai >>> l_footer >>>>>> . >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> >> -- >> >> It is the dilemma of psychology to deal as a natural science with an >> object that creates history. Ernst Boesch >> >> >> From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Tue Apr 26 07:23:13 2016 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:23:13 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf Message-ID: Thanks, Greg--it was nice to see you at the panel, and I'm glad the session felt interesting--and hopefully also useful. The book is Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories, and it's co-edited by Indigo Esmonde and Angela Booker (both cc'ed on this message). My chapter, co-written with Bill Penuel, is an argument for advancing queer theory in the learning sciences; other chapters focus on frameworks like Critical Race Theory, feminist theory, critical geography, critical technology studies, and so on. It's a really exciting project, and one that I think is sorely needed. -- Jacob McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Greg Thompson wrote: > At AERA a few weeks back I saw a panel with Jacob McWilliams on it that was > dealing with these very issues that you mention here Mike as you quote and > "hear here" Phillip's comments. > > The talks on the panel that Jacob was on were, as I understand it, chapters > of an upcoming book that will be edited by Angela Booker and ???. I fear > I've forgotten some of the details but I do remember the panel being one of > the best panels I attended at AERA this year. > > Jacob, or perhaps someone else familiar with the book: could you fill in > the details here? Who is the co-editor (or co-editors)? What is the name of > the volume? > > Any other details would be greatly appreciated (anticipated publication > date? Perhaps a list of authors if it isn't too premature). > > Thanks, > greg > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:23 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > Hear hear, Phillip! > > > > Who wrote: > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > culture > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical > race > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > The editors of MCA, I think it is safe to say, will welcome first class > > articles that do exactly this. > > > > mike > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, White, Phillip < > > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu> > > wrote: > > > > > greetings, everyone. i can only image that the participants of xmca > have > > > been waiting with baited breath to hear the results of my gefilte fish > > for > > > last friday's seder - and i can only repeat, so that you know that i'm > > not > > > fishing for compliments, that the gentleman in his late seventies who > was > > > seated next to me (my son's mother-in-law's cousin's husband) said, > "This > > > gefilte fish is better than my Kiev born grandmother, and she was a > great > > > cook!" > > > > > > however, to join in the swim or current postings, Vera's conclusion is > > > quite to the point, so that i'm pasting it in here: > > > > > > "In the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that traditional > > > psychological and economic > > > models of human agents as lone, competitive actors are losing > influence. > > > Increasingly, interdependence between persons is recognized as central > to > > > individual and societal functioning. Both cultural-historical and > > feminist > > > theorists place the social sources of development, or > "self-in-re1ation" > > as > > > central within their framework. There are shared themes and > > > complementarity, as well as different emphases across these two groups > of > > > theorists. Feminists' concerns with developmental and relational > dynamics > > > are not explicitly shared by scholars studying mind, culture and > > activity. > > > However, in looking for areas of mutuality , we broaden our ways of > > > knowing, and, in the process, may construct a new synthesis between > > thought > > > and motive, and cognition and emotion." > > > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > > culture > > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical > > race > > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, > our > > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > > > > > phillip > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Apr 26 07:51:48 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 08:51:48 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks for the details Jacob! Yes, interesting and useful! Also, is one of the goals of the book to put sociocultural theory in conversation with these other discourses (queer theory, critical race theory, feminist theory, etc.)? The title isn't exactly clear on whether the point is to explicitly put critical theories in conversation with sociocultural theories or if this is just a grouping together of these theories to see what they look like alongside one another (which, of course, implicitly puts them in conversation withe each other). (e.g., you might elaborate on what sociocultural theory does for your argument for advancing queer theory in the learning sciences). -greg On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Jacob McWilliams wrote: > Thanks, Greg--it was nice to see you at the panel, and I'm glad the session > felt interesting--and hopefully also useful. > > The book is Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and > Sociocultural Theories, and it's co-edited by Indigo Esmonde and Angela > Booker (both cc'ed on this message). My chapter, co-written with Bill > Penuel, is an argument for advancing queer theory in the learning sciences; > other chapters focus on frameworks like Critical Race Theory, feminist > theory, critical geography, critical technology studies, and so on. > > It's a really exciting project, and one that I think is sorely needed. > > > > -- > > > Jacob McWilliams > Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program > University of Colorado Boulder > j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu > http://www.jennamcwilliams.com > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > > > At AERA a few weeks back I saw a panel with Jacob McWilliams on it that > was > > dealing with these very issues that you mention here Mike as you quote > and > > "hear here" Phillip's comments. > > > > The talks on the panel that Jacob was on were, as I understand it, > chapters > > of an upcoming book that will be edited by Angela Booker and ???. I fear > > I've forgotten some of the details but I do remember the panel being one > of > > the best panels I attended at AERA this year. > > > > Jacob, or perhaps someone else familiar with the book: could you fill in > > the details here? Who is the co-editor (or co-editors)? What is the name > of > > the volume? > > > > Any other details would be greatly appreciated (anticipated publication > > date? Perhaps a list of authors if it isn't too premature). > > > > Thanks, > > greg > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:23 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > Hear hear, Phillip! > > > > > > Who wrote: > > > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > > culture > > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical > > race > > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, > our > > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > > The editors of MCA, I think it is safe to say, will welcome first class > > > articles that do exactly this. > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, White, Phillip < > > > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > greetings, everyone. i can only image that the participants of xmca > > have > > > > been waiting with baited breath to hear the results of my gefilte > fish > > > for > > > > last friday's seder - and i can only repeat, so that you know that > i'm > > > not > > > > fishing for compliments, that the gentleman in his late seventies who > > was > > > > seated next to me (my son's mother-in-law's cousin's husband) said, > > "This > > > > gefilte fish is better than my Kiev born grandmother, and she was a > > great > > > > cook!" > > > > > > > > however, to join in the swim or current postings, Vera's conclusion > is > > > > quite to the point, so that i'm pasting it in here: > > > > > > > > "In the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that traditional > > > > psychological and economic > > > > models of human agents as lone, competitive actors are losing > > influence. > > > > Increasingly, interdependence between persons is recognized as > central > > to > > > > individual and societal functioning. Both cultural-historical and > > > feminist > > > > theorists place the social sources of development, or > > "self-in-re1ation" > > > as > > > > central within their framework. There are shared themes and > > > > complementarity, as well as different emphases across these two > groups > > of > > > > theorists. Feminists' concerns with developmental and relational > > dynamics > > > > are not explicitly shared by scholars studying mind, culture and > > > activity. > > > > However, in looking for areas of mutuality , we broaden our ways of > > > > knowing, and, in the process, may construct a new synthesis between > > > thought > > > > and motive, and cognition and emotion." > > > > > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > > > culture > > > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, > critical > > > race > > > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, > > our > > > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > > > > > > > phillip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > 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 > > > -- 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 From jennamcjenna@gmail.com Tue Apr 26 08:37:13 2016 From: jennamcjenna@gmail.com (Jacob McWilliams) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 09:37:13 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, the idea behind the book is to not only advance critical and poststructuralist theories but also to demonstrate how these theories can help advance the field's commitments. For example, Bill and I show in our chapter how queer theory helps us to extend theories of identity and learning, and how queer theory can inform educational and research design and pedagogy. To address your point about how sociocultural theory helps in advancing queer theory: Many of the commitments of queer theory are shared by sociocultural theory, although queer theory hasn't gained much traction yet within the learning sciences. It's more commonly used in the humanities, especially in literary analysis and media studies--so sociocultural theories help with the slide over to the social sciences. Queer theory has a lot in common with, for example, the CHAT framing of community, activity, and contradiction. It also shares an interest in identity, although it approaches this concern from a different ontological vantage-point than what we see in dominant perspectives within the learning sciences. -- Jacob McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:51 AM, Greg Thompson wrote: > Thanks for the details Jacob! > Yes, interesting and useful! > Also, is one of the goals of the book to put sociocultural theory in > conversation with these other discourses (queer theory, critical race > theory, feminist theory, etc.)? > The title isn't exactly clear on whether the point is to explicitly put > critical theories in conversation with sociocultural theories or if this is > just a grouping together of these theories to see what they look like > alongside one another (which, of course, implicitly puts them in > conversation withe each other). > (e.g., you might elaborate on what sociocultural theory does for your > argument for advancing queer theory in the learning sciences). > -greg > > > > > On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 8:23 AM, Jacob McWilliams > wrote: > > > Thanks, Greg--it was nice to see you at the panel, and I'm glad the > session > > felt interesting--and hopefully also useful. > > > > The book is Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and > > Sociocultural Theories, and it's co-edited by Indigo Esmonde and Angela > > Booker (both cc'ed on this message). My chapter, co-written with Bill > > Penuel, is an argument for advancing queer theory in the learning > sciences; > > other chapters focus on frameworks like Critical Race Theory, feminist > > theory, critical geography, critical technology studies, and so on. > > > > It's a really exciting project, and one that I think is sorely needed. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Jacob McWilliams > > Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program > > University of Colorado Boulder > > j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu > > http://www.jennamcwilliams.com > > > > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Greg Thompson < > greg.a.thompson@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > At AERA a few weeks back I saw a panel with Jacob McWilliams on it that > > was > > > dealing with these very issues that you mention here Mike as you quote > > and > > > "hear here" Phillip's comments. > > > > > > The talks on the panel that Jacob was on were, as I understand it, > > chapters > > > of an upcoming book that will be edited by Angela Booker and ???. I > fear > > > I've forgotten some of the details but I do remember the panel being > one > > of > > > the best panels I attended at AERA this year. > > > > > > Jacob, or perhaps someone else familiar with the book: could you fill > in > > > the details here? Who is the co-editor (or co-editors)? What is the > name > > of > > > the volume? > > > > > > Any other details would be greatly appreciated (anticipated publication > > > date? Perhaps a list of authors if it isn't too premature). > > > > > > Thanks, > > > greg > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:23 PM, mike cole wrote: > > > > > > > Hear hear, Phillip! > > > > > > > > Who wrote: > > > > > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > > > culture > > > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, > critical > > > race > > > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, > > our > > > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > > > The editors of MCA, I think it is safe to say, will welcome first > class > > > > articles that do exactly this. > > > > > > > > mike > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, White, Phillip < > > > > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > greetings, everyone. i can only image that the participants of > xmca > > > have > > > > > been waiting with baited breath to hear the results of my gefilte > > fish > > > > for > > > > > last friday's seder - and i can only repeat, so that you know that > > i'm > > > > not > > > > > fishing for compliments, that the gentleman in his late seventies > who > > > was > > > > > seated next to me (my son's mother-in-law's cousin's husband) said, > > > "This > > > > > gefilte fish is better than my Kiev born grandmother, and she was a > > > great > > > > > cook!" > > > > > > > > > > however, to join in the swim or current postings, Vera's conclusion > > is > > > > > quite to the point, so that i'm pasting it in here: > > > > > > > > > > "In the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that traditional > > > > > psychological and economic > > > > > models of human agents as lone, competitive actors are losing > > > influence. > > > > > Increasingly, interdependence between persons is recognized as > > central > > > to > > > > > individual and societal functioning. Both cultural-historical and > > > > feminist > > > > > theorists place the social sources of development, or > > > "self-in-re1ation" > > > > as > > > > > central within their framework. There are shared themes and > > > > > complementarity, as well as different emphases across these two > > groups > > > of > > > > > theorists. Feminists' concerns with developmental and relational > > > dynamics > > > > > are not explicitly shared by scholars studying mind, culture and > > > > activity. > > > > > However, in looking for areas of mutuality , we broaden our ways of > > > > > knowing, and, in the process, may construct a new synthesis between > > > > thought > > > > > and motive, and cognition and emotion." > > > > > > > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > > > > culture > > > > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, > > critical > > > > race > > > > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is > advocating, > > > our > > > > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > > > > > > > > > phillip > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > -- > 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 > From arazfar@uic.edu Tue Apr 26 09:43:51 2016 From: arazfar@uic.edu (Aria Razfar) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 11:43:51 -0500 Subject: [Xmca-l] Reviewers Needed for CHAT SIG AERA Message-ID: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> Hello All, Natalia Gajdamaschko and I will be serving as program co-chairs for next year's annual meeting in San Antonio. Please sign up as reviewers. Thanks, Aria and Natalia Cultural Historical Call for Proposals AERA 2017 When AERA was founded a century ago, Lev Vygotsky was 20 years old and on the brink of a decade of prolific work leading to discoveries that would (eventually) shake up Western psychology and education and would reshape how learning, development, culture, play, language and the relationship between all of these are understood. While it took over 50 years for those discoveries to make it to the United States, Vygotsky's theories (and those of his colleagues) are now some of the most utilized frameworks for innovations in education in formal and informal settings. In that time, Vygotsky's original work has given birth to a wide range of theories and practices, including Socio-Cultural, Cultural-Historical, Activity, and related critical and post-modern approaches, all of which are represented by the Cultural-Historical Research SIG. The CHR SIG of AERA is therefore calling for proposals for the 2017 Annual Meeting that represent the breadth and relevance of Vygotskian, Socio-Cultural, Activity and related theory, research and practice for education in the 21st century. We are particularly seeking proposals that represent: . The diversity of approaches that fall under the umbrella of CHR, including, socio-cultural, Marxist, activity, and arts-based and postmodern approaches. . The relevance of Vygotsky for innovations in education that offer creative responses to the ongoing education "crisis" in the US and around the world . The range of methodologies that utilize CH approaches, including mixed methods, action research, arts based research, and performance studies. . The diversity of fields and settings in which CH theory is used and to which it is applicable (i.e. early childhood, outside of school, STEM learning, literacy, adult learning, ELL). . Proposals that explore the past, present and future of CH approaches. . Proposals that address the intersections of CH theories with critical theories that include, for example, focus on relations of power, activities that create the "Other," and sources of oppression. Aria Razfar, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture Director of Graduate Studies, Curriculum and Instruction University of Illinois at Chicago 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147 Chicago, IL, 60607 Director of English Learning through Mathematics, Science and Action Research (ELMSA) www.elmsa.org Webpage: http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/aria-razfar-phd Tel: 312-413-8373 Fax: 312-996-8134 From annalisa@unm.edu Tue Apr 26 10:06:10 2016 From: annalisa@unm.edu (Annalisa Aguilar) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:06:10 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: <6uvte4rv7sokawce3vaxksic.1461643954048@email.android.com> References: <6uvte4rv7sokawce3vaxksic.1461643954048@email.android.com> Message-ID: Paul, Math is not required to "prove" the ancients right. You need not reach around your head to scratch your nose! What is so nice about the accommodation of the universe is you are free to do that if you like. :) Kind regards, Annalisa From vklinin@informatik.umu.se Tue Apr 26 10:39:07 2016 From: vklinin@informatik.umu.se (Victor Kaptelinin) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 19:39:07 +0200 Subject: [Xmca-l] Deadline reminder: Special issue of MCA on activity theory & human-technology interaction - Papers due May 15 In-Reply-To: References: <6uvte4rv7sokawce3vaxksic.1461643954048@email.android.com> Message-ID: <20160426193907.Horde.n02ze9CMCHoGQ8YHDZI3T5c@www8.informatik.umu.se> :::::::::::::::::::::::::::: This is a gentle reminder that the deadline for submitting papers to a special issue of ?Mind, Culture, and Activity: An International Journal? on human-technology interaction is *MAY 15, 2016* Please email your submissions as attachment files to the special issue editors: Victor Kaptelinin (victor.kaptelinin@umu.se) and Bonnie Nardi (nardi@ics.uci.edu). Do not hesitate to let us know if you have any questions! Victor and Bonnie :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ACTIVITY THEORY AS A FRAMEWORK FOR HUMAN-TECHNOLOGY INTERACTION RESEARCH Special issue of MIND, CULTURE, AND ACTIVITY: AN INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL (Taylor and Francis) Special issue editors: Victor Kaptelinin and Bonnie Nardi Activity theory, which was originally proposed by Alexey Leontiev as a theory in psychology, has developed in the past decades into an interdisciplinary approach, employed in various fields of research and practice such as education and organizational learning. Since the early 1990s, activity theory is also increasingly popular in research areas dealing with human-technology interaction, including human-computer interaction (HCI), interaction design, computer supported cooperative learning (CSCW), and technology-enhanced learning (TEL). This special issue aims to present a variety of current uses of activity theory in studies of human-technology interaction, with a particular focus on the potential and limitations of the theory as a conceptual foundation for the research, as well as implications of the research for further development of activity theory. We invite high quality original publications, ranging from empirical studies of technology-mediated activities and practices to comparative analyses of activity theory and other theories in HCI and related fields to design explorations informed by activity theory. Deadlines (firm, please) May 15, 2016 for submitted papers September 1 for reviews October 1 for revisions The special issue will appear in the first issue of Mind, Culture and Activity for 2017 Please let us know if you have questions! Victor and Bonnie From pmocombe@mocombeian.com Tue Apr 26 10:45:56 2016 From: pmocombe@mocombeian.com (Dr. Paul C. Mocombe) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:45:56 -0400 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Message-ID: <69mv1ant6p0mqet1k97bj2vf.1461692753627@email.android.com> Annalisa, By the way, I am completing my manuscript, "mind, body, and consciousness in society: thinking vygotsky via chomsky" for rowman and littlefield. ?Let me know if you are interested in reading it prior to going to press. Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: Annalisa Aguilar Date: 4/26/2016 1:06 PM (GMT-05:00) To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness Paul, Math is not required to "prove" the ancients right. You need not reach around your head to scratch your nose! What is so nice about the accommodation of the universe is you are free to do that if you like. :) Kind regards, Annalisa From rakahu@utu.fi Tue Apr 26 10:53:40 2016 From: rakahu@utu.fi (Rauno Huttunen) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 17:53:40 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness In-Reply-To: <6uvte4rv7sokawce3vaxksic.1461643954048@email.android.com> References: <6uvte4rv7sokawce3vaxksic.1461643954048@email.android.com> Message-ID: Hello, Heidegger started his academic career as formal logic specialist. And he game the first scholar of Husserl's logic. He was also scholar of Kant's transcendental logic. Althusser liked Heidegger's Humanism Letter. Althusser told his nearest students to read Humanism Letter. Rauno L?hetetty iPadista > Dr. Paul C. Mocombe kirjoitti 26.4.2016 kello 7.15: > > > > Essentially working on the mathematics to prove that the ancients were right... I use althusser to parallel general relativity at the aggregated social level. Heideggerian phenomenology to capture the psychology of the quantum realm... the key is in the mathematics! > > > Sent via the Samsung Galaxy Note? 4, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone > > -------- Original message -------- > From: Annalisa Aguilar > Date: 4/25/2016 10:56 PM (GMT-05:00) > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" > Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Althusser's ideas of consciousness > > Paul, > > You crack me up. You know there's a much better and simpler way of explaining this don't you? > > Why not give it a try? > > In Vedic understanding of human experience, the ahankara (the I-notion or I-thought) is not seen as a bad thing, but a necessary (perhaps evolutionary) requirement of human experience. It means I take care of this body as mine. It explains survival tendencies. > > Ego has a lot of (Freudian) baggage as a word, which is why I don't like to use it. Especially when it comes to discourse claiming the ego must be destroyed or reviled. I believe this creates mental splits that aren't helpful. > > I suppose in a certain regard, ahankara could culturally extend to others, depending upon one's culture. Consider the dividual. > > But what if the "substance" if my ahankara and yours are identical? Then it means you are no different than me, despite apparent differences in appearance. We are one. I'm not just talking about stardust. > > I recognize a correspondence with phenomenological notional experiences of "I", "me" and "mine" and the definition of ahankara. When I use a pen there is a point that I forget the pen is not me, and it as-though becomes me. I think there have been neurological studies about how the brain's sense of the body adopts and extends into the spaces of tool use and automaticity. Consider how the mind "expands" from using a bike, to using a car, to using a semi-truck. Or how we imagine what is east or north, or just around the bend. It's my sense the ahankara functions in the mind in a similar way, however because of neurological wiring I have a more intimate experience of my hand than my pen. > > There is no need to be rid of it, just like there is no need to try to stop appearance of "mine" in the automaticity of writing with a pen. Or fishing with a flyrod. Or even "Vera is my teacher," or "you are my friend." All of these thoughts offer me a sense of mine-ness, and I would offer promotes care. > > The preprogramming I have a hard time with, because who programed the program? Perhaps the material is not separate from intelligence itself? That existence/being, knowledge/intelligence and consciousness/reflectivity are one and the same, inseparable? Then it doesn't matter whether the "information" is destroyed or not. No programer necessary. It's all just awareness-light (as-if light, anyway). > > I'm curious how this would line up with althusser's consciousness and even yours. When you say his dispensation of space-time, I presume you mean then there is an "outside" space-time. Is that what you believe to be a blackhole? But if you are aware of a blackhole then it means it is inside space and time, otherwise you could not know about it. > > Now concerning that programming, let's say that it does exist, then it means in order for consciousness to perceive itself it must be in harmony with itself to see itself. Otherwise it other-fies itself. It sees itself as not-self, when actually it is. It means it denies its own being. It means that in order to see itself, it must be non-separate from itself. Which means that any theory that theorizes about the reality as such (i.e. consciousness) any mind must also be in harmony in order to reflect itself properly. Which means that it does matter if althusser cared about his wife, as this "not caring" would affect his ideas about consciousness. > > It means kicking the tires is not enough when buying a used car, you kinda have to look under the hood. > > All this offered in good cheer, despite the fact I realize that the timespace continuum seems to have blasted out one of my brake lights today. Or did you do that? :) > > Kind regards, > > Annalisa From nataliag@sfu.ca Tue Apr 26 13:31:15 2016 From: nataliag@sfu.ca (Natalia Gajdamaschko) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 13:31:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Reviewers Needed for CHAT SIG AERA In-Reply-To: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> References: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> Message-ID: <1208215432.115367075.1461702675266.JavaMail.zimbra@sfu.ca> Hi Dear All, Just to add to Aria?s call for volunteers for our SIG (Cultural-Historical Research ) at AERA ? we really depend on your good will to volunteer to be a reviewer for our SIG. This year in Washington we?ve had a very successful AERA, mostly thanks to our volunteers who served as peer reviewers and, of course, our wonderful presenters. We would like to build on our success for the next year. Please, join us! The deadline is near, May 11, 2016. You can find the details of signing up to be a reviewer here: http://www.aera.net/EventsMeetings/2017AnnualMeetingCallforVolunteerReviewers/tabid/16234/Default.aspx Call for Volunteer Reviewers Deadline to Sign Up: May 11, 2016 The American Educational Research Association (AERA) is seeking volunteers to serve as peer reviewers for submissions for the 2017 AERA Annual Meeting. A quality peer review system is the bedrock for a quality annual meeting, and thus we encourage persons with depth of research expertise to volunteer to review and respond to this call. Panel Reviewer Selection Criteria Review panels will be constituted to be inclusive of well-qualified researchers knowledgeable across the span of research topics, methods, and modes of inquiry likely to be considered by a submission unit. The criteria for invited panel reviewers include such considerations as: (a) experience in some form of peer reviewing, (b) service on other professional review panels, (c) knowledge of the field, (d) scholarly productivity or roles that require research expertise, (e) knowledge of the emerging literature, and (f) broad knowledge of a range of researchers and research specialties in an area. Graduate students may be invited to serve as panel reviewers. Each submission will be reviewed by at least three reviewers and may be reviewed by a graduate student or students serving as additional reviewers. All reviews, including graduate student reviews, will be provided to submitters, although graduate student review scores are not included in the scoring calculations. When graduate students are serving as panel reviewers, the unit program chair is encouraged to incorporate a plan to provide feedback and mentoring to graduate students to enrich the educational value of this experience. Please, let me or Aria know if you have any additional questions about it. Cheers, Natalia. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Aria Razfar" To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:43:51 AM Subject: [Xmca-l] Reviewers Needed for CHAT SIG AERA Hello All, Natalia Gajdamaschko and I will be serving as program co-chairs for next year's annual meeting in San Antonio. Please sign up as reviewers. Thanks, Aria and Natalia Cultural Historical Call for Proposals AERA 2017 When AERA was founded a century ago, Lev Vygotsky was 20 years old and on the brink of a decade of prolific work leading to discoveries that would (eventually) shake up Western psychology and education and would reshape how learning, development, culture, play, language and the relationship between all of these are understood. While it took over 50 years for those discoveries to make it to the United States, Vygotsky's theories (and those of his colleagues) are now some of the most utilized frameworks for innovations in education in formal and informal settings. In that time, Vygotsky's original work has given birth to a wide range of theories and practices, including Socio-Cultural, Cultural-Historical, Activity, and related critical and post-modern approaches, all of which are represented by the Cultural-Historical Research SIG. The CHR SIG of AERA is therefore calling for proposals for the 2017 Annual Meeting that represent the breadth and relevance of Vygotskian, Socio-Cultural, Activity and related theory, research and practice for education in the 21st century. We are particularly seeking proposals that represent: . The diversity of approaches that fall under the umbrella of CHR, including, socio-cultural, Marxist, activity, and arts-based and postmodern approaches. . The relevance of Vygotsky for innovations in education that offer creative responses to the ongoing education "crisis" in the US and around the world . The range of methodologies that utilize CH approaches, including mixed methods, action research, arts based research, and performance studies. . The diversity of fields and settings in which CH theory is used and to which it is applicable (i.e. early childhood, outside of school, STEM learning, literacy, adult learning, ELL). . Proposals that explore the past, present and future of CH approaches. . Proposals that address the intersections of CH theories with critical theories that include, for example, focus on relations of power, activities that create the "Other," and sources of oppression. Aria Razfar, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture Director of Graduate Studies, Curriculum and Instruction University of Illinois at Chicago 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147 Chicago, IL, 60607 Director of English Learning through Mathematics, Science and Action Research (ELMSA) www.elmsa.org Webpage: http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/aria-razfar-phd Tel: 312-413-8373 Fax: 312-996-8134 From indigo.esmonde@utoronto.ca Tue Apr 26 13:50:28 2016 From: indigo.esmonde@utoronto.ca (Indigo Esmonde) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 20:50:28 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greg, I?m so glad you enjoyed the panel. I wish I could have been there! Angela and I are working on getting this manuscript to the publisher in a month, and hoping it will be out by the end of the year. Here are the anticipated chapters: Table of Contents 1. Sociocultural and cultural-historical theories of learning: where have we been, where are we now? Indigo Esmonde (University of Toronto) A historical and contemporary overview of the roots and current trends in sociocultural theories of learning. The emphasis is on highlighting the general themes, assumptions, and methodologies used by sociocultural learning researchers, and on the gaps in theory that make it difficult to fully address issues of power and oppression. 2. Critical pedagogy. Shirin Vossoughi (Northwestern University) and Kris Gutierrez (University of California, Berkeley) 3. Critical poststructural theory. Niral Shah (Michigan State University) and Zeus Leonardo (University of California, Berkeley) 4. Queer theory. Jacob McWilliams (University of Colorado, Boulder) and William Penuel, (University of Colorado, Boulder). 5. Indigenous worldviews. Megan Bang (University of Washington) 7. Critical disability studies. Peter Smagorinsky (University of Georgia), Michael Cole (University of California, San Diego) and Lucia Braga 8. Critical race theory. Eileen Parsons (University of North Carolina) 9. Towards a critical, cultural, historical, theory of learning. Indigo Esmonde (University of Toronto) and Angela Booker (University of California, San Diego) The chapters in the body of the book will each address a single theory from a critical tradition. These critical theory chapters will answer the following questions: - What is this a theory of? What is it trying to explain? What is the (disciplinary) history of this theory? - What are the key themes, assumptions, or conceptual frameworks of this theory? - What methodologies are predominantly used? * How does this theory interface with sociocultural/cultural-historical theories of learning? What points of connection are there? What disconnects are there? How would SCT have to change to take this theory into account? (How does SCT help the theory develop?) All the best, Indigo -- Indigo Esmonde, Ph.D. Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Graduate Studies, Department of Curriculum, Teaching and Learning GLITTER (Group for the study of Learning, Identity, and Teaching Towards Equitable Relations) Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto 252 Bloor St W, Room 11-134 Toronto, ON M5S 1V6 Phone: 416 978 0117 Fax: 416 926 4744 indigo.esmonde@utoronto.ca http://indigoesmonde.blogspot.ca From: Jacob McWilliams > Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 10:23 AM To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" >, Indigo Esmonde >, Angela Booker > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf Thanks, Greg--it was nice to see you at the panel, and I'm glad the session felt interesting--and hopefully also useful. The book is Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and Sociocultural Theories, and it's co-edited by Indigo Esmonde and Angela Booker (both cc'ed on this message). My chapter, co-written with Bill Penuel, is an argument for advancing queer theory in the learning sciences; other chapters focus on frameworks like Critical Race Theory, feminist theory, critical geography, critical technology studies, and so on. It's a really exciting project, and one that I think is sorely needed. -- Jacob McWilliams Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program University of Colorado Boulder j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu http://www.jennamcwilliams.com On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: At AERA a few weeks back I saw a panel with Jacob McWilliams on it that was dealing with these very issues that you mention here Mike as you quote and "hear here" Phillip's comments. The talks on the panel that Jacob was on were, as I understand it, chapters of an upcoming book that will be edited by Angela Booker and ???. I fear I've forgotten some of the details but I do remember the panel being one of the best panels I attended at AERA this year. Jacob, or perhaps someone else familiar with the book: could you fill in the details here? Who is the co-editor (or co-editors)? What is the name of the volume? Any other details would be greatly appreciated (anticipated publication date? Perhaps a list of authors if it isn't too premature). Thanks, greg On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:23 PM, mike cole > wrote: > Hear hear, Phillip! > > Who wrote: > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, culture > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical race > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > The editors of MCA, I think it is safe to say, will welcome first class > articles that do exactly this. > > mike > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, White, Phillip < > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu> > wrote: > > > greetings, everyone. i can only image that the participants of xmca have > > been waiting with baited breath to hear the results of my gefilte fish > for > > last friday's seder - and i can only repeat, so that you know that i'm > not > > fishing for compliments, that the gentleman in his late seventies who was > > seated next to me (my son's mother-in-law's cousin's husband) said, "This > > gefilte fish is better than my Kiev born grandmother, and she was a great > > cook!" > > > > however, to join in the swim or current postings, Vera's conclusion is > > quite to the point, so that i'm pasting it in here: > > > > "In the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that traditional > > psychological and economic > > models of human agents as lone, competitive actors are losing influence. > > Increasingly, interdependence between persons is recognized as central to > > individual and societal functioning. Both cultural-historical and > feminist > > theorists place the social sources of development, or "self-in-re1ation" > as > > central within their framework. There are shared themes and > > complementarity, as well as different emphases across these two groups of > > theorists. Feminists' concerns with developmental and relational dynamics > > are not explicitly shared by scholars studying mind, culture and > activity. > > However, in looking for areas of mutuality , we broaden our ways of > > knowing, and, in the process, may construct a new synthesis between > thought > > and motive, and cognition and emotion." > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > culture > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical > race > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > > > phillip > > > > > > > -- > > 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 From greg.a.thompson@gmail.com Tue Apr 26 14:53:38 2016 From: greg.a.thompson@gmail.com (Greg Thompson) Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:53:38 -0600 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ Mutuality and Relevance.pdf In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks Indigo, this looks like a really fantastic volume! Can you please send a note to XMCA when the volume is out? Cheers, Greg On Tue, Apr 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Indigo Esmonde wrote: > Greg, I?m so glad you enjoyed the panel. I wish I could have been there! > Angela and I are working on getting this manuscript to the publisher in a > month, and hoping it will be out by the end of the year. > Here are the anticipated chapters: > > Table of Contents > > > 1. Sociocultural and cultural-historical theories of learning: where > have we been, where are we now? Indigo Esmonde (University of Toronto) > A historical and contemporary overview of the roots and current trends in > sociocultural theories of learning. The emphasis is on highlighting the > general themes, assumptions, and methodologies used by sociocultural > learning researchers, and on the gaps in theory that make it difficult to > fully address issues of power and oppression. > > 2. Critical pedagogy. Shirin Vossoughi (Northwestern University) and > Kris Gutierrez (University of California, Berkeley) > > 3. Critical poststructural theory. Niral Shah (Michigan State > University) and Zeus Leonardo (University of California, Berkeley) > > 4. Queer theory. Jacob McWilliams (University of Colorado, Boulder) > and William Penuel, (University of Colorado, Boulder). > > 5. Indigenous worldviews. Megan Bang (University of Washington) > > > 7. Critical disability studies. Peter Smagorinsky (University of > Georgia), Michael Cole (University of California, San Diego) and Lucia Braga > > > 8. Critical race theory. Eileen Parsons (University of North Carolina) > > 9. Towards a critical, cultural, historical, theory of learning. Indigo > Esmonde (University of Toronto) and Angela Booker (University of > California, San Diego) > > The chapters in the body of the book will each address a single theory > from a critical tradition. These critical theory chapters will answer the > following questions: > - What is this a theory of? What is it trying to explain? What is the > (disciplinary) history of this theory? > - What are the key themes, assumptions, or conceptual frameworks of this > theory? > - What methodologies are predominantly used? > > * How does this theory interface with > sociocultural/cultural-historical theories of learning? What points of > connection are there? What disconnects are there? How would SCT have to > change to take this theory into account? (How does SCT help the theory > develop?) > > All the best, > Indigo > > -- > Indigo Esmonde, Ph.D. > Associate Professor and Associate Chair, Graduate Studies, Department of > Curriculum, Teaching and Learning > GLITTER (Group for the study of Learning, Identity, and Teaching Towards > Equitable Relations) > Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto > 252 Bloor St W, Room 11-134 > Toronto, ON > M5S 1V6 > Phone: 416 978 0117 > Fax: 416 926 4744 > indigo.esmonde@utoronto.ca > http://indigoesmonde.blogspot.ca > > From: Jacob McWilliams jennamcjenna@gmail.com>> > Date: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 10:23 AM > To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>>, Indigo Esmonde >, Angela Booker < > angelabooker@ad.ucsd.edu> > Subject: Re: [Xmca-l] Re: PDF Document Sociocultural and Feminist Theory_ > Mutuality and Relevance.pdf > > Thanks, Greg--it was nice to see you at the panel, and I'm glad the > session felt interesting--and hopefully also useful. > > The book is Power and Privilege in the Learning Sciences: Critical and > Sociocultural Theories, and it's co-edited by Indigo Esmonde and Angela > Booker (both cc'ed on this message). My chapter, co-written with Bill > Penuel, is an argument for advancing queer theory in the learning sciences; > other chapters focus on frameworks like Critical Race Theory, feminist > theory, critical geography, critical technology studies, and so on. > > It's a really exciting project, and one that I think is sorely needed. > > > > -- > > > Jacob McWilliams > Educational Psychology and Learning Sciences Program > University of Colorado Boulder > j.mcwilliams@colorado.edu > http://www.jennamcwilliams.com > > > On Mon, Apr 25, 2016 at 8:39 PM, Greg Thompson > wrote: > At AERA a few weeks back I saw a panel with Jacob McWilliams on it that was > dealing with these very issues that you mention here Mike as you quote and > "hear here" Phillip's comments. > > The talks on the panel that Jacob was on were, as I understand it, chapters > of an upcoming book that will be edited by Angela Booker and ???. I fear > I've forgotten some of the details but I do remember the panel being one of > the best panels I attended at AERA this year. > > Jacob, or perhaps someone else familiar with the book: could you fill in > the details here? Who is the co-editor (or co-editors)? What is the name of > the volume? > > Any other details would be greatly appreciated (anticipated publication > date? Perhaps a list of authors if it isn't too premature). > > Thanks, > greg > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 4:23 PM, mike cole mcole@ucsd.edu>> wrote: > > > Hear hear, Phillip! > > > > Who wrote: > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > culture > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical > race > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, our > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > The editors of MCA, I think it is safe to say, will welcome first class > > articles that do exactly this. > > > > mike > > > > > > On Sun, Apr 24, 2016 at 3:01 PM, White, Phillip < > > Phillip.White@ucdenver.edu> > > wrote: > > > > > greetings, everyone. i can only image that the participants of xmca > have > > > been waiting with baited breath to hear the results of my gefilte fish > > for > > > last friday's seder - and i can only repeat, so that you know that i'm > > not > > > fishing for compliments, that the gentleman in his late seventies who > was > > > seated next to me (my son's mother-in-law's cousin's husband) said, > "This > > > gefilte fish is better than my Kiev born grandmother, and she was a > great > > > cook!" > > > > > > however, to join in the swim or current postings, Vera's conclusion is > > > quite to the point, so that i'm pasting it in here: > > > > > > "In the beginning of this chapter, I suggested that traditional > > > psychological and economic > > > models of human agents as lone, competitive actors are losing > influence. > > > Increasingly, interdependence between persons is recognized as central > to > > > individual and societal functioning. Both cultural-historical and > > feminist > > > theorists place the social sources of development, or > "self-in-re1ation" > > as > > > central within their framework. There are shared themes and > > > complementarity, as well as different emphases across these two groups > of > > > theorists. Feminists' concerns with developmental and relational > dynamics > > > are not explicitly shared by scholars studying mind, culture and > > activity. > > > However, in looking for areas of mutuality , we broaden our ways of > > > knowing, and, in the process, may construct a new synthesis between > > thought > > > and motive, and cognition and emotion." > > > > > > i read this conclusion as a call for those scholars studying mind, > > culture > > > and activity to actively collaborate with critical theorists, critical > > race > > > theorist, queer theorists, so that, as Helena Worthem is advocating, > our > > > work can be closer to the bone of contemporary events. > > > > > > phillip > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > 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 > > -- 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 From ConneryMC@cwu.edu Tue Apr 26 20:30:34 2016 From: ConneryMC@cwu.edu (M. Cathrene Connery) Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2016 03:30:34 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Reviewers Needed for CHAT SIG AERA In-Reply-To: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> References: <02bd01d19fda$d09a8710$71cf9530$@uic.edu> Message-ID: <1461727832723.81097@cwu.edu> Dear Colleagues: This call looks very exciting! As soon as I have a better idea of where I am landing, I'll know how I can help. Thank you for your service! Best wishes, Cathrene Dr. M. Cathrene Connery Department of Language, Literacy, & Special Education Central Washington University 400 E. University Way Ellensburg, WA 98926 509/ 963-2680 E-mail: connerymc@cwu.edu Skype address: cathrene.connery ________________________________________ From: xmca-l-bounces@mailman.ucsd.edu on behalf of Aria Razfar Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 9:43 AM To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity Subject: [Xmca-l] Reviewers Needed for CHAT SIG AERA Hello All, Natalia Gajdamaschko and I will be serving as program co-chairs for next year's annual meeting in San Antonio. Please sign up as reviewers. Thanks, Aria and Natalia Cultural Historical Call for Proposals AERA 2017 When AERA was founded a century ago, Lev Vygotsky was 20 years old and on the brink of a decade of prolific work leading to discoveries that would (eventually) shake up Western psychology and education and would reshape how learning, development, culture, play, language and the relationship between all of these are understood. While it took over 50 years for those discoveries to make it to the United States, Vygotsky's theories (and those of his colleagues) are now some of the most utilized frameworks for innovations in education in formal and informal settings. In that time, Vygotsky's original work has given birth to a wide range of theories and practices, including Socio-Cultural, Cultural-Historical, Activity, and related critical and post-modern approaches, all of which are represented by the Cultural-Historical Research SIG. The CHR SIG of AERA is therefore calling for proposals for the 2017 Annual Meeting that represent the breadth and relevance of Vygotskian, Socio-Cultural, Activity and related theory, research and practice for education in the 21st century. We are particularly seeking proposals that represent: . The diversity of approaches that fall under the umbrella of CHR, including, socio-cultural, Marxist, activity, and arts-based and postmodern approaches. . The relevance of Vygotsky for innovations in education that offer creative responses to the ongoing education "crisis" in the US and around the world . The range of methodologies that utilize CH approaches, including mixed methods, action research, arts based research, and performance studies. . The diversity of fields and settings in which CH theory is used and to which it is applicable (i.e. early childhood, outside of school, STEM learning, literacy, adult learning, ELL). . Proposals that explore the past, present and future of CH approaches. . Proposals that address the intersections of CH theories with critical theories that include, for example, focus on relations of power, activities that create the "Other," and sources of oppression. Aria Razfar, Ph.D. Associate Professor of Literacy, Language, and Culture Director of Graduate Studies, Curriculum and Instruction University of Illinois at Chicago 1040 W. Harrison St. M/C 147 Chicago, IL, 60607 Director of English Learning through Mathematics, Science and Action Research (ELMSA) www.elmsa.org Webpage: http://education.uic.edu/personnel/faculty/aria-razfar-phd Tel: 312-413-8373 Fax: 312-996-8134 From smago@uga.edu Thu Apr 28 05:34:21 2016 From: smago@uga.edu (Peter Smagorinsky) Date: Thu, 28 Apr 2016 12:34:21 +0000 Subject: [Xmca-l] FW: Preview JoLLE's 2016 Spring Issue! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here's where you'll find JoLLE's preview of the "Community Engaged Literacies" themed 2016 Spring Issue! https://www.smore.com/5a4cn Peter Smagorinsky Distinguished Research Professor of English Education Department of Language and Literacy Education The University of Georgia 315 Aderhold Hall Athens, GA 30602 Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga [cid:image001.jpg@01CEA4AC.71367E90] Personal twitter account: @psmagorinsky -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2929 bytes Desc: image001.jpg Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160428/6e2d116e/attachment.jpg